Prime Minister’s Questions, yesterday (with my empahasis):

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Are full texts of Law Officers’ advice on matters of peace and war made available to the Cabinet as a whole, or just to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: It depends on whether the Attorney-General actually attends Cabinet. In the instance that is being raised in the newspapers this morning, the Attorney-General himself came to Cabinet and therefore gave an oral report on his advice.

Clare Short, writing in the Independent, yesterday (again, with my empahasis):

When the Attorney came to the Cabinet on 17 March, the text of what purported to be his advice was distributed around the table. He began to read it out. There were murmurings indicating that he did not need to read it as members of the Cabinet could read it for themselves. I then attempted to initiate a discussion. I asked why it was so late and whether he had changed his mind. No discussion was allowed. The paper he provided was then published as an answer to a parliamentary question.

So the cabinet don’t have to see the “full texts of Law Officers’ advice on matters of peace and war” if the “the Attorney-General himself came to Cabinet and therefore gave an oral report on his advice”. But according to Short, “the paper he provided was then published as an answer to a parliamentary question”. Which means, by Short’s account, the Cabinet neither saw nor heard the full advice as Blair intimates.

And then this:

Prime Minister’s Questions, again (with my empahasis):

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): In response to the Father of the House, the Prime Minister said that the question whether Cabinet colleagues were entitled to the full opinion of the Law Officer depended on certain circumstances. Will he now tell the House and the country why a written opinion is good enough for him, but only an oral opinion is right for the rest of the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: Let me elaborate on what I said earlier. The Attorney-General came to the Cabinet, gave his opinion in detail and was able to answer any queries that people raised about the matter. I really do not understand what is being said by the hon. Gentleman and others. If it is being said that the legal opinion of the Attorney-General was different from the Attorney-General’s statement to the House, that is patently absurd. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and others that, as a result of evidence that has emerged subsequent to the Iraq war, it is perfectly obvious that there were indeed multiple breaches of UN resolutions—and it was on the basis of breaches of UN resolutions that we went to war.

Clare Short, again, yesterday (again, with my empahasis):

When the Attorney came to the Cabinet on 17 March, the text of what purported to be his advice was distributed around the table. He began to read it out. There were murmurings indicating that he did not need to read it as members of the Cabinet could read it for themselves. I then attempted to initiate a discussion. I asked why it was so late and whether he had changed his mind. No discussion was allowed. The paper he provided was then published as an answer to a parliamentary question.

Hmmm. Blair says there was discussion and Short says there was not. Either one is lying to the Independent or one is lying to Parliament.

And how about that, “If it is being said that the legal opinion of the Attorney-General was different from the Attorney-General’s statement to the House, that is patently absurd“? The use of language rang a bell…

“We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.”

UPDATE: More in today’s Independent.

Posted on March 10th, 2005 at 10:03 am

See also • You wouldn’t let it lie • …and telling you its raining • Unbelievable		Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • •
Filed under Iraq, T.W.A.T., UK politics