Hindujagate ? Was there a tape/transcript of mystery O'Brien/Mandelson call ?

[Caspar Bowden]

Reading the Hammond report on the Hinduja affair, the question at the heart
of the mystery is why was Mandelson so certain that Straw had a record the
phone call to O'Brien, which led him to accept that this call had taken
place ?

"Mandelson said..during the conference call he had developed the impression
that MR O'BRIEN'S MEMORY WAS SUPPORTED BY A RECORD OF THE CONVERSATION. MR
MANDELSON SAID THAT MR CAMPBELL HAD ALSO, LATER, GIVEN THE IMPRESSION THAT
SUCH DOCUMENTATION EXISTED AND SAID THAT HE HAD HAD IT READ OUT TO HIM".

MI5 might have been doing a routine security vetting of private office staff
and caught that call by accident (or do they routinely tape all calls
between private offices of all Ministers?). What would be the constitutional
propriety of Straw requesting that information? Either way, if Straw had it
in for Mandelson (or just thought he was lying), he would have been tempted
to use it to box him in, although he may have been inhibited from revealing
the existence of the source.

If this was the case, would Sir Anthony Hammond, who "is a great defender of
official secrecy" and "advised ministers to sign 'gagging orders' to keep
secret crucial information in the arms-to-Iraq scandal"
(http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/politics/story/0,3604,429471,00.html)
have revealed this in his report ?

--
Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
RIP Information Centre at:    www.fipr.org/rip#media

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/hc287/hc287/28706.htm
5.103. Mr Mandelson's recollection is that, during the course of the
conference call, Mr O'Brien had said that the telephone call he remembered
having with Mr Mandelson had taken place on 28 June 1998. Mr Mandelson said
that he had challenged Mr O'Brien about his memory of the telephone call in
1998. Mr O'Brien's recollection of the discussion had been clear, Mr
Mandelson said, but, during the conference call he had developed the
impression that MR O'BRIEN'S MEMORY WAS SUPPORTED BY A RECORD OF THE
CONVERSATION. MR MANDELSON SAID THAT MR CAMPBELL HAD ALSO, LATER, GIVEN THE
IMPRESSION THAT SUCH DOCUMENTATION EXISTED AND SAID THAT HE HAD HAD IT READ
OUT TO HIM. Mr Mandelson said that Mr Campbell had suggested that the
existence of some record of the telephone conversation would cause Mr
Mandelson problems. Both Mr O'Brien and Mr Campbell deny that they had said
that there was a record of the telephone conversation.

5.104. Mr Campbell told me that he would not have been aware of any record
of the telephone call at that point on the Monday evening. At that stage,
all Mr Campbell was aware of, he told me, was the line to take which had
come from the Home Office, which had referred to verbal enquiries and Mr
O'Brien's clear recollection. Mr O'Brien pointed out to me that Mr Mandelson
should have already known that no documentary proof existed, other than Mr
Laxton's e-mail, because this had been explained to him in Ms Todd's note of
11 January 2001 (Annex N).

5.105. Mr Mandelson said that he recalled being told on 22 January that
documentary proof of the call existed and his belief that there was
documentary proof was why he had conceded that the call, which he still
maintained he did not recall, had taken place...