---

Iraq

He says it is not true; it would help if he gave us simple, consistent, practical figures. That brings me to the second lesson, which is the need for the Government to be as clear and transparent as possible on troop numbers. Is it not the case that over the past few days we have been in danger of hearing two quite contradictory things? On the one hand, the Prime Minister has said that he is against any artificial timetables for withdrawing the troops; on the other hand, Downing street sources have been reported as saying that he supports a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are discussing not abstract numbers and abstract announcements, but people with families and responsibilities who are already coping with the consequence of overstretch and who deserve the very best treatment—not spinning over numbers and announcements? Can the Prime Minister clear up one wider issue on Iraq? The UN mandate for our presence there expires in December, and the Iraqi Government are not seeking a fresh UN mandate. In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned seeking a fresh legal basis for our troops. Can he tell us a little more about that? Is it being negotiated in parallel with the United States? When will the negotiations begin? Is he absolutely happy that they will be concluded before the UN mandate runs out, and that there will not be a gap between the two legal bases? It is important to straighten that out. As for economic development, the Prime Minister spoke of accelerating economic reconstruction. Can he tell us when he expects there to be basic amenities such as reliable electricity and clean running water for the whole of Basra city? While there are clearly improvements in security there, which are very welcome, can he confirm that the provincial reconstruction team is still based with British forces at the air base? Can he also tell us what prospect there is of a move to Basra proper, and in what circumstances it could take place? The Prime Minister mentioned the hostages in Iraq. The whole House will wish to call for their release, and the Government know that they have our support in doing all that they can to make progress on that vital issue. On the last occasion when we discussed this, the Prime Minister agreed with our view that there should be an inquiry to enable us to learn the lessons of our involvement in Iraq. Does he agree that the argument for delaying the start of that inquiry is becoming weaker and weaker, and that he really should tell us when he will get on with it? Let me turn to the influence of Iran on Iraq. Can the Prime Minister give us the current assessment of Iranian involvement, and its impact on security and stability? On the issue of sanctions against Iran, he said in November that Britain would"““lead in seeking tougher sanctions… at the UN… including on oil and gas investment””." Last month he said that action would"““start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas””." Will he confirm that, as we speak, there are still no sanctions on oil and gas? Is he absolutely confident that if there is no positive response to the latest diplomatic offer within two weeks, sanctions will be imposed? I should be grateful if the Prime Minister addressed one final issue relating to statements such as this. I have asked him this before. It is essential that the British people are kept up to date at regular intervals. Will the Prime Minister consider again our call for, at least, full quarterly reports on progress in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can be given clear statements, on the record, on troop numbers and progress on the ground? Is that not the only way of ensuring that everyone, especially those serving on our behalf and their families, knows exactly where they stand?