| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 Jan 2003 : Column 335—continued
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: I will give way in due course.
Saddam Hussein's regime poses a clear threat. There can be no question of the potential for Iraq to use its weapons of mass destruction. That has already been tangibly demonstrated—it has used them on its neighbours and on its own people. The international community has for many years demonstrated its concern about the very real threat posed by Iraq's illegal weapon holdings through a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and most recently when the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441. That resolution gives Saddam Hussein one last chance to respect the will of the international community. Experience has shown, however, that he is not a man who will do that readily. It is for that reason that the contingency planning that has been carried out by the Ministry of Defence over recent months has in the past days and weeks necessarily moved up a gear.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially as he has taken so many interventions. May I raise again the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West(Paul Flynn)—the Simon Weston point? Is not my right hon. Friend concerned that there is considerable anxiety among the chiefs in the forces and among the rank and file that the Government might be asking them to do something that lacks the support of the public in this country? Is not that extremely dangerous for the relationship between our political institutions and our military institutions? Would it not be better for the Government to listen to the public, listen to a lot of the advice that they are getting from the senior staffs, and get back into a containment strategy which the public understand—and if not, to go through the United Nations?
Mr. Hoon: I think that we have to treat the snapshot polls as we do such polls on other issues. However, as I understand the latest polling, it showed that when asked a question about the Government's policy and pursuit of the policy through the United Nations, the overwhelming majority of the people in this country do support what the Government are doing, and I have no
doubt that that is the case. It is certainly my experience from my constituency and that seems to be the position recorded in at least the most recent poll that I have seen.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) rose—
Mr. Hoon: I wish to make progress, if the House will forgive me.
On Monday I announced to the House the composition and deployment of a land force of about 26,000 servicemen and women to provide military capabilities for potential operations in Iraq. That force package will supplement the recent deployment of the amphibious task group, which itself comprises in total about 8,000 personnel. As I explained on Monday, we are also actively considering the composition of a balanced contribution from the Royal Air Force. I will update the House once decisions have been taken.
I want to deal now with the stories that hon. Members will have seen in the press, alleging that our troops are poorly equipped.
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): I am sorry to add to the friendly fire falling upon my right hon. Friend and I am certainly not on speed, but may I just ask him a question? We have dispatched a quarter of our forces—26,000, he just said—as a contingency force for possible action in Iraq. Will he explain to us, because we need to understand, why it is that our European partners do not appear to share that concern? They do not appear to have deployed any of their troops. Could my right honourable Friend suggest why their perspective on the matter seems radically to differ from that of the British Government?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that it does radically differ. The only European nation that has specifically ruled out the use of force is Germany. Before they have seen the evidence from the weapons inspectors, all other countries, undoubtedly reflecting their different constitutional arrangements, are at various stages in the political process to decide whether or not they would participate, so I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion that there is any lack of support for the position that the United Kingdom Government has set out.
Bob Russell (Colchester): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: No; I need to make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I want to reassure the House and the country that British personnel deployed on operations will be properly equipped by the Ministry of Defence, and fully capable of fulfilling the tasks that may be required of them. They will be properly equipped to deal with the environmental conditions that they face. The Ministry of Defence has long had contracts in place to ensure that sufficient stocks of desert clothing and boots are available very quickly. It is simply not practical or sensible to hold, on a permanent basis, vast stocks of clothing for every conceivable operational environment.
If we did, we would be rightly accused of wasteful spending. For example, we already hold substantial stocks of desert boots, and are taking delivery of thousands more. The same is true of desert trousers and jackets; we expect an early delivery of 90,000 more of each.The operational modification programme for the Challenger 2 tank and the AS90 self-propelled guns, improving efficiency in desert conditions by adding side skirts and improving air filtration systems, is now in progress. It will continue while the equipment is in transit, and on arrival in theatre if required. All combat and close support troops will be equipped with the modified and highly reliable SA80 A2 rifle.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and this is a helpful intervention. Can he assure the House that all British armed forces have been equipped with the latest A2 version of the SA80?
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that all combat and close support troops would be equipped with the modified rifle, and that is the position.
The protection of our troops is an absolute priority. Contrary to press speculation, our ability to protect and operate in a nuclear, biological or chemical environment is second to none. Our training and equipment mean that we are prepared to meet this threat if necessary, and make a proportionately serious response should anyone use such weapons against us.
Our combat identification procedures are effective. This is about new technology, situational awareness, target identification, tactics, techniques and procedures. Specific provision has been and is being made to minimise the risks of friendly fire, but the House will understand why I should not go into the specific detail.
New potential operations and new security challenges inevitably result in new requirements, such as those identified through Exercise Saif Sareea. Work to address those has taken place over the last few months, and is now nearing completion.
I hope that hon. Members will not allow misleading and tendentious press reports to divert attention from the fact that our armed forces will be prepared, in all respects, for what we may ask of them.
This significant deployment of credible military capability underlines the United Kingdom's determination to work with our allies to disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. We do not take these decisions to deploy lightly or easily, but with caution and circumspection.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): On that point, is pre-emption now officially part of the defence policy of this country?
Mr. Hoon: I have always emphasised, as has every other Minister addressing these questions, that whatever action we take must be within international law, and it has always seemed to me—straying into my former occupation for a while—that pre-emption is
simply a form of self-defence, and that is the basis on which it could be and would be justifiable in international law.
Mr. Hoon: Indeed, for those who doubt this proposition there are a number of examples of pre-emption as long ago as the 19th century, when these principles of international law were developing.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): The Government are a member of the United Nations, and the United Nations specifically prohibits pre-emptive and defensive strikes against countries that are not threatening us. What is the threat from Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to what I said a few moments ago. The United Nations charter specifically allows for self-defence in article 51, and that is the basis on which I would rest our case.
We are dealing with a regime that has defied a series of United Nations obligations for more than a decade. We are dealing with a regime that has authorised the use, with lethal effect, of appalling weapons both within and beyond its borders. We are dealing with the very real danger that its illegal weapons could find their way into the hands of international terrorists.
As a responsible member of the international community and of the UN Security Council, we must deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Iraq, we are pursuing that policy through the deployment of a significant force to the Gulf region. We are doing this as part of a process of long and careful deliberation about how best to coerce Saddam Hussein into disarming. We believe that that is the right action to take—that it is the most effective means of achieving our aims, which are in the interests of the Iraqi people and, more widely, of the Gulf region as a whole.
Not just the security of the middle east is at stake, however. If Iraq is allowed to develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes it will send a signal to other nations, encouraging them to defy non-proliferation standards. Our policy on Iraq must be seen as part of a global non-proliferation effort.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |