§ 3.8 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there was or will be any threat to use nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom or the United States in the dispute with Iraq.
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, the United Kingdom would only ever use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances and in self-defence. There are sufficient conventional forces available to us for a proportionate response to any situation that might arise in the Gulf. US military policy with regard to Iraq is a matter for them.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer, in so far as it refers to this country, is entirely satisfactory and I thank him for it? But is it the case that the decision to utilise, if necessary, what my noble and charming friend Lady Symons 378 described in reply to my Question for Written Answer as "severest consequences" does not include nuclear weapons?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, the phrase "severest consequences" arises from the Security Council resolution which followed the agreement between the Iraqi Government and the Secretary-General. That makes absolutely clear that if Iraq were to breach that agreement it could be faced with very severe consequences indeed. In those circumstances a military assessment would need to be made. The position of the United Kingdom Government would remain as I explained in my earlier Answer.
§ Lord BurnhamMy Lords, may I express the hope to the Minister that contingency plans were made for any eventuality in the recent Iraq crisis covering any form of reaction that might have been required to anything done by the Iraqis? Does the Minister agree that that would include anything nuclear?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I believe that the House has accepted the position enunciated by my noble friend Lady Symons that it would not be sensible in this House to discuss which options were considered and which were not. As I say, the general position as regards the use of nuclear weapons remains as stated.
§ Lord Randall of St. BudeauxMy Lords, is it not the case that the principle behind all this is that nuclear weapons are a deterrent? Bearing in mind that it has been decided that the threat from Saddam Hussein could affect the whole of the Middle East and indeed the world, should we not look at the way in which we deal with him and in that context should not the potential use of all weapons be considered?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I have nothing to add to my previous answers as regards options. In pursuit of the agreement between the Secretary-General and Saddam Hussein, clearly a lot depends on the reports from the UNSCOM inspectorate. Some progress has been made and decisions will have to be made in the light of its final report.