Iraq

HL Deb 10 April 2002 vol 633 cc432-69

4.23 p.m.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

rose to call attention to the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and to the case for resuming United Nations inspections there; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now moving on from the Statement to a debate about Iraq. Having very much welcomed the Prime Minister's Statement on the crisis in the Middle East, the question of an approach towards Iraq to deal with the problems thrown up by that country raises huge and uncertain issues which need to be discussed in Parliament. We on these Benches have therefore decided to give up a part of our normal debate time in order to discuss this issue. We believe that it is crucially important that Parliament should debate the matter because there are so many profound uncertainties and because the consequences of getting decisions wrong will be extraordinarily grave for the whole world, not least for the area that we have just been discussing. Indeed, given the chaos in the Middle East at the present time, to extend the existing military actions to include Iraq could well plunge the whole of the region into a serious and major international war, with the most profound repercussions on any prospects for peace and the effective maintenance of the coalition against terrorism, of which we are a part.

Nothing I propose to say should in any way cast doubt on the terrible record of Saddam Hussein. We all recognise that what he has done to his own people, quite apart from people in other parts of the world, cannot be defended by any conscientious man or woman. That is not what is at stake at present. What is at stake is how we deal with the challenge posed by Iraq in a way that most limits the repercussions on other parts of the world—riot least the Middle East—and that effectively deals with the concerns that have been rightly raised at the UN and elsewhere.

I do not want to take up more of the time of the House than I should. I shall therefore set out five issues and say a little about each. The first issue is whether the Iraqi problem throws up an acute crisis at the present time. I can say straightaway that the present crisis in regard to Iraq leads on to issues relating to the relationship between the moderate Arab governments and the governments of the western world. It is disturbing that over the past month one moderate Arab government after another has given warnings about the possible consequences of a military attack on Iraq.

It is of great significance that several of those Arab governments and one that is not an Arab government but a crucial ally in NATO—Turkey—have linked that directly to what is currently happening on the West Bank, as they see it, to the Palestinians. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Turkey used extreme language when he spoke about genocide. I do not believe that kind of language to be justified, but it shows how far even relatively moderate governments have been pushed by the events that have unrolled in the past few days.

My first question concerns whether this is a crisis to which Parliament should devote its time. I believe that it is. The evidence of rising public opinion in one key allied Arab state after another means that we need to think very carefully about the way in which the whole issue should be handled. In the past couple of days there have been riots in the area of the Gulf states of a kind that have not been seen for many years. There have been statements by Mr Mubarak, the President of Egypt, and by the Crown Prince of Jordan which show how troubled they are by public opinion, which increasingly asserts itself loudly in favour of a solidarity with the Palestinians and, beyond that, even with Iraq. So this is an issue which profoundly justifies debate.

Secondly, what evidence is there that Iraq is consistently linked to terrorist causes? The Leader of the House said that there was evidence that Iraq was linked to terrorist movements concerning the Middle East, but he did not list what they were. I, for one, have looked extremely carefully at all the information available to us through the Internet and other bodies to which we belong—in my case, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in Harvard and the International Crisis Group, of which I am a member of the board that met at the weekend—but I cannot find any decisive evidence to link Iraq to the Al'Qaeda network. I believe that Iraq is far too cautious to allow itself to be caught in that way. That is not to say that it may not be linked to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist movements in the Middle East.

Anyone who looks into the huge amount of information available at the present time will find that it is consistently contradictory and that one person's word or piece of evidence is denied by another. One of the most difficult things to do in regard to this issue is to find out what is going on. Members of this House will recall, for example, that an announcement of the discovery of an advanced biological laboratory in Afghanistan, providing biological weapons, was gainsaid only a few days later by no less than the American intelligence services, who said that they had not found such evidence. So, even among our own intelligence sources, there appears to be considerable conflict as to what can be relied on and what cannot. In that situation, the test of deliberation is extremely significant and important.

In this context, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the excellent study—one of the most detailed and careful studies undertaken—on behalf of the conference of the Bishops of the Church of England. Even that study, which is expressed in the most moderate terms, concludes that Iraq has actually obeyed to a great extent or to a considerable extent seven of the eight resolutions laid down in the ceasefire agreement that followed the Gulf War. Our distinguished Minister has pointed out that the Iraqis have flouted one UN resolution after another. She is correct. The Church of England report is correct too. It simply demonstrates again how extraordinarily difficult it is to find out what is the actual solid fact in this extraordinary miasma of information.

Thirdly, what is happening presently in terms of the build-up of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Again, if we go back to the 1999 report of the inspectors of the United Nations Secretary-General at the point at which the UNSCOM inspection effort was wound up, we find that UNSCOM claimed that it had largely stopped the Iraqi nuclear programme, that in its view it had gone a long way to damage the chemical programme, but that it could not report similar success with regard to biological weapons.

No one doubts that the retention of weapons of mass destruction by a country as evil in its intent as Iraq—at least, under the present administration—presents to the world a major threat. But, fourthly, how is it to be dealt with? Here, we enter areas of profound uncertainty. The first concerns international law. As Jessica Matthews, the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has pointed out in a powerful article, there is no concept of "regime change" in international law. Indeed, if we think about it, there could not be—because every country can imagine several regimes that it would like to see changed. An example in our case is that of Zimbabwe. It is simply an open door through which all kinds of grievances can go.

However, there is certainly international law in terms of the demands on Iraq to accept, without condition, the return of the inspectors. That is solidly based on United Nations resolutions. It would be right and proper—I hope that the Minister can assure us of this—that the very first step must be to see that every possible pressure is brought to bear on Iraq, not least by her Arab neighbours, to accept the return of the inspectors without condition. Incidentally, that means inspectors much more sophisticated in their techniques and much more independent in their contracts than was the case with the previous inspection regime. UNMOVIC is by any standards an impressive operation, and Mr Blix, who is in charge of it, believes that it could do a very effective job. So, yes, there must be inspection if we can possibly get it. If we cannot, there must be an approach based on international law, which is at the heart of a counter-terrorist attack. That must mean a United Nations resolution.

I have two final questions. First, do we have a thought-through strategy as regards what might be done, assuming that it could be brought within the law, to topple the present Iraqi regime? I must confess that I am extremely frightened about the plan that I have heard advanced in American quarters, or at least in some American quarters, for using the Shiah in the south and the Kurds in the north as a kind of pincer operation on Iraq. The potential for breaking Iraq open on ethnic lines is put at the highest level by such an approach. Frankly, to take only one example, it is quite hard to believe that Turkey would welcome an approach that broke open Iraq and produced out of it a huge demand for an independent Kurdistan, which would almost inevitably flow from such an effect. The Iraqi opposition forces carry nothing like the conviction that was carried by the opposition forces, for example, in Kosovo or, before that, in Bosnia.

Lastly, I am troubled by the increasing neglect of the second element of the Government's strategy. I do not particularly blame the Government for that, because it is an alliance strategy. The strategy against terrorism was always a combination of two parts: military attacks and an effective peace-building process. Over the weekend, at the International Crisis Group, we heard a number of reports from Afghanistan which showed all too clearly that order outside Kabul had not been established; that parts of Afghanistan were reverting to the warlords and that there was feuding between them; that, increasingly, crime and disorder are to be found in that country; and ISAF, the British-led security force, has great problems due to lack of resources and lack of manpower.

An effective strategy must be based on an ability to reconstruct and build the peace in the nations that we have rescued, we may feel, from terrorism; otherwise, terrorism will simply breed again in the shards of destruction that have been left behind. Those with a classical education will recall the famous phrase: They made a desolation, and they called it peace". If there is to be something greater than desolation, it has to be the building and construction of peace. That requires at least as much effort as any military attack that might be made. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

4.37 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has shown political skill, as well as some good fortune, in bringing us back to real politics after yesterday's superbly managed ritual, by considering one of the most central and dangerous problems in the world. The Motion has particular relevance in view of the Statement that we have just heard. The fact that the Statement was brought forward so that we could hear it before this debate indicates how the problem of Iraq is tied up with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Although most people would agree that the return of UNSCOM—now UNMOVIC—to Iraq would be a desirable goal, current US suggestions that any weapons inspection team in Iraq should be allowed to go where it wants, when it wants, and without prior notification, is mistaken. Not surprisingly, so far, this approach has met with flat rejection by the Iraqis, even under the not-so-veiled threat of war as the alternative. Such a rejection may be exactly what the hawks in the United States administration want, since it would then be easier for them to justify a military means of achieving a "regime change", to coin a phrase, as discussed by the noble Baroness.

Unfortunately, the view that Iraq's cruelly harsh regime can be changed through military means is held by a sizeable proportion of public opinion, particularly in the United States. But I suggest that to make flat demands for no-holds-barred inspections is a dangerously simplistic approach. The return of UNMOVIC is much more likely to be achieved through a more sophisticated approach to Iraq, offering carrots as well as sticks. For that, intensive negotiations would be needed, but with good will they might well be productive. The forthcoming meeting—to be held next week, I gather—between Iraq's Foreign Minister and Kofi Annan might well be crucial in setting such negotiations in motion. I hope that the Government will give all the support that they can to facilitate that important meeting and not simply cheer at the sidelines.

In considering the basis for such negotiations, it is worth looking at why Iraq forced UNSCOM to leave in 1998. The Iraqi position is clear: certain members of UNSCOM were giving classified and sensitive information directly to their governments rather than to the United Nations and some of that information was then being passed to Israel through Mossad and possibly the CIA. Scott Ritter, the American director of UNSCOM who resigned in 1998 and was replaced by the Australian Richard Butler, admitted that UNSCOM was being used for espionage purposes. He stated this at a meeting here in the Palace of Westminster and in his book Endgame, published in 1999. He also said that by 1998, 93 per cent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the facilities for manufacturing them had been destroyed, that the purpose of the sanctions regime had been largely achieved and that Iraq's capacity to replace them was crippled.

There is no definite evidence so far that weapons of mass destruction are now being made by Iraq. However, supposing such weapons of mass destruction are being stockpiled, it is worth asking against whom Baghdad would use them. To attack the USA or one of its allies, such as Kuwait or Israel, would be guaranteed beyond doubt to bring destruction on Baghdad.

A major problem, as perceived by Iraq and many other Arab states, remains the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, as well as its powerful army and its continued occupation of Palestinian territories—not just the currently occupied cities and towns, but the whole of the West Bank and Gaza—in violation of Security Council Resolution 242. To insist on Iraq completely fulfilling all the Security Council resolutions that relate to it while Israel does not is surely hypocritical.

Unfortunately, there can be no hope of Israel giving up its nuclear advantage while it senses that it is surrounded by hostile Arab states. Even if it were not, it would probably not give the weapons up. That is why it is necessary to take a wider view of the problem of Iraq, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has done, and consider its solution as part of achieving a just settlement for the Palestinian people. Only when they and the Arab nations that support them feel that they have had a fair deal might it be possible for Iraq to agree to some step-by-step disarmament and a full inspection of its weapons—conventional weapons as well as those of mass destruction.

That would have to be part of a general agreement throughout the Middle East to restrict arms, preferably leading to a measure of disarmament. As was said several times during questions on the Statement, that just settlement for the Palestinians could be based on the terms of the recent Saudi proposal, which includes the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gaza and fair compensation for the families of Palestinian refugees who had to leave what is now Israel proper 50 years ago.

The alternative of a military attack on Iraq, which would be of doubtful legality without a fresh Security Council resolution, would have dire consequences for the Iraqi people, who have still not fully recovered from the effects of the destruction of the country's infrastructure caused by the Gulf War and the sanctions that followed. It would also break up the carefully constructed coalition against terror and cause lasting harm to Arab-Western relations, perhaps encouraging international terrorism rather than stopping it, as well as having a serious effect on our oil supplies.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Blaker

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating this important debate at such a topical time. The Secretary of State for Defence said the other day that the Government were willing to use nuclear weapons in the right conditions against "the states of concern". That clearly included Iraq. He even appeared to imply that we might make a first strike. No United Kingdom Government to my knowledge have gone that far in the past. I am puzzled as to why he said it and I think that perhaps he was unwise. However, the Prime Minister has been wise to stand by the United States in his attitude towards Iraq.

President Bush seems to have reversed President Teddy Roosevelt's maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" with his new policy, "Speak loudly, but act with care". That has certainly been his approach in Afghanistan. When judging how we should act towards Iraq, I prefer to take the cautious view. We know that Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction. We cannot be sure whether he has them now, because the inspectors have not been there for four years, but we know from the reports of the inspectors before they were forced out in 1998 that he had biological and chemical weapons capabilities. That forcing out of the inspectors is an indication of his state of mind and his plans. We know that he used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, which he started, and he used them against his own people inside Iraq. We know that he has attacked Iran and Kuwait.

There is a difference of opinion between the British and American Governments about the links that Saddam Hussein may or may not have with Al'Qaeda. That question is immaterial to the immediate question of whether we should state our intentions with regard to Iraq in robust terms, as we have done.

Given Saddam Hussein's record, he is capable of aggression again, even alone. He is capable of aggression against us in the United Kingdom. The means of delivery will not for long be a problem, even if there are now certain difficulties about delivering weapons of mass destruction. To rule out military action would be as foolish as President Clinton's decision to rule out ground action in Kosovo. Such statements take the pressure off the other side.

Another consideration that adds to the force of a threat of military action is that the American administration—the world's leading democracy—is again willing to risk military casualties. The previous administration's refusal to tolerate any possibility of military casualties was a grave handicap.

I agree that the first step is for the United Nations to put into force smart sanctions and, if possible, to reinstate the inspectors. The question will come up again in the United Nations in June. I shall be grateful to hear from the Minister about the present situation and prospects. The prospects are likely to be more favourable now because, as I understand it, the Russians have changed their posture on the issue and are prepared to act as we are proposing.

One of the advantages of imposing smart sanctions is that we will be better able to make it clear to the world that the sufferings and privations of the Iraqi people are the fault not of a UN resolution, but of the actions of President Saddam Hussein— although he has managed to mislead the world about the cause.

If military action is to be taken, various tests will have to be applied. We must be sure that military action will be effective and that it will lead to the removal of President Saddam. It must result in a competent and moderate government in Iraq. We must also avoid splitting Iraq; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the dangers of such a possibility. Most important, action must not be taken until there is a good prospect of gaining at least acquiescence to it from the Arab world. However, such a situation will not be achieved until the situation of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is transformed for the better. Unless that happens, there will be very severe damage indeed to the coalition against terror.

It is significant that Iraq has recently had diplomatic successes in Beirut, in the conference of the Arab nations, where it obtained a statement of support from, I believe, every other Arab country present. It has also achieved a reconciliation with Kuwait. It has achieved those successes because of the Arab world's disgust at the failure of the West, particularly the United States, to restrain Prime Minister Sharon or—until last week—to make a serious effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

I very much welcome last week's dramatic and very important change of policy by the United States. Although the change is belated, it could be of fundamental importance. However, I have a couple of questions on the United States' policy. Is this reversal a tactical move to reduce Arab opposition to firm action against Iraq, or is it the first step in a long-term plan to produce a lasting solution to the Middle East problem? I hope very much that it is the latter. The Americans have said encouraging words in that context, but, as we know, it is very easy for the situation to change. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.

In other words, is the policy change a sideshow or the start of a whole new strategy by which the United States will do what is necessary for peace in the long run, even if that means defying the Israel lobby? United States aid to Israel, the majority of which is military, stands at about 3 billion dollars annually. As has been said, that provides the United States with a strong lever, if it has the will, to influence Israel in the direction of peace.

Finally, should not the main focus for western foreign policy, including United States foreign policy, no longer be Russia? Russia is no longer a military threat to us—it is almost a partner of the West. Russia cannot be a military threat; its GDP amounts to only 2 per cent of that of the United States. Instead, should not the focus of attention in foreign policy be the Middle East and southern Asia? In present circumstances, those regions seem to hold more relevance to the future peace of the world.

4.54 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the opportunity to debate this important subject at such an opportune time. I wish to stick closely to the actual wording of the Motion, which I wholeheartedly support.

Despite repeated attempts by the Iraqi Government to undermine UNSCOM's activities, by 1998 some progress had been made towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Most progress was made in the nuclear realm. Iraq's uranium enrichment and other nuclear production facilities were identified and destroyed early in the inspection programme. In 1997, UNSCOM reported that, There are no indications of any weapons—usable nuclear materials— remaining in Iraq", and, No evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities". Significant steps were also taken to eliminate Iraq's ballistic missile programme. By 1998, all but two of the 819 SCUD missiles known to have existed at the start of the Gulf War were accounted for, and no evidence was uncovered to suggest that Iraq was secretly manufacturing or testing indigenous ballistic missiles. Large volumes of Iraq's chemical weapons capability had also been destroyed by 1998. In 1998 a report by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed that UNSCOM had destroyed 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of live chemical agents. Despite those results, however, important elements of Iraq's chemical programme remained unaccounted for. According to a statement in March 2002 by the British Foreign Secretary, The weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons, 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/03/02; col. 744.] Much less progress was made in destroying Iraq's biological weapons capacity. A panel of international experts reported in 1998 that Iraq's disclosures on biological weapons were, Incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed". Yet even here some progress was made. UNSCOM supervised the destruction of Iraq's main biological weapons production and development facility, Al Hakim, and destroyed equipment at four other facilities. However, the 1999 experts panel report noted that Iraq retained the capability for producing biological warfare agents "quickly and in volume", although it also observed that, "Some uncertainly is inevitable" in such a verification effort.

The record is therefore a mixed one. Within the two categories of Resolution 687 relating to weapons dismantlement, three of the four objectives have been partially met. The most dangerous programmes—nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—were effectively contained. Indeed, in recognition of this progress, a number of member countries on the UN Security Council have urged a formal certification of Iraqi compliance and a closing of the nuclear, ballistic missile and chemical inspection files.

More recently, however, the United States Government have been arguing that, since December 1998, Iraq has steadily rebuilt its WMD programme, and that it now poses a threat to regional and international security. This policy has been fuelled by reports provided by two Iraqi defectors to the USA suggesting that President Saddam Hussein has a, Network of bunkers where chemical and biological weapons have been made and where attempts are underway to create a nuclear bomb". That needs to be contextualised, however, within the recent nuclear posture review conducted by the Pentagon which allows pre-emptive nuclear strikes, against countries such as Iraq.

The argument that Iraq has acquired substantial weapons of mass destruction is difficult to reconcile with previous UN reports that showed that, up to December 1998, Iraq's WMD programme had been effectively neutralised. Indeed, in November 2000, Peter Hain, the Minister of State with responsibility for Iraq, wrote: Sanctions have not been counterproductive to the disarmament objective. On the contrary, sanctions have kept a brutal dictator contained for ten years and blocked his access to equipment and parts to rebuild his WMD arsenal". I have deliberately not talked about the possibility of using military force to ensure compliance with Resolution 687. Not only is it premature for that, but, if the possibility did come to be seriously discussed, a whole range of other considerations would have to be taken into account. However, one thing which it is important to get crystal clear at this stage is the distinction between Saddam Hussein's WMD programme and the awfulness of his regime. His regime is indeed awful, but that in itself cannot be used as justification for launching an attack on Iraq Nor should the desire to change the regime there lead to an exaggeration of the extent to which Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the capability to deliver them and the will to do so. Those matters need to be considered in their own light carefully and objectively. A number of countries have weapons of mass destruction and the capability of delivering them, but we do not threaten military action against them simply on that basis.

We need to weigh carefully the evidence about what Saddam Hussein does and does not have in the way of weapons of mass destruction. We need to press hard for a resumption of inspections. We also need to make it worthwhile for Saddam Hussein to comply with the new inspection regime. Like most rulers, he is driven by considerations of self-interest and survival. There is still scope in the sanctions regime for offering a combination of stick and carrot which will on the one hand deny him access to material he needs for his weapons programme and on the other hand enable much-needed goods to enter Iraq, which will increase his prestige within the country.

Finally, I wish to put before the House a proposal which I owe entirely to Sir Michael Quinlan and Lewis Dunn. They suggest that at the moment widespread international agreement is needed, leading to a new United Nations Security Council resolution which would invite nations to make a commitment,

1. "a. to treat any use of weapons prohibited by the 1972 Convention as a crime against humanity, not to be excused or palliated by any claim of justifying considerations;
2. b. to regard any regime guilty of the crime, or of sheltering or supporting perpetrators, as having forfeited legitimacy;
3. c. to pursue individually as criminals, by international process, any such regime's leaders and any others participating in the crime; and
4. d. to reverse any advantage secured by its commission, and to succour its victims…

Action on these lines could not ensure that the biological weapons threat vanishes—there can never be an absolute guarantee of that. But it would both heighten and broaden the deterrent barrier (and reduce the attraction of biological weapons acquisition)". I have no illusions about the terrible nature of those weapons, nor about the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, we need to be clinically objective about the existence of such weapons and the likelihood of his using them. We need to continue using pressure to get at the truth of the matter. Those steps need to be kept separate from any thoughts we might have about the desirability of changing the regime in Iraq, especially through military action.

5.2 p.m.

Lord Wright of Richmond

My Lords, I also welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in moving this debate on a crucial issue likely to have far-reaching implications for the security of the Middle East and indeed for all of us. I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's Statement as repeated in the House and I am grateful for its clarification of the question we are debating.

I note that the first and immediate priority for the Americans and for the British Government is to proceed through the United Nations in order to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. I have no doubt that that is the right way to proceed. But if the Americans are still determined in due course—as their public statements seem to indicate—to remove Saddam Hussein by force, I have the gravest reservations about whether that is wise or likely to be effective. I am disturbed to note that President Bush was quoted as saying on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Texas, that, even Iraqi compliance with UN demands on weapons inspections might not be enough to avoid war"— hardly a statement designed to produce a diplomatic solution to the problem of resuming weapons inspections.

I have noted the Prime Minister's assurance that no decisions have yet been taken on military action against Iraq. But I question whether, in present circumstances in Israel and the occupied territories, it is wise even to discuss military action against Baghdad. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I am in no doubt whatever about Saddam Hussein's terrible record as the dominator of Iraq for a long time.

There has been much talk of the need for President Bush to, complete his father's unfinished business from the Gulf War". But the sole business of the Gulf War was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait: that business, at least, was successfully completed, although we must remember that the Kuwaitis still have unfinished business, such as some 600 citizens still unaccounted for in Iraq, and compensation for the damage caused by Iraq's invasion.

The successful removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991 depended heavily—and rightly—on the cohesion of the international coalition, and on intensive diplomatic activity to ensure its continuing support for a series of Security Council resolutions. Had there been any serious attempt to follow through that successful campaign by attempting to unseat Saddam Hussein, the coalition would immediately have collapsed, just as the coalition against terrorism is now in danger of being lost through the failure of United States diplomacy over Palestine.

There are several reasons why we should not even be contemplating an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein by force. First, there must be strong doubts whether any such attempt by the United States, with or without our support, can be effective. If Saddam Hussein's humiliation from Iraq's ejection from Kuwait and the rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad were not enough to unseat him, why should military action or the threat of military action now succeed?

Secondly, talk of military action against Iraq at a time when the Arab-Israel situation is at its most dangerous, seems to me—I measure my words carefully—almost obscenely irrelevant. There have even been fanciful suggestions in the press that the removal of Saddam Hussein might facilitate a solution of the Arab-Israel problem. I am glad to note that a great deal of attention was given in the Prime Minister's meetings with President Bush to the current crisis in the Middle East. But if the Americans are unable—as has been evident in the past week—to restrain what they call their "closest ally" in the Middle East from the appalling round of intimidation, massacre and humiliation of the Palestinian people, and the inevitable retaliation by Palestinian suicide bombers, how can they be expected to have any support in the region for military action against Iraq?

Have they forgotten that it was Ariel Sharon, in a grotesque and cynical electoral gimmick, who provoked the latest intifada which has devastated both Israel and the occupied territories and has led to the tragic deaths of nearly 1,500 Palestinians and more than 400 Israelis, over the past 18 months?

Some noble Lords are old enough to remember—I was in the Middle East at the time—the appalling savagery which followed the fall of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, when the corpses of the late King Faisal and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said were dragged through the streets of Baghdad. That is surely another reason for hesitation before attempting to provoke a change of regime.

This is not Afghanistan, where at least there were rival forces ready to help in supplanting the Taliban. And the United States still had sizeable international understanding—even in the Arab world—for its motives in removing the Taliban by force. There would be no support or understanding, either from the Arab world or from our European partners and allies, if the Americans were now to try to supplant Saddam Hussein by military force.

Furthermore, who would replace Saddam Hussein if, contrary to all expectations, the Americans succeeded in removing him? Either another member of the infamous Takriti family would take over or there would be a bloody revolution with a Shia fundamentalist government trying to take over from the present Sunni minority Government, with all the security implications that would pose for the region, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. If that were to lead to the break-up of Iraq, it could have serious and worrying implications for all Iraq's neighbours, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.

Finally, and, in my view, crucially, I do not believe that we should any longer be in the business of changing or choosing other people's governments, even if we were able to justify this under international law. In the context of Israeli attempts to exile President Arafat, I note that the Foreign Secretary has said: None of us can choose who leads Governments or Administrations in foreign countries. We have to deal with the people who are there". I ask the Minister: does this not equally apply to Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iraq?

5.10 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene after some extremely well-thought-out and constructive speeches. I believe that a little humility is required from the British Government over the question of the Middle East. Let us remember that the decisions taken in the 1920s and thereabouts led to chaos—the conflict between the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the promises made to Emir Faisal and those made to the Saudi family. All four of those policies were mutually exclusive and we are now suffering from their consequences.

As was recently said, foreign policy changed in 1989. Up until that time and the fall of the Berlin Wall, foreign policy was relatively simple: you had one enemy on one side, with the good guys on the other side. Now we are back into three-dimensional chess with foreign policy where it is miles too complicated to be simplistic. I see from my notes that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made that point. I listened with attention to his remarks. We should also remember that we rather appreciated the Iraqi attack on Iran because we thought, "Let both of them keep fighting each other; we can keep well away, and two nasty guys will cat each other's throats". That was a fairly unattractive but, I suppose, completely realistic piece of cynicism.

I should like to underline a point that has already been mentioned; namely, the difference between capability and intent. France has nuclear weapons, but we do not threaten to re-occupy Calais, to retake Guyenne, or, indeed, to ask my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury to command British feudal levies in Gascony. We accept that the French capability is no threat. China has a nuclear capability. I read in newspaper reports today that the Japanese are becoming considerably worried about the situation. One Japanese political party is advocating that Japan should go nuclear. However, they are not advocating the use of nuclear weapons against China; they are just getting frightened. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, but we do not propose to resurrect Clive and Hastings. We have to live with the situation.

Israel also has weapons of mass destruction and is using force against her neighbours, not only on the West Bank but also, under that friendly and gentle gentleman Mr Sharon, against the Lebanese and those in the refugee camps. We do not say that we are going to use force against Israel, because the last time that we tried to do so it ended in tears.

We must ask ourselves what capability Saddam Hussein has. Before any use of force is considered, the evidence in that respect must be overwhelming. There are reports that he has built nuclear factories under schools and hospitals and that he has chemical weapons facilities in similar places. If any air action is taken against the country, this means that he will be able to show the dead bodies of patients and children, as well as those of orphans and widows. However, that may just be the intelligent placing of information that the gullible among us are supposed to take into account.

Before the Government take any action, the evidence of capability must be absolutely overwhelming. However, I suggest that capability alone is not a good enough excuse for using military force. We must prove beyond peradventure that the force will be used and that it will be used against American and British interests. Providing that that can be proved beyond let or hindrance, it must be possible to consider military force. But what happens—I return to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—if the regime in Baghdad collapses? Will it split into the old Turkish alliance of Basra, Baghdad and Moselle, with the Kurds splitting off in the north and destabilising the Kurdish part of Turkey? Will the Shia Muslims join the Persians on the eastern side of Mesopotamia, leaving a rump Shia-state-run Baghdad? If that happens, the boundaries of all the Arab states are up for grabs, with all the instability that that will bring forward.

Alternatively—and, again, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—the possibility of a fundamentalist regime in Iraq is very unpleasant to contemplate. We should remember that the Ba'ath regime is intellectually a successor to the corporatist/fascist regimes of Europe. The Muslim world faces a terrible difficulty, and has done so since Napoleon landed in Egypt; namely, that of coming to terms with the modern world and finding a satisfactory method of governing itself. I am in danger of boring your Lordships to tears, but that is so because people in the Muslim world have no concept of: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". They have this terrible difficulty—and, indeed, have had for hundreds of years—in producing a satisfactory secular regime.

Therefore, I say this to the Government. We should proceed if, and only if, it can be proved beyond peradventure to everyone that there is a very genuine and real capability and that that capability will be used—not may be used, or kept aside. As a little historical meander, we should remember that Frederick the Great's father created the greatest army in Germany and never used it, but Frederick the Great did. Frederick the Great's father was no threat, but Frederick the Great was. As in all good military intelligence, there must be a combination of capability and intent.

5.19 p.m.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, like many in this House, I find deeply worrying the idea of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of President Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The purpose of the debate is to look at ways of limiting his ability to develop those weapons further. We should not forget that the one effective means of retarding the ability of Saddam Hussein to develop those weapons was through the work of UNSCOM, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.

My knowledge of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons was gained through my training as an NBC officer in the Territorial Army. One of the fear factors involved in that was the fact that people were not trained how to survive a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. We dressed up in protective suits and followed all the drills not in order to prepare ourselves to survive such an attack but to fight invaders for a longer period of time. It is difficult to survive such an attack.

Why is Saddam Hussein developing these weapons? The area in which he has major difficulty is not only in the development of the weapons but in the fourth part of the equation; that is, the delivery system. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, one of the reasons he is developing these weapons is to threaten his own population. The weapons are used to repress them and to arouse fear and also to threaten Israel. However, these are weapons of last resort. I echo the view expressed by many noble Lords that in limiting any room for manoeuvre of the present regime by talking about a regime change, we are threatening the life of Saddam Hussein. To him, that is conceivably a ground for the use of weapons of last resort.

Military action is seen as a way of reintroducing controls on the development of these weapons. However, military action has far-reaching implications. As many noble Lords have pointed out, one of the major implications could be the implosion of Iraq. We have only to look at the recent situation when Zaire collapsed to appreciate how dangerous it can be when a diverse nation implodes and draws in many other neighbours to fight in the ensuing conflict. There would also be a regional effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, there would be major implications for Turkey, with the possibility of the formation of a Kurdistan which might well destabilise the region.

I do not believe that many Arab states agree that an attack on Iraq is a logical conclusion of the war on terrorism. I believe that many of their attitudes have hardened due to the situation in the West Bank. They would view an attack on Iraq more as an attack on an Islamic nation. A military assault would have massive humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq. Women and children who survive at present on the oil-for-food programme would be severely affected by disruption in the movement of food across Iraq. Iraq does not have the agricultural capability to support its own population.

Pointing out those implications of military action does not imply that we support the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, pointed out, who would replace Saddam Hussein? The end of his regime would lead to bloody consequences. There would be a great deal of blood letting and score settling. It is unlikely that a stable democratic regime would replace the present regime.

We would support any means to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction. However, I believe the purpose of this timely debate is not to suggest solutions, which is perhaps beyond the remit of Members of this House, but to highlight the real risks involved in the action which we could undertake.

5.24 p.m.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is always better to discuss such matters as peace or war early on in a calm atmosphere when the Government have made no commitment, rather than wait until British forces are about to be deployed when you feel that you must give them full support and encouragement for whatever hazards may lie ahead.

At the moment I doubt whether there are many in your Lordships' House who do not feel concern over what may happen in or over Iraq. As one who is still supporting our commitment to Afghanistan, where we are reinforcing comparative success and have a clear strategy and end plan, I feel that a distinction should be drawn between that particular action against proven supporters of terrorism and taking on the so-called "axis of evil", which raises altogether different issues.

Unlike many in Whitehall, I was once upon a time swept up in the Suez crisis. Although it was over 45 years ago, I remember all the details of that extraordinary period as if it was yesterday. Although no doubt we shall be told, with mutterings about "11th September", "war against terrorism", "weapons of mass destruction", "evil people with evil intent", that the circumstances this time are different, there are some ominous similarities between the two scenarios.

Then there was no clearly defined political aim. Were we aiming just to topple a dictator, or temporarily to take over the whole country, remembering that the original plan was for a D-Day like operation against Alexandria and a march on Cairo? Or, as later emerged after collusion with Israel, were we merely intent on reoccupying the Canal zone? Certainly, a clear cut political aim and end plan are essential for any successful military operation. Then one of the incentives for repossession was that Egypt would be incapable of running the Canal on its own. That was clearly a flawed parameter and intelligence at the time proved faulty in other respects as well.

Above all, it was a British Prime Minister who convinced himself that the President of Egypt was "an incarnation of evil", a re-run of Hitler, who could not be and should not be appeased and, if not dealt with and removed, the world would be on a totally unacceptable and dangerous slippery slope. Looking back those 45 years, all that sounds rather absurd, but one has heard similar arguments being advanced at the moment and in the event taking action was more damaging to our interests than not doing so.

Now I, and I imagine others in your Lordships' House, have no brief whatever for Saddam Hussein. He has done some terrible things in his own country. He has illegally attacked Kuwait and Iran. He has defied UN resolutions—as, of course, manifestly have others—and he appears to be trying to get together weapons of terror and mass destruction as, sadly, others have done. Sadly, one of the many casualties of the outrageous attack of 11th September is that strategic thinking about balance of power and deterrent seems to have gone out of the window. In the past any such potential threat has been met by manning at instant readiness an overwhelming deterrent, nuclear or conventional, which would largely invalidate the threat by posing such dire consequences if it was ever to be implemented. I can see no compelling reason why Saddam Hussein could not similarly be deterred.

Moreover, it could be argued, and argued pretty cogently, that Iraq would be far more likely to use some of these weapons if overwhelmingly attacked and with nothing to lose than if it had been contained more sensibly and constructively by other means. In that respect I like the phrase attributed, whether correctly or not, to the Foreign Office of "aggressive containment". I do not know exactly what it means, and I doubt whether they do either, but it seems to put the emphasis in rather a better place.

So I hope that when trying to maintain our proper support for America, the Government will analyse and cross-check most carefully all the intelligence; try to get the United Nations observers back into Iraq and try to establish a dialogue with other Arab neighbours so that they too can put pressure on Iraq to allow that to happen and not to do anything which would bring further discredit to the area. As a loyal partner of America, I hope that the Government will make sure that our views are strongly represented rather than following in its wake whatever the circumstances. Forty-five years ago it was the Americans who perhaps not surprisingly pulled the rug from under us, as perhaps they ought to do to Israel now, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. How much better for us, however, to counsel them wisely, well in advance, so that no misunderstanding can occur later.

In your Lordships' House we are not naturally privy to the very latest intelligence or to future plans. However, one thing, which has been said over and over again, is certain; that is, that if a land invasion on any scale took place against Iraq, there would be no support—and possibly considerable hostility —from all Arab countries in the area. They have never been that keen on Iraq being broken up as a country; and certainly no such action could be countenanced unless and until there was far more positive and sustained American backing to bring about a peaceful and just solution to the Palestine problem.

These terrible suicide bombers have inflicted death and anguish on many innocent civilians, to whom our hearts go out—we should think about what it would be like if that happened in this country. Because those bombers are more specifically motivated and of a different ilk from those who carried out the 11th September outrage, the crisis in Palestine cannot be looked on simply as an integral part or an extension of the wider war against terrorism. The problem is in Palestine itself. If Israel is ever to win back the moral high ground and the respect of the world, she must withdraw from the West Bank.

