Iraq: Attorney-General's Advice (Hansard, 8 October 2003)

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, it has been the practice of successive governments not to publish advice from the Attorney-General, in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4(d) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Attorney-General made a statement on 17th March setting out his views on the legality of the use of armed force against Iraq, but his advice was not disclosed. The Government are confident that their policies and actions in Iraq are right and consistent with the UK's international obligations. Events in Iraq are closely monitored by the ad hoc ministerial group, which meets every two weeks.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, do the Government recall that on 21 st September the civilian administrator of occupied Iraq, Mr Paul Bremer III, issued an order—order number 39—which allowed for the private purchase of all economic sectors of Iraq up to the limit of 100 per cent of ownership by foreign owners, excluding only natural resources from that huge shock therapy?
Are the Government aware that the Attorney-General is reported to have said that,
wide-ranging reforms of governmental and administrative structures would not be lawful"? If the Government do not wish to disclose the information provided by the Attorney-General, can they assure the House that in their view order number 39 is compatible with paragraph 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, with the Fourth Geneva Convention and with UN Resolution 1483—in which the Government committed themselves to upholding international law in every aspect?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I am aware of the order which was made; in fact, I was in Dubai at the meeting of the World Bank when Iraq's Minister of Finance made the announcement on the private purchase of sectors of Iraq. That decision was taken by the Iraqi 294 Governing Council and endorsed by the CPA. I will write to the noble Baroness on her specific points on the 1907 Hague Regulations.

§ Lord Archer of Sandwell
My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that, prior to her very welcome translation, the House was assured from the Front Bench on more than one occasion that a regime change formed no part of the Government's purpose because that would not be a lawful justification for military action, although admittedly it was implied that if that were an unintended consequence of the invasion the Government would not be inconsolable? That being so, how can the Government justify condoning the imposition of a totally new economic regime which has not been endorsed by the people of Iraq?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, the Iraqi Governing Council is seeking to carry out a number of responsibilities, and the CPA and the occupying forces want to hand over power to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. For example, as my noble and learned friend will know, a constitutional group is meeting and has made proposals to the Governing Council to which the Governing Council will have to reply. As for my noble and learned friend's point on regime change, we have always been absolutely clear that our reasons for entering into conflict related to the flouting of UN resolutions and the threat of WMD in Iraq.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, surely she could be putting a rather stronger case in meeting the very acute criticisms and comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Surely Resolution 1483 does empower the occupying power and indeed the Governing Council to go ahead with the necessary restructuring. Surely one outcome of that has been some very substantial moves forward in currency reform, in inward investment, in the reinvolvement of some of the great trading families of the Middle East, in the renewal of infrastructure and in the fact that electricity is now running at the same levels as it was before the invasion and heading for even better levels. Is there not a very strong case for encouraging both the provisional authority and the Governing Council to continue these economic reforms which, despite all the difficulties in the Sunni triangle, are leading rapidly to a better Iraq which will be more prosperous for all its people?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, of course improvements are happening every day in Iraq. I take the noble Lord's point although, as he said, the security situation remains fragile. However, I return to my original Answer. We are seeking to hand over power to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we cannot have our cake and eat it. We cannot talk about handing over authority to the Governing Council, but complain 295 when the Governing Council makes decisions—given that it is Iraqis making decisions on behalf of other Iraqis—about the economic future of Iraq.

§ Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, does my noble friend agree—

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords—

Noble Lords
This side!

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I think that the Labour Benches have not yet had an opportunity.

§ Lord Goodhart
They have, my Lords.

Noble Lords
Order.

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I think there is sufficient time if both noble Lords are very quick. I suggest that we take the question from my noble friend and then the question from the noble Lord.

§ Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, in his Written Answer to me on 17th March, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said that the,
Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441", which were passed under Chapter VII, which itself explicitly,
allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".—[Official Report, 17/3/03; WA2.] Does my noble friend agree that what Her Majesty's Government have done and are doing in Iraq is entirely consistent with that?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's comments.

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, on 24th September, in a leader, the Financial Times said that the appointed interim Governing Council of Iraq does not have, the political authority to sell off chunks of Iraq's national assets". It said that that, is a decision that will require the legitimacy of an elected government. Otherwise there will be no shortage of forces in Iraq … to present it as a second looting of the country". Does the Leader of the House agree with that? If so, is it not plainly untimely to think of selling off long-term assets now?

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, UN Security Council Resolution 1483 set out the terms under which the next phases in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq should take place. In that context, the Governing Council, fully supported by the CPA, made decisions with respect to the economic future of Iraq.