A The BBC has used a variety of ways to describe the source of allegations that Downing Street inserted unreliable information about Iraq’s ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes into last year’s intelligence dossier.

But there cannot be, as MPs on the foreign affairs committee concluded, a “primary” or indeed a “secondary” source. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC’s defence correspondent, has admitted he had only one source for this information.

Q Does the BBC say this source was a member of the intelligence services?

A Only sometimes. On May 29, the same day that Mr Gilligan first broadcast the story, he used the words “my intelligence source” while speaking on Radio 5 Live. But The Times can find no record of him making such an assertion anywhere else.

On June 26, Richard Sambrook, the head of BBC news who has been told the identity of the informant, said the story was based on “one senior and credible source in the intelligence services”. On July 6, the BBC Board of Governors issued a statement saying that its journalists could breach guidelines precluding them from relying on single sources “in exceptional circumstances — stories based on senior intelligence sources are a case in point”. Since it emerged that the Government believed Dr Kelly was the source, the BBC has refused to make further comment or confirm if it still believes the source was from the intelligence services.

Q Was Dr Kelly a member of the intelligence services?

A No. He was a scientific expert on chemical and biological weapons who worked as a senior adviser at the Ministry of Defence. Although he had access to some intelligence material, and certainly had views about Iraq’s WMD capabilities, he said — and the MoD confirms this — that he did not see information relating to the 45-minute claim.

Q What clues has the BBC given which indicate that Dr Kelly was the source?

A Mr Gilligan has said his source was “closely connected with the issue of Iraq’s WMD and one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier”. He has described meeting him at a Central London hotel where they discussed Iraq’s WMD and the role of UN inspectors.

Dr Kelly has admitted meeting Mr Gilligan at the Charing Cross Hotel on May 22. He did help to draft a background section of the dossier in May and June last year, drawing on his experience as a former weapons inspector in Iraq, but this was not the crucial intelligence-based sections and he was not one of the “people in charge” of the document.

A senior BBC executive has also told The Times that attempts to contact the source again had been unsuccessful because of the “nature of his job”, while other BBC insiders have suggested he was in Iraq. Dr Kelly is understood to have travelled to Iraq shortly after meeting Mr Gilligan.

Q Why did MPs conclude Dr Kelly was not the source?

A Because he told them that the story broadcast by Mr Gilligan bore little relation to their conversation. Dr Kelly said it was the BBC journalist who had raised the question of the 45-minute claim and Alastair Campbell, but he did not think the dossier had been “sexed up”. Dr Kelly also said that he did not match Mr Gilligan’s description of a long-standing source whom he had not met for more than a year. Their first meeting was in September and they had met again in February.

Q So why did Dr Kelly tell his bosses that he might have been the source?

A Because on his return from Iraq he realised there was circumstantial evidence linking him to Mr Gilligan. He read the evidence that the BBC man had given to the foreign affairs committee, quoting the source saying: “I believe it is 30 per cent likely there was a CW (chemical weapons) programme in the six months before the war and more likely that there was a BW (biological weapons) programme.” He admitted that “is the sort of thing I might have said to him”.

Q If Dr Kelly was the source, is there any other explanation for the divergence between his account of the meeting and that of Mr Gilligan?

A Dr Kelly would have had good reason to deny telling Mr Gilligan what is ascribed to the source. Although he was not privy to those decisions in September, he may have heard MoD gossip about the dossier subsequently.

It is also possible that Mr Gilligan “sexed up” his story, believing the context of wider unease about the dossier justified a degree of exaggeration.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone