l~icnagc Page 1 of 2

Gavyn Davies

From : HCGJ, Baroness [HcggSa_parliament uk;

Sent: 30 Jjne 2003 10 33
To: Gavvn Davies
Subject : °.E Tne Campbell Row

Dear Gavyn,
I've been away on b.z and therefore missed most of the excrement - but your summary seems to me very
Well-Isdged And a quick read-up incicates you've avoided all the major pitfalls - congratulations, it can't nave
oeen easy Steady Lnoer fire
All the best, Sarah

-----Original Message---
From : Gavyn Davies [madto :gavyn .davieslabbcco .ukJ
Sent: 29 June 2D03 2= :21
To : 'ryder@parliament .uk ; zzFabian Monds-PRIVATE ; Lisa Kelso; 'irene .adamsi-~bweir .cc . uf< ;
'gJi50@cal .pipex .com ; 'ran7it .s@ukonline .co.uk'; 'hoggs@parliament.uk; 'dgleeson@m1gleeson .com';
zzDermot Gleeson ; zzDame Pauline Nevlle-Jones; Ruth Deecn-INTERN`f ;
'angela .sarkis@btrnternet .com ; Simon M,ilner-SEC ; Catherine East; Helen Tunley ;
'r .m.Iones'g~bangor .ac.uk'
Subject : The Campbell Row

Dear Governors

I am sure we have all had a trying wee~cend, reading the press and listening to broadcasts on the
Campbell/BBC row The press commentary over the weekend has not been uniformly good for the
BBC position, but t has certainly been very bad from tne government point of view, as was the opirion
poll data m the News of the World tcday Mly huncn is that the government woula row like the row to go
away, and this F,as been reinforced by the fact that Alasta~r Campbell has said that ne will return to
"business as usual", at least until he sees the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday
week It u clear tnat some Labour MPs feel tnat Campbell did himself and the government damage by
h :s performance on Channel 4 news on Friday, and they now want to calm things down

Having saic that, I th ;nk it is t.r;knowable whether the FAC vvill n.le in the BBC's favour on the 45
minute claim in the Seotemoer dossier They might do so, but it is also possinle that they w,ll say that
the truth is confused, since early d-afts within tre intelligence community did not include tne 45 minute
claim, while later ones did Or they may conceivably ii .-` conclude that the first draft which was seen by
Mr Campoell did ~ndeed irclude the 45 miri.te claim, as he has always argued This latter form of
judgment would be problematic, especially if Campbell then files a formal complamt which goes for
aajudraton erner to tne Governors or the 33C

Some may :herefor'e argue tha`. :here cou,d be acvan'age for the BBC in reaming a settlement with No
10 which both sides can live with perhaps in advance of, or sho,r; y after, the Dublicaoon of the FAD
report However, I remain firmly of tne v ew that, i-1 a big picture secse, it is absolutely cntioa! for the
BBC to emerge from this row without be,n3 seen to b.ickle :n the face of government pressure If the
BBC allows itself ;o be bull,eo by th .s sort of cenaviour from No 10 I believe that this cculd fatally
damage the trust wh ;ch :he public places in us Furthermore, I think we s'~ocld remember `.nat the rnain
historic role of the- Governor nas been to shielo the BBC from this sort D-1 attempt to exer. poliacal
muscle over our news outpr,t Th s, it seems to me, really is a moment for the Governors to stand up
a,-d be courted So, I hope you will agree that, wha ;ever emerges about tne precise date is of the 45
min .ze claim, we must not give any grou-id wh~ch threatens :ne fundamental independence of our
news output, o : suggests that the Governors have ouckled to goverrment pressure

My las; thought is this It may r=ver be de`initveiy -.,oven whether the details o1 the c',aim made cy
Andrew Gdligan's so ..rce were 100% acc-irate or not And of course I recogn :se the' the Producers'
Guideiines must be seen to be upheld But I do not behave tnat the BBC has lied to the public, or that it
has accused the Prime Minister of lying, or tnat it has been wrcng to place a oreat deal of scrutiny on
'~,'K.' 14 100 !?°
j®
22/0712003 -
:.viooag~. Yage 2 of 2

the validity of tne government's mtelligence dossiers Such have been the proven failing s in these
oossiers, ! wonder whetherthe Today orogramme oould conceivably have suoqressed the Gilligan
story, corning as it did from a credible and senior source Would suppression of the vievvs of such an
~mporcant source have been a valid thing to do in such circumstances?

I put this only as a queston, not leas: because we may have to adjudicate on -,he Matter at a later date
But I feel very comforable that the BBC d,d net nncwingly mislead the puafic ; and eoualty comfortable
tnat our news department was pursuing a rratter which it was wholly in the public interest to pursue

Please either ring me or send me a auick e-mail if you would like to register any views I feel in need of
some guidance aoout your broad feelings, without of course wishing to hold anyone ro a oefinitve
positon in advance of any subsequentjudgments we may neee to make

With best wishes

Gavyn

B~Ci an h-~tp ://vagv ; .~Dbc .co .~u.}_!

This e-,T_a_1 (and any a__achner_ts ; is cQnzi3en-=a_ anc? _nay

Con- a in
personal viewa wh_ch are t:c- the -vie-,,s oi tne BBC unie : s
speci=_cal'~y
staLed .
1'~ you :a
_1a-, recei'vep' 1L. in °_r=cr, c_e3se Ca°lei.e -t TrGT yGL :r
syster, dc
:JL USe, CODj C~ Ct'_sc .~Cse L`:e = :1_°o=T3=10 no=T3=10n in any way n.02~' acL 2-n

=el ;ance on := and ne_i=v t :-:e serder irr---neo ;ately . Please note
L .^at the

BBC CLO_li~:c_s e-mails 5"cnt o- reLeiV2Q . _ ..=ther cOLRITP.17i3cation

siC,,tS_iTy 1%o1= cznsent to this .

~ . , Qc) g 1
I o
I)tc~

t2io7/2o03