The Gulf War (Hansard, 31 January 1991)

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Gulf and various matters arising.
"The allied campaign to liberate Kuwait was launched two weeks ago. The initial aim has been to establish air supremacy and then sufficiently to reduce the military capability of the Iraqis armed forces so that the liberation of Kuwait would be successfully achieved with the minimum of casualties to our forces.
"During this first period over 30,000 allied sorties have been flown against what was initially substantial air defences. From these 30,000 sorties 19 aircraft have not returned of which five were British. The House knows of those most regrettable losses in the first week, but will be pleased to note 805 that none has been lost in the past week. That pleasure is combined with the deepest admiration for the skill and courage of our aircrews and of all the allies at the way they have sustained this vital air campaign. The initial denial to the Iraqis of the use of their airfields, in which the Tornados played such a critical part, the progressive suppression of their ground air defences, the shooting down of their aircraft seeking combat, have enabled air supremacy to be achieved so that hardened aircraft shelters and other military and strategic targets can be progressively attacked. This supremacy has been underlined by the sudden departure of some 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran.
"The achievements of the air campaign so far include the destruction of all nuclear reactor capacity, about half of their biological and chemical production, military fuel and ammunition stores, a number of airfields out of action, major damage to command and control facilities, loss of centralised control of air defences, progressive reduction of Scud launch capability, and 22 bridges hit to inhibit re-supply of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
"However substantial as these achievements are, I must warn the House that so vast is the Iraqi military capacity that it is likely to be some time yet before it will be sufficiently reduced to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait.
"In this connection, we have received a request from the US government for a limited number of B52s to be temporarily based at RAF Fairford to undertake missions with conventional munitions against Iraqi military or strategic targets which are supporting the continuing Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. RAF Fairford is an established forward operating base for B52s and the Government have readily agreed to their request.
"At sea, while the allied navies have been much involved since August in enforcing the embargo, it is only in the last few days that there has been any significant action against the Iraqi navy. In these engagements in which RN Lynx helicopters and RAF Jaguars have played an important role, 10 Iraqi patrol boats and minesweepers have been sunk and up to a further 25 damaged. A number of these: vessels had an Exocet capability. These naval encounters have frustrated what may have been an amphibious attack designed to coincide with the land attack at Khafji which occurred yesterday.
"In respect of the 1st Armoured Division, the continuing delivery of supplies is further enhancing its battle-ready capability.
"The House will be aware that we are now starting to hold a number of Iraqi POWs. I wish to affirm again that they will be held in strict conformity with the requirements of the Geneva Convention. That is our absolute commitment, and we insist on those requirements being observed by the Government of Iraq as well. To parade captured aircrew on television is in total breach of the convention as would be any detention of them at strategic sites. I regret to inform the House that 806 the ICRC has still not even been informed of the names of any prisoners, let alone granted the access to which they are entitled. This inhuman treatment of the prisoners is causing great distress and the thoughts of us all are with their families, as is our admiration for the courage and steadfastness at such a difficult time. I confirm that we are making the strongest representations to the ICRC and the Iraqi authorities for these our concerns to be met.
"I turn now to our strengths in the Gulf. At the start of operations we had committed some 35,000 men to the Gulf. We have been strengthening units already deployed. Three additional battalions are being deployed to fulfil our obligations to prisoners of war. With the extra half squadron of Buccaneers I announced on 25th January, the total of UK personnel now committed will rise to about 42,000.
"The full operating costs in 1990–91 are now over £1.25 billion, excluding the cost of any replacement of loss of equipment and of munitions used. The daily operating cost has risen to over £4 million which so far would total nearly £200 million.
"In connection with these costs, I very much welcome the announcement by the German Government of a further 800 million deutschmarks contribution to our costs. We are very hopeful of other contributions from our friends and allies in support of our efforts in support of the United Nations.
"Turning now to matters of particular interest to our forces and their families, there have been complaints over difficulties in the availability at Post Offices of the very popular airletter, the bluey, and steps have been taken which I hope have dealt with this problem.
"Some honourable Members have told me of service families being charged normal international airmail rates for sending parcels to the Gulf. From tomorrow, I am pleased to announce that the Post Office is suspending the use of normal airmail rates for any parcels sent to BFPO addresses. All will be charged at the UK inland parcel rate. This clear instruction should end any confusion at Post Office counters about our policy.
"The telephone service we installed with the help of British Telecom and Mercury has been very popular but it is obviously somewhat expensive. We are therefore proposing to subsidise calls for all service personnel from the Gulf on a basis similar to that for forces in Northern Ireland. The value of this will be up to £10 a month; affecting, for example, three-minute calls at half price. I have to say to the House that many of our forces are not actually in early reach of a telephone kiosk at present, but their entitlements under this scheme will be accumulated for later use.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. It is 807 important that the Government keep Parliament fully informed, in so far as we can be fully informed, about the progress of events in the Gulf. On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Government in congratulating the coalition forces on the achievement so far and in extending our sympathy to the families and relatives of those who may be lost or missing in action.
If I have some questions on the Statement for the Minister, I shall fully understand if he replies that they are too sensitive to answer. I wish in all respects to be as co-operative as possible. Nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested if those questions can be answered without endangering our effort in the Gulf.
The Minister said that we now have air supremacy. Will he give a definition of what air supremacy means? We have had a number of definitions in the press, some of them contradictory, as between air supremacy and air superiority. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point.
Secondly, is there any indication of what the motive was for the sudden departure of some 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran? It is a most mysterious event. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the Government believe it was some planned venture or pilots defecting individually. What was it all about?
On the question of nuclear reactor capacity which the Minister said in the Statement had been destroyed in Iraq, does that mean, in the Government's view, that Iraq has no capacity for putting nuclear warheads on Scud missiles, or any other missile if it comes to that?
Fourthly, what in the Government's view was the point of the land attack at Khafji yesterday? Was it a propaganda effort by the Iraqis to show initiative? Indeed, it gained some propaganda value for the Iraqis; it showed that they were still around. How do the Government interpret what the Iraqi Government were trying to do?
We join with the Government in deprecating the treatment of prisoners of war by the Iraqis. We are glad that the Government are reaffirming their intention to follow the Geneva Convention in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. If the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been informed of the names of the prisoners, let alone been granted the access to which it is entitled, are there any other measures that the Government can take? We have recourse, for instance, to other diplomatic representation in Baghdad to ensure that prisoners of war receive proper treatment.
We give an unqualified welcome to the telephone and parcel rates to which the Minister referred. It is tremendously important for morale that forces in the Gulf should be encouraged to keep as much contact with home as they can. It is a tough life out there. Anything we can do to support them is welcome.
The most sombre part of the Statement was that it is likely to be some time yet before the Iraqi military capacity is sufficiently reduced to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait. We understand that; I am sure 808 that all your Lordships understand. All we can do at this stage is to congratulate the allied forces on their efforts so far and wish them well in the future.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, we too wish to express our gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We join also in the sense of outrage that he and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed about the treatment of prisoners of war. We note with satisfaction the big efforts the Government are making to try to make life a little more tolerable for the forces in the Gulf.
So much is happening in the Gulf that it is easy to under-rate the navy's magnificent achievement there in recent days. I do not know whether I am correct in my belief that in the Falklands and in the Gulf, every one of 19 Skua missiles discharged operationally has found the target. Whether that is so or not, the helicopter pilots, designers and manufacturers concerned deserve our warm admiration and thanks. The navy's achievement has been remarkable and should not be overlooked amid all the other important events that are taking place.
We welcome the Government's statement that air supremacy has been achieved. I take air supremacy to mean freedom of the skies for our aircraft and the complete eradication of the enemy air effort. If that is so, it is an important achievement and a milestone in the war. Perhaps I may say how glad we feel that the Minister linked that achievement with a tribute to our Tornados and our Tornado pilots who had the toughest job of all right at the beginning and who paved the way to subsequent achievements.
It was a surprise to hear about B52s being based at RAF Fairford. If that is operationally necessary and helpful we on these Benches support it wholeheartedly. I hope that security objections will not prevent the Minister explaining more of the thinking behind the move. Why Fairford? Other more accessible and handier bases come to mind. Without in any way risking a security breach, I wonder whether the Minister can say why Fairford has been chosen as an operational base for B52s.
Will the Minister say something about the remarkable Soviet-American agreement published yesterday? It spelled out with greater clarity, and more positively than before, what the two powers feel about the war aims and the handling of the Palestinian question after the war. Do the Government agree with that statement? There has been some disagreement among the coalition partners about the war aims. There is apparently some disagreement between the State Department and the White House. I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could enlighten us about the Government's attitude.
In general, as the Statement sets out a story of success, we find it reassuring. We hope and believe that the Government will not move from the war aims stated in the Security Council resolution. On that basis, the Government can be sure beyond doubt that they will have the support of these Benches.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Mayhew, for their warm appreciation 809 of, and support for, our success so far, and for their understanding that these are difficult and trying times not just for our men and women out in the Gulf but for their brave and courageous families who sit and wait at home for news from the front. These are very trying times.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the House should be kept as well informed as is the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That is understandable. I shall deal with a few of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. First, he asked about the definition of "air supremacy" as did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. We are now free to use air power to isolate the Iraqi forces, cutting off the supply routes to the occupying forces in Kuwait and further reducing Saddam Hussein's ability to fight on. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the mysterious event, as he called it, of approximately 100 Iraqi aircraft moving to Iran. It is indeed a mysterious event. There has been much speculation on this matter. It would not be right or wise of me to attempt to speculate further. I think as events unfold the intent will become clear.
Reference was made to the fitting of nuclear warheads on Scud missiles and to nuclear reactors. We very much hope that these have been put out of action, but one can never be sure in the circumstances. It is our fervent hope that that is the case. I refer to the recent attack on Khafji. It is very difficult to interpret the reason for the Iraqi advance. Again, we shall have to allow events to unfold in order to discover the reasoning behind it. The noble Lord also raised a very important point regarding the situation of the prisoners of war. I can tell the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that we are putting every possible pressure on the ICRC to give us the names of the prisoners. We are taking measures to find out whether we can do that ourselves. It is a very difficult matter which I realise is of interest to your Lordships and those at home who sit and wait.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a number of points. For reasons of security I cannot go into the subject of the Skua missiles except to say that there has been a very notable achievement by the Royal Navy. The noble Lord also asked about the B52s and why they are at Fairford. The other airfields capable of providing the logistic and ammunition support required by the B52s operating in the Gulf already have their full quota of aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about our war aims. I shall repeat firmly what I said last week: the objective shared with the United Nations, the United States, our European friends and allies and most Arab states, is to secure unconditional Iraqi withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty and independence and the restoration of its legitimate government".—[Official Report, 21/1/91; col. 68.]

The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I feel that a brief word from these Benches will be appropriate. The General Synod has been meeting in London during the past two days. We have spent much time in prayer for all those involved in the Gulf war. I thought 810 that your Lordships' House would like to know that. We felt at this time that statements from Churches are not particularly useful, but that there should be continuing prayer for those at the political level and in the field who have to make extremely difficult decisions. We felt that there should be prayer for our forces exposed to danger and for anxious families. We considered that to be the best contribution that we could make. I pledge the continuing support of the Churches in trying to work for a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict by that means. At the same time I report encouragingly that there have been many contacts over the past few weeks between Christians and Moslems in this country in an endeavour to defuse some of the possible community consequences in our own land.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm support from the most reverend Primate. As he rightly said, in this country prayer has always helped the hearts of many—those who are in the Gulf and others who are here. I am sure that your Lordships agree with his warm sentiments.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, can my noble friend give any information about the attempts to deal with the disastrous oil slick?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, much is happening and has happened in regard to that disastrous oil slick. The right way of expressing our disgust is to say that the release of the oil was pure environmental terrorism. The measures to reduce the impact and to protect the Saudi desalination plants are in hand. The United Kingdom is participating.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I am sure that the thoughts and feelings of every Member of this House are with our fellow citizens and those of every other country involved in the Gulf, and with their families. We are all hoping and working for their return to their homes. In that connection, I wish to press the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Do the British Government agree with the agreement reached between the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union in stating categorically that if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis withdraw from Kuwait hostilities will be brought to an end at that moment?
There is another question which is not necessarily linked or associated with that point. Do the Government also agree that once hostilities are ended an international peace conference will be organised which will deal with all the problems of this region including those of Israel and the Palestinians? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government as well as that of the United States and the Soviet Union?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for the thoughtful sentiments that he expressed concerning servicemen in the Gulf and their families back home. As I have already said, our objective is to secure unconditional Iraqi withdrawal and the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty and independence. It is not possible for 811 me to go further than that. Circumstances may change in the future; but that is how the situation stands at the moment.

The Earl of Selkirk
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the loss of the Tornados is in any way due to engine or airframe failure?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I think it is too early to give the precise reason. However, the crews have acted in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances by flying at very low heights and at very fast speeds. I can only thank God that there have not been higher casualties.

§ Baroness Hylton-Foster
My Lords, has the noble Earl any information as to whether the Iraqi Red Crescent organisation still exists and, if it does, whether it is able to co-operate in any way with the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the prisoners of war?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, my understanding is that the Red Crescent organisation still exists. If I am incorrect on that matter I shall let the noble Baroness know immediately after the completion of this Statement.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, no doubt the forces of our American allies will be uplifted by the speech made recently by their President. It was a formal but eloquent speech. Although they will not need it, would it be possible for a message to be sent from our Parliament to our servicemen and women in the Gulf so that they will know that they are very much in our thoughts and minds?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a noble gesture. I shall make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is made aware of it.

§ Viscount Caldecote
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question relating to the media coverage of the Gulf war. Do the Government feel that it is desirable and right that interviews should be conducted with individual servicemen in the front line and that those interviews should identify the serviceman concerned? Indeed, sometimes pictures are shown of them being interviewed. Would it not be better if such interviews, when desirable, were anonymous?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, my noble friend makes a reasonable point. However, I think the House will agree that the interviews we have seen so far on television have been conducted in a truly supreme and superb manner. That they have given us huge confidence at home is due to the manner in which they have been conducted.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Earl said that the costs of the war to date were about £4 million per day. Yet I was watching a television programme this lunchtime in which a woman estimated that the costs of the war over the next three months could be as much as £5 billion. I have worked out that at more than £4 million a day the cost over 812 three months will be £364 million. There is an enormous discrepancy between what the noble Earl has just told us and what is being fed to the general public. If figures of that kind—£5 billion over the next three months—are perpetually put over could this not undermine public support for our forces?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, to make any kind of estimate of the eventual cost of the war is a very dangerous and unwise thing to do. Obviously we hope that the cost will be as small as possible, that the casualties will be as small as possible and that the time spent out there will be as short as possible. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently: our forces will not be cash limited; they must have whatever is necessary.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Earl has not dealt with my question. I perfectly understand what he is saying—we cannot possibly know the cost—and it is quite right that our forces should not be cash limited. But some in the media are telling millions of British people that the war will cost them £5 billion. The Government should make some representation about that if they believe that such reports are exaggerated.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I understand perfectly what the noble Lord says. Anything put over in the media in that way is high speculation. As I have already said, the overall costs to date are £1.25 billion, and at the moment the costs per day are in the region of £4 million.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, it was disappointing to hear the stonewalling of the noble Earl on what is surely a reasonable request. An international agreement has been reached by the United States and the Soviet Union. It contains certain specifics. As an international agreement it is surely reasonable to ask our Government whether they adhere to it and approve of it. Surely the noble Earl can and should tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the agreement made two days ago by the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary of the Soviet Union. The agreement was in specific terms. Quite apart from their previously declared aims, do the British Government approve of the agreement reached by two of our allies?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I cannot be more specific about the stance of the British Government in these circumstances. We have already said that we look forward to the possibility of an international peace conference at the end of the war.