No10 chief 'forced last-minute change'

A key claim in the Government's controversial dossier on Iraqi weapons was removed just days before publication - on the intervention of one of Tony Blair's most senior advisors, Lord Hutton's inquiry heard today.

John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said a section of the document claiming that Saddam Hussein was much more likely to use chemical and biological weapons defensively rather than offensively was removed at the last minute.

The decision to take it out followed an email sent to Mr Scarlett by Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff. The email said the dossier as it stood posed a "problem" because it painted a picture of Saddam Hussein as more of a threat if he was attacked than if he was left to his own devices.

Under fierce cross-examination from counsel for the BBC - Andrew Caldecott QC - Mr Scarlett admitted the change had been made. But he vigorously denied this had been done "as a result of the intervention from Downing Street", adding: "It was as a result of my professional judgement."

Mr Scarlett clashed repeatedly with Mr Caldecott over the changes to the dossier - made right up to its publication 24 September.

But he agreed that a change regarding Saddam Hussein's defensive capabilities had been made right at the last minute, after an email had been sent to him by Mr Powell.

The inquiry heard that the title of the dossier had changed from 19 September, when it was called Iraq's Programme For Weapons Of Mass Destruction. A day later its title was

Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Mr Scarlett insisted: "It was not a suggestion. It was my decision to do it."

Mr Caldecott asked why the Government had not corrected press reports concerning the key claim that Saddam had weapons to be fired within 45 minutes - when this only referred to battlefield munitions and not longer range strategic ones. Mr Scarlett said headlines concerning this point had only come out for a "fleeting moment" and had quickly been replaced by a "sober and sensible" view of the document in the media. He insisted that the dossier had not been intended to "make the case for war".

He said all claims made in the dossier were backed up by intelligence material, and denied he had been pressured into making any unacceptable changes by Mr Campbell or anybody else at No10.

Earl ier today, Tony Blair's spokesman, Tom Kelly, fiercely denied that he was involved in a covert campaign to "belittle, demean or slur" weapons expert David Kelly.

Mr Kelly also denied that his description of Dr Kelly as a possible Walter Mitty character was part of a "deliberate scene-setting" exercise to cast doubt on his reputation.

But he did not deny the charge - levelled by the Kelly family's counsel at the Hutton Inquiry - that he used the phrase to several journalists.

The exchanges saw the heat turned up yet again on Downing Street over its role in the way Dr Kelly was unmasked after he came forward to admit an unauthorised meeting with BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan.

The counsel for the family, Jeremy Gompertz QC, renewed the accusation that the Government laid a

series of clues that made it virtually certain the media would uncover Dr Kelly's name.

These clues had been provided, he said, in the original MoD statement announcing that an individual had come forward and in a question-andanswer briefing for press officers. The clues were also in two briefings to reporters by Mr Kelly.

Mr Gompertz challenged Mr Kelly over a diary extract from Mr Campbell, which was revealed to the inquiry yesterday.

The extract said that "the biggest thing that was needed was the source out". Mr Campbell believed this would discredit Mr Gilligan's report.

That entry, Mr Gompertz said, was dated 9 July - the very day Mr Kelly briefed political journalists - and it revealed the "whole purpose" of the briefing, the MoD statement and the question-and-answer material - "namely that there was a strategy to reveal Dr Kelly's name without appearing to do so".

Mr Kelly tersely replied: "Categorically not."

He said he had no choice but to give out some detail of where the weapons scientist worked, and the fact that the Ministry of Defence was not his employer.