If I ask you, as a lawyer, for advice on something, and you say to me, ‘Here are the six areas I am concerned about, but on balance I think what you’re proposing is legal’, I would not describe that advice as unequivocal Would you?Straw: Well … what I would describe as unequivocal is the clear view that the Attorney General set out in the Lords on 17 March.JH: Yes, but all Lord Goldsmith did was produce a 337-word written reply in the Lords That’s all.JS: Yes, but, hang on a second. Lord Butler also looked at the whole of the legal advice as well.JH: .. I’m not talking about Lord Butler. I’m talking about what the Attorney General said to the Prime Minister.JS: No And I was present, John You were not present at the Cabinet on 17 March Lord Butler’s advice to the Cabinet was very clear. And Lord Butler’s advice was fully reflected in the view he offered on 17 March later in the day. Now …JH: No! Look, there is a ministerial code of conduct that requires the full text of any legal advice to be made available to such cabinet meetings No other papers were provided And that is the reality.

I wasn’t there but if you’re going to tell me I’m wrong about that I’d be interested to hear it.JS: Yeah and also .. if you .. I haven’t .. if you look at .. I’ve dealt with this, and .. keep your hair on. Er, I dealt with this …JH: It’s a serious issue and I’m trying to be serious about it.JS: It’s a very, very serious issue. The Attorney General came to his view, he offered the view, it was unequivocal, the Prime Minister was right. There have been four separate inquiries into this, including…JH: No there haven’t.JS: Yes, excuse me …JH: No there haven’t.JS: Yes, yes excuse me a second.

There have been four separate inquiries into …JH: No.JS: None of those have said for a second that the Prime Minister lied or deceived anybody …JH: Right, let me take you up on that There have indeed been four inquiries. None of those reviews address the question that you have just raised.JS: Well, with great respect…JH: None of them.JS: I just want to say this, John; there were always, around the world and in the United Kingdom, two views about whether or not a military action without a second resolution following 1441 was going to be justified. Some people took the view that there had to be a second resolution. Others – and we in the United Kingdom were clear about this – took the view that it imposed very clear, further obligations on Saddam Hussein. And if he failed to meet those obligations, the authority for the use of force, set out in an earlier resolution, 687 and 678, would be revived.JH: Before you leave that, it was the view of the Attorney General in that document on 7 March, that it was the UN, not Mr Blair, not the UK government that should rule on resolutions breaches.JS: I am not confirming the contents of what is alleged to have been …JH: Well then, it makes this a very difficult conversation because you can put up any number of smokescreens Can’t you?JS: Well no, with great respect I’m not confirming what is alleged to have been in a …

leaked document.JH: Are you denying it?JS: All parties …JH: Are you denying it?JS: I’m simply not confirming it.JH: So what does that mean? I’m sorry, I’m not going to let you get away with that because if you’re not denying it then I and the listeners of this programme are entitled to assume it’s accurate, aren’t they?JS: Well, they’re not entitled to assume it’s accurate, either But let me just deal with this issue. There was always a question as to whether or not 1441 revived the use of force set out in 687 and 678 Now … when this issue was before the Commons in the Blair government, in 1998, over the US-UK operation against Iraq, the Liberal Democrats took the view that there was no need even for a first resolution 1441…JH: I’m really not concerned with what view the Liberal Democrats took on anything …I’m trying to talk to you about the Attorney General and the advice he gave to the Prime Minister and the way the Prime Minister presented that advice to us, and you seem remarkably reluctant to address that question.JS: I’m certainly addressing it, and the advice was very clearly set out in the Attorney General’s view that he put before the Lords … Charles Kennedy called on voters to punish the Prime Minister for his decision to invade Iraq, saying it would be a central issue in the general election.