text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Iraq - Attorney-General's Advice
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted to reject the motion:
  
  :This House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full.
  
  The new motion in its place passed without a vote:
  
  **This House 
  * ''notes'' the long-standing convention, followed by successive governments, that the advice of the Law Officers is given in confidence and is not disclosed publicly; 
  * ''notes'', however, the Answer given in the House of Lords by the Attorney General on 17th March 2003[1] which set out his view of the legal basis of the use of force against Iraq, and the letter of the same date from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee giving more detail of the legal position; and 
  * ''believes'' that the priority now for the Government is to help the Iraqi people rebuild Iraq.
  
  The Attorney-General's legal advice where it was assumed he made the controversial case that the Iraq invasion was legal under international law, was being requested by a court at the time of this vote.[2] It was eventually published a year later during the 2005 general election.[3]
  
  *[1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-17a.2.3 Lord Goldsmith], House of Lords, 17 March 2003.
  *[2] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3495086.stm Legal quest to see Iraq advice], BBC News, 28 February 2004.
  *[3] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm Iraq war legal advice published], BBC News, 28 April 2005. 
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  