The House of Commons – Tuesday 24 September, 2002

 

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): I share the scepticism expressed about the motives of President Bush, but we have been asked in this debate to focus on the Prime Minister's belief that Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction and what should be done about it. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that the Government have two aims: first, to ensure the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq; and secondly, to ensure the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction discovered by the inspectors. They have also made it clear that they believe that the threat of military action should be used to achieve those aims, but those aims and that threat raise two questions which the Government have yet to answer in this debate. First, when should the decision to use military action be taken? Secondly, who should take the decision that military action is necessary? The answer to the first question must be that no decision can or should be taken until we know the response of Saddam Hussein to United Nations' insistence, expressed in a new resolution, on the return of UN inspectors-or, if they return, until we know the results of those inspections. A decision cannot and must not be taken in advance. We should take care-the Government should take care-that any new UN resolution does not contain any loose words or phraseology which could be used or abused at some time in the future and without any reference to the UN to authorise or to claim authority for military action that was not intended by the UN.

As for who should authorise military action, I share the view expressed by several Members in this debate that the decision to do so should be taken by the Security Council of the United Nations. It is not enough for the decision to be taken by one man-not even President Bush, or perhaps especially President Bush. The United Nations should decide whether the inspectors' findings, and Iraq's response or lack of it to them, justify the use of military action. Of course United Nations resolutions should be enforced, but the method of enforcement should be specifically authorised by the UN Security Council and not determined by a self-appointed vigilante. This question and the answer to it are important because President Bush made it clear in his speech to the United Nations-and those authorised to speak on behalf of his Administration have also made it clear in their statements-that he believes that the President of the United States, with at most the authority of the US Congress, is entitled to take the decision to enforce UN resolutions. I do not agree; I think that a lot of Members do not agree with President Bush's position. I hope that our Government do not agree either and will make it clear to the United States that it is not acceptable to many of us that it should take such decisions alone and without the authority of the United Nations.

Iraq 8 January 2003

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham Hodge Hill): Who is better placed to decide whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction: President Bush or Hans Blix?
The Prime Minister: A process is set out in the UN resolution, whereby the inspectors go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein has made his declaration of 8 December, and everyone is deeply sceptical about the contents of that. It is for the inspectors to examine whether there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If there is such evidence, that is a breach of the UN resolution. A combination of the judgment of the UN inspectors and the judgment of the international community is involved.

3 February 2003

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): What is the Government's best estimate of how many Iraqi civilians will be killed or injured if there is a war?

The Prime Minister: We will do all that we possibly can to minimise any civilian casualties. I should say to my right hon. Friend that we have striven hard to try to avoid the prospect of any casualties at all, precisely by delaying action and allowing the UN process to work. The real casualties in Iraq over the past few years have occurred as a result of Saddam's policies.

26 February 2003 .

Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): Is there any other Labour party, Socialist party or Social Democrat party anywhere else in Europe that supports the British and American approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein

The Prime Minister: Yes: for example, the Polish Government.