The Report of the Iraq Inquiry

299. Sir William subsequently stated that, by August 2002, concerns about the Libyan

nuclear programme and the Iranian and North Korean nuclear and missile programmes

were top priorities in respect of the UK’s counter-proliferation strategy; but so was Iraq:

“… because its WMD may be the exception to the rule that such programmes are

usually driven by defensive needs and, more importantly, are most likely to be

deployed against UK forces and those of our allies.”131

300. Sir Richard Dearlove, Chief of SIS from August 1999 to May 2004, told the Inquiry

that, in spring 2002, Libya’s WMD programme was viewed as a more serious problem

than Iraq.132

301. Sir John Scarlett told the Inquiry that the stronger judgement in the 15 March 2002

CIG Assessment about Iraq’s capability to produce biological agents “reflected a

better understanding of the mobile facilities … and the refurbishment of a former

production facility”.133

302. Sir John Scarlett confirmed that there had been a change in the assessment

between May 2001 and March 2002, as the influence of the reporting on mobile

laboratories had “built up”.134

303. Mr Miller told the Inquiry that there was a “slight strengthening in March [2002]

of the judgement that BW production was likely to be continuing”.135 That was based

on a “slight accumulation of evidence” from reporting from a new source on a possible

laboratory and previous reporting in May 2001 from an SIS source on “anthrax

production in the early 1990s”, taken together with a “more thorough review of the

reporting on mobile laboratories”.

304. Sir John Scarlett added that “it was judged by the experts to be technically credible

and indicated significant production in 1998 and 1999” and it had been “set against

separate reporting, not from the same source, on procurement of large amounts of

growth media, which at that stage was influential in the assessment”.136 That was the

reason for the judgement that production of biological agent could begin within days,

rather than the previous assessment of weeks.

131 Private hearing, 14 June 2010, pages 2-3.

132 Private hearing, 16 June 2010, page 27.

133 Public hearing, 8 December 2009, pages 37-38.

134 Private hearing, 5 May 2010, page 17.

135 Private hearing, 5 May 2010, page 16.

136 Private hearing, 5 May 2010, page 18.

70