---

Iraq

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. But I am sure—or at least I hope—that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who knows a thing or two about such matters, will join me in asking why there is nothing in the Statement about the issue that dominated the press conference given by the Prime Minister this morning. Why has government been brought to a standstill for weeks? Why was official business rescheduled? Why was a major statement by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, which should have come to the House this week, launched instead to the media last week? Why were our troops in Iraq exploited as a backdrop to spin? Why was general election fever stoked up by No. 10 and then dropped in the most humiliating circumstances? Why did the Prime Minister consider an election at all? Can the noble Baroness explain? Or was she, too, kept outside No. 10 while the young Turks and US polling gurus swaggered in and out? We are pleased that the Prime Minister has now turned his attention from swings in marginals to the immense strategic challenge facing our country in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. This is a full Statement; but it still leaves much unsaid. It is essential that this House should have a chance to debate these matters and the Middle East well before Christmas. I follow the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the 25 servicemen who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since we last met; 25 young lives. It is a deeply disturbing number. The steady toll in death and serious injury to young men and women who serve our country and to their families is never something that should become a routine litany of condolence. Each and every one of these is or was a unique person; a son, a father, or a husband. Their sacrifice and their loss will never be forgotten by their loved ones; it must never be forgotten by any one of us. We owe our servicemen and their families three things. First, we owe them our support; they need to know the profound and lasting sense of debt that we have for what they do, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in that. Secondly, we owe our troops the logistic support and equipment that they need to succeed in the dangerous jobs that we ask of them and to succeed in those jobs with a minimum of risk. Is the noble Baroness aware that many in the services say that the equipment has not always been there and, in some cases, still is not? It is good to hear that the MoD is ordering 140 more Mastiff vehicles, but was not the time to have them not as our troops are coming out but when they were going in? We welcome the support for Iraqis who have helped British forces, though it is a depressing comment on the situation that their only safe recourse may be to flee here. We also welcome the provision of internet and e-mail facilities for our troops—perhaps they may even get the facility to vote—but surely that, too, should have been done before. Can the noble Baroness promise that where the system of support and compensation has failed servicemen injured in Iraq, that scandal will urgently be addressed? Finally, we owe our forces truth, honesty and clarity about the aims of their mission, about its strategic purposes and about what it has achieved. The place where the search for truth and clarity should begin is here in Parliament. We therefore welcomed the Prime Minister’s pledge to abandon the spin and announcements and re-announcements outside Parliament that had discredited his predecessor. Will the noble Baroness, as our Leader, express to the Prime Minister the regret of this House that, instead of coming first here to Parliament to set out facts, he went to Iraq to spin and manipulate numbers in the old new Labour way? To say, "““indeed by Christmas, 1,000 of our troops can be brought back to the UK””;" to give that message to troops still out there, 1,000 of whom will not be coming home by Christmas; to do so, for personal political advantage, to upstage a rival party conference; and to spin that headline to young men and women who deserved and knew the truth—was that not something that will tarnish the Prime Minister’s reputation for a long time? Can the noble Baroness tell the House: did the Secretary of State for Defence approve that statement in advance? If she does not know, a nod from the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, will confirm it. What are the facts as to the mission? Most of us welcome the idea of troops coming home. But is not what is really wanted that our troops come home with the mission accomplished? The Prime Minister is right to refer to improvements in the Iraqi security situation, but he is right to refer also to the great need for further political progress and reconciliation. Is there not a very long way to go before that country even nears political stability? What is our current mission in Basra and in southern Iraq? Can the noble Baroness explain a little more exactly what is meant by ““overwatch””? What criteria would underlie a redeployment by our forces outside the air base and within Iraq? Would the UK Government contemplate a ““surge”” if there were a further upsurge in violence in the south? Who would make that decision? Could the Iraqi Government invoke such a deployment? Can the noble Baroness now say who controls Basra? Is any part of Basra or the south in the hands of those militias responsible for attacking and killing our troops? Is it true that the Mahdi Army are conducting a regime of terror in parts of the city, comparable to that of the Taliban, including brutal intimidation of unveiled women? The Prime Minister says Iran and Syria must halt support for violence in Iraq. What is our assessment of the role of Iran in the threat to our troops? What response have we had to representations from the Governments of Syria and Iran? Have the US Government made representations to us about a joint response to the threat from Iran? If the international security situation deteriorates, is the noble Baroness satisfied that the border between Iraq and Iran can be policed effectively without the permanent involvement of British troops? The security of our forces is paramount. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that a political temptation to be popular and to accelerate withdrawal will never be allowed to damage the whole strategic purpose of our deployment or to jeopardize what has been achieved by past sacrifices? Withdrawal is an ideal, but it is not an end in itself. Does the noble Baroness accept that the whole future of the Government would be called into question if our forces in Basra were reduced to a level where they could not conduct forceful and effective self-defence? Is she satisfied that these further reductions to just 2,500 troops—by when, the Statement is not clear—do not risk that? Finally, can she assure us that when the Prime Minister said that 1,000 troops would be coming home, he meant home? Is there any proposal to redeploy units withdrawn from Iraq into even more bitter fighting in Afghanistan? Our Armed Forces are extraordinary in their courage and resolve; they must have that support, equipment and clarity of which I spoke. Clarity can come only when some of the fog that has settled over our strategic purposes in Iraq and Afghanistan is lifted. I fear that this Statement fails this vital test.