§ 3. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell)If he will make a statement on troop levels in Iraq. [128419]
§ 6. Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)If he will make a statement on the peacekeeping role of UK troops in Iraq. [128423]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)As this is the first opportunity for the House to consider the situation in Iraq since mid-July, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I give a detailed response.
Security in Iraq remains a significant priority for the coalition provisional authority. Coalition forces have continued to sustain losses and injuries, including the deaths of a further seven United Kingdom servicemen. In addition, we have seen a disturbing increase in terrorism directed against civilian targets, in particular 4 the despicable attacks on the Jordanian embassy and the UN headquarters, the bomb in An Najaf on 29 August and the most recent killing, of a British mine disposal expert.
The House will want to extend its condolences to the families and friends of those, military and civilian, who have died trying to provide a better future for the people of Iraq.
Long-term security is the key to building a politically stable and economically secure Iraq. The coalition has already trained the Iraqi police force, now 37,000 strong, the 14,000 members of the facilities protection service and the 2,500-strong Iraqi border police. Efforts are also under way to accelerate the recruitment and training of 18 battalions of the Iraqi civil defence corps. Those important new Iraqi security structures are crucial for the country's future stability, and we aim to increase substantially the numbers of all of those over the coming months in order to free coalition troops for more dynamic security-related operations.
In addition, British forces continue to make a crucial contribution to maintaining security and peace in Iraq. We currently retain more than 10.000 UK servicemen and women in the country, taking part in a wide range of operations from the borders of Iraq to the southern interior. Those include both traditional military security-related tasks and supporting the civilian-led reconstruction process.
Following a formal review, the UK divisional commander in theatre has requested that we bolster the capabilities available to him. There is an immediate requirement for two battalions and some additional specialist personnel. As I made clear in my written statement to the House today, those additional troops, the majority of whom will be contributed by 2nd Battalion the Light Infantry and 1st Battalion the Royal Green Jackets, will be deploying for two specific reasons. First, they will allow commanders in theatre to increase their proactive efforts to improve wider security across the area of operations. Secondly, they will allow them to respond appropriately to the increasing demands resulting from the accelerated reconstruction programme being undertaken by the Department for International Development and the coalition provisional authority.
That essential programme will deliver—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Minister is making a statement.
§ Mr. MackayMay I put it to the Secretary of State that his overlong answer is a good illustration as to why there should have been an oral statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a disgrace. In my 20 years in the House, I have never known a Secretary of State for Defence not give an oral statement to the House when so many troops have been deployed. Is not the simple truth that post-conflict Iraq is a shambles because there was no proper planning, which means that although we won the war we are in danger of losing the peace, due to the incompetence of the Secretary of State and his colleagues?
§ Mr. HoonI do not accept that for a moment, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. 5 Given that Defence questions are taking place today, that the Foreign Secretary is making a statement on the situation in Iraq immediately afterwards, and that there is a defence debate tomorrow and a further one on Thursday, there is ample opportunity for Members of the House to debate the situation in Iraq.
§ Mr. SoleyMy right hon. Friend will recall that the British armed forces have a remarkably successful track record not only in peacekeeping but in training the armed forces of other countries. Has not it been clear for some considerable time that the most urgent task is to train an Iraqi army to take over security in that country? Will he make sure that any additional troops that we deploy are used for that purpose because that is the key to this difficult area of policy?
§ Mr. HoonMy hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance not only of preserving security by using coalition forces but of using them so well to train a range of security forces in Iraq. He is right also to emphasise the need to train an Iraqi army, but in addition, as I indicated to the House a few moments ago, it is important to have an effective, growing police force, with static patrolling, as well as the various border police who are being trained. We want to see, as soon as possible, the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis, so that they can take responsibility for their own affairs. That is a matter of urgency for the Government.
§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere. In particular, I pay tribute to those who have given their lives since the House last met to discuss these matters.
I fully concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). In the absence of a full oral statement to the House of Commons, it is we, the Opposition, who have tabled a motion to discuss these matters tomorrow, in Opposition time. We had to do so because Thursday's debate is entitled "Defence in the UK", which will not give us the opportunity to discuss matters in Iraq.
This reinforcement underlines the fact that the Government's policy in Iraq is a shambles. Moreover, today's written statement says that the Secretary of State may yet send further reinforcements. He still does not have a plan that is fully formed. We were reassured before the conflict that plans were already in place for the reconstruction of Iraq. Can he tell the House why that has gone wrong, or does he not recall attending any meetings about the reconstruction of Iraq?
§ Mr. HoonThe plan is the plan set out clearly by the Major-General who has responsibility on the ground. He has carefully reviewed the military situation and judges it necessary to have more troops given the present situation.
It is important also that we make urgent progress on improving infrastructure in southern Iraq, especially the availability of electricity, fuel and water. Those basic, essential commodities of life have been threatened not by resistance to our presence in Iraq but largely by criminal elements in that country. We want to see significant and sustained improvement in that 6 infrastructure. It will therefore require protecting if it is to have an impact. I should have thought that all right hon. and hon. Members would support such an approach.
§ Mr. JenkinI certainly agree that further troops are required to be deployed, but the reason for that is the Government's failure to implement the reconstruction programme to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is not good enough for him to hide behind his military advice. Does he know what the military objectives of UK forces are? What are the benchmarks for their success? What are the target dates for the achievement of those benchmarks, or is this part of a Foreign Office-led initiative that was leaked last week? For once, will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for what is going on in his Department, or is he still playing the part of the "Not me, guy" Secretary of State?
§ Mr. HoonThe hon. Gentleman has just asked the same question again. Tempted though I am to repeat the answer, I shall not do so. It is important that all Secretaries of State take military advice, not substitute their own judgments in the way in which the hon. Gentleman appears tempted to do. Secondly, it is important to ensure that that is part of a co-ordinated plan—that is co-ordinated not only with Government Departments in this country but with our ally, the United States. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the situation in Iraq extend to the United States.
§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)Is it not important for agreement to be reached in the Security Council for troops to come from many other countries, including Muslim ones? Should not such an agreement, if it be reached, mean that the countries sending troops will have a political say in the future of Iraq? Surely we want to get rid of the notion that only Britain and the United States are deciding the future of that country.
§ Mr. HoonI agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that the United Kingdom, together with the United States, has led the effort to promote a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be dealing with that in more detail in a moment. I would not want my hon. Friend or the House to leave with the idea that only British and American forces are deployed in Iraq. The forces of some 25 countries are in Iraq already, and the forces of about seven of those countries are playing a full part in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility in the south.
§ Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)I begin by adding our support to the new forces for Iraq announced by the Secretary of State, and we join in the condolences for those recently killed. Whatever reservations we had about the conflict, if our commanders on the ground require additional forces, they should be sent.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional troops being sent into theatre today will receive the desert equipment and transport that they require so that they will not have to rely on locally hired vehicles? Does he anticipate any future call-up of reservists in the near 7 future for help in Iraq? We welcome the emphasis that is placed on training local Iraqi forces, but on reflection was the coalition wrong to disband the Iraqi army?
§ Mr. HoonAs for transport, I anticipate that not only will there be extra forces but there will be appropriate extra equipment as requested by the theatre commander. We have recently made an announcement about the call-up of reservists. I anticipate that, consistent with the usual practice, we have sent out more notices than the number of reservists that we will require, given the numbers of those who will be exempt on appropriate grounds. It is important that we develop a properly trained and modern Iraqi army to deal with the present situation, and not an army that clings to the past and to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)Does my right hon. Friend accept that no reasonable Member could object to the reinforcements necessary for the security of our troops in that sector? However, does he also accept that those of us who had doubts about whether it was wise to go into Iraq in the first place have not had those doubts removed by today's announcement? Was my right hon. Friend aware of the reservations of his defence intelligence staff about the September dossier—for instance that the 45-minute claim was based on nebulous intelligence? If he was, how was it that the House and the Cabinet were presented with a dossier that did not reflect the reservations of his own intelligence experts?
§ Mr. HoonAs for reinforcements, I accept that for people like my right hon. Friend who had reservations about the deployment at the time, it may well be that such reinforcements are not persuasive. All I would say is that given the situation on the ground now and the importance of resolving it, I hope that he and those who had doubts will join me in hoping that those reinforcements will be the first step to rebuilding Iraq as a peaceful, successful and prosperous member of the international community. As for the question of intelligence, he knows from his previous responsibilities that intelligence questions of that kind are resolved, as they are required to be resolved, through the Joint Intelligence Committee machinery—something set up as long ago as the late 1950s. If hon. Members look carefully at the situation that arose after Suez, they will see that those intelligence matters were resolved by the JIC, not by departmental discussion.
§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton)The Secretary of State will be aware that I, too, share doubts about the grounds on which we went into Iraq. It was almost inevitable that doubts about legitimacy would make the peace much more difficult. While I welcome the arrival of more troops and hope for their safety, does the Secretary of State not understand that until we get political legitimacy in Iraq right, our troops will be vulnerable? Will he try to reassure the House that measures are being taken to bring in Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian and Turkish troops, which will depend on a political resolution in the United Nations?
§ Mr. HoonThere are two aspects to political legitimacy. There is the aspect to which the hon. 8 Gentleman referred—the importance, as I have said already, of a new Security Council resolution involving a still wider coalition of international forces. I have no argument with that, but, equally, political legitimacy depends on ensuring security in Iraq is sufficient to allow Iraqis themselves to engage in the process of government. Significant progress has been made on that, but we want more, and we want the Government of Iraq to be handed over to the Iraqi people. We want that to happen as quickly as possible. That, too, is an aspect of political legitimacy.
§ Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)To avoid a further slide into instability, clearly these immediate reinforcements are necessary. Surely, however, we also need to look beyond the existing coalition partners and the seven key countries that have provided troops thus far. What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the time that it will take from the making of a decision to bring in other countries—India, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey—so that they can make a full contribution to Iraq's stability?
§ Mr. HoonMy right hon. Friend is right to sound a note of caution—there is always a delay between a political agreement and the consequential deployment of forces. However, I am confident, given the progress that we have made so far in preliminary discussions in the United Nations, that a further resolution will be forthcoming. It will then be the task, not least of the United Kingdom, to persuade a number of other countries to deploy their own forces in support of that resolution.
§ Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a continuing concern about heat-related illness in theatre? Is he satisfied that our serving forces are adequately protected, and how long will it be before 100 per cent. of our serving soldiers have some access to air conditioning?
§ Mr. HoonThe hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members are similarly concerned. The deployment takes place on the basis of the best possible medical advice and determined efforts are made to ensure that that medical advice reaches every last serviceman and woman, and appropriate steps are taken. Where there is a concern that a soldier is suffering from the effects of heat, that person is withdrawn from theatre, if that is judged necessary.