| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Should not Saddam Hussein be fully aware of the awesome, coercive power of allied air power? Could not at least his generals comprehend its potential? At the start of the Gulf war, whole Iraqi formations were obliterated by the allied air forces, but since then, they have acquired further precision munitions and sea-borne cruise missiles of great accuracy. If the UK were to back down, would not American opinion take an extremely jaundiced view of our reliability as a security partner in Bosnia and other areas of mutual security interest?
Mr. Cook: In response to the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have come to the view that we have and are pursuing the policy that we are, first, because we wish to ensure stability in the Gulf and that that is not undermined by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass terror, and, secondly, because as a permanent member of the UN we have a particular responsibility to uphold such stability. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, at present, we are seeing an excellent example of close co-operation between the two Atlantic powers, but that is not why we are taking this action. We have come to the conclusion for our own reasons and on the balance of policy that, on this, we are right to ensure a resolute stand against Saddam Hussein.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's point that weapons have moved on since the Gulf war. Saddam Hussein should not be under any illusion about what might happen if military
force were used. That is why, when I was in Kuwait, I took the opportunity extensively to make statements on television stations that we know are beamed into Iraq and received in Baghdad.
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill):
Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that both Saddam Hussein and President Clinton, for different reasons, need a war?
Mr. Cook:
It is not the case that anybody needs a war. Saddam would be badly wounded, hurt and undermined in his power base if there were a military strike. Madeleine Albright and I have repeatedly explored all possible ways in which we can achieve a diplomatic solution. I understand the deep concern of hon. Members who are reluctant to see military action. However, if they want to avoid military action, it would be helpful if they outlined the alternative course of action that would be open to us if Saddam failed to respond to diplomatic initiatives.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
The question of sanctions has been raised constantly, yet we all know that they have not worked in the past and cannot work at present. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest help that Saddam has been getting is prevarication among international spokesmen, who give him credibility when he is acting incredibly? If people criticise the United States of America and the United Kingdom for their roles in the UN, they should stop asking us to bear the other burdens of the world. Will I cause consternation in the House if I suggest that those who have been holding back from supporting the concept of pressure on Saddam should be reminded that they, with Saddam, will share the guilt when innocent lives are lost?
Mr. Cook:
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members have genuine concerns. One of our strengths is that, unlike Iraq, we have a constitution that allows those concerns to be expressed. If Saddam had allowed 1 per cent. of the freedom that we claim for ourselves in Britain, he might well have been flung out of power by the Iraqi people.
In the meantime, the Government will continue to be resolute. I hope that Saddam Hussein will by now have grasped the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are resolute in seeing this through, and that we have very wide backing throughout the international community. Countries that may not necessarily join us in military action will most certainly join us in exerting diplomatic pressure and in condemning Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West):
Will my right hon. Friend rule out the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iraq?
Mr. Cook:
Yes, I can rule that out straight away.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
The Foreign Secretary said that our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein and not the people of Iraq. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that we are about to punish the people of Iraq for the transgressions of the dictator. Seven years after the end of the Gulf war, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there can be no lasting peace in the middle east while Saddam Hussein remains in power? In preparing for
Mr. Cook:
The Government strongly support the case for an international criminal court. One of the reasons why, since the general election, we have come out robustly in support of such a court is precisely that it could provide an international legal framework before which a person such as Saddam Hussein could be arraigned. Regrettably, the court does not exist at present and will not exist in the time scale of the current confrontation. However, the confrontation reminds us why we need to strengthen the international law regime.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Everyone must hope that the outcome of the present situation, whatever it is, will arise through diplomacy. May I support the call of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)--I have made it myself many times in the Chamber--for indicting Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court? Such a court is, by all accounts, likely to be set up by the United Nations after its conference in Rome in June. Can we then call for his indictment, as he will remain a problem, whatever the outcome of the present situation? Indeed, he and his closest associates are the problem, and they should be brought before the court on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of genocide.
Mr. Cook:
I assure my hon. Friend that we support Indict's campaign. As I said, if there was an international court before which we could bring Saddam Hussein, we would certainly now be trying to do so. My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge of the Iraqi situation; she is well aware of the immense suffering that has been imposed on the Iraqi people not by the international community, but by the direct oppression of Saddam. One of the reasons why he maintains his military force is that he has been known to amputate the hands of anyone who deserts his army. This is the behaviour of someone who has created immense suffering, hardship and grief for his own people, not to mention the other countries of the region.
Madam Speaker:
Thank you. We must now move on.
Mr. Benn:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I asked about the possibility of a debate. Time is passing and we are approaching the moment when the option of military force may be taken. Neither the Government nor the Opposition have chosen to table a motion that would allow the House to debate the matter and, if necessary, vote on it. I wonder whether you could use your good offices to ensure that the House is a place not just for discussion, but where real decisions may be made.
Madam Speaker:
I recollect that the Foreign Secretary, in answering a question today, informed the House that he was in negotiations with the Leader of the House about a debate on this matter. I shall certainly keep that, and the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, in mind.
4.19 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the preservation of war memorials; to ensure their proper transfer to a suitable location if their present site is redeveloped; to amend the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923; and for connected purposes.
The immortal words of Laurence Binyon stir most of us:
At remembrance services, we not only honour the dead who made the supreme sacrifice, but renew our determination never to let it happen again if at all possible. Those services take place at thousands of well-kept memorials up and down this land. One might be forgiven for concluding that there is no problem, but there is indeed a problem or, more correctly, a few problems.
First, we do not know exactly how many war memorials we have in the United Kingdom or where they all are. The charity Friends of War Memorials estimates that there are at least 50,000 and possibly up to 70,000. The national inventory of war memorials, started by Alan Borg, director general of the imperial war museum, is doing excellent work, but has recorded only about 26,000 of them so far. That inventory is vital. We cannot ultimately prevent a memorial from being lost, if we do not know of its existence in the first place.
For the most part, the vast majority of our war memorials are in good repair, well tended and not vandalised, and the names of those honoured are legible. However, not all are thus. Friends of War Memorials has disturbing documented evidence that hundreds of war memorials are in a state of disrepair or neglect. I have a file of photographs here, taken across the country, showing memorials broken, damaged or so eroded that the names have disappeared, while others tucked away at the back of a municipal park or garden are so overgrown with weeds that they are practically invisible.
However, there is an even worse problem. Some memorials no longer exist at all. When we see the awe-inspiring solidity of the Cenotaph, or the other great memorials to the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force around the country, or the marble, stone and bronze monuments commemorating the fallen in all our towns, villages and parishes, it is difficult to accept that some memorials are disappearing for ever, or are being disposed of inappropriately.
The problem is not those on public land or in civic ownership, but largely those in churches that have become redundant. In the past few years, hundreds of churches
have closed down and in many cases, the war memorials, rolls of honour and commemorative plaques have ended up in scrap yards or architectural salvage shops. In October last year, Mr. Ian Davidson, the founder of Friends of War Memorials, purchased for £35 from an antique dealer in Surrey a wooden memorial roll of honour containing the names of 109 war dead. That is just £3 per name. That memorial came from a redundant church, and he is searching for a suitable site for its rededication.
How has that appalling state of affairs come about? As a result of the sheer scale of losses in the first world war, every community was affected and wanted to build a war memorial. Of course, there was no legislation to control the construction and as a result, Britain now has a great wealth of memorials, some of outstanding architectural design and others much more plain, but all worth preserving. Thus we have memorials in churches, outside churches, in public parks, private gardens and cemeteries, in village halls, town halls and community centres, police headquarters and scout huts, hospitals, railway stations and private company offices, in small Government buildings in the provinces and great Departments of state in Whitehall and, of course, here in the royal palace of Westminster itself.
In most cases, no arrangements were made for future maintenance or upkeep when the memorials were built. It was just assumed that they would be maintained and there was no question of them being disposed of, just as no one thought in the 1920s that churches would become redundant one day. The first legislation to be passed was the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act 1923, which gave power to local authorities, including parish councils, to spend reasonable sums on
There is also legislation relating to the disposal of memorials in disused churches, but that is primarily concerned with burial grounds, the proper reinterment of human remains and the appropriate disposal of any accompanying monuments or memorials. The legislation is weak on memorials to people who are not buried in church grounds and, of course, it does not apply to all those buildings which do not have burial grounds attached. That is why so many memorials are being destroyed or sold off, or turning up in scrap yards. The legislation even states that memorials shall be broken or defaced before being otherwise disposed of. It is obvious to me that the legislation is intended to deal with individual tombstones in old cemeteries and that it was never envisaged that war memorials should be disposed of in that way.
The House will agree that there are loopholes in our existing law and that there is a problem that is growing daily. I am not asking the Government to take responsibility and therefore pay for any action, because that would be wrong in principle. The Government should be responsible only for national war memorials and those on Crown land; it cannot be right to make them responsible for memorials in churches, village halls, community centres and the thousands of private buildings and places that currently house war memorials. Nor should we make local authorities automatically responsible, as that might impose a large new financial
burden. It is only where there are no alternative carers for memorials that local authorities might be given a duty to be the carer of last resort. However, I can envisage some possible solutions, which I want to examine carefully with some Government assistance. My only request to the Minister today is that she permits me to seek advice from the relevant officials in the Home Office who are knowledgeable on these matters.
The suggestion has already been made that all war memorials should be treated as listed monuments and so be made subject to the same planning controls as apply to all listed buildings and ancient monuments. That was the subject of an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), which attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. That idea has considerable merit and we need to explore what changes to the legislation would be necessary and to consider whether there might be unforeseen consequences. There are many memorials that are lovingly tended by veterans associations, regimental trusts and existing military units. Any solution to protect the vulnerable or neglected war memorials should not impinge on the excellent work being done by those who already care for so many of our memorials.
We also need to explore new ways in which to raise finance to ensure that all war memorials are maintained in pristine condition, irrespective of who owns them. Memorials must be maintained, not only because to do otherwise is grossly offensive to the memories of those who made the supreme sacrifice so that we could live in freedom and because the memorials are a precious part of our national heritage, but because destruction and neglect of memorials sends the wrong signal to our younger generations--that war and the death it brings are of little importance.
When the veterans form up in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, television usually shows us scenes from impeccably kept Commonwealth war graves from around the world: mile upon mile of white crosses or simple stones bearing the names of the fallen, which are as carefully tended today as they were 50 or 70 years ago. When we see that stark picture of the destruction that war brings, do we not strengthen our resolve to prevent that in future?
I have with me here another stark picture, of a large brass plate containing the names of 35 men from the Southampton area who died in the great war. It is boldly inscribed:
If we can so easily betray the memory of past generations by throwing their memorial into a scrap yard, why should today's generation have any confidence that they too would not be betrayed? As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wrote in the Royal British Legion's "Golden Book of Remembrance":
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Yes, we will remember them and, for the most part, we do. There is a new interest in remembrance. The undoubted success of the Royal British Legion's 11.11.11 campaign shows that people of all ages appreciate how important it is never to forget. Young people too, who could never be accused of wanting to glorify war, realise that remembrance of past suffering is the prerequisite to the avoidance of future conflict.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."
"the maintenance, repair and protection of any war memorial within their district".
However, it is a power, not a duty.
"Their name liveth for evermore",
but it was found a few months ago lying tarnished and rusty in a scrap yard. It has been restored, and the finder is now searching for a suitable home for it.
"As those who are left grow old, it falls to those who have derived the great benefits of peace and freedom in succeeding generations to say of the fallen, 'We will remember them'."
My Bill is a step towards ensuring that in all cases, their names will live for ever more.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |