|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The struggle of the House has been to capture the Crown. We have never succeeded in that; the Crown just moved from the end of the Mall to reside in Downing street. I do not believe, however, that a decision so fundamental to the well-being of our national life and the unity of a country can be left to the Crown in Downing street. It must be embraced by
every one of us who represent those who will provide the men and treasure that take us to war.
I have been in the House a little while, during which time, I suggest, there have been three great conflicts. The first was the Falklands. I remember collecting money from pubs across my constituency and sending cheques to the Ministry of Defence. We knew that that conflict had the assent of the people. The first Gulf war also had the assent of the people. The second Gulf warthe one that has brought us here to discuss this motion todayhas been more equivocal.
By and large, Governments in the modern age do not launch wars without being satisfied at the back of their minds that that the nation understands and will support those warsbut who can express that?
Who gives assent in such circumstances? It can, in truth, only be the representatives of those who sent us here: ourselves, the House of Commons. We must say that we are prepared to go to war, that taxation shall be raised if necessary, and young people shall lose their lives if necessary. Therefore the principle must be a very great one, and the clarity with which we commit the resources of this nation must be affirmed. That is what the motion and the amendment are about.
I commend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It covered the ground in relation to the difficulties of capturing the prerogative power. The War Powers Act in the United States and the Canadian approach are relevant instances. We seem somehow to be trapped in an imperial past when the very notion of the imperium was itself sufficient to justify any and every warbut we are no longer in that age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said, this is a world of instant communication. We know the details now.
We have been reminded of Churchill in the last war. It was inconceivable that Parliament could not debate the conduct of the warand it did, in closed session. Those were often very bitter and anxious debates, because we knew that we were committing the lives and well-being of the nation. Such action hangs on judgment, and that judgment should not reside in the hands of one person, who knows only what he or she believes. We must reach out and affirm what the House believes is right for our country.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): This has been an extremely good debate, throughout which the House has been seen at its most thoughtful. It has involved a number of clear principles. It has been about making Government more accountable, about improving the standard of Parliament, about providing security along with accountability but without tying the hands of the Executive in operational matters, and about ensuring that the armed forces are strengthened by the knowledge that the public, through Parliament, are behind them.
Why did we table the motion? It was for a number of reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that in recent history a wide range of parliamentary mechanisms had been used to confer legitimacy on military action, but that what was generally used was the mechanism that was least inconvenient to the Government of the day.
It is merely stating the obvious to say that the process in which we are involved today has been given impetus by the disquiet surrounding the current Governments handling of the run-up to the war in Iraqa subject mentioned by many Members todaybut there have also been positive drivers of that process. Both my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the House spoke of their long-standing personal commitment to improving the standing of Parliament. For my own part, I have long believed that the power to conclude treaties should be exercised ultimately through Parliament, and also that we should find better ways of holding our judges to account.
As was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the debate has given us an opportunity to make a significant constitutional change. What we have witnessed in recent decades is nothing less than the asset-stripping of Parliament. We have seen powers systematically taken to the Executive. We have seen powers taken to Europe. We have seen powers given away under human rights and devolution legislation. Todays debate has been a small, but none the less significant, attempt to start to take powers back to the House of Commons.
That brings me to the motion and the Governments approach. In essence, the Government have already accepted the case presented in the Opposition motion. It is a shame that the Government felt that they needed to table an amendment, in what was a Pavlovian party political step.
Dr. Fox: I am in a kind and gentle mood, so my hon. Friend should not tempt me to go further. It was amazing, however, to hear the Leader of the House admitting that the Government had written their amendment before they saw the Opposition motion, and saying that the excuse for that was that the Opposition were late tabling the motion. Such creative interpretation of the facts was wonderful, even coming from the Leader of the House whose current job is to unveil the Chancellors previously unknown waterfall of charm, warmth and humanity.
