Examination of Witnesses(Questions 60-79)
WEDNESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2002
RT HON
MR GEOFF
HOON MP, AIR
MARSHAL ROB
WRIGHT AFC AND
MR EDWARD
OAKDEN
60. Does that imply a change of task in our
military forces or enhancement?
(Mr Hoon) It is more enhancement. We are one of the
countries to recognise the importance of that early. Prague had
an effective display showing how members of the Alliance—significantly
European members of the Alliance—were able to provide equipment
for the detection and protection of deployed forces in relation
to CBW threats. It is something on which we need to do more, but
we have made a significant start.
61. Can we look forward to the creation of another
NBC regiment or two?
(Mr Hoon) That is something we would look at. At the
moment we are certainly concerned about improving our ability
to detect such a threat and that is our priority for the moment.
We have already gone quite a long way in terms of what we can
deploy effectively.
62. How will NATO plug into British CBW research?
(Mr Hoon) Part of the work that is under way is to
try—as we have been discussing all along—to ensure
that individual national capabilities are plugged into a more
coherent process on behalf of NATO. A lot of work has been done
in the past 12 months on that. Part of the display in Prague was
to demonstrate how that could be achieved. It is fair to say that
a great deal more work still remains.
63. Will Porton Down be made more available
for this kind of work?
(Mr Hoon) You say "made available". It is
a national facility and should it be necessary we would use its
skills and abilities to assist NATO Allies, as we already would.
I do not see that it is not available.
64. Several of the newly joined or joining countries
of NATO as a result of belonging to the Warsaw Pact in the past
have abilities and skills, particularly in offensive CBW, or NBC
as I should say more correctly, warfare than other members of
NATO. Will we be able to tap into that?
(Mr Hoon) I am not sure that they should any more.
65. They have had experience of it in the past.
(Mr Hoon) They may have done, but in the quite distant
past. I assume that they are signatories of the relevant international
conventions.
(Mr Oakden) Looking at it the other way around, the
Czechs have a specific medical unit which is good at looking at
detecting and treating injuries of that kind.
(Air Marshal Wright) We are more interested in going
back to the niche capabilities than the defensive side. Some of
these countries have very good capabilities in that respect. That
is not passing them off with a smaller task; it is something that
is absolutely critical and something NATO is short of. Their previous
offensive capability is playing into the defensive role.
66. When we went to the Baltic states it was
clear that there was a level of expertise against a more sophisticated
NBC threat than we perceive. However, we are not blind to that
possibility.
(Mr Hoon) No.
67. Moving on to Iraq, on Monday the Prime Minister
said that at Prague, "there was strong support for multilateralism
and for the decision of President Bush to go through the UN. But
equally strong insistence that multilateralism and the UN be seen
to work". At Prague was there a discussion on what exactly
it means for the UN to be seen to be working and how can the UN
assist in that?
(Mr Hoon) There was not the kind of detailed discussion
about 1441 that had taken place in the Security Council. There
was some brief discussion about the framing of the declaration
to which you refer, but Prague was not centrally concerned with
debate and discussion about Iraq.
68. The Prague summit statement on Iraq states
that, "NATO allies stand united in their commitment to take
effective action to assist and support the efforts of the UN to
ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq with UNSCR 1441".
(Mr Hoon) That is what I just said.
69. Indeed. Was there an agreement in Prague
about the meaning of effective action?
(Mr Hoon) No.
70. Was it investigated at all?
(Mr Hoon) No.
71. Was it simply not on the agenda?
(Mr Hoon) No. I do not think that I can improve on
what I have said already. There was a discussion about the declaration.
That was agreed, but the Prague summit was not centrally about
Iraq or about repeating what had already been discussed at length
in the Security Council in the framing of 1441.
Mr Howarth
72. Can we turn to missile defence? The Prime
Minister did not refer to it in his statement on Monday. Can you
tell us what was discussed at Prague on that subject?
(Mr Hoon) Again, I do not recall there being a detailed
discussion about missile defence. There has been an agreement
by NATO members for a new study to examine options for using missile
defence capabilities to defend alliance territory against a full
range of current threats. We have been very supportive of the
decision by NATO to carry out that work. It is something that
we regard as being significant.
73. Were there any options discussed other than
whether we should be in or out of any American system?
(Mr Hoon) As I say, there was not that kind of detailed
discussion about missile defence. That is part of some continuing
work that NATO has been engaged in for some time. As I indicated
in October, we are keen to have the kind of parliamentary and
public discussion of these issues as we judge is now necessary.
Chairman
74. It is a pity that you had not started that
three months ago, Secretary of State. It would make for a more
useful discussion in the Defence Committee.
(Mr Hoon) I am always grateful for the advice of the
Defence Committee, but occasionally I have to take decisions for
myself.
75. When will the debate on missile defence
start?
(Mr Hoon) I indicated that I anticipated publishing
a discussion document that I hope will be ready in the early part
of December. I hope that that will stimulate some discussion.
76. You will not have any surprises. We shall
ask you the same questions that we asked you last time.
(Mr Hoon) I hope that I would give you the same answers.
Chairman: I was worried about that.
Mr Howarth
77. It would be quite surprising if you gave
the same answers because on 12 November you made a very interesting
speech to the Foreign Policy Centre. Perhaps I may quote from
that: "Let me also make it clear that developing the capacity
to defend against the threat of ballistic missile attack is in
the interest of the UK and its people, just as much as it is in
the interest of the United States". I see that as very welcome.
I hope that when you come to publish your paper next month that
it will indicate some options. So far all you have said is that
we are waiting to hear from the United States with a request to
be able to use the various facilities that we have here and possibly
to enhance them. In the margins of this debate about Prague perhaps
you will share with us some of the discussion that you had with
General Kadish last week.
(Mr Hoon) I did not meet General Kadish.
78. Perhaps you could tell us what your department's
discussions were, as to whether the United Kingdom will become
involved in the development of a missile defence system or whether
we are content to leave it to the Americans. Was that the view
of the other NATO members or are there NATO members who said,
"Yes, we would like to accept your invitation to be part
of the programme"?
(Mr Hoon) Those are extremely good questions and I
am sure that they will inform the debate that we are about to
have.
79. That is a stonewalling argument, Secretary
of State.
(Mr Hoon) If I answer the questions you will say that
I am pre-empting the debate. It is important that the Committee
have the opportunity, as indeed will other Members of Parliament,
to participate in what I think is an important debate. That is
why I gave the speech that I gave the other day and why I made
the statement that I made in October.
| 
