I thought, therefore, it might be useful to look at the Parliamentary Questions that were "live" on 17th July 2003 and consider whether they posed any particular difficulty for David Kelly.
I can trace two Parliamentary Questions due for written answer on 17th July 2003. Both were from Andrew MacKinlay.
The text of the first question (Ref. 126330) is as follows (See Ministry of Defence Parliamentary Question: Andrew MacKinlay Esq MP to Geoffrey Hoon MP 17.07.03):
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when over the past two years Mr David Kelly has met Andrew Gilligan of the BBC. 126330
The drafted answer was as follows:
Andrew Gilligan has had meetings on Iraq with Dr Kelly twice over the past two years : February 2003 and 22 May 2003 . In addition, Dr Kelly spoke to Andrew Gilligan about Iraq during a seminar at the International Institute of Strategic Studies on 12-14 September 2002 .
I don't see anything particularly threatening with respect to the question or the proposed answer.
The text of the second question (Ref. 126331) is as follows (See Ministry of Defence Parliamentary Question: Andrew MacKinlay Esq MP to Geoffrey Hoon MP 17.07.03)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which journalists Mr David Kelly has met over the past two years ; other than Andrew Gilligan of the BBC. (a) for what purpose each meeting was held, and (b) when each meeting took place. 126331
The draft answer was as follows:
Dr Kelly has records of having held meetings with the following journalists .
Name Date Purpose
Nick Rufford (Sunday Times) 14 March 2002 Discussing Al-Manal
Alex Nicoll (Financial Times) 15 May 2002 Iraqi WMD in general
Phillip Sen (The Engineer) 3 October 2002 Inspection teclmology
Dr Kelly has also had meetings with Jane Corbin (BBC) and Tom Mangold (BBC) but has no record of the dates .
In addition, Dr Kelly will have spoken with journalists about Iraq at a range of seminars and similar events, and on the telephone. Dr Kelly has also discussed non-Iraq WMD matters on which he is an acknowledged expert.
Not a comprehensive answer, perhaps, but no obvious threats there.
Given Dr. Kelly's death the planned answers were not given.
One of the questions from Andrew MacKinlay was answered on 9th September 2003: David Kelly.
In addition to the two questions from Andrew MacKinlay there was another five-part question from Mr. Jenkin.
First let's recognise that David Kelly had lots of time to answer any new Parliamentary Questions. That's confirmed in James Harrison's email of 17th July 2003, e-mail to Dr Kelly 17 July 2003 re: Parliamentary questions.
I believe that the anticipated deadline for answering this new five-part question was around 3rd September 2003.
In the event the written answer to Mr. Jenkin was given on 9th September 2003.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) whether his Department has complied with Dr. David Kelly's terms and conditions of employment in handling the matter of his discussions with Mr. Andrew Gilligan; 
(2) on how many occasions Dr. David Kelly spoke to Mr. Andrew Gilligan; and whether his line managers knew this; 
(3) how many of his Department's personnel have been interviewed in connection with the dossier story reported by Mr. Andrew Gilligan; 
(4) what inquiries are being conducted by his Department into unauthorised briefings of the BBC in connection with Iraq; 
(5) what (a) civil service and (b) MOD rules and regulations may have been infringed by Dr. David Kelly in talking to Mr. Andrew Gilligan. 
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are all matters that are being addressed by Lord Hutton's Inquiry. Lord Hutton will publish his report in
9 Sept 2003 : Column 351W
due course. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 4a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Geoff Hoon, after David Kelly's death, could use Exemption 4a to avoid answering Mr. Jenkins questions. However, if David Kelly had not died then the multipart question would have had to be answered by early September.
Notice that Geoff Hoon's answer includes five separate reference numbers. So, it would appear that five separate written questions are being answered together. The questions could potentially have been answered singly or grouped according to the Ministry of Defence's preference.
A composite answer to Mr. Jenkin's question might have looked something like the following:
(1) The Ministry of Defence has fully complied with the terms and conditions of Dr. David Kelly's employment in respect of its handling of contacts that Dr. Kelly had with Andrew Gilligan.
(2) With respect to Dr. Kelly's meetings with Mr. Gilligan I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Honourable Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) at [Hansard Reference].
(3) The Ministry of Defence has conducted a thorough inquiry into contacts by its staff with Andrew Gilligan and has decided that, in the light of the evidence, no further action is appropriate.
I am sure that a skilled parliamentary draftsman could produce something yet more bland and reassuring.
There is nothing truly threatening in Mr. Jenkin's questions.
By early September 2003 the interest in the matter would, in all likelihood, have at least begun to die down.