House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jan 1993

Column 1009

The Scots will still be able to wear funny skirts and Welsh ladies will still be able to wear their top hats. All the trappings of national identity will remain, but the object of the exercise will be the transfer of sovereignty.

We have seen a transformation in attitudes in the Conservative party and we have seen a similar transformation within the Labour party, as was evident from excellent speeches tonight. That transformation has come about because of the demoralisation of our party. Apparently, somehow, salvation now lies in economic and monetary union.

The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) relate to article 2, which has come as manna from heaven for some of our pro-marketeers. We have all seen the briefings--they were not very good--that have been distributed about it. Article 2 is the one on to which the pro-marketeers have decided to latch and to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a fair fist of it, as did a number of my other hon. Friends. In fact, considering how bad the case is for that article, my hon. Friends did remarkably well.

Perhaps my hon. Friends should take a close look at the language of that article because they will discover that it does not help them very much. They may think that it does, but let us consider the three phrases that deal with economic matters. First, we are told that everyone agrees with a great degree of convergence, but convergence is defined only later in the treaty. There is no convergence on unemployment-- [Interruption.]

The Chairman : Order. I ask hon. Members to recognise that the Committee has grown somewhat in size. They should have the courtesy to listen to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Davies : I am grateful for that protection and assistance, Mr. Morris.

The only convergence with which the treaty deals is the convergence of inflation and budget deficits. I do not believe that there can be any other "meaningful" convergence, because if the intention is to arrive, finally, at a single currency--basically that is what economic and monetary union is about--those are the only convergence indicators that we can have.

My hon. Friends who are in favour of article 2 are attempting to write another treaty. They have attempted to convince themselves that if the Labour party had negotiated this treaty, it would have included different convergence indicators. However, we would never have come to a common or single currency with any other convergence indicators, because that would have made no sense. We would never have reached the goal that some of my hon. Friends and many in the Conservative party now, apparently, wish to achieve.

Only two basic convergence indicators are relevant to a single currency-- practically abolishing inflation in all member states, and locking the currencies together, thus reducing the budget deficits so that we can move towards a single currency. On the question of a high degree of convergence, we on this side of the argument are whistling in the wind. Some of my hon. Friends believe that, somehow, we can slide out of the convergence indicators.

Much has been made of the term "price stability". Indeed, one or two of my hon. Friends said, "Surely you are not in favour of price instability." Of course we are not

Column 1010

in favour of price instability. The whole section of this treaty dealing with economic and monetary union is lifted from the treaty of the German Bundesbank. The words are exactly the same. The term "price stability" is to be found there, and there is nothing wrong in that. Price stability is what we are going to have here. But it will take effort and pain to achieve the goal of economic and monetary union. Price stability is essential and it means no inflation-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee has been a distinguished Labour party spokesman on Treasury matters and hon. Members are entitled to hear him. He is making a very valuable contribution to the debate and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will behave in a more seemly manner.

The Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Davies : Price stability is obviously essential to the treaty. I submit that the words "high degree of convergence" do not assist my hon. Friends who have mounted this exercise of pretending that, somehow, the Maastricht treaty is something that the Labour party can support.

The next part of article 2 refers to "non-inflationary growth". We are all in favour of non-inflationary growth. It is marvellous. I am sure that this is not the right time for a philosophical discussion of inflation and growth, but I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present. People in the Treasury read and talk about these things all the time. It is very doubtful whether Essex man or woman or western society is really prepared to accept

non-inflationary growth. Indeed, is it possible to have non-inflationary growth in consumer-based, service-based economies such as we have today?

I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has arrived. He does not believe in non-inflationary growth. He did at one time, but he became frightened. He realised that, as inflation came down, growth stopped and unemployment increased. The southern England constituency--not northern England or middle England or south Wales or Scotland, but the whole great service industry, consumer constituency of the south of England--suddenly realised that it wanted inflation. Essex man and Essex woman cannot live without inflation. They need to see house prices going up. The service industries for which they work cannot increase productivity, so if is they are to have more money they must have inflation. So the Prime Minister does not believe in non-inflationary growth. But apparently the Labour party does. Apparently, many of my hon. Friends now believe in non-inflationary growth. The choice in the treaty is not between inflationary and non-inflationary growth but between low inflation and no growth. That is what is really behind the words of the treaty. If we cannot have growth without inflation, we shall have no growth. Some people believe that, provided that inflation can be reduced to zero, jobs will magically be created.

Mr. Dorrell indicated assent.

Mr. Davies : The Financial Secretary nods again. The Treasury has obviously been holding seminars and has been converted. The Prime Minister does not agree with

Column 1011

any of it, but the present Financial Secretary apparently does. We cannot have non-inflationary growth in today's western capitalist economies. In the 1930s, it was possible to have some growth and deflation.

Mr. Dorrell indicated assent.

Mr. Davies : The Financial Secretary nods again. The lessons have been going well. Perhaps the same people have been briefing us. It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman-- left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress ; to sit again tomorrow.

Column 1012

Iraq (Military Action)

10 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : With permission, I should like to make a statement on allied military action against Iraq.

At 18.15 hours GMT tonight, four RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft and two Victor tankers took part in a coalition operation, involving some 114 United States, British and French aircraft, against Iraqi military targets in southern Iraq. The action was taken to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone below the 32nd parallel in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688. Early indications are that serious damage was inflicted and assessment of the results is continuing. No losses were sustained by coalition forces.

This coalition action was taken in self defence under international law and is both a necessary and proportionate response to the serious threat posed to the safety of coalition aircraft. The coalition action took the form of air strikes against air defence facilities and command and control facilities. Attacks were also carried out to suppress air defence installations which threatened the security of coalition aircraft participating in the operation. United Kingdom forces participated in attacks against command and control facilities at Al Amarah, with RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft, using 1,000 lb laser-guided bombs against targets designated by the thermal imaging airborne laser designator, known as TIALD, carried by two of the four aircraft.

The action is to be seen against the background of recent Iraqi violations of the no-fly zone and their deployment of SAM 2 and SAM 3 missiles in a threatening posture below the 32nd parallel, south of the airfield used by Iraqi aircraft which were violating the no-fly zone. These posed a new and unacceptable threat to the security of coalition aircraft. A strongly worded demarche was issued to Iraq in New York on 6 January by the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia, which demanded that the SAM systems recently established south of the 32nd parallel be returned to their previous locations and configurations and that violations of the no- fly zone should cease. The demarche went on to say that, should Iraq fail to comply, the coalition would respond appropriately and decisively, without further warning.

The demarche elaborated on an earlier one on 26 August 1992 which announced the creation of the no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel. The no-fly zone was necessitated by a situation of severe humanitarian need in southern Iraq arising from Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to refrain from further repressing its civilian population. Iraq largely respected the no- fly zone until late December 1992, when Iraqi military aircraft began deliberate and systematic violations. This resulted in an Iraqi fighter aircraft being shot down on 27 December by coalition aircraft.

Following the demarche there were no indications that Saddam Hussein was backing down. There were no fresh violations of the no-fly zone and the missiles were dispersing. However, despite the clear warning issued on 6 January, Iraq moved SAM 3 missiles, which were the subject of the demarche, to new locations south of the 32nd parallel where they posed a significant threat to

Column 1013

coalition aircraft. Other missile systems in the south were placed on an operational footing, also threatening the safety of coalition aircraft. The coalition action was in direct response to this threat.

The Baghdad regime can now be in no doubt about our determination to maintain the no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel, in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688. Should the need arise, the Government will consider the need for further action in consultation with coalition partners.

The House will also be aware of the deep concern expressed by the United Nations Security Council, following Iraqi incursions into the demilitarised zone on the border with Kuwait and Iraq's violation of land and premises operated and occupied by the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission. The Security Council has also expressed alarm at Iraq's refusal to allow UNIKOM and United Nations special commission flights into Iraq using UN aircraft. The Government will continue to participate fully in consideration of these matters within the Security Council and report developments to the House. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing admiration for the bravery and professionalism of the personnel of all the coalition forces who participated in this operation and in particular to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces serving in the Gulf. They have once again demonstrated the high degree of dedication and the ability that we have learned to expect from them and have contributed immeasurably to the success of this operation.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : May I say how relieved Opposition Members are that all the allied personnel have returned safely. We salute their skill and their bravery. It is worth reminding ourselves in the comfort of the House tonight that the mission was not without danger, as we know from other theatres of operation in the world only this afternoon.

The Opposition have supported the objective of this operation which was to ensure that allied aircraft could patrol the no-fly zone in Iraq, thereby ensuring that the Kurds and, in the south, the Shi'ite Muslims were not subjected to the genocide that they might otherwise have been. That is why the no-fly zones were established, and that is why they had to be enforced.

As allied aircraft could not fly in those zones without threat because of the missiles, it was clearly correct that the missiles should be removed. Saddam Hussein was warned, he was requested, and he refused to move them. The only course of action was to take out the missiles.

We are all aware that increasingly in the past few weeks Saddam Hussein has tried to challenge the resolutions of the United Nations. That cannot be tolerated. We cannot have the will of the United Nations challenged with impunity. Let us just hope now that Saddam Hussein fully understands the resolve of the world to ensure that the resolutions of the United Nations to protect the minorities in the world are upheld. I hope that he has heard what the rest of the world has said.

We are also reassured that the action in the operation was against military targets in the no-fly zone. We are relieved that there have been no civilian targets and, we hope, no civilian casualties. I think that I speak for the House when I express the hope that the casualties on the Iraqi side are absolutely minimal, whether civilian or not.

Column 1014

May I just ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that there will be intense diplomatic efforts to explain, with the coalition Gulf allies, the reason for this mission, because it is imperative, if we are to make progress--and we must make peaceful progress- -that we have as broad a consensus as possible. That is vital if this operation is not to be wasted.

We fully appreciate that the Secretary of State is not in a position now to tell us how effective the operation has been. We hope that he will be able to do so tomorrow, and will then give the assurance that the House will be kept fully informed and he will come to the House if he has further information.

I shall end where I began and say that if we are to have a secure world order it must be based on the United Nations. If United Nations resolutions are passed, they must be adhered to and accepted by all sides. That was the reason for today's operation and why we are so pleased that it was so successful.

Mr. Rifkind : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It will make a powerful impact if the House speaks with a single voice on the matter.

It was right for the hon. Gentleman to remind the House that the personnel of the RAF who participated in the operation did so at significant personal risk and it is a matter of considerable relief that they all returned safely. It was also right for the hon. Gentleman to emphasise the importance of maintaining the closest contact, co-operation and dialogue with our allies in the Gulf. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the great importance of ensuring that not only those who participated in the operation, but all who have an interest in peace and stability in the Gulf are able to speak in a single and united manner.

The hon. Gentleman commented on the likely effects of the operation. The early signs are encouraging, but it will be some time before we can describe with certainty the detailed consequences. Of course, we shall keep the House informed when we receive such information.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for coming to the House so speedily to give us the reassurances that we have heard. We warmly support his praise for the coalition forces, especially those that formed part of the Royal Air Force. Many of us felt that more than a diplomatic slap on the wrist of Saddam Hussein was much needed. We warmly support our Government in their resolution to support what we believe to be the will of the United Nations and the coalition alliance that successfully won the war. If we are to secure peace, it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that there can be no more such incursions.

Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is correct. It is becoming increasingly clear that Saddam Hussein does not respond simply to diplomatic representations and it is, regrettably, often necessary for the international community to back up its representations with the use of force in appropriate circumstances. We now face such circumstances, which was why the present action was necessary.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : Does the Minister accept that the success of the action will be determined not only by the effectiveness of the weapons used, and the professionalism and bravery of our forces,

Column 1015

but by the extent to which it dissuades Saddam Hussein from further acts of provocation in breach of the United Nations resolutions? If further military action is required--it cannot be ruled out--the Government will continue to enjoy our support and, I believe, that of the British public as long as such action is in accordance with international law, taken in consultation with our coalition partners and uses no more force than necessary.

Mr. Rifkind : I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I can assure him that the criteria against which we judge possible action are those to which he referred.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Having heard the comments from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence feel fortified by the knowledge that the actions taken have the overwhelming support of the House and the country, both of which would wish to join him in paying tribute to the service personnel involved ?

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the effectiveness of the cruise missiles during the previous Gulf conflict? Were cruise missiles used today? If it should, unfortunately, be necessary to take further action, will cruise missiles, which can be used with relative lack of danger to service personnel, be available in the area?

Mr. Rifkind : I should like to confine myself to speaking about the contribution of the Royal Air Force. Obviously it is for the United States Government to give details of the operations for which they were responsible. I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and assure him that the weapons that may be used in any operation will be those that are thought most suitable to achieve the desired result.

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) : Most hon. Members believe that Saddam had it coming. In the words of an anonymous Pentagon official, it was a spanking rather than a beating. What part did we play in determining that it was a spanking rather than a beating? Is it right that the overwhelming force was supplied by the United States? Is it not politically important for the balance of numbers to be different from what it was? We provided six aircraft out of more than 100 and the French probably supplied a similar number. Would it not be more correct to have a better balance in any future world order?

Mr. Rifkind : In the action we attached great importance to the fact that the choice of targets and the severity of our response should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence by the Iraqi Government. As I said earlier, the targets for which the Royal Air Force was responsible were the Al Amarah base and the command and control functions there.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the integrity of Kuwait is just as valid a reason for international intervention now as it was two years ago? In the meantime, of course, Saddam Hussein has continued to commit atrocities against his own people. Will my right hon. and

Column 1016

learned Friend affirm the Government's commitment in conjunction with all right-minded nations to work to bring peace to that unfortunate region?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of great concern that only today Iraqi spokesmen continued to claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and, clearly, continued to refuse to recognise Kuwait's sovereignty and independence. It is crucial for the international community to speak with a single voice and to ensure that Saddam Hussein's regime is completely isolated in its continuing aggression and provocation.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : From this Bench on a day when we have mourned the killing of a British service man in Bosnia, may I say that we are delighted at the news that there have been no fatalities among the allied Gulf forces. However, there is some concern that the statement referred to the protection of our aircraft. Resolution 688 was clearly designed by the United Nations Security Council to protect the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Has any thought been given to how we can give them better protection? They are suffering, and to some of us it seems that minds are conditioned to reaction rather than proaction in dealing with these issues.

Mr. Rifkind : As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the original reason for the no-fly zone was to reduce and, we hoped, to eliminate the use of aircraft as a means of oppressing the Shia population in southern Iraq, and there is significant evidence that it has had a positive and beneficial effect. Of course, we continue to look to further ways of ensuring that all oppression of the population in southern Iraq can be totally ended.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Further to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said, should not the Minister be emphasising that this strike was to defend defenceless people whom Saddam Hussein has marked down for genocide? Does he not think that we now need to concentrate on the battle for the minds of the people of Iraq and that they need to get the truth about what this matter is really about?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. We are aware that, because of the Iraqi regime's oppression of its own people, there are limited opportunities for those people to express their true feelings. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that their views are as important as the views of other countries in the region in emphasising the hostility and repugnance that we all feel about the behaviour of the Iraqi Government.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement describing this action as a coalition response confirms that it had no authority whatever from the United Nations Security Council, and nor has the Secretary-General endorsed it? Given the Palestinians who were thrown into the desert and Matrix Churchill, it underlines the double standards that have been followed by the Government.

Is the Secretary of State aware also that this will be seen worldwide as the last example of gunboat diplomacy by a lame duck President, and that it will almost certainly strengthen Saddam Hussein? Is he further aware that it is bound to stimulate Arab hostility to the west, with the growth of fundamentalism? Two years ago we probably killed 300,000 Iraqis. The right hon. and learned

Column 1017

Gentleman may have noticed on the news tonight that a UNICEF spokesman said that typhoid and cholera were still rampant in Iraq because of the bombing of the water supply. In those circumstances, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, whatever may be said in the House, world opinion will not take the view that he asks us to accept?

Mr. Rifkind : It is more likely that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks will be seen as those of a lame duck Member of Parliament who does not speak for anyone in the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred the Iraqi regime to be able to use its aircraft and its missile installations to shoot down coalition aircraft and to make the no-fly zone inoperative, and thereby to ensure that the Iraqi regime continued its oppression against the people of southern Iraq. Is that the objective that he would have liked to seek? If so, he speaks for no one but himself.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, without the slightest shadow of doubt, the first item of news on the Iraqi broadcast tomorrow will be the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? The Iraqis will take comfort from them.

I return briefly to the point about acting against acts of provocation by the Saddam Hussein regime. We all know in the House that he will come again looking for more repression of the Kurds and the Shi'ites. Perhaps this is not the occasion, but will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if that repression comes in greater strength against the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south, more--and more positive-- action will be taken?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, it is clear that Saddam Hussein will use any opportunity to probe for a lack of will among the international community. I believe that today's action will have demonstrated to him that, far from lack of resolve, the international community is determined to ensure that the no-fly zone will continue to operate and that the people of southern Iraq will be protected as a consequence.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : The Secretary of State and, I think, most of the House would agree that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly and deliberately flouted the authority of the United Nations and the purposes of the various United Nations resolutions that were passed to protect the important minorities in the north and the south of Iraq. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that by confining action to the no-fly zones he is able significantly to lift the threat from the peoples oppressed in southern and northern Iraq?

Mr. Rifkind : It is important that we comply with international law and that any action that we take is proportionate to the nature of the offence that has been committed. We made a demarche to the Iraqis, which referred specifically to their introduction of missile installations in the no-fly zone and the use of combat aircraft in that zone. It was therefore entirely correct and appropriate in our judgment that the response that was taken today should be limited to those particular matters.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that an earlier United Kingdom Government, in 1948, committed unarmed

Column 1018

Royal Air Force aircraft, at great cost to the aircrews involved. I am pleased to say that that is not the policy of this Government. Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure me that in future operations, as tonight, the concern will be to ensure that professional and brave crews are capable of returning home after the operations? That surely is the essence of it--to make sure that our people return having completed the exercise properly.

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, my hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to those matters. I mentioned in my original statement that some 114 aircraft took part in the operation. There was such a large number because many aircraft were involved in ensuring proper protection for the aircraft that were involved in the actual attack on the ground installations. It was by such preparation and presentation that we were able to ensure the safe return of all the crews of all the countries concerned.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : Does not the immediate support for this action by the President of Egypt and other Arab leaders demonstrate that there is a wide range of support in the world for the determination that United Nations Security Council resolutions should be upheld? Is it not a fact that that action has been brought upon Iraq by Saddam Hussein's recklessness two years after the end of the war in continuing to defy United Nations resolutions?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that not only will sanctions be maintained in all their severity until Saddam Hussein demonstrates that he is ready to obey international law and the United Nations Security Council resolutions, but that the coalition will not hesitate to take further military action to demonstrate that, and that until Saddam Hussein conforms to international law he will be treated as the outlaw that he is?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, it is important that Arab Governments as well as western Governments are expressing their support for the action that has been taken. The action taken by the coalition today was not simply taken on behalf of the countries which directly participated, but on behalf of the international community. That is why there has been the warm response to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I also endorse the right hon. Gentleman's later comments.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Is it not a cause for deep gratitude that, in the Royal Air Force, Britain has a reliable, courageous and efficient instrument for the imposition of international justice and order? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if Saddam Hussein is foolish enough again to permit incursions by his personnel into the demilitarised zone in Kuwait or to inhibit the flight of United Nations inspectors into his territories, Her Majesty's Government and coalition partners will, without any shadow of doubt, impose punitive action?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, what my hon. Friend says is correct. It is worth remembering that not only have RAF crews shown bravery and courage today, but they have been applying the no-fly zone for some months in circumstances when, on any day during that period, they could have been subject to attack by Iraqi missiles or aircraft. Therefore, the RAF's professionalism and dedication have been

Column 1019

demonstrated during the last few months in the application of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq and in the parallel zone in the north of the country as well.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does the Minister accept that the Government are highly selective in their support for the United Nations? They continue to ignore breaches by Israel and are themselves continuously in breach of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Does he accept that in all probability this action will strengthen, not weaken, Saddam Hussein's position, and that it will solve nothing? The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot claim that all hon. Members support the action which in my view is entirely misguided and will do nothing to solve the problems of the middle east.

Mr. Rifkind : I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Britain does not observe United Nations non-proliferation requirements. The hon. Gentleman might see himself as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein, but-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Rifkind rose -- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Rifkind rose --

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard--as, doubtless, did many other hon. Members-- the Secretary of State for Defence describe my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. You, and many other hon. Members, will know that that allegation is entirely untrue. That being the case, I respectfully ask you to ask the Defence Secretary to withdraw his unfounded and disgraceful allegation.

Madam Speaker : What the Secretary of State said was not unparliamentary. Ministers and other right hon. and hon. Members are responsible for their own comments in the House.

Mr. Cryer : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The remark was entirely wrong and inaccurate. The Secretary of State was being economical with the truth if he was suggesting that I am a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. It is quite wrong for any Minister to try to make such a smear, given that hon. Members are entitled to make legitimate criticisms of what appears to be a consensus position. It is utterly outrageous. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The point has been made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. There are no further points of order. I have had enough. Has the Secretary of State finished?

Mr. Rifkind indicated assent .

Column 1020

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : The action taken by Britain and other countries will be warmly welcomed by all who believe that the Baghdad bully is the greatest threat to peace in the middle east. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a scandal that right hon. and hon. Members should give succour to Saddam Hussein tonight?

Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is right. If we are to have the maximum impact on the behaviour of the Iraqi Government, it is important for the views of the House to be presented with great strength and unanimity.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I despair of this Government, with their obvious limitations, ever comprehending that this sort of action simply ensures the survival of Saddam and that, much more dangerous, every such action makes millions of converts to Islamic fundamentalism across the globe.

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman must reflect on the consequences of the coalition's not having taken action. He appears to be willing to acquiesce in a situation in which the effectiveness of the no-fly zone would have been destroyed and oppression of the Shia by the Iraqi air force would have been reintroduced. That would have fundamentally damaged the interests that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to represent.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham) : Given that Saddam Hussein has also been violating the land border of Kuwait, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what action, if any, is being taken to improve the defences of that border?

Mr. Rifkind : The Security Council has told the Iraqi Government that that behaviour is unacceptable. I understand that the United States Government have said today that they are deploying a battalion group to Kuwait, to emphasise the importance attached to the security of that country.

Next Section

Home Page