Blair warned: Iraq attack 'illegal'

Government legal experts say UN mandate is needed for action

Tony Blair has been told by the Government's own lawyers that British participation in an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new United Nations mandate.

The advice, which is highly confidential, has led the Foreign Office to warn Downing Street that a fresh UN resolution could be the best means of ensuring Russian and moderate Arab support for any attack against Saddam Hussein.

Senior government sources say the Prime Minister has also received conflicting legal opinion from law officers that current UN resolutions could offer sufficient cover for any military action. But the very fact that even one part of Government has been told an attack could be illegal will delight the many Labour MPs worried that Mr Blair will unilaterally back an American assault.

The legal advice in favour of a new UN resolution is in tune with similar calls made by Dr Rowan Williams, the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury.

Many Labour backbenchers, including former ministers such as Peter Kilfoyle, have warned that the party will be split for years if Britain takes part in any action against Iraq without proper justification. MPs are now sure to demand publication of the advice from government lawyers.

Although Mr Blair stressed last week that the world was "not at the point of decision", it is clear that some in Downing Street are determined that Britain should back America whenever it does decide to attack.

Yesterday, Ben Bradshaw, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, underlined Mr Blair's case that inaction against Iraq was not an option.

In line with the Government's legal advice, Mr Bradshaw conceded that "there is an argument" that a new UN mandate would be required for an invasion. But he said there was a counter-argument that legal cover was given by the existing 23 UN resolutions about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and failure to allow weapons inspectors into the country.

"We simply cannot think that by hoping a threat will go away it will. It won't and Saddam poses a very real one," he told Sky News' Sunday with Adam Boulton. "I would not want to come back on this programme in five years' time after something terrible had happened and defend to you that we ignored that threat."

A vote by MPs on military action was ruled out by Mr Bradshaw, who organises Commons business as deputy to Robin Cook, the Leader of the House.

Mr Bradshaw accepted that the opposition in the Labour ranks was more than a list of "usual suspects" and included moderate loyalists.

"There is also a broader group of people who, of course, are concerned about how it could be done, why it is necessary, where is the evidence, and also the wider repercussions for the Middle East," he said.

Mr Bradshaw dismissed a YouGov internet poll showing 51 per cent opposed to action against Iraq compared with 40 per cent in favour.

"I think the majority of people supported what we did in Afghanistan, the majority of people supported what we did in the Balkans," he said. "And any British government is going to think very, very carefully about deploying British forces in a situation where it does not enjoy majority support in the population and in Parliament."

Speculation about British involvement in a future attack was heightened at the weekend when it was claimed that HMS Ocean, one of the UK's biggest warships, was being kitted out for amphibious use. But military sources insisted no action would take place before December.

Jordan's King Abdullah II told CNN yesterday that he finds the idea of intervention in Iraq while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has the Middle East in turmoil "somewhat ludicrous".