|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
12 Mar 2003 : Column 278continued
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the replies to that question given just now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In many cases, these vicious attacks have left victims physically and mentally scarred for life. They are the exact opposite of what the Belfast agreement is all about. Those who sanction and carry out the attacks are the enemies of the transition to a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, which is what we are seeking to establish.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): As set out in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is undertaking work with a view to making recommendations to the Government on the scope for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. At this stage, the Government's position is only to encourage broad participation in the process. To that end, I welcome the engagement of the Northern Ireland political parties in response to the request of the chief commissioner and would urge those who have not yet done so to become actively involved.
Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's response, but may I encourage him to go further and tell the House whether the Government intend to include the controversial issue of Drumcree and other parades in Northern Ireland in any future Bill of Rights?
Mr. Browne: It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to anticipate the advice that we will be given by the Human Rights Commission, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that the Government's position is that all issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland that could be broadly covered by the description of being within the scope of a Bill of Rights, taking into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, are issues that ought to be discussed in the context of the process.
Peter Bradley : Which is the lesser threat to global security: allowing more time for Iraq's disarmament or, in disarming Iraqparticularly in view of the French President's commitment to exercise his vetodividing the international community? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that so long as there is a prospect of rebuilding an international coalition under the authority of the United Nations, he will resist US pressure for precipitate action?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly do everything I can to make sure that the international community stays united at this time and that we achieve a second UN resolution. The reason why we should have such a resolution, as my hon. Friend's question implies, is that, for many months now, we have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to come fully into compliance with the resolution that was passed unanimously by the UN. It is time that he did so. If he does, even now conflict can be averted. But the worst thing that could happen is for the will of the UN to be expressed so clearly, for him to defy that will and for no action to follow at all.
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is our intention to put a vote to the UN on a second resolution. We continue to work for that, flat out, and we will do that in a way that most upholds the authority of the UN.
Mr. Duncan Smith: If such a vote takes place, it may not be carried or it may even be vetoed. The House of Commons and the British people have a right to know now where the Government stand in that event. Is it now the case that if there is no second resolution, the United States will go to war without the UK?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the latter part, where the right hon. Gentleman asks about the United States going it alone, let me say this to him and to the House. It is true that the United States could go alone and, of course, this country should not take military action unless it is in our interests to do so. It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times. But I believe that it is important that we hold firm to the course that we have set out because what is at stake is not whether the United States goes alone or not, but whether the international community is prepared to
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister will therefore be aware that, particularly overnight, there has been some confusion among our allies and among various parties including his own. To clear up that confusion, will he confirm today that he could commit British forces to a war without the backing of a second resolution, although he still intends to go for that, and we agree with him?
The Prime Minister: I have set out on many occasions the circumstances in which we would take action. At the moment, however, the best thing is to go flat out for that second UN resolution. I am trying to do so, and it might help if I were to tell the House the types of things that we are discussing with other partners in the UN at the moment. What we are looking at is whether we can set out a clear set of tests for Iraq to meet to demonstrate that it is in full compliancenot partial compliance but full compliance. For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, it should produce either the thousands of litres of anthrax unaccounted for or the documentation showing that it is destroyed. For example, given that, since the last resolution in November, not one Iraqi scientist has been interviewed outside Iraq, where they and their families can be guaranteed safety, we should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place. For example, Iraq should produce the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can spray chemical and biological poison, or, again, produce the documentation showing that they are destroyed. If we set out those conditions clearly, and back them with the will of a united UN, we have a chance, even now, of averting conflict. What we must show, however, is the determination to act if Saddam will not comply fully.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister, and he has confirmed in that answer that he keeps the option of committing British troops to war with or without a second resolution. Does the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility therefore apply to that position?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State for International Development said that she would not support military action without a second resolution. I remind the Prime Minister that, amazingly, she called him "reckless". The Prime Minister can either have Cabinet collective responsibility or his Secretary of State for International Development. Which will it be?
The Prime Minister: I agree that it is an embarrassment to find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, or him in agreement with me, on the issue of Iraq, but we are agreed. Rather than scoring points, which are perfectly acceptable and which I
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows that we agree about the principles of what he has been trying to do. I must remind him, however, of exactly what the Secretary of State for International Development said. It is remarkable. She said that
Surely if the right hon. Gentleman cannot convince his Cabinet, it will be very difficult to convince the British people. Surely the Prime Minister's big tent is not big enough to include both the Secretary of State for International Development and Donald Rumsfeld. It is time for him to choose: which will it be?
The Prime Minister: The one thing that I have found in the last few weeks is that I have not been short of advice from anyone on this issue. The most important thing for us to do as a House, never mind as a Government or a country, especially with our armed forces facing the potential of action, is to come together, to work hard in the United Nations to secure the second resolution and to try to make sure that we send the strongest possible signal to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm or face the consequences. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that it is better to concentrate on that than on the points that he has just made.
Q2.  Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): The whole House will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to resolve the present crisis through the United Nations. But may I take him back for a moment to January 1998, more than five years ago, and to a letter written by several members of the Republican right in the United States, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, to President Clinton? In one sentence of that letter, having said that American interests in the Gulf now require military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to produce regime change, they say:
It says nothing about disarmament, nothing about human rights and nothing about terrorism. Is not that the smoking gun?
The Prime Minister: Again, one of the things that I have found is that I cannot actually answer for the comments of every member of every Administration around the worldincluding, occasionally, even my own, as has just been pointed out. I would say to my hon. Friend simply this. Rather than debate the wealth of conspiracy theories and comments from the Republican right or the Democrat left, or this part or that part, why do we not just work out what is the right thing to do and do it? We should work out the right thing to do, whatever anyone else may say. We went through the United Nations because we believe in it, but I said at the beginningwhen we went down the UN route in September last yearthe UN must be the way of dealing with this, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. That is why it is important now, four and a bit months
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister that a war on Iraq in the absence of a second United Nations resolution authorising force would be legal? What advice has the Attorney-General given?
The Prime Minister: No, what Kofi Annan has been sayingand I agree with himis that it is important that the UN comes together. That is why we are trying to provide a basis, a compromise even at this stage, that allows us to resolve the matter properly. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that it is complicated to get that agreement at the UN when one nation is saying that whatever the circumstances it will veto a resolution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that we cannot have such a situation and that we have to ensure that we deal with the issue in the terms of resolution 1441, which we allincluding the right hon. Gentlemanagreed upon.
Q3.  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): While the attention of the world is understandably focused on Iraq, the everyday crisis in Israel and Palestine continues and worsens, particularly for millions of Palestinians but also for many Israeli citizens. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to keep alive what faint hope exists in the middle east peace process, and in particular, will he call on the new Israeli Government not to take the opportunity of the focus on Iraq to further undermine the already precarious position of Palestinians and their society?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says and I emphasise to him that we remain firmly committed to taking forward the middle east peace process. I welcome the decision to appoint Abu Mazen as Prime Minister for the Palestinian Authority. That is a good, forward and progressive move, and I hope that it will get an echo from the Israeli side. I believe that there will be very few people in the middle east and the Arab world who shed tears for Saddam
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): What was the legal basis in international law for war against Yugoslavia, and if that did not require a UN resolution why does the Iraqi situation require one?
The Prime Minister: As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolution 1441 gives the legal basis for this. The reason we have been seeking a second resolution is, as I said to the Liaison Committee when I appeared before it, that it is highly desirable to demonstrate the unified will of the international community.
Q4.  Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that he has done the right thing over many months in restraining the American President from taking precipitate action, and in working instead through the United Nations? Is it not important, as the hours and days tick by, that he use all his efforts to tell President Bush that we need another UN resolution and that there is no need for an unseemly haste to war?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important that we do everything that we can to achieve that second UN resolution. To be frank, many people thought that we might be in action even now, but we are not. We have delayed precisely in order to try to bring the international community back round the position that we set out in 1441. I go back to that the whole time. It was at the heart of the agreement that the United States take the multilateral path of the United Nations. The agreement was very simple. The United States had to agree to go through the United Nations, and to resolve this through the United Nations, but the other partners inside the United Nations agreed that, if Saddam did not fully comply and was in material breach, serious consequences and action would follow. The fact is, he has not complied. Four and a half months onindeed, 12 years onhe has not complied. That it why it is important that we bring this issue to a head now and get it resolved. I remain, as I say, working flat out to get it resolved through the United Nations. That is easily the best thing. It will be a tragedy for the UN, when faced with this challenge, if it fails to meet it. However, we have to ensure that the unified will, as set out in 1441, is implemented.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): May I bring the Prime Minister to matters domestic, and in particular education, education, education? Is he aware that Leicestershire is the worst funded education authority in the country under the new education formula spending shares? Last week, I had a meeting with some 30 governors, all of whom will have to set deficit budgets because their funding from the Government this year is 1 per cent. less in real terms than it was last year. The governors are talking about redundancies. Will the Prime Minister address this matter, and is he surprised that people in Leicestershire believe very little that he says?
Q5.  Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell): Given that, tomorrow, there will be a day of action across the European Union opposing the general agreement on trade in services; and given that the EU's requests for the liberalisation of services under the current GATS negotiations have recently been published, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a moratorium on the negotiations until we in the developed world can carry out detailed and thorough impact assessmentsof the environmental impact, for examplethat will result from a liberalisation of services?
The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and some non-governmental organisations on GATS. When we talk to the developing countries, they tell us that they are keen for things to move forward. Whatever we do, it is important to put their interests first, because they are desperate to get the markets liberalised.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): When will this House have a vote on whether to commit troops to war in Iraq? Does the Prime Minister agree with his defence Minister, who said yesterday that war was "pretty damn inevitable"? If so, why?
I have made it clear on many occasions, as has the Foreign Secretary, thatsubject to the security and safety of our troops, which must come firstwe believe that it is right that this House has a say on this issue. People will then be able to see the stand that we take, and people will then have to make up their minds as to the stand that they take.