| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 39—continued
Mr. Hoon: The "suspension", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, is a short-term postponement of a number of young men and women's opportunities to start training. The reason for that is an excellent one, as I am sure he is well aware: recruitment this year has been so successful that it has filled up all the available places,
so those who applied rather later in the day will have to wait a short time before their training can begin. That is excellent news for the Army, as the numbers are increasing.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): May I welcome the continued and steady build-up of troops, which sends what we recognise to be the only message that Saddam Hussein understands? On the basis that alternative end games that can avoid war may be played out, how feasible is it to hold those troops in position in readiness and to redeploy them outside the area, should an alternative solution beyond war be found?
Mr. Hoon: I described the package as balanced and flexible; it will be sufficiently so to allow for perfectly reasonable scenarios that might not, as we would hope, involve the use of military force in the way in which all of us fear may be necessary. We are certainly alive to the results that might occur other than the use of force.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The Secretary of State has now announced the deployment of 29,000 soldiers and commandos, plus the naval element and whatever the Air Force element is. In addition to ongoing operational deployments in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia, it cannot possibly be in the public interest that 20,000 further servicemen be kept on stand-by to cover for potentially striking firemen. Has he informed the Attorney-General—and if not, will he do so—that it is not in the public interest that that should remain the case?
Mr. Hoon: I can think of nothing that is more in the public interest than that about 19,000 members of the armed forces should be available to fight fires in the event of a strike.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In reply to the Opposition spokesman, the Defence Secretary used the phrase "the right time" for a parliamentary debate. Is the right time before or after a commitment of forces? As one who wore the epaulettes of 7 Armoured Brigade for two years, may I ask how he replies to General Cordingley, who is now very critical of what the Government are doing and who commanded in the Gulf last time, and the many others who have asked what the military objective of the operation is?
Finally, given that the American imperative is to keep down the number of bodybags, which means massive bombing before any ground operations, what is the British Government's attitude to massive bombing that will lead to collateral damage, by which we mean thousands of innocent deaths?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the question about the right time for a parliamentary debate. He said that it was obviously before the commitment of any forces, if possible. However, he also said that it was crucial not to signal in advance the timing of any military operation. He therefore accepted the need for some caution on timing. That remains the Government's position.
The military objective is also clear: to uphold the will of the international community, as expressed in a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I emphasise the point in my statement about the need to support the political and diplomatic process with a credible threat of the use of force. That remains the Government's position.I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that no decisions have been made about any sort of military force. However, any bombing campaign would remain firmly within the bounds of international law.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): May I add my support for the deployment? I am sure that all hon. Members hope that war will be avoided, but it is surely sensible to apply the maximum strategic coercion in support of the United Nations resolution. Can the Secretary of State confirm today to which country or countries the force will deploy? What assessment has been made of the terrorist threat during the deployment phase?
Mr. Hoon: It would not be sensible for me to be as specific as the hon. Gentleman might like on the destination of any part of the force package. However, I assure him that proper steps will be taken to assess the terrorist threat and the appropriate action to deal with it.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): Could my right hon. Friend hazard a guess about the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found before a clear and credible threat of force becomes a force to kill?
Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I believe that she has the issue the wrong way around. It is a not question of identifying the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found, but of upholding the clear terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. That gave Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq the final opportunity to comply with the international community's wishes. I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports that.
The resolution also gave Saddam Hussein an opportunity to declare existing holdings of weapons of mass destruction. He purported to do that in some 11,000 pages of documentation, which were issued shortly before Christmas. It is unfortunate for the international community that the document did not disclose several significant items, some of which are now being revealed.
Bob Russell (Colchester): May I advise the Secretary of State that I have detected no enthusiasm among Colchester's civilian population for the Government's proposed action in Iraq? There is hardly dancing in the streets. However, if 16 Air Assault Brigade is called upon to go to war, I have every confidence that the population will give its total support.
Have 16 Air Assault Brigade's preparations been diluted and interrupted by participation in firefighting measures?
Mr. Hoon: No one, least of all anyone in the Ministry of Defence, is enthusiastic about the need for military action. I assure all hon. Members that it is a last resort, which must be used only when all other political and diplomatic routes are exhausted. In contrast to the hon.
Gentleman, I find strong support for the Government's position. The population of the United Kingdom backs the need to uphold the international community's decisions as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions. They recognise that we must deal with the threat that Iraq poses. On the preparatory measures, I am not aware that they have been in any way affected by the need to deploy on Operation Fresco to fight fires. Indeed, we took a decision to allow 16 Air Assault Brigade to withdraw from that operation in stages so that it would have the time fully to prepare for any contingencies in relation to military operations in Iraq.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): As no material breach of resolution 1441 has been presented to the United Nations by the weapons inspectors, does not my right hon. Friend's statement today that the movement of British troops is a contingency and not a commitment ring very hollow indeed? Is not the movement of troops taking place because ground troops will not be able to engage in military action after the end of February or the beginning of March because the weather will become too inclement? Has not a decision to engage in military action indeed been taken?
Mr. Hoon: As the resolution itself makes clear, the question of what is or is not a material breach is a matter for the weapons inspectors, following their report to the Security Council and the discussion in the Security Council that will be required thereafter. That is all set out clearly in resolution 1441. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that no specific decision has been taken about the use of this force, but, unless that force is prepared and made available, we would not be in a position to take military action, should it subsequently be required. As I have said to the House before, the weather is not a factor in this regard.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): I would have liked to thank the right hon. Gentleman for providing an advance copy of his statement, but, unfortunately, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were not allowed to have an advance copy. I wonder whether that is an extension of the Prime Minister's pique from last Wednesday. In any event, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to say that war is not inevitable. Committing 30,000 ground troops, however, smacks of inevitability. Has he taken into account the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that the inspections might take up to a year? If so, has he made any contingency plans for the replacement of troops, home leave, and so on?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the possible length of the inspections. However, he also needs to note the provision in resolution 1441 that states that the inspectors can return to the Security Council at any stage in the process. In those circumstances, it is obviously necessary for us to have available the military force that could be required to enforce the terms of the resolution. If we did not take the decisions that I have announced today, we would not be in that position. We cannot, therefore, wait for the year that the hon.
Gentleman's question implies might be necessary, if the inspectors return to the Security Council at an earlier stage to indicate their concerns.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |