| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 856—continued
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 40 per cent. of Iraqis are children under 16? When an attack takes place on Iraq, what action will be taken to ensure that there is not collateral mayhem involving children and innocent people?
Mr. Hoon: An enormous effort is made during the course of any kind of military operation, including bombing operations, to ensure that the targets addressed do not cause unnecessary risk to a civilian population. That was the case during operations over Afghanistan for which I was responsible, when I personally ensured that harm to the civilian population was minimised. I can tell my hon. Friend that even in the relatively short time since the last Gulf war, there have been enormous improvements in the accuracy and sophistication of the equipment used to allow those responsible for any military action to ensure that the threat to civilian populations is minimised.
Hugh Bayley (City of York): Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in Britain hope desperately that we will not go to war with Iraq but nevertheless think that it is wise and prudent to make preparations for war because they know that it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will comply and disarm without the threat of military action if he fails to do so?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can I make it clear that I am one of those who hope that we will not go to war? I hope that Saddam Hussein will accept his responsibilities and enforce the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Equally, however, like my hon. Friend, I believe that it is much more likely that Saddam Hussein will accept Security Council resolution 1441 if it is backed up by the threat of the use of force.
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Abu Dhabi, why cannot the Government understand that, having committed themselves to the United Nations process, if they then remove themselves from it and take unilateral or bilateral action, they will alienate moderate Islamic opinion throughout the world? Does he recognise that, if that happens, he will create a hell for us and our children for many generations to come?
Mr. Hoon: But the Government do understand that. The point was made directly to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago, and he addressed the issue directly. It is clearly understood, recognised and acted upon by the Government.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Has the Secretary of State not just made a statement that softens us up for a war? He has no intention of going back to the United Nations or seeking parliamentary approval, and is moving troops into the region to start a war the moment that George Bush says so. Can he deny that carte blanche has been given to George Bush to do what he will, and that the British Government will support him?
Mr. Hoon: I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend all the points that I have made repeatedly in response to each of those questions. I am sorry that he does not appear to accept the answers that I have already given, but I can assure him that it will be for a British Prime Minister acting in the best interests of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not British troops are deployed in the event of a decision to use military force.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Does my right hon. Friend agree that while, as he said, the threat of military action is a major incentive for Saddam to comply with UN resolution 1441, if he forms the impression that war is probable or inevitable, that will be a strong disincentive to disarm? If we sincerely wish to avoid war, surely it is essential that we and our US allies keep a careful balance in the belligerence of our stance?
Mr. Hoon: That is absolutely right. It is important to make it clear that we want a peaceful resolution of the situation—we want Saddam Hussein to accept the opportunity that he has been given to agree to the will of the United Nations and the international community. Equally, however, it follows that he is much more likely to do so if we maintain a credible threat of force.
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Despite the shopping list of military resources in the Secretary of State's statement, is not the reality that the British Government have already decided to support a US war on Iraq and, in fact, are already doing so? Given the 300 per cent. increase in US and British raids on the no-fly zone, perhaps he will tell the House how many bombing days he has left before Christmas. Will he also acknowledge that the evidence of Turkish troops using those raids to go in and kill Kurds raises the question of who exactly is being protected in this hidden war against Iraq, long before the formal slaughter begins?
Mr. Hoon: Again, instead of using language like US and UK raids on Iraq, it is important that my hon. Friend thinks about the many men and women based in
the east midlands, an area that he and I are both proud to represent, who are risking their lives over the skies of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Is he telling the House that he believes that those men and women should not be entitled to defend themselves when they come under regular attack from the forces of Saddam Hussein? I am sure that my hon. Friend is not saying that, in which case their actions are entirely justified in international law.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): The Secretary of State outlined some of the preparations for a war with Iraq, including, frighteningly, the use of nuclear-powered submarines. Can he tell me whether similar preparations are being made for a war with Israel, which is also breaking UN resolutions, is invading Palestine daily, has weapons of mass destruction, and has a Head of State who is a state terrorist?
Mr. Hoon: I must tell my hon. Friend that all British submarines are nuclear powered. The comparison between Iraq and Israel does not stand up. The position in relation to Iraq is quite unique. It is a country that has invaded two of its neighbours and used weapons of mass destruction against its own people. That is in no way comparable with Israel, nor are the resolutions that my hon. Friend cites in any way comparable. The resolutions that mention Israel also mention a number of other countries that have equal obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. The comparison is not helpful. If my hon. Friend looked more carefully at those resolutions, he would not ask such a question.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): Are UK forces taking cluster bombs to the region? Are US forces taking them? Have US forces taken their giant, indiscriminate daisy-cutter bombs there? Are not the preparations really civilian-killing preparations?
Mr. Hoon: Again, I have resisted the temptation that hon. Members and hon. Friends have given me this afternoon to refer to any specific equipment that might or might not be used. Appropriate respect will be given to the requirements of international law in any action that is taken and proves necessary in Iraq.
Scottish Parliament
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future size of the Scottish Parliament.
In the White Paper, XScotland's Parliament" published in July 1997, the Government acknowledged that the special statutory provisions that stipulated a minimum number of Scottish seats in this House would no longer apply. The average Scottish constituency represented here comprises around 55,000 electors, whereas the average for English constituencies is around 70,000. One factor in this increased representation had been the need to recognise the additional requirement for Scottish MPs to scrutinise separate legislation unique to the Scottish system.
The Scotland Act 1998 provides that any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster will cause a reduction in the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The boundary commission for Scotland published in March this year provisional recommendations that would lead to a reduction in the current number of Scottish Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. The consequence for Holyrood would be a fall in the number of MSPs from 129 to around 104. During the passage of the Scotland Act, the Government made it clear that if the Parliament took the view that its workings would be undermined by a reduction in numbers, representations could be made to the Government of the day to amend that section of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), then Secretary of State for Scotland, reiterated that view in September 2000. I have made similar public statements to that effect.
Honouring that commitment, I launched last year a consultation to seek views on retaining or adjusting the current statutory link between Westminster and Holyrood parliamentary constituencies. In particular, the consultation paper sought views on three issues: the consequence of the reduction required by the Scotland Act for the operation of the Scottish Parliament; the practical effect and issues that might arise between MPs, MSPs and councillors if boundaries were not coterminous for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies; and the implications of non-coterminous boundaries for electoral administrators and local authorities in relation to the registration of voters and conduct of elections and for the structure and operation of political parties. Almost 800 copies of the consultation document were issued, and the Scotland Office website page recorded 1,300 hits. More than 230 replies were received from civic bodies, individuals, electoral administrators, councils, the Scottish Executive, MPs, MSPs and political parties.
The purpose of the consultation was to seek to proceed on the basis of the sort of consensus born out of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's scheme for the Scottish Parliament. That broad-based convention was made up of political parties including the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as well as trade unions, local authorities, Churches, the voluntary sector, business groups and civic Scotland. I made it clear that if the Government were ever to
consider amending the Scotland Act, any proposal should seek the same sort of consensus as that which emerged through the convention.Two strands emerge from the consultation. First, there is the need for stability. Among the civic and representative bodies that responded, the overwhelming view was that the Scottish Parliament should continue to operate with the present number of MSPs. The argument was put that a reduction would cause difficulties, especially to the Committee system, and that it would be unwise to destabilise the Parliament so early in its life by reducing its numbers. The respondents stated that a reduction would adversely affect the Parliament's scrutiny of legislation and the Executive's capacity to conduct inquiries or initiate legislation. They claimed that any reduction in the numbers of list MSPs would reduce proportionality and that the current structure should be maintained to give a proper balance of representation.
Secondly, it was acknowledged, not least by electoral administrators, that difficulties could arise if the boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood were not coterminous. Confusion could be caused to voters and there would be problems for political parties in relation to their organisation.
A summary of those responses has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have weighed up carefully all the responses, and in view of the overwhelming body of opinion in favour of maintaining the current number of MSPs, I propose in the interests of stability to seek to amend the Scotland Act accordingly. However, I also take very seriously the concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. I therefore propose that an independent commission should be established to examine and make recommendations on issues caused by different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.
I expect that, subject to Parliamentary approval, any order giving effect to revised Westminster boundaries should be in place for the next general election, no later than June 2006. Consequently, the new commission, which has the approval of the Scottish Executive and is referred to in their submission, would sit after the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Any changes that it might propose to the Scotland Act would be a matter for this Parliament.
Retaining the present number of 129 MSPs requires an amendment to the Scotland Act by way of primary legislation. It will also be necessary to provide for the routine review of Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries. I will be seeking agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Let me make it clear that any change to the Scotland Act will be narrowly drawn. The Government believe that the spirit of the constitutional convention must guide any changes to the legislation. This announcement acknowledges the fact that, as it approaches the end of its first term, the Scottish Parliament is a hard-working and effective institution committed to serving the needs of the Scottish people. It underpins the stability and success of the constitutional settlement in Scotland, which has strengthened the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |