The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
Lord Goldsmith
stated that a number of the Cabinet Ministers present had seen
his
7 March
advice, although things had moved on since then.
857.
Lord Goldsmith
added that the issues were well known in Parliament, but
Cabinet
did not
want to debate them:
“… thinking
about it afterwards, I could sort of understand that … for this
reason: that
actually
debating the legal question with the Attorney General was a
slightly sterile
exercise …
because they could have put to me, ‘What about this and what
about
that?’ and
I would have answered them, but what mattered, I thought, was that
they
needed to
know whether or not this had the certificate, if you like, of the
Attorney
General.
Was it lawful? That was a necessary condition. Then they would need
to
consider
whether it was the right thing to do … So they were looking at the
much
bigger
question of ‘Is it right?’ not just ‘Is it
lawful?’.”377
858.
Asked for his
view on the proposition that there was never a full
discussion
in Cabinet
about his opinion which was “caveated and was finely
balanced”,
Lord Goldsmith
replied that his advice was:
“… caveated
in one respect … It takes the central issue of the interpretation
of 1441
and
identifies that there are two points of view, and then I have come
down in favour
of one of
them.
“The
Cabinet, I’m sure knew that there were two points of view because
that had
been
well-travelled in the press. The caveat was you need to be
satisfied that there
really has
been a failure to take the final opportunity. That, of course, was
something
which was
right in the forefront of Cabinet’s mind, I have no doubt, and I’m
sure was
mentioned
by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and others in the
course
of the
debate. I would expect so.”378
859.
Asked whether
Cabinet should have had a discussion of Lord Goldsmith’s
fuller
opinion
before they came to a decision Lord Turnbull stated: “I think what
they needed
was “yes”
or “no”, and that’s what they got.”379
860.
Asked if he
thought that his Cabinet colleagues would have wished to
have
a discussion
of the considerations in Lord Goldsmith’s full advice, Mr Hoon
replied:
“I’m not
sure that it would be appropriate for Cabinet to have that kind of
discussion,
because, in
the end, what you would be inviting people to do was to speculate
on
the legal
judgment that the Attorney General had reached, and it is not the
same as
having a
political discussion about options or policies.
377
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 216-217.
378
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 218-219.
379
Public
hearing, 13 January 2010, page 69.
154