Mr President, in the light of the UN inspectors' report to the UN Security Council on Monday, and ten years of Iraq's deception, evasion and non-compliance with Security Council resolutions, it should be clear to everybody here that we are facing a very grave situation in the Gulf. The starting point in this whole debate must be that we are representatives of democratic nations. Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has no respect for democracy, for the rule of law or for the demands of the United Nations itself. As democrats we have a responsibility to explain fully the reasons why it may be necessary to take action in order to uphold the will of the international community, which is that Saddam Hussein should unconditionally disarm. This issue is not simply about the work of UN inspectors; rather, it is about disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were there when the inspectors had to leave in 1999 – where are they now? There has to date been no evidence of disarmament; and let us never forget: the burden of proof here must be with Saddam. In my view, the British Prime Minister has a special responsibility to explain clearly the reasons why we must confront the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Sadly I must say that, to date, his own government has not been as united and clear on this issue as I feel we in the United Kingdom are entitled to expect. We are disappointed at Mr Blair's inability to sufficiently persuade public opinion in the United Kingdom of the need to be prepared to take action, in the face of what is very clearly a real threat to the security of our people. In the United Kingdom we have seen during the course of the last fortnight or so very clear instances of the existence of that real threat. A collective failure to confront the gravity of the situation with unity and with determination only gives Saddam Hussein succour; not to be prepared to take action – if he continues to obstruct and to lie – would be an open invitation to any rogue state to do anything it likes and still not face serious consequences. It would also leave the United States itself, and the United Nations particularly, weak and impotent. Clearly, should the situation not improve in the weeks ahead, a second UN resolution may be required. That is, however, the optimum option ahead of any military engagement in the Gulf. Having listened to General Morillon, I take the view that the international Community still has the right to act without any such new resolution, as the powers are already vested in earlier UN resolutions. The position of the French and German Governments in recent days, as well as many of the contributions and demonstrations that have been made in this Chamber this afternoon, clearly show that any prospect of a common foreign and security policy is fallacious. I do not make any partisan political point on this, but we are surely fooling ourselves as European Parliamentarians if we believe that we are anywhere near developing a common foreign and security policy or anything like it – we clearly are not. In the days and weeks ahead, we need steady nerves and an effective United Nations. We must ensure Saddam Hussein understands that his failure to comply with the will of the international community will result in serious consequences. Equally, we must also ensure that public opinion in the West and elsewhere understands and appreciates why we must be prepared to take action in defence of the international interest. Political leaders must have the courage to face up to such threats; otherwise the credibility of the United Nations itself will be at stake and Saddam Hussein will have prevailed. If the western nations had sent a stronger and more unified message to Saddam Hussein from the start and maintained their resolve, then perhaps we would not have to be contemplating military intervention today.

Political group: PPE-DE