Blair publishes Iraq advice

Tony Blair finally caved in today and published the full legal advice he took on invading Iraq.

The entire document, marked secret and stretching to 13 pages, raises new questions about the legality of the war and how it was decided.

It reveals that the Government's senior legal adviser, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, warned:

The full document confirms that Lord Goldsmith harboured deep reservations in March 2003 before the invasion that it was legally safe.

And it raises questions of why he appeared to change his mind just 10 days later when he told the Cabinet the legal basis was clear and sound.

The Prime Minister performed his dramatic U-turn after a partial leak of the Attorney General's memo of 7 March, 2003. In a confident performance at an election press conference, he ended months of refusals to publish the document with a shrug of his shoulders. "As for the legal advice, well, you've probably got it already," he said, making light of the devastating leak. "Frankly, I see no reason at all not to publish it. Yeah, why not?"

His insouciance was extraordinary at a time Mr Blair's credibility is under fire as never before.

Gordon Brown rode to the Prime Minister's rescue as critics in the Labour Party and beyond questioned his future.

The Chancellor interrupted the press conference to praise his colleague, fuelling the belief that he will take over as Prime Minister in the next Parliament if Labour wins.

Mr Brown declared: "This was the most difficult decision a Cabinet could make. But the decision was made in an honest, principled and clear way with all the evidence before us.

"And I can say this, that I not only trust Tony Blair, but I respect Tony Blair for the way he went about that decision involving all members of the Cabinet."

Mr Brown confirmed he had not seen the full legal advice, however, before the decision was taken.

Mr Blair dismissed the leak as "a damp squib", saying it revealed nothing significantly new. He said people had already made up their minds and launched an impassioned defence of his decision to go to war. "Understand that I had a tough decision to make," he said. "That is what leadership is all about. Whatever I say, I will never ever convince some people who have been opposed to this war.

"I cannot apologise for that decision because I still think the world is a better place with Saddam in prison rather than in power."

Critics were circling this afternoon. Tam Dalyell, the retiring Labour MP and Father of the Commons, said Mr Blair should quit or be sacked. The House of Commons was deliberately misled by the Prime Minister," he said. "If a Labour government is elected, I trust my colleagues to do something about it. Meaning - to change the leader."

Lord Goldsmith's memo revealed he backed the argument that a second UN resolution was not needed because of pre-existing UN votes approving the use of force. But he warned that this view was scoffed at outside George Bush's America.

He wrote: "However, the UK has consistently taken the view that... it is for the (Security) Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.

"The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual member states.

"I am not aware of any other state which supports this view. This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441."

He added: "The revival argument is controversial. It is not widely accepted among academic commentators. However, I agree with my predecessors' advice on this issue.

"Further, I believe that the arguments in support of the revival argument are stronger following adoption of resolution 1441."

A crucial issue concerns Mr Blair's claim that the French refusal to back a second UN resolution approving military action whatever the circumstances justified the invasion.

In the 7 March memo Lord Goldsmith said he did not see "any basis in law" for such an argument. But in his published advice, this caveat was missing. The immediate pressure today was on Lord Goldsmith to explain how he could have altered his legal advice so comprehensively within 10 days.

There have been Whitehall leaks implying that he was seriously unhappy about the invasion and was under pressure to give assurances to the armed forces that a war would be legal.

Lord Goldsmith also demanded, and got, a written assurance from Mr Blair that Iraq was without doubt breaching past UN resolutions. And he was in a meeting with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, the Prime Minister's close ally, and Baroness Morgan, Mr Blair's political aide, as he formulated his final advice.

On 7 March, the same day as the secret memo was written, Hans Blix told the UN that Saddam Hussein was finally cooperating with arms inspectors.

The subsequent timetable has been seen as strongly implying that Lord Goldsmith came under pressure, though he strenuously denies this. On 12 March, Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, told the Attorney General he wanted categoric advice that British troops would not be charged with war crimes. On 13 March, Lord Goldsmith went to Professor Christopher Greenwood of the LSE - who backed the use of force without a second resolution - and asked him for a legal opinion. The same day he met Lord Falconer and Lady Morgan. Ministers insist that rumours that Lord Falconer drafted the published summary of the legal advice are untrue.

On 14 March, Lord Goldsmith replied to Sir Michael with a two-line letter saying that if there was a need to go to war, it would be legal. On 15 March, Mr Blair confirmed in writing that it was "unequivocally my view that Iraq has committed further material breaches" of UN resolutions.

On 17 March, Mr Blair presented the document "on one side of an A4 page" to the Cabinet. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal chief at the Foreign Office, quit in protest. On 18 March Parliament voted for war.

Michael Howard said today: "What the public must now have an answer to is: what, or who, changed the Attorney General's mind?"