---

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who continues to speak about the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary as though no Minister from the

25 Mar 1999 : Column 589

Ministry of Defence was present, has at last recognised that I will be replying to the debate, not the Foreign Secretary, who has gone back to Berlin.

The Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Prime Minister intends to speak to Prime Minister Primakov. As far as I know, it has not yet been possible for that contact to be made. It takes two to make a telephone call.The Prime Minister will, I know, be speaking to Mr. Primakov.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Had he been in the Chamber when I began my speech, he might have understood a little more of what I was saying. None the less, we are glad to see him now.

In the light of the speeches that have been made, and as he is with us and willing to rise to speak, can the Defence Secretary tell us whether it is realistic to say that we will not use, in any circumstances, ground troops to make a peace? Can he tell us categorically not that the Government have no plans to use ground troops, but that they will not do so? Again, I give the Defence Secretary the opportunity to reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have had 18 minutes of this.

Mr. Woodward: We are asking difficult questions, but they are also serious. Conservative Members support the Government, but the Government would do well to remember that two thirds of the 16,000 people involved in today's BBC poll were against military action in Serbia. Ministers would do well not to mock those Conservative Members who wish to lend their support, because they may find that the going is not always easy and that lives are lost. At those moments, they will be grateful for the House uniting behind them and not dividing against them.

Mr. Coaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents, and mine, would think it indefensible if their Government and their Parliament stood aside from what they have seen on television? People are being massacred and driven out of their homes. Would not our constituents then say, "What are you doing about that?"?

Mr. Woodward: In today's world, the greatest danger faced by anyone in any western democracy who is involved in defence and foreign affairs world is the cry from those who see pain, anguish and slaughter on their television sets. The response from viewers, rightly, is, "Something must be done." The danger for a Defence Secretary, a Foreign Secretary, a Prime Minister or a President is that there is a knee-jerk reaction and something is done.

Mr. Coaker rose--

Mr. Woodward: No, I will not give way again.

The response in a number of conflicts around the world is, "Something must be done, so we'll do it." That ends up with soldiers coming home in body bags. This is not an easy situation for the Government; no Conservative

25 Mar 1999 : Column 590

Member pretends that it is straightforward for the Government, but we ask for clarification and credibility for a policy that can be built and maintained if the public know where actions will lead, not where they may lead.

We did not fight against the aggression of a Nazi dictator in the second world war because we thought that it might just lead to victory; we were fighting for victory, whatever the cost and whatever we would win. Such resolution is staunch. Having embarked on military action, is the Defence Secretary prepared to pay the price that must be paid to win and to prosecute the cause to its end--even if that means ground troops going in, not only to keep a peace but to make a peace--or is that a price that he would not pay?

I am sorry that the Defence Secretary has to defer to the Foreign Secretary, but the Foreign Secretary went to Rambouillet. At its beginning, he told that conference that we would commit up to 8,000 troops to keep a peace. Does that offer still stand and are there any circumstances in which we may move from peacekeeping to peacemaking? The Foreign Secretary was absolutely clear in his statement and, if the Defence Secretary would like, we will find it for him. [Interruption.] Is the Defence Secretary intervening?

Nothing could be more disastrous than the House dividing on this matter and the Government losing the support of the Opposition, but the Government should not take that support for granted. A lot of people up and down this country strongly believe that the actions taken last night are not justified and that British interests are not involved. Many of us--probably most of us--believe that taking action was the right thing to do, but the Government must be careful of their arrogance and their complacent treatment of the House to ensure that, over the next few days, they keep the entire House on their side.

4.54 pm

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin): The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) says that he supports the Government; to me, it sounded for all the world like the support that the rope gives the hanging man. Almost every Conservative Member, with certain honourable exceptions, has supported the Government in that vein.

Tests of public opinion have been undertaken in the past 24 hours, although they have been limited. Telephone polls, vox pops carried out in the streets by the newspapers and telephone calls to Members of Parliament--as well as the empty green Benches behind me on the Government side of the House and the paucity of Government supporters who will enter the Lobby tonight to vote positively to support this war--all show that this is an enterprise that the British people are very reluctant indeed to support. That is at a time when the bombing has only just started and the action is at the apex of its popularity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, wars are always popular on the first day--when the first world war was declared, people hung out bunting, blew trumpets and marched to the enlistment offices--but war has a habit of swiftly turning sour.

It is a funny old world. How things change. Several Conservative Members, notably the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark),

25 Mar 1999 : Column 591

made clarion, powerful speeches. They argued powerfully for the centrality of the United Nations and for international legality, and against this war.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes the point well. Does he believe that, by bypassing the United Nations over this bombardment, the ability of NATO countries to have any influence over the UN in the future will be limited? Perhaps more seriously for the rest of the world, the UN will feel that it is impossible to intervene in any situation because NATO will act unilaterally and ignore its views.

Mr. Galloway: It is my view--which again I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield--that one of the main reasons why we are engaged in this operation is that an attempt is being made to substitute NATO for the United Nations. America cannot count on getting its way on each and every issue in the United Nations, but it is the overwhelmingly dominant partner, politically and militarily, in NATO.

If people do not understand the anxieties of Russia about the burgeoning muscularity and expansionism of NATO, I refer them to the wonderful exchange on "Newsnight" this week between Mr. Gorbachev andMr. Paxman. Mr. Gorbachev was being pressed by Mr. Paxman on what he had to worry about from the expansion of NATO. Mr. Gorbachev replied, "Mr. Paxman, if you really don't understand why Russia is worried about the expansion of NATO, why on earth are you working for the BBC?" NATO, with this new-found role, is about to face de jure as well as de facto new realities. That is one of the reasons why we are having this debate.

Once upon a time, Liberal Democrats were men who wore beards, sandals and long, woolly jumpers. They believed in the United Nations and they believed in peace. Increasingly, with each campaign, they come before us not in woolly jumpers but in ever-grander military uniforms. I give the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) this advice as a friend and an admirer--I even have money on him in a forthcoming contest. It is that the brass on his admiral's uniform is becoming ever-more blinding. I have watched with wonder the Liberal Democrats' mounting infatuation with matters Balkan over the past few years. They have followed the old man--the departing leader of the Liberal Democrat party--wherever he wanted to go. "War war" is the Liberal Democrat slogan. Another--we know this, because we were told so by the right hon. and learned Gentleman--is "Vote Liberal for a European ground war". The Liberal Democrat party is the only party in the House that is openly calling for the insinuation of ground forces, including our own, into the morass that is the Balkan battleground.

As I say, it is a funny old world, and we have seen it all this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, whom most would agree to be worthy of some respect, was heckled by an individual who was in the Chamber briefly, only to leave for a long period, only to come back. Perhaps he will heckle me next. He is an individual whose name most hon. Members would not even know.

---