---

Mr. Hoon: I certainly agree, and that will not happen.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD): If we refuse the Americans' request, what penalties are we likely to incur?

Mr. Hoon: There would be no penalty, but we would have failed in our duty as an ally and as a country that has closely supported the United States— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): Given such serious worries as increased risk to our forces, mission creep, and British involvement in military strategies that could cause major civilian casualties, alienate more Iraqis and perhaps be distorted by US domestic politics, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will have a full opportunity to debate and deliberate before a decision is taken?

Mr. Hoon: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is the same as the one that I have given him on many previous occasions: it has never been this country's constitutional arrangement that the House of Commons necessarily approves the redeployment of forces that have already been committed to a specific theatre. He might take a different view of what the constitutional
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 637
 
arrangements should be, but I assure him and other hon. Members that when any decision is taken I shall report it to the House immediately.

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Is it not self-deluding to continue to describe the people defending Falluja as terrorists when the great majority of them are unquestionably Sunni nationalists who regard themselves as Arab patriots? Does the Secretary of State remember that before the war, from my personal experience, I warned him of the difficulties and dangers of fighting in Arab towns, to which he replied, "It depends which side the population is on"? He knows the answer to that question now, does he not?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi who lead significant numbers of foreign fighters in places such as Falluja are entitled in any way to be described as Sunni nationalists. They are brutal killers and they are killing Iraqis. It is our responsibility, on behalf of the coalition, to make the effort to deal with those people.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I listened to the Secretary of State and I think I am correct—he will confirm this—that a decision has not been made and that it will be taken on military terms. May I put this simply: I beg him not to accede to the request? In addition to the military aspect, there is a political dimension to the situation, and hon. Members are entitled to ask him to take their views on that into account. Not one member of the parliamentary Labour party has supported the deployment. Many of us find it totally incredible that the United States of America cannot find the logistic support and infantry to fill the gap. I found his response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) deeply upsetting, because he said that he had not made up his mind but then said that to turn down the request would be letting down allies. It would not. The United Kingdom has given 110 per cent. on this issue, and some of us have provided political cover and support for this Government. I beg him not to try to stretch the envelope too much; otherwise it might burst. Some of us will not stomach it and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I say that many hon. Members still wish to speak, and brief supplementaries would be very helpful?

Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that I can reply to my hon. Friend, because I did not detect a question, but I will certainly take his observations into account.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) (Con): Following earlier questions and answers, does the Secretary of State agree that the courage and determination of our armed forces are such that they will concur with any request that is made to them by the Government?

Mr. Hoon: That is the great strength of armed forces that are answerable constitutionally to Government and to this Parliament.
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 638
 

Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North) (Lab): It is clear that there might be a strong case for the need for more troops in the American sector, but can the Secretary of State spell out why those troops should be provided by the British Government and not the American Government?

Mr. Hoon: I have set out the case right from the start of my statement. These are extra operations being conducted in areas of particular difficulty. The US requires extra forces, and extra support from allies, including the United Kingdom, to be able to achieve those operations.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us who opposed this war, and still oppose it, believe none the less that, given the fact that we are there, and subject to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), it would be extremely difficult to refuse a request from the United States for military assistance? However, does it not also demonstrate the dangers of our presence? Therefore, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will give no assurance to anybody, explicit or implicit, that British forces will remain deployed there after the expiration of the current mandate in June next year?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out an argument that I have sought to use to persuade hon. Members on both sides of the House. When those who have opposed military operations look at the situation today in Iraq, they should be saying precisely what he said: here we are, we have a very difficult situation, and we have to continue our efforts to restore a degree of security in Iraq, to allow democratic elections to take place and to defeat terrorism. That is precisely the argument that I hope all hon. Members will subscribe to. As for a time limit, I shall not give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any guarantees, but obviously there are legal requirements that the United Kingdom would have to satisfy were the mandate to continue beyond the date that he specified.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State tell us when exactly was the last time that British troops operated in a war zone under the direct control of a foreign country?

Mr. Hoon: UK forces regularly come under the command of others—and not only of the United States. Whether they are operating in the south, as they are today, or whether they operate, if this request is accepted, under the control of a US commander further north in Iraq, a US commander is still ultimately in charge. A British commander is the No. 2. Whenever we deploy on multinational operations, for example as part of NATO, the commander may well be American or from any other of the NATO states. What my hon. Friend suggests may be unusual is actually a regular occurrence.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): This is not a time for ambiguity, vacillation or prevarication of any kind: a decision needs to be taken.
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 639
 
Perhaps a decision already has been taken but, if it has not, may I express the hope that we will accede to the request, so long as our commanders on the spot confirm that we have the resources to do the job? We were right to get into this operation alongside our American allies; my only regret is that we did not do it before, and did not complete the job in 1991. Now that we are in, it is very important that we continue to show ourselves to be firm and reliable allies, utterly committed to seeing this thing through and therefore prepared to take our share of the risks of the operation. I believe that the gallant British servicemen and women whom I met in the Gulf on two occasions when I was a defence spokesman would want that.

Mr. Hoon: I have set out to the House the process that we will follow. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when a decision is reached, I shall report it to the House in the usual way.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Since the Secretary of State appears to have made up his mind, given his response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), will he tell us whether British troops will be present in the anticipated all-out attack on Falluja after 2 November? Will they be expected to take casualties as the United States has, and will they be involved in that sort of operation? Does he actually have any control over the matter once he has acceded to the request?

Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in my statement that the request does not involve the deployment of British troops to Falluja.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The National Security Committee under the Iraqi Interim Government is attended by the American forces commander, but not the British one. Why is that? If we are to commit extra forces as the Secretary of State has outlined, will he seek attendance at that committee for the British commander, or is he content for us always to claim great influence over our allies while failing to deliver it where it counts—on the ground?

---