Persian Gulf (Hansard, 9 March 1998)

§ 7. Mr. Miller
If he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops to the Persian Gulf. [31409]

§ Mr. George Robertson
HMS Invincible, now relieved by HMS Illustrious, and all our service and civilian personnel deployed to the Gulf, have made a valuable contribution in helping the United Nations Secretary-General achieve an agreement with Iraq. Our forces will remain there to ensure that the agreement Saddam Hussein's Government have entered into is tested, adhered to and obeyed.

§ Mr. Miller
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does not the agreement signed between Saddam Hussein and Kofi Annan represent a victory for diplomacy backed by the threat of force? In the light of my right hon. Friend's remarks about what is happening 9 now, is it not important that our troops remain deployed until we are certain that Saddam Hussein meets his agreement?

§ Mr. Robertson
My hon. Friend is right to say that the lesson of the agreement achieved by Kofi Annan in Baghdad is that diplomacy without the threat of force would not have produced the result that the world felt so relieved about. The United Nations Secretary-General's words— You can do a lot with diplomacy but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by firmness and force"— are the ultimate vindication of the decision of the United States and Britain, along with a growing coalition of others, to ensure that such force was put in place.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that we cannot take Saddam Hussein's word for granted. Others have done so, and his people may have taken his word. The reality is that, unless the potential for the use of force is still there, until we are sure that he will adhere to the agreement, we cannot be certain that he will behave in accordance with what the United Nations has laid down as the norm for the future.

Dr. Julian
Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that to deploy forces in far-flung theatres such as the Persian Gulf, it is vital to have anti-submarine warfare capabilities? Will he comment on the grave concerns expressed in a letter in The Times on 5 March by Sir Patrick Duffy, a Navy Minister in the previous Labour Government, about the proposal that the 12-strong hunter-killer submarine fleet is likely to be cut in the strategic defence review?

§ Mr. Robertson
Sir Patrick Duffy, who is a good friend of mine, was one of those consulted during the many discussions that we had in the strategic defence review. I know his strong view about naval power in the future. The strategic defence review will take account of all potential threats to Britain's security interest, and will reach a balanced outcome.

§ Mrs. Gilroy
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent some $1 billion developing 45 so-called palaces while his people are starving? Do not that and the expenditure on the programme of weapons of mass destruction show that Saddam, not the west, is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people?

§ Mr. Robertson
My hon. Friend is right. There is an iniquitous aspect to the propaganda put out by Saddam that we in the rest of the world are responsible for the suffering of his people because of the imposition of sanctions. He alone is responsible for the sanctions regime being in place, and for it being in place so long. As she rightly says, an expenditure of some $1.2 billion since the Gulf war on building 40 lavish presidential palaces is astounding. His people would be appalled if they knew of it. The new oil-for-food resolution, 1153, allows the Iraqi regime to spend $5.2 billion every six months on essential food and medicines. The track record suggests that he will not use it correctly but we must hope that, having been given that flexibility, the poor people of Iraq will benefit from it.

§ Mr. Key
The whole House was immensely proud of our forces in their recent deployment to the Gulf, and we 10 remain concerned for their safety. Given the changing nature of the threat, the increased threat of chemical and biological weapons, and the fact that our main ally, the United States, is embarked on a programme to inoculate all its service men and women against anthrax in the next couple of years, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the offer of inoculation to our troops in the Gulf was left so late this time? Is it his policy that inoculation will remain voluntary, and will those inoculations be recorded by a new system, as envisaged by the previous Government?

§ Mr. Robertson
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall simply respond factually to those questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the announcement of the decision to vaccinate against anthrax was taken simultaneously by the American Government, the British Government and the Canadian Government last week: that was not an accident. Although the threat assessment is still low, the danger still exists.
The independent medical panel of experts that I set up advocated the inoculation of those in the theatre with anti-anthrax vaccine, and that has now gone ahead. The Americans will use their own vaccine, but we were able to supply the Canadians with the vaccine that will be used for our troops. We believe that it is safe: indeed, so satisfied was I of that, that I, the Chief of the Defence Staff, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Surgeon-General all took the vaccine last week; we shall continue with the other three injections required for the course.
There will be complete documentation of all inoculations given. I am strongly urging all our troops in the area voluntarily to have the vaccination on the ground that it will be good for them and give them a protection that they require.