I am not a pacifist and do believe that appropriate military action can be justified in some circumstances. The obvious example is the war against Hitler but I also felt that the international community should have got involved in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia a lot sooner than it did. However, I do not believe an attack on Iraq is justified. Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction (but certainly not nuclear weapons) but he is certainly less well-equipped than he was at the time of the Gulf War when he failed to use them (i.e. deterrence worked). There was a debate in Parliament on Iraq on 25 November on a Government motion simply supporting UN Resolution 1441. In my view, this was a motion giving the Government the go-ahead for war. Labour amendments I sponsored were not called and so I was one of 32 Labour MPs who voted for a Lib Dem amendment requiring both another resolution and a parliamentary vote before the UK could go to war. This is my minimum requirement as I am not convinced that, even then, war would be justified. I would like nothing better than to see democracy and respect for human rights in Iraq. Nevertheless, if Saddam is a threat, it is to Arab countries as his scud missiles have a limited range. They do not want to see an attack on Iraq. But if we do go to war (and it is clear that preparations for this are well underway irrespective of any Security Council decision) and he has nothing to lose, Israel’s military superiority would be no deterrent to him and a ghastly conflagration in the Middle East could ensue, leaving only fertile ground for terrorism. The last debate on Iraq in the Commons was on 22 January but unsurprisingly there was no vote on a substantive motion. However, I joined 43 Labour colleagues in voting against the procedural motion to adjourn the House to register my protest against the Government's policy on Iraq.

It is worrying that, at Prime Minister's Questions, like that on 29 January, the Prime Minister consistently avoids the awkward questions. It seems that war could come at any time. I and like-minded MPs will make as much noise in opposition to this as we can. If there is an attack on Iraq, vigils will be organised for 6 o'clock on the day war is announced. I urge you to also do what you can to make your own views known and to get involved in peaceful anti-war activities.

Finally I am forwarding all the communications that I am receiving from constituents on this issue to Mike O’Brien, the relevant Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that the Government is aware of the public opposition to an attack on Iraq.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Even if Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction—most people accept that he probably retains some residual capability—can my right hon. Friend explain why he did not use those during the Gulf war when his arsenal was massively greater than it is now? In particular, can he explain why Saddam represents a greater threat today than he did in 1997, 1998, 1999 and all his time as Prime Minister until President's Bush's axis of evil speech, when apparently the situation changed?

The Prime Minister: First, the one thing about which we can be sure is that his reason for not using his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons back in the early 1990s was not out of the goodness of his heart.

29 Jan 2003 : Column 880

Secondly, my hon. Friend should study the UN inspectors' report. I shall read just one small part of it. Dr. Blix says:

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed . . . Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor . . . UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account . . . There are indications that the agent was weaponised."

He then goes on to detail similar findings in respect of a lot more weapons.

When my hon. Friend says that we did not regard Saddam as a threat between 1998 and the axis of evil speech, that is wrong. Precisely because he was a threat, thousands of British forces have been down in the Gulf the whole time, flying over the no-fly zones. Precisely because he was a threat, we have had to impose a sanctions regime on Iraq that, because of the way that Saddam implements it, means—I fear—misery and poverty for many, many millions of Iraqis. The fact is that, way before President Bush's speech, at the very first meeting that I held with the President in February 2001, I said that weapons of mass destruction were an issue and that we had to confront them.

In the House on 14 September, I said that, after 11 September, it was even more important to deal with the issue. I simply say this to my hon. Friend: the UN having taken its stand, if we do not deal with Iraq now—

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): Who is next?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks who is next. After we deal with Iraq, we have to—[Interruption.]—yes, through the United Nations. We have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] We have to confront those companies and individuals trading in weapons of mass destruction—

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): When do we stop?

The Prime Minister: Another question has been shouted at me. We stop when the threat to our security is properly and fully dealt with. I say this to the hon. Gentleman: if he reads Dr. Blix's report, who can doubt that Saddam is in breach of his UN obligations?

We have talked about the UN in this House. Let us, therefore, follow the UN route. Let us implement the resolution and let us make sure that the threat to our security from those weapons is properly dealt with.