Britain's Strategic Interests

HC Deb 07 June 2000 vol 351 cc348-95

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.13 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

I beg to move, That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives; is concerned that the opportunities for a reduction in nuclear weapons have been prejudiced by the refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and by the proposal that the United States should deploy a system of National Missile Defence, if necessary in breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; welcomes the 'unequivocal' declaration of the five permanent members of the Security Council that they will seek to eliminate all nuclear weapons in fulfilment of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to state, first, what its policy is towards the United States proposal for National Missile Defence and, secondly, what steps it proposes to take to fulfil its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons; congratulates the armed forces of the Crown on their successful military campaigns in Kosovo and Sierra Leone but expresses disappointment that in the latter case Her Majesty's Government has chosen to deploy UK forces independently of the United Nations peacekeeping force and not as part of it and thereby failed to strengthen the UN effort and to enhance its credibility; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish the policy criteria by which it determines that there is a need for intervention. One of the more trite judgments of contemporary security analysis is that, after the chilling certainty of mutually assured destruction, which was removed by the end of the cold war, the world has become a more unpredictable and equally dangerous place. It is said with some justification that inertia has been replaced by volatility.

If we look back to the cold war, we will remember that the strategy was simple, and even simplistic. It was essentially that of mutually assured destruction. However, in the new security environment, which we accept as being much more volatile and much more unpredictable, what is the strategy that a medium-ranking economic power such as the United Kingdom should pursue?

One of the lessons that we learned from the cold war was that collective action through NATO was essential to success and even to survival. I believe that it is equally true in the new environment that collective action through NATO, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and in particular the European security and defence identity is the best way by which to ensure our security. Just as unilateralism was rejected in the cold war, so it should be rejected now.

I observe that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is to respond to the debate. I remember the days when he had something of a flirtation with unilateral action. I remember when battle was joined in the seaside towns of England between the unilateralists and the multilateralists, but the hon. Gentleman has come, by a somewhat circuitous route, to the position that I and others occupied at that time. I am only sorry my right hon. Friend Lord Steel, with whom he had many jousts in the seaside towns of England, is not present this evening to observe at first hand this most remarkable of conversions.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell

I should like to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

There is an alarming drift towards unilateral action in international affairs. The failure of the United States Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty—the CTBT—and the determination of the United States to press ahead with a system of ballistic missile defence in apparent breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty are both disturbing and destabilising features of a determination on the part of the Americans to go it alone, compounded by American unwillingness to endorse the International Criminal Court and the procrastination in the United States in accepting the need to ban the deployment of land mines.

That seems a paradox at a time when the United States is the only military superpower left, and the threat to the interests of the United States has never been less.

Our own Government are not immune from this apparent trend. British forces have done well in Sierra Leone, but they deployed independently of the United Nations, and although they appear to be directing the activities of the UN force, they are not yet part of that force. Of course, they have secured the temporary credibility of the UN in Sierra Leone by their intervention, but they would have assured its permanent effectiveness had they been part of it from the beginning.

After the disasters of Rwanda and Srebrenica, after Somalia, the inadequacies of the United Nations have been freely admitted by the Secretary-General himself. In those circumstances, the credibility and the reputation of UN peacekeeping in Sierra Leone are at stake—if the House will forgive the colloquialism, they are on the line. Another failure could destroy both credibility and reputation for a long time to come.

As a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power, with our long history of involvement in Sierra Leone, and indeed with the present Prime Minister's personal invitation to President Kabbah to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh some two years ago at a time when President Kabbah had been ousted—all these factors, which have been used to justify intervention in the way in the past few weeks, were equally powerful, and I would argue more powerful, reasons not just for intervention, but for our participation in the United Nations force.

It is disingenuous of the Government to deflect questions on the issue of national missile defence by saying that no request has yet been made for the use of Fylingdales, and that no decision will be taken until such a request is made. One does not have to go very far in the defence and security community in Washington to hear people say that there is rather more of an understanding about these matters than has ever been revealed to the House of Commons.

As the noble Lord Robertson, recently the Secretary of State for Defence, has acknowledged, national missile defence at the instigation of the Americans has the capacity to cause severe damage to NATO. More than that, it has the capacity to refuel a nuclear arms race, particularly in Asia.

Deployment of national missile defence could result in the Chinese deciding to increase their nuclear arsenal, with the risk of a corresponding and chilling escalation by India and Pakistan: the domino theory in reverse. The statement that the United Kingdom has no view on national missile defence leads me to the inevitable conclusion that reports of a material difference of opinion between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are unquestionably true. The amendment confirms that disingenuousness. It states that the Government wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved. A definition of motherhood and apple pie could be found in that pious assertion.

The House is entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for achieving those objectives of ensuring the preservation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and of strategic stability. What advice are the British Government giving their United States counterparts? So far, the House has not been favoured with a sufficiently frank statement of Government policy.

In my judgment, the determination to proceed with national missile defence rests on a flawed assessment of threat. Of course rogue states and deeply unpleasant regimes exist. However, we must ask ourselves whether they are so lacking in comprehension that they would threaten to use, or actually use, weapons of mass destruction against the overwhelming nuclear superiority of the United States. The classic definition of threat is capability plus intention. Rogue states may acquire the capability, but it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which they would have the intention.

If national missile defence is necessary to defend the United States, that means that deterrence is considered inadequate. Yet deterrence sustained us through the long watches of the cold war and prevented Saddam Hussein, who undoubtedly had the means of launching weapons of mass destruction, from doing that in the Gulf war. During the famous exchange between James Baker, who was then Secretary of State in the United States Government, and that extraordinary survivor, Mr. Tariq Aziz, James Baker said that, if weapons of mass destruction were used, the response would be disproportionate. The precise nature of the response was never made clear, but those in Baghdad who skulked in their shelters could not exclude the possibility that the use of weapons of mass destruction would have triggered a nuclear response.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the extraordinary book by Richard Butler? There is no reason why he should have read it because it was only published a fortnight ago. The first pages outline the surmise that the continental United States was under considerable threat from the biological weapons of Saddam Hussein. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman happy that such an unlikely premise formed the basis of a cruel action against Iraq?

Mr. Campbell

I have the advantage of having met Mr. Butler on several occasions. Along with some of my hon. Friends, I have had the opportunity of discussing such matters with him. Mr. Butler takes a rather robust view of foreign policy. It may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I have more sympathy for, and confidence in, Mr. Butler's analysis of those matters than that of many other commentators. After the promotion of Mr. Rolf Ekeus, Mr. Butler had the responsibility of being the United Nations representative on such matters. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that much of his analysis is correct. We should take careful account of Mr. Butler's words when, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Kuwait, we consider our future attitude towards Saddam Hussein and the regime in Baghdad.

Much in the current nuclear environment is welcome, especially the Duma's ratification of the strategic arms reduction treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty. It would be a tragedy if that more favourable environment were soured by unilateral action by the United States on national missile defence. I therefore welcome the declaration in the margins of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions a few weeks ago in New York by the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. They declared their intention to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was described as an unequivocal declaration.

That unequivocal declaration to pursue the elimination of all nuclear weapons must be matched by action if it is not to encourage the climate of cynicism that allowed India and Pakistan to justify the enhancement of their nuclear capability and to escape all too easily from the subsequent political condemnation.

I was disappointed in the Secretary of State for Defence, who, shortly after the encouraging declaration, said on a television programme that we should not hold our breath. In response to a probing question from Sir David Frost, he said that action would take place not next week, not next month and not next year. When we consider the United Kingdom's strategic interests, we are entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for implementing the undertaking, and when we may expect some evidence of it.

In the light of the National Audit Office report and that of the Ministry of Defence, which was published this week, there are important lessons to learn from the deployment to Kosovo. However, I am unconvinced by the reluctance of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to endorse in its report, which was published today, the principle of justified humanitarian intervention.

International law did not begin or end with the United Nations charter. As the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, recently acknowledged, we should be less concerned with the sovereignty of the state and more concerned with that of the individual. However, we are entitled to ask ourselves about the criteria for intervention. There should be an informed debate about that in the House and the country. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene under the guise of moral authority when oil and diamonds are at issue but not when only lives are at stake. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene only for Europeans, and not for Africans. We will do that best by being clear and public about our criteria for intervention, and by publishing them if necessary.

I invite the Government to tell the House, the people of Britain and the three armed services the criteria that justify intervention. Let me suggest some principles that should be taken into account. My list is not exhaustive, but it provides at least a reasonable basis for debate. Intervention is justified if there is systematic abuse of human rights; if action can be taken that is consistent with existing United Nations resolutions, if not expressly authorised by them; if all reasonable diplomatic efforts have been made and exhausted; if there is a reasonable prospect of success; and if the force to be used is proportionate and does not put our forces or civilians in the relevant country at undue risk. Those criteria should be accompanied by an acceptance that responsibility does not cease with military action.

My last point is prompted by the position in Kosovo, where a military success has not been followed by the political and economic effort and investment that were promised and are undoubtedly necessary for achieving a multi-ethnic society in that country. We are entitled to be proud of the military effort in Kosovo and, indeed, of the basis on which it was mounted, but we have reason for concern about the extent to which that effort has been followed through by systematic, well-funded, well-invested efforts to restore civil governance.

The concerted action taken through what used to be called the European security and defence identity, but which we must learn to call the European security and defence policy, is the next element to which I shall refer. I remember a former Conservative Whip, who is no longer a Member, telling an amused and slightly surprised House that his promotion to the Treasury Bench meant that he had escaped the anonymity of the Whips Office to reach the acronymity of the Ministry of Defence. We must talk of the ESDP, which provides a prime and compelling opportunity, as well as an obligation, for concerted action. If anyone doubts that, they have only to read today's newspaper reports of the observations of the principal policy adviser of Mr. George W. Bush. She has made it clear that an incoming Republican Administration would expect Europe to do much more for its own defence and that the tacit assumption that the United States will gallop over the hill to our rescue in all circumstances, like a modern equivalent of the 5th Cavalry, can no longer be regarded as universally valid.

The worry expressed by that adviser, which we should all share, was not that Europe will do too much, but that it will not do enough. That is why the prime emphasis in the agreement reached last year by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government on European defence was on capability. Capability may involve additional expenditure, although that is sometimes finessed in European capitals by saying that we must spend better rather than more. However, if we are to provide 60,000 troops capable of rapid deployment and being sustained for 12 months, that can be achieved only if they are properly funded and properly resourced. To those Conservative Members who have yet again exhibited the visceral anti-Europeanism that has become so much a part of their political philosophy, I say that the truth is that a strong ESDP will strengthen NATO, but a weak policy will damage it.

It is no secret that the Government's foreign policy is more palatable to the Liberal Democrats than that of their predecessors. I suppose that that damns them with faint praise, but there is a substance to that remark that dates back to the days when the Foreign Secretary and I made common cause on the extraordinary scandal of arms to Iraq, which seems to have passed from political consideration and understanding all to quickly. The House of Commons, as Sir Richard Scott found, was deceived about what was essentially a policy change.

The Foreign Secretary's announcement that the Government and the Foreign Office, of which he had become the leader, intended to achieve a foreign policy with an ethical dimension was applauded from these Benches. However, it is fair to say—particularly on the sale and supply of arms—that we have a certain disappointment about progress. That means that on this and on every other occasion on which the opportunity presents itself, we shall not hesitate to hold the Government to their stated aspiration.

7.34 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain)

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General. Apart from the uncharitable reference to seaside resorts, I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. As usual, he was for the most part very sensible, especially in saying how much better Labour's foreign policy is than that of our Conservative predecessors. I am grateful to him for initiating this timely debate, which goes to the heart of the Government's foreign policy mission: a strong Britain working for the security and prosperity of its people in a changing world.

Defending British values of democracy and respect for human rights makes the world a safer place in which to live, travel and trade. We defend human rights and democracy for other people because those are the values that we demand for ourselves. We reject the cynical view that, because we cannot make the world perfect, we should stop trying to make it better. We cannot put everything right, but we can make a difference. Although we cannot do everything, that does not mean that we should do nothing.

The global interest is becoming the national interest. In the global age, it is in Britain's national interest to promote British values of freedom, democracy and economic modernisation. Promoting our values enhances our prosperity and reinforces our security. Regimes that govern by fear and repression will not achieve the creativity and the innovation essential for successful knowledge-based economies in the new century. Respect for human rights is not a luxury of growth, but the condition for it. Human rights make humans rich.

We are uniquely able to pursue our national interests through our global interests. As the only state that is a member of the G8, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth, and with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, we play a pivotal role in world affairs. We are a bridge between Europe and America. By making Britain stronger in Europe, we make Britain stronger in the world.

We are internationalists, not nationalists. That is why we support the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the European Union. We are multilateralists, not unilateralists. That is why we play an active and leading role in supporting international treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and press all other countries to do the same.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

I am delighted that the Minister is a multilateralist. Can he explain how he reconciles that with his continuing membership of the definitely unilateralist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?

Mr. Hain

I wondered when that would come up, but I am happy to respond. I remain a rank and file member of CND, which has played an honourable role in the cause of nuclear disarmament. The fact that the policy in the manifesto on which the Government were elected is not unilateralist is not the point, and I shall not apologise for that membership, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. Without being diverted too far down that track, I say to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that there was a cold war during the seaside days to which he referred and people were unable to engage multilaterally—for example, in the way that Presidents Clinton and Putin did only a few days ago.

We stand up for Britain not through isolation, but through global engagement. Globalisation requires effective action in response to humanitarian crises. The Government believe that it is their duty to do what they can to deter aggression and defend our values by whatever means will make a difference, whether that is military muscle, constructive engagement or creative diplomacy. Our policy is based on four principles: force should always be the last resort; the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs; when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the international community should act; and any use of force must be collective, proportionate, likely to achieve its objective and carried out in accordance with international law.

Our intervention in Sierra Leone is an example of that approach. We have intervened to protect British nationals, to promote international peace and security, to support and improve a rules-based international order based on the UN and to act as a force for good in the world by defending democratic values and human rights. Sierra Leone clearly shows, too, that our country has global interests and values and a capability to make a positive impact across the world. As even Washington has told us, no other country has the rapid-reaction capability that enabled us to deploy forces so effectively and efficiently into such a remote and difficult African country within 48 hours.

We in Britain, however, cannot exercise our strategic responsibilities on our own. We could not have had the impact that we have had across the world without the security that we enjoy at home, which NATO provides. But NATO has changed. NATO is not a cold war relic; it is one of our main tools for the provision of security and stability throughout Europe—through dialogue with Russia, through its partnership activities with 27 countries, and with its open-door policy.

The biggest change is the extension of NATO's active role in responding rapidly and effectively to crises. At last year's summit in Washington, the Government helped to secure changes in NATO's strategic concept to make crisis management one of the alliance's core tasks. In implementing the changes, Britain is ahead of most of our allies, owing to the very successful strategic defence review that we have implemented.

The NATO-led forces in Bosnia and Kosovo clearly show the advantages of effective, well-co-ordinated allied action.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

Does the Minister agree that lessons can be learned from our engagement in Kosovo? Does he share my distaste at the fact that Amnesty International has accused this Parliament, through its Government, of committing war crimes? Has he had a chance to read the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, which asks the Government to explain the reasons for the decisions to bomb the television station and the Chinese embassy?

As the Minister will recall, the Committee asked the Government for the right to discuss the issues with the intelligence services. We were not given that opportunity, and consequently we could not get to the bottom of the reasons. Will the Minister make a commitment on behalf of the Government? Can we remove the slur cast by the accusation of war crimes as a result of more information from the Government?

Mr. Hain

I acknowledge the hard work done by the hon. Gentleman on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the tough questioning to which he occasionally subjects me. I respect that.

There were no British war crimes. We will of course respond in detail to the questions and arguments posed by the Committee.

We are also helping to create a European security and defence capability, which will enable the European Union to respond better to the post-conflict needs of places such as Kosovo. That will neither undermine our United Nations role nor replace NATO's crisis management role; it will complement both.

Rather than creating divisions in the Atlantic alliance, this will strengthen the European contribution to NATO. American experts and politicians of all colours have called on us to build a stronger Europe for a stronger NATO, and we are doing just that, in a way that has ensured the provision of full transparency in respect of the United States Administration.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

As the Minister will know, the Assembly of the Western European Union is currently meeting in Paris. Can the Minister tell us anything about the British Government's attitude to the question of how the European defence and security system, transferred to the European Union, will retain a degree of parliamentary accountability to countries that are not members of the European Union? As I am sure the Minister will appreciate, those countries are extremely exercised about the fact that they are about to be left out in the cold. They are, after all, as much a part of Europe as are EU countries. We must not have a two-class Europe in regard to defence matters, any more than we should have one in regard to any other matters.

Mr. Hain

I agree that we do not want a two-class Europe, but we do want a coherent defence capability, and—the hon. Gentleman nods in agreement—the European Union is clearly the most effective vehicle. I am sure that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be resolved, especially the concern of the people of the countries concerned to know what their Governments are doing.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

I realise that there can be no instant response to the question that I am about to ask. However, the Minister will know of one way of dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In matters such as this, NATO should always have the first option—the right of first refusal. What consideration have the Government given to that? It would take account not only of the American anxieties that have been expressed, but of the concerns felt by members of NATO that are not also members of the European Union.

Mr. Hain

There will always be discussion about that. What we did not want was any discrimination against members of NATO, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will sympathise with that.

Ultimately, conflicts need to be resolved at an international rather than a regional or national level. We want a strong, efficient, responsive United Nations that can build consensus among its members, and can deal decisively with crises. We have been leading the way to help reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, which does need modernising. As a permanent Security Council member, we support the UN's efforts across the globe to settle disputes, prevent conflicts and keep the peace.

We have actively backed the proposals of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, for international intervention for humanitarian purposes. He has called for the Security Council to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed. As he has said, no legal principle—not even national sovereignty—can ever shield crimes against humanity.

Last year, nearly 15,000 British soldiers and police took part in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, from Kosovo to Georgia. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the UN setting out the assets that we could make available for peacekeeping purposes, including rapid reaction forces. We are also engaged in important discussions about how the UN can develop its own rapid reaction capability.

We have taken the initiative in improving the way in which the UN runs its peacekeeping operations, and in formulating a set of guidelines for humanitarian action by the Security Council. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. As the Sierra Leone experience demonstrates, big improvements in UN peacekeeping operations are needed. We need better, tighter command and control structures, and better equipped and trained contributing forces.

Those problems underline the importance, in Africa especially, of having a regional socket into which the international community can plug. There must be an African ownership of peace agreements—whether in Sierra Leone or the Congo—for international deployment to be effective. That is why we are working with countries such as Nigeria in the west African regional group ECOWAS—the economic community of West African states—and with South Africa in the southern African development community, to enhance their defence and conflict prevention capabilities.

The United Nations also has a key role to play in meeting one of the most sinister threats facing us today—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have helped to achieve a number of important goals recently. We are taking a leading role in negotiations for a compliance protocol for the biological weapons convention, and to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is properly implemented. Where international regimes have not stopped proliferation, we are working with our allies to resist that, and to tackle the underlying causes of tension. We drafted and co-sponsored a December 1999 UN Security Council resolution establishing the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission on Iraq. We led the way to achieve an unprecedented agreement with the new agenda coalition of non-nuclear states, enabling us and the four other nuclear weapons states to pledge, at the nonproliferation treaty review conference that took place recently in New York, to work for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. We are serious about that commitment, and want to see early progress. Our hard work also confirmed the non-proliferation treaty as the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime.

Dr. Julian Lewis

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way again. I appreciate that he would like to see a world free of nuclear weapons. We are also signed up to article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which requires general and complete conventional disarmament as well. Does the Minister not accept, however, that the effect of having a nuclear-free world while retaining a conventionally armed world might be to make the world safe once again for prolonged all-out conventional warfare between large powers that are currently deterred by stable nuclear deterrents?

Mr. Hain

The hon. Gentleman is a nuclear weapons fanatic who presumably wants virtually every country in the world to have a capability. If we followed his line of thinking, that might well happen.

We shall continue to press for further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, for entry into force of the test ban treaty and for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Progress on non-proliferation and disarmament may be linked to consideration by the United States of the possible deployment of a national missile defence system, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred.

Mr. Dalyell

Will we also press for deep cuts in the Israeli nuclear capability?

Mr. Hain:

I have already said today that we want Israel fully to comply with and sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. That would be in Israel's interests and in the interests of peace and security in the middle east.

I was discussing national missile defence, which has been prompted by growing concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. We understand these concerns. They need to be addressed, but missile defence raises complex and difficult issues. The United States has made it clear that before it takes any decision on NMD, it needs to take a number of important considerations into account, including the need to preserve strategic stability. We welcome that.

We firmly believe that these matters should be addressed bilaterally with the Russians through calm, measured dialogue that leads ultimately to agreement. We therefore welcomed the agreement reached last weekend by Presidents Clinton and Putin to intensify United States and Russian dialogue on ABM matters, and on a START 3 treaty. Despite their obvious differences, we hope they can reach an agreement. We have made it clear to both sides that we continue to value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides, and we want it to be preserved.

This is not a safe or perfect world. Nations have the right to protect their people and British defence equipment can help them to do so. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife raised the question of arms sales, and the Labour Government have made arms exports more accountable and transparent than in almost any other country. We have established for the first time a tough code blocking exports of arms for either internal repression or external aggression. A European Union arms code is doing the same thing, and we initiated it. We have annual reports detailing the licences that we have agreed—one of the most open exercises of its kind in the world. We have nothing to hide, and many pressure groups have welcomed our transparency.

Britain is also leading the way on arms control by leading the way to ban land mines across the world, banning the sale of torture equipment, promoting a ban on small arms to conflict zones, and ratifying the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty. Whether through our arms control policy or the promotion of our strategic responsibilities, we can be proud of the Government's foreign policy and our defence capability.

7.53 pm

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for initiating the debate. The whole House will be grateful for the opportunity to debate these matters. We are blessed by the presence of two Ministers, from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence respectively, to provide a little light on the Government's foreign policy.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)

United as always.

Mrs. Gillan

Methinks the Minister doth protest too much. During the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I felt that there was a great deal of unity between the Minister and the Liberal Democrats, but was pleased towards the end of that speech to hear at least some murmurs of sedentary dissent from those who sit to my left in the Chamber.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for North-East Fife—

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

The right hon. Member.

Mrs. Gillan

I do apologise to the right hon. Member for North-East Fife—[HON. MEMBERS: "And learned."] I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but I was surprised to hear him arguing for more money to be spent on defence. It is of course a gentleman's prerogative to change his mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman once called, in The Officer magazine of November 1991, for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure by 2000. Indeed, he went on to say that there was no intrinsic merit in defence spending. It appears that those words are long forgotten, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no allusion to his earlier aspirations. He must be a disappointed man when he thinks back on that magazine article.

I was grateful to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for setting out some of the Government's foreign policy, although I had heard it all before. Questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife seemed to slip past the Minister as he stuck carefully to his script. Perhaps when the Minister for the Armed Forces winds up we shall hear further and better particulars of the Government's foreign policy.

We entered the new century with a rapidly changing set of parameters against which the United Kingdom must position itself to steer a steady path in the interests of its citizens, wherever they may be. Technology and globalisation have brought more opportunity and information, and even greater threats than the relative stability of the cold war era.

As in the last century, we remain in a unique position. After the war, Winston Churchill placed Britain at the heart of three interlocking circles—north America, Europe and the Commonwealth. He and his generation had no concept of the global network world in which we now live, but his vision was perhaps more relevant and apposite to today's world than it was even to his.

A current audit of Britain's assets in the world reveals a unique collection and richness. First, there is our place in Europe and our membership of the European Union. Our transatlantic relationship is still very special, on security and military matters above all. We are central in the Commonwealth, an organisation that is potentially ideal as a network for the future. We have a permanent Security Council seat at the United Nations, and we are members of the G8 and NATO.

Our armed forces, so recently in action in Sierra Leone, are the envy of the world, and they have been much praised in the House. Our diplomatic service has a high reputation and extensive capability. We also have the English language, increasingly the lingua franca of the new world.

Mr. Spellar

How can English be the lingua franca?

Mrs. Gillan

I do not know whether the Minister went to Oxford or read classics. The words are lingua franca.

We are conveniently placed in a time zone that falls between north America and the far east. London is the pre-eminent international financial centre, which puts Britain at the crossroads of world financial markets. We are the world's fourth largest economy and second largest global investor. We have a unique combination of assets, giving Britain a vast global reach. In a world in which physical geography matters less and less, we should not think of Britain as being on the periphery of anything. We are not on the edge of some core vision of Europe; we are not an adjunct to the USA; we are not an island offshore of anywhere. Quite the reverse; today's network world places us right at the heart of the global system, and that should underlie the UK's strategic position.

There is no doubt that the main requirement of our foreign policy should be to protect and promote our interests, both immediately and in the longer term. We all have vested interests in stability and peace. However, with the speed of technological developments, our interests are even more vulnerable to developments around the world. Therefore, our strategic interests need to be served by an ever more complex set of requirements.

It is therefore sad that the Government seem to have only one hook on which to hang their foreign policy—namely, an ethical foreign policy. They enunciated that policy at the beginning of their term, but it has proved to be disastrous. They claim that their ethical foreign policy has been a roaring success, but the examples of the rocks on which that ship has foundered are littered over the three years of their governance. Whether it was the treatment of Chinese protesters during the visit of the Chinese President, the failure to sign the United Nations resolution condemning China's record on human rights, supplying weapons that have ended up in the hands of child soldiers, the leaking of Select Committee reports or diplomatic gaffes in Asia and Israel, no one can now believe in the Government's ethical and moral credentials, or even in their competence.

Mr. Gapes

Does the hon. Lady recall when the Commonwealth had 48 members, and 47 of them were against one member? Could she tell us who was Prime Minister then?

Mrs. Gillan

This is not a quiz show. Quite frankly, Labour Members' levity simply shows the disrespect with which they are treating this debate. They have reacted just as I was getting to the tricky bit, where I remind the Minister that, in his interview with the New Statesman, he himself condemned the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy. I believe that he himself admitted that the ethical dimension had been consigned to the memory hole. Rest in peace.

Mr. Hain

indicated dissent.

Mrs. Gillan

Those were the words in the article.

Mr. Hain

No.

Mrs. Gillan

I advise the Minister to go and refresh his memory by reading the article.

Mr. Hain

Really—try harder. If the hon. Lady were quoting from the New Statesman in context and accurately, she would find that that statement did not appear in quotations from me. She should, therefore, withdraw her remarks.

Mrs. Gillan

I should withdraw nothing. Methinks, again, that the Minister protests too much. He admitted to the interviewer that the ethical dimension had been consigned to the memory hole within the Foreign Office. The ethical dimension stands condemned out of the Minister's own mouth—and my goodness does he find that embarrassing.

One of the first considerations in foreign policy must be whether to act alone or in tandem with others. No foreign policy can truly be conducted alone, but there can be problems with any proposals that would lock our foreign policy capability within a European common foreign and security policy—as, for example, full political union in the European Union would inevitably require. Not only could we possibly sacrifice our agility in protecting our own interests, but we could seriously impede our ability to help others. Acting solo will still frequently be right, as will acting jointly, but we should not have our hands tied by placing the United Kingdom in a European straitjacket.

Evidence has been provided by the way in which the situation in Zimbabwe has developed in the past few months. It seemed to be an extraordinary move on the Government's part to choose the European Union as the vehicle to send warnings to President Mugabe about the events that were unfolding with land invasions and killings. A message more loaded with colonial connotations could not have been imagined.

The right partners, and the right international vehicle, should have been the Commonwealth. It is within the family of the Commonwealth that there could have been the opportunity of diminishing the violence and providing the catalyst for constructive negotiations. Instead, we now have a situation in which I understand even United Kingdom observers have been effectively prevented from being part of the observer group at the forthcoming elections. That is not the most satisfactory of outcomes.

The Commonwealth is, after all, a ready-made network. It has perhaps too readily allowed itself to be seen as an organisation for a former age, but it should represent the future. It is a multi-ethnic global grouping, geographically random in a world in which geography matters ever less, but closely linked by ties of history, trade culture, language and friendship.

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

Would the hon. Lady care to say something about British dependent territories—which no hon. Member has yet mentioned in the debate? Should not the House be reminded that the residents of those territories were full British citizens until 1981?

Mrs. Gillan

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about the British overseas territories. If he had listened to speeches that I have made previously in this Parliament, he would know that I am a great supporter of the British overseas territories. Indeed, I have been extremely worried about perceived attacks on their activities and independence. Occasionally, the Government have been seen to be putting pressure on the overseas territories to introduce legislation that they did not wish to introduce. I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the overseas territories. I, too, would include them in the picture.

I was talking about the Commonwealth. The modern age is one of networks, and the Commonwealth has a golden opportunity to become a really powerful grouping for tomorrow. The Commonwealth is far less constrained by bureaucracy than other international structures. It comprises about one quarter of the world's population and about a quarter of its nations, and it has a growing waiting list. It also contains some of the fastest growing and most dynamic countries on earth.

The Commonwealth of the future has huge potential in advocating good governance and as a source of stability that can attract investment and wealth creation. That must be the agenda of the Commonwealth network of the future, although it must be admitted that today's Commonwealth does have a long way to go to achieve that.

As I said, the crisis in Zimbabwe demonstrates the need for the Commonwealth to step up when a member state starts to run off the road. We believe that any credible foreign policy would contribute to the development of the Commonwealth as a global network for the benefit of its members—as a force for stability, as a means of promoting the values of the rule of law, democracy and the open economy, and as a possible basis for the better distribution of aid.

We should be flexible in choosing the right partner for any task that we have in hand. Sometimes, we will want to work extremely closely with our European neighbours; sometimes, with individual allies. Circumstances vary and events change. In an age of exceptional fluidity, we cannot allow ourselves and our policies to become frozen and ossified in a ponderous bureaucratic system that can only respond at the speed of the slowest.

To be able to do any of that, we have to be able to make some choices of our own. We have to maintain and modernise our armed forces, and—yes—we have to do so within NATO, not outside it. NATO, not the European Union, is the key. However, that is not the same as saying that there is no strong case for greater European defence co-operation and a much stronger European branch of NATO. There is such a case. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) who, back in June 1992, started the process with the Petersberg tasks.

European nations need to make their own choices about carrying more of the burden of defence. The current plan for a common European security and defence policy involves neither that nor a stepping up of Europe's capability. Most European Union countries are cutting their defence budgets. By placing the matter within the European Union framework, we will encase it in committees, bureaucracy and trap it in the creeping embrace of EU institutions.

Concerns about that issue have been echoed by the United States Administration. ESDI seems to be have been designed by people who are concerned, first, with endowing the EU with another of the trappings of statehood. The actual practical viability of a European army comes a poor second. At its worst, in some parts of the continent, it is a visible expression of a chilling and growing anti-Americanism which I hope will be resisted.

There are those who resent the emergence of the USA as the sole remaining superpower and believe that the EU must form itself into a countervailing superpower. I look forward to hearing the Minister give us the Government's views on that issue.

We believe that that mindset is worse than simply being unrealistic and vain—it is positively harmful. If it encourages America to turn its eyes further westward, to the powerful allure of Asia, we shall have inflicted a devastating blow to the basis of our security: the Atlantic alliance. For that reason alone, it is essential that Britain should lead Europe and clarify our position on the national missile defence programme. There may be resistance to it, but that is what leadership is all about. Just as, in the 1980s, the then Conservative Government took on the one-sided disarmers of CND and won the argument with the public, today, the Prime Minister must be prepared to do the same. After all, the role should not be unfamiliar: in the 1980s, he and his colleagues, including the Minister of State, were all engaged in the argument, albeit on the other side.

Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the Government's stance toward the national missile defence programme. Despite the recent negotiations between President Putin and President Clinton, and their welcome announcements on reducing weapons-grade materials, the world is not a safe place. It is even more essential that we gain an insight into the Government's thinking as countries such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq and Syria continue to develop weapons with increasing range, yet the Government have failed to enlighten us. Their disingenuousness is revealed in their amendment, which is really a means whereby Ministers can avoid telling us their true position.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

On previous occasions, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have told the House that they support national missile defence. Would the Conservatives support NMD even if it had the effect of breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty?

Mrs. Gillan

When sharing a platform with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have made it clear that I would encourage the Government to participate fully in the NMD programme. The Government themselves have been extremely ambivalent: the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said that he did not like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited, but the Secretary of State for Defence said subsequently that the history of our close friendship with the United States meant that the Government were very sympathetic to such requests. It is not for me to answer for the Government: we will be letting the Government off the hook if we do not press for clarification to be given tonight, not only for the House, but for the wider audience watching the debate.

Mr. Hain

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan

No—I have been generous in giving way and I am about to conclude my speech.

The modern world is faster, more integrated and interdependent and more potentially lethal than it has ever been before. We need to exploit our potential and the assets of this country to ensure that our foreign policy contributes to peace and stability and the prosperity of an increasing number of people around the globe. I look forward to listening to the Minister lay out the Government's position.

8.13 pm

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

Reference has been made to the situation 20 years ago, and I should like to take the House back to that time. I believe that any future threat to the unity of European countries, the United States and NATO is more likely to come from the return of the prince of darkness, Richard Perle, to a position of influence in the United States Administration under the new Bush presidency, if that comes to pass, than from the limited development of practical measures to strengthen defence capabilities and co-operation in Europe, on which the European strategic defence identity programme is based.

Reference has been made to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1980s. No doubt the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has the information in his files, but I should like to place on the record here and now that I was a member of CND for many years. I am no longer a member, having broken with the organisation in 1989 because of my belief that unilateralism was a tactic, not the principle. I took the position that tactical steps forward were required.

Dr. Julian Lewis

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes

Let me finish these remarks first.

I recall that in the early 1980s, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) addressed the CND national demonstration in Hyde park. That was what I wanted to say when I attempted to intervene on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is probably glad that he did not give way to me. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats was subsequently given the nickname of "Paddy Backdown" by people involved in the peace movement, because of his party's change of policy during the 1980s. We all have our baggage, and it is not right for the Liberal Democrats sanctimoniously to attempt to appear above it all and to score points against other parties; they should recognise their own history and change of beliefs.

Dr. Lewis

rose—

Mr. Gapes

I shall now give way to a man who has not changed his position, but I shall comment on that when I reply to his intervention.

Dr. Lewis

I thank the hon. Gentleman for skilfully anticipating my first point, which is that whereas the Liberals and many Labour Members, such as him, have changed their position, some of us have been saying the same thing all along. However, is not the hon. Gentleman telling the House that when we faced a threat from a nuclear superpower, he wanted to give up, unconditionally, our nuclear deterrent, whereas now, when we are not facing such a threat, he wants to keep it?

Mr. Gapes

No, what I am saying is that a man called Mikhail Gorbachev came on to the scene, international relations were transformed, the old cold-war adversarial politics became out of date, and we had to move on. The hon. Gentleman's position has not changed since the 1980s—in fact, it is the same as it was in 1953, when Joseph Stalin died. That is the problem with a certain brand of Conservative thinking. As the world changes and becomes more complex, as international relations change and as technology changes, politicians have a duty to respond to that changing environment. The ability and willingness to do so marks the difference between a political party and a sect.

The debate gives us the opportunity to discuss several different issues, including national missile defence. I shall not make extensive remarks in that respect as I had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 17 May in which I set out my views. However, I fear that we face a potentially serious problem, which is the decoupling of the United States and Europe if the US goes ahead with NMD and unilaterally abrogates the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The recent discussions between President Clinton and President Putin were welcome, but we must recognise that the two men did not agree on that issue. I fear that unless we in Europe unite to send out clearer, more forceful signals across the Atlantic, the misperception that we are not worried about the implications of NMD for future security co-operation might arise in some quarters in the US.

I believe that we all—even the Conservatives—must think through the implications of implicit or explicit support for a programme that breaches a centrepiece of arms control, the ABM treaty. If that treaty goes, there will be no START 3, the process of arms control will unravel, and there will be an increase in the number of Chinese missiles, which will have knock-on effects in India, which will have knock-on consequences in Pakistan—we will have issued a proliferator's charter. That is the danger facing the world in coming years. We have to preserve a measure of anti-ballistic missile control, because if we do not, the counter-measures adopted will include an increase in the number of nuclear weapons and their worldwide proliferation.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that such unilateral action by the United States, which he describes as severing the link, is likely to be exacerbated if America regards Europe—a common European defence policy and, ultimately, a common European defence force—as an alternative to NATO? Will that not make it easier for isolationists in America to pursue not only the policy of which the hon. Gentleman warns, but an entirely different military course from that followed by western Europe?

Mr. Gapes

The European strategic defence identity is how to get the 2 million-strong armed forces of NATO's European members to be capable of deploying 50,000 or 60,000 personnel in an effective action at one time. It is not beyond the wit of European countries to do that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent Defence Committee report, in which we went into such issues in considerable detail. The report contains much information that might be helpful to him and reassure him that the issue is one of practical measures to make the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance more effective, for which the Americans have always called. Clearly, if the message that such moves are a substitute for NATO is somehow put across, it will cause the Americans alarm. That is not the intention or the policy of this and other European Governments. Indeed, in the St. Malo declaration, the French and British Governments agreed a formula that strengthens, not weakens, the European pillar of NATO.

Mr. Hayes

The hon. Gentleman's honest assertion that strengthening the European pillar will strengthen NATO as a whole is not shared by all our European neighbours. Many in Europe see the political project of the united states of Europe as intrinsically tied to the establishment of a discrete military identity.

Mr. Gapes

I do not want to labour the point; I shall move on. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee report.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

I did not care much for the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis, but I am rather more impressed by his contemporary analysis. In reaching the conclusion that he has, did he take any account of the letter written by Senator Trent Lott, which was signed by 25 Republican Senators and sent to President Clinton on 19 April, in which it was argued that even President Clinton's limited proposal was inadequate and that a future Administration should go very much further? Will that assist stability?

Mr. Gapes

Absolutely not. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing that to my attention.

I want to address the wider aspects of the debate. Although the speeches of Liberal Democrat Members have referred to the question of arms sales, it is interesting that that is not mentioned in the motion. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because there are different views in the Liberal Democrat party.

Mr. Campbell

No, it is carelessness.

Mr. Gapes

All right.

If we accept that all 180-plus countries in the world have a right to national self-defence, and we do not want every country to try to build an indigenous defence industry, some arms transfers from some countries to others will be inevitable. In such circumstances, we cannot take the purist position of saying that there should be no arms sales anywhere. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is not his party's position. We therefore need greater transparency, United Nations and European Union registers—this Government have been very much at the forefront of calls for their introduction—and greater accountability to Parliament and for what happens. I look forward to the day when Select Committees have the powers of those in some other Parliaments on scrutiny of such items and appropriation budgets. However, that is another debate for another day.

We have made considerable progress over the past few years and have certainly moved quite a way since the scandals of arms to Iraq and the Scott report. However, there is more to be done and I hope that the Government will introduce legislation in the not too distant future. My fundamental problem with the Liberal Democrat motion lies in the phrasing of its first sentence, which states: the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action. That does not allow for any national decision that is not tied to a collective organisation. Therefore, the Government's amendment is right to state that the UK's strategic interests are normally best served through collective action because there are circumstances in which a country must act alone to defend its territory, citizens and interests. It would be a big mistake to adopt a position that implies that there are no circumstances in which a country would take such action. Of course, doing so is permitted under article 51 of the UN charter. Not providing for that is an error in the motion.

The Defence Committee recently published a report on the annual reporting cycle of the Ministry of Defence. In it, we drew attention to the fact that the defence budget is under great pressure. We are doing more and more and expecting our service personnel to work far more efficiently—increasingly in complex international situations. The report states that there is cumulative evidence of problems of overstretch and that the finances should be rebalanced in the spending review.

My plea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that we recognise that if, as a permanent member of the Security Council, we are to do excellent work such as that in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and that done by British personnel whom I met who are monitors on the Kuwait-Iraq border or those pursuing Operation Bolton—which is a means of stopping the aggressive fascist regime of Saddam Hussein launching a further attack against the small states in the Gulf—resources must be made available in the comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Keetch

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes

I cannot give way again; I am sorry but I must conclude.

Strategic interests are about more than international organisations. I had the pleasure today of hosting a reception in the House for Voluntary Service Overseas. VSO sends young people from this country to assist in developing countries worldwide. An early-day motion on today's Order Paper highlights the areas in which it is involved. I believe very strongly that non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector have a very important role in promoting Britain's strategic interests. Likewise, the BBC World Service, the British Council and other bodies that are funded to some, or to a large, extent by the taxpayer are very important in representing this country and fostering its perception in the rest of the world.

For a country such as ours, which is dependent on international trade and which has an international language and excellent academic institutions and worldwide links, it is vital that we are seen to be internationalists and that we are internationalists. That also applies in the European context. We gain much more from our involvement in Europe and our position in the European Union precisely because we are members of it than we ever would if we were to adopt the narrow-minded isolationism that some on the Opposition Benches wish to pursue.

I have covered several different areas, but owing to interventions I shall conclude. I hope that the House will have further opportunities to discuss these wide-ranging issues in the not-too-distant future.

8.29 pm

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that when Britain's strategic interests are debated in the House, a fundamental difference between the parties is revealed. The Conservative party is the only truly national party—the only party for which national interest is at the heart of all its considerations of foreign and international affairs. That difference is rooted in the history of political parties and parliamentary debate and is partly the result of the liberal elite and the liberal establishment—[Laughter.] I use those phrases not because they are topical and popular but because they have always been the terms by which I refer to the middle-class left.

Mr. Bob Russell

Middle class? Me?

Mr. Hayes

The hon. Gentleman attempts to distract me from my main theme.

The difference may be explained partly by the psyche of the left. National interest is always considered grudgingly and unenthusiastically, as a matter of acquiescence, by the liberal left. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) looks at me with some surprise, but he will remember the great debate between Gladstone and Disraeli in 1876. [Laughter.] I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, is not as familiar with these historical matters as some other hon. Members are. I do not blame him for that; I blame his teachers.

Mr. Russell

He went to Oxford.

Mr. Hayes

That is even worse. I blame his teachers and lament the fate of his pupils.

The debate in 1876 about the Bulgarian atrocities was between Gladstone, who believed that Britain should take military action in pursuit of a greater moral interest, and Disraeli, who said that the permanent and abiding interest of England should lie at the heart of our considerations about when to intervene, use force, commit money and risk lives in an overseas adventure.

The nonconformist conscience may be a laudable thing in certain circumstances but it should never be allowed to subvert or obscure Britain's national interest. That historical philosophical difference legitimately and genuinely lies at the heart of the difference between the parties when we consider these matters.

Mr. Keetch

rose—

Mr. Hayes

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt tell me more about the Bulgarian atrocities of 1876.

Mr. Keetch

I did not intend to mention the Bulgarian atrocities. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that his party is the little Englander party, whereas our party and the Labour party may be internationalist parties. We should be quite clear about that, because I remember another Conservative politician mentioning wars in far-off places between people of whom we knew nothing. Does he agree that that attitude still exists in the Conservative party?

Mr. Hayes

No, and I will use another historical reference to illustrate why I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a narrow-minded isolationism just as the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) talked about a little Englander mentality. When there was that debate in the 19th century between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservative party was the imperialist party that looked with more than affection—with loyalty, indeed—to the countries and peoples in the empire, while the Liberals were more narrow minded and were often reluctant imperialists.

That is not exclusively true, and you will no doubt point to Joseph Chamberlain as a Liberal imperialist in your next intervention, but it has to be said that he became more of a little Englander than many of the Tories who survived that debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember to use the correct language and that if he uses the words "you" or "your" he is addressing the Chair. He must also remember that he should be addressing the Chair and not turning his back on it.

Mr. Hayes

I apologise profusely, Sir Alan. I know that you are very familiar with these matters, being a student of the Conservative party's history. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to move on to my second major point. The first point, Sir Alan, was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a rash of little mistakes this evening. I should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hayes

It must be my excitement and enthusiasm in dealing with interventions from Liberal Members.

Mr. Spellar

First, let me give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clear up his confusion between Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. While he is trying to wrap the Tory party in the patriotic flag, can he say whether he approved of the Labour party insisting that Churchill should lead the country in the second world war and forming a national Government, which the Labour party has always done? His attempts to smear the Labour and Liberal parties in this regard are quite despicable.

Mr. Hayes

There is no confusion between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain. It was Joseph Chamberlain who, in the 1906 election, pursued a policy of tariff reform—which could be caricatured as an isolationist, little Englander policy—which cost the coalition of which he was a part so dear electorally.

There are times when national interest becomes paramount in pursuit of a noble objective, and the Minister uses the example of the second world war. Of course I acknowledge that there are many good, noble and patriotic people of all parties in the House, but the bottom line is that there is a deep philosophical difference, when push comes to shove, on the issue of national interest. No one in the House forgets it completely, but it is a matter of how high a priority one gives it. I was illustrating that point by reference to the debate between Gladstone and Disraeli. There should not be any disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and me on that issue.

My second point is that the fundamental premise adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) at the beginning of his speech seemed to me to be flawed. He said that the popular wisdom was that a world post-mutually assured destruction, in which the old certainties and inertia had disappeared, was a less secure world; but the real issue is not the implications of the changing power relations and balance of armouries between the great nations. Much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alone has pointed out, is the changing nature of technology and communications.

The real change that brought about the necessary reappraisal of the way in which we deal with our strategic interests and our international affairs comes from changes in international communications. It is true to say that the world becomes a less certain place as it becomes more flexible. It is also true to say that the cultural and commercial changes that have taken place, at a pace that few could have anticipated, over the past decade—and will take place at an ever-increasing pace because of further changes in technology—create different imperatives and a new dynamic. Contrary to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, that is much more important than the issue of the post-mutually assured destruction reassessment of defence priorities.

The second mistake that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is believing that acknowledgement that the world is more uncertain and more rapidly changing—a more global place—necessitates more global institutions and a supranational approach to the organisation of defence. I suggest that it reinforces the need for national identity. As people become less certain and as the world becomes less secure, the need becomes ever greater for a strong sense of belonging that is rooted in history and part of a continuum that draws on the collective wisdom of ages.

Mr. Keetch

The hon. Gentleman has several times mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is a Scotsman who is proud of his Scottish and British traditions and who can in no way be described as a little Englander. My right hon. and learned Friend said nothing that suggested that the United Kingdom should give up its ability to act independently when it needed to. He simply said that a less certain world required international agreements, and he listed them cogently and coherently.

Mr. Hayes

With respect, the motion deals only with collective action, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no significant comment about separate, national action. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. The motion and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution both lack balance. I do not say that international affairs do not necessitate alliances and collaboration, but the exclusion of national action appears to be at the heart of the differences between us in this debate.

This rapidly changing and less secure world makes a case for an enhanced sense of belonging through a reinforced nationhood and the opportunity for national action. It also renders inflexible institutions less, not more, relevant. The problem with the European Union as the basis for a common defence policy is that it is unsuited to the flexibility that is required. That is why I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who, like many in the EU, see it as the way forward.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the strengthening of the European pillar, but that will undoubtedly give the isolationists in America—many of whom are on the right—the opportunity to make a case for unilateral American action. That is what I wish to avoid. We should reinforce those institutions such as NATO—an association of sovereign nations—and the Commonwealth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, which have the necessary flexibility to deal with a more rapidly changing world. That is why we reject the EU as an appropriate institution to undertake the sort of collaborative action that will be increasingly necessary.

Anyone who has any doubts about what I have said needs only to examine President Chirac's perspective. On 30 May, he addressed the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union and spoke about "reinforced co-operation", and that was fair enough. However, he also talked about decisions ultimately being the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, which is the only body with the international legitimacy to decide on the use of force. That clearly is not the case. NATO is the paramount body in that sense, because it has secured and guaranteed peace in western Europe and the rest of the western world, for my lifetime and longer. President Chirac also argued for the creation of a necessary assertiveness that requires us to define our own objectives and to implement our own policies, and to use every resource to achieve them. There is good will in the Chamber about the role of NATO, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ilford, South is entirely honourable in his wish to strengthen the European pillar. It stems from his conviction that that would be supportive of NATO and necessary for its future success, but I doubt that that view is universally held. I do not think it is shared by significant numbers of significant people in the European Union, who I believe see the matter as part of a bigger political objective.

In conclusion, I believe that our strategic affairs, policy and perspective should be based on three things. First, our strategic approach should be based on a willingness to support our friends and allies, and especially our historic friends and allies in the Commonwealth and in our former colonies.

Secondly, it should be based on a determination never to endanger the lives of our citizens—including our troops—merely to indulge the conscience of the liberal elite, still less that of the liberal elite of other nations in Europe. Thirdly, it should be based on a proud, rigorous and unstinting determination to defend our national interest.

The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife described that approach as visceral. I believe that it is a proud and vigorous approach, and a popular one. I suggest to the House that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country, regardless of how they vote in general elections.

8.46 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the "successful military campaigns" in Kosovo. I applaud the actions of individual service men but this debate provides a justified opportunity to ask questions which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer when he winds up.

An article in today's edition of The Scotsman is headed "British NATO Troops Clash with Serbs". It states: British NATO peacekeepers shot and wounded three Serb men in the Kosovan Serb enclave of Gracianica after a senior British officer was attacked in the town as he tried to calm a demonstration. There was no question, my life was in danger, and our lives were very much threatened," said Brigadier Richard Shirreff, commanding of 7th Armoured Brigade, or "Desert Rats", after the incident at 11 am yesterday. I emphasise that it is no part of my case to criticise the troops involved. For two years on national service as a teenager, I was proud to wear the emblem of the Desert Rats in 7th Armoured Brigade, but the incident raises a question about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will say something.

What exactly is going on in Kosovo? Under that scorching sunshine, it seems that a situation is developing in which troops from Britain and other KFOR countries are suffering the opprobrium of both sides. The House should be told exactly what that situation is.

The BBC News website today has a report that states: Five people were wounded in the attack in which two grenades were thrown from a passing car. A British military spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Rob Hannam, said the troops believed they and the brigadier, who is responsible for security in the town, were in imminent danger. He said troops fired warning shots into the air. When that failed to disperse the demonstrators, one or more of the soldiers fired into the crowd. What does the Ministry of Defence expect to happen in the next few blisteringly hot summer months? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that question when he winds up the debate.

I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate at 1.55 on the morning of 22 May, starting at column 836 of the Official Report, when the House went very late. Reference was made to Richard Butler and sanctions to Iraq. I note that last week, Richard Butler was reported to have said that he now thinks that sanctions will serve no purpose. In the Adjournment debate, I referred at some length to the visit that I made with the former Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man, and to the fact that we thought that sanctions were simply counter-productive.

We are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for having initiated this important debate. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who opened the debate, referred to Richard Butler, and I wish to refer specifically to Mr. Butler's book. I am not asking the Minister to respond to these somewhat detailed questions, but I think that they should be put on the record.

On page 4 of his book, Richard Butler says about Saddam launching another attack: Every thoughtful leader in the region assumes he may do so again. The fact is that Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have all established embassies in Baghdad and are taking a different view. Indeed, it is reported that the Saudis are looking—ambiguously, at any rate—at the Qatar proposals that have been put forward by the Gulf Cooperation Council. In these circumstances, what is the Government's position? Do they agree with Richard Butler?

Secondly, do the Government agree with the scenario described on page 5 of Richard Butler's book? He writes: A hit squad from somewhere in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-litre bottle filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand Central Station at 5:30 P.M. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people die agonizing deaths as a result. Because of their own handling of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die themselves. There should be a considered response to this statement. Richard Butler is, I would say, dreaming up this situation, but the Government may take a different view and base policy on a hypothetical threat.

Page 17 of Butler's book refers to EMPA. The Minister is a scientist, and he will know that this stands for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. Butler says: The chemists had swabbed each of the pieces of metal to remove and collect the surface residues for analysis. As one might expect, they found a spectrum of substances on the metal surfaces, ranging from ordinary dirt to chemicals of various kinds. But there were also clear traces of a chemical called EMPA, short for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. It was this finding that had caused Horst Reeps to blanch. EMPA is a degradation product of one and only one known compound in the universe—the chemical VX, one of the most toxic substances ever made. Are the Government prepared to submit the evidence for this, which I know weighs heavily with the Prime Minister, to R.J.P. Williams, the emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at Oxford, fellow of Wadham, who is recognised as the greatest European expert on EMPA?

My last question on Butler's book is this: what is the Government's reaction to chapter 8, headed "Kofi Annan Goes to Baghdad"? In this chapter, Butler is deeply critical of the United Nations Secretary-General. They cannot both be right, and I am entitled to ask who the British Government believe is right.

My Adjournment debate took place at 1.55 in the morning on 22 May. I asked three questions and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office could have been forgiven for not answering them at that time of the morning. However, they bear repetition. First, I said: the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies? Secondly, I said: the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it? Finally, I asked about the fact that there was no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 835.] Those are important questions, but as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall leave it at that.

8.56 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

Earlier, the Chamber took on the air of a confession box as, for a while, Members on both sides of the House confessed to their membership, or otherwise, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I shall begin by making my own confession. I think that I am still a member of CND; I certainly would not have been seen dead without my CND badge when I was younger. More important, I was a member of an even better organisation—Doctors against the Bomb.

I am now a fully paid-up supporter of my party's policy on nuclear weapons but, deep down in the heart, a doubt lingers as to whether the male politicians in this world of ours have really got it right—I suspect that they are all stark raving mad, but enough of that.

I want to address an issue that has not been raised so far and on which the UK could really make some impact. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), this country is uniquely placed between the USA and Europe, with huge links to Commonwealth countries. We must thus be the nation best placed to influence the greatest number and to strengthen the United Nations. That is what I shall talk about primarily.

At the beginning of this week, I attended a lecture at Kew gardens in my constituency. It was world environment day. The lecture was given by Michel Batiste from UNESCO. He was speculating on whether the world had a future and on what we could do to influence the world's future. He presented two options, one of which was that the USA should rule the world; it was the strongest nation, and we all had to accept that and bow down under the yoke.

After making that suggestion, he argued strongly that the United Nations was the only truly world body that could do anything about securing our future. He called on everyone present to do all in their power to strengthen the UN.

Why does the UN matter so much? It is tempting to dismiss it as a powerless sideshow in global politics; it has to be supported, but those who are interested in it are mainly elderly academics and—dare I say?—anoraks. Why do we not, ask the hardliners, deal directly with the power brokers in the G7, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation? Let us deal directly with them, they say, so that the really powerful nations can get their own way. They suggest that that is a much easier and quicker way of doing things. The strongest wins every time.

The world must have a body of member states that can challenge each other on abuses of human rights, on rotten trade agreements and on the invasion of territory. We have to attempt to create such a world order. However, the United Nations was created 50 years ago and it desperately needs reform. It is constantly bypassed by the stronger countries, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Its recent peacekeeping operations in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Bosnia—the list is not in the right chronological order—have all been a failure and everyone has deplored what has happened.

We want discussion on the reform of the United Nations. First and most important, its dues must be paid in full by every member country. The recent withholding of $300 million by the United States to win family planning concessions was outrageous. I am astonished that the British Government did not condemn that more strongly. We must all pay our dues—even the mighty United States of America. It is no good our complaining of weaknesses in the United Nations if we do not give it the resources to do its job. If it does not do the job properly with the right resources, we then have to spend more money clearing up the mess. Where are the economies to be made in that?

Secondly, the Security Council has the prime responsibility for international peace and security. However, there are two classes of members on the Security Council. There are five permanent members, any one of whom can veto decisions. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States can hold the world to ransom single-handedly. The structure must be revisited. Perhaps the General Assembly should be allowed to challenge it. The nine other members of the Security Council have to be elected every two years. Why are the permanent members so safe? Perhaps we should review who they are.

A constitutional conference needs to be called to discuss reform of the United Nations. Why do the Government not take the lead on that? To set an example, why could this country not refer a resolution that we wish to veto to the General Assembly for decision? Perhaps other countries would follow suit.

The General Assembly needs revision. It needs to have a more democratic basis and a better weighting of votes. The millennium summit of the UN will be held in September and I plead with the Government to try to pursue reform of the UN at that summit.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) criticised the United States for not ratifying treaties, but why are we not taking the lead on ratifying the treaty on the International Criminal Court? Why is that taking so long? It is five years since the Scott report was published and two years since the arms White Paper was produced, so why do we still not have legislation to control the arms trade and arms brokering?

The annual report is very welcome, but the phrase, "We only export arms if they will not be used for external aggression or for internal repression," sickens me. I do not know how Ministers can repeat it like parrots. They do not believe what they are saying; I do not believe what they are saying. Why are we not leading the world on that?

Why are we not finding ways to make the world financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, answerable to the United Nations? Why should they always get away with it?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed, by our history and our treaties, to reform the United Nations and to lead the world. I was proud to be present in the Foreign Office when the new Government announced a foreign policy with an ethical dimension and, as a weak and feeble woman, I nearly cried when I heard those words; indeed, I get emotional just thinking about that now. We had a new Government who would give a new moral lead to the rest of the world. Sadly, however, that has not happened. I am no dove, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife will tell the House. I fully supported the previous Government's actions in Iraq and this Government's actions in Kosovo, and I am proud of what they have done in Sierra Leone. However, they have left much undone, especially on arms sales. Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries all over the world have received arms from us, and they should not have done. All over the world, there are questionable trade agreements that may lead to environmental damage. We have had to make excuses because British companies, encouraged by the Government, have been involved in projects that have caused human rights abuses and environmental damage. We have to do something about that.

Why do not the Government stop being so timid? They are constantly looking over their shoulder because they are terrified of offending anybody, especially the United States, and of taking a stand. We are a great people, and the Government have a large majority. Why do they not show the world what we can do?

9.7 pm

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion. However, I shall do so in classic Liberal Democrat form by combining damnation with praise in a strange admixture by adding the caveat that the inclusion of Sierra Leone was extraneous. It made the motion diffuse and was done simply to bring forth pedantic criticism.

Surely what we did in Sierra Leone was a successful action in support of a friendly, legitimate democratic Government with whom we have a special relationship because the country is an ex-colony and a member of the Commonwealth. Our action was in support of United Nations action, and troops, and by doing what we did we saved life and limb. Frankly, I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented that we went there to save diamonds. We went to save life and limb—in the most hideously literal sense, as some of the terrible pictures from that country show.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to check the Official Report, he will find that I did not say that we went to Sierra Leone to save diamonds; I asked how we would defend ourselves against the caricature that we intervene only when issues such as oil and diamonds are at stake. I did not represent the Government's position, which I have consistently supported, in the way that he has described.

Mr. Savidge

We defend ourselves with the fact that we went to Sierra Leone to save life and limb. We succeeded in doing so by going in quickly rather than waiting for a United Nations resolution, and we were correct to do so. We should congratulate our troops and our Government on that.

In any case, I regard that issue as a diversion because the crucial issue is weapons of mass destruction, which the Liberal Democrats were right to raise. I totally agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that since the cold war we have had a decade of inertia that has led to a great increase in our peril. Again, we should congratulate the Government, particularly on what they did in the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in New York.

We should remember the pessimism with which many of us went into the conference, and the acute apprehension that we felt during that conference, yet, at the end of it, there was agreement between the five nuclear weapons states—the five UN Security Council members—in the statement to which the motion refers. There was real meaningful dialogue between those five states and the members of the New Agenda Coalition. There was real involvement and discussion with the non-aligned countries. As a result, the conference came out with a successful agreed statement.

I believe that the British delegation played a crucial role in each stage of that agreement. That was an important success. Those on the delegation—particularly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—should be congratulated on their part in that.

Among the positive things in that statement were its positions on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the fissban treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Israel—I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that that was important—India and Pakistan, nuclear weapon-free zones, START 2, START 3 and the need to make further progress in reducing nuclear weapons, working towards the elimination of those weapons. However, we must now see delivery. Therefore, I accept that part of the motion and the Government's response to it.

We need to see delivery. Yesterday, the House debated Northern Ireland. I see a parallel with Northern Ireland. When paramilitary organisations say that they will disarm, I find that encouraging, but when they actually allow their weapons to be inspected, I find that more encouraging. When they start decommissioning, I find that most encouraging of all. I repeat the statement from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife: greater inertia, if anything, creates even greater peril because we are at a watershed.

I am pleased that the leadership of all parties in the House supports the comprehensive test ban treaty. My early-day motion last year showed that the overwhelming majority of Back Benchers from all parties support that—in fact, it gained more support than any early-day motion since the general election.

Obviously, it is encouraging that the Russian Duma has endorsed the test ban treaty. We await in particular the position of the United States and China because they will undoubtedly bring other states in with them. I endorse what the United States Administration are trying to do, but we must desperately seek to encourage Congress to take positive action on the matter.

In the United States, people say that they are worried about rogue states. Banning tests is one of the best protections against rogue states. If they are banned, it will mean that weapons are untested. Weapons that are untested are far less likely to work and weapons that are far less likely to work are far less likely to be used.

The test ban treaty is one of the most verifiable of all treaties, which is another reason to support it. The Government should do everything that they can to encourage our United States allies in Congress to endorse the comprehensive test ban treaty. The House should do everything that it can to support the Government in that. Perhaps we should again support an early-day motion, or find some other way to encourage them.

The fissban treaty is a matter of urgency. Only last month, a convoy of illicit nuclear weapons material was intercepted when being smuggled from the former Soviet Union into Afghanistan. What Russia has said recently about a preparedness to export nuclear weapons technology to other countries is worrying, although I suspect that that may be part of the bargaining that is going on in relation to NMD.

Talking of NMD, I pass on to the ABM treaty. I am glad that it was said that that must be preserved and strengthened, but NMD does cause concern, as does the attitude of the Clinton Administration and, even more, the Bush candidacy, which at times has almost the most naive and most frightening foreign policy since Goldwater. What perhaps causes even more concern is the thought that it could become an election issue and so might not be discussed on a totally rational basis, or be totally based on rational considerations of strategy.

I fear that that is very much a magic and Maginot approach to strategic problems: the sort of magic fix or Maginot line that is supposed to create a miraculous cure for all defence problems. It sounds wonderful until it is tested and found not to work. Not only may it not reduce danger—it could increase danger. If the ABM treaty is torn up, both Russia and China are likely to increase their weapons. It could also destroy reliance on all other treaties.

Even if agreement is reached with Russia, it must also be sought with China, which I know is not party to the bilateral talks. If China is not brought on board, there is the danger that it will increase its weapons and start exporting weapons. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred also to the danger of a domino effect across Asia.

Further points have been made. Does the United States believe in deterrence? If the Americans have billions of pounds to spend on national missile defence, might they not increase world security better by spending it on other things, such as helping to stabilise the states of the former Soviet Union and other states, or as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) suggested, putting money into the United Nations?

Even if NMD worked and could overcome decoy systems, what about the possibility of transporting weapons of mass destruction in lorries, in suitcases or by boat?

What if the United States goes for national missile defence? What should Britain's attitude be while we await a decision? Some people would say that the US is our ally, so we must go with whatever it wants. That seems to be the attitude of some of the Tory Europhobes, who are desperately worried about qualified majority voting in Europe, where at least we have a vote, but who do not worry too much about the United States making any decision that it wants, where we have no vote, and expecting us automatically to accept it. I took it that that was the reason for the extraordinary coyness of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she was asked what Conservative policy would be if the US decided to tear up the ABM agreements.

The United States may offer us other things. There is a possibility of our being offered dollars, jobs or cover. I believe that supporting NMD could bring greater danger not just to the people of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, but to global security. Therefore, as good allies of the United States, we should be constructively critical and urge caution. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, there is the danger of a new unilateralism in the United States which could completely undermine nuclear disarmament.

We must make progress on nuclear disarmament, through bilateral and multilateral action, as the Government amendment states. I would add "plurilateral" action. The word "unilateral" was not used, probably for fear of raising old slogans and past sterile arguments, which, surprisingly, were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, and which might get the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) over-excited, to the point of endangering his health.

However, there is a place for unilateral initiatives and unilateral reciprocal actions. That is particularly true in the case of the United States and Russia. If there is no treaty, the problem can be overcome by taking reciprocal unilateral actions, which do not have to be passed by an awkward Congress or an awkward Duma.

There is also a place for a unilateral response to a reduced threat, which is what has been made by both Conservative and Labour Governments in Britain in the past few years. We should not be frightened of the word unilateral. It has a place, along with other methods of seeking to reduce nuclear weapons, which we must get on with. Reference was made to comments by the Secretary of State for Defence. I believe that he said disarmament would not happen in weeks, days or months. He did not mention years, and I hope that he was not thinking in terms of years. I am certain that we must deliver far more quickly than that. I return to the comment about inertia and peril, and the basic point that, just as we are looking for action to take place in Northern Ireland, so the non-nuclear weapons states are looking to the nuclear weapons states for action.

There is no defence against disaster on a national basis. It must be on an international basis. The Palme commission said that we must have a common security. We can no longer have national security; we need a common security for all mankind.

Some people argue that if national missile defence were technically possible, it could be useful under the control of a United Nations agency in future, when nuclear disarmament was genuinely progressing. That view may be a little starry eyed. At least I am sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that we are considering a distant future. I suspect that all three aspects—the technology, a sufficiently trusted and efficient United Nations agency in an atmosphere of mutual international trust, and enough genuine progress on nuclear disarmament—are distant. However, in the meantime, we must make every endeavour to realise the promises of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and reduce what probably remains the greatest threat to the future of our species.

9.20 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is passionately committed to nuclear disarmament, but he also has an extraordinary sense of fairness. He has therefore curtailed his remarks to allow me to speak, for which I am most grateful. Doing that is typical of him, although he knows that I profoundly disagree with the thrust of his argument.

Before I deal with the points that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made about the non-proliferation treaty, I want to consider the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). The hon. Gentleman and I have the privilege of sitting side by side on the Select Committee on Defence. We agree more often than most people would anticipate. This evening is one occasion on which I must endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments on Liberal Democrats' past positions on the matters that we are considering.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South is right that, in 1990, the Liberal Democrats called for a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of the century— in other words, in 10 years. Piquancy is added to that statement by the knowledge that three days before the 1992 general election, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stated on "Newsnight": I don't believe a 50 per cent. cut is either likely or a policy; nor has it ever been a policy. However, it was a policy, which was not reversed until the Liberal Democrat party conference of September 1994.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

As the hon. Gentleman is conducting an interesting historical review, does he remember that when the Conservative Government introduced "Options for Change", they said that that was the last occasion on which they would cut the defence budget of the United Kingdom as long as they were in power?

Dr. Lewis

When the Conservative Government made cuts in our defences at the end of the cold war and I was not a Member of Parliament, I believed that the cuts went too far. It is interesting to note that when Liberal Democrat or Labour Members are challenged about further cuts, they refer to cuts under the Conservative Government. If they believe that those cuts were too great, they should not advocate more. Yet they often do.

If the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is not satisfied with the example that I gave earlier of the Liberal Democrats facing both ways, perhaps I could give another. The right hon. Member for Yeovil also stated: Britain's Trident deterrent is a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible. On another occasion, he stated: I remain wholly opposed to nuclear weapons. I remain of the firm belief that Britain could afford to get rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow and would not suffer in consequence. Yet, again, three days before the 1992 general election in the same "Newsnight" report to which I referred earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stated: I never took the view that this country did not need an independent deterrent. That shows that too much unilateralism can be bad for your memory.

Mrs. Gillan

The intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was disingenuous, because in 1991 he said that there was no intrinsic merit in defence spending. Does not that endorse Conservative policy?

Dr. Lewis

I am shocked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have made such a statement, and I am even more shocked that I overlooked it in my researches. I feel thoroughly ashamed of myself and I thank my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.

Let me move on from the points of agreement with the Labour party to the points of disagreement. I intervened on the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to point out the dangers that would accrue to international society and peace if we ever achieved a nuclear-free world, heaven forbid. He responded by implying that I am a nuclear weapons fanatic. He knows all about fanaticism and nuclear weapons as he declared at the height of the cold war: Unilateral nuclear disarmament offers the only hope of an end to the arms race and the only hope of any chance for peace …

Mr. Bob Russell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis

No, time is too pressing.

We did not have unilateral nuclear disarmament, but we did have peace. The hon. Member for Ilford, South thinks that that was all thanks to that marvellous Mr. Gorbachev, but I remind him that he and his party were advocating that this country be stripped of its vital nuclear deterrent in the days of Brezhnev, of Andropov and of Chernenko—years before Gorbachev came to power—and that, had that been achieved, the prospect of Gorbachev ever leading the Soviet Union would have been infinitesimal because the hardliners would have beaten NATO. What mattered was that, during those vital years, Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in this country. with the full support of the Conservative party, stood firm for the nuclear deterrent and resisted the arguments that Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have at least had the honesty to admit they supported in those days.

Mr. Savidge

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis

I must give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Savidge

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to propound the theory of history that Mr. Gorbachev was brought to power by British nuclear weapons? I am a little puzzled.

Dr. Lewis

I shall briefly enlighten the hon. Gentleman. When the cruise and Pershing deployments were being considered, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were, with the full support of their leaderships, trying to undermine those deployments. When Britain had to decide whether to replace its strategic nuclear deterrent, a battle was going on in the Kremlin between the hardliners and the reformers. If the hardliners had achieved the unilateral nuclear disarmament of NATO, which is what their measures were meant to achieve, the likelihood of the reformers taking power in the Kremlin would have been very significantly reduced.

Let me deal with the non-proliferation treaty, article VI of that treaty and the nuclear-free world. Article VI is often cited in relation to Britain's supposed commitment to nuclear disarmament. The preamble to the treaty states that nuclear disarmament should occur "pursuant to"—that is, in conformity with— a treaty on general and complete disarmament … Article VI similarly commits the signatories to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the arms race at an early date— which has been achieved— and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control … Those last two commitments are about achieving not only a nuclear-free world, but an arms-free world. If people want to convince me and the majority, who I believe think like me, that it would be wise to have a nuclear-free world, they will also have to convince me that they can achieve an arms-free world. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, having the former without the latter would simply make the world safe once again for prolonged, full-scale conventional warfare between the current nuclear powers.

The other day, I had a letter published in the national press on this very subject. I posed a number of questions. These are the questions that I posed then, and these are the questions that I would be grateful if the Minister would consider answering. There are only five; it would be something if the Minister answered only one or two in his winding-up speech.

