| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2003 : Column 457—continued
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for the support of Her Majesty's official Opposition. I shall deal with the points that he raised.
On SDR tour intervals, I am as disappointed as he is that it has not been possible to achieve those projected tour intervals, but in the period since the publication of the strategic defence review, Britain's armed forces have been exceptionally busy. Since the Opposition have never, understandably, opposed any of the deployments that have taken place during that period, they must share in the responsibility, which I accept, for having been unable to achieve the SDR planned tour intervals.
As regards the reports that I, too, have seen in newspapers about a three-year deployment, I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure the House, that they are purely and simply speculation. Clearly, our forces will be in the Gulf for as long it takes to disarm Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I have already dealt with the issue of Sea Harriers and the deployed forces aboard the aircraft carrier that will go to the Gulf region as part of the taskforce, and I do not need to repeat my answer in that respect.
On the command and control arrangements, those are still evolving. We are in discussions with the United States. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that Britain's forces will remain under the command of the United Kingdom Government, which is always the position.
I am certainly aware of the report in The Washington Times, but I am not aware that it is accurate.
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of his statement, and for informing me about his communication earlier today. I join him and the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), in sending our respects and best wishes to the men and women in Her Majesty's forces who are already in the Gulf, to their families, and to the young men and women now on their way to the Gulf.
The Secretary of State has made three statements on military contingency plans for the Gulf. Does he expect to make any more in the coming weeks? Will he confirm that he will return to the House if further developments take place, especially during the recess that begins in 10 days' time, and that the House will be recalled if events require it?
I assure the Secretary of State again that Liberal Democrat Members support the deployment of forces to the Gulf. However, we do not believe that they should go into action until there has been a substantive vote in the House of Commons.
The Royal Air Force is already in theatre, as the Secretary of State said. I met RAF personnel at Ali Al Salam and Mubarak a couple of weeks ago. I support and recognise the work that they do. Will there be any change in the current role of the RAF forces already in the northern and southern no-fly zones, or any change in their rules of engagement?
We all accept that war is not inevitable, and hope that it can be avoided. However, if military action becomes necessary, it must be under UN authority. Operations conducted in the UN's name must abide by the UN's principles. Will the Secretary of State confirm that any prisoners taken in the course of hostilities will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention, and that any action will be proportionate?
In the event of hostilities, there must be humanitarian contingency plans. Will the Secretary of State say what will be the role of the RAF in any humanitarian support? My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised with the Prime Minister the other day the concerns of UK civilians living in the Gulf, of whom there are some 90,000. Are there are any contingency plans for the RAF to evacuate them, if that becomes necessary?
Yet more men and women in our armed forces are venturing into potential conflict. They should know what is expected of them, in both the short and the
long term. They should also know that they remain in our thoughts as we hope and strive for a peaceful solution to the crisis.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I assure him that the Government will report to the House as and when necessary, in the light of unfolding events. However, I caution him against the insistence on requiring a substantive vote of the House before any military operations are conducted. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] If I may explain: it is obviously vital to retain the element of surprise if military operations become necessary. That has always been the case. It would not be sensible to signal in advance our intentions to an enemy. The House must consider that very carefully.
I assure the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) that the Government will treat prisoners in accordance with international law. All our operations will be fully in accordance with the principles of international law, including the use of our forces for humanitarian purposes, should that be necessary. I have described the successive deployments as both balanced and flexible, so that the forces involved can be used in a range of military options. I repeat that those options include humanitarian operations, where that is necessary.
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as long as the UN weapons inspectors are in Iraq, the threat to world security from the Iraqi regime is at a lower level? Will he assure the House that there is no logistical reason why the Government cannot keep open the option of an inspection process lasting months rather than weeks?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations, but I am sure that he knows the history of the involvement with Iraq of the UN and the international community. That involvement stretches back over a period of 12 years. A series of UN obligations have been placed on Iraq, culminating in the passing of resolution 1441, which specifically sets out Iraq's obligation to co-operate with the weapons inspectors.
It has become clear—from Dr. Blix's first report to the Security Council and from the damning evidence set out yesterday by Secretary of State Colin Powell—that that co-operation is simply not forthcoming from Iraq. It is a question not of allowing time for the weapons inspectors, but of whether there is any prospect of Iraq co-operating with the international community and the UN
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I expressly support the Government's foreign policy on this matter, and the outline of the case made by the Secretary of State this afternoon. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position of our reserve forces. In his statement, he said that 7,000 RAF personnel, including members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, would shortly be in the Gulf. How many of
those 7,000 will be auxiliary airmen or reservists? I understand that 6,000 Army reservists are now on call for 12-month duty. How many—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked enough questions. He must be brief on these occasions.
Mr. Hoon: I shall try to anticipate the rest of the question in my answer. I was able to set out, in a written ministerial statement on 30 January, the Government's intention to send out further notices to secure a total of around 6,000 reservists. In broad terms, our requirement is for approximately 500 Royal Navy and Royal Marines reservists, for about 1,600 RAF reservists, and for about 3,600 Army reservists.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): The Secretary of State has just asserted that the House apparently does not need to have a vote on the deployment of British forces. Will he please reconsider that? The mass of British public opinion is deeply sceptical about the war, if not completely hostile to it. People believe that it is being fought in the interests of America and nothing else, and that it is largely about oil. Cannot the House of Commons have a vote at the very least, before a third of all British armed forces are deployed in a theatre of war that has neither public support nor consent?
Mr. Hoon: I ask that my hon. Friend properly represents what I said, which was that I did not anticipate that a vote would be needed before deployment took place. In similar circumstances in the past, the practice of the House has been to have a vote shortly before deployment. If that is possible, the Government will follow that precedent. If it is not possible—because of the security risks associated with having such a vote shortly before any military operation—I and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that a vote will be held as soon as possible thereafter. I urge my hon. Friend to reflect properly what I just said to the House.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): On previous operations, members of the armed forces deployed away from their permanent duty station for a length of time have often lost out on station-specific pay, such as the living overseas allowance or London pay. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will not happen on this occasion? Does he agree that it would be wholly wrong for any member of the armed forces to lose out financially as a result of service in the Gulf?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |