text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Iraq - Attorney-General's Advice
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting No rejected the motion before Parliament which read:</p>
  
  <blockquote>This House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full.</blockquote>
  
  <p>The new motion which was proposed and was passed without a vote read:</p>
  
  <blockquote>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 <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030317/text/30317w01.htm#30317w01_sbhd3">Answer given in the House of Lords by the Attorney General on 17th March 2003</a> 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.</blockquote>
  
  <p>The Attorney-General's legal advice where it was assumed he made the controversial case that the Iraq invasion was legal under international law, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3495086.stm">was being discussed</a> in the public at this time.  After stalling for a further year, the legal advice was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm"> finally published</a> in the midst of the 2005 general election.</p>
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  