| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 36—continued
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unqualified support. I shall try to deal with his specific questions in turn. If I fail to address one, I am sure that I can deal with it in subsequent correspondence, which I will place in the Library of the House.
As for preparations, I do not doubt that our forces are fully and thoroughly prepared to face this kind of operation. Indeed, the training exercise conducted in
similar conditions in Oman just over a year ago was obvious preparation for this kind of deployment. A good number of lessons have been learned from that training exercise and are now to be implemented. Without getting into arguments about Gulf war syndrome, may I tell the House again that a key lesson learned about inoculations is that it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number of inoculations simultaneously? Preparation in that respect is much better than it was before the Gulf war, and many of the required injections have already been administered.As for the missile threat, another question that I have dealt with before, we do not judge that there is an immediate threat to our deployed forces from Saddam Hussein's missiles, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that appropriate action will be taken to deal with the threat as it exists. As for US forces and friendly fire, again a question that I dealt with when I made my last statement, action is in hand to procure the necessary equipment to ensure that the equipment used by our forces is in every way compatible with the equipment that the United States is using. I make exactly the same observation in relation to communications.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second set of questions, I can assure the House that operational planning continues to evolve. It would not be appropriate to deal with his first two questions, but those matters will be dealt with in due course. As for the length of any commitment, I can assure the House that our forces are well prepared for a substantial commitment should that be required, but equally they can be replaced in position should that be necessary in due course, which is why sustainable logistical and medical support is available for them, bearing in mind the fact that it will be a multinational operation. Inevitably, forces deployed from different countries will provide a degree of mutual assistance in areas in which there are operational shortfalls. Certainly, consideration is being given to aftermath issues and the question of humanitarian relief. Obviously, we will design force packages to ensure that we have soldiers in place who can deal with those issues as and when they arise.
As for the third issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—political support from the House—our forces will already be aware of the overwhelming support that they have received from right hon. and hon. Members. The Government have indicated their determination that there should be a further debate and, indeed, ultimately a vote at the right time, but I do not intend to say any more about that than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already said.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): May I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is currently in Kuwait visiting the British troops, and thank the Secretary of State for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement?
When men and women of our armed forces are deployed overseas, we have a duty to support them, and we send them our best wishes for their swift and safe return. As the Secretary of State said, substantial planning is needed to keep a force of this size properly supplied and in position for quite some time. I welcome his assurance that that will be the case. To ensure that
the inspectors have all the time necessary to do their work, that force should be in place and, if necessary, replaced. However, can the Secretary of State provide assurance about the command structure for British troops? Could we realistically opt out in the event that the Government chose not to support a US-led invasion? Are our troops significant and operationally necessary for any operation that takes place on a US-led basis? If the Government decided to opt out, would that cause significant problems for any military invasion?Lastly, as we have heard plans concerning the Navy and the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what plans there are in respect of RAF squadrons already in the area? What plans exist to retask the RAF for any offensive operations?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it is always a matter for a British Prime Minister, the British Cabinet and ultimately, as I have indicated already, Britain's House of Commons to determine when and if British forces are sent into battle. That is not affected by any announcement that I have made today or any arrangement into which the Government may enter from time to time with any ally or any other multinational force. It is always a matter for a British Prime Minister to decide when a British force engages an enemy. Nevertheless, Britain's contribution to any operations is operationally necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the significant contribution that British forces made in and around Afghanistan in the course of operations there. That was a substantial contribution and one which, if military action is necessary, will be repeated in relation to Iraq.
With regard to the Royal Air Force, I have not yet dealt in any detail with its tasking. Those matters are still subject to further discussion, and I will certainly inform the House when and if those decisions have been taken.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): I am deeply concerned that even more of our troops are being deployed. Whenever the Government say that no decision has been taken to join Bush in his war against Iraq, many of us remain deeply sceptical. Given the demonstrations all over the world this weekend, I think that the people of this country do, also. Does the Secretary of State accept that the UN charter as it is currently constituted does not allow for a pre-emptive or offensive strike against another United Nations country that is not threatening anybody? No matter how many resolutions the US bullies and intimidates other countries into supporting, that remains the case. Will the Secretary of State accept that his Government have not made the case for a war against Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion in conclusion. I assure her that no decision has been taken here, in the United States or anywhere else to use military force against Iraq, but as I indicated, it has been our experience that the credible threat of the use of military force is necessary to coerce Saddam Hussein into accepting the will of the international community.
Since the United Kingdom and other nations have accepted the need for a United Nations process, that process continues. The issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the United Nations charter does not arise
at this stage, although I remind her that the UN charter does allow for self-defence, and pre-emptive action is no more than modern jargon to deal with the ancient right of self-defence. There are other circumstances recognised in international law—for example, the humanitarian action that was taken in Kosovo—that are justified in international law. I do not accept what my hon. Friend said, but I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are determined that there should be a process that rests on international law and carries with it the great support of the British people.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be careful not to invest the Security Council with undue moral authority? The Security Council is but a political institution, and resolutions of the Security Council are but political statements by a political institution. While it is perfectly true that such resolutions are a necessary precondition to war, they cannot make just or moral a war which otherwise is not.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that the Security Council would take a decision in relation to the use of military force that was neither just nor moral. As I have indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, nor do I accept that it would take a decision that was contrary to international law. I believe that it is important that we give the current process the opportunity of reaching its conclusion. I hope that that would be a peaceful conclusion, but it is necessary that we support that process with a credible use of the threat of force.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): This is a formidable force package. If it is to be used in a war, it will be an allied war. Is my right hon. Friend aware whether similar force packages have been announced or are about to be announced by other allied countries?
Mr. Hoon: As I told the House the week before last, the United States has made a request to some 50 countries for a military contribution. I know that a number of countries have already responded positively. Clearly, the United States has already deployed a very considerable force to the Gulf region, and I anticipate that other countries will follow suit in due course.
Patrick Mercer (Newark): The Secretary of State has already indicated that about a quarter of the Army's strength will be in the Gulf and that, for very understandable reasons, its commitment there will be open-ended. He has also commented on the fact that, if necessary, those personnel will be replaced in order to sustain that presence. In that case, will he be kind enough to comment on the wisdom of a suspension of a large part of the Army's recruitment effort this year?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |