Iraq (Hansard, 18 December 2002)

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on contingency preparations for possible military action against Iraq.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and I, have set out the Government's approach to Iraq on a number of occasions. That approach has not changed in any way. We are committed to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime by ensuring its compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. Our primary objective is to achieve this by peaceful means. Saddam Hussein is being given every opportunity to disarm voluntarily.
We hope that he will take this opportunity to do so but, given his previous record, it would be foolish to assume that he will comply unless he faces clear and overwhelming pressure. That is why we must continue to present a credible threat of force.
When the House debated this issue on 25 November, and when it discussed it again at Defence questions on 9 December, I made it clear that we would continue with the prudent preparations and planning necessary for military action, should it be required. I said that we would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed. What we are doing is ensuring that we have a range of military options available, should they be required. The House may, however, find it helpful if I set out again the work that we have put in hand.
As I told the House on 25 November, we have also been taking action to provide additional capabilities that may potentially be needed, either by bringing forward programmes which were already planned or by making new procurements against short time scales. As the House will recall, these measures include bringing forward the purchase of further temporary deployable accommodation, upgrading the infrastructure available in deployed field hospitals, improving battlefield ambulances, and enhancing the ability of our forces to handle and exploit secure communications. We are approaching the shipping market this week, to charter vessels that might be needed to move equipment and personnel. We are also acting on the lessons learned from Exercise Saif Sareea 2, particularly in relation to the Challenger 2 tank, the AS 90 artillery system, and desert clothing and boots. I can assure the House that we are working closely with industry to ensure that British forces will have the capabilities they need for the contingencies that they may face.
As I previously indicated to the House, we are also continuing to consider the number and mix of reservists who might be required in the event of military action and to ensure that the machinery and processes involved in mobilising reserves are ready to be used if and when the time comes. Relevant units and individual reservists will be informed of the possibility of being included in a call-out, should that become necessary. We will take steps to identify individuals who may have genuine reasons for not being available in the months ahead. Information will also be made available to reservists for their employers.
846 More generally, I have authorised a range of steps to improve readiness. This includes training, ensuring that the right quantities of equipment are available to those who may need them, as well as the procurement of stocks and spares. For some units it will involve a reduction in their notice to move. This does not mean that they are about to be deployed but that they will be ready to deploy at relatively short notice if required. I emphasise that the involvement of any particular unit in these processes does not mean that it will necessarily take part in any military action that may be required. The purpose of these preparations is to provide the necessary range of options, not a specific plan.
We have already announced the long-planned deployment of the naval task group 2003 in the new year, with scheduled visits and exercises in the Gulf and the Asia-Pacific regions from February to August. This is a routine deployment that happens approximately every three years hut, like all maritime deployments, it remains available for a range of potential operations if required. The group will be led by HMS Ark Royal and will include the Type 23 frigate HMS Marlborough, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Liverpool and support from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels Fort Victoria and Orangeleaf. A nuclear-powered submarine will also be assigned to the group for part of its deployment. In addition, a mine countermeasures group, comprising HMS Ramsey, HMS Grimsby, HMS Shoreham, HMS Ledbury and RFA Sir Bedivere will deploy ahead of the task group to undertake a series of exercises and port visits in the Gulf region.
Further to those routine deployments, we are also considering the deployment of additional maritime forces early in the new year to ensure the readiness of a broad range of maritime capabilities, should they be required.
Finally, I emphasise once more that these are contingency preparations, aimed at increasing the readiness of a range of options. This process does not lead inexorably to military action. The use of force is not inevitable. However, as long as Saddam's compliance with UNSCR 1441 is in doubt, the threat of force must remain and must be real.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
As the Secretary of State is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is in the Gulf visiting British servicemen and women who are already there in some force.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, we are grateful to him for responding to the call yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) to make a statement today, the last major parliamentary day before Christmas. However, it is an indictment of the Government's priorities that the media were briefed yesterday and the House of Commons was briefed today. We are clearly the poor relations.
Furthermore, at the now famous press conference held last month by the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to brief Parliament during our debate on 25 November. He failed to do so, imperiously confining himself to a reference to "prudent preparations and planning". Today's mantra, adding to that, seems to be the mere maintenance of a range of options.
847 It is some time since the Government reported that the United States had submitted a formal request for UK military support. We recognise that operational security may limit the information that the right hon. Gentleman can give the House, so we shall not seek confirmation of every detail published in today's newspapers. However, the House and the country are entitled to know what level of military commitment the Government have in mind. It is frankly bizarre that our television screens are full of US troop manoeuvres in the Gulf while the Government have so far said virtually nothing about possible British involvement.
Today's bland statement adds very little to what we know. From reading today's newspapers, it seems that the media know more about the detail than the Secretary of State is prepared to share with the House, so let me put some questions to him. What specific capability has the United States requested, and what is the Government's response? What are the options that he referred to in his statement? Can he assure the House that, bearing in mind reports of shortages, there will be sufficient spares and logistical support to sustain a campaign lasting more than a few days? Has the equipment been desertised and will units trained on Exercise Saif Sareea be deployed and not held back for firefighting duties?
Given the consequences for both reservists and employers, surely the Government could be more specific about their call-up plans. Does the Secretary of State have in mind the call-up of formed units, apart from the medical services? What medication will be prescribed to any British contingent and will it be different from that prescribed during the Gulf war, or take into account United States developments in that respect?
Is it not the case that the likely resumption of the firemen's strike will have a damaging limitation on the Secretary of State's ability to deploy troops whose training is up to speed, thus confirming that he is unprepared for the unexpected? Does he accept that publicly preparing British forces for deployment will help to bring pressure to bear on Iraq to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441, and that being more forthcoming would assist the House and the securing of that objective?
The statement was thinner than I had expected and than the House was entitled to have heard. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, if there are to be deployments during the Christmas recess, the House will be advised.
Finally, as we approach Christmas, I hope that in a spirit of good will and cross-party solidarity the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces and their families as they stand ready to embark on operations should the need arise.

