| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Iraq (Reconstruction)
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on progress on reconstruction in Iraq.
As hon. Members are all too aware, security is a continuing concern, particularly in and around Baghdad. US forces are bearing the brunt of these attacks, but the UN and international aid agencies are also being targeted. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in condemning the recent bombing of the International Committee of the Red Cross and this morning's attack at the headquarters of the Italian military police in Nasiriyah, which has claimed a number of lives.
Of equal concern have been the attacks on the Iraqi people themselves, including the assassination of Aqila al-Hashimi—one of only three women members of the governing council—who was shot the day after I met her in Baghdad. Regrettably, there have been other victims, including religious and civic leaders, judges and police officers, and ordinary Iraqis caught up in bomb blasts.
Those who attack the Red Cross and Iraqis working to rebuild their country are desperate to stop reconstruction happening. We cannot let them succeed.
In these circumstances, however, it is understandable and right that the ICRC and the United Nations should review their security procedures and the way they work in Iraq, even if that means temporarily pulling back on some of their operations and pulling out some of their international staff. We stand ready to help them to finance additional security measures, where appropriate, to try to limit the effect on their capacity to help with reconstruction. We will continue to support those agencies, their local staff and the non-governmental organisations still working in the country.
However, that is only part of the picture. Political violence is largely concentrated in one part of Iraq: Baghdad and its surrounding areas. The situation is more stable in the northern provinces, and in the south-east, which I visited in September. Security is being maintained by the UK-led multinational division and the local police.
For most Iraqis, life is gradually improving. Last month, electricity supply rose above pre-conflict levels for the first time, which has allowed much-needed maintenance to take place during the cooler months when demand is lower. Food distribution is working, and supplies will continue after the UN oil-for-food programme ends this month. In addition, 1,500 schools have been refurbished; 70 million new textbooks are being distributed and attendance rates are back to pre-conflict levels. Fuel supply for domestic consumption is meeting demand. Almost all Iraq's 240 hospitals are now in operation and routine immunisation of children has resumed.
Clean water supplies are improving in much of the country, with sewerage plants being rehabilitated. Forty thousand Iraqi police officers are on duty. They are being trained and equipped. Criminal justice is being restored, but without the terrible repression that characterised Saddam's regime; and 170 newspapers are now on sale in the streets, enabling Iraqis to express their views freely.
As well as recognising the enormous contribution of the Iraqi people to these achievements, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the skilled and dedicated work of UK forces and of other UK nationals, both in southern Iraq and elsewhere, for their courage and for their determination to help Iraq to rebuild itself.
Progress is also being made on the political and constitutional process, with a healthy debate under way on how best to create a genuinely representative system. UN Security Council resolution 1511 expressed support for this process and asked the UN to strengthen its role as far as circumstances allow. It also asked the governing council to set out by 15 December a timetable for the electoral process. This will provide the context for decisions about the transfer of executive and legislative authority, recognising that the coalition's aim has always been to hand Iraq over to its people as quickly as possible so that they can have control of their own political destiny.
Iraq's Ministers, appointed at the beginning of September, are taking increasing responsibility for developing and implementing policies. The governing council has gained growing recognition internationally, including from the Arab League and the UN General Assembly. It played a prominent role at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Dubai, and governing council members and Ministers made their presence felt at the Madrid donors' conference at the end of last month. That conference raised pledges of at least $33 billion in grants and soft loans in the three years up to 2007, significantly exceeding expectations. Seventy-three countries participated, underlining the breadth of international support for securing a better future for Iraq.
In Madrid, I set out our commitment to reconstruction in Iraq with a pledge of £544 million. This includes the £209 million that the Department for International Development has already committed for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and £296 million over the next two years. We are considering how best to use this funding to support reconstruction, development and poverty reduction.
The pledges raised in Madrid, alongside oil revenues, foreign direct investment and commercial loans, are expected to meet Iraq's investment needs for the next four years. I can also tell the House that agreement has now been reached between the UN, the World Bank and the coalition provisional authority on the terms of reference of the international advisory and monitoring board, which will oversee the use of Iraq's own resources being channelled through the development fund for Iraq.
The Iraqi people deserve the chance that they now have for a better future; they have waited for it long enough. Much remains to be done on security to counter the violence of Saddam loyalists and others who want to deny the Iraqis this chance, but the best way we can prevent them from succeeding is to continue with reconstruction and political change. As I am sure that the House will agree, that is why we must all remain committed to the economic and social reconstruction of Iraq and to a better life for its people.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in providing me with advance sight of it.
I shall begin on a consensual note by echoing the Secretary of State's condemnation, expressed on behalf of hon. Members of all parties, of the despicable terrorist acts that have been committed. Their purpose is to prevent reconstruction and a return to normality. They must not be allowed to achieve that purpose. I also endorse the glowing and justified tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to our troops and to the other British nationals who are working day after day in the public interest of the people of Iraq. We recognise and applaud that work, and hope that it will continue. Of course, some good work has been done, and the Secretary of State is entirely entitled to draw attention to the successes that have been achieved in relation to schools, hospitals, water cleanliness and so on. But we are the Opposition, with a responsibility constructively to probe, and I have a number of points to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
First, the Secretary of State referred with approval to the growing recognition of the governing council's work. I was pleased to hear what he had to say, but I ask him to tell the House how that squares with press reports about the evident dissatisfaction of the Bush Administration with the governing council, by which they are frustrated and which they believe to be divided and incapable of making the necessary decisions within the required time scale.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when the Foreign Secretary was asked on the "Today" programme this morning what he would like to see come out of the emergency talks in Washington between Ambassador Bremer and White House officials, the Foreign Secretary replied:
- "I am not party to the talks, nor party to his return".
How can the Secretary of State explain or justify what his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) described as "poor preparations" for post-conflict Iraq, given that on 24 September 2002 the Opposition, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, underlined the need for a comprehensive plan for securing a new Iraq? We underlined that point on 15 October, 8 December, 16 December, 20 January, 21 January, 27 January, on 30 January, and—yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can guess what comes next—a host of other occasions that time does not permit me to list today.
On 3 February, the Prime Minister tried to reassure the House that
- "We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan". —[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
Moreover, our suspicions were confirmed on 28 October when Sir Jeremy Greenstock, referring to attempted reconstruction, admitted:
- "There was a slow start, and we are now trying to catch up on that".
On 8 November the Red Cross announced that it would temporarily close its offices in Baghdad and Basra. That followed similar decisions by Médecins sans Frontières, Save the Children and Oxfam. What confidence does the Secretary of State have—I hope that he does possess such confidence—that conditions will improve sufficiently to allow their safe return, and within what time scale does he expect that return to take place?
The Secretary of State again referred, with alacrity, to the Madrid conference last month and the plan for reconstruction outlined there. However, I must return to a crucial theme of concern to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world—the plight of those 140 million people living in poverty in middle-income countries. The Prime Minister said on 25 April that help would continue to be provided for those people, and that they would not be expected to pay the price or foot the bill for Iraq's reconstruction.
The Secretary of State's written ministerial statement on 14 October made no mention of imminent cuts to much-needed programmes; such news was provided only on 6 November, less than a week ago. In the light of the decision that he has made, I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman precisely which, and how many, needed projects will suffer, how development will be retarded, and what estimate he has made of the numbers of those who will suffer as a consequence?
A specific point of concern to many people is the prospect of re-establishing the spinal injuries unit. The right hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with that, and will know that it was blown up when United Nations headquarters were bombed. The Opposition, in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the former shadow Secretary of State, have repeatedly asked for some Department for International Development funding to be made available to help with the re-establishment of that vital unit. To date and to my serious regret, the Government have refused to take that simple but practical step, which would not only bring immediate relief to sufferers, but show the people of Iraq that we were genuinely committed in practical terms, through deeds as well as words, to their successful and secure future.
May I conclude by saying to the Secretary of State—whom I regard it as a great privilege to shadow—that no hon. Member doubts the decency of his intentions, but many people in the House and throughout the country doubt the capability of the Government to deliver in deeds what they have promised in words? On the strength of the track record to date, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, while Ministers prevaricate in Westminster, the people of Iraq are desperately trying to get on with their lives. Is it not the truth that, whereas the Government, notably in the form of the Prime
Minister, displayed courage and statesmanship in the conduct of war, the reality is that they have been guilty of dither and abdication of responsibility in failing to prepare for the peace?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |