---

Ministry of Defence

What I am saying is that there are conceivable circumstances in which military action might be necessary even if a threat was not imminent, if a country that was not bound by the normal conventions, understandings and value systems of the international community were about to acquire mass destruction weapons. I do not think that, under the existing narrow interpretation of international law, such a situation would count as an imminent threat. I say quite clearly that I believe that there are some circumstances in which some regimes should be prevented from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I make no apology for saying that—and particularly not to the hon. Gentleman, who came late to the debate, although I was delighted to take his intervention. I will conclude my remarks by making a couple of brief references to the other contributors. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) made a strong defence of Parliament having its say, even when it can be embarrassing to one’s own side. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) made a strong point about the apparently conflicting motives of our strategy in Afghanistan, but I have referred to that already. In support of what he said, I draw the House’s attention to an article in today’s Financial Times, ““Afghan officials face public fury as farm aid fails to materialise””. It refers to one of the more northerly provinces and quotes the district governor in that impoverished area as saying:"““It would have been far better if we had promised nothing and simply told villagers that growing opium is against the law””." The disappointment that has arisen in that part of Afghanistan at the failure of compensation for not growing opium to arrive is clearly proving a source of grave irritation, friction and potential danger for our forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) took the radical view that a process of managed partition—what he called a velvet revolution—might be the answer to the situation in Iraq. I commend him for persevering with a view that at present may seem unorthodox. The strange thing is that solutions that start out by seeming unorthodox sometimes end up being adopted and vindicated in the future. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), as always, spoke up for the Army units based in his constituency. Again, he took the very robust view that we should stay as long as the Iraqi Government want us to. I have already referred in suitably complimentary terms to the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. In conclusion, the Committee has done a great service to the House of Commons, both by putting the Ministry of Defence on the spot about the inadequacy of the detail with which the estimates have been put forward and also, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea pointed out, by giving us an opportunity to debate some of the substantive issues that the Government have not been in a hurry to bring to the Floor of the House, at least since the general election. The Government should have the courage of their convictions. There is nothing to be afraid of in airing these matters in the House of Commons. Various Labour Members have debated them time and again when the opportunity has arisen. We debate these matters without rancour. We do not always come to an agreement, but at least we agree that the opportunity for a debate provides the best possible way of allowing an intelligent electorate to make up their minds.