THE Hutton inquiry saw two early drafts of the September dossier on Iraq yesterday, in which the language used to describe the key 45-minute claim was strengthened in the drafting process.

This evidence could help to support BBC allegations that No 10 “sexed-up” the dossier by including the information, which it knew to be wrong.

The inquiry also heard the first explanation from Ministry of Defence officials of their reasons for naming David Kelly as the BBC’s likely source.

Martin Howard, deputy chief of Defence Intelligence, was shown a document dated September 10 in which the 45-minute claim first appeared. It stated that recent intelligence had “suggested” that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. By September 16 a draft said that Iraq “may be able to deploy” weapons in this time.

When the dossier was published, it said that Iraq’s “military planning allows for some WMD to be deployed within 45 minutes”. Mr Howard said that the difference between the first two drafts was “fine shading”, but accepted the language was harder in the final version.

The inquiry has already been shown two other earlier drafts of the dossier. A comparison of the five versions of the document appeared to show that there was also a hardening-up of claims about chemical and biological weapons programmes. In the first draft, dated September 5, it stated: “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is able to make more.”

By the time the dossier was published on September 24 it had changed to: “Iraq continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.”

John Williams, press secretary at the Foreign Office, offered his own explanation as to why the “45-minute claim” had been inserted into the September dossier at the last minute.

He said: “If it was, as we know, assessed as credible by the Joint Intelligence Committee on September 9, that is all that happened, that’s the simple explanation as to why it got into the dossier.”

He believed this would lead people to form the opinion that the Today reporter Andrew Gilligan’s story was incorrect and therefore naming the source behind the report was unnecessary.

On Dr Kelly’s naming, Mr Howard said that “the overall judgment reached at all levels, from ministers downwards” was that he could help to set the record straight.

The MoD published a statement on July 8 saying an unnamed official had come forward to admit meeting Mr Gilligan but adding that he had denied saying anything that would have substantiated his story. The next day officials confirmed Dr Kelly’s identity to three newspapers. Mr Howard said there was “very great concern that this would come out by other means”.

Patrick Lamb, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said colleagues had told him that a story in The Times on July 5 disclosing clues to the source’s identity had “all but named” Dr Kelly.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating