| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting but the Minister has given us an impressive account of the Government's estimates and assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of Iraqi intentions. In that case, why have the Government not produced the promised dossier?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much hope that the dossier that has been referred to will be produced very shortly. I cannot give your Lordships a timeframe on that; I wish I could. However, I realise that that is something for which many of your Lordships have pressed. Indeed, many on the Government Benches would also like to see that published. Therefore, I hope I shall be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on that point.
I should like to address some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—in particular, the point he made concerning health spending. In the past year, Iraq has cut its health spending by more than 50 per cent, compared with the 2000 allocation. The noble Earl spoke very movingly of shortages that were being experienced by ordinary Iraqi people. However, what he did not tell you Lordships was that Iraq has submitted cover for contracts, for example, on 2 billion cigarettes; 181,000 televisions; 500 tonnes of neck ties. Billions of dollars are available. There is no reason for the Iraqi people to want, except as a result of Iraq's callousness in dealing with the needs of its own people. I was sorry about the noble Earl's implication: that the countries of the West which wished to see an effective regime do not have any feelings or care at all for the suffering of the Iraqi people. That suffering can be laid solely at the door of Saddam Hussein.
Many have been asking, especially in the media, why the Iraqi threat has become an issue now. It was, indeed, a point that the noble Baroness made in her opening speech. The simple point is that it has not only just become an issue. Since I have been a Minister—almost five years—in the FCO, the MoD and, again now, in the FCO—one of the major themes of government speeches has been the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction developed by that regime.
As the Prime Minister said last week, to,
- "allow WMD to be developed by a state like Iraq without let or hindrance would be grossly to ignore the lessons of 11th September and we will not do it".
I now turn to the question that many of your Lordships have raised about military action. In recent weeks there has been a great deal of media speculation about the prospects for military action. However, let me be explicit to my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon who I know is very concerned about those issues. Let me emphasise now not only to her but to all your Lordships that no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. As the Prime Minister underlined on Sunday, nobody should fear what he called "precipitate action". We will proceed as we did in the aftermath of 11th September in what the Prime Minister has described as,
- "a calm, measured, sensible and firm way".
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised the question of the legality of any military action. I repeat that there is no decision to take any such action. However, I would emphasise that the Government have never acted outside international law and never will. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, our view on the legal position will depend on the exact circumstances at the time of any decision. To speculate while the question of military action is really a hypothetical issue is, quite honestly, a pointless exercise. However, I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that under NATO treaties we are bound to defend not only ourselves and not only the United States, but also our NATO allies.
I now turn to the question raised by many of your Lordships about whether policy has now changed and whether what we are really interested in is a regime change in Iraq. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, by the right reverend Prelate, and by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. On that question, we are all agreed that it would be best for the Iraqi people, for the security of the region and for the world as a whole, if Saddam Hussein went. That has always been the view of the Government.
However, the objective of Her Majesty's Government is to address the threats posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In answer specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, I cannot do any better than quote the Prime Minister last Sunday when he said:
- "We must be prepared to act where terrorism or WMDs threaten us. Since 11th September the action has been considerable in many countries. If necessary, the action should be military and, again, if necessary and justified, it would involve regime change".
On the question of Iraq's links to terrorists, I thought that the noble Baroness was a little unfair to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. The Government have consistently made it clear that at present we have seen no definitive evidence of a link between Iraq and Al'Qaeda. That is the position at the
moment. But the question put earlier this afternoon to my noble and learned friend concerned Iraqi support for terrorist organisations. Iraq does, indeed, have a long record of supporting terrorism, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the activities of the MEK against Iran, as well as the assassination of political opponents. I believe it was that to which my noble and learned friend referred.Many noble Lords have, quite understandably, again referred to the great and terrible difficulties of the crisis in the Middle East, a situation which I referred to earlier as a potential catastrophe. Of course there is much Arab anger on the streets in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Bahrain and a number of other countries. We have all listened with increasing anxiety to what is happening. However, it is important to remember that Arab leaders also express their detestation and apprehension over what is going on in Iraq and about some of the methods used by Saddam Hussein. Although inevitably we connect these matters, they are separate issues. Although I fully understand that on the streets such issues may spill one into another, we have to approach them as separate matters.
I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that of course we believe that the American initiative is a sincere effort to restore the Middle East peace process. We also believe that the effort being made as late as this afternoon in Madrid in seeking to bring together the quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States represents another extremely important building block in putting together that alliance.
I reject the accusation made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the United Kingdom has not asserted itself. It has done so. We have engaged very effectively indeed. We do not grandstand; we make our arguments to our friends and, indeed, to others in the EU, in the Gulf and in the United States in measured tones. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that diplomacy can be delivered in a firm, quiet voice as a very clear message as well as through a loud-hailer.
I shall pick up on some of the points made by the noble Baroness on what is happening in Afghanistan. I think that the noble Baroness painted a rather gloomy picture and I remind her that ISAF has made an excellent job of establishing security in Kabul. In so doing, it has allowed children to go back to school. My goodness, young women are now being educated for the first time in years. The economy is reviving and shops are thriving. Furthermore, for the first time since the Taliban came to power, people are going about their daily lives. No one is under any illusion that this is anything but an enormously difficult task, but none the less it is one that is going reasonably well.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his customary measured and effective way. The United Nations is the only body that can provide an independent regime for monitoring, verification and, if necessary, the destruction of Iraq's illegal weapons systems and the
facilities for their production. It is essential that UNMOVIC and the IAEA are allowed to fulfil the mandate that they have been given by the Security Council. That is because only full Iraqi co-operation with those conditions will give us the assurance that Iraq no longer has the capability to threaten the Middle East and the wider world with these dreadful weapons systems.Other would-be proliferators around the world have been following the international response to Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes for the past 10 years. If we dare not tackle Saddam Hussein's programmes and effectively move to disarm Iraq, that will send a signal to those countries that crime does pay and that the international community is not prepared to make difficult choices in order to stop proliferation in its tracks. So for this reason we cannot afford to fail in the task to which we have set our hand.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to the debate and other noble Lords for what they have said. I wish to make only one remark before concluding the debate, and to say that this is a matter to which I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that the House will wish to return.
In my view, the battle against terrorism must include winning hearts and minds. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Baroness was rather hard on the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who made a fair point that when people shoot at ambulances, however great the strain they may be under, it does not win support for the battle against terrorism. We must address the effects of such actions. However, I accept what the noble Baroness said, although some of the definitions might give rise to quarrels. For example, are 95-kilometre missiles long-range weapons? Endless arguments of that kind can be put forward, and no doubt we shall return to them.
Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page