When I gave the Balfour Memorial Lecture not long ago in Tel Aviv—my opposite number was Ehud Barak—I reminded the audience of Milton's famous line that peace has its victories no less renowned than war. In Israel's case, I genuinely believe, as do others who have much closer knowledge of the problem than I do, that peace would not only bring it much more credit but would be far more productive than its present policy in terms of achieving its goal—s our goal and everybody's goal—of a safer, securer and permanent Israel to which the entire world could give its good will and support, both military and moral.

I certainly hope that in the months to come, statesmanship and clear-headedness will continue to prevail over any emotion and revenge. But when you get any whiff of that over-simplistic philosophy that we are the "goodies" and those out there are the "baddies", and that whatever the goodies do to the baddies must be right, that attitude has a habit of generating its own momentum. And, my Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we all know that in this modern world life is considerably more complicated than that.

5.32 p.m.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, for more than a month, I have been deeply concerned about President Bush's statement that the next stage in the war against terrorism would be an attack on Iraq. I thought for some weeks that I was—Cassandra-like—a voice crying in the wilderness. The metaphors that spring to mind come appropriately from Greek tragedies and the Old Testament. But the chorus of disquiet about the dangers of sowing dragons' teeth is now widespread. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for this opportunity to express my concerns.

The reality of what is happening in Israel is already having the consequences that would arise from attacking Iraq. As has already been said, the moderate Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa are increasingly alienated. Sudan has already offered training camps for Palestinian terrorists and there have been attacks on synagogues in France. Those consequences would be exacerbated by military action against Iraq. Terrorism would become more, not less, widespread.

Terrorism is a response to grievance, where there are no alternative channels for protest. Of course Yasser Arafat's tragic endorsement of the young suicide bombers has been desperately provocative, but their resort to terrorism is fuelled by underlying and genuine grievances. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the illicit building of settlements should have been tackled by the international community, especially the United States, a long time ago.

President Bush is allegedly surprised by the antagonism of the surrounding Arab states to Israel's behaviour. I hope that he will now begin to understand the likely consequences of an attack on Iraq. The various military scenarios that have been promulgated include 10,000 civilian casualties and possibly the need for an invasion force of 250,000 military personnel, with many more dead on both sides. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein has 350,000 troops and military conflict on that scale would effectively amount to a third world war as other states were drawn in.

Much as the governments of the moderate Arab states may dislike Iraq, many of their young people, in countries as widespread as Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, see Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as heroes because they stand up to the might of the United States. The disaffected youth of many of those countries are posing an increasing problem because of the sheer numbers. Forty per cent of Morocco's population of 45 million are aged under 18. Of Saudi Arabia's population of 23 million, 43 per cent are under 15. There are in consequence increasing numbers of unemployed youths, to whom terrorism may seem like an attractive alternative career, which would be justified by an American attack on Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 100,000 young people coming into the job market each year, of whom only half find jobs.

Terrorism is a hydra-headed monster—the more heads that you chop off, the more will grow in their place. Terrorism is easily exported, as America knows to its cost. As the French learnt in Algeria and as we learnt in Northern Ireland, military measures may contain the problem in the short term but are no long-term solution.

A worrying aspect about both Ariel Sharon and George Bush is that their actions appear to be dictated by a sense of unfinished business. For the United States to be so indignant about a country's failure to comply with UN resolutions comes uncomfortably from a country that has not enforced UN resolutions on Israel, that has failed to pay its UN dues on occasion, that breaks international treaties on trade and arms without compunction and that declines to take part with the international community in combating global warming and the setting up of the international criminal court.

If the United States' argument that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is legitimated by self-defence, why not attack North Korea, which is an equally repressive regime and which has nuclear weapons and missiles that could reach the western seaboard of the United States?

I hope that when the Minister replies, she will confirm that no military attack is intended to change the regime in Iraq without an explicit resolution from the United Nations. Moreover, I do not accept that failure to conform to previous resolutions or the vague necessity of self-defence are sufficient justifications for launching what would effectively be a third world war.

5.38 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She referred to Cassandra; nobody would ever think of applying that term to the noble Baroness. I should apply a six-letter word to her: she has a good bit of wisdom.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for introducing this timely debate. Noble Lords may wonder why I am speaking in this debate. Just about 30 years ago, on "Derby Day" and in a House that perhaps was marginally less populated than it is this afternoon, I made my maiden speech on, of all things, chemical warfare. I do not have one O-level in science and people asked why I chose that subject. I thought that it was of relative importance.

I hope that I shall be forgiven for breaking several conventions and for referring to participants in today's debate, although some of them are not, for one reason or another, in their place. I appreciated what the right reverend Prelate said about the 1972 treaty. Things have moved on since I made my first contribution on this subject, let alone on a particular geographical area. The scene has developed. That is interwoven with the Statement that we heard earlier today. Unfortunately, we see that through electronic and printed media on a daily basis.

The political and military scene in the Middle East is complicated by the presence of President Saddam. I refer to the threat, and the perceived threat, that he presents overtly and covertly—a threat that ebbs and flows. He has his part to play, sometimes peripherally and sometimes as a main player, in the conflicts in the Middle East. In the past week or so I have read that it was perhaps unreal of us in the West to regard Israel as a western country. One diplomat—a wise man—in Israel, although he may have been somewhat politically incorrect, said, "We are a Middle Eastern nation. I hope that our friends and allies elsewhere in the world might think that we behave as another Middle Eastern nation, perhaps like Iraq".

We know—your Lordships have spelled it out very clearly—that Iraq has already used chemical weapons on its own people. It has used them on the Kurds, on the Iranians and, I believe, on the marsh dwellers of south Iraq. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker referred to that far more clearly and succinctly than I could possibly do.

I was more than impressed by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. He and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker have spent their lives and pursued great careers in gaining friends and allies in the United Nations and elsewhere in the world for the cause that we and our American friends may be pursuing in various strands and various guises. They have also tried to ensure that resolutions in the United Nations and elsewhere are backed up with support, and practical support if needed.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is temporarily away from his seat, remembers the events of 45 years ago, as perhaps does my noble friend Lord Onslow. He and I are near enough contemporaries. I remember—it was in my last year at school—the traumatic events of the Suez adventure at the end of October/beginning of November 1956. Indeed, even at the age of 17 I remember wondering whether those events were necessarily wise. Your Lordships and, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, when he returns, may remember that the Suez adventure was tied up with another fascinating event of that time; namely, the Russian invasion of Hungary. Those two events caused much discussion in the United Nations and elsewhere. Did we perhaps take our eyes off the ball? Did the British and American governments take action because of those two intertwined and perceived events? I simply do not know.

It was most encouraging to hear from the noble and gallant Lord. I also look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Vivian has to say on what I call the "picture of practical action" which could be taken militarily. That has been spelled out very clearly by the noble and gallant Lord.

I have some tiny knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and experience of writing on such subjects as I served for four years as rapporteur of the Scientific Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. Such weapons presented a continual threat and were a subject on which I was asked to provide a report. I stress to your Lordships that I have no qualifications in science. My knowledge is gained quite often from help in your Lordships' House, through the Library or from other material that I obtain here.

I have gained some knowledge of the two appalling substances which I seem to remember are called Tabun and sarin. They are now very much "O-level" products. I also had concerns about the pharmaceutical industry. I began to think that if a certain pharmaceutical were boosted 100 times or in various progressions, one could find some fairly ugly substances. I appreciated the comments of the right reverend Prelate on precursor chemicals. I believe that he spelled out the figures quite beautifully and far better than I could.

I conclude by hoping that all the words that we read from Texas and Washington, from our friends in the United States will perhaps be taken with a—to use these wicked three words—pinch of salt. I wonder whether all those remarks are made totally without support and without thought. I do not necessarily believe that they are.

However, I hope that at some stage the Government will make clear our intentions—I apologise for using that term; I am always waiting to hear whether the noble Baroness will say that things are "abundantly clear" or "relatively clear" and how many times she will use that term—not necessarily to me, but elsewhere to President Saddam if he chooses to use any weapons of mass destruction in a conflict with any of his neighbours or against anyone. I reiterate the comments of my noble friend Lord Blaker who said that we should state our intentions in robust terms. I cannot think of anyone who would do that better than the noble Baroness, and I hope that she will do so.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, there is no question that my noble friend has produced a Motion which has taken the serious attention of many Members. There have been some thought-provoking speeches and I enjoy following my noble neighbour. However, I considered in particular that the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, put the points properly and certainly far better than I could.

It is also fascinating and right and proper to see that the actions of Israel are now receiving the condemnation that they should have had many years ago. In the past, I have been a great supporter of Israel in times of attack by the Arab nations. But the actions of that country since have turned me the other way, and I believe that that is the case for many people.

One of the great hopes is that events are now forcing President Bush and the American people to realise that the largest part of their unpopularity throughout the world is certainly due to their unqualified support for Israel in some very improper actions and repressions in which Israel has engaged. Without any doubt, the United States and President Bush must see that a resolution of that problem is absolutely essential. All the speeches today have reinforced that point.

When it comes to the actual resolution, it is essential that a proper and powerful inspection team goes into Iraq. Her whole record, which everyone has mentioned, indicates that, given the chance, Iraq will do anything for greed. She initially attacked Iran because she believed that there was a splendid chance to grab the oil in the neighbourhood. The same was true when she conquered Kuwait and had to be ejected, and, as has been said, Saddam Hussein has attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There is no doubt that, given his record, unrestricted ability to develop other weapons would constitute a great danger to the area. Therefore, all possible pressures must be put on him to facilitate and encourage an inspection team of ability and size to stop his undoubted efforts to produce terrorist weapons.

I am afraid that argument and persuasion towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein need to be backed by something else. It must be said that the fear of a unilateral American attack on him is probably the strongest persuasion that he will have to do what is absolutely necessary for the peace of the area.

5.50 p.m.

The Earl of Sandwich

My Lords, the noble Baroness has placed Iraq firmly in the wider context of the Middle East and others have supported that. I am grateful for that. Iraq has an ancient history in its own right, an ancient civilisation. Its people are proud of their past achievements, although not of their present tyrannical rulers. If Iraq is to return to the family of nations we must look beyond its appalling regime to the young people who will shape the future of that community.

Iraq is a potentially rich country. Its people are well educated and have been used to a relatively high standard of living. It is a sad commentary, not only on Saddam Hussein, who our Government keep insisting is solely responsible, but on the architects of 10 years of sanctions that so many people now live in poverty, deprived of proper healthcare and sanitation. As someone who has never had to work in government, I reject all official excuses, including the one that Saddam is entirely to blame, which we hear frequently, when there is so much more that the United Nations could do to improve its own sanctions.

Even before the latest threats of war, there was a strong case for targeting sanctions more effectively. Now that Iraq has been declared part of the "axis of evil" and was again the ogre of the Texas summit, the necessity for proper safeguards for vulnerable groups is stronger than ever.

I have worked with several NGOs which are active in Iraq today and have consulted them as experts on the condition of ordinary Iraqis. Those NGOs should not be in Iraq at all; there are so many other priorities in much poorer countries. Yet Iraq, despite the benefits of oil, remains low in the human rights index. For example, a household survey carried out by Save the Children Fund last year in northern Iraq showed that three in five families have to live on only 6 US dollars per week over and above the standard food ration, and one in five have only 3 US dollars per week on which to live; that is for a whole family. Figures for Baghdad and Basra are hard to come by but it is well known that poverty and malnutrition are much more severe in the centre and south of Iraq in the Shiite areas. Despite UN Security Council Resolution 986, which was supposed to relax sanctions, Iraq's mortality and morbidity rates are still among the worst in the world.

Since the Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions there has been a steady deterioration, not only in the standard of living of the poorest, but in the quality of healthcare, water, sanitation and other vital services. At the same time, sanctions and financial restrictions have stifled the economy and private enterprise so that there are few means for families to generate wealth for themselves. Salaries cannot be paid on time or in full, with resulting unemployment and family hardship adding to existing shortages.

Last week I spoke to a charity coping directly with shortages of equipment in Iraqi children's hospitals, which said that it can still take months to obtain spare parts and even as long as two years if any components are manufactured in the United States. Staff cannot even replace light bulbs or carry out routine repairs because of the accumulated effect of sanctions on hospital administration. On top of that is the recent sudden increase in cancer among children in the south, which is said to be linked to depleted uranium fragments from the Gulf War. It is hard to get medicines for that cancer because of their short shelf life. The director told me: It is really heartbreaking to see birth defects arising from this condition and the sickness these children have to endure". The extended oil-for-food programme has so far averted a humanitarian crisis, but it has not altered the parlous state of Iraqi institutions and services or the underlying economic crisis. Those in the West who have felt complacent about containing Saddam Hussein in the past 10 years have conveniently ignored the plight of the Iraqi people. They have decided to overlook the effects of this policy of containment on vulnerable groups and its failure to have a marked impact on the ruling elite. Even the so-called smart sanctions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, proposed under Security Council Resolution 1284, are evidently not yet designed to target the elite. Can the Minister explain how the goods review list will help the poorest among the Iraqi population, for example? Can she confirm that this Government will continue to consult the NGOs, such as the Save the Children Fund, about the most effective forms of embargo and ways of designing sanctions to protect the poorest?

The NGOs are becoming impatient with a UN system which cannot deliver either on material goods or on its own resolutions and promises of support. That problem is familiar to students of the West Bank and Gaza today and, indeed, of much of the Middle East. It cannot be blamed on the failure of the UN. It is clear that a few powerful countries, for their own political reasons, have the ability to control the express will of the entire family of nations.

The UK is one of those countries, although, as the noble and gallant Lord hinted, in the context of antiterrorism it is a follower rather than a principal. What began as a legitimate campaign against terrorism could now become another dangerous western crusade, with all the racism which that implies. Despite our historic responsibilities, despite the efforts of individuals in our foreign service, this Government have been unable to show any independence of the United States or, indeed, to reflect any European or international view. Instead, we have been a willing accomplice of a deliberate strategy of cherry picking, divide and rule and outright aggression in the Middle East.

This week we remembered the Holocaust, the Dir Yassin massacre of Palestinians and the genocide in Rwanda—three occasions when the world was apparently powerless to act. The past few days, while we have been a nation in mourning, have also seen the most brutal onslaught so far on the West Bank, and we have done nothing about it. We have hardly made a Statement about it until today. Who would have thought a month ago that Palestinians could be so humiliated and terrorised as they have been in Jenin and Nablus; that the holiest shrine in Bethlehem could be under siege; and still the great powers seem unable to stop their friend, the tiny state of Israel? Which is the tin pot nation: the little bully that does the damage or the cowardly one which lets it happen? Where are the rules of engagement? We have gone way beyond the Good Samaritan when ambulances are being attacked, Red Cross and Red Crescent workers are denied access to the dead, and peace monitors become legitimate targets.

I am talking about something happening in Israel, our old military ally and trading partner. This is not defence against suicide attacks. Who can any longer dare to make that comparison? It is a brutal occupation, which the "civilised" world watches on television and allows to happen.

I hope that General Sharon tunes into the wisdom of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, tonight. How can the Arab world, let alone the Palestinian people, ever forget the unholy alliance which is conspiring ostensibly against terrorism but in fact against the survival and credibility of an oppressed people whose land and future we have guaranteed? What have we to say about American hypocrisy in the past few days? Colin Powell says that he does not even think he can get a ceasefire. How much time does Israel need before it believes that the spirit of Palestinians is crushed and the prospect of a peaceful settlement is gone for ever?

Leaving aside Iraq, which I know is the subject today, and which is making its own capital out of this, how can any government any longer justify standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States over a campaign against terror when we condone and tacitly support the same terror among our own allies, the people who we say uphold the same standards of democracy and decency?

5.59 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate. It is entirely justified that we should spend time on our first clay back talking about the importance of the dispute. I am therefore grateful that we have had such useful interventions from so many sides of the House.

As a Liberal Democrat it has puzzled me that for much of the debate there have been more noble Lords on our Benches than on the Conservative Benches. We have lacked speeches from what one might describe as "heavyweight" former Conservative Ministers.

This morning I attended a meeting about Gibraltar with a much larger contingent of heavyweight Conservatives from both Houses. I know that Gibraltar is an important issue of British foreign policy but I would suggest cautiously to my Conservative colleagues that under current conditions Iraq and the Middle East are perhaps rather more important in the scheme of things than the protection of the people of Gibraltar.

The focus in this debate is on weapons of mass destruction and on Iraq. But we should recognise that we must place that in the context of the Middle East as whole; of links to the Arab-Israeli conflict; of international energy dependence and supply; of the current debate about US foreign policy in Washington and elsewhere; of US/European relations; and of course of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to form a bridging role between the United States and its European allies.

We all accept that the present Iraqi regime is a dreadful one. None of us wishes to defend anything that Saddam Hussein as head of it has done. But, sadly, it is not the only dreadful regime in the world. We have to look at the evidence on where it is now on weapons of mass destruction. The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said in evidence to a Select Committee of the other place some weeks ago that there is a real threat to this country that Iraq might be able to have weapons of mass destruction which could reach this country "in a few years' time".

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford laid considerable emphasis on the doubts that we have from all available evidence that there is a likely threat within a relatively short period. I looked in my briefing at the report of the Monterey Institute of International Relations on where Iraq is on weapons of mass destruction. It states that on delivery systems it is possible that there may be a few scuds left with a range of 650 kilometres and that there are some other missiles available with ranges of between 45 and 90 kilometres. That is not a very direct threat to this country and even less of a direct threat to the United States.

I am very sorry that the Government have not yet produced a paper on the evidence for weapons of mass destruction and the threat from Iraq. But from the best available evidence it seems that the danger from Iraq is neither clear nor immediate. It is certainly not sufficient to justify an attack during the next 12 months, which is what is being discussed within the United States.

Of course there is the problem of international terrorism. But we have again seen no evidence that the struggle against international terrorism—which is a different issue—and the question of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction are linked. Two weeks ago I read a long piece in the New Yorker which attempted to put together the best evidence possible for linking the two. Frankly, it was incredibly weak. That case has not been made out.

So what is our appropriate response? I worry most that the United States and now the British Prime Minister have shifted from focusing on the weapons of mass destruction issue to a regime change as our objective in Afghanistan. In his speech in the George Bush Senior Presidential Library the Prime Minister talked about "regime change" as an acceptable objective. I regret that he made such a concession to the Bush Administration's view.

In February, in a Wall Street Journal article there was the suggestion that there is a legal justification for America's point of view stemming from Saddam's, dedicated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, combined with his open hostility to the US and its allies". If that is a justification for taking military action, with very little difference that could provide a justification under current conditions for India to make a preemptive attack on Pakistan. We must be very careful about that kind of pre-emptive attack.

The legality of the removal of regimes was covered very powerfully in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. We have to recognise—I want to move on to the American foreign policy debate—that what we see in the United States is, in effect, a demand that, having sorted out Afghanistan, it should move on to sort out the rest of the world.

On 1st February in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, stated: First, Afghanistan to the east. Next, Iraq to the west … After Afghanistan, where do we go from here? Stage Two … is the reaching out for low-hanging fruit … Philippines, Boznia, Somalia; pressuring former bad guys like Yemen (or Sudan?) But this is all prologue. Stage Three is overthrowing Saddam Hussein". That may be what many people in the Bush Administration want. It is not something which this Government necessarily need to support. "Aggressive containment", as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, is a far better response.

There is an evident link to the Israel-Palestine dispute. We recognise that that is now the absolute priority for western action. We also recognise the impact on Arab governments and opinion of a conflict that is in severe danger of getting out of control. There was another worrying element in the Washington Times, which is the journal of the hard American right. It was an open letter to President Bush published last Thursday from the project for the New American Century. It directly linked support for Israel with getting rid of Saddam Hussein. It is clearly linked in with what the American right wishes the US to achieve. Again that is not something which we should support.

We are all painfully aware of the divisions over foreign policy within the Bush Administration and of the efforts of a deeply partisan ideological right in Washington to push it into a unilateralist and imperialist approach to world politics. The "axis of evil" speech was very much a victory for the "terrible simplifiers of the right", that alliance of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists and of those who never came to terms with the American support for multilateral international institutions.

What then should be the British response to this bitter debate within Washington? I noted in one of the American newspapers that I was reading a reference to the "expectations of unconditional support from Britain". That would be a great mistake. Britain should be a firm supporter of wise American foreign policy, but always within limits. Our support should always be conditional.

In that respect the Prime Minister's speech on 7th April was a great missed opportunity to give some cautionary messages to informed American public on the importance of working within the framework of the United Nations and of international law as in the long-term interests of the United States as of the rest of the organised and institutionalised international community; and of the need to look at peace and development across the Middle East as a whole, not just the Israel-Palestine dispute, but also better relations with Iran, which is wrongly demonised in the American Right-wing debate. Although the Prime Minister made a passing reference to energy policy, there was nothing about the link to reducing the profligate use of energy within the United States which has led it to be the world's leading importer of energy, with all that that implies for its complicated relations with the Middle East.

There is the need for the United States to maintain a clear partnership with Europe. I felt that the Prime Minister's language wavered sadly between talking about US/British partnership and US/European partnership. There was a failure to say fully and clearly that the war on terrorism and containment of weapons of mass destruction are different issues which should not be run together. There was a failure also to point out that the issue of getting inspectors back into Iraq is not yet lost. I understand—perhaps the Minister can tell us more—that the UN discussions on the reintroduction of inspectors into Iraq are to start again on 18th April.

The United States is our most important ally. But we should avoid adopting a position of "my ally, right or wrong". Intervention now to remove the Iraqi regime would be illegal, unwise and unnecessary. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, when the United Kingdom and France embarked on the disastrous mistake of the Suez expedition, the United States rightly refused to support them. In this situation, Her Majesty's Government should offer the strongest support to the United States and to international institutions in the war on terrorism but should at the same time press the United States to be more active in the Israel-Palestine dispute and to hold its own hawks in check on removing the current regime in Iraq.

6.10 p.m.

Lord Vivian

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for bringing this debate to our attention today. Your Lordships will be well aware that my contributions normally concern military affairs and I speak with due humility on this subject today, as my noble friend Lord Howell is detained elsewhere.

The debate has discussed complex matters, clarified many highly relevant issues and enabled your Lordships' House to consider these important matters in a frank and open way. I agree that we need a debate in your Lordships' Chamber in government time.

We on these Benches support the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America in their determination to tackle the issue of the growing threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We agree that robust action must be taken to deal with that problem and that we must not shy away from it, as some would wish. The Government and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition reflect world opinion. We speak for it and are prepared to act on its behalf and we support the United States of America because she speaks and acts on the same principles.

Few people will disagree with that, but concerns arise over how and what action should he taken to resolve this grave and dangerous problem. At this stage, while no decision has yet been made to resolve this alarming situation, we support the Government in pursuing the most effective course of action—whether it be containment, diplomatic, economic, deterrent or military action. However, whichever type of action is taken should be preceded by an intense but gradual measured escalation of diplomatic and political measures to show the world—not least the Arab countries—that the West is offering Saddam Hussein every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions.

As your Lordships have emphasised, it should be remembered that Iraq is continuously in breach of UN resolutions concerning the ceasefire and Saddam Hussein has failed to assure the world that he is not engaged in developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and their launcher and delivery systems. Some countries and their cities are already within range of ballistic missile bases in the Middle East and in a few years' time most of Europe will be in range. However, although Iraq is a sponsor of state terrorism, as has been said frequently throughout the debate no credible evidence has so far been discovered that links Iraq to Al'Qaeda.

It is known and confirmed by a United States Congress report and a Central Intelligence Agency report released on 9th January that Iraq is pursuing ambitious plans to increase the range, reliability and accuracy of its ballistic missiles and only a significant change in its political orientation will stop it from doing so. That creates even greater risks to Europe, the USA, our military forces and our allies throughout the world.

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq had a frightening range of weapons of mass destruction. The eventual admission by Iraq of biological holdings is terrifying—consisting of about 20,000 litres of concentrated botulinum, some 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax and 2,200 litres of aflatoxin. The UN is especially worried about 600 aerial chemical bombs and on ballistic missiles it said that it could not account for at least seven Iraqi-made missiles and two Russian made Scud missiles. Furthermore, thousands of tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons and some 31,000 chemical weapons munitions are also unaccounted for.

It is clear that Iraq now possesses the holdings and capability to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his Government nave obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, of which Iraq is a signatory, not to proliferate nuclear capabilities. The fear of his doing so is of great concern. Nine United Nations Security Council resolutions have been passed, none of which Saddam Hussein has complied with in full, and 27 separate obligations have been placed on him, of which he is in blatant breach of at least 23. There is an urgent need for weapons inspectors to be readmitted in compliance with United Nations Resolution 687 to verify and destroy those holdings.

Saddam Hussein will not comply with the United Nations resolution and allow the inspectors to return—presumably because he has something to hide and because his objection to free inspection finds support among his Arab neighbours. The argument about inspection is about Saddam Hussein being willing to receive inspectors, pre-approved by him, to look at what they are shown on a prearranged timetable, as opposed to the UN being able to send in people of its choice to look at whatever they want whenever they want.

The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN inspectors to return to Iraq to verify and destroy Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of those weapons of mass destruction. That is the action that Iraq must take to return to the international community, for what lies at the heart of the issue is the rule of international law. No half-measures or rhetoric should be accepted as a commitment by Iraq to meet its obligations under the security resolutions.

There is no doubt that action must be taken if the West is to pre-empt the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that any course adopted must be morally right, legal and comply with international law. Some say that direct military intervention is the answer to the problem. However, while no option should be ruled out, it would surely be wise to ensure that every measure has been brought to bear before military action is taken. Some options that have been referred to are containment by sanctions, greater diplomatic pressure, deterrence and military force.

First, as far as I am aware, the goal of containment was to prevent Saddam Hussein from rebuilding Iraq's military power and weapons of mass destruction through sanctions. Containment has been operating for a number of years and it is generally accepted that it is insufficient and no longer a realistic policy to pursue.

Secondly, much greater and stronger diplomatic pressures are required. One of those should be to dissuade neighbouring Arab states from giving support to Saddam Hussein to prevent full and free weapons inspections. The other is for the USA to force the Israelis to recognise the state of Palestine and in return to ask the Arab states to support western policy for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

Thirdly, there is the policy of deterrence. A number of military options can be deployed if Iraq fails to respond to diplomatic pressure. That should involve a steady and progressive application of realistic military pressure on a proportionate basis, which should enable the West to carry most of its allies with it—including the more reluctant of the coalition partners. It can be tailored into continuing diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis and it should make post-conflict reconstruction and settlement easier, should it come to that.

Finally, with containment not working, and should the policies of increased diplomatic pressure and deterrence fail, the application of military force must be examined if the West is to achieve its aim of freeing the world of the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. The West must also be prepared to act in order to persuade the Israelis not to strike with their nuclear weapons. They may be tempted to do so if their intelligence sources suggest that Saddam Hussein may be about to use weapons of mass destruction against Israel.

There is not time in this debate to discuss the types of military action that could be used. However, a nuclear-armed Iraq would be a disaster waiting to happen and any military attack on Iraq must be carried out by a very large-scale allied forces operation using overwhelming ground forces. An approach similar to the employment of air power, the use of special forces and the enlistment and deployment of local opposition groups from the Shia and Kurds to do most of the fighting, as has been used in Afghanistan, is highly questionable and may not produce the rapid and conclusive result required, especially by the Arab states. It must be clearly understood that, if Saddam Hussein realised that the West was intent on a regime change, he would fight back with everything that he had. That could include a ballistic missile attack on Israel. Whichever course is adopted, it must be robust and be seen through to the bitter end.

The Government of Iraq have already used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. They have the capability to use them again, and that is the most serious threat to society as a whole since the first atomic bombs brought a sudden end to the Second World War. Arab opinion will not tolerate a long drawn-out campaign but demands, if it is to tolerate any action, a rapid and decisive conclusion. Effective and conclusive action would constitute liberation, not invasion. Unless President Bush matches resolution towards Iraq with firmness towards Israel, the international coalition may break up.

We on these Benches welcome and support the Prime Minister's assurances that he will stand by America as a staunch and strong ally to end the production of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and that no course of action should be ruled out. If we sit back and do nothing, we may find that those horrific weapons are used against us.

Lord Rea

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is the fourth or fifth noble Lord to mention the fact that Saddam used gas—a chemical weapon—against his own people. That was, of course, beyond any kind of redemption, and we all condemn it. However, our Government's position on that is not all that good either. We did not complain about it at the time—1988—when we thought that Saddam was more on our side. Further hack, we used chemical weapons against Kurdish tribespeople in northern Iraq in 1928. We should be careful about condemning what happened too wholeheartedly.

Lord Vivian

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I was trying to concentrate on matters that are up to date, not matters from some time ago that are now, probably, irrelevant to the debate.

6.22 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Our discussion takes place at a time when international concern about Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction is rising and it coincides with renewed calls by the United Nations for Iraqi compliance with its disarmament and monitoring obligations. Many points were raised this afternoon, but I shall concentrate on the subject of the debate, the development of weapons of mass destruction and the case for resuming the activities of the UN inspectors in Iraq.

Last Sunday, in Texas, the Prime Minister set out succinctly the United Kingdom's objective. He said that Saddam Hussein, has to let the inspectors back in, anyone, any time, any place the international community demands". That is not a new statement. It is what Security Council resolutions have always demanded.

Iraq poses a real, unique threat to the security of the Gulf region and the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein can lay claim to a grotesque distinction among the world's dictators. As the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Lyell, said, his is the only regime to have used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and neighbours. I must answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, by saying that, once Saddam had the capability, the intent and the actuality were horribly demonstrated—as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, reminded us—at Halabja, where 5,000 died, elsewhere in Kurdistan and in Iran, to say nothing of the invasion of Kuwait, although he did not use his weapons of mass destruction there.

Iraq now possesses WMD that it concealed from United Nations weapons inspectors throughout the 1990s. Not only does that contravene United Nations disarmament and monitoring obligations, it breaches the spirit and the letter of some of the world's most important arms control agreements.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us, the United Nations Special Commission was, between 1991 and 1998, able to identify, locate and destroy significant elements of Iraq's WMD programme, despite the almost total lack of cooperation from the Iraqi authorities. However, a final report submitted by the chairman of the United Nations Special Commission in December 1998 stated that UNSCOM had continuing concerns about the declarations made by Iraq.

The report showed that United Nations inspectors had been unable to account for large quantities of documents, materials and equipment relating to Iraq's chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes. The gaping holes in the Iraqi inventory are a great cause for concern. UNSCOM was unable to account for thousands of tonnes of precursor materials used in the production of chemical weapons, hundreds of tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of VX nerve agent and tens of thousands of chemical weapons munitions. UNSCOM was also unable to account for a significant quantity of long-range missiles, a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, referred. Those are matters of real concern to the international community; the materials that UNSCOM was unable to account for form the raw material for horrific capabilities that threaten the security of the entire region.

One of the most bizarre suggestions made in recent years was that UNSCOM was merely the tool of the West and that its conclusions merely reflected thinking in London and Washington. Not only is that a slight on the reputation of UNSCOM's inspectors, it ignores the conclusions of distinguished arms control experts world-wide. I remind my noble friend Lord Rea that the UNSCOM executive chairman, Richard Butler, made it clear that he always instructed that all UNSCOM activities be carried out strictly in pursuit of its disarmament mandate and not to the benefit any of individual state. I heard what my noble friend said about Mr Scott Ritter, who worked for UNSCOM. I remind my noble friend that, at the time, Mr Ritter consistently reported Iraqi concealment and conceit. As his then boss, Richard Butler, has pointed out, everything that Mr Ritter has said since then contradicts what he told Mr Butler at the time about Iraqi disarmament.

In 1999, a United Nations panel of 22 independent disarmament experts confirmed UNSCOM's findings. That reinforces my point. They concluded that serious gaps remained in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. We have no reason to question their conclusions or to question UNSCOM's integrity.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I apologise for asking the Minister to give way, but it is vitally important that we know what Iraq actually has and what evidence there is. If we are persuaded by that, those of us who doubt will give the Government a fair wind. However, we must be persuaded that Iraq has a certain number of missiles and that it will use them.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, if the noble Earl had contained himself a moment or two longer, he would have heard my next sentence, which was to be, "I now turn to the developments in Iraq's programmes since the withdrawal of the inspectors in 1998".

Based on the Iraqi regime's track record of deceit in the period between 1991 and 1998—something about which there cannot be much doubt—it would be naive to take Iraqi assertions of a clean bill of health at face value. Despite the difficulties in forming an accurate picture of developments in the absence of UN weapons inspectors, all the available evidence points to a concerted effort by Saddam Hussein to revive his weapons programmes. For the past three years, Iraq has rejected the international community's demand for a resumption of inspections. We judge that Saddam Hussein has used that three-year period to pursue his weapons of mass destruction ambitions unconstrained by any inspectors.

There are now several areas of major concern. For example, since 1998, many of the facilities damaged by the United Kingdom and the United States military strikes during Operation Desert Fox have been repaired. Iraq is persisting with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and is developing missiles capable of delivering such weapons not only to Iraq's immediate neighbours but to targets well beyond. There is also recent evidence of an increased effort to procure nuclear technology, and research and development on the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme has restarted. Remember, without United Nations controls, Saddam Hussein would have a nuclear weapon by now.

Therefore, we strongly suspect that Iraq still has large stocks of mustard gas, VX, sarin and aflatoxin. We are all very familiar with the devastating effects of mustard gas, which was widely used in the killing fields of Flanders during the First World War. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, sarin and, even more so, aflatoxin are phenomenally potent substances. A single teaspoon of sarin, carefully deployed, has the capacity to kill tens of thousands of people. We assess that Iraq has substantial stocks of that deadly substance. Even the briefest exposure to aflatoxin is almost invariably fatal.

Iraq has the technical expertise to incorporate those deadly substances into its weapons systems: into artillery shells; into free-fall bombs; and possible even into warheads for use with its ballistic missiles. UNSCOM inspectors found evidence of the presence of chemical agents in shell fragments in Iraq during their inspections in the 1990s.

The question of a delivery system was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale. Iraq still possesses missiles with the capability of striking well beyond its own borders. We are sure that Saddam Hussein is working on the development of longer-range missiles which go beyond the 150-kilometre limit prescribed by the United Nations. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, rightly said, that gives him the potential capability to target population centres in countries of the region with chemical and biological warheads.

Finally, we do not judge that Iraq currently has a nuclear weapon. We believe that it could acquire such a device within five years if sanctions were lifted. That timeframe would shorten considerably were Iraq to acquire sufficient fissile material from an external source. That is a deeply disturbing picture.

Therefore, as many of your Lordships have acknowledged, the case for a resumption of weapons inspections could not be clearer. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 offers Iraq a clear route out of sanctions in return for co-operation with weapons inspectors. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, reminded us, Iraq has refused to accept the key terms of UNSCR 1284.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benchie, said that we have to find a way through this. The first step must be for Iraq to allow the United Nations weapons inspectors unrestricted and unconditional access to all sites which the United Nations believes are being used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that that is a demand which comes from all members of the Security Council, all members of the European Union, and all Iraq's neighbours. That is a subject on which all are agreed. It is not just the United States and the United Kingdom, but all those key partners.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we in the United Kingdom remain at the forefront of the efforts to introduce new arrangements which focus UN sanctions on Iraq's attempts to obtain weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that we hope that the Security Council will be putting these into place by the end of May. Yes, the negotiations with our friends in Russia have gone well, with much thanks to the abilities of Sir Jeremy Greenstock who has worked so effectively and tirelessly on that issue.

Once implemented, those proposals will mean no sanctions on ordinary imports, only controls on military and, of course, weapons of mass destruction-related items. That will step up pressure on the Iraqi regime by showing once and for all that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and that Saddam Hussein alone remains responsible for their suffering.

At this point I must address some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Iraq has cut its spending on health by more than 50 per cent—

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". Doing nothing is not an option.

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". Speculation about an imminent attack is just that—it is speculation.

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 art 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 UN MOVIC 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 he 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.