Iraq (Hansard, 14 January 2003)

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I set out our policy objectives in a Written Answer on 7th January. Iraq must comply with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. UNSCR 1441 has served notice on the Iraqi regime that it must now give up its weapons of mass destruction or face serious consequences.

§ Lord Blaker
My Lords, in addition to the risk of serious damage to the United Nations which could result from military action against Iraq—unless the issue is handled with great skill and care in the United Nations—is there not another perhaps even more serious risk regarding military action? Unless the Government of the United States put a more urgent and stronger effort into resolving the appalling conflict between Israel and the Palestinians— with a result that is fair to the Palestinians—will not the Arab world be confirmed in its suspicion that the United States is in the pocket of Israel? Will not the likely result be that there will be even more instability and terrorism in the Middle East?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that it is important that the authority of the United Nations is upheld. That is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom has been so concerned that, in so far as is humanly possible, the issue is dealt with under the auspices of the United Nations.
The problems that prevail in Israel and the Palestinian Authority are of enormous concern, but they are free-standing problems. The issues around weapons of mass destruction in Iraq might be solved and there still might be an outstanding and terrible problem in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. However, I acknowledge the noble Lord's point that they are linked in many minds. That is one of the many reasons why my right honourable friend has held discussions today to look at ways in which the Palestinian Authority might be reformed.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that within the context of the Government's policy, as she has described it, there is room for anxiety about how well equipped the United Nations inspectors are to complete their task? Will she explain to the House why there has been a delay in sharing intelligence with the inspectors? Obviously, if they are to do their job, they need all the available intelligence.
Can my noble friend assure us that all the available intelligence is now at the disposal of the inspectors and that we are determined that they should be able to complete their task with full intelligence and report back to the United Nations?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I am not going to give the absolute categoric assurance that 126 my noble friend has asked of me. I cannot assure him that all available intelligence is communicated to the inspectors. I can assure him that all intelligence that is consistent with the security of this country is conveyed to the inspectors. I do not know whether my noble friend heard the interview with Dr Blix on the radio this morning, but I heard it and thought that he was positive about the co-operation he was receiving from American and British sources.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who said yesterday at his press conference that there had been only one week in which the full complement of inspectors had been available? The Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, speaking for the United States, indicated that their intelligence had been made available only last week.
In view of that, will the Government consider sympathetically any requests from the inspectors for a greater amount of time to work on the inspection of what evidence there may be? Furthermore, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom and France are permanent members of the Security Council, will the Government consider permitting a debate immediately after the report of the inspectors to enable the opinions of this House and another place to be considered in the work which our United Nations representatives will do on a second resolution, should their be one, so that they may take into account the views of Parliament?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, on the issue of a further debate, I am personally sympathetic to what the noble Baroness says. This is an important issue, as the whole House knows, but that matter will be decided in the normal way through the usual channels. As to whether or not I agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, yes, of course I agree with my right honourable friend. There has been only one week in which the full complement of inspectors has been available. In the time available, they have undertaken some 200 inspections—not in the past week, but in the whole time available.
We expect there to be a report on 27th January. That is specified in UNSCR 1441. However, UNSCR 1441 is not time limited, so greater time is not an issue, and there is no deadline on reports. A progress report must be made by that date, but further reports can of course be made.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the Iraq dossier the Prime Minister wrote: What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme"? Has the Minister or the Government learnt anything from the United Nations inspectors in Iraq that corroborates the Prime Minister's belief?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the facts drawn together in the Iraq dossier to which the 127 noble and gallant Lord refers indicated a formidable set of circumstances. There was not one single fact which would automatically lead one to say that, as night follows day, there were weapons of mass destruction, but, none the less, the accumulation of facts was such that a powerful case was made.
From what Dr Blix said this morning on the radio, he believes that there has been evidence that Iraq has been importing weapons-related material in violation of the prohibitions placed on it by the Security Council. However, he went on to say: Whether the discovery of these items is related to weapons of mass destruction is a matter that still needs to be determined". I hope that we will have further information on that on 27th January.

§ The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, is the Minister able to share the Government's response to the report presented to the United Nations Security Council last month, setting out the likely outcomes of military action for the Iraqi infrastructure? The report indicates the serious degradation of electricity supplies, with a knock-on effect on good water, food, health and sanitation. The report goes on to warn that a refugee migration is inevitable. Given the recent mobilisation of British forces to the Gulf, is the Minister able to give details of any contingency humanitarian plans the Government have in hand or in prospect?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are enormously aware of the problems that would arise from military action, not only through the serious degradation of infrastructure, to which the right reverend prelate refers, but through the appalling loss of life that would occur in an overwhelmingly young population, a matter to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred last week. All these issues are important. Of course Her Majesty's Government must give thought to the serious consequences of taking military action, but we very much hope that there is still time to persuade Saddam Hussein that that will not be necessary if he complies with UNSCR 1441.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, can the House assume that American and British intelligence, with proper safeguards and through their governments, will now supply Mr Blix, as he requests, with the details of where the weapons of mass destruction are hidden in this enormous country? Will that request be granted? Does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House welcome the emphasis that the Prime Minister rightly put yesterday on both British interests in an early attack on Iraq and the linkages between rogue states and global terrorism generally? Does she agree that if ultimately we have to proceed under the authority of UNSCR 1441 without a further resolution, much more emphasis needs to placed on those elements and the case for an attack in order to reassure a confused and sceptical British public?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I agree that the British public are sceptical but, in the 128 interests of clarity, we must be careful about the direct links we make between terrorism and Iraq. Of course there are issues concerning rogue states and, as we have discussed before in your Lordships' House, there are issues about certain terrorist organisations which find safety and succour within Iraq. The noble Lord asked a specific question about intelligence. Consistent with our own security—by that I mean the security of our sources of intelligence as well as the security of our Armed Forces should there be a necessity for military conflict in the region—we try to make what we can available from our intelligence resources. I cannot give an absolute guarantee that all our intelligence goes to the inspectors. The noble Lord would not expect that—I hope he would not expect that. I hope that he will read very carefully what I said to my noble friend Lord Judd a moment ago.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, the Government appear to be advancing the proposition that, even if the Security Council does not wish action to be taken, the United States and this country will certainly consider, and probably take, action in order to enforce a resolution in circumstances in which the Security Council does not wish that resolution to be enforced. If that is the situation, perhaps we should be told. I should be grateful for my noble friend's comments.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have not said that. I hope that my noble friend will read what I said. What I have said before in your Lordships' House—and what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said—is that, if possible, we would like to secure another Security Council resolution before any military action is taken. But my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in answering questions from the press yesterday, made it clear that it might not be possible to obtain such a Security Council resolution. In those circumstances, we would have to consider our position very carefully. I stress to my noble friend that it is our wish and our intention to pursue another Security Council resolution. That is the Government's position.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, I am afraid that we are well overdue now. We have had rather more than 10 minutes on this Question.