---

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have regularly debated constitutional law in years past. I look forward to receiving from him the detailed account that he will no doubt give as to why he makes that opposition in the way he does.

Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): Last week, I was in Basra with members of the Select Committee on Defence and met Major-General Stewart and many of our people there, including the naval forces on HMS Grafton, who are doing an important job. The Secretary of State is right that the security situation has deteriorated recently, but our forces and the civilians who are helping to supply clean water and with the reconstruction are doing a fantastic job and it would be ridiculous to follow the course suggested by those on the Opposition Benches and withdraw or reduce our commitment at this time. The next few weeks are vital and we need to see this through.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had the opportunity to discuss with him and other colleagues their recent visit to Iraq, and they have helpfully set out for me some of the more practical details of what they want to see achieved quickly in Iraq. I am very conscious of that matter, and we will take it fully on board.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): When is any Minister in this Government going to admit that they have led this country and our troops into a morass of monumental proportions? The Government are no longer in control of events, and the Secretary of State is dodging deployment decisions in Najaf at a time when the American President is predicting chaos to come. What is wrong with a policy of replacing American and British troops with troops drawn from Islamic nations
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1731
 
under UN authority? When will the Government accept that we now need an exit strategy, not a "dig a bigger hole" policy?

Mr. Hoon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to watch the lunchtime news, but there appears to be encouraging news from Najaf, which is completely contrary to his forecast. I accept that he has been remarkably consistent: he has come to the House and forecast doom and disaster at every turn. However, the situation has not developed in the way that he has described, and it does not appear to be developing in that way today in Najaf. He should be paying tribute to the way in which coalition forces have dealt sensitively and sensibly with the position in Najaf, rather than running everyone down in that way.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): I should have thought that the loss of 68 British lives was enough of a disaster for us not to dismiss it. Is it not true that the New York Times has just apologised for misleading its readers because it believed the lies of the crook Ahmad Chalabi? Is it not the case that Members might well have been misled on the war, which has not found weapons of mass destruction, which has not decreased the threat of terrorism—but increased it—and which has replaced the torture rooms of Saddam Hussein with the torture rooms of George Bush? If there is to be a major extension of our troops in Iraq, it is absolutely right that we follow the example of the first time around, and vote on it. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is against a vote because he believes that he would lose it, and that the country would not forgive us if—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is just fine.

Mr. Hoon: I note with interest the accounts concerning Mr. Chalabi. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is currently an investigation into the intelligence that formed the basis of our decision to take military action in Iraq, and I am sure that those responsible will also be looking carefully at the newspaper accounts.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): In view of what the Secretary of State has said on Najaf, will he reassure the House that no requests have been issued by our American allies for British troops to deploy outside their area? Is it his present intention to keep British troops in their existing zone of operation in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in the conclusion of my statement that there are continuing discussions, particularly on ensuring security in the handover to Iraqi sovereignty. We are well aware of determined threats to disrupt that handover, and there is likely to be an upsurge of violence, not least against Iraqis. We have seen some appalling recent incidents directed against those Iraqis who have the courage and determination to stand up for their country and attempt to rebuild it. That is why we are continuing to consider the position as we move towards the handover.

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Further to the question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1732
 
(Mr. Leigh), are the Government considering security control by British forces of Najaf and Karbala? Has that been requested and if so, by whom?

Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we are currently considering a range of issues. It is important that we, with our coalition partners, continue to examine the security situation as we move towards the handover. I am sure that even those opposed to the military action in Iraq would recognise that the return of Iraq to a sovereign interim Iraqi Government is a vital stage in the process of allowing Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own affairs. We must therefore ensure that they have appropriate security support during that period.

John Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): Will the Secretary of State say exactly when the decision was taken to send these troops? The House was told yesterday lunchtime that no decision had been taken, but 24 hours later, we are being told that it has now been taken. What has changed between yesterday and today?

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Cabinet tends to meet on a Thursday morning.

Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) (Lab): Even those of us who believed that Britain was misled into an illegal war on Iraq understand the current predicaments of the UK troops there. Will the Secretary of State clarify two points from his statement? On the current deployments, he used the words "the latest advice" from commanders in the field. Was that in the form of a request from those commanders, rather than a request from the US Government? Will he also acknowledge that the mandate that the Government have from Parliament does not extend to an increased role in Iraq that would specifically deploy UK troops under US command? Nothing would put UK troops at greater risk than being placed alongside US torturers, in an indistinguishable relationship.

Mr. Hoon: To deal with my hon. Friend's second point first, UK troops have been under US command repeatedly in recent times, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which did not appear to place them at great risk, if I may say so. On his first observation, he misunderstands the way in which such matters work. Obviously, we keep under regular review the number and nature of our forces in our areas of operation and discuss that on a regular basis with the General Officer Commanding. When that officer indicates that in his military judgment there is a requirement for more forces or for a different mix of those forces, we consider that carefully. If appropriate, as is the case now, we take the necessary decisions.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): We are all proud of the courage and professionalism of our soldiers, but they are being stretched thinly, and some units particularly thinly. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1733
 
for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put to him on the Black Watch? That was one of a number of highly pertinent questions that the Secretary of State just did not answer.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening sufficiently carefully. I made it clear that the Black Watch was deploying because it had the appropriate training and equipment.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): This fresh deployment, on the basis of the Secretary of State's statement, appears to be minimal. Is he aware, however, that the public would be seriously worried about any further large deployment, particularly if it involved deepening and extending our role? Although no one in the House is calling for troops to be withdrawn immediately, people would like to know that we do indeed have an exit strategy.

Mr. Hoon: I hope that I have at least set in train in my hon. Friend's mind the idea that supporting a sovereign interim Government with our forces—operating in the way in which we have in places as diverse as Bosnia, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, and being able to train local forces in precisely the same way as in those areas—holds out the prospect of providing the opportunity, in time, as the security situation allows for it, for more and more security tasks to be taken over by Iraqi forces, rather than their relying on the multinational coalition. That is the process that we are setting out to achieve, and it can be achieved as soon as those Iraqi forces are able to carry out the responsibilities that we currently undertake.

---