| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 849—continued
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): Following the exchange in the House earlier today on the possibility of a future debate on military intervention in Iraq on a substantive motion in the House, will the Secretary of State for Defence assure the House that the Government's overriding consideration on the timing of any such debate will be the protection of the lives of British servicemen and women?
Mr. Hoon: I can give that assurance. I was asked that question this morning, and I gave that assurance then. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on precisely that issue: it is obviously crucial that the safety and security of our forces should be uppermost in any decision, and I know that all hon. Members would agree with that.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): While neither President Bush nor anyone else must pre-empt
the implementation of Security Council resolution 1441, does my right hon. Friend agree that that resolution must be implemented, that paragraph 13 says that Iraq will face serious consequences if it is not implemented and that it would be irresponsible of Her Majesty's Government not to make contingency preparations in case that way of implementing it is necessary? Does he agree that whether resolution 1441 is implemented by force depends on Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend sets out the position with his customary clarity. I do not need to add anything to his words except to agree that it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that the choice is his. He has been given the opportunity of disarming, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, that is a choice for him.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that while there may be substantial agreement between those on the Front Benches, that should not mask the fact that a great deal of anxiety exists in this House and elsewhere about the policy towards Iraq? Does he not understand that while a Security Council resolution may make a policy of war legal, it does not make it wise or moral? Furthermore, does he not understand that in the absence of a grave and imminent threat to ourselves and our allies, many of us believe that war is wrong, by which I mean not morally justified, as well as politically profoundly unwise?
Mr. Hoon: I was not sure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations whether he was making a general or a specific observation about the nature of war. I have heard him make observations in the past, and, curiously, they were never critical of his Government when he was a Minister. He has never made previously the kinds of comments that he has made lately about the responsibilities of the House or of the Government to Parliament. I assume that he has made a recent conversion to those views. He is perfectly entitled to those views, but I happen to disagree with them.
Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): This will be the first war that will be fought when the International Criminal Court is in operation. Our forces will be subject to it, and I hope that Saddam Hussein will appear before it. Why are the Government negotiating a bilateral agreement with the American Government to help exclude American forces from the provisions of the International Criminal Court?
Mr. Hoon: The answer to that is straightforward: the present United States Administration have not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for their armed forces. To ensure a consistency of approach, the Government, together with many other Governments around the world, have agreed that bilateral approach with the United States.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): The Secretary of State goes out of his way to say that the deployment is routine. Is it routine to deploy minesweepers ahead of the task group? Does he not
consider that the UK is now on a treadmill to war, and that, in fact, the decision to commit will not be made by No. 10 but by somebody else across the sea who has already decided that war is inevitable?
Mr. Hoon: I repeat again that this is a routine deployment and a long-planned exercise, which has taken place on a regular basis. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about minesweepers, it would hardly be sensible to allow this deployment to take place in one of the most dangerous stretches of water anywhere in the world without there being appropriate protection in place, in the form of minesweepers, to ensure that British forces are not at unnecessary risk. I reject absolutely what he says about any decision to commit; that decision will be taken by a British Prime Minister, as has always been the case.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I have been invited to give a Zayed foundation lecture in Abu Dhabi on Saturday, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows, those are serious occasions. After discussions with the leadership in the Emirates, they were absolutely appalled and horrified at the consequences of an American-British attack on Iraq. What value do the Government attach to the opinion of old and trusted friends of this country?
Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom Government attach very great value to their friends and allies around the world, and not least in the Gulf region, to which I have been a regulator visitor over many years. I recognise the importance of maintaining an international coalition on these matters, which is reflected in a unanimous vote by the Security Council—including, perhaps to the surprise of many right hon. and hon. Members, the vote of Syria—in favour of resolution 1441. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government set great store by the views of the international community, and we will continue to seek out those views and to seek to have them in agreement with whatever decisions are taken in due course.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The Secretary of State will recall that, following the strategic defence review, the Chief of the General Staff said that the most important development of the SDR for the Army was the development of the formation training cycle, which was designed to prepare formations to make deployments precisely such as this. How robust has the formation training cycle proved under the combination of having to deal with the firefighters' strike, all the other active service deployments and this particular deployment?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's observation to the extent that it has not been possible to follow precisely the formation training cycle as laid down in the SDR, not least because of the series of events that the United Kingdom has felt it right to respond to. I do not like challenging him with a further question, but, before he asks a similar question, he needs to think through what would have been the response of Opposition Members if we had stuck rigidly
to the formation training cycle and not involved ourselves in a series of important international operations, such as those in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. It is for those reasons that it has not been possible to follow precisely the terms of the formation training cycle.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): I have listened to the statement and to the answers that the Prime Minister gave earlier on Iraq, and it seems to some of us that it is absolutely clear that we will support the Bush war on Iraq regardless of the United Nations. Given that, we are entitled to know exactly what the cost of preparing for this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war will be. What contingencies have been made for the thousands of refugees who will undoubtedly seek asylum in our country and in the west in general if the whole area is destabilised?
Mr. Hoon: I can only repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friends and I have given on previous occasions. There is no inevitability about a war. It is a matter of upholding United Nations resolutions and the approach that the UN has taken. Again, I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider how it is otherwise possible to uphold the will of the international community—I am sure that is something that she and I agree upon—unless we are prepared to use force to back up the decisions that the UN has taken.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): As someone who was personally involved in the last deployment 12 years ago, I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's desire to give servicemen and women and their families the maximum possible notice of any deployment. However, one of the options being studied is presumably the deployment of a full armoured division. How long does he calculate that it would take to deploy such a division to the Gulf? Once it is there, how long does he calculate that it would take to bring it ready for operations?
Mr. Hoon: From the hon. Gentleman's considerable previous experience, he knows full well that it would not be sensible for me to answer either of those questions.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it not the case that, this time about 12 years ago, the criminal dictator had time to leave Kuwait and his refusal to do so led to the Gulf war? Now, his refusal to give up weapons of mass destruction might lead to military action. Why do not the critics, including the former Tory Minister who was so enthusiastic about the Gulf war at the time, give the responsibility for war, should it come, not to the allies, the United States, Britain and the international community, but to the criminal regime because it refuses to comply with the UN resolution?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |