Mr George Galloway

30 November 2006

Q400  Sir Philip Mawer: There were three days of stories. I believe what you were referring to was the Al-Khattab memorandum, who was the secretary of the President's staff.

Mr Galloway: I suppose I inferred that but we cannot know for sure. Just because they published these in three chunks does not necessarily mean that they received these documents in that order or found them in that order. My inference from what he told me was that the second set, what I have described as the second set of documents, was what came in the second wave of attacks from the paper. Obviously I cannot be sure about that. He did not say it was the document c, d and e which Blair claimed had been given to him. He did not specify that; that was my inference.

Q401  Sir Philip Mawer: Since you mentioned Mr McKay, I think it would be reasonable in the circumstances to ask him whether he could corroborate what you have said in relation to the interview that you say you had with the senior journalist.

Mr McKay: Yes, that is absolutely the case. I was present at the meeting and I absolutely concur with what George has said.

Q402  Sir Philip Mawer: I need to put this to you, even though I might guess at the reply you will give me. It is still your position that you are not willing to give me the name of the journalist concerned?

Mr Galloway: I am not released from what I consider to be a duty of confidentiality about it, so I am afraid I must, yes.

Q403  Sir Philip Mawer: You will understand why I am keen to speak to him because apparently he—assuming it is a he—has relevant information to give, it appears, and in giving that testimony he would, of course, be covered by privilege in the same way that anybody else who gives me evidence is covered by parliamentary privilege.

Mr Galloway: I understand why you press the point, of course, but there are two reasons why not. First of all, the professional position of the person could be prejudiced if it became known that they went to a politician, the subject of an attack by another foreign correspondent, to tell them what I believe to be a true story about the provenance of the material used by that journalist in the attack. I know the person concerned is very worried about that. I cannot go into further details without revealing who they are, but there are solid professional reasons why the person is anxious about that.

Q404  Sir Philip Mawer: What is the second reason?

Mr Galloway: The second reason is one of personal safety. The person involved was, until now, very frequently in Iraq, and in Iraq journalists get killed or kidnapped. Of course I accept absolutely your probity so far as confidentiality is concerned but, in the end, you work for a committee of politicians and that committee of politicians, we have already established in this inquiry as in many others, is very far from leak-proof. If this person ended up in the middle of a story in which they were clearly placed in a particular light as having come to me to tell me something which was helpful to me and not helpful to those involved in this whole affair on the other side, their personal safety would be prejudiced.

Q405  Sir Philip Mawer: You will understand that the absence of this potentially key witness means that, on the one side, I have obtained and drawn to your notice the obtaining of very clear assurances and assertions, call it what you will, statements, from everyone else who was mentioned by you in the adjournment debate, Mr Blair, the then deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph,[32] and Mr Philip Sherwell,[33] that what you alleged about them in that debate was incorrect. On the one hand, I have got all that material and, on the other hand, all I have got is your assertion uncorroborated by any other evidence, other than what Mr McKay has just said about your meeting with the journalist.

Mr McKay: And a contemporaneous note to the lawyer.

Q406  Sir Philip Mawer: Which I have not seen.

Mr Galloway: I can let you have that.

Q407  Sir Philip Mawer: That would indeed be helpful.

Mr Galloway: Sir Philip, in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "They would say that, would they not" because were they to say anything else, they would be admitting to perjury in the High Court and they would now be the subject of a police investigation. They would say that. The honest reader of these events afterwards will ask themselves, armed, I suspect, with a scepticism about The Telegraph's story, about the provenance of the documents in the first place, which, in case you do not know, is very widely held, why I would invent this story about this correspondent, why my friend who witnessed it would invent this story and why I immediately sent a contemporaneous report of it—so contemporaneous I apologise in advance that it is poorly spelt because I was in a state of some excitement when I was typing it because the person had just left the door—to my lawyer and why it was then the subject of fairly long and lengthy legal debate with my legal team in the run-up to the libel case. My diary makes clear that the meeting took place. I am not able to bring that for the obvious reason that it would divulge the identity of the person. If the honest reader of this prefers to believe the assertions of The Telegraph I would be surprised. I accept that you cannot give the weight to what I have said on this—and my defence to these allegations does not depend on this—that you could if I were able to identify the person and you were able then to question them.

Q408  Sir Philip Mawer: I am simply inviting you to give me any evidence you are able to give me in corroboration of your account of what happened. It is clearly a central point.

Mr Galloway: I will just make this point. If I am right and I am telling you the truth, you would have to ask yourself why that foreign correspondent, who was a colleague of Blair, who was about to get into a car with Blair—Blair knows very well who the person is and The Telegraph knows very well who the person is—and who was about to travel to the south of Iraq with him when Blair got the telephone call at the entrance of the hotel, would make this story up.

Q409  Ms Barry: It was a telephone call, was it?

Mr Galloway: He got a telephone call as they were getting into the car. He went into the hotel, took the telephone call, came out and said, "I am not now going to the south, I have to stay here", took his bags out of the car and stayed. Unless this person is a phantom, a figment of my imagination, the honest reader will infer that there is something extremely suspicious about the provenance of these documents, buttressing a suspicion which is widely there in any case.

