---

Jeremy Corbyn : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Will he confirm that those million-plus people who marched on 15 February last year marched because they did not want to see death and carnage any more in Iraq? They were not in any way supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, many of them and many in the House had actively opposed arms sales to Iraq during the 1980s when the basis of Saddam Hussein's power was created.

Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is right, but that applies not just to the million people who took to the streets. There were hundreds of people in my
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1079
 
constituency, Hereford, which is not known for its pacifist tendency, who also supported the view that war at that stage was not right. The comments of the Secretary of State were outrageous.

I shall be brief. Although I am not subject to time constraints, I want others to speak. It is clear that the level of insurgency in Iraq is increasing by the day. That underlines what we and others in the House said about the number of troops in Iraq immediately after the so-called victory last May and the number that continue to be there. As the Chairman of the Defence Committee said, we supported the presence of British troops in our sector and we will continue to do so. However, until there are more troops from other nations—not from Britain and America—and particularly from Muslim nations taking part in the policing and patrolling of that country, we will not be able to demonstrate adequately to the people of Iraq that it is not a force of occupation, but a force of liberation designed to help their country succeed.

That is why the Government and the United States Government have an awesome responsibility to do whatever they can to try and secure troops from other nations. They also have an awesome responsibility, as other hon. Members have said, to conduct operations in Iraq in a sensible way. I draw to the attention of the House a report on the BBC a few hours ago, according to which the symbolic head of the Association of Muslim Scholars said that if an attack on Falluja by the US or others were carried out as many in the House suspect it would be, he would boycott the elections to be held in January.

I hope that such a boycott will not happen. I hope that the elections will be successful because they are essential for building a prosperous and democratic Iraq, to which we all sign up. In the attack on Falluja it behoves US forces to act in such a way as to minimise civilian casualties as far as possible, as we would do with our forces. We must ensure that the Americans try to do that as well.

There has been huge cross-party support for the action in Afghanistan. Few in the House objected to it. The Taliban regime had to be removed and military action was necessary. One of my concerns about going into Iraq was that we had not sorted out Afghanistan before we did so. Now drug production levels in Afghanistan are higher than when the Taliban were in power. Of course, Britain is doing its bit and the deployment of more GR7 Harriers mentioned by the Secretary of State is to be welcomed, but we must ensure that that society is stable before we engage in other activities among other nations.

I find it astonishing that because of their domestic legislation, some NATO troops stationed in Afghanistan will not take part in activities to destroy drug fields in an attempt to stop the drug trade. Those NATO members—they know who they are—should look at the internal security of their own nations, which are scourged by drugs. If they are not prepared to do something about the problem in Afghanistan, they need to rethink their policy.
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1080
 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I would not usually intervene because I understand the time constraints. However, with reference to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the views of the Liberals on the campaign in Afghanistan, may I remind him of the views expressed by his now hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), who opposed what we were doing in Afghanistan? He left the Labour party and joined the Liberals.

Mr. Keetch: The Liberal Democrats are a broad church, but they are not as broad as the Minister's church. Although it is true that individual Liberal Democrat Back Benchers did not support that campaign, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers—me, my leader and my Foreign Affairs spokesman—supported it wholeheartedly. If the Minister wants to see Labour Members who take a different view on Iraq, nuclear weapons or Afghanistan—I could go on—he needs only to look at the Government Benches, where they sit for all to see.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Liberal Democrat party's view. I accept that my party contains different views on different issues, but he was trying to suggest that the Liberal Democrat party takes a collective view. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) indicated that she supports the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), and we should take a straw poll to see how many other Liberal Democrat Members support him.

Mr. Keetch: Of course, three or four Liberal Democrat Members did not support the Afghan campaign, but the majority of the parliamentary party, the majority at our conference and the leadership and spokesmen at that time supported that action. It ill behoves a Labour Minister to criticise members of his own party who do not support individual military actions. The vast majority of Labour party members in Hereford, such as there are, supported me, not him, in the case of Iraq at least.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech and holding the attention of the House. While we are on the subject of Liberal Democrat defence policy, what is official Liberal Democrat defence policy on the future of the nuclear deterrent? Is it not right that the Liberals would not replace the strategic nuclear deterrent when Trident becomes obsolete?

Mr. Keetch: It is funny that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question because I expected it to come from a Labour Member, but I am happy to deal with it. The Liberal Democrats support the retention of an independent British nuclear deterrent. That does not necessarily commit us to replacing Trident with a submarine-launched deterrent system, because there is an important discussion to be had about the kind of nuclear deterrent that is appropriate for Britain after Trident—personally, I do not think that it is a submarine-launched ballistic missile deterrent. Our policy document, "Defending Democracy", which was produced at the beginning of last year, stated that we retain the principle of an independent British nuclear deterrent.
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1081
 

Llew Smith: Given what the hon. Gentleman just said, can we assume that in certain circumstances he would be willing to press the nuclear button?

Mr. Keetch: I will shield myself behind the view taken by successive Ministers. When I sit on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman can ask me the question and I will tell him under which circumstances I would do so.

I shall move on to a number of other areas of NATO deployment. I certainly endorse the Secretary of State's remarks about the situation in the Balkans, and particularly in Kosovo. The situation in Kosovo is not secure. We went into Kosovo to stop one part of the population committing genocide against the other. Many of us now suspect that the other part of that population is now similarly committing genocide. NATO forces must be seen to be even-handed in Kosovo, and they must protect both sides of the community. For example, German forces were criticised on the ground that their response to rioting in Mitrovica and other places earlier this year was not even-handed.

Perhaps the Minister will pay attention to this question about NATO members because I would like him to address it in his winding-up speech. We have a commitment to emerging NATO states. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to a commitment that the Government do not appear to have fulfilled, which concerns the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO agreed to rotate a flight of three aircraft based at an air base in Lithuania, and the royal Belgian air force took up the commitment with three F-16s. The RAF was supposed to replace that flight, but it told the Lithuanian Government and the other Baltic state Governments that it was unable to do so for operational reasons, so the Danes had to go in. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position in his winding-up speech.

We have responsibilities throughout the world. Hon. Members have mentioned the Falkland Islands, on which I endorse what has been said, but I shall say a word about our dependent territories in the Caribbean. The Royal Navy's presence in the Caribbean used to be called WIGS—the West Indies guard ship—and some of us who have served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme were lucky enough to spend time there.

We saw the benefits of a West Indies guard ship only this summer when HMS Richmond, commanded by Mike McCartain, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave Ruler were able to provide extremely important humanitarian help to the people of the Cayman Islands. We have a commitment to those places, and in that instance the Royal Navy was extremely useful.

The troops in our armed forces are the best kit and equipment that we possess. I entirely endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence said about the proposed changes to the regimental structure, particularly in Scotland. Of course arms plotting should go, for the good welfare and family reasons for which we have argued for some time. However, that does not necessarily mean having to get rid of the regional identities of many of the regiments that are under threat.

There is something of an internal crisis among our armed forces personnel. A few months ago, the MOD issued its internal survey for 2004, which asks members
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1082
 
of the armed forces what they think of the MOD and their own position. In response to the question, "Does the MOD look after its personnel?", of 1,634 members of the armed forces—a 42 per cent. response rate—only 3 per cent. strongly agreed that the MOD looks after its own personnel, while 32 per cent. somewhat agreed and 62 per cent. did not know, did not care or did not believe it. The MOD needs to resolve that crisis.

Does the Minister intend to reintroduce manning control? He knows what that is and exactly how it is being used to get rid of members of the armed forces from their positions.

On Gurkhas, although I welcome the recent announcement that they will have the right of citizenship in this country, why is that being limited to those who have left the service since 1997? They have served this nation very well. They took 23,000 casualties in two world wars. They have won 26 Victoria crosses. Indeed, of the 15 surviving VC holders, four are Gurkhas, yet under the Government's proposals none would qualify for British citizenship. That should be reconsidered.

The Secretary of State had some fun with Liberal Democrat policies on procurement in his Labour party conference speech, and claimed that the British armed forces should, at all costs and all times, buy British equipment. However, he is not supported by members of his armed forces, who were questioned about that for the MOD survey. When they were asked whether they were well equipped, 19 per cent. thought that they were and 41 per cent. thought that they were not. When they were asked, "Should we always buy British?"—the issue on which the Secretary of State criticised our policies—21 per cent. supported the view of the Secretary of State and 58 per cent. supported the view of the Liberal Democrats.

We wholeheartedly support the carriers, but they must be considered in terms of the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—programme for the replacement of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. Our warship yards cannot cope with the eight to 10 ships in MARS at the same time as the aircraft carriers. Members of Parliament from the north-east—the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) is nodding—know that that is the case.

I want to ask about ITAR—the international traffic in arms regulations. We hear a lot about the United States being our best friend and trading partner, yet the ITAR waiver that the Government have sought to allow us to export goods to America has not been fully given—

---