It is also interesting that the Government have seemingly changed their position so rapidly. Merely two weeks ago the Lord Chancellor said that there was no need to change the Governments position and that it would, in fact, be dangerous to do so. With his usual deftness, the Leader of the House remarked that the Lord works in mysterious ways. Presumably the Lord he was referring to was the Lord Chancellor whose political career under the current Prime Minister has defied gravity, but for whom intimations of mortality
beckon under his successor. However, we are witnessing a welcome move towards a new parliamentary consensus on what is a very important issue.
A number of legitimate questions have been raised about the general approach put forward today. Will it weaken or strengthen the country at a time of threat? May we have adequate definitions of terms such as substantial in relation to deployments? Will it interfere with the freedom of commanders and the conduct of war? Will it conflict with other treaty obligations? Should there be legislation or convention, and in either case how should it be done? Finally, is the change necessary at all? Let me deal with those questions in turn.
Once Parliament makes a decision, what should happen subsequently? Many Members raised that issue. Should there be a requirement for a compulsory later endorsement of the position? That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in his powerful and passionate speech. He argued that Parliament needs to be able to revisit our troop deployment in Iraq. Several other Members agreed with that. The question was also dealt with particularly well and in detail by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) in a thoughtful speech. Ultimately, Parliament cannot be stopped from voting on anything that Parliament wants to vote on. We have numerous mechanisms for achieving that. The question is whether Parliament should be able to interfere with operations under waywhich would, of course, be very destabilising. The answer to the question was well put in another question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He pointed out that Chamberlains Government fell as a result of a non-substantive, but ultimately lethal, motion.
Once a Government have begun to prosecute a military campaign, they require to continue to command a majority in the House of Commons to govern. That is the ultimate safeguard that we have. Any substantive motion suddenly to pull out of Iraq would not command a majority of the House even at this time, and that in itself gives the Government credibility and legitimacy.
Some question whether the changes proposed in the debate would weaken the hand of the Government and the armed forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe dealt with that issue. Division is undoubtedly a boost for our enemies, so it can only add strength if it is clear that military action has the support of Parliament and, by inference, of the British people. Moreover, I believe that that would provide our troops with the morale boost of legitimacy that comes with constitutional approval.
Several Members were concerned about specific definitions in relation to deployments, notably of the word substantial. That is a legitimate and understandable concern. I believe that the strict legal definition of the term is both difficult and unwise. The House of Commons will be able to know what it means by such terms in the particular circumstances at any one time. The term substantial will be to do not only with the numbers that it might apply to, but with the nature of any conflict and the intentwhether peacekeeping, policing or defensive. It will also be relevant whether any action is unilateral or multilateral
or involves a coalition or a treaty obligation. Any elected House at any time is better able to interpret whether the nature or size of a force deployed in any particular circumstance requires reference to Parliament than is the extremely stark codification of law. That brings me to the next, related question.
Is any change that we decide to make better undertaken by convention or by legislation? I believe, as many Members do, that convention is preferable because it is more flexible and better able to accommodate complex or unforeseen circumstances of the sort mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It has been often repeated in this debate that the primacy of the House of Commons and Parliament must be upheld, which in itself leads to the conclusion that we should go down the route of convention, not legislation. Legislation is potentially subject to judicial interpretation, and under our current arrangements such interpretation could well occur outside our borders. The ability of foreign courts to have a say in what was or was not legitimate for the United Kingdom to do in deploying its armed forces would be utterly unacceptable to this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked whether these arrangements could conflict with treaty obligations already in force, such as the NATO treaty. Article 5 of that treaty states that an attack against one or more countries
shall be considered an attack against them all,
such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.
The balance between the Executive and Parliament after the commencement of operations was also discussed. It is clear from the contributions of many Members that the consensus in the House is that it should be Parliaments role to grant approval for military action; it is up to the Government of the day to determine how to carry out that action. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), and the broad consensus in favour of that position has been reflected throughout todays debate. There can be no role for the House in detailed operational matters. We should certainly question the wisdom of what the Government of the day have been doing, as we have done throughout history, but the House has to have appropriate mechanisms for doing so that do not interfere in such operations.
Some powerful speeches were made and I shall refer to just two or three; I hope that Members in all parts of the House will forgive me for not having time to mention them all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, in a passionate and extremely well-informed speech that he seemed to have been saving up for this House for a long time, made a number of very valid points. He raised an issue that was echoed throughout the days debate: the need for information to be placed before the House before it takes a decision on a substantive deployment. He spoke
of the need to have the conclusions of legal advice made available to the House, if not the legal advice itself, to give us an indication of the intelligence basis.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe talked about the gathering, collation, interpretation and use of intelligenceissues that were again echoed in all parts of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe also said that we must have clear objectives and an obvious starting-point for any military activities. Such issues reveal the stark contrast between what happens in this country and in other countries. We witnessed the problems that the Netherlands had to deal with in the run-up to the conflict in Afghanistan; no one in this House would like the British Government to be saddled with such problems.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) said that the Liberal Democrats will support our motion, for which we are very grateful. I disagreed with him about the need for a legislative framework, for reasons that I have already set out. It would be inflexible and apply to the House a codification that might not suit some of the varied circumstances that we might face. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who is probably helping his colleague with his campaigning, mentioned his private Members Bill, for which I am happy to give him a little advertisement. He talked about the importance of the timing of any vote, saying that it should not be taken at a point where action had already become inevitable. That is an important lesson that the Secretary of State might want to return to in his winding-up speech.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) discussed the House of Commons basing such a decision on the granting of supply, for which there is of course an historical precedent. In effect, that would mirror the lock that Congress has on the US Government.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe spoke about the role of the House of Lords. What would its role be in the process, depending on any reform? Were we to have an elected House of Lordsas the House of Commons has already decided should be put in placewhat would its role be? The Government will need to consider that when making the proposals they will make after this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) talked about the problems that other Governments face, notably with the caveats and flexibility that their systems apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) had some reservations, especially on the questions of revision or permission, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that he had changed his mind on the basis of the arguments that he heard in the House of Commons today. Well, I have heard it all now. It was worth waiting the 15 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) covered so many of the areas that I have already mentioned that I thought that he was practising for a wind-up speech with one eye on the futureas long as it is not my job!
There has been a creeping consensus in the House on this issue today. It is now difficult to imagine any Government in the future attempting to prosecute any
military campaign without the support of Parliament, but it must be done with flexibility and by convention, not legislation. Decisions must be made by Parliament, not by courts domestic or foreign. The process must not interfere with operations and it must deal with substantial force deploymentsa concept that is better recognised than described.
This is a good day for Parliament. It begins, but only begins, to undo the asset-stripping of the powers of the House of Commons that has been going on for far too long. It is a good day for the strength and standing of our country. It is good for our armed forces to have the guarantee of the support of Parliament and by inference our people. I commend the motion to the House, in the clear understanding that whatever the result of the votes tonight, Parliament is the winner.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): I agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that this has been an exceptionally good debate. I welcome all the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members to this important debate. I apply the same caveat to my remarks as the hon. Gentleman did. My only concern is that in the time available I will not be able to do justice to all the speeches that have been made, but I shall do my best. The contributions reflected the fundamental place that Parliament has in the democratic decision-making process of this country and the priority we all on both sides of the House attach to the men and women of our armed forces, particularly when we ask them to act on our behalf and put their lives at risk, often in harsh and dangerous environments thousands of miles away from their families and their loved ones.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the Houses understanding of the issues involved. That includes the work of the Public Administration Committee, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). When I was first elected to this House, I served for some time under his leadership on that Committee and I am grateful for the learning process. It also includes the House of Lords Constitution Committees report and, indeed, the learned debate in the other place on 1 May. All those were of considerable value and drawn on liberally as we debated the issue today.
At the heart of this debate is the relationship between Parliament and Government. The decision to go to war must always rest with the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet. But the Government should be accountable to Parliament for their decisions. One of the striking things about this debate, which began with nothing in principle between the Govt and the Opposition, is that it has revealed the complexity of the challenge we have set ourselves in determining a mechanism that gives practical effect to that principle. That mechanism must give a clear mandate for our armed forces that allows them to go into conflict and take on its risks confident that they have the durable support of the country as expressed through its Parliament.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|