More Iraq leaks on the way

Tony Blair faces further "explosive" leaks today from the Attorney General's secret legal advice on invading Iraq.

Labour is reeling from the disclosure of crucial differences between Lord Goldsmith's private advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of the war and his published justification for it 10 days later.

But a Whitehall insider claims there is worse to come. "There are more explosive differences between the 7 March and 17 March documents," said the insider. "The section leaked so far is only a taster. It is a fair bet that whoever leaked this will reveal the rest before the election day. If they have leaked half, they will inevitably leak the rest."

The Prime Minister's credibility is under attack as never before after the release of part of a memo written on 7 March, 2003, by Lord Goldsmith.

It contains a series of doubts and caveats that were stripped away when his brief legal summary declaring the war lawful was issued on 17 March.

The insider said the full document was much longer and contained further damaging remarks.

Only six paragraphs of Lord Goldsmith's detailed 13 pages of arguments were in the leaked extract, which was passed last night to Channel 4 News, the BBC and a newspaper.

Tantalisingly, the source left visible the heading of a subsequent section called "Possible consequences of acting without a second resolution". The disclosures come as a body blow to Mr Blair's election campaign, which has already been damaged by Michael Howard's taunts of "liar".

Labour MPs are aghast at the timing of the leak. With only a week until polling day, the Prime Minister is preparing to defend his decisions on Iraq at a news conference, originally planned to launch Labour's business manifesto.

A crucial issue in the still-secret passages is believed to concern Mr Blair's claim that the French refusal to back a second UN resolution approving military action was a justification for the invasion. In the 7 March memo Lord Goldsmith said he did not see "any basis in law" for the Prime Minister's argument. But in his published advice, this caveat was missing.

Mr Blair made great play of the French position in his speech for the Commons vote on the war on 17 March. He told MPs: "On Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances." There has already been concern that the Premier's argument did not hold water.

The immediate pressure today was on Lord Goldsmith to explain how he could have altered his legal advice so comprehensively within the space of 10 days.

He issued a statement denying any Uturn. But 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.

His change of heart flew in the face of Iraq appearing to weaken. On 7 March, the same day as the secret memo was written, Hans Blix told the UN that Saddam Hussein was finally co-operating with arms inspectors. "And we are not talking about the breaking of toothpicks," said the chief inspector. The subsequent timetable has been seen as strongly implying that Lord Goldsmith came under pressure, though he strongly 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. A day later, on 13 March, Lord Goldsmith went to Professor Christopher Greenwood of the LSE - one of only two UK lawyers to back the use of force without a second resolution - and asked him for a legal opinion

The same day, he met Lord Falconer and Baroness 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 Boyce with a twoline letter saying that if there was a need to go to war, it would be legal.

On 15 March, the Prime Minister confirmed in writing that "unequivocally my view that Iraq has committed further material breaches" of UN resolutions. Finally, on 17 March, Blair presented the document "on one side of an A4 page" to the Cabinet. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal chief at Foreign Office, quit the same day in protest at what she saw as an outrageous U-turn. The next day, Parliament voted for war.