House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Mar 1991

Column 1371

problems, including typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and polio. Those diseases are occurring in Basra as well as in Baghdad.

Basra is a port. It has massive dock facilities, large marshalling yards, a railway complex, an airport and oil installations. It was hit hard. We have had various reports from Basra and some information about what the bombings sounded like from Iran. Basra was hit by B52 carpet bombs and by precision bombing, which may have saved lives in certain circumstances--where it did not go wrong--and which was resorted to in areas other than Basra. There were no journalists or television cameras present to tell us the depths of what happened in Basra.

In the Easter Adjournment debate yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) made a moving speech about the situation in Iraq. My hon. Friend quoted two faxed communications that had been received from Iran and which originally emerged from Basra. One was an appeal from the people of Basra, and it stated :

"We are fighting for all Iraqis and for all humanity everywhere. We are in full control of Basra, but your families, children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers from Basra--they are in great need for food and medicines."--[ Official Report, 14 March 1991 ; Vol. 187, c. 1140.]

Humanitarian relief in Basra is being initiated on a small scale under United Nations resolution 666, which is about the supply of foodstuffs and medical supplies, initially in connection with sanctions, but it has been reinforced by resolution 678, which was interpreted as being about war, but is also linked with the consequences of the war. That resolution should apply to Baghdad, Kuwait, Basra and other areas.

Mr. Dalyell : It is relevant to recall the moving reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to the situation in Coventry in the 1940s, and a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party in the 1940s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and I attended. Furthermore, it is relevant to recall the impression that was left by people such as Alderman George Hodgkinson of Coventry and what happened during the reconstruction of Coventry after the horror that it endured. I suspect that the horror in Basra was many times worse.

Mr. Barnes : We do not know the number of people who have been killed in Iraq. Reference has been made to 140,000 people, but some will say that a quarter of a million people were killed. Let us say that 180,000 people were killed. That figure represents 1 per cent. of the population of Iraq. Most hon. Members' constituencies contain about 100,000 people, so we are talking about 1,000 deaths, on average, within a constituency. Some areas were barely touched, but Basra must have suffered tremendously.

I have an interest in Basra. A long time ago, I undertook my national service there in 1955-56. Therefore, I have the greatest affinity not only with RAF forces there but with the people with whom I worked. People often worked in abysmal circumstances. It was not unusual to see people working in the marshalling area carrying on their backs goods which no human being should have been asked to carry. That was some time ago and technology there has not advanced much, but I suspect that Iraq has advanced considerably in certain matters to do with prestige, military power and the authority of the Baath

Column 1372

party and Saddam Hussein. Masses of people still live in mud huts and reed huts, and in the best of times, there are limited electricity, water and sewerage facilities. People in such conditions may have been affected by the bombing.

It is important to learn lessons from the past. We must ensure that we get full information. In such a debate it is possible to seek common ground between those who supported the war and those, such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who strongly opposed it and now believe that subsequent events justified our opposition. Nevertheless the question of what we should do remains. Earlier Tory Members mentioned what the British Government were doing and I, too, shall quote from the Conservative research department brief. It provides the key points to stress in showing what the British Government are doing. We need to consider whether its list of four points is adequate, given the nature of this disaster. The brief states :

"The British have responded quickly to the environmental problems caused by the Gulf War."

It then gives the four key points :

"Britain was the first country to respond to the International Marine Organisation's appeal for a £1 million donation.

The Department of the Environment has sent pollution control and ecological experts to help in the Gulf.

The Government has ordered 3 oil recovery skimmers worth £300,000 which will be sent to Bahrain.

90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment--mostly booms--from industry stocks held in Britain were flown out to the Gulf on the 28th, 29th and 30th January."

All those items are welcome and I imagine that the list could be longer as those are given as the "Key Points". The Conservative research department has presented those points to save the Government from criticism during the debate, so that they can carry their corner. Those measures are inadequate to meet the scale of the tragedy. They are insignificant compared with the resources that went into the war effort. The consequences of the war are likely to be horrendous.

War is the greatest factor in social change, especially in this century of total war. The greatest changes to this country have not occurred under Thatcherism or even under the Attlee Government. They were set in motion by and occurred during the first and second world wars. They had tremendous consequences not only for this country, but for the world. This war will have the same effect on the Gulf area. The consequences will mainly be disastrous and many of them have already been mentioned.

We, in common with others, may see the need and may be able to take action to improve the position in the middle east. There are the strongest humanitarian reasons, as well as political reasons, for mass assistance. The political reasons include the need to make links with Arabs generally, so that they feel that the rest of the world is helping them overcome their problems. Many issues, such as the Palestinian question, can be considered, but that may go wide of the provisions in the motion.

Certainly there should be the fullest possible support for United Nations resolution 666. We bombed Saddam Hussein in an attempt to make him follow United Nations resolutions, yet resolution 666 provided that the United Nations and its members in certain circumstances should give him aid. The resolution had relatively little to do with Saddam Hussein. It had to do with us and the rest of our world in response to the situation. We should act as quickly as possible to provide the money and the resources

Column 1373

that are needed, using the agencies of the World Health Organisation and UNICEF. They could also be provided directly or through links with Europe.

In order to play as full a role as possible in providing assistance, we need to understand the scale of the tragedy. We need as much information as possible from Iraq about what actually occurred, because a full and honest story must be presented and journalists and others must be given the opportunity to do that. The more that Saddam Hussein is allowed to maintain his authority over rebel Kurd and Shi'ite forces the less likely is it that we will be able to obtain information about what he is involved in.

People must fully realise what we were doing and what we were generally supporting. When that is quickly understood we can create pressures in society for humanitarian resources.

12.31 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate. I gather that the Government Chief Whip described the hon. Gentleman's luck as black magic. The hon. Gentleman has extraordinary luck in securing Adjournment debates and debates such as this one, and he often does so at precisely the time that suits him. I make those points out of jealousy.

As usual, most of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow said was most impressive. I had the good fortune to serve until Thursday on the Committee examining the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. In that Committee the hon. Gentleman displayed the enormous array of his interests, talents and expertise on environmental matters. He also gave us the benefit of his specific knowledge on Scottish matters, and in this debate he has shown the same flair in speaking about the Gulf and its wildlife and flora and fauna. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that. My only criticism is of his rather endearing habit of reading out almost every letter that he receives to make sure that they get into the record. However, such a habit is valuable.

Mr. Dalyell : If I were to read out all the letters that I receive no hon. Member would get a chance to participate in the debate.

Mr. Hughes : I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his restraint in reading only a few of the letters. One general criticism is that the hon. Gentleman has got himself into the position of believing that he was the only one warning about these things at the time and that his warnings should have been a brake upon action by the allied powers. If we allowed the possibility of environmental pollution and destruction to be the paramount argument against military action, there would never be such action. So whatever Saddam Hussein decided he would do- -whatever countries he decided that he wanted to invade, whatever control of the area's oil supply and economy, or of the world's economy, he wanted to take for himself--we should take no military action to stop him because of the possibility or likelihood of environmental damage. That is not a view that I can share.

Column 1374

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that those who drew attention to what Saddam Hussein threatened and then said that we should not take military action to deal with him were, in effect, arguing that we should give in to blackmail? Saddam Hussein was proving that he was a psychopathic, evil and blackmailing character. If we had said that we would give way to him, it would have encouraged him to make even worse threats later and to invade other countries. It was right that we should put an end to a particularly evil man's attempts to blackmail civilisation.

Mr. Hughes : I genuinely respect the sincerity and consistency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on these matters. I have tried to express my criticism in only one context in as mild a way as I can. I have other things to say about some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Dalyell : I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on a matter of fact. The warnings did not appear in my own name. I was careful to go on and on asking whether there had been some response to the King of Jordan's figures, which came from Dr. Abdullah Toucan. They were produced not on the basis of work carried out at the Amman Scientific institute, although I believe that that institute is a serious place, but at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was the MIT's findings that I thought deserved a response.

Mr. Hughes : I accept that. I recall the hon. Gentleman advancing that argument. One of the problems with the King of Jordan was that he caused himself to be boxed in to a position in which anything that he said was liable to be sidelined. I am not sure whether it was prudent or logical in the early days of the war for us to sideline King Hussein in the way that both the British Government and the Government of the United States did. The King of Jordan was making claims in many areas that were either irresponsible or unfounded and, therefore, that which he said that had some foundation was liable to be treated in the same way as those claims.

We have not yet explored the issue of war crimes. When we talk about war crimes, we talk normally about the use of unconventional weapons, grave breaches of the Geneva convention, wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, or wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. In those areas of grave breaches that are set out in the four Geneva conventions of 1949 there is reference to

"extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." There is reference also to

"plunder of public or private property and wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

Part of the war crimes for which Saddam Hussein was responsible was the destruction of the environment. Britain has not committed war crimes, but anyone who listened to some of the speeches of Labour Members who supported the hon. Member for Linlithgow would have thought that the allies, and especially the British Government, had committed such crimes. The war crimes were carried out deliberately by Saddam Hussein. One of the greatest and perhaps most enduring of those war crimes has been the destruction of the environment described today by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We must not forget what Saddam Hussein has done.

Column 1375

The hon. Member for Linlithgow made the only speech from the Opposition Benches for which I have any time. The speeches of other Labour Members were contemptible. They tried to blame the destruction of the environment and loss of life on the coalition forces. I cannot accept that. To be fair, such a view would not be accepted on the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Harry Barnes : The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what some of us have beeen arguing. Perhaps I can draw an analogy in the form of a madman or mad organisation conducting a hijack. We have to decide how to respond to the situation. Do we send in troops with hand grenades, or do we try to engage in a much more sophisticated response in an attempt to release the hostages? That is the difference between us in relation to the response. There was no support for the madman engaged in the activities that we have heard described today. He is an evil, totalitarian madman. What did we expect him to do when we responded as we did?

Mr. Hughes : That is not a good analogy. Other methods to stop what eventually happened were pursued. We tried sanctions and appeals to Saddam Hussein. Right hon. and hon. Members went to Bahdad to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. I had the honour to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) at the time and I know how hard he tried to persuade Saddam Hussein not to do what he did.

In the end, those methods did not work. Virtually the whole world, like both sides of this House, concluded that the only way to bring the matter to an end was through military force. To place any of the blame for what happened on the coalition countries that were carrying out the United Nations wishes is wrong. Before the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West (Mr. Barnes) talks about the United Nations again, I wish that he would read the articles in the charter. He would then understand that what was done in the name of the United Nations was entirely proper.

Mr. John Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that the events that have unfolded in Kuwait since the successful liberation of that country, the sights that we have seen and the reports of the horrors that took place during the Iraqi invasion and occupation, show that, if anything, it was not a question of our not being patient enough with Saddam Hussein? Rather, we were too patient. We gave him too long and he was able to do worse things than he could have done if we had acted earlier.

Mr. Hughes : I was about to make that point, and it was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Had we delayed, more people would have been killed.

It is all very well to talk about the destruction of Baghdad and Basra and the effect on the Iraqi people. However, such comments should be coupled with reference to the enormous destruction in Kuwait, the effect on Kuwaiti people and the likely effect of further outrages on Kuwaiti people had the Iraqis been allowed to remain. I want to consider the environmental consequences of what has happened. I want first to consider the oil. The Kuwait Oil Company's damage assessment shows that approximately 950 wells have been sabotaged, of which 550 are burning. The damage has been severe enough to

Column 1376

destroy safety and flow limiting devices, and in some cases to allow the oil to flow around the casing, increasing it further still. The KOC estimates that between 5 million and 6 million barrels a day are burning.

In addition, oil refineries and storage facilities have been sabotaged, and that could mean the loss of up to 15 million barrels. The big question this raises is for how long the fires will burn. The fires at the oil refineries and storage facilities are mostly out, so the environmental threat comes mostly from the burning wells. Earlier estimates of the time taken to extinguish fires in those wells ranged from a few months to a year. Many regard that as optimistic because of the logistics involved in putting them out, especially the use of large quantities of water. If I were being generous, I would say that that is the one point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The estimate is that the fires will take between three and five years to put out. To be any more certain than that would be difficult.

The environmental impact of the fires depends on the behaviour of the smoke. If the smoke stays at a low altitude, it will fall out or be washed out locally or regionally. If the smoke reaches an altitude of 10 km or more, it will remain in the atmosphere for much longer. That could have more widespread effects on the climate. Calculations have been made that smoke from individual oil well fires will rise only 1 km or so, although any large fires at refineries could result in smoke that rises much higher. Therefore, it is a little early to know what the long-term environmental impact of that will be. Our Meteorological Office has been looking in some detail at the global effects of these fires. Carbon dioxide emissions could add about 3 per cent. to the global emissions from other activities in the first year and 1 per cent. in the second. The ozone layer is unlikely to be affected, provided that the majority view that the gases capable of destroying ozone are unlikely to reach the stratosphere in significant quantities is correct.

Earlier analyses examined the possibility that smoke could trigger the climate effects forecast in the nuclear winter, including failure of the Asian monsoon. This is an interesting analogy because of the many predictions made about the Asian monsoon, what has actually happened, and the detailed modelling that has been done. The work done by the Meteorological Office and others claims that the effect on the monsoon would be negligible, and probably much less than the year-to-year variability. Therefore, whatever might happen to the monsoon, that may have nothing to do with the oil fires, or their effect on the monsoon may be relatively small and not one that could be put down simply to that cause.

I shall deal now with sanctions, which have a bearing on the situation on the people inside Iraq. There has been much talk about sanctions on both sides of the House. One point has either not been appreciated or has not been fully explained. It is that sanctions have not at any time, and do not now, prohibit medicines from being taken into Iraq. If children have been denied medicines, it is entirely because the Iraqi Government refuse to allow them to come in. That has to be understood and appreciated.

Mr. Harry Barnes : The hon. Gentleman is wrong about sanctions on foodstuffs and medical supplies. The resolutions state that in certain circumstances, when there are serious problems in providing foodstuffs and medical supplies, action can be taken to supply them. A host of

Column 1377

sanctions on air and sea movement obviously affect the ability of people to send foodstuffs and medical supplies to Iraq. Special action must be taken to supply those goods.

Mr. Hughes : If the Iraqi Government had made it clear to the Red Cross that they needed medical supplies, they could have been taken in, and could still be taken in, despite sanctions. At any stage, essential medical supplies could have been taken to Iraq. The fact that the Iraqi people have been denied them is entirely down to the Iraqi Government, and that should not be forgotten.

One of the friends of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East who consistently voted with the hon. Gentleman against the Gulf war suggested on a platform that we shared that we were too soft and that we should not have allowed medical supplies or foodstuffs to go to Iraq. There are different views on this matter.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke about the Palestinians, and some tributes have been paid to his speech. I do not join them. As usual, the hon. Gentleman spoke as though he were the only person who had ever had any experience of visiting Palestinian refugee camps. He implied that the problems of the Palestinians were caused by the war. That is a new twist on the old chestnut that the Palestinians' problems were caused by the Israelis. That historical and factual nonsense must be put down at once. I visited one Palestinian refugee camp outside Tripoli in Lebanon three times within a week. On the second occasion, the camp was controlled by a different Palestinian faction from the one that controlled it the other times--there had been enormous battles between my visits. On each occasion, bodies lay around and enormous suffering was experienced by the people. Palestinians were causing immense suffering to fellow Palestinians. The suffering of the Palestinians and the fact that their problems have not been solved cannot again be laid at the door of the coalition or Israel ; they must be laid at the door of the Arab people in general and the so-called Palestinian leadership.

If the Arab countries around Israel wanted seriously to do something about the appalling living conditions and suffering of the Palestinian people, they would read resolution 242, recognise Israel's borders and give guarantees about their security and ensure that they gave space, help and housing to the Palestinian refugees, even if only temporarily. None of those things has happened. To bring the Palestinians into the debate as the hon. Member for Hillhead did is to do no justice to their cause and is to hide behind the facts.

Mr. John Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the invasion of Kuwait was that many thousands of Palestinians lost their jobs? Does he agree that many thousands of Palestinians had to leave Kuwait quickly because of the invasion? Does my hon. Friend remember meeting the mayor of Bethlehem, who said that 5,000 Palestinians from Bethlehem who had been working in Kuwait could no longer do so and that those who had been sending remittancee from Kuwait to Bethlehem suddenly found that, because of the equalisation of the Iraqi and the Kuwaiti dinar, their bank accounts were worthless and those remittances stopped? The Palestinian people were one of the main victims of the invasion of

Column 1378

Kuwait and the folly of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in supporting Saddam Hussein has made peace in the middle east much more difficult.

Mr. Hughes : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I and some Opposition Members met the mayor of Bethlehem who expressed those worries. He said that he had a hospital paid for by the Kuwaitis. It was not yet finished, but in the parts that were open the doctors and nurses had been paid for by the Kuwaitis. He wondered who would fund the hospital now. The way in which the Palestinian people--and especially their leadership-- welcomed the invasion of Kuwait and cheered when Scud missiles were launched against defenceless Israeli people has put back their cause. The Palestinian issue may be tangential to the debate, but as it has been introduced, it must be recognised that the person who has done most harm to the Palestinian cause is Saddam Hussein. He must bear a terrible responsibility for that.

The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and for Derbyshire, North-East and others said that the Government have done too little. They said that the Government should have acted sooner and that people should have been sent to the Gulf to solve the environmental problems. However, there was a war on, and anyone who has been in an area where bullets, grenades and missiles are flying about knows that it is not easy to do one's job in such circumstances. It would have been impossible for the Government to act sooner. They were the first to give money to the International Maritime Organisation and have taken the problems seriously, which should be welcomed.

Mr. Dalyell : That is an extremely important point. Before anybody can start tackling the oil fires, something must be done about mines and booby traps.

Mr. Hughes : That is a fair point. The criticism was not made by the hon. Gentleman, who has been fair. Anyone who quotes from a Conservative research department document must be making a fair speech.

Mr. Harry Barnes : Well, I did then.

Mr. Hughes : There are exceptions to everything.

The Government should be congratulated on the speed and nature of their response and on the way in which expert help has been offered, not to take over, but to give aid to the people trying to tackle the problems. I congratulate the Government on what they have done. I shall finish where I started--by congratulating the hon. Member for Linlithgow on bringing these matters to our attention once again, and on giving us such a detailed insight into his knowledge. That has been valuable for the House, for the nation and for the region in question.

12.53 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : I agree with the last comment made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). We should all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on what he described as his good fortune in having secured this debate. The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that it was possibly black magic. If my hon. Friend had not won the ballot for the debate, I am sure that his ingenuity, which knows no bounds, would have enabled him to find another suitable occasion to raise these issues at length. As

Column 1379

you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, his persistence is well known and well respected by many hon. Members, as the debate has proved. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to raise awareness of the difficulties and problems that have arisen as a result of the conflict in the Gulf. He said that he was not the only person to give warnings and advice about what might happen. I must say, however, that his extremely high profile on this issue has meant that a great deal of attention has been paid to the problems. We are grateful to him for choosing this subject for debate and for the information he has given to the House on other occasions. We have had some interesting speeches from both sides of the House. I agreed with much of the measured and sensitive speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) who outlined the difficulties that have arisen. I also agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The speeches from other hon. Members have ranged somewhat wider than the narrow confines of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Although those hon. Members raised genuine concerns and issues relevant to the wider context, I want to keep my remarks to the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

There is no doubt that the ecological consequences of the Gulf war have been extremely serious. As with any environmental incident, the impact and consequences of what has happened in the Gulf will be felt for many years to come. In some respects some of the damage caused may never be reversed-- damage to the local environment, certain species of wildlife and the potential damage to the health of many individuals and, possibly, future generations.

Today there has been some discussion of the scale of that damage and the problems that we face. Given the different types of damage, its total scale is unknown, but it is clear that it is enormous. In some respects it is difficult to comprehend fully the enormity of the problems that we now face. Experts and laymen alike are extremely worried about what has already happened and what will happen in the next months and years.

Several different types of damage have been caused, but I first want to discuss the oil slicks and the difficulties that have arisen since the end of January. We were all shocked, although some people may not have been surprised, at the deliberate release of oil from the Sea island oil terminal and the subsequent releases from elsewhere. At the time it was suggested that that slick might be due to the military activities of the allied forces. The scale of that original oil slick made that unlikely, however, and shortly after we had the statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 January, Saddam Hussein acknowledged that he had deliberately released oil into the Gulf.

The consequences of that slick have been severe and they have brought home to many people the horror and potential for environmental damage posed by such pollution. We have seen horrific sights in the past, for example, that caused by Exxon Valdez and other tankers. The consequences resulting from those slicks, however, have been far outweighed by the disaster that has hit the Gulf as a result of the deliberate release of oil in January.

We are aware from reports in yesterday's newspapers that the Exxon corporation has agreed to pay $900 million, about £500 million, to complete the clean-up in Alaska. That gives us some idea of the magnitude of the

Column 1380

task that we shall face in the Gulf. We should not forget that the problems relating to the Gulf oil spillage are far worse than those encountered in Alsaka, because of the nature of the Gulf. The sea in that region is shallow--110 ft on average--and it lies in an enclosed area. Although the coast of Alaska was devastated, at least the sea cleaned the shore every few days. It takes 200 years for the Gulf waters to be renewed, which shows just how serious the problems are and will remain for a long time to come.

Many species and habitats have been threatened by the consequences of the oil slick. The most endangered habitats are the sea grass beds, which cover 46 per cent. of the seabed in the shallow coastal waters and are home to a rich variety of marine vertebrates and invertebrates. They are nursery grounds for commercial shrimps and fish, which provide an important livelihood for local people and much of their available food.

The oil slick has endangered species and hit the food and employment potential of people in the region, as well as the oil industry and other local industry. Some people would say that the only other viable industry in the region, apart from oil, is the fishing industry.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, coral reef habitats have also been affected. They, too, are extremely valuable--especially to the fishing industry--and vulnerable, not least because the Gulf is the northern extremity of their range, Therefore, they can be easily damaged but will not recover easily from that damage. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members mentioned bird and marine life and the difficulties experienced by some species of cormorant. The impact on some mammals has, thankfully, been relatively light--there was a report of one dolphin and two green turtles being lost, so casualties at this stage are not thought to be fantastically high.

On the other hand, bird mortalities are significant. They are estimated at between 10,000 and 20,000. In recent days, many migratory species have been found oiled. They are early spring migrants, and as the migration increases so does their prospect of even greater damage.

Clearly, the west possesses significant expertise in dealing with such problems. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of oil slicks causing damage and we have had to learn quickly and take good advice about what action to take. I am sorry to say that the most recent report that I have seen on the oil slick in the Gulf from a group of experts from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, made up of the World Conservation Unit, the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Wide Fund for Nature. The centre has been providing significant briefings in the past few weeks on current events in the Gulf. Its most recent report, issued on 12 March, says :

"Very little co-ordinated clean up is being done.

Some 40 specialist companies are touting for clean-up work, but lack of available funds means that very little is actually happening".

When such a report is issued this week from people in the area, it is extremely worrying. I hope that the Minister will deal with that report and give us an update of events. More urgent action is needed because we have been discussing the problem for about six weeks and those in the Gulf still say that there is a lack of co-ordination and unified effort, so clearly, everything possible is not yet being done. May we have an update on the protection of the desalination plants, which are critical to the people in the region? There is scope for protecting the plants with

Column 1381

booms, but the dangers that would arise were oil to enter the water treatment plants would be severe and the impact would last for many years. It is important to mention what has been happening in the Gulf, not just in the past few weeks, but over recent years. It is right that we should be desperately concerned about the impact of the present oil slicks caused by the conflict in the Gulf over recent weeks. But we should not ignore the significant long-term damage caused in the region even before the Gulf war started. From reports that I have seen, it is clear that much damage was being done to the environment by many of those involved in the oil industry in that region.

Pollution in the Gulf did not start in January 1991, but has been going on for many years due to leakages from oil terminals, tankers being washed out in the Gulf and a generally casual attitude by many of those responsible for the oil industry. If there is one other lesson to be learnt from the oil slick, it may be that the whole of the oil industry must be more cautious, careful and strict in its general attitude.

Mr. Lewis Stevens (Nuneaton) : Does the hon. Lady agree that not just the oil industry, but some of the Governments in the Gulf should take responsibility for what has happened over recent years?

Mrs. Taylor : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is unfortunate that it has taken an incident of this sort and of such severity to bring home to people in the region, as well as outside it, the significant dangers of such a casual attitude towards pollution. Perhaps now, people in other districts will learn from this lesson before a crisis arises near them. If so, some good may come for other regions and lessons may be learnt.

Another problem that has been devastating the region, particularly Kuwait, in the past few weeks has been that of oil fires. That deliberate act by Saddam Hussein has created senseless damage. It was a vindictive act because it gave Saddam Hussein no military advantage during the conflict. The immediate impact on the people of Kuwait of setting fire to oil has been seen by all of us on our television screens, where there have been pictures of daylight scenes, with cars needing to have their headlights on full in the near darkness. Estimates of the damage done by oil wells being deliberately set alight and the oil being ignited, and the amount of smoke generated, vary considerably. However, whatever estimates we make, none of the news is good. The estimates vary only in terms of just how desperate the position will be and how long it will remain a critical problem. From information that I have it seems that about 950 wells have been sabotaged, of which 550 are thought to be burning at present. The Kuwait Petroleum Company estimates that between 5 million and 6 million barrels per day of oil are burning at present. That estimate exceeds most of the worst case scenarios given before the incident took place. How long the fires will last is equally uncertain. We have heard again about the problems of booby traps and the difficulties of getting equipment to the scene. In recent days we have been told that some fires were started and mines detonated in ways that were not predicted at earlier times in the crisis. In other words, those concerned are learning day by day about new developments and problems that must be taken on board.

Column 1382

It is estimated that those problems will be with Kuwait and, I would add, with the whole of the world's environment-- for between one and three years. Clearly, there is a global impact. Carbon dioxide emissions, I am told, could increase by 3 per cent. on a global basis in the first year and by 1 per cent. on the same basis in the second year.

It seems unlikely that the ozone layer will be affected, but significant climatic changes are taking place in the region. Black rain has been experienced in Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, and even in Turkey, over 600 miles away. We are learning of reductions in daytime temperatures and of increased rainfall acidity, which is now four times the normal rate. That makes the rates about as bad as those in the worst parts of Europe. We must not lose sight of the fact that certain parts of the world are living with these problems daily. The combination of factors raises questions about the health of the people in the area, particularly in Kuwait, where families must fear for the long-term welfare of their children. That particularly applies to those susceptible to respiratory diseases, although it is known that some pollutants resulting from burning oil can be carcinogenic.

The third part of the motion deals with the health crisis that is being observed in Kuwait and Iraq. Conservative Members have mentioned that aspect during the debate, but have not gone into the detail of it. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment, when speaking in Nottingham last night, mentioned oil slicks and burning oil wells, but did not deal with the problems facing the innocent civilian populations of Kuwait and Iraq.

Damage has been caused to water supplies and the sewerage infrastructure of both countries. There are problems from the contamination of fisheries and the possible long-term impact on agriculture. There is also the danger of sulphur from acid rain entering the food chain. The situation is critical and continued fighting in parts of Iraq is making the problem worse. Innocent civilians in both countries are suffering and are likely to suffer for a long time to come.

Agencies, such as the joint mission of the WHO and UNICEF which visited the area in recent days, have confirmed fears about immediate and potentially severe risks resulting from problems including water-related epidemics. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Oxfam have been active in attempting to repair water treatment systems and provide emergency supplies of chlorine for disinfecting water supplies.

I hope that, internationally, the Government are doing more to co-operate with the efforts of the various agencies. That must be the way forward if we are to bring immediate relief to the people of Kuwait and the innocent civilians of Iraq.

The World Health Organisation/UNICEF report states that there are many problems, including--I hope that the Minister will address this one particularly--the fact that

"The chemical plants which used to supply the main treatment elements, aluminium sulphate and chlorine, have been destroyed by bombing".

That means that there is a basic incapacity to purify the water in the area, and that means that the problems will continue for some time. In many areas of Iraq, the water supply is extremely and seriously restricted. There is clearly an urgent need in both Kuwait and Iraq for water supply treatment chemicals, spare parts of the distribution network, and pumping stations and treatment facilities.

Column 1383

Will the Minister clarify the position on sanctions on those items? If we are saying that medical supplies should be allowed through because of the needs of innocent civilians, we must also address the question of the essential but otherwise harmless chemicals that are so clearly required to prevent epidemics spreading in the area. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has had discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that the Government will do their utmost and maximise everyone's efforts to ensure that all the agencies involved are given the fullest possible help when combating the real, serious and life-threatening dangers that now exist for the people of the Gulf.

It is difficult to see how anything constructive or beneficial could come out of the Gulf conflict, but certain ideas that have been mentioned could be utilised to minimise the danger of such problems occurring in the future. There have been discussions of late about whether the Geneva convention should be strengthened to provide greater protection for the environment. Article 55 of the convention deals with the protection of the natural environment. However, in view of all that has happened in recent weeks, I believe that it is right to look at that article again to see whether that protection needs updating. I hope that the Minister will convey that message to his right hon. and hon. Friends.

We now need to direct our efforts towards the environmental construction of the whole of the Gulf area. We must use the knowledge, monitoring procedures and expertise of the west to ensure that everything possible is done to reconstruct the Gulf area environmentally and to protect that part of the environment and the eco-system that is so far surviving all the devastation that has taken place there. Western countries, including our own, should be taking a lead. We need integrated environmental monitoring. We need a new approach to the problem of water management in the Gulf area, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The Tigris and the Euphrates are being over-abstracted. The potential for conflict will arise again if we do not have better management of such resources, which should be agreed internationally.

If we are to talk about planning the peace and about building more stability into the region, we must ensure that we tackle the problems of the area, such as water management, and seek some co-operation over the development of Gulf fisheries. We must also tackle the problems of irrigation, agriculture and of resources generally.

Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend has given much of her parliamentary time to water-related issues. May I emphasise once again that this is a hydraulic civilisation and quote the phrase of Senor Rojo, which was quoted by John Pilger? Water-borne diseases could be the silent assassin.

Next Section

Home Page