| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Des Browne:
The hon. Gentleman disadvantages himself by relying on a press report of what General Richards said. In fact, when General Richards used the word “anarchy”, he used it specifically in relation to the lack of coherence in the network of international Government and non-governmental organisations operating in Afghanistan. He was not referring to the security situation or to the rule of law in the country. Lest it be thought that, by explaining the context of that reference, I am being complacent in any sense, I add that he went on to say that a number of measures were now in place that would tackle the problem of coherence in the Afghan and international community’s response, including President Karzai’s creation of a policy action group to co-ordinate and drive through key elements of Afghanistan’s
development. He was not talking about security at all when he used the word “anarchy”.
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the new contingent of British troops being sent to Afghanistan and their support staff will contribute to economic and social development, particularly in Helmand?
Des Browne: My hon. Friend asks an important question, because a significant proportion of the additional troops whom we deployed to Afghanistan consists of 320 engineers. That is recognition, based on observations made in the early weeks and months in Afghanistan, of the fact that in order to deliver reconstruction in the context of improved governance, which will be the future security of the people in Helmand province, we must be able to find a method of doing so in a fragile security situation. That is exactly what the deployment of those engineers is designed to do. Through that deployment, we will take advantage of the progress that Commander Ed Butler and his troops made in the early months in Afghanistan to build on that security by delivering progress to communities across the south of Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand province.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), are in Afghanistan, and I thank the Secretary of State for helping to facilitate their visit. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, we support the mission and, above all, the work undertaken by Her Majesty’s armed forces, but Parliament has a duty to hold the Government to account for their policy in Afghanistan.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to NATO’s commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General David Richards, who, on Friday night, said that western forces were “short of equipment” and were “running out of time”. He said, too, that there was a lack of unity between the different agencies responsible for implementing the reconstruction work, which means that the situation, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, “is close to anarchy”. How on earth does that square with the written answer that the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring last week, in which he said:
“Neither the Taliban, nor the range of illegally armed groups, currently pose a threat to the long-term stability of Afghanistan”?—[ Official Report, 18 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 342W.]
Surely there is an element of complacency in that, which ought not to be there?
Des Browne:
There is no complacency at all. I know that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is with the hon. Member for Woodspring in Afghanistan, and I was pleased to be able to assist in ensuring that they could have that experience and could communicate to our troops in Afghanistan their support and the support of other Members of the
House. Before they left, they confirmed to me that they would be pleased to take that message to our troops in Afghanistan.
In answering the question as I did, I was doing exactly what I, and my predecessor, have done on a number of occasions in relation to Afghanistan: I drew a distinction between the strategic threat that the Taliban could pose to the Government of Afghanistan, and the localised threat that I have, on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, candidly admitted that they pose. I do not believe—nor does General Richards—that the Taliban pose a strategic threat to the