My first question was this. If nuclear weapons had not existed, do they —advocates of a nuclear-free world— honestly believe that the Cold War would have remained stalemated rather than boiling over into a third global conflict? Secondly, If nuclear weapons ceased to exist, what would prevent the first nation to cheat from using secretly manufactured devices before such a temporary monopoly of them was broken? Thirdly, Why should a nuclear weapons-free world be achievable when, as President Yeltsin admitted in 1992, the Soviet Union completely flouted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by cheating for 20 years, while other countries disarmed? Fourthly, How would nuclear-disarmed countries deter attacks from states with other mass destruction weapons, such as biological agents and nerve gases? Finally, I asked—as I have this afternoon— Is not the recommendation for a nuclear-free world … a recipe to make the planet safe for full-scale conventional warfare yet again? I waited eagerly for replies in the columns of The Times, but I waited in vain. I did not, however, wait in vain for any sort of reply, because one came, from Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat. Professor Rotblat and I used to exchange letters in The Times on these very topics throughout the 1980s, and I like to think that, while he won the Nobel peace prize, I won the argument. I did, because the nuclear weapons that he wanted to be disposed of are still there. When Professor Rotblat and I traded arguments in the 1980s, I used to ask him to name a single country that would give up its nuclear weapons as a result of Britain's giving up hers. He was never able to do so.

This is all that Professor Rotblat had to say in his reply to my five questions. He said: The proponents of a nuclear-weapon-free world have long argued that, if some states insist on keeping nuclear arsenals for their security, other states are bound to seek such security for themselves through the acquisition of nuclear weapons. That is very good as a generalisation, but let him give me an example of a single state that would make the decision according to whether Britain kept her nuclear weapons.

Finally, the professor made an admission that goes to the nub of the issue. He said: I am not claiming that a nuclear-weapon-free world would be absolutely safe. There is no such thing as absolute safety. But there is no doubt in my mind that, of the two alternatives, a world without nuclear weapons would be safer than a world with them. Professor Rotblat has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Those are exactly the arguments that were used for unilateral nuclear disarmament back in the 1980s.

I conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I conclude, within the time that I was advised I could take, with a quotation that dates from the earliest days of thinking about nuclear weapons. It comes from another famous winner of the Nobel prize. He did not win the Nobel prize for peace; he won the Nobel prize for science. His name was Professor Sir George Thomson, and he served as the scientific adviser to the Royal Air Force during the second world war.

As early as October 1945, when the Chiefs of Staff were considering the impact of atomic weapons on the future nature of warfare, Professor Thomson wrote a short paper in which he said: the tendency in the recent past has been to wage war more and more unrestrictedly, and to press it more and more to complete conquest. It is just possible that the atomic bomb may reverse this trend. He added: no nation can hope for such a chance unless it has power of retaliation against probable rivals, otherwise it will either have to surrender at discretion or accept destruction without even the satisfaction of damaging its enemy in return. The truth is that just as the biological weapons convention has been wholly ineffective in removing biological weapons from the world, so a nuclear-free world would simply repeat what happened after disarmament in the 1930s. Disarmament was taken to new heights of complexity, but achieved only this: the peace-loving democracies disarmed each other and themselves, while the rogues, the villains, the bandits, the dictators and the tyrants re-armed in secret, threatened democracy and destroyed the peace of the world.

9.35 pm

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

It has been said several times that Opposition day debates distinguish the three political parties from each other. The speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has certainly distinguished his political party from the others. He might have quoted from those wonderful Tory organs, "What's Left" and "What's Liberal".

Dr. Julian Lewis

I did.

Mr. Keetch

At least your arguments were those of the 20th century, while your colleague, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), offered those of the 19th. We intend to use the arguments of the 21st century.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. I have not used any arguments at all.

Mr. Keetch

I am sure that you used to, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This has been a good and good-humoured debate, but I wish to clear up some misrepresentations. My hon. Friends and I are not calling for an end to the independence of Her Majesty's armed forces. We do not want a European army. We do not want Britain to be part of some great international police force of intervention. It remains the right of every sovereign nation to defend its people and its territory. That was right for Britain 60 years ago, and it remains right today under some circumstances.

We are justly proud of the action taken at Dunkirk, of which we have heard much this last week. I am particularly proud, because my father was there. We have also recalled this week the events of 6 June 1944, when British and allied troops from across the world, of every colour and creed, began the liberation of Europe on the beaches of Normandy. That international co-operation has continued ever since in many guises—through the United Nations, in NATO and in the Commonwealth. In this century, that co-operation will increasingly be with our partners in Europe.

That does not mean that we wish to decouple from the United States. Nor does it mean that the United States does not wish us to behave in that way—although when the shadow Defence Secretary tries to peddle lies in the United States Senate, people might be forgiven for thinking so. We cannot expect the USA consistently to shoulder the burden of European defence. Co-operation, far from undermining British military capability, can only enhance it.

We are rightly proud of our contribution in Sierra Leone—the excellent work of the Parachute Regiment and 42 Royal Marine—but that action will be worth while only if the United Nations is seen to win in Sierra Leone. What a shallow victory it would be for British diplomacy and our military expedition if action in Sierra Leone were to fail in the months to come because of an inferior UN mission, bereft of British leadership. It is no good going in hard now if we are to throw everything away later.

There has been criticism of the UN's role in Sierra Leone. The UN does not act in isolation and is only as strong as the will of its individual members. If it fails, we, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power in Sierra Leone, must accept our share of the blame. Often in the past the UN has been asked to keep peace where none exists. If nations with the capability to support the UN—financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment—choose to turn their backs, UN failure will be their failure. The failure will not lie with those nations which, although they have lesser military and economic capabilities, dedicate their men where others fear to tread.

Britain has never adopted such an isolationist pose. Nor should we do so now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked of national missile defence, questioning the basis on which it is being agreed. We are deeply concerned that if the USA embarks on that path, Russia will spend billions of dollars that it cannot afford, not to build a similar shield but to increase the number of its multiple warheads to try to overwhelm such a shield. That will lead China, then India, then Pakistan, to upgrade in turn. Is that really the kind of world we want in the 21st century?

Britain should use its unique relationship with the United States to warn against such a programme. It is no longer any good for a Secretary of State for Defence from this Government to come to the House and say that he will consider letting the US use RAF Fylingdales only as and when it may or may not ask us. Conservative Members have a position on the matter, as have Liberal Democrats Members. The House should be told the Government's position.

There has been some talk in this debate of overstretch—which is not only a real problem but the main problem facing the strength of our armed forces. All the evidence from the "Continuous Attitude Survey for Service Leavers" shows that the effects of Army service on family life is a key element in our troops leaving. Not recruitment but retention is the main problem. The House can debate our global positions and strategic reach, but if we do not have the trained men and women to do the job, our talk is nothing more than that—just talk.

We have welcomed much of what the Government have done. We welcome the service families taskforce, but—as I think Ministers accept—it needs to go further. Last week, at the annual conference of the Army Families Federation, Liz Sheldon, the organisation's outgoing chair, said of the Government's policy that the reality is not living up to the vision. Today, the Government must again undertake to make a reality of that vision.

We heard an excellent opening speech from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said: Just because we can't do everything doesn't mean to say we can't do something. The Minister was absolutely right about that.

The Minister described the chemical weapons convention as a success, and it has been. We are now expecting an inspection regime for the biological weapons regime. Why should not the Government consider proposing such a regime for nuclear weapons? Could not Ministers make that proposal as a positive contribution to the debate on nuclear weapons?

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about Conservative Members' policy. She also mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and the fact that we once had a policy of cutting defence spending by 50 per cent. I was very young then. However, we no longer need such a policy, because the Tories have already implemented it for us. Between 1989 and 1997, the then Tory Government cut Britain's defence budget by more than 40 per cent. The current Government have continued those cuts.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked some very important questions about Kosovo, and some very detailed questions about Richard Butler and Iraq. I am glad that I do not have to answer them, because I know that he wants the Minister to do that.

I think that the finest speech we heard today was by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who underlined our commitment to the United Nations and to UNESCO. She also underlined our criticism of countries that have not fully funded and met their obligations to those wonderful organisations. She again repeated our criticism of the arms trade.

The United Kingdom is justly proud of the men and women who wear the uniform of our armed forces, who serve in all parts world, under adverse conditions, and sometimes with poor equipment and in areas of great danger. All of us who from time to time support British military actions must bear a responsibility to ensure that they get the best.

We believe that the strategic defence review undertaken by the Government a couple of years ago was a valid attempt to improve our armed forces' capabilities and effectiveness. However, it was a one-off event in time—a snapshot—and has not been a continuous process.

Some people have criticised the SDR for being Treasury-driven. It must be said that Treasury's hand seems still to clamp down on our defence budget. Why were our troops sent to Kosovo with inadequate tents? Why were our troops sent to Sierra Leone with inadequate medical cover? Why did it take the Government so long to order the C17, which is crucial to an expeditionary force, and why so long for Meteor? Why have this Government not ordered a single warship for the Royal Navy?

Why have there been the year-on-year so-called efficiency savings which every fundholder in the forces says are nothing more than cuts? They are a 3 per cent. cut in the defence budget, and the Government should accept that they are.

Now is the time for the Government to look again, to identify our strategic priorities, to state the case on the international issues that Liberal Democrat Members have raised in this debate, and to make Britain the force for good which the Prime Minister describes.

The world has moved on since the SDR and we need to revisit the foreign policy assumptions on which it was based. We need to think again about NATO enlargement and what that means to EU enlargement. Within both of those institutions, we must face up to those nations that do not pull their weight in terms of their defence spending. We need to think of defence less as an industrial job creation policy and an opportunity for arms salesmen, and more as the process of equipping our forces and those of our allies with the tools they need. When we send in our troops to fight, they fight to win—the House must put the men and women who serve us first. I commend the motion to the House.

9.45 pm

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have felt quite at home in the debate, given that, at some points, it almost turned into a confessional for several hon. Members—but let us draw a veil over that.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) quoted Churchill, which reminded me of one of Churchill's remarks about speeches full of clichés—but, as the remark was somewhat indelicate, we shall have to draw a veil over that, too. The hon. Lady eventually moved on from clichés and addressed the issue of national missile defence, to which we shall return in a moment. However, she did not give way to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on the crucial issue of precisely what she would sign up to and what she was so urgently urging us to sign up to.

Between generally castigating the rest of the world, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about those who had changed their position. He is a well-known entryist who has certainly changed his party, if not his position, which led me to wonder whether he has now become a reverse entryist to enable him to discredit some of the positions adopted inside the Conservative party.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly pointed out the deficiencies of the Liberal Democrats' motion. It is interesting that the excuse they offered was their party's usual inefficiency. To those who know them from either the inside or the outside, that is not surprising. However, I note that the motion does not include the regular calls for additional expenditure issued by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). One wonders whether, in making such calls, he speaks for the whole of his party, or even its Front-Bench team. Perhaps he will clarify that matter on some future occasion. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South about the Budget are welcome, but he will understand that, at this stage in the financial cycle, I cannot comment on them.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), apparently using a JCB, dug ferociously into the archives of history. We shall pass of over his comparison between the two Chamberlains; suffice it to say that, if he represented a west midlands constituency, he would probably be able to distinguish more clearly between them. He raised a serious issue—one that is regularly raised by Conservative Members—which is the notion that a European security and defence identity creates the spectre of detachment between Europe and the United States, and therefore reinforces isolationist tendencies in the USA.

As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, the reverse is true: in a world wherein US orientation is moving, gently and slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is only by Europe assuming a greater share of its own defence and making a more significant contribution that we and those in the US who want to maintain transatlantic international links will be able to argue that Europe is bearing its share of the burden. A European defence identity reinforces those long-standing transatlantic links; it does not negate them. The hon. Gentleman quoted Disraeli at some length. I have to say that we rarely see signs of Disraeli's one-nation party being alive and well in the modern Conservative party.

I took somewhat amiss the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we intervene only in places where there are oil or diamonds. Neither is present in Kosovo.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

I did not say that. If the Minister reads the Official Report, he will see that I said that there was a caricature of our intervening only in connection with oil or diamonds, so we must be given proper explanations of why we intervene and set out in public the criteria by which we judge it necessary to intervene.

Mr. Spellar

We obviously do not do so because, as far as I am aware, there is neither of those things in Kosovo.

As we all know, our people in Kosovo are doing an excellent job, to which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) rightly drew attention, as he did to our need to back up them and their families. He conceded that we have made considerable progress, particularly through the service families taskforce. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to reiterate those points.

I am pleased to announce some more improvements and enhancements. We have recently approved a procurement of the necessary infrastructure to give our forces in Kosovo access to the internet so that they may stay in touch with their families. Personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, but we are breaking new ground in providing the facilities in an operational theatre. The equipment will be installed in the next few weeks and will be seen by our troops as a real improvement to their quality of life in theatre.

That announcement is in spite of the schoolboy sniggering on the Opposition Benches on Monday when I referred to e-mail. I do not know whether it was the concept of e-mail that was alien to them, or whether it was a complete misunderstanding of the needs of service families to stay in touch. Either way, it was a bizarre performance and it will certainly have been noted by our service personnel and their families.

Mrs. Gillan

On examination of the record, I believe that the Minister said on the most recent occasion he spoke of the matter from the Dispatch Box: We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 10.] As he has chosen to use his winding-up speech to announce yet again the introduction of e-mail services, will he give us the exact date of their introduction?

Mr. Spellar

Yes. Had the hon. Lady been listening, she would have heard me say that personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, and that those in operational theatre will have it in the next few weeks. We have already placed the orders. That is a considerable enhancement. Yet again, the Tories show that they are completely out of touch with how people live and the improvements that people want.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spellar

If I may move on.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister says that he is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spellar

The Liberal Democrats congratulated our forces in Sierra Leone. In that context, I should point out to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that Commonwealth countries are playing a considerable role in that country. We are engaged with them in that operation and have been of considerable assistance to them. Our forces have been doing what they do best, and doing it professionally and quickly. Criticism of our role is not representative of the views of the United Nations. It sees that our provision considerably enhances its role and is of great assistance. The key element was our ability to make decisions and to move quickly.

We shall enhance that role. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced the leasing of four Boeing C17 aircraft to meet our strategic lift requirements. I am pleased to announce that those aircraft will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. With their capacity to carry a wide range of heavy equipment, including Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior armoured fighting vehicles and even the Army's new Apache attack helicopter, they will revolutionise our capability to deploy forces with real punch to deal with crises anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has been pressing me on the issue for some time and will certainly be pleased by the announcement. It is unfortunate that he is not able to be present as he is at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of Kosovo, can he tell me whether we are likely to find out who placed the grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff and the 7th Army Brigade? I realise that doing so might be difficult.

Mr. Spellar

It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source. Obviously, the authorities on the ground are conducting investigations.

I turn in more detail to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who moved the motion. I was slightly taken aback when he rather dismissed this country as a medium-sized economic power, not a member of the Security Council or a major force for good in the world. I thought that he over-egged the pudding on behalf of his client, the United Nations, and did not reflect its true views.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman then came to the serious issue of national missile defence and the anti-ballistic missile treaty and the need for strategic stability. I got the feeling that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Hereford had been written over the weekend, before events had taken a turn.

Mr. Keetch

No.

Mr. Spellar

In that case, I exonerate the hon. Gentleman of having written the speech before the events, but not of failing to keep up with the news. He obviously had not kept up with the joint statements of the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on principles of strategic stability. The press release says: They agree that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and stress their desire to reverse that process, including through existing and possible new international legal mechanisms. They agree that this new threat represents a potentially significant change in the strategic situation and the international security environment. They agree that this … should be addressed through mutual cooperation and mutual respect of each other's security interests. President Putin, in his press conference, said: we respect the opinions of our partners in negotiations, we think that what they say has a certain logic and to a great degree we agree with that logic. There are new threats arising that we must address but our proposal is to answer them together.

Mr. Keetch

Is the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that they believe that the Russian Government are happy with national missile defence?

Mr. Spellar

The statement and the press conference emphasised precisely the point that the Government are making. We are looking forward to discussions taking place between the United States Government and the Government of Russia as the two parties to the ABM treaty, to allow them to deal with issues of threat.

Many of those who castigate national missile defence do not even acknowledge that there is a threat. The Russian Government acknowledge that there is a threat and want to work with the United States Government in order to be able to assess and respond to it. That is exactly in line with our policy. The policy of both opposition parties is deficient in this regard. They are both asking the British Government to make a response and a decision before the position of the key parties in the debate has been resolved.

We have sensibly been saying that we will await the outcome of the talks and the technical tests, and the decision of either the current United States Administration or their successor, and that we will then wait to see what requests they make of us. That is the sensible and balanced response. Neither of the opposition parties is dealing with the matter seriously or taking into account the way in which the debate is evolving. All their speeches pre-dated or ignored the statement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

What does the Minister say to the observation of his former boss at the Ministry of Defence that NMD had the capacity severely to damage NATO?

Mr. Spellar

That reinforces my point about how the debate has rolled on as a result of changes in Moscow.

In the broader debate, both opposition parties seem united in the belief that independent national identity and collective security are incompatible.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 229.

Division No. 220]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Baker, Norman
Ballard, Jackie	Chidgey, David
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Cotter, Brian
Brake, Tom	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Brand, Dr Peter	Fearn, Ronnie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Foster, Don (Bath)
Burnett, John	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Burstow, Paul	Gidley, Sandra

Harvey, Nick	Rendel, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Sanders, Adrian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Keetch, Paul	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)	Tonge, Dr Jenny
	Tyler, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy	Webb, Steve
Livsey, Richard	Welsh, Andrew
Llwyd, Elfyn	Willis, Phil
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Oaten, Mark	Mr. Bob Russell and
Öpik, Lembit	Mr. Andrew Stunell.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Donohoe, Brian H
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Doran, Frank
Alexander, Douglas	Dowd, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Drew, David
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ashton, Joe	Edwards, Huw
Atherton, Ms Candy	Efford, Clive
Austin, John	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Banks, Tony	Ennis, Jeff
Bayley, Hugh	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Fisher, Mark
Begg, Miss Anne	Flint, Caroline
Beggs, Roy	Flynn, Paul
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Benton, Joe	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Bermingham, Gerald	Fyfe, Maria
Berry, Roger	Gapes, Mike
Betts, Clive	Gardiner, Barry
Blizzard, Bob	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Gerrard, Neil
Borrow, David	Gibson, Dr Ian
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Godsiff, Roger
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Goggins, Paul
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Browne, Desmond	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Grocott, Bruce
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Gunnell, John
Casale, Roger	Hain, Peter
Cawsey, Ian	Hall, Milk (Weaver Vale)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Chaytor, David	Hanson, David
Clapham, Michael	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Healey, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Heppell, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hinchliffe, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Clwyd, Ann	Hope, Phil
Cohen, Harry	Hopkins, Kelvin
Colman, Tony	Howells, Dr Kim
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cooper, Yvette	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hutton, John
Cranston, Ross	Iddon, Dr Brian
Crausby, David	Illsley, Eric
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Jamieson, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Jenkins, Brian
Cummings, John	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Dalyell, Tam
Darvill, Keith	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dismore, Andrew	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Primarolo, Dawn
Keeble, Ms Sally	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Quinn, Lawrie
Kemp, Fraser	Rammell, Bill
Khabra, Piara S	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Lepper, David	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Leslie, Christopher	Rowlands, Ted
Levitt, Tom	Roy, Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Ruane, Chris
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Ruddock, Joan
Linton, Martin	Salter, Martin
McAvoy, Thomas	Sarwar, Mohammad
McCabe, Steve	Savidge, Malcolm
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)	Short, Rt Hon Clare
	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McDonagh, Siobhain	Singh, Marsha
McDonnell, John	Skinner, Dennis
McFall, John	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
McIsaac, Shona
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Soley, Clive
MacShane, Denis	Spellar, John
Mactaggart, Fiona	Squire, Ms Rachel
McWalter, Tony	Stevenson, George
Maginnis, Ken	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mallaber, Judy	Stringer, Graham
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Healey)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Miller, Andrew	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mitchell, Austin	Timms, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Todd, Mark
Moran, Ms Margaret	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mountford, Kali	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie	Tynan, Bill
Mullin, Chris	Ward, Ms Claire
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Wareing, Robert N
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Watts, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug	White, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Wicks, Malcolm
Olner, Bill	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Pickthall, Colin	Winnick, David
Pike, Peter L	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Pollard, Kerry	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Pond, Chris	Wyatt, Derek
Pope, Greg
Pound, Stephen	Tellers for the Noes:
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Mr. Tony McNulty and
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 41.

Division No. 221]	[10.11 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Atherton, Ms Candy
Alexander, Douglas	Austin, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Banks, Tony
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Begg, Miss Anne	Healey, John
Beggs, Roy	Heppell, John
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Hinchliffe, David
Benton, Joe	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Bermingham, Gerald	Hopkins, Kelvin
Berry, Roger	Howells, Dr Kim
Betts, Clive	Hoyle, Lindsay
Blizzard, Bob	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Borrow, David	Hutton, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Illsley, Eric
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Jamieson, David
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Jenkins, Brian
Browne, Desmond	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Casale, Roger	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Caton, Martin	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Chaytor, David	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Clapham, Michael	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Keeble, Ms Sally
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Khabra, Piara S
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Clwyd, Ann	Lepper, David
Cohen, Harry	Levitt, Tom
Colman, Tony	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Cooper, Yvette	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Corbett, Robin	Linton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy	McAvoy, Thomas
Cranston, Ross	McCabe, Steve
Crausby, David	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Cummings, John	McDonnell, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	McFall, John
Dalyell, Tam	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Darvill, Keith	McIsaac, Shona
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Dismore, Andrew	Mackinlay, Andrew
Dobbin, Jim	MacShane, Denis
Donohoe, Brian H	Mactaggart, Fiona
Doran, Frank	McWalter, Tony
Dowd, Jim	Maginnis, Ken
Drew, David	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Mallaber, Judy
Edwards, Huw	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Efford, Clive	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Fisher, Mark	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Flint, Caroline	Miller, Andrew
Flynn, Paul	Mitchell, Austin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry	Mountford, Kali
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Gerrard, Neil	Mullin, Chris
Gibson, Dr Ian	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Goggins, Paul	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Olner, Bill
Grocott, Bruce	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Gunnell, John	Pike, Peter L
Hain, Peter	Pollard, Kerry
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Pond, Chris
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Pope, Greg

Pound, Stephen	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Primarolo, Dawn	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Quinn, Lawrie	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Timms, Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Todd, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Rowlands, Ted	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Roy, Frank	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Ruane, Chris	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Ruddock, Joan	Tynan, Bill
Salter, Martin	Ward, Ms Claire
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wareing, Robert N
Savidge, Malcolm	Watts, David
Short, Rt Hon Clare	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Wicks, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunedale)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
	Winnick, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Soley, Clive	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Spellar, John	Wyatt, Derek
Squire, Ms Rachel
Stevenson, George	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Mr. Tony McNulty and
Stringer, Graham	Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

NOES
Allan, Richard	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Baker, Norman	Keetch, Paul
Ballard, Jackie	Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Kirkwood, Archy
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Livsey, Richard
Brake Tom	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Brand, Dr Peter	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Oaten, Mark
Burnett, John	Öpik, Lembit
Burstow, Paul	Rendel, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Chidgey, David	Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)
Cotter, Brian	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Tyler, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie	Webb, Steve
Foster, Don (Bath)	welsh, Andrew
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Willis, Phil
Gidley, Sandra
Harvey, Nick	Tellers for the Noes:
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Mr. Andrew Stunell and
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Mr. Bob Russell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Annunciator, we have just passed the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) by 209 votes to 41. I think that there may be some mistake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. According to the Deputy Speaker, we have passed the Prime Minister's amendment.