§ Mr. Hoon
May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the briefing to journalists yesterday that had not previously been set out clearly to the House of Commons on two, if not three, occasions? Each of the points that he made—for example, on desertisation, the impact of a possible fire strike or reservists—has been dealt with in some detail already. 848 Although hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are shaking their heads, I invite them to look carefully at reports both of previous debates and of the most recent Defence questions where all those matters were dealt with. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has come to the House with such a long list of requests—if he had carefully read the pages of Hansard, all his questions would have been answered.

§ Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I thank him for providing an advance copy. It is right that he brought that information to the House so that we could consider it; no Government can afford to leave themselves unprepared for military action.
This Christmas, many members of our armed forces and their families will be acutely aware of the possibility that they could be involved in future military action, so I am sure that they would like reassurance from the Secretary of State both about the readiness of the armed forces and about the decision-making process that might precede action.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the lessons of Saif Sareea 2 have been learned, but can he confirm that the MOD did riot decline an offer from Vickers to modify the tanks earlier this year? If he has changed his mind, how much will that cost the taxpayer?
What is the availability of our aircraft carriers for action and will our Sea Harriers be able to operate in that climate? Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that any troops sent to the Gulf will have the modified SA80 assault rifle?
Are the necessary medical provisions in place? What provision has been made for the purchase of nuclear, biological and chemical suits and filters? What steps have the Government taken to prevent a repeat of the medical problems experienced after the Gulf war? If troops are sent to the region will the Defence Medical Services have the capability to provide enough field hospitals?
The Secretary of State is right to say that war is not inevitable, but Liberal Democrat Members speak for many people in the House and beyond when we say that military action should be conducted only with the authority of the UN and after a substantive vote in the House. We must not fall into the problems experienced by Europe before the first world war; preparations are necessary but they must not make war inevitable. We must not fall into that trap.