Q410  Ms Barry: And Mr Sherwell's interest in not corroborating the story?

Mr Galloway: The Telegraph Group has to hang together on this. What I alleged in that debate, and I did say in the debate, it is a very serious allegation, was that there was an illegal conspiracy conducted by these people.

Q411  Sir Philip Mawer: Illegal in the sense of what?

Mr Galloway: It is illegal to conspire, to perjure oneself in front of the High Court. This decision by them conveyed in those words that Blair gave to the foreign correspondent that I have been told by London to say that I found all the documents and that I found them all at the same time in the same place is the beginning of a conspiracy.

Q412  Sir Philip Mawer: Can I move on to the related issue of forensic evidence because if it were the case that the second set of documents—we will use that shorthand—had been received separately from the first there would be indications that they were derived from a different source and indications to be found on the documents themselves. Moreover, they would have to have been inserted into other material which had come separately and had been—and I take it you are not disputing it—found in the circumstances described by David Blair.

Mr Galloway: I am disputing it.

Q413  Sir Philip Mawer: You are asserting that all the material was—

Mr Galloway: I do not believe that any of the documents concerned were found by David Blair in the burning building in the circumstances which he has described.

Q414  Sir Philip Mawer: It is the burnt out building.

Mr Galloway: As I understand it, there was still smoke rising but let us choose your formulation "burnt out". I do not believe that any of the documents were found by David Blair in that "burnt out" building in the way that he described. The foreign correspondent did not say that, he did not say that Blair had said that. My personal belief is that it is unlikely that he found some documents and was given other documents on the same subject. As I believe he was given what we will call "the second set of documents", I believe he was given all the documents. I suppose it is possible that one set of documents was left for him and he was told to go there and find them. I believe that is what the telephone call was about, that is possible, but it is more likely, logically, that he was given all the documents and that he claimed that he had found them all in the burnt out building.

Q415  Sir Philip Mawer: You know that the documents are very extensive indeed. There were several folders of material found at this time.

Mr Galloway: There are several folders of documents around this table. It is perfectly conceivable that these papers here could all be handed to someone and as a journalistic cover you found them in such and such a building.

Mr McKay: Have you seen the originals of these documents or has anybody tested the veracity of them forensically?

Q416  Sir Philip Mawer: There is a distinction first to make between the veracity and the authenticity of the documents. What can be tested forensically is the authenticity of them, ie that they are what they purport to be. Whether they tell the truth in what they say, for example in relation to Mr Galloway, is a veracity question, it is a separate issue.

Mr McKay: Are these original documents or are they photocopies?

Q417  Sir Philip Mawer: Let me answer your question. You understand the distinction I am making?

Mr McKay: Sure.

Q418  Sir Philip Mawer: It is a rather important distinction from Mr Galloway's point of view as well as from mine. The answer to your question is that I had seen the documents before they were seen by those instructed by Mr Galloway at that time in connection with the libel action. At this moment I am having forensic tests carried out on them, the results of which I will share with Mr Galloway. I am doing that precisely because, as will be clear from what has been said so far by Mr Galloway and others in relation to them, no complete and final forensic analysis has been conducted of the documents hitherto, but they are now being tested in the way I have described. You asked whether the documents were photocopies or not. My understanding, though it is a long time now since I personally saw the key documents, is that the key documents were photocopies, but they were in folders which contained not only photocopies and fax copies but also some original documents. Along with the folder in which they were found, the core folder, if you like, there were also other folders which contained original documents as well as photocopies. That is the best knowledge I have of the position at the moment, but the exact position will be confirmed in the forensic report which I have commissioned.[34] As I say, I will share that with Mr Galloway so that he has an opportunity to see what it says. I think we should move on from the documents, except that there is one thing I do need to say in this context. I am now handing to you a set, including a copy of a letter [35] which I received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the current Republic of Iraq dated 23 April 2006. It says that in the opinion of the current Iraqi Government the core documents are: "original and genuine documents and, for our part, we, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, endorse their authenticity". I received this letter because I thought it appropriate to ask the people whom I judged were among those best placed in Iraq to give me a view on the authenticity of the documents.

Mr Galloway: I do not want it; I will not accept it. Nothing could be more absurd than to pray in aid of an allegation against me the word of what you call the current government in Iraq who are the very people who are in this conspiracy up to their neck. Never mind Mandy Rice-Davis, there could be no more absurd an idea than that this is a credible opinion. I do not want to touch any document from what you call the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Iraq; I am sorry.

Q419  Sir Philip Mawer: I note that response. I feel it right, because it is my duty, to share with you material I receive.

Mr Galloway: Yes, but you said in your judgment they are among the people—and our stenographer will have it—best placed to make a judgment about authenticity. With respect, Sir Philip, that is absurd. These people are my mortal enemies. I am one of the leaders in this country, and indeed wider in the campaign, to bring this government, as you describe it, down. They are the people who I gave my life's blood to fight against, the people responsible for fooling our own country and the United States of America into the disastrous enterprise in which they have got involved in Iraq. This government has no credibility for me, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and I do not want to receive it.

33   Volume II, WE 16. Back

34   Volume II WE 32. Back

35   Volume II, WE 30. Back