| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2003 : Column 36—continued
Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland): I wholly welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade President Bush to seek a second resolution in the UN. Would not it be deeply regrettable if the United States—
a founder member of the UN—did anything to undermine the authority of the UN? Would not it have profound implications for the long-term peace and security of the world if the United States took international law into its own hands?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is precisely for that reason that UN resolution 1441 was passed. There are two parts to that deal. The first is that we take the UN route. The second is that if there is a breach of the UN resolution, we act. If we fail to act when there is a breach, it will undermine the UN itself.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): The Prime Minister has indicated that, beyond Iraq, there may be a need to confront weapons of mass destruction in other states, such as North Korea and others. Given that potential longer-term commitment for our military, possibly extended peacekeeping operations and the need for home defence, what review have the Government made of our current defence budget, of personnel levels in the armed forces and of defence procurement?
The Prime Minister: I should not say that I am suggesting that we need take military action in respect of every country where there is a problem with weapons of mass destruction, but our belief as to what our military will need and our defence expenditure must certainly take account of the new situation that we face. That is one reason why, over the next few years, we have, for the first time, a real-terms increase in defence spending.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham): Will the Prime Minister please confirm that he will support military action against Iraq only if the UN weapons inspectors certify that there is a continuing material breach of UN resolution 1441?
The Prime Minister: That is exactly the position that I have outlined. If the inspectors continue to certify that Iraq is not co-operating fully, that is a material breach. It is precisely so that the inspectors can make those findings of fact that we put them there. That is why I said, a moment or two ago, that if Saddam had come
into compliance with the UN inspectors and they certified that, yes, he was fully complying, the issue would not have arisen.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only moral justification for war is self-defence and that one cannot invoke self-defence unless one can honestly say that Saddam Hussein is an imminent and grave threat to peace? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that a resolution of the Security Council, or even the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, do not of themselves, standing alone, constitute a moral justification for war?
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is justified to enforce the will of the United Nations. Even if, as he says, there is no immediate threat to this country, I believe that there is undoubtedly a threat to the security of the world arising from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—particularly in circumstances where the UN makes a determination and the world fails to uphold it.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what economic and commercial pressures, especially with regard to oil contracts, President Bush and the rest of his gang are putting on countries represented in the UN Security Council to approve military action against Iraq? Is there no chance at all of a meeting of the General Assembly of the UN to discuss this most serious matter?
The Prime Minister: The answer on pressure is none. The second point is that the oil is Iraqi oil; it is owned by the Iraqi people. When people tell me that this is all about oil, I return to the point that I have made on many, many occasions: it is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories that we have to face in relation to this matter. If all that Britain, America or any other country wanted was greater access to Iraqi oil, Saddam Hussein would give us that access tomorrow if we withdrew the sanctions regime and the threat of action. We have to deal with the facts, which are that this is about weapons of mass destruction and that any issues to do with contracts and so on will be for the Iraqi people.
Points of Order
4.33 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give me some help? About three weeks ago, I asked a simple factual question of the Home Office to try to ascertain what the No. 10 press office said to the Home Office press office, which led, as it seems, to the acceleration by the immigration and nationality directorate of the deportation of Mr. Peter Foster. I have not received a reply. Can you offer any guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what could be done to get a reply to a question that is three weeks old and could have been answered in 20 minutes?
Mr. Speaker: My suggestion is that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should ring the Minister's office. Failing that, there is also the Public Administration Committee, which could look into the matter.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the House changed its hours recently, we were told that it would not close down in the evenings when we had people coming in for meetings. On 22 January, I chaired a very large anti-war meeting in the Grand Committee Room, with overspill into room W1 and the Jubilee Room. A few minutes before 9 pm, I received several messages from security staff saying that we had to end the meeting at 9 pm. After 9 pm, the pressure increased and because I did not want to take up my concerns with members of staff, who were obviously acting under instructions, I closed the meeting. I have written to the Serjeant at Arms to express my concern, but will you take the matter up for us? Today, on "Woman's Hour" a Member—to whom I have written—categorically denied that we were kicked out of the room, but we were. MPs were at the meeting, as well as about 200 other people. Will you take the matter up on our behalf?
Mr. Speaker: I received this complaint from an hon. Gentleman, and I looked into the matter. The fact of the
matter is that, before the change in hours, 9 o'clock was the limit for having visitors in any of our Committee Rooms. In other words, the hon. Lady had extra hours, so she was not thrown out; she was over time.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State responsible for local government made any request to you to come to the House and make a statement about the total debacle that occurred—not only in London, but across the whole country—owing to a minuscule fall of snow? Many of my constituents, for example, took hours to travel the very small distance from central London to Hampstead, simply because of a total breakdown in public transport and the inability of traffic to move on the roads. Has such a request been made; or will you, on our behalf, urge someone to come and make such a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I have looked into that matter, perhaps because I have a selfish interest: I was held up at Heathrow airport. I can tell the hon. Lady that I understand that Ministers are investigating the matter. I can also report that it is snowing in Glasgow and there is no problem at all.
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance in relation to the previous statement? It now looks increasingly clear that the Bush Administration intend to find a pretext to declare war on Iraq within the next month. As you know, the House has not had an opportunity to debate and vote on the substantive issue of whether we should support such a war. In view of the huge humanitarian consequences that would follow, can you advise us on how we might have an opportunity to vote on whether we would support going down a path that would abandon the pursuit of al-Qaeda simply to become it?
Mr. Speaker: Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.
European Parliament (Representation) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 2
Duty To Consult
- 'Before making any order or regulations under Part 2, the Lord Chancellor shall consult with, and shall have regard for the views expressed by, the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which he expects to seek registration under section 11(3).'—[Mr. Heath.]
4.37 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |