New move may force Blair to reveal Iraq advice

Tony Blair faced a fresh hazard over Iraq today as it was revealed that he may be forced to disclose the legal advice which took Britain to war.

The Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, was reported to be facing a demand from Ann Abraham, Parliament's independent watchdog, to hand over the document, which Downing Street has stubbornly refused to publish.

The report said that Ms Abraham had launched her own inquiry into the Government's refusal to reveal the facts to the public. As part of that process, she has demanded to see the full text along with all other related documents from Lord Goldsmith's department.

The move effectively placed the fate of the vital document in Ms Abraham's hands. As parliamentary ombudsman she has the legal right to decide what, if anything, should be revealed.

Publication would demolish the resistance from No10 and the Prime Minister, who has argued that to reveal the detail would break a long-standing secrecy rule.

But the much graver political damage is the possibility that Ms Abraham could reveal the legal opinions Lord Goldsmith gave earlier in the run-up to war and whether, as critics claim, he hardened his advice at the last moment. There have been persistent reports

that defence chiefs had demanded a clear judgment that the war was legal before committing troops to military action.

Foreign Office legal advisers - one of whom later resigned - were also said to have been doubtful of the legality of the invasion. Former Cabinet minister Clare Short is among those claiming that Lord Goldsmith had been "leant on" to give a clear judgment that the action would be legal.

The new threat to Mr Blair overshadowed the sharp political row triggered by Michael Howard's decision to ditch the Butler Inquiry into the use of intelligence in the period before the war. The Tory leader faced a wave of Labour and Liberal Democrat criticism after he announced that he was no longer prepared to take part in the inquiry, having earlier agreed to support it.

In a surprise move yesterday, Mr Howard withdrew support, saying that Lord Butler, the former Cabinet secretary who heads the inquiry, had taken an " unacceptably restrictive" view of the scope of his investigation.

He complained that the investigation would look only on " procedures and structures" surrounding intelligence rather than at who was to blame for any errors.

Mr Howard's withdrawal left Labour as the only major party supporting the inquiry, with opponents maintaining the entire process was now a sham and should be dropped.

The inquiry committee, however,

vowed to press on and insisted that it would, in the end, be ready to lay blame. A statement last night said: "The committee must start by looking at structures, processes and systems before considering which, if any, individuals should be held accountable."

The Tory leader's stance was undermined when the party's representative on the Butler committee, former minister Michael Mates, said he was staying put. The Tories said the MP would now be on the committee "in a personal capacity" rather than representing the party. But Lib-Dem leader Charles Kennedy, who had boycotted the process from the start, said Mr Howard's change of mind had left his party looking "ridiculous".