---

Iraq

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. On behalf of my colleagues, I join him in sending condolences to the families of those who have so bravely but tragically lost their lives. I also join him in paying tribute to our armed forces serving in Iraq. In the face of severe dangers, their courage, commitment, professionalism and loyalty are a matter of great pride and an example to us all. For all the Secretary of State’s brave words, however, the situation in Iraq today is grim. There are now about 500 insurgent attacks each week, fuelled by growing outside interference, not least in MND(SE). The price is indeed being paid for the crass decision to disband the Iraqi security forces after the war—a decision that gave the insurgents their opening. Today, the Secretary of State has again reiterated that we should stay in Iraq, in his words, until our job is done. I agree, but the critical question is how he defines the job and who makes that crucial assessment. According to the Secretary of State it is the Iraqi Government. Of course, they have an absolute right to ask us to go if they wish us to do so, but surely their right to ask us to stay cannot be open-ended. Ultimately, is not it for us and no one else to decide on the deployment of our armed forces and when they should begin to draw down? I have noted what the Secretary of State said about troop rotations. I listened with surprise at the pride with which he mentioned the names of some of those regiments—ironic in light of the fact that at the same time he is trying to abolish so many of those same regiments. The 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers is to be deployed for the third time. I might ask him has its rifle company, which was stranded in Jordan for lack of air transport, been recovered? He has confirmed that a date has been set for the withdrawal of 12 Mechanised Brigade, but for how long will there be an overlap between the reserve battalion coming in and the brigade before that withdrawal takes place? The House also noted what the Secretary of State had to say about the developing capability of the Iraqi security forces. I must press him a little on that. He tells us that 190,000 personnel have been trained so far and that the number of capable units is increasing steadily. However, is not it the case that, as the top United States commander in Iraq, General Casey, told the Senate last week, only one Iraqi army battalion seems fully capable of fighting independently and is not that two fewer than was the case only two months ago? In MND(SE), with the apparent serious level of infiltration of the security forces by Iranian-backed insurgents, something on which the right hon. Gentleman has had little to say so far today—I hope he will say more—how confident is he that those forces will be able to take over in the short to medium term? Indeed, what estimate has he made of such infiltration? Does he now accept, for instance, that many of the latest roadside bombs are of Iranian design and manufacture? I understand that, as a result of the increased attrition from roadside bombing, our forces in MND(SE) are relying heavily on the use of helicopters. Are there enough helicopters to meet those new requirements and how many of them are having to be commercially contracted? Finally, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to say whether there is any truth in the rumour that coalition representatives are seeking to open channels of communication with at least some of the insurgents? The whole House and the nation are proud of our armed forces. I, too, pay tribute to Brigadier John Lorimer, commander of 12 Mechanised Brigade and his troops for their remarkable action in rescuing the two captured soldiers two weeks ago. Our forces throughout have carried out their tasks with all the fortitude and courage we would expect from our British Army, and our thoughts are with them all in the task that lies ahead.