§ 5. Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)How many British service personnel are currently involved in helping to patrol the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. [90202]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson)We currently have just over 1,000 British service personnel involved in the mission in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688 to prevent Saddam' s air force from persecuting the Kurds and Shi'a Muslims of northern and southern Iraq.
§ Mr. EffordDoes my right hon. Friend agree that we should not forget the very difficult task that those Air Force pilots are performing in protecting the no-fly zones? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every check and balance has been put in place to ensure that pilots are targeting only those targets that would secure the no-fly zones, and that every effort is being made to protect innocent Iraqi civilians and Air Force pilots?
§ Mr. RobertsonI can give that assurance. British and American responses to attacks on alliance planes are strictly limited to proportionate defensive action against Iraqi weapons and facilities that pose a threat to our aircraft.
Let me be blunt: Saddam is out to kill our pilots and navigators. That has been his relentless intention since the end of Operation Desert Fox. More than 190 Iraqi aircraft have violated the no-fly zones and there have been more than 260 other direct threats against our aircrews, including missile attacks and heavy anti-aircraft artillery fire. Saddam has even offered a bounty for shooting down an aircraft. So long as Saddam and his forces continue to threaten the lives of our aircrews, we reserve the right to take action in self defence—and we will continue to do so.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)In turning once again to this important unfinished business, will the Secretary of State confirm whether there is any intention to withdraw British forces from the operation? Does he agree that it is in Britain's national interest that there should be stability in the area? Does he further agree that, in addition to targeting British pilots, Saddam and his regime are responsible for killing large numbers of Iraqi people on the ground—and that is why we are there? Given that Saddam is still killing—indeed, executing—100 people a week in southern Iraq alone, does that not justify our continued presence in the area on behalf of the United Nations?
§ Mr. RobertsonThe hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have no intention of giving up what is an 777 essentially humanitarian mission to protect people who have been relentlessly attacked by Saddam in the past and who would be attacked again in the future if we were to leave the area.
Our aircrews patrol the no-fly zones daily in the humanitarian interests of the people on the ground and, day by day, our aircrews are under attack. They take their lives in their hands when they conduct those missions. Our aircrews exhibit professionalism and skill, and they should receive the backing of the whole country—as I am sure they do.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)If the reports are true, one certainly regrets the loss of any civilian lives arising from the attacks. Can more be done to get the point across in the middle east about why we are involved in the no-fly zones, why the patrols began and why it is necessary that they continue? Is it not the case—as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), pointed out—that Saddam Hussein is a most notorious mass murderer and is about the last person on earth from whom we should take lectures about the loss of innocent lives?
§ Mr. RobertsonWe take great care over the targeting that is involved in these missions. We would regret any loss of civilian lives, but we should treat with great caution reports emanating at any time from Saddam's propaganda machine about possible civilian casualties. In fact, Saddam has resorted recently to indiscriminate fire using surface-to-surface rockets as improvised antiaircraft weapons and is putting civilians on the ground at risk. Some of the casualties that he has reported occurred on days when allied planes did not fly, and they were undoubtedly caused by some of his troops on the ground. As I say, when he stops trying to kill our aircrew, we shall no longer have any reason to act against the missile sites that cause the problem.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)The Secretary of State is well aware that I support the Government's tough line on Saddam Hussein, but I am doubtful about the efficacy of air power alone in combating his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. In the light of the lessons of the conflict in Kosovo, and the limitations shown by that conflict as to the ability of air power alone to ensure the destruction of individual, hardened targets, has the Secretary of State made any reassessments? What lessons has he drawn on the efficacy of using air power alone to degrade Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological warfare capabilities?
§ Mr. RobertsonThe campaign in Kosovo showed the potential of air power and the potential of the precision attacks that took place there. In many ways, those precision attacks were modelled on what we had to do in the no-fly zones when allied aircraft came under attack. We have to combine the policing of the no-fly zones with a robust diplomatic offensive. That is why Britain has tabled a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council, co-sponsored by Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, the Netherlands and Slovenia. That shows how the UN could respond, and respond robustly, to the three reports that were commissioned by the Security Council—the first on a re-engagement with Iraq; the second on humanitarian 778 help to Iraqi people; and the third on the more serious attention that should be given to those people from Kuwait who are still missing after the Gulf war.