Examination of Witnesses (Questions 533
- 539)
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2005
MR ADAM
INGRAM MP, MAJOR
GENERAL NICK
HOUGHTON CBE AND
DR ROGER
HUTTON
Q533 Chairman: Minister, welcome
to you and your team. This session is the last session of the
Committee's Iraq inquiry, possibly the Committee's last session
this Parliament. This morning we took evidence from DfID, we did
not learn a great deal I might add, because we realise that judging
the war by the military campaign alone is not the full picture.
This afternoon we have the last opportunity of questioning the
ministerial team in the form of yourself, Minister of State. The
Prime Minister indicated to the Liaison Committee yesterday that
a review of our approach to Iraq, which is tied to the Luck Report,
will take place and will be published shortly. I do not know whether
you are aware of that but we have documentary evidence to justify
what he said, in fact. We will look forward to hearing more about
this in the course of our afternoon's session. If I might start
off, how do you expect relations with an Iraqi Government led
by perhaps the United Shia List to develop, considering that a
number of its leaders have voiced serious concerns about the coalition,
its presence and tactics?
Mr Ingram: First of all, apologies
that the Secretary of State could not come to this session. You
know he is engaged elsewhere. He would have liked to have been
here for this session.
Q534 Chairman: We did exchange views
in the division lobby last night.
Mr Ingram: The boxing gloves were
off.
Q535 Chairman: You were referee.
Mr Ingram: That is right. Anyway,
it seems to me that in terms of politicians—and most of
us around the table are politicians—they will look at what
is the best advantage to win the best majority. Now there is clearly,
I would guess, an attitude within Iraq that they want their country
back, not unsurprisingly. A particularly significant proportion
of them will be very grateful for all that has been achieved but
nonetheless they are proud people, they want their country back
and they want to govern themselves. Of course that is what we
have been progressively delivering for them. The election, as
you know, was a very significant step, it does not solve every
problem, no election ever does because then government has to
follow on from that and the shape and form of that government
has still to be determined. It does not surprise me that the language
being used is one to try and gain the maximum advantage amongst
the population. I do not think that is a cynical use of populism,
or however it is to be defined, but it is a realistic assessment
of it. The reality, of course, is that those who have the leadership
role within those parties at whatever senior level, not obviously
all of them but the key players, recognise that there is a need
to maintain stability and security within their own country. Therefore,
the continuing presence of the coalition force while they build
up their own capability and capacity is something which they are
more than prepared to accept and welcome. I think there are two
messages in there. One is that this is about politicians trying
to gain best political advantage, it is not a homogenous group
of politicians, they represent different interests, different
traditions and unquestionably in any coalition arrangements a
lot of negotiations will be going on to try and buy the best advantage
over one's political opponents. That language is out there for
some of those reasons but I think the reality rests somewhere
else and the reality is the continuing effort that we are making
both in dealing with the insurgency which is there, which represents
a very small percentage of what is going on in Iraq, insurgency
which is not welcomed by the majority of Iraqis, they would want
to see an end to that as well, and also in terms of building the
capacity, in terms of their own security force whether it is police
or military terms. They know this is not going to happen overnight
but they make the point, also, that if the Iraqis do not want
us to be there, we will not be there.
Q536 Chairman: You put your money
on us being there for some indeterminate time?
Mr Ingram: I think realistically
the answer to that would be yes. Obviously we will cover this
during this session. Hopefully the more the UN engages with us—and
remember that we are there under UN mandate and carrying out the
wishes of the UN in that sense—the more the UN begins to
engage, of course, as we move towards the end of the UN mandate
towards the end of the year, as we go through the review process
of all this, there will be greater clarity as to what the future
holds. It is determined by the Iraqis themselves, we are not imposing
our presence, we are there because they want us to be there and
I think they will want us to be there for some time ahead.
Q537 Chairman: The Iranian Government's
influence could be quite significant on the new regime, as there
were parties such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq, which did quite well and will probably have a significant
number of seats, not the majority but a significant number. I
know it is a delicate subject, Minister, but do you look with
some concern at a pro-Iranian party? They are not the Liberal
Democrats, for God's sake, they are a minority that is part of
the system, it might be a significant minority that is not truly
a part of the system but they may have an obligation to their
counterparts in Iran. Do you have any anxieties that they might
exercise a disproportionate influence and may not wish to see
the Americans and the British remain in their country because
they have obligations elsewhere?
Mr Ingram: I think it would be
wrong for us to start saying what is good and what is bad in terms
of the political structure in an open way. We can have a view
on all this and that would apply anywhere where we have a presence.
What we cannot do is micro-manage or even macro-manage to a conclusion
we want because that is in contradiction to what we are seeking
to do anyway, which is to say: "This is your country, your
problem, your political process has to resolve all this".
I think we can take a lot of encouragement from Prime Minister
Allawi's statement about the reconciliation and the need to reach
out. There are some indications which tell us that the Sunni groups
and the Sunni community may have realised they got it wrong over
the elections because the elections by any measurement were a
success. Sunnis clearly engaged, but if there is a wish in that
we would have wanted to see greater engagement by the Sunnis.
Now, we have some indication that they recognise that perhaps
that was a better route for them. In terms of how the new government
is formed, and of course people can be appointed into that government,
and the training will go on, as inevitably it will in terms of
any coalition, from a Labour Party which probably does not have
much experience of a coalition government, you are right, we would
have to refer to the Liberal Democrats but they have more and
more to tell us on all this, how they work the magic in achieving
a position coming from a minority to have a point of influence.
That will be going on in Iraq, there is no question at all about
this. The public statements as well as the private indications
show a willingness to try and make it as all encompassing as it
possibly can be. Are there worries out there? There must be worries.
If a conclusion is not reached, if it begins to fragment, then
that will be the greater worry rather than a preponderance or
a domination of one over another because if that is an accepted
position—how the coalition is formed—if one particular
group has a greater presence, that ends up as a matter for them.
Our key concern is to ensure some sort of unity of purpose and
the retention of Iraq as a whole country. We know there are others
who are arguing that is not necessarily desirable but in any democracy
people have the right to express their opinion and that is what
we have given the people of Iraq.
Q538 Chairman: I am glad you have
given that response. I asked that question as an agent provocateur.
The next question I want to ask you is out of sequence but it
is very relevant. You know the Committee produced a couple of
reports on pensions and compensation. We are not well pleased
with the document that emerged. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday
in the Liaison Committee a speculative question on the fact that
the bodies of the soldiers killed on polling day were being returned
and was he happy with the arrangements for the injured military
personnel and their families. His reply intrigued me—I will
not put you on the spot in case the policy has not developed—the
Prime Minister said this: "Well, we have studied very carefully
what the Defence Committee has said about this and, as you know,
we are reviewing the situation now and I hope that we will be
able to say something about that in the days and weeks to come.
I would once again like to state my sympathy and condolences to
the families of the RAF and other people that have died in the
Hercules crash." I said "Well, Adam Ingram is appearing
before the Defence Committee tomorrow, Prime Minister. Maybe you
can have a word with him to clarify a bit further what you have
been saying. I doubt it, but we can hope." Did I say that?
How cynical of me. Lastly, the Prime Minister said "I do
not think we will have to wait very long for it, but there are
various issues that need to be decided there, but we do want to
make sure ...". I said: "Will it be a new package of
some kind?" The Prime Minister said "I hope it will
be a new package, yes". Can you titillate us and give us
a preview of what might be coming out of your illustrious organisation
in the next few weeks or months?
Mr Ingram: I think it would be
wrong to be too definitive in all this. In a sense we are chasing
headlines here, I am not saying there is not an issue out there
but there is a lot of headline grabbing and a lot of headline
writing which is not necessarily based upon an accurate assessment
of what is happening. I know we have a difference between what
we have done and what you think should have been done. If you
look at how we treat, say, married and indeed unmarried personnel
with dependants, the benefits which flow to our people are as
good if not better than those which will apply in the United States.
We are not comparing two similar schemes in any event because
part of the US scheme is an insurance based scheme. There is one
area—and we can give you figures to show this—where
we have done the calculations, I do not know if you want me to
give you some examples of this. Just taking married personnel
with dependants, and taking a UK corporal—if I do it in
dollars that is the best comparator—under the old scheme,
that which goes out on 1 April this year, the existing scheme,
the payment would be $824,720, under the new scheme it will be
$897,075. The US equivalent for that would be $492,000 and under
their new arrangement $730,000. We are better, and it improves
through the rank structure because it is income based. When we
get to the single serving soldier under our existing scheme—again
using the corporal as a base line—the payment would be $44,300
and that will increase under the new scheme that is coming in
to $167,275. The US equivalent, interestingly, under their existing
scheme, before they made the announcement, was $12,420. We were
significantly better if we compare existing schemes to existing
schemes. However, what they have got now, of course, has improved
that considerably and the pay out is a quarter of a million dollars.
Clearly we have to look at this but it is the make up of that
and how that is arrived at and, if we are going to go down that
road, how we achieve an improvement in that area. The other aspect
is how far back do we go? No matter where a line is drawn there
is going to be some before that line who say "Why should
we be discriminated against" because that is how people will
view this. This is not an easy process to take through. If it
is a case of always chasing the best, if somebody else comes along
with a better scheme, then we will be faced with the same headlines
"Why are we not doing what another ally is doing who is working
alongside us?" We have to be careful how we judge our conclusions
in this both in terms of retrospection and in terms of the structure
of the scheme and then what the pay out levels will be. We are
not unsympathetic to it but we recognise the importance of this
and we do genuinely value very highly our people and we try to
reflect that. We would argue that is what the new pension arrangements
seek to achieve, a better recognition of all of this, an improvement
of one to one and a half of salary to four times salary. We have
made a major step change and of course along has come this change
in the US. For instance, I do not know whether in the US they
consider as favourably unmarried partners and dependants as we
do. There may be areas where we are better than them, I have pointed
out an area where we are better than them, and there may be more
areas in all this. That is why I think there is an unfairness
in the reporting. It is almost as if we are uncaring, we are not,
we care deeply about all this and it is how we value it. We have
put a significant value on the way in which we deal with it because
there are weaknesses and shortfalls in our current scheme and
that is why we spent so long studying it to make it better and
to give a structure for the future which will last well into the
future but along has come this new demand which we will have to
take consideration of.
Q539 Chairman: Finally, from me,
I have given you a chance of a dummy run, with the argument which
you will have to use when the boss calls for you and asks you
why you have not been following the remarks he made.
Mr Ingram: I am very grateful.
If it could be written into the minute, I am very grateful for
the way in which you referred to the fact that I was coming to
the Committee today.
Chairman: Always helpful.
|
