Examination of Witness (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
TONY BLAIR,
MP
8 FEBRUARY 2005
Q20 Mr Leigh: You spent two years, Prime
Minister, coming to Parliament saying that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction, which it did not. If you were now to come to
Parliament and you told us that we should take action against
Iran because she has weapons of mass destruction, would anyone
believe you?
Mr Blair: Well, first of all,
I am not saying that. Secondly, I think it depends what the evidence
base is. I do not think it is disputed that there is an issue
to do with Iran and nuclear weapons capability. That is why France
and Germany have been working with the UK over it. I would just
point out to you in relation to Iraq and WMD that people have
been over this ground many, many times before.
Q21 Mr Leigh: No, I am not asking you
about the past. We know what you said in the past. We are talking
about the future and the most important power of the Prime Minister
is to declare peace or war and the most important commodity is
trust. If you told us that Iran had weapons of mass destruction,
therefore, we would take action, after your record in Iraq, would
anybody believe you, Prime Minister?
Mr Blair: Yes, but that is why,
since you are putting it at issue, my record in the past, I think
it is only fair that I should be able to answer the question.
What the Iraq Survey Group actually found was that Iraq was indeed
in breach of UN Resolutions, that the weapons may have been removed
or destroyed and, therefore, there were not actually deployable
weapons at the time of invasion, but that Iraq retained the teams
of scientists and the laboratories necessary to start up production
again as soon as the inspectors were out of the country. I simply
say that in order to say that the position in relation to Iraq
and WMD is somewhat more nuanced than your question suggests.
In respect of Iran, it depends what the evidence is.
Sir George Young: Can we move on to post-conflict
reconstruction.
Q22 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, if one
looks post-conflict reconstruction anywhere else in the world,
such as Afghanistan, one sees the United Nations in the lead,
UN agencies, like UNDP, working hard and bringing together international
donors, NGOs, et cetera. In Iraq that is not happening because
the US see the UN as being unhelpful and not being as partners.
How are we going to patch up relations between the US and the
UN?
Mr Blair: I think those relations
are getting patched up. Over the elections, there was a very strong
statement in support of them by Kofi Annan, a strong statement
before, a strong statement afterwards. My assessment actually
is that relations are improving and also, let me say, I would
pay real tribute, as I am sure the US Administration would, to
the work that the UN staff did in Iraq for these elections. I
actually do not think the problem, Tony, on the reconstruction
side is relations between the UN and the US. The problem is the
simple problem that we have got which is security—simple
to describe, complicated to tackle.
Q23 Tony Baldry: Prime Minister, the
problem is this, is it not: that most of the money for reconstruction
is coming from the US who are largely concerned with large-scale
projects and not with employment-creating, quick-impact projects?
They are not doing any classic development and reconstruction,
as DFID or any other donor agencies will, because they are primarily
concerned with the interests of American big business.
Mr Blair: I think that is an extraordinary
thing to say. I honestly do not think that is true at all.
Q24 Tony Baldry: Well, Prime Minister,
if you look at the money which the US are spending in Iraq, most
of it is going on large-scale projects. Practically none of it
is going on impact projects creating employment and enabling Iraqis
to see a daily improvement in their lives.
Mr Blair: Well, they are doing
that too. If you take an area like Najaf, for example, where we
have been able to get the security situation under control, Najaf
is a real success story. After all, we were told that that was
a city that welcomed these militants into it and there was a safe
haven for them. Once they were cleaned out, and actually cleaned
out with the consent of the local people, they actually are rebuilding
and reconstructing there and the American money is working well
there too. I really do not think that is the issue. We have precisely
this same problem down south and the problem is that you need
two sets of reconstruction—
Q25 Tony Baldry: And down south DFID,
since about December, have started doing work on quick-impact
projects, and let's all be clear, that DFID is probably one of
the best development agencies in the world, but in the rest of
Iraq we are not seeing proper development being done; we are just
seeing ad hoc initiatives by the US where they feel it is in the
interests of their big industry. That is what is actually happening
and if DFID were allowed to share some of their knowledge with
other parts of Iraq, I think we would all be in a much better
position.
Mr Blair: I do think that is extremely
unfair to those that are working very hard in Iraq in the difficult
parts where the security is a real problem. It is true, incidentally,
that there are long-term, big reconstruction projects the US are
committing money to, although even that money it is difficult
to disperse at the moment, but those long-term projects to do
with power and water and so on are absolutely necessary. The short-term
projects, the job-creation projects we are doing in the south,
it is easier to do because of the security situation, but even
there, frankly, we have had problems. However, having said all
that, I mentioned earlier that we were reviewing what we needed
to do in a military sense, but we are also reviewing what we need
to do in a development sense as well with the Americans and I
am sure that they are keen to learn the lessons of that too. Believe
me, the central problem on reconstruction and development is not
really to do with American big business interests; it is to do
with getting the security situation under control. Where you can
get it under control, then you can employ people and you can do
the reconstruction projects relatively easily, but if what happens
is that someone gets a reconstruction project underway and then
the three people organising it are assassinated, the next day
you do not find many people turning up on it, and that is what
has been happening. It is a tough situation, but I think these
differences either between the UN and the US or between the US
and ourselves on development are hugely exaggerated. If we got
the security situation under control, I think you would find Iraq
develop remarkably quickly.
