| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been a tendency to stray outside the strict terms of this statement. If I am to try to call as many as I can of the other right hon. and hon. Members standing, bearing in mind that there is important business to follow, may I ask for brevity, both in question and in answer?
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): Much of the remarkable reconstruction work in Iraq, of which we have heard so little for one reason or another, is carried out by the civilian contractors and non-governmental organisations who rely on British forces for protection to do their work. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the impact on such reconstruction work of the downsizing of the British commitment?
John Reid: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in general terms we have taken into account the very points that he raises. Perhaps I can write to him in detailed terms, but I reassure him that the reduction in the forces that I have announced today does not mean a withdrawal and handover to the Iraqis in this or that province. That may or may not come, depending on the assessment of their capability, on their willingness and on their decision to take on the overall control of various provinces, at which stage we would withdraw from them. Today's announcement is not of that nature. Today's announcement reflects the increasing participation of the Iraqi security forces across the board and the completion of a number of our tasks across the board, which means an across-the-board reduction, but not a withdrawal for this or that area.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences that the Secretary of State for Defence has passed to the families of those who laid down their lives in Iraq. I and my colleagues agree with the praise that has been rightly passed on the gallantry and bravery of the members of the British Army, in which the Royal Irish Regiment has a part. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of what they did when they served there, and I just ask him one question: how will they be affected by some of the announcements about south Iraq that he has made today?
John Reid:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no direct effect on the Royal Irish Regiment. If that position is incorrect, I will, of course, write to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that the regiment is not affected by the statement. Of course, he, among others, has recently discussed with us the future of the Royal Irish Regiment and so on. I understand that, by and large, the announcement about redundancy terms that we made last week has been found acceptable to a cross-section of the Royal Irish Regiment and the people of
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1163
Northern Ireland, and I am very glad about that because, given all their sacrifices and hardships, they are entitled to be treated with fairness, dignity and honour.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about a reduction in personnel of 800 individuals. Would he be kind enough to tell the House more about the nature of those reductions? It is clear that there will be a reduction in the number of personnel associated with the training of Iraqi forces, but it is not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement where else the reductions will fall. Will he please tell us?
John Reid: Let me give an example that will have quite a big impact on the numbers that we need to send to Iraq. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, not only do we have a diminished number of and need for trainers, but in the guarding of installations, which is quite an onerous task that takes up quite a number of infantry right across all the battalions that we have sent there, the Iraqis are now able in terms of training, capability, weaponry and morale to defend their own barracks, installations, arsenals or police stations, for instance. That has quite a significant effect on the numbers that we are able to draw down.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): The Secretary of State may recall the evidence that the Chief of the General Staff gave to the Defence Committee at an earlier stage of our deployment in Iraq, when he said that, although we may operate with the Americans, we do not operate as the Americans. The potential full import of those words seemed to bear out the account of former SAS trooper, Ben Griffin, in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, which I am sure that the Secretary of State will have read. That would imply that the mistreatment of civilians and operations towards the civil population in the American areas appear to be somewhat institutionalised to a degree. Has he seen any evidence of a change in the manner of American operations in his time as Secretary of State?
John Reid: The remarks made by General Jackson took into account the fact that the Americans were dealing with different conditions and circumstances in different parts of Iraq, and with different ethnic groups, from those circumstances, environments and groups with which the British had to deal. It was therefore not just a matter of a will on the part of the British to act differently from our United States colleagues, but circumstances permitted that to be the case. Nothing that he said would suggest, nor have I heard anything to suggest, that wrongful behaviour on the part of the Americans is institutionalised. Certainly, whenever any wrongful behaviour is identified, to the best of my knowledge it is dealt with in a pretty quick and robust fashion.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the condolences that have been expressed and with the praise for the service personnel serving in Iraq.
On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the troop reductions and hope that they are the first step in complete withdrawal from Iraq.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1164
Has the Secretary of State had a look yet at the online discussion board used by service personnel to see their comments on today's announcement? The first reaction is:
John Reid: I have not been able to have a look at that discussion board this morning, although I look at it from time to time. If the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with those who run it, will he thank them for the many plaudits they gave me for the speech that I made a couple of weeks ago defending our troops? I have not seen such a defence made by or plaudits given to his own party, but I am sure that they will come. I have not seen the piece of correspondence that he quotes, but perhaps if he sends it to me in the form of a letter, I shall reply to it.
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): May I ask the Secretary of State to convey to the commanders of all our troops in Iraq how proud we are of them? They should never be described as toothless, because the last person who described a Grenadier as toothless lost his teeth. I am proud that the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, in which I served, is going to Iraq. Can we make sure that we look after the returning troops as much as possible, so that they do not come back, become disillusioned and leave the armed forces, and so that we do not lose the skills that we so desperately need?
John Reid: The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority, having served his country with the Guards. We are working on housing—single housing accommodation is a disgrace in many areas and we are trying, through a long-term project, to improve that. There is an above-inflation pay increase—slightly bigger for the lower ranks than for others—and we are working to improve the welfare package. I hope that all of that will encourage people to stay in the British armed forces, which offer a fantastic career to young men and women and in which we have vacancies every single year.
Mr. Mark Lancaster (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con): Given that there is no connection to the deployment in Afghanistan, presumably the Secretary of State will be able to assure the House that the 800 troops who are coming back will be allowed to have their 24 months back at home, as outlined in the harmony guidelines, before being sent to Afghanistan.
John Reid:
I am probably over-sensitive, but I noticed a hint of cynicism there. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that there is no connection between the deployments. [Interruption.] Actually, to jump from the first to the second is a non sequitur, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, even before Afghanistan, the harmony level was 21.4 months, rather than 24. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning: the drawdown in Iraq is not dependent on the deployment to Afghanistan, or vice versa. In the next few years, as ever, we shall strive to make sure that we approximate as closely as possible the satisfactory harmony levels for all our troops—not just those coming back from deployment in Iraq, but those coming back from deployment anywhere.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1165
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |