Debate on the Address

The investigation that was called for in the debate in which the official Opposition were so equivocal was distinctly dissimilar to the exercise that is being carried out by Baker-Hamilton. It is not for me, as a Minister in this Government, to express a view about whether or not it is right or otherwise for a sovereign Government to carry out investigations as they choose. From my point of view and that of the Government, the nature of the inquiry that was being called for in that debate would have significantly undermined the work that our troops were doing on the ground at the time. That is why it was inappropriate to support the inquiry. As we build up the Iraqi Government and hand over security to the Iraqi army and police we will begin a phased withdrawal of our own forces. That process is already under way. Two of the four provinces in the south, al-Muthanna and Dhi Qar, were handed over during the summer. In a third, Maysan, we have moved away from front-line security and from our fixed base and towards a supporting role. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, we hope formally to hand over security early next year. The fourth province, Basra, remains the most difficult, but again, as my right hon. Friend told the House, last month during the Opposition day debate and reiterated today, we hope that the Iraqis will be in a position to take over in the spring, but our approach will continue to be driven not by an arbitrary timetable but by reality on the ground. This is a stage in a process which in time will produce a draw-down of our forces. There are important tasks left to do—to support the Iraqi army by training and standing by to re-intervene if necessary, to protect the border with Iran, and to reinforce our efforts in Basra. Together with the Iraqi army, we are working through Basra city area by area, preparing for handover with a new push on security, backed by renewed investment in basic services such as clean drinking water, proper sewerage and cleaning up the streets. In Basra and all 18 provinces across Iraq we need to accept that progress depends on many factors, not all of them directly under our control. The terrorists and foreign fighters will continue to have a say and to grab the headlines with their attacks on markets and mosques. However, progress depends more on factors beneath the surface, such as Prime Minister Maliki’s efforts on reconciliation—although none of us, and certainly not those of us in this House with experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, will be under any illusion about how difficult and precarious such reconciliation processes are. The challenges are complex and there are few, if any, quick fixes but we are making progress. The people of Iraq need our support and continued commitment. Their security and prosperity—and that of the whole region—depend on it. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks reminded us earlier of one the most important truths in foreign and defence policy—one that I have emphasised since I took up my current responsibilities. Diplomacy, military force and development cannot, by themselves, solve the challenges that we face. We need to bring together the different strands to work closely across Government and international institutions to produce a lasting effect. That is nowhere more true and important than in the other theatre where our forces are serving in large numbers: Afghanistan. I have said previously that I believe that Afghanistan is a noble cause and that I welcome the broad support for the mission from Opposition parties, which mirrors the broad support throughout the developed world, with forces from 37 countries serving alongside ours. However, as the debate shows, the broad consensus on the mission disguises differences on many aspects, including disagreement about tactics, criticism over whether we are giving our forces the right support and pessimism about the likely outcome. I shall deal briefly with those differences, since they were raised in the debate. On tactics, I shall say little except that it is easy to second-guess from this distance. The few who loudly criticised the decisions of our commanders earlier this year are conspicuously silent now. In general, there is more discussion about tactics than we should feel comfortable about, given the clear evidence that debates in Britain are played straight back to communities in which our forces have to work. The second criticism is about whether we are giving our forces the right support. I believe that much of that is unjustified. I am far from complacent. Together with the chiefs of staff and the Department, I am working relentlessly to ensure that we recognise and respond to the needs of our forces on operations in weeks or months rather than years. I hope that I have demonstrated that commitment by coming to the House to announce measures ranging from the introduction of a new tax-free bonus for forces on operations to the new package for protected vehicles, which the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) raised earlier. Each of those measures was funded by more than £50 million of new money provided by the Treasury. Underneath those measures, we have a programme, costing hundreds of millions of pounds, less visible but equally important, of continuous upgrades to our equipment to deal with the evolving threats and challenges in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We also have a continuing process for reviewing force numbers in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but, as I made clear earlier—indeed on numerous occasions in the House—it is neither appropriate nor helpful to discuss its workings before they are complete. However, I remind the House that each time it has been necessary to strengthen our forces—in Afghanistan in July and on a smaller scale in Iraq in September—the chiefs of staff and I have made sure that our commanders on the ground have what they need. Of course, the Government acknowledge the burden placed on our armed forces by the current operational commitment. Although I know that it suits the agenda of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to say that morale is low among our forces on operations, that is flatly untrue, as I have seen repeatedly on my visits to theatre. Recruitment, training and retention are fundamental. Those points were made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire. I am sure that both would acknowledge that the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence take that seriously. We go to great lengths to monitor and respond to trends in recruitment and retention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn urged members to read the National Audit Office report. I second that. If they do, they will see the efforts that we have made and the encouraging signs in Army recruitment, which is up by 10 per cent., with Army manning levels that are now in balance. We have always acknowledged the burden of operations and what we have to do to respond to that. The Conservative party acknowledges it, too, but is fond of saying that the Government must choose between reducing commitments or increasing resources. Today’s debate shows why we believe that the two major commitments—in Iraq and Afghanistan—are not optional. As for resources, let me correct the misleading impression left by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, who referred to ““the long-term decline of the defence budget””. That is simply untrue. In the past five years, the annual defence budget has risen on average by £1 billion a year—well in excess of inflation and comparing favourably with the period when he was a Defence Minister during the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. The defence budget then fell by more than £500 million a year. Let me remind the House that, despite frequent claims made by the hon. Members for Woodspring and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and repeated today by other Members, the Army has not shrunk by 9,000 or 10,000—or any other figure—since 1997. Some weeks ago, I wrote to the hon. Member for Woodspring to offer to explain the contradictory figure that he has been— Debate adjourned—[Mr. Roy.] Debate to be resumed tomorrow.