| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell:
Has not the time come for a firm and early date for withdrawal? The alternative is chilling. Although the Minister has outlined the good efforts that our forces are making, those forces increasingly are seen as an army of occupation. The risks involved in
7 Sept 2004 : Column 607
withdrawal may be less than those involved in staying longer. A balance has to be struck, but should we not consider giving a firm date for withdrawal?
Mr. Ingram: I know where my hon. Friend is coming from with that question, but he must also take what is happening into consideration. We have an Iraqi Interim Government, and we are moving towards establishing a democratic electoral process in the country. If Iraq's people and legitimately elected Government feel that a withdrawal date is required, surely it is up to them to make that request? It is important that we work alongside the Iraqi authorities to establish the peace and stability that most of the people in Iraq want. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is saying that he wants our forces to withdraw tomorrow, but I am sure that more mayhem would follow any such withdrawal.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): In praising the highly effective and determined gallantry of British servicemen and women at all ranks in the rebuilding of Iraq during the past few difficult weeks, will the Minister of State clarify for the House whether the rules of engagement in the multinational division south-east have been changed at all over the past two months? Secondly, what progress has been made by the NATO training implementation mission in Iraq? Where and when will training of Iraqi personnel start?
Mr. Ingram: The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is important because of some of the controversy during the past few months. The rules of engagement have not changed, and the same rules will continue to apply. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well the difficulties associated with the type of environment in which our troops are deployed: they are trying to peacekeep as well as peacemake, and they sometimes find themselves in difficult firefighting engagements.
The NATO team was deployed to Iraq last month, and it is scoping the training requirement for the Iraqi security forces. A full report setting out the team's recommendation is due in the middle of this month. Clearly, the recommendations will be acted on quickly thereafter.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): What can be the logic of people who have previously argued that our troops should operate under a United Nations mandate but who now argue that the troops should withdraw now that their actions are governed by a UN mandate and are there at the request of Iraqi Government?
Mr. Ingram: I have already answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has perhaps just posed his question in the way in which I should have answered it.
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford) (LD):
May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the condemnation of the attack in Russia and the continuing attacks on
7 Sept 2004 : Column 608
civilians and kidnapping in Iraq? The Minister is right to say that the people who do those things are nothing more than thugs and criminals.
May I ask two sets of specific questions? What other nations have offered troops to join the multinational force during the past few weeks? Have there been any additional contributions from other countries, and are negotiations in place with other countries to provide such troops?
Secondly, does the Minister consider that the existing force structure of the number of British troops in the British sector is sufficient? Are there any plans to send any additional troops from the UK to Iraq if necessary?
Mr. Ingram: On the latter questions, our current strength stands at just over 9,000 and our future deployment, come the roulement in November, will reduce that to about 8,500. There are no plans to increase the number. Clearly, however, in all theatres such as this one we must constantly consider the current situation. The deployments announced in June indicated our willingness to increase our presence on the ground in a very specific way. The situation is always fluid.
In terms of other countries' commitments, a sizeable multinational commitment exists, and there are constant discussions with other nations to encourage them to maintain their presence and to put a new presence into the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Based on the professional advice that the Minister has been given by the military and by his own diplomatic service, can he advise us on the best estimate of the length of time for which British troops will remain in Iraq, and on what target date we should be aiming at for their withdrawal?
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that when Moqtada al-Sadr and the other insurgent forces in Iraq were involved in fighting with us, they would have loved to know the answer to that question. Although it should certainly be examined at all times, it is the type of question that really should not be asked—
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) (Lab): Why not?
Mr. Ingram: For the very reason that the minute we set down a time scale, we give a set of objectives to those who are still carrying out terrible acts of terrorism and aggression, not just against our troops and the multinational force but against the Iraqi people. We are about trying to establish peace and stability in Iraq, not about giving the country over to the thugs and criminals who are carrying out those terrible acts.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con):
Does the Minister share my observation that any bad news in this country is reported as front-page news and is top of the news, while the objective work of British forces and British charities and voluntary organisations is simply not mentioned? For example, can he recall a single occasion in the past six months when he heard a British
7 Sept 2004 : Column 609
Broadcasting Corporation report that objectively described what was happening in that country instead of always reporting the worst possible events?
Mr. Ingram: I know from my regular contact with our forces that they take a similar view. They think that there are many acts of commitment to bring about peace and stability in Iraq, and that what they are doing to create that new country and to help the people find a new future is often overlooked. The very many acts of individual and collective gallantry, which have just been recognised in the honours and awards announced today, should be a salutary lesson to those who report on the bad news, bad news, bad news, which they exploit to the detriment of those who are putting their lives at risk.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that one of the British policy objectives must be to remove our troops from Iraqi soil as long as it is feasible and practical to do so?
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Does the Minister agree that it is not simply about those who opposed intervention, but about the growing view that despite the loss of more than 1,200 British and American troops and massive intervention, we have simply established an area of chaos, where we meet ever-increasing hostility from the people of Iraq? Is not that a fact? If the situation continues to get worse, what will the Government do? Would it not help to resolve things if they gave an indication of when they think it would be appropriate for foreign troops to be removed from Iraq?
Mr. Ingram: I sought to set out the background to that. We are trying to establish the new Iraq, alongside the Iraqi people and their leadership. That is not an easy process. Many people fail to recognise how brave those local politicians are. Day on day they are met with a threat not only to their lives, but to the lives of their families. We really should recognise the commitment that they are giving. It is right that we should stand alongside them in achieving that new future, for which they are prepared—sometimes all too tragically—to make sacrifices. Clearly, we have to plan, alongside them, future points of withdrawal and removal of troops from Iraq. All of those things are part of the fluid process and those discussions will continue with the legitimate elected authorities in Iraq.
Mrs. Mahon:
I put it to the Minister that the only people in charge of the military coalition are the Americans, not the United Nations. I repeat the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that we get a date for the withdrawal of troops. The Australian Labour party has said that when it wins the election it will bring its troops home. The Spanish Socialist party has already brought its troops home. The idea is gaining support world wide and we would not be isolated if we said that we were going to bring our troops home. We are now seen more as the problem than the solution.
7 Sept 2004 : Column 610
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |