Clegg quizzes Brown on Iraq

12.40.32pm BST (GMT +0100) Thu 24th Jul 2008

• 'I WELCOME, of course, the proposal to bring our troops out of Iraq.'

Nicholas Clegg (Party Leader; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat): I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement and to salute the valour, the skill and the perseverance of the troops, and the courage of their families. Let us also not forget the courage of the families of the British hostages who are still held in Iraq.

I welcome, of course, the proposal to bring our troops out of Iraq. Their continued presence there contributes increasingly little to Iraq. Since withdrawing to the Basra air base, we have effectively become impotent, defending ourselves and little else. I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that the major indirect effect of our deployment is to stretch our overall military capability and so constrain the success of our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan. I regret that there is still no real clarity in detail on when we will finally leave. That continues the odd nod and wink strategy that has guided our approach to Iraq for some time. Such uncertainty about timing is unfair on our troops, unfair on their families and, of course, unfair on the Iraqis. [ Interruption. ]

Michael Martin (Speaker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard, but there is too much in the way of private conversation in the Chamber, which is very unfair.

Nicholas Clegg (Party Leader; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat): Why should the families of our troops or the troops themselves believe the proposed withdrawal plan, given the confusion that the Prime Minister created-confusion that has not been explained today-when announcing a timetable for withdrawal last October that was never implemented in full? I am told that part of the reason for that is concern about sensitivities in the White House-that the Americans do not want to see us withdraw from Iraq. Does he agree that it is in America's interest to release us from our obligations in Iraq, precisely so that we can do the job that we need to do in Afghanistan?

Can the Prime Minister also provide us with an update on the total costs and projected costs of our commitment in Iraq? At a time of increased economic woes here at home, the cost of our misguided engagement in Iraq is of considerable public interest. As we draw our troops down from Iraq, will the Prime Minister assure the House that we will step up our presence in Afghanistan? When will he start deploying more resources to that vital conflict? When will he start moving the vital equipment needed, such as armoured vehicles, out of Iraq to the front line in Helmand?

Finally, it is impossible to discuss Iraq without mentioning Iran. Our troops' safety in Iraq and Afghanistan is intimately bound up with Iran's influence. The Prime Minister has just come back from Israel, where he rightly condemned Iran's threats to that country. However, will he learn the lesson of our disastrous tacit support for Israel's incursion into Lebanon two years ago and make it clear to the House today, and to Israel and the country at large, that he will not support, even tacitly, any unilateral Israeli military strike in Iran? Two years ago, the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Straw, said that an attack on Iran would be "completely nuts". Does the Prime Minister agree?

Gordon Brown (Prime Minister; Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Labour): Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on a number of important facts. First, we have announced new numbers and extra support for Afghanistan. Secondly, the figures for the cost of our involvement in Iraq are published regularly. As I understand it, £3.6 billion in urgent operational requirements has been allocated over these last few years.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman comments on the work that the forces in Iraq are doing, but let me repeat what the Defence Committee said this morning:

"The larger the military training commitment we can maintain, the greater will be UK influence in Iraq, and in the region as a whole, as Iraq recovers its position as a wealthy and powerful Middle East nation."

The importance of our training effort is not simply that Iraqi troops are better able to deal with their own security, which I hope he would support, and to take responsibility themselves, but that people can see that this is long-term influence in Iraq, which is to the benefit not just of Iraq and the region but of our relationship with Iraq for the future. I hope that he will reconsider his view on this matter. The training function that is being carried out by our forces in Iraq is welcomed by the Iraqi forces and is vital in making them able to conduct their own operations and, therefore, enabling us to release the things that we are doing, allowing them to get on with their work.

As for Iran, let me make it absolutely clear-I will answer in more detail on Iran-that we have supported three United Nations resolutions on sanctions, and we have also taken action in the European Union. We will not hesitate to take further action on sanctions, including on oil and gas. We took action in the past few weeks on Bank Melli, and we are determined to show the Iranians that they have a choice. Their choice is that they can work with us, gain access to civil nuclear power and play their part as a responsible member of the international community or they can face isolation from the whole of the international community, as a result of their failure to honour what they promised to do under the non-proliferation treaty and withdraw from their programme on nuclear weapons.

That is a clear choice, and that is what the discussions of the E3 plus 3 group are all about. That is what was being discussed at the weekend. We await an answer from Iran. The important fact is that Iran faces that choice. I do not rule out any options in relation to Iran, but the path ahead, which I support, is one of negotiations backed up by sanctions. The more sanctions that we have to impose in response to Iran's attitude, the more we will have to do, and I believe that we will have the whole of the international community behind us.