New challenge for Government on Iraq advice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government was today challenged to publish "the entire paper trail" of Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice to ministers that the war against Iraq was legal.
The Government was today challenged to publish "the entire paper trail" of Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice to ministers that the war against Iraq was legal.
But Foreign Secretary Jack Straw turned down the demand from shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, saying publishing such advice would have "very grave" implications for good government.
The Commons clash came as Mr Straw was forced to answer an urgent question from Mr Grieve following fresh controversy sparked by the release of the resignation letter of the Foreign Office's ex–deputy legal adviser who quit because she believed the conflict was illegal.
She said, in a part of her letter censored by the Government but leaked to Channel 4 News, that Lord Goldsmith had shared her view until March 7, 2003.
There are claims Lord Goldsmith then changed his view to saying the war would be legal, but open to challenge before finally declaring the conflict would be lawful under existing United Nations resolutions.
No 10 today repeated that the Attorney General had reached his view without being "leaned on".
Mr Grieve told MPs: "It would be far better if the entire paper trail were to be published to reassure the public the Attorney General was neither leant on to change his views for party political reasons, nor deceived by the Prime Minister on the facts on which war might be justified."
But Mr Straw said successive administrations had refused to publish the legal advice they received.
If that happened, he said, "the implications for good government are very grave indeed".
The Foreign Secretary said Lord Butler's inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run–up to war had seen Lord Goldsmith's advice.
"Lord Butler came to his conclusion that the Attorney General had given clear and categorical advice to the Cabinet that in his judgment it was lawful under (UN) resolution 1441 to use force without a further UN security council resolution."
Mr Straw said it was "entirely proper" to black out parts of Ms Wilmshurst's letter because "their content concerned the provision of legal advice in relation to the use of force against Iraq" regardless of whether those references were correct or not.
Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said today: "The Government scored an enormous own goal by failing under the Freedom of Information Act to release the whole of Miss Wilmshurst's letter.
"When it first transpired that an extract had been held back for reasons of public interest, I think it was a fair presumption that it was because of national security."
Mr Ancram, speaking in Edinburgh during a one–day visit to Scotland, went on: "Now we know it was merely to cover up the fact that Lord Goldsmith changed his position on the legality of the war between March 7 and March 17."
He said: "What they have succeeded in doing was create a very embarrassing situation for themselves.
"They have left Lord Goldsmith in a very difficult position.
"It becomes even more imperative that they now come clean with all the information so that the doubts that exist in the public mind about how the Government handled matters in the run–up to the Iraq war can be clarified one way or the other."
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "Lord Goldsmith stated his views as recently as March 1 this year in the House of Lords. It was that he reached his view independently, not as a result of being leaned on.
"We do not discuss the Attorney General's legal advice. That's in line with the practice of previous administrations."
Reg Keys, father of Tom Keys of the Royal Military Police, who was killed in Iraq in June 2003 said today: "As I waved my son Tom off to war I believed the credibility of this Government and the fact that this was a legal war.
"I now feel a man betrayed by his own Government and their legal advisers. My son now rests in his grave, his oath of allegiance betrayed. There has to be accountability for this disgraceful conduct by the Prime Minister and his associates.
"That is why I am going to stand in Sedgefield because Tony Blair has to be made to account for this war. The families have every right to see the full legal advice."
Rose Gentle, mother of fusilier Gordon Gentle killed in Iraq June 2004, said: "Tony Blair should be impeached for the lies he has told, he must be brought to court.
"We know there were no weapons of mass destruction, now we know there was no legal justification for the war either."
Mr Ancram said later: "Jack Straw's explanation of the change of mind defies belief. The reasons he gave certainly do not justify a change of legal opinion.
"Jack Straw's performance has increased the lack of trust in the Government and done nothing to reassure people about the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister."
Tory co-chairman Liam Fox told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "Jack Straw said that the Attorney General had given clear and categorical advice, which he certainly did ultimately.
"But we now know before that he had quite a different view. I think it's perfectly reasonable for MPs on all sides of the House to ask what changed.
"The paper trail now needs to be fully exposed so we can see what happened.
"If we can't trust the Prime Minister on issues such as security, how can we trust him on all the other issues on which he is going to make promises in the next few weeks."
Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee Donald Anderson said: "Are they now claiming that the Attorney General was lying when he said the advice he published was his own, genuine advice, it was independent, he was not leaned on?"
The Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said in a speech to party activists: "This Government has huge questions to answer and the sooner they answer them and publish in full - and if necessary be damned - the better for Britain and the better for the quality of debate in the forthcoming General Election."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments