IRAQ was not “top of the list” of the countries causing concern about weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion of 2003, the official inquiry into the war was told.

On the second day of public hearings, Foreign Office officials said they believed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programme had been dismantled and they had no evidence he was trying to supply chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Sir William Ehrman, who was director of international security at the Foreign Office, said ministers had been repeatedly warned that the intelligence on Iraq’s chemical and biological programmes had been “patchy”.

Despite the warnings, however, Tony Blair told the Commons Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons when he made the case for war on the eve of the invasion, in March, 2003.

Subsequently, it was found Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, having failed to rebuild his programmes following the first Gulf War.

Tim Dowse, who was head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office, said that, when he took up the post in 2001, Iraq was not seen as the main concern.

“It wasn’t top of the list,” he said. “I would say we put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq.”

He said that, despite concerns in the US, there was no evidence Saddam was prepared to supply chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

“There had been nothing that looked like a relationship between the Iraqis and al-Qaida,” he said.

“In fact, after 9/11, we concluded that Iraq actually stepped further back. They did not want to be associated with al-Qaida. They weren’t natural allies.”

The inquiry was adjourned until today.