Sir George Young: We move on now to security
being under control.
Q26 Mr Tredinnick: Prime Minister, is
it not a fact that reconstruction costs are spiralling out of
control? What is your estimate of the cost to the British taxpayer
and where is the money coming from, please?
Mr Blair: Well, I think the Treasury
have given the figure on the costs both in relation to the conflict
and so far in relation to reconstruction. I think the Treasury
figure that they gave was just over £2 billion, and that
is for us. The reconstruction costs are not spiralling, as far
as I am aware. What is happening, however, is that we are not
able to disperse the money as quickly as we want because of the
security situation. Now, as that eases, then it will be easier
to do.
Q27 Mr Tredinnick: But, Prime Minister,
has not one of the problems been lack of controls? The coalition
provincial inspector general's report showed clearly that there
was widespread lack of control in the provincial administration
and, more importantly, misuse of Iraqi oil assets. What has that
cost the British taxpayer, please?
Mr Blair: Well, I do not know
that any of the money that we have been putting out in Iraq has
been misappropriated. We have strict controls in relation to doing
it. There is an issue which is difficult from time to time which
is that, and I think you face this situation in any country where
you are putting money in for development following a conflict,
there is a conflict sometimes between the necessary bureaucracy
for accountability and the speed with which you want the money
to come out and occasionally there can be problems that result
from that. The money that we are putting into Iraq we are satisfied
is being well and properly used.
Q28 Mr Tredinnick: On that, Prime Minister,
how much money actually has been pledged to Iraq? The Americans
have pledged US$18 billion and only US$10 billion has been allocated.
How much money have we promised or pledged and how much of that
has actually reached the Iraqis and the Iraqi administration?
Is there a gap there?
Mr Blair: Well, there is a gap
and that is the very problem.
Q29 Mr Tredinnick: What is it?
Mr Blair: I cannot be sure of
the exact sums of money. I think overall US$30 billion have been
pledged, the Americans have pledged US$18 billion and I think
US$10 billion have been allocated, as you say, of the American
money. I suspect of that money which has been allocated there
will be a significant part of that, I cannot tell you exactly
how much, that will not yet have been spent because it is waiting
for the projects to be able to be done as a result of the security
issues that arise. My very, very strong view of this, and greatly
reinforced by talking to people out in Iraq before Christmas,
is that once we get the security situation under control, this
money will be used reasonably quickly and the prospects for Iraq
are enormous. The development of the port that we are engaged
in down in the south, that will become a major, major commercial
gateway for Iraq to the whole of the world. The potential of the
country is absolutely enormous, but obviously we need the security
under control.
Q30 Mr Tredinnick: The only problem with
your answer, if I may say so, is that we are not getting an idea
of the costs and these are generalisations. I think, on behalf
of the British taxpayer, we need a clearer idea of what the costs
are going to be. We have got money that is pledged and money that
is going, but can you give us an overall figure now of how much
money you see being spent on these very large projects?
Mr Blair: Well, as I say, I think
overall there has been US$30 billion that is set aside by the
international community, and I think that was the pledge. I cannot
say over exactly what timescale that is going to be spent. What
I can say is that the money we are spending from Britain is well
spent, but most of it is, frankly, on the Armed Forces.
Sir George Young: In order to bring this
section to a conclusion, I wonder if I can ask Tony Wright to
put his questions about the role of Parliament in what has been
going on.
Q31 Tony Wright: In your first answer,
Prime Minister, you talked about other countries being bound by
parliamentary votes. Well, of course we had uniquely a parliamentary
vote at the time of the military action two years ago and at that
time the Foreign Secretary said, "I am glad that we have
set that precedent for the future", that is, Parliament voting
on such occasions. You said in the Commons on 19 January, "It
is not right to constrain the prerogatives that exist at the moment",
so I just want to know really, is the Foreign Secretary telling
us there is precedent established or is that not the case?
Mr Blair: Well, I think, following
the decision that we took and, as I think you pointed out at the
time, it was the first time that Parliament had been asked specifically
in that way to have a vote before troops were committed, I think
that if you can do that, in other words, if the urgency of the
situation does not demand otherwise, then I suspect that is what
will happen with future conflicts, but I do not think that is
setting a constitutional precedent strictly. I think it is setting
a practical precedent in that if people could see things building
up towards military action, I think people would probably want,
in the way that we did over Iraq, to have a vote on it.
Q32 Tony Wright: So a precedent, but
not a constitutional precedent?
Mr Blair: I am slightly reluctant
to go and bind whatever future governments may do, but we took
the decision over Iraq because, frankly, we could. In other words,
you could not really say that the urgency of the situation was
such that Parliament could not have a say beforehand, and I suspect,
for political rather than constitutional reasons, that will be
more like the norm in the future, provided it can be done. I think
you have got always to have the ability, as a government, to take
immediate action if that is necessary, which is why I do not actually
myself favour changing the constitutional prerogative.
Q33 Sir George Young: Prime Minister,
thank you very much. That has been a very useful session. I think
we would like to see this paper from General Luck, if we could,
which I think you have seen, but we have not.
Mr Blair: Can I just say to you
that I have seen a draft that is still under discussion, so it
is not that there is a finished article that has not been published.
When there is a finished article, it will be published.
Q34 Chairman: Before we move on, early
in your replies you said that it was difficult to foresee the
insurgency. Surely that is not correct. With the first President
Bush, and I remember the discussions, as probably you do, at the
time in the press and politically, one of the reasons why the
first President Bush did not press on into Iraq from Kuwait was
because of fear of insurgency and we have more recently had the
experience of Afghanistan where we have seen the ability of the
Mujahideen to be rapidly internationally mobilised and sent to
areas of conflict, so surely all the evidence was there, that
you were going to have insurgency?
Mr Blair: What I really mean by
that is that you cannot foresee the particular nature of the insurgency
and actually its link with international terrorism. Yes, obviously
there was going to be resistance and obviously some of that resistance
would continue, but I think I would make an additional point as
well, that whether you foresee it or you do not foresee it, you
have still got to tackle it and the only way of tackling it is
the methods that we have employed. I would just make this one
other point: that what has happened with the Iraqi elections is
a major step forward, there is no doubt at all, and all the information
we have had since the elections is that inside Iraq people have
been surprised and greatly uplifted by the success of the elections,
but I do not think there is any doubt either that we have to build
on this very quickly and we have to build on it with the security
plan for the Iraqiisation of the security situation so that they
can take their own responsibility for it. We have got to build
on it in reaching out to some of the Sunni people who will not
have participated in the election and we have got to build on
it by reviewing and putting back together a reconstruction plan
that actually works. Now, I think that all those things, together
with getting more international partners involved, have to happen,
so I am not the slightest bit foolishly optimistic about it, it
is still a very, very tough situation there, but the election
has changed it and I think the terrorists and insurgents, whatever
damage they can do, and they can do that, frankly, irrespective
of the planning that you have, they are doing it with a very clear
view now inside Iraq and outside that they have no real popular
support.
Q35 Chairman: You say outside, but Iran
and Syria, having been named very recently and focused on as part
of the axis of evil, they actually have a direct motivation to
allow terrorists to cross their borders now because the more the
Americans bleed in Iraq, the less chance there is that they will
take on more opponents.
Mr Blair: I think if they were
to make that calculation, it would be a very severe miscalculation.
What we have said to both Iran and Syria constantly is that this
is now a United Nations agreed process inside Iraq, it is important
that they as well as everyone else support it, and whether they
do or not is up to them.
Chairman: We will now move on to the
economy and public services section.
Q36 Mr McFall: Prime Minister, good morning.
I want to look at the UK economy. The consensus view for the economy,
as the IMF put it, is that the outlook is favourable for the UK.
What significant risks can you see over the next couple of years
that we ought to be wary of because of the derailed domestic growth
prospects?
Mr Blair: The most important thing
is to keep a very tight grip on the stability of the economy.
There are obviously external potential risks that are there from
Europe or America and any downturn in the world economy, but we
are reasonably optimistic about our forward growth.
Q37 Mr McFall: House prices, oil prices,
the US current account deficit or the UK labour market, do any
of those cause you concern?
Mr Blair: All of them potentially
could be a problem. On house prices, it is important to increase
housing supply in the south but to do it in a planned way, which
we are doing by setting aside four specific areas for housing
growth. In respect of the labour market, I think we have got to
keep the labour market flexible and help as many people off benefit
and into work as possible. I think oil prices are a potential
issue, although I think it is remarkable to anyone who lived through
the period of the 1970s how this rise in oil price has taken place
and not had a bigger economic impact on growth prospects.
Q38 Mr McFall: Many independent economists
suggest that one risk to the growth outlook is growing evidence
of the labour market tightening. Given that the UK already has
a much higher labour market participation rate than the euro-zone,
I think ours is about 74.9%, it is almost the same as the Americans,
are you confident that initial success of the trials, such as
the Pathways to Work initiative, in getting people back into the
workforce can be maintained as they are rolled out nationally?
Mr Blair: Yes, I do. The Pathways
to Work programme has worked for people moving off incapacity
benefit and into work. I think we have got to do more on that,
as we explained last week. I know this is politically controversial,
but I think the New Deal programmes for young people, for lone
parents and for the over-50s have helped hundreds of thousands
of people into work and been extremely successful. The great blessing
that we have had in the UK in terms of our economic management
over the past few years has been that we have managed to grow
strongly with low inflation, low mortgage rates and high employment.
When I was growing up the problem was that every time unemployment
started to fall inflation started to rise. We have avoided that,
but I think we have avoided it in part by very active labour market
measures.
Q39 Mr McFall: Let us look at the fiscal
rules. Just recently the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn
King, said that meeting the fiscal rules was not an optional extra,
it is an integral part of the overall macro-economic framework.
I presume you agree with that, do you?
Mr Blair: I do, absolutely.
|
