MoD official admits final dossier was 'noticeably harder'

The final version of a government dossier on weapons of mass destruction was "noticeably harder" than an earlier draft, a top Ministry of Defence official conceded yesterday.

The Hutton inquiry was shown a series of versions of the report demonstrating how its wording had been subtly altered as it passed through the Whitehall machine.

On Monday, the inquiry was told that a draft of the dossier compiled on 5 September did not contain the sensational claim that Saddam Hussein could order a chemical or biological weapon strike at just 45 minutes' notice.

James Dingemans, counsel for the inquiry, said another version of the dossier, prepared five or six days later, included the claim.

It said that Iraq "envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given. Within the last month, intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so."

However, a later draft read: "The Iraqi military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."

Mr Dingemans asked Martin Howard, MoD deputy chief of Defence Intelligence: "It seems to have got a little bit weaker. Is that fair?"

Mr Howard replied: "It is very fine shading, 'intelligence suggests' could be synonymous with 'may'. But I can understand some people might think it has been weakened."

The final version of the dossier presented to MPs read: "His [Saddam Hussein's] military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." Mr Dingemans said: "This is noticeably harder. Is that fair?" Mr Howard replied: "I think that is fair, yes."

The lawyer said the changes could be significant given that intelligence officers had reportedly expressed disquiet over the "sexing up" of the dossier. But Mr Howard replied that their worries were not over the intelligence about the 45-minute claim but about "how it had been presented in the Prime Minister's forward and the executive summary".

Mr Howard was challenged over the MoD's decision to issue a press release on 8 July, revealing that an unnamed official had volunteered that he had met the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and believed he could have been the source of his controversial report.

Mr Howard said: "The feeling was that this was a matter of very considerable public interest. The foreign affairs committee had recommended that the Government should investigate links with Andrew Gilligan and there was very great concern this would come out by other means."

He said that it was "very unusual" for a civil servant to own up to an unauthorised media contact. "The overall judgement reached at all levels from ministers downwards was that it was necessary to make the fact that this had happened public," he said.

Lord Hutton queried the value of putting out the press release. But Mr Howard replied: "There was great concern that the MoD might come in for criticism if it came out from another source."

Mr Howard strongly denied coaching Dr Kelly on the responses he should give to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Referring to an interview with the scientist the day before he faced MPs, he said: "I started off by saying that you must not give the departmental line. You must answer as you see fit. These were my opening words."

He said he told Dr Kelly to answer questions "according to your conscience" and said Dr Kelly had asked him if he could tell MPs that he did not think he was Mr Gilligan's source. Mr Howard said he urged Dr Kelly to "say what you think is right and what the facts are".