---

Ministry of Defence

I am grateful to the Defence Committee for producing the   report before us, and I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. As the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), pointed out, the report refers to the public being kept in the dark about how the money has been spent on Iraq—on which I want to concentrate today—and on Afghanistan. That is a very good point, and deserves an answer from the Minister and the Government. How do we know that we are getting value for money for what we have spent? As I say that I am chuckling ironically, because frankly, given the situation in Iraq, we are getting no value for money. One could argue that money is being spent on servicing the troops, and perhaps on reconstruction aid—but how do we know? How, moreover, do we know that we are getting good value for it? That is a very serious point, given the spectacular corruption cases that we are starting to see in the United States. Custer Battles ripped off tens of millions of pounds-worth of the Iraqi people’s money by supplying the Iraqi forces with broken-down trucks, and Robert Stein has received a prison sentence for rip-offs amounting to millions of pounds. I am pretty sure that the money spent by the Ministry of Defence does not involve such spectacular rip-offs, but how do we know? It is important that such issues be out in the public domain. The Government maintain that we spent £3.1 billion on Iraq to March last year and in excess of £1 billion since then, so such spending totals well over £4 billion. But as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, that does not include combat costs—the initial costs of the war—which, presumably, are heavy, or other Departments’ costs. Where are they listed? As the Select Committee said, we do not have clear-cut accounting. That money is our taxpayers’ money, but what about the great deal of Iraqi money that has been squandered? Some £23 billion-worth of their money, which was held by the United Nations and handed over to the allied forces, has gone without any result. According to an article in The Independent last November, the Iraqi people could lose £200 billion-worth of oil resources under agreements that the allies are forcing through. Lots of money and resources are going down a bottomless drain; some of those are ours, but most belong to the Iraqi people. Despite all that spending, the Iraqi people are actually worse off. An article by Professor Glen Rangwala, whom I have quoted in the House before, and who helped to expose the dodgy dossier, stated:"““The most thorough survey yet conducted on Iraqi life since the invasion arrived soon after the election. The United Nations Development Programme found that the average income in Iraq dropped by 44 per cent. in the year after the invasion—from £137 per person under the last year of economic sanctions, to £77 under occupation. The percentage of mothers who die in childbirth is now over four times greater in oil-rich Iraq than over the border in resource-free Jordan. Some 63 per cent. of Iraqis live in homes unconnected to a sewage system, resulting in a series of chronic diseases afflicting the population, in comparison to only 25 per cent. in a similar situation before US-instigated sanctions were imposed in 1990. The survey estimated that 223,000 Iraqis had chronic illnesses caused by the war. The number of women of working age who are in employment, a key indicator of female empowerment, is just 13 per cent.””" I saw an article recently that showed that according to official figures, unemployment in Iraq is more than 60 per cent. I recall raising that matter soon after the occupation and saying that the situation needed to be dealt with if trouble was to be avoided. Instead, a rip-off was going on at a pace. All the contractors from outside—Halliburton and its cronies—took the jobs instead of the Iraqi people. As I said, recent figures show again that unemployment among Iraqis is well over 60 per cent. There has been no change. As we heard, only 13 per cent. of women are in employment in Iraq. That remains an appalling scandal. Iraqis are no better off. Just this week there were some good articles in the New Statesman. Zaki Chehab’s article begins:"““Kidnappings, power cuts, sectarian hatred, medical shortages, petrol queues, intimidation of women and a mass exodus of talent: all part of life in the new Iraq.””" He writes:"““There is a scarcity of basic equipment that most hospitals store in ample quantities as a matter of course . . . The situation today, the professionals insist, is even worse than in the last years of the old regime, when essential materials were in short supply because of UN economic sanctions . . . The optimism has vanished, and reconstruction has proved to be an illusion.""There has been no visible improvement to any of the services that are basic to civil society: drinking water, electricity supply, functioning sewage systems, schools and hospitals. Drinking water used to be available from household taps, but that is no longer safe to drink. Potholes in the roads, which were a common cause of complaint in Saddam’s time, not only still exist but are even bigger. There were occasional power cuts in the old days but generally the citizens of Baghdad enjoyed a regular supply. Now they are reduced to electricity for just one hour in every six each day.””" Iraqis are worse off. I put that to the Minister, because after the occupation it was made clear by the then Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), that where there are difficulties, it is for the armed forces to make the situation safe and then carry out the reconstruction work. That is the Minister’s responsibility, but the figures show that he has not succeeded. The reconstruction has been an abject failure. We do not know where most of the cost has gone. The Government have talked about training the Iraqi police and the Iraqi armed forces. What about that cost? Is that something extra to be added to the costs that we have? Presumably we are not talking about the armed forces just doing their everyday job and the cost being included in that figure. If it is so important that we train the Iraqi police and armed forces, why have we not seen the figures for that? Actually, it is a pretty incredible thing to be doing, because they have cut off co-operation with us at the moment. In reality, we cannot be doing that—so where has the money allocated for that particular job gone? Let me quote from one last article from this week’s excellent edition of the New Statesman. John Simpson writes:"““there is still no government in place, 90 days after the latest election. Where is the army””—" that is what the Iraqis are saying. The article continues:"““Where are the Americans? But the Americans know their presence at the site of an attack often makes things worse, and they are less in evidence now than they used to be. So why are they in Iraq at all, people ask.””" That is a good question in such circumstances. Why are they in Iraq at all, and why are we in Iraq at all? There has been £4 billion—if that is the official figure—of wasted money. Not a penny of it should have been spent, and I do not think that we should spend a penny more. We should get out of Iraq.