The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
874.
After further
questioning, Mr Brown told the Inquiry:
“I think in
retrospect, people, as historians … will look at it very carefully
… and
what was
said between different people at different times and what were the
first
… second …
and the third drafts. But the issue for us was very clear … Did
the
Attorney
General, who is our legal officer who is responsible for giving us
legal
advice …
have a position … that was unequivocal? And his position on this
was
unequivocal.
“… [I]t
laid the basis on which we could take a decision, but it wasn’t the
reason that
we made the
decisions. He gave us the necessary means … but it wasn’t
sufficient
875.
Asked if his
view would have changed if he had known that 10 days before
the
Cabinet
discussion Lord Goldsmith’s position had been equivocal,
Mr Brown stated:
“I don’t
think it would have changed my view, because unless he was
prepared
to say that
his unequivocal advice was that this was not lawful, then the
other
arguments
that I thought were important … the obligations to the
international
community,
the failure to honour them, the failure to disclose, the failure to
discharge
the spirit
and letter of the resolutions, particularly 1441 … But it seemed to
me the
Attorney
General’s advice was quite unequivocal.”394
876.
Asked whether
Cabinet was able to take a genuinely collective decision or if it
was
being asked
to endorse an approach at a time when the die had effectively been
cast,
Mr Brown
replied:
“I have got
to be very clear. I believed we were making the right decisions for
the
right
cause. I believed I had sufficient information before me to make a
judgement
… I wasn’t
trying to do the job of the Foreign Secretary or trying to second
guess
something
that had happened at other meetings. I was looking at the issue on
its
merits and
… I was convinced of the merits of our case.”395
877.
Asked if he
thought he should have seen the full legal advice, Lord Boateng
said:
“On
reflection, I think it would have been helpful if we had seen it. I
think we would
have had a
fuller debate and discussion and I think that we ought to have
been
trusted
with it, frankly. But be that as it may, we weren’t, and we
therefore acted
upon the
best legal advice we had. I don’t think, if we had seen the full
opinion,
we would
necessarily have come to a different conclusion. I think it would
have been
helpful if
we had seen it. We didn’t.”396
393
Public
hearing, 5 March 2010, pages 53-54.
394
Public
hearing, 5 March 2010, page 54.
395
Public
hearing, 5 March 2010, pages 55-56.
396
Public
hearing, 14 July 2010, page 11.
158