The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
“… If that
kind of doubt had begun to emerge about where we were going, that
ought
to have
been fed into every conversation the Foreign Secretary was having
with
Secretary
of State Powell, indeed the conversations that were taking place
above
that and
below it and at the USUN … that would have been a huge impact on
the
whole way
the negotiations were going without any doubt at all.”
1044.
Mr Pattison,
who was in daily contact with the UK Mission in New York,
and
Mr Ricketts,
who spoke frequently to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, were both
aware
of the
decision taken on 17 October, the views of the FCO Legal Advisers,
and
Lord
Goldsmith’s conversation with Mr Straw on 18
October.
1045.
The FCO’s
arrangements to provide instructions to the UK Mission in
New
York on a
day by day basis should have meant that Sir Jeremy and
Mr Macleod
were both
aware of the essential points made by the FCO Legal Advisers
and
Lord Goldsmith
which were of direct relevance to the negotiations.
1046.
Mr Pattison
told the Inquiry he had assumed that there had been
direct
contact
between the FCO Legal Advisers and Mr Macleod.
1047.
Mr Pattison
told the Inquiry that he had not discussed Lord Goldsmith’s advice
to
Mr Straw
with Mr Macleod, asserting that Mr Macleod’s contacts
with the Foreign Office
“were
entirely with Legal Advisers, as was proper and appropriate at the
time”; and that
he had
“assumed that the Legal Advisers were talking to each other
offline, privately in
telephone
conversations”.396
1048.
Mr Pattison
told the Inquiry that Mr Macleod “had a different opinion on
the
interpretation
of the text, as of course, did United States’
lawyers”.397
1049.
Mr Pattison
would have been:
“…
surprised if the Mission in New York wasn’t aware that Iain
Macleod’s views were
not
endorsed by the Foreign Office Legal Adviser”.398
1050.
Mr Pattison
told the inquiry that he was “surprised” that UKMIS New York was
not
aware of
the Lord Goldsmith’s views of 18 October:
“Jeremy
must have had regular conversations with Peter Ricketts … I would
have
thought
that the evolution of the Attorney General’s view was a subject in
them …”
1051.
Mr Grainger’s
minutes of 4 and 11 October and the FCO telegram
of 21 October
were sent to the UK Mission in New York.
396
Public
hearing, 31 January 2011, pages 31‑32.
397
Public
hearing, 31 January 2011, page 31.
398
Public
hearing, 31 January 2011, page 33.
382