5 |
Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to
March 2003
132.
Sir Michael
added that he had explained in a meeting with Lord Goldsmith
“as
late as
January 2003” that his “position within the FCO was becoming very
difficult”
since he
was still having to advise Mr Straw and others “without being
able to refer to”
Lord Goldsmith’s
advice, even though he was “aware of his [Lord Goldsmith’s]
thinking
at that
time”.
133.
Sir Michael
told the Inquiry:
“… it was
certainly a problem for me within the Foreign Office, because I was
having
to react to
public statements by Ministers, to prepare briefings for people, on
the
basis of my
views, without having a definitive view from the Attorney, although
I think
I know what
his thinking was at that time.
“So I think
it was a problem in terms of giving legal advice within the Foreign
Office
… in the
broader sense … it was a problem for government as a whole,
because
they really
needed advice, even if they didn’t want it at that stage, in order
to develop
their
policy in the weeks leading up to the failure to get the second
resolution.”45
134.
Asked what he
meant, Sir Michael added:
“I think it
was clear to me that the Attorney would give advice when he was
asked for
it, and
there were various stages when he was not asked for it … [M]y
impression
was that
there was a reluctance in some quarters to seek the Attorney’s
advice too
135.
Asked whether
it would have helped if his advice had been provided
earlier,
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry that he did not think so. He said he
had:
“… been at
pains, as you have seen, to try to make sure that those who
were
moulding
the policy didn’t have a misunderstanding about, at least, what my
view
might be
and I had been involved …”47
136.
Lord Goldsmith
added:
“My view
was, if I thought it was necessary for a Minister to know, I would
tell them,
whether
they wanted to hear it or not.”
137.
Asked if he
had been involved at the right time in terms of policy
development,
Lord
Goldsmith stated:
“I don’t
know. I don’t know what difference, if any, it would have made. My
own
view is
that it is right that the Senior Legal Adviser, and all Legal
Advisers, should
be involved
in the policy development, because that helps Ministers, once
you
45
Public
hearing, 26 January 2010, page 39.
46
Public
hearing, 26 January 2010, page 40.
47
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 101.
31