Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
reporting this material but of presenting the judgements which flow from it to an
experienced readership. Explaining those judgements to a wider public audience is
a very different and difficult presentational task.”301
733.  The Inquiry asked Sir David Omand whether the involvement of Mr Scarlett and
Sir Richard Dearlove, as part of Mr Blair’s circle of close advisers, had risked breaching
the distinction between provision of intelligence and the formulation of policy, and
whether they had become too involved in the making and selling of policy.
734.  Sir David Omand told the Inquiry that the “golden rule” for the Chairman of the
Joint Intelligence Committee should be that: “he would deliver the views of the Joint
Intelligence Committee, he would never venture a view on the policy even if asked”.302
735.  Asked if it had been difficult to maintain the separation between intelligence and
policy, Sir John Scarlett replied:
“I cannot recall worrying about this at the time in a deep way. Obviously I, we worried
about it because we understood that it was necessary to ensure that the public
assessment was consistent with what was being said in the classified assessments,
and so that discipline was very strong within us, and in ways that have been
discussed many times, we sought to protect ourselves against …”303
736.  Sir John added:
“So I do not recall worrying about it in a deep way or in the sense that it was
something which I or we couldn’t control. It was something to which we had to pay
very close attention, both through the procedures and processes we followed, and
by the way we reached our judgments. But I never felt that I was not in control of the
process, and I have said that on quite a number of occasions.”
737.  The independence and impartiality of the JIC remains of the utmost
importance.
738.  As the FAC report in July 2003 pointed out, the late Sir Percy Cradock, Chairman
of the JIC from 1985 to 1992, wrote in his history of the JIC that:
“Ideally, intelligence and policy should be close but distinct. Too distinct and
assessments become an in-growing, self-regarding activity, producing little or no
work of interest to the decision-makers … Too close a link and policy begins to play
back on estimates, producing the answers the policy makers would like … The
301  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraph 327.
302  Public hearing, 20 January 2010, pages 61-62.
303  Private hearing, 5 May 2010, page 44.
420
Previous page | Contents | Next page