§ Mr. Hoon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and I shall try to deal with each of his points in turn.
Certainly, the Government have learned lessons both from previous exercises and from previous deployments. As I pointed out a few moments ago, I referred on a previous occasion to specific examples in respect of Saif Sareea 2, which was a valuable training exercise and a number of significant lessons were learned—not least about the use of Challenger 2 tanks and the need for desertisation.
As for the SA80, again, we have learned the lessons thrown up by the deployment in Afghanistan, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the modified assault rifle will be available to our forces in the event of there being a need for military action.
849 On the medical issues, some of which I have mentioned already today, as I did on a previous occasion, I can also assure him and the House that our forces will be effectively and properly equipped against the risk of exposure to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. I think that I have already dealt with the point about field hospitals. Certainly, a great deal of effort has been made to learn and understand the lessons from the Gulf war in the early 1990s, and they will be applied in the event of any subsequent operations in similar conditions.

§ Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
Whatever happens in the next few months—no one quite knows what—I spent this weekend at the Iraqi opposition groups' meeting in London and, as far as I could see, apart from a junior Foreign Office official, there was no British involvement at all, although there was a delegation of 50 Americans present. All those in the Iraqi opposition have always said that they want greater British involvement. Whatever the future of that country, Iraq should be democratic, and we should be involved in those talks from the very first day, so will my right hon. Friend please consider those suggestions and act on them?

§ Mr. Hoon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for her typically constructive approach to such matters. For many years, she has been a champion of the need to observe human rights in Iraq and, indeed, she has not shrunk from the difficult decisions that follow from that. I assure her that the Foreign Office monitored the conference closely during the weekend, but that conference was clearly a matter for the Iraqi opposition groups themselves.
While not attempting to foresee the consequences of military action if it is ultimately required in a place such as Iraq, I believe that we have an important model in what has taken place in Afghanistan. In the months since military action was necessary there, we have seen a determined effort—not without difficulty; in no way do I underestimate the problems that have been faced—by the international community, by people in Afghanistan and, significantly, by many people returning from exile abroad to Afghanistan to help in the considerable task of rebuilding their country. I have every expectation that the same determined effort will be made by the international community and, indeed, Iraqi exiles in rebuilding their own country.

§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing)
Following the exchange in the House earlier today on the possibility of a future debate on military intervention in Iraq on a substantive motion in the House, will the Secretary of State for Defence assure the House that the Government's overriding consideration on the timing of any such debate will be the protection of the lives of British servicemen and women?

§ Mr. Hoon
I can give that assurance. I was asked that question this morning, and I gave that assurance then. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on precisely that issue: it is obviously crucial that the safety and security of our forces should be uppermost in any decision, and I know that all hon. Members would agree with that.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
While neither President Bush nor anyone else must pre-empt 850 the implementation of Security Council resolution 1441, does my right hon. Friend agree that that resolution must be implemented, that paragraph 13 says that Iraq will face serious consequences if it is not implemented and that it would be irresponsible of Her Majesty's Government not to make contingency preparations in case that way of implementing it is necessary? Does he agree that whether resolution 1441 is implemented by force depends on Saddam Hussein?

§ Mr. Hoon
My right hon. Friend sets out the position with his customary clarity. I do not need to add anything to his words except to agree that it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that the choice is his. He has been given the opportunity of disarming, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, that is a choice for him.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that while there may be substantial agreement between those on the Front Benches, that should not mask the fact that a great deal of anxiety exists in this House and elsewhere about the policy towards Iraq? Does he not understand that while a Security Council resolution may make a policy of war legal, it does not make it wise or moral? Furthermore, does he not understand that in the absence of a grave and imminent threat to ourselves and our allies, many of us believe that war is wrong, by which I mean not morally justified, as well as politically profoundly unwise?

§ Mr. Hoon
I was not sure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations whether he was making a general or a specific observation about the nature of war. I have heard him make observations in the past, and, curiously, they were never critical of his Government when he was a Minister. He has never made previously the kinds of comments that he has made lately about the responsibilities of the House or of the Government to Parliament. I assume that he has made a recent conversion to those views. He is perfectly entitled to those views, but I happen to disagree with them.

§ Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)
This will be the first war that will be fought when the International Criminal Court is in operation. Our forces will be subject to it, and I hope that Saddam Hussein will appear before it. Why are the Government negotiating a bilateral agreement with the American Government to help exclude American forces from the provisions of the International Criminal Court?

§ Mr. Hoon
The answer to that is straightforward: the present United States Administration have not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for their armed forces. To ensure a consistency of approach, the Government, together with many other Governments around the world, have agreed that bilateral approach with the United States.

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
The Secretary of State goes out of his way to say that the deployment is routine. Is it routine to deploy minesweepers ahead of the task group? Does he not 851 consider that the UK is now on a treadmill to war, and that, in fact, the decision to commit will not be made by No. 10 but by somebody else across the sea who has already decided that war is inevitable?

§ Mr., Hoon
I repeat again that this is a routine deployment and a long-planned exercise, which has taken place on a regular basis. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about minesweepers, it would hardly be sensible to allow this deployment to take place in one of the most dangerous stretches of water anywhere in the world without there being appropriate protection in place, in the form of minesweepers, to ensure that British forces are not at unnecessary risk. I reject absolutely what he says about any decision to commit; that decision will be taken by a British Prime Minister, as has always been the case.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
I have been invited to give a Zayed foundation lecture in Abu Dhabi on Saturday, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows, those are serious occasions. After discussions with the leadership in the Emirates, they were absolutely appalled and horrified at the consequences of an American-British attack on Iraq. What value do the Government attach to the opinion of old and trusted friends of this country?

§ Mr. Hoon
The United Kingdom Government attach very great value to their friends and allies around the world, and not least in the Gulf region, to which I have been a regulator visitor over many years. I recognise the importance of maintaining an international coalition on these matters, which is reflected in a unanimous vote by the Security Council—including, perhaps to the surprise of many right hon. and hon. Members, the vote of Syria—in favour of resolution 1441. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government set great store by the views of the international community, and we will continue to seek out those views and to seek to have them in agreement with whatever decisions are taken in due course.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
The Secretary of State will recall that, following the strategic defence review, the Chief of the General Staff said that the most important development of the SDR for the Army was the development of the formation training cycle, which was designed to prepare formations to make deployments precisely such as this. How robust has the formation training cycle proved under the combination of having to deal with the firefighters' strike, all the other active service deployments and this particular deployment?

§ Mr. Hoon
I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's observation to the extent that it has not been possible to follow precisely the formation training cycle as laid down in the SDR, not least because of the series of events that the United Kingdom has felt it right to respond to. I do not like challenging him with a further question, but, before he asks a similar question, he needs to think through what would have been the response of Opposition Members if we had stuck rigidly 852 to the formation training cycle and not involved ourselves in a series of important international operations, such as those in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. It is for those reasons that it has not been possible to follow precisely the terms of the formation training cycle.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
I have listened to the statement and to the answers that the Prime Minister gave earlier on Iraq, and it seems to some of us that it is absolutely clear that we will support the Bush war on Iraq regardless of the United Nations. Given that, we are entitled to know exactly what the cost of preparing for this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war will be. What contingencies have been made for the thousands of refugees who will undoubtedly seek asylum in our country and in the west in general if the whole area is destabilised?

§ Mr. Hoon
I can only repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friends and I have given on previous occasions. There is no inevitability about a war. It is a matter of upholding United Nations resolutions and the approach that the UN has taken. Again, I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider how it is otherwise possible to uphold the will of the international community—I am sure that is something that she and I agree upon—unless we are prepared to use force to back up the decisions that the UN has taken.

§ Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent)
As someone who was personally involved in the last deployment 12 years ago, I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's desire to give servicemen and women and their families the maximum possible notice of any deployment. However, one of the options being studied is presumably the deployment of a full armoured division. How long does he calculate that it would take to deploy such a division to the Gulf? Once it is there, how long does he calculate that it would take to bring it ready for operations?

§ Mr. Hoon
From the hon. Gentleman's considerable previous experience, he knows full well that it would not be sensible for me to answer either of those questions.

§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Is it not the case that, this time about 12 years ago, the criminal dictator had time to leave Kuwait and his refusal to do so led to the Gulf war? Now, his refusal to give up weapons of mass destruction might lead to military action. Why do not the critics, including the former Tory Minister who was so enthusiastic about the Gulf war at the time, give the responsibility for war, should it come, not to the allies, the United States, Britain and the international community, but to the criminal regime because it refuses to comply with the UN resolution?

§ Mr. Hoon
My hon. Friend puts his case with his customary passion—more passion than I am perhaps able to display. We have always made it clear that Saddam Hussein is a unique case, having not only invaded two neighbours but having used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. That is why the 853 overwhelming view of the international community is that it is necessary that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq should be disarmed.

§ Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)
Remembering the experience of prisoners of war after the war in Afghanistan, will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he has to deal with Iraqi prisoners of war in the event of an attack?

§ Mr. Hoon
They will be dealt with in accordance with humanitarian and international law.

§ Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
The terms of the charter of vessels will surely be known in the markets fairly soon, if not now. What can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the earliest start date for those charters and the length of them? Which NATO allies, apart from the US, are also involving themselves in prudent planning?

§ Mr. Hoon
Again, for reasons that I have set out, I cannot give the House precise details of either the start date of any charters or their length. All I can say is that we are involved in contingency preparations to ensure that vessels are available should their use be required. No decisions have yet been taken on their use. As far as other countries are concerned, I am sure that all responsible members of the Security Council and the UN will want to take appropriate action to ensure the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1441.

§ Patrick Mercer (Newark)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Armoured Brigade—the teeth, the arms, the punching machine of the force—that was so carefully, expensively and contentiously trained in Saif Sareea will be used for desert warfare in Iraq?

§ Mr. Hoon
I am not going to give any indication of the nature of the force package that will be available. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the words that I used in the statement, he will see that I said that a range of military options will be available to the commanders of UK forces. It would not be sensible for me to dwell on any particular aspect of those forces, as he knows full well.

§ Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
The Secretary of State will know that Saddam Hussein's regime used Scud missiles in 1991 and that previously it used chemical weapons against its neighbour and its own people. What assurance can he give that, if our forces have to be deployed, they will be adequately protected against such attacks? In that context, is there effective interoperability with our NATO allies and other partners in the coalition if there is a material breach and military action becomes necessary?

§ Mr. Hoon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I said that British forces would be properly protected in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against them. On interoperability, one of the most recent decisions is to ensure effective communications between different forces. One of the clear lessons from the operation in Afghanistan, especially the deployment of the international security 854 assistance force, is that NATO standard forces can work together quickly given their common training and common approach to equipment. We need to build on that recent success.

§ Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford)
Given recent tragic incidents of friendly fire in different theatres of war, can the Secretary of State assure the House, and indeed the country, that all our service personnel deployed in theatre will have the equipment they need to communicate speedily and effectively with friendly units?

§ Mr. Hoon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a serious and important point. I assure him that efforts are being made to ensure that that is the case.

§ Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton)
Recalling A. J. P. Taylor's theory on mobilisation, is not there a certain inevitability about military action given the Americans' stated intention of regime change in Iraq? Will the charters be British ships manned by British crews?

§ Mr. Hoon
As far as inevitability is concerned, the final observation in my statement was that military action is not inevitable. Equally, however, if we did not make prudent preparations, it would be inevitable that we could not take military action should the circumstances warrant it. I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider that. If he believes, as I am sure he does, in the need to enforce UN resolutions, he must also believe that it is necessary to take military action in certain circumstances to uphold those decisions. As for chartering ships, it is important that the UK has available to it a secure and reliable system of being able to transport both its people and its equipment.

§ Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge)
I want to press the Secretary of State on humanitarian aid. Considering the disaster that occurred in Kurdistan after the Gulf war, what contingency plans has he made for humanitarian aid, and what calculations has the Ministry of Defence made for best case and worst case collateral damage?

§ Mr. Hoon
I shall not go into a great deal of detail at this stage about the range of possible consequences of military action that has yet to be decided on. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, not least because of our experience in Afghanistan, where a huge amount of humanitarian aid was promptly made available after military operations, that the matter will be high on our list of priorities.

§ Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
If war is inevitable only if Iraq fails to comply with Security Council resolution 1441, will all members of the Security Council be furnished with the American analysis of the Iraqi document? Given the somewhat intemperate statements of Secretary Powell, who rushed to judgment on the document's veracity, will such an analysis be verified by the UN inspectors before any decision is made by the Security Council, or is the will of the international community reduced to that of the United States?

§ Mr. Hoon
I do not accept that for a moment. If my hon. Friend looks carefully later at the question that she just asked me, she will realise that the answer is a matter for the United States. I emphasise to her and other hon. Members that the United States and, quite separately, the United Kingdom will be making their own assessment of the material, as, I anticipate, will other members of the Security Council. There have been certain adjustments in the material made available for perfectly understandable reasons, because it is necessary to ensure that nothing that is communicated to members of the UN should assist in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Other than that, it will be open to members of the Security Council to make their own assessment.

§ Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon)
In supporting the steps being taken by the Secretary of State, I ask him to give the House an assurance that, before he deploys Challenger 2 tanks to the Gulf, he will deal not only with their desertisation but with the technical deficiencies that came to light in recent exercises in Canada. Will he make sure that, in the coming combat, if that occurs, our troops have high-quality equipment that is not likely to break down as they are charging towards Baghdad?

§ Mr. Hoon
Of course, Challenger 2 tanks regularly exercise in Canada, so it is important to recognise that our information about the performance of the equipment is regularly updated. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every effort will be made to incorporate all the lessons learned from previous exercises and deployments.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Are the Government aware that outside this place there is probably a majority of the British people who are against a war on Iraq? That was not true of the Falklands, Kosovo or Afghanistan, and it must worry Ministers as it worries those of us on the Back Benches. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many electors say that this is about a vain American President wanting to complete the job that his father did not do 12 years ago? They also think that it is about oil. I say to my right hon. Friend and the Government that vanity is not sufficient reason to spill the blood of innocent men, women and children, either here or in Iraq.

§ Mr. Hoon
My hon. Friend and I are parliamentary neighbours; we live in the same county and therefore come across the same sorts of people. I do not find that people are saying quite what he says. I recognise that there is concern and that there should be concern. There is concern in the House and on this Front Bench about any decision to deploy British forces in a war.
I simply do not accept, however, that the British people believe any of the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the United States or its President. They are looking for UN Security Council resolutions to be upheld, ensuring that Saddam Hussein and his regime cannot threaten the stability of the region or indeed the safety and security of British people, whether they are British troops deployed in Cyprus or people here in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 40 per cent. of Iraqis are children under 16? When an attack takes place on Iraq, what action will be taken to ensure that there is not collateral mayhem involving children and innocent people'?

§ Mr. Hoon
An enormous effort is made during the course of any kind of military operation, including bombing operations, to ensure that the targets addressed do not cause unnecessary risk to a civilian population. That was the case during operations over Afghanistan for which I was responsible, when I personally ensured that harm to the civilian population was minimised. I can tell my hon. Friend that even in the relatively short time since the last Gulf war, there have been enormous improvements in the accuracy and sophistication of the equipment used to allow those responsible for any military action to ensure that the threat to civilian populations is minimised.

§ Hugh Bayley (City of York)
Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in Britain hope desperately that we will not go to war with Iraq but nevertheless think that it is wise and prudent to make preparations for war because they know that it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will comply and disarm without the threat of military action if he fails to do so?

§ Mr. Hoon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can I make it clear that I am one of those who hope that we will not go to war? I hope that Saddam Hussein will accept his responsibilities and enforce the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Equally, however, like my hon. Friend, I believe that it is much more likely that Saddam Hussein will accept Security Council resolution 1441 if it is backed up by the threat of the use of force.

§ Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Abu Dhabi, why cannot the Government understand that, having committed themselves to the United Nations process, if they then remove themselves from it and take unilateral or bilateral action, they will alienate moderate Islamic opinion throughout the world? Does he recognise that, if that happens, he will create a hell for us and our children for many generations to come?

§ Mr. Hoon
But the Government do understand that. The point was made directly to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago, and he addressed the issue directly. It is clearly understood, recognised and acted upon by the Government.

§ Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
Has the Secretary of State not just made a statement that softens us up for a war? He has no intention of going back to the United Nations or seeking parliamentary approval, and is moving troops into the region to start a war the moment that George Bush says so. Can he deny that carte blanche has been given to George Bush to do what he will, and that the British Government will support him?

§ Mr. Hoon
I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend all the points that I have made repeatedly in response to each of those questions. I am sorry that he does not appear to accept the answers that I have already given, but I can assure him that it will be for a British Prime Minister acting in the best interests of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not British troops are deployed in the event of a decision to use military force.

§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while, as he said, the threat of military action is a major incentive for Saddam to comply with UN resolution 1441, if he forms the impression that war is probable or inevitable, that will be a strong disincentive to disarm? If we sincerely wish to avoid war, surely it is essential that we and our US allies keep a careful balance in the belligerence of our stance?

§ Mr. Hoon
That is absolutely right. It is important to make it clear that we want a peaceful resolution of the situation—we want Saddam Hussein to accept the opportunity that he has been given to agree to the will of the United Nations and the international community. Equally, however, it follows that he is much more likely to do so if we maintain a credible threat of force.

§ Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)
Despite the shopping list of military resources in the Secretary of State's statement, is not the reality that the British Government have already decided to support a US war on Iraq and, in fact, are already doing so? Given the 300 per cent. increase in US and British raids on the no-fly zone, perhaps he will tell the House how many bombing days he has left before Christmas. Will he also acknowledge that the evidence of Turkish troops using those raids to go in and kill Kurds raises the question of who exactly is being protected in this hidden war against Iraq, long before the formal slaughter begins?

§ Mr. Hoon
Again, instead of using language like US and UK raids on Iraq, it is important that my hon. Friend thinks about the many men and women based in 858 the east midlands, an area that he and I are both proud to represent, who are risking their lives over the skies of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Is he telling the House that he believes that those men and women should not be entitled to defend themselves when they come under regular attack from the forces of Saddam Hussein? I am sure that my hon. Friend is not saying that, in which case their actions are entirely justified in international law.

§ Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)
The Secretary of State outlined some of the preparations for a war with Iraq, including, frighteningly, the use of nuclear-powered submarines. Can he tell me whether similar preparations are being made for a war with Israel, which is also breaking UN resolutions, is invading Palestine daily, has weapons of mass destruction, and has a Head of State who is a state terrorist?

§ Mr. Hoon
I must tell my hon. Friend that all British submarines are nuclear powered. The comparison between Iraq and Israel does not stand up. The position in relation to Iraq is quite unique. It is a country that has invaded two of its neighbours and used weapons of mass destruction against its own people. That is in no way comparable with Israel, nor are the resolutions that my hon. Friend cites in any way comparable. The resolutions that mention Israel also mention a number of other countries that have equal obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. The comparison is not helpful. If my hon. Friend looked more carefully at those resolutions, he would not ask such a question.

§ Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)
Are UK forces taking cluster bombs to the region? Are US forces taking them? Have US forces taken their giant, indiscriminate daisy-cutter bombs there? Are not the preparations really civilian-killing preparations?

§ Mr. Hoon
Again, I have resisted the temptation that hon. Members and hon. Friends have given me this afternoon to refer to any specific equipment that might or might not be used. Appropriate respect will be given to the requirements of international law in any action that is taken and proves necessary in Iraq.