| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): Like my hon. Friend, I voted against the war, but like him, I wavered when I heard the Prime Minister, thinking that I might be in the wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing for the good of the country would be a full inquiry? If we knew that the Prime Minister took his decisions on the best possible intelligence, I would always be prepared to say I was wrong.
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; indeed, that is how I meant to end my few immortal words to the House. Since he has said that for me, I shall just give the House the few bits remaining.
I am amazed by the Government's surprise at terrorist and criminal activity in Iraq. It seems as if the Prime Minister writes a script then becomes aghast when the rest of the world does not follow it. There are no weapons of mass destruction—oh dear, there is a mistake. There was inadequate policy to rebuild Iraq after the war. And now they are surprised that terrorist activity is ruining all the reconstruction that should be taking place and they are asking more troops to risk their skins to save the Government's skin.
We had better start looking through the right end of the telescope. I do not think that the west understands the strength of Islamic feeling, faith and fervour throughout the world. We try to impose our values and disciplines on the rest of the world, and we act surprised when that does not work as we want it to. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) just asked whether we are right to impose western democracy on Iraq, and she was absolutely right. On how many places in Africa have we have tried to impose our democratic processes? Has it worked? Has it stuck? Has it continued? Of course not.
Nor do we understand the strength of Islam. If someone invaded this country, would we expect our patriots to undertake guerrilla activity against the invader? I think we would. We would be surprised if this great British island did not contain people who would say, "No. We want them out. We want to be back in charge of our own affairs." We call people terrorists, but to the Islamic movement and faith, they are holy warriors and martyrs, protecting their own and protecting their faith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said we need quick training and a quick way out. I say amen to that.
4.27 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden): My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has just said that the witching hour approaches. That is an interesting description of the time for winding-up speeches in the House of Commons, but I have no fears about exorcising ghosts and dispatching myths. If he cares to follow my speech, I hope that I shall not disappoint him after his catchy description.
I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for pointing out how important it is to have the opportunity to hold this debate following the summer recess. It was nice of him to do so. We all feel the need to discuss this important issue, and the Opposition have been willing to donate our time for it. It is in everyone's interest.
I rather liked some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I cannot say that I greatly enjoyed the anti-American aspect of his speech, but he made one very telling point. One rarely hears from those of us in this profession that, as he said, politicians are usually part of the problem, not the solution. There was remarkable profundity in that, and we should all show his touch of humility on that point.
I had rather less time for the many interventions made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He fails to understand that support for the war was not a blank cheque in support of the failures that came out of the war. Grown-up politics means constructive criticism, even from one's supporters, and that is very much what we are engaged in.
Mrs. Spelman: I am not giving way on that point. The hon. Gentleman has burned up too much capital with his previous interventions.
I especially want to single out the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is a member of the Select Committee on International Development. He explained clearly the inconsistencies at the heart of DFID's policy, which led to the military situation in Iraq. I am glad that a DFID Minister is on the Treasury Bench now, although none was present for the whole of the rest of the debate. The Government chose to open and wind up the debate with Defence spokesmen, yet DFID and the Ministry of Defence are in this together, which is why the Opposition have speakers from both briefs. One Department cannot operate without the other.
There were a number of interesting contributions from the Government Benches. However, I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who disputes the claim that there is overstretch. With his military background, I am sure that he will listen to a former Chief of the Defence Staff talking about overstretch in the Army. Soldiers take us—their political representatives at Westminster—on one side, as they did when I was in Afghanistan and the Gulf, and explain what overstretch feels like, what it means and the consequences for them and their families. To dispute that it exists is not a wise course.
The deep concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for the people of Iraq is respected on both sides of the House. She brought us the important and troubling information that the ICRC is withdrawing from its work in Iraq. That the military situation has become so bad that the ICRC has felt the need to do that is extremely significant. In my experience, it is the one organisation that works in the direst military situations and has been willing to go through the lines to help people, so for it to withdraw from Iraq is very serious indeed.
I hope that other hon. Members who contributed to the debate will forgive me if I turn to some of the main points. The debate has been interesting and it is important that we have had the opportunity to hold it after our break. Incredibly, in the last statement that we heard before our summer recess, the Government seemed to believe their spin about the military situation in Iraq: even then, they had persuaded themselves that it was better than the grim reality. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, actually said:
- "Life has regained an air of normality."—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 552.]
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the situation on the ground is more serious than it was at the end of July. That is important. A senior member of the Government formally admitted in the House that things were deteriorating. That means that, as a coalition partner, we have presided over a deteriorating security situation. The closest we got to an admission of the seriousness of the situation from DFID was in its most recent update on Iraq on 5 September, which stated that security "remains tense". Given that many NGOs are withdrawing their staff from Iraq, that the UN is still operating from a different country and that we are sending more of our troops, that was, to say the least, an understatement.
It is difficult for the Opposition to resist saying, "We told you so", but almost exactly a year ago, on 24 September, the shadow Foreign Secretary gave the Government four key points that would have to be taken into consideration before a decision to go to war. First, we must act with the international community. Secondly, the basis for any war must be legal. Thirdly, if war took place, it should be prosecuted effectively. Fourthly, there should be no war without a clear vision for the new Iraq.
Just in case the Government were not listening back in September last year, we reminded them of the same four points before the conflict started in a debate in the House on 21 January. The Government chose to ignore our advice, with some of the most churlish and complacent answers to parliamentary questions that I have ever seen. For example, in October last year, I asked what discussions had taken place between the Department for International Development and its equivalents in the US, UN and EU about a possible conflict in Iraq, and I received the answer that they were not actively discussing those issues. That is very hard to believe if, as the former Secretary of State for
International Development claimed on 17 June in her evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Prime Minister and President Bush had set a date for the war last September. What does that tell us about the Prime Minister's priorities for post-conflict Iraq if DFID was being sidelined from his discussions?In November, we held a contingency planning forum for the non-governmental organisations, the suggestions from which received barely an acknowledgement. In December and again in January, I asked what discussions had been held with Iraq's neighbours about refugees, and I got the same answer on both occasions—one word: none.
On 30 January, the former Secretary of State for International Development stood right here in the House and said:
- "the preparations are as good as they can be."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1054.]
- "preparations for post-conflict were poor"?
Who is to blame? On 3 February, the Prime Minister told the House:
- "We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and as well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
- "On top of this, there is the total negligence of failing to prepare for the inevitability of a speedy military victory. Many, many lives have been lost and are being lost in Iraq because of this incompetence."
- "she agreed to stay in the Government to help support the reconstruction".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |