A confidential draft document about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction written by a Whitehall press officer bears a strong resemblance to the Government’s 2002 dossier that provided justification for the 2003 invasion.

The early version, drawn up by John Williams in 2002 when he was press secretary to Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary at the time, was published yesterday, after a decision by the Information Tribunal in January that it should be released.

The Government has long insisted that Mr Williams, now no longer a Whitehall official, produced his document on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction off his own bat and that it played no part in the formulation of the official dossier, written by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), and published in September 2002.

But an analysis of the two dossiers shows that each lists similar intelligence judgments about the threat from Iraq, although they appear in a different order.

Iraq timeline: five years of conflict

From accusations that the weapons of mass destruction dossier had been sexed-up to withdrawal of British troops from Basra

Multimedia

• Poll: Was Iraq war worth the sacrifice?

• Audio slideshow: Iraq conflict explained

• Pictures: Iraq, war and aftermath

Related Internet Links

• Read the Inside Iraq blog from our team in Baghdad

Mr Williams who has said that he wrote his draft “hurriedly over a weekend” in early September 2002 – a day or so before the JIC produced its first draft – claimed Iraq was “covertly attempting to acquire technology and materials for use in nuclear weapons”.

In similar vein, the JIC dossier said Iraq was trying “covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons”.

The Williams dossier said Iraq was developing a longer-range missile “capable of threatening Nato (Greece and Turkey)”.

The JIC dossier referred to the development of missiles “capable of reaching the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus and Nato members (Greece and Turkey)”.

The Williams draft said Iraq had “retained a dozen al-Hussein missiles capable of carrying a chemical or biological warhead”.

The JIC accused Iraq of “illegally retaining 20 al-Hussein missiles”.

Both the Williams draft and the JIC dossier referred to Iraq’s acquisition of uranium, “despite having no civil nuclear programme”.

However, there is no mention in the Williams draft of the claimed ability of Iraq to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. This appeared in the JIC dossier.

The Government said that the 2002 official dossier was based in large part on intelligence material. Accusations that the wording was given added punch with the help of Whitehall spin doctors were denied strongly. The Government’s position was supported by Lord Hutton when he looked into the circumstances behind the death of David Kelly, the weapons expert.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said yesterday in a written statement that the document produced by Mr Williams “was not commissioned as part of the formal drafting process and was not used as the basis for the dossier which the Government subsequently published . . . produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee”.

John Baron, the Conservative MP for Billericay, who has been pushing for the Williams dossier to be released, said that the wording of the former press secretary’s version bore “striking similarities” with the document written by the JIC, which was headed then by Sir John Scarlett, now MI6 chief.

“Publication today [of the Williams dossier] finally lifts the lid on the role played by spin-doctors in presenting the case for war in Iraq,” Mr Baron said. “The Government must now explain why key passages of both documents are similar or identical.”

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said that the “core analysis” in Mr Williams’s draft was repeated in the JIC dossier. “The Government cannot continue to deny the major role that spin-doctors played in creating this dossier,” he said.

In his statement yesterday Mr Miliband said that the draft written by Mr Williams had been withheld previously because of concerns that officials would be deterred from offering frank advice if they feared it could be made public.

The document was withheld under Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act on the ground that “for effective conduct of public affairs the space which ministers and officials have to consider and discuss ideas should be protected”.

Times Recommends

• An officer and a gentle woman
• Dame Helen Mirren is worthy of the Epidaurus
• Foods that can help to prevent swine flu