|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
5. Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): What the role of British forces is in reconstruction in southern Iraq. 
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): The Government have an extensive development programme in support of the Iraqi people.
The Department for International Development, with the support of UK forces, has so far committed over £417 million of assistance, including significant investment in electricity infrastructure, raising output and strengthening the grid. In the next six months further projects will deliver a range of basic services, including drinking water, to make a real difference to the everyday lives of the people of southern Iraq.
Mr. Bailey: Does my right hon. Friend agree thatin the long run it is essential to build up the capacityof the Iraqis themselves to develop their own infrastructure? What are British troops doing to assist that process?
Browne: The key to our withdrawal and that of the
multinational forces from Iraq is building the capability of the Iraqi
Government, both at national and provincial level, and of the civilian
infrastructure, to take responsibility for a range of measures that
previously they did not have responsibility for. For example, anybody
who has visited Basra and compared it with Baghdad can see what 30
years of neglect by a dictator did for that part of the country, which
he determinedly ran down. It is in building that capacity that we will
be able to give the people of Iraq a way forward. If my hon. Friend
wants an example of what we are doing to encourage that, he needs to
recognise that a significant number of very able Ministers in that
Government, including the Prime Minister, have been in London today
meeting their counterparts and discussing how we can help them.
Significant improvements have been made in Iraq. They do not always get
reported, and sometimes they are drowned out by the violence, which I
acknowledge has been at an unacceptably high and very dangerous level
past months, but improvements are taking place there daily, and a substantial part of the country has moved forward.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that our troops reconstruction role in southern Iraq has been made much more difficult by the Governments failure to condemn at an early stage Israeli forces attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon? That is a real concern, because whereas we have no troops stationed in Israel, we have thousands of troops stationed across Arabia, and many of our Arab friends are very angry about the situation. What is he going to do about it?
Des Browne rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should stick to southern Iraq. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to ask a direct question about southern Iraq.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I again put to the Secretary of State the paucity of medical supplies and equipment in Basras main hospital, of which a lot of Iraqis are dying as a consequence. We have also heard that a number of doctors and medical staff have been killed in the insurgency. It is my position that UK forces should stock up that hospital and, if necessary, take children out of the country to get treatment. Is that his position, and, if it is, why are UK forces not acting?
Des Browne: It is my position that the international community, including the United Kingdom, has a responsibility to support health provision in Iraq, which we have been doing. It is not my position that the answer to the needs of those who should be treated in Iraq is to provide some method of moving them out of the country. That would be no answer to the problems. I accept that people in certain professions have been targeted, including the medical profession, but the answer to that is to work with Iraqi forces and the Iraqi Government at the national and provincial levels, which is what we are doing.
In a meeting today with the Prime Minister of Iraq, I was pleased when he told me that he has implemented proper supervision of the Basra security plan and that he will return to Iraq and visit Basra specifically to send a strong message to those from his community who are involved in the violence that it is unacceptable and that the security plan will address them. The long-term answer is to deliver security for the Iraqi people. My hon. Friend is consistent, but he should recognise the improvements. Although there have been setbacks, there have been significant improvements, too, and he should never underestimate how badly Saddam Hussein treated the people of Basra.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The Secretary of State
will, I know, agree that a central part of the reconstruction of
southern Iraq, as well as our operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere,
is provided by the Hercules based at RAF Lyneham in my constituency?
There are currently two problems. First, there are not nearly enough
Hercules, despite the extra one that he has deployed to Afghanistan. Of
the 47 in
the fleet, only 20 are available for purpose at any one momentfive have been deployed in the relief of Lebanon. Secondly, the fleet is at full stretch. Is it not time to consider the provision of extra heavy lift capability, perhaps by chartering a C-17 or an extra Hercules?
Des Browne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at additional air support and airlift. However, I am satisfied that we have responded to requests from theatre and provided the assets requested by those in theatre. In my view, that is an appropriate assessment of our capability, and we have not yet found ourselves with insufficient resources.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Last week, Premier Koizumi from Japan completed the transfer of the last of the Japanese contingent of 600 ground self-defence forces who have been based in southern Iraq in the city of Samawa and the area around it, notionally charged with humanitarian and reconstruction objectives. Does the Secretary of State feel that our own forces will have to pick up that role and therefore become even more seriously overstretched?
Des Browne: My hon. Friend could not, with respect, be further from the truth. The Japanese, who made a significant contribution in al-Muthanna province in southern Iraq, were able not only to stand their troops down from where they were positioned in al-Muthanna but to send them home because they had achieved their objective. My hon. Friend will have noticed that coincidentally with the Japanese Governments announcement of a drawdown, there was an announcement of provincial Iraqi controlthat is, with Iraqis themselves taking over responsibility for security and for the governance of al-Muthanna province. There is no need for any troops from outside Iraq to provide that in al-Muthanna, and that will increasingly be the case across Iraq.
6. Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): What funding allocations have been made for the financing of military operations in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. 
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): There is no set budget for the future cost of operations in Iraq as costs vary with the tempo of the operation. In his recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set aside £800 million from within existing public spending plans for 2006-07 to meet the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and other international commitments. Urgent funding requirements arising from operations are met from the reserve.
If I may be
permitted, Mr. Speaker, in that regard I can announce today
the conclusions of an urgent review into protected vehicles for
operations, particularly in Iraq. We have identified three
complementary ways forward, two of which build on and accelerate work
that is ongoing, and the third is new. They will be funded from an
acceleration of existing funding and, in part, from substantial new
funding from the Treasury for Iraq and Afghanistan. I have set out the details in a written statement. Briefly, we are ordering 100 new Vector vehicles, 70 FV430 vehicles beyond the 54 already ordered, and about 100 new Cougar wheeled armoured vehicles for both theatres.
Michael Gove: The Prime Minister recently underlined the threat to our troops in Iraq from Iranian-backed militias and Iranian-supplied weapons. I am delighted that the Minister has today announced that we are going to upgrade the armoured vehicle fleet available to our troops to protect them from that threat. However, the wheeled armoured vehicles that he has ordered will not be ready for deployment until the end of this year. What consideration was given to the procurement of battle-ready RG31 protected patrol vehicles?
Des Browne: We gave serious consideration to all the vehicles that were available. Thanks to the work that we were able to do with the Americans, and thanks particularly to significant work that my hon. Friend Lord Drayson was able to perform, we were able to identify about 100 Cougar vehicles to which the Americans were prepared to allow us to have access. We chose those because up-armoured, with electronic counter-measures added and with Bowman radios fitted, we believe that they would be the best protected mid-range vehicles in theatre. We made an objective decision to choose them instead of the RG31s. Had we chosen the RG31s, we would have had to fit ECMs and Bowman to them and possibly to up-armour them. In any event, the earliest possible time that we can get them into theatre is in the context of the six-month period of the next two roulements for Iraq and for Afghanistan. It physically could not be done any more quickly with any vehicle.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): The Government have seen fit to finance a reserve battalion for Iraq stationed in Cyprus. The Secretary of State mentioned an unprecedented level of violence, which would seem to suggest that those reserves could be needed at any moment. Almost half the combat power of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has been sent to Afghanistan, not Iraq. Have we run out of money or run out of soldiers?
Des Browne: We have not run out of either moneyor soldiers. My announcement today, coupled withothers that I have made about urgent operational requirements for both our theatres, show that, when resources are necessary, we will find them.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): Given the tempo of
operations in Afghanistan and the necessary cost that that implies, and
given that the Secretaryof State has confirmed that, before
next years comprehensive spending review, no strategic defence
review or review of defence planning assumptions will take place, is he
confident that the Chancellor will continue to fund the current or
tempo of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from a special reserve, or will the costs fall on the regular defence budget?
Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has no reason to believe that the Treasury will not respond to the requests for additional resources for theatre and give access to the special reserve appropriately for them. There has been no occasion on which the Treasury has denied that access and there is no reason for the hon. Gentleman to start baseless speculation that that is likely to happen in future.
7. Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): Whether the House will have an opportunity to vote on the replacement of the UKs strategic nuclear deterrent. 
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): The answer is yes.
Danny Alexander: I welcome the decision to allow Parliament a vote. I hope that its timing will allow for not only a full and informed debate in Parliament but proper public consultation. Given that a vote solely on options for a nuclear deterrent would be inadequate, will the Secretary of State clarify whether it will be on the substantive question of whether the UK retains a nuclear deterrent?
Des Browne: I can give the hon. Gentleman a specific and clear answer: there will be a vote. I have not at this stage determined the question. I will not be in a position to help him until the threats, risks, options and costs are worked out and the Government reach a view to inform the debate that is already taking place.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not join all the other people who suggest that the Government should not reach a view and that we will have a remarkable debate in this country in which Ministers or the Government are the only ones who are not allowed a view. Every time one expresses anything that approximates a view, everybody suggests that the debate has been closed down. There will be a debateindeed, it is already taking placethe question will emerge, and there will be a vote on it.
Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is right that we should have a vote following a debate. However, the debate should be informed. He has been asked once what estimates he will contribute to the debate. Although he may not have them now, what is his prediction for the month when we will get estimates that allow us all to take part in an informed debate?
Browne: A substantial amount of information about the
current position is in the public domain. Almost every day, I answer a
raft of questions that are designed to tease out individual pieces of
information that can inform the debate. The Governments
position could not be clearer. We have set a timetable for around the
end of the year and we will have an open and transparent debate. The
Government have said that we will publish a White Paper to inform the
debate. In my
view, it must contain the components to answer all the questions, but only once the risks, threats, options and costs have been worked out. What is the point of my standing here speculating until those matters are worked out?
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I do not want to be too helpful to the Secretary of State but it is obvious to me that the Government will be in favour of a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, that the Conservative Opposition will support the new generation of weapons of mass destruction and that the Scottish National party will oppose them. Would not it be helpful to know the Liberal Democrats position?
Des Browne: I cannot answer for the Liberal Democratsthey can answer for themselves when the time comes. It comes as no surprise that the Scottish National party is opposed to continuingif it comes to thatwith a nuclear deterrent. The SNP is opposed to NATO. Its defence policy is not clear apart from complaining about British soldiers, whom it does not intend to support in future.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I warmly welcome the Governments commitment to holding a vote on this extremely important issue; they are not being given sufficient credit for that, just as they were not given sufficient credit for holding a vote on the war in Iraq. We need an informed debate, however, and one of its most important aspects will be the nature of the security threat that this country will face, which will be very different from those that we have faced in the past. What information will Back Benchers be given to enable them to make the correct decisions?
Des Browne: My hon. Friend can look forward to having the opportunity to consider the available evidence on the nature of the risks and threats to our defence and security that we might face over the next 20 to 50 years. It will be the Governments duty to reflect on the full range of threats to the security ofthe nation, so as to inform the nation and its parliamentarians about the decision that they will need to make on how we configure our defence for that very uncertain future.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): There is consensus between the Government and the Oppositionit probably does not include the majority of Labour Back Benchers or the smaller parties in the Houseon the need for a new deterrent, but it will be essential to our debate that we understand the alternatives between what might be described as an expensive option and the cheaper options. Some of the options might have been discarded by the Government when they made their proposals. Will they make it clear to the House what those discarded proposals are, so that we have the opportunity to debate them as well?
Browne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no
hiding, discarding or non-publishing of information. The Government
want the fullestpossible informed debate on this issue. When
options are considered and discarded, I will accept the responsibility
for explaining why that has happened, if
indeed it comes to that. The problem with hon. Members asking such questions at this stage is that I always have to qualify my answers by saying that the risks, threats, options and costs have not yet been assessed, and that no recommendations have been made to any member of the Government. I am therefore not in a position to explain to the hon. Gentleman what the shape of the White Paper will be. However, it seems to me that it ought to take into account the geopolitical side as well as the military issues.
8. Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): What recent steps he has taken to meet commitments under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty. 
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom has a proud record on fulfilling its disarmament obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which remains the cornerstone of this countrys nuclear non-proliferation policy. Since 1998, we have withdrawn and dismantled the WE177 nuclear bomb and all of our remaining Chevaline warheads. As a result, Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system, and we are the only recognised nuclear weapons state to have reduced to a single platform. These steps have reduced our operationally available stockpile of nuclear weapons to fewer than 200 warheads, which represents a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the cold war.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful and full answer. Following the exchanges between my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) and the Secretary of State, and given the principle of irreversibility agreed at the nuclear proliferation treaty conference in 2000, will the Minister tell us whether any increase in the United Kingdoms nuclear capacity would be compatible with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to which he has just referred?
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for my full answer. He should understand that that full answer means that we will be fully compliant with our international obligations under that treaty. This is why we have been so supportive of the United States statement on the draft fissile material cut-off treaty, which represented a way forward on these issues. We are leading the way, and seeking new ways to achieve disarmament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that and congratulate the Government on all that we have done, and on all that we will do in the future.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): On the important matter of
the decommissioning of nuclear weapons, will the Minister pay tribute
to the work carried out by the thousands of people who work at the
Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston? In the context of the
wider debate, will he also pay tribute
to them not only for the work that they are doing today but for the work that they have done in the past and the work that they will do in the future to protect this countrys security?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I sought to answer in an earlier response. This work not only plays an important part in the defence of this country, in our role in NATO and in trying to maintain peace and stability in a troubled globe, but makes a major contribution to the science and technology base of this country. We need only consider the thousands of scientists and technicians who have been through not just AWE but other support elements of the defence industry in this country to recognise the quality and worth of their contribution. They defend us, but they also strengthen our economic and manufacturing base.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|