I reproduce below a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question in 2006 by Norman Baker MP. The original is here:
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions a helicopter from RAF Benson was used to assist a police search for a missing person in each of the last five years; 
(2) if he will identify the helicopter from RAF Benson used to search for Dr. David Kelly on 18 July 2003; whether the helicopter in question was equipped with (a) an infra-red camera and (b) heat-seeking equipment; how long the helicopter was in the air; what areas it covered in its search; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) how many (a) military, (b) civilian and (c) other personnel from (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the United States and (iii) other nations were based at RAF Benson on 17 July 2003. 
Mr. Ingram: No RAF helicopters from RAF Benson have been used to assist police searches for missing persons in the last five years.
No RAF helicopters from RAF Benson were used in the search for Dr. David Kelly on 18 July 2003. However, I understand that a Chiltern Air Support Unit police helicopter which is based at RAF Benson was on standby but not used. I am informed that a police helicopter from the Chiltern Air Support Unit based at Luton was used in the search.
Details of the personnel based at RAF Benson on the 17 July 2003 were as follows:
Number of personnel
MOD civilian personnel
2 (exchange aircrew from Canada and the United States)
Notice that the answer cleverly sidesteps the questions about what times the helicopter was in the air, what area(s) it searched and whether or not it carried heat-seeking equipment.
Answers to Parliamentary Questions are, all too frequently, slippery!
And, it seems, ACC Page was not telling the truth when he stated that it came from RAF Benson, in his oral testimony to Hutton on the morning of Wednesday 3rd September 2003 on Page 20:
1 Q. So who had been responsible for calling out the police
3 A. Sergeant Morris.
4 Q. Where is that helicopter based? We have heard it came
5 from RAF Benson, is that right?
6 A. That is correct, that is where it is based.
7 Q. How many police officers were involved in the search?
8 A. At that particular time half a dozen.
9 LORD HUTTON: Just so that it is clear, I think what you
10 said, Mr Page, this was a police helicopter?
11 A. It was a police helicopter, my Lord, yes.
ACC Page echoes an error in Janice Kelly's testimony on the morning of Monday 1st September 2003, see Page 52:
13 A. Yes, it is referred up and the search begins. The
14 Thames Valley helicopter had gone off duty by that time
15 so they had to wait for the Benson helicopter to come
17 Q. That is RAF Benson, is it?
Yet, further evidence that the testimony given to Hutton was unreliable, it seems.
When testimony is littered with numerous errors of fact, of which this is a minor example, it becomes increasingly clear that the Hutton Inquiry was, at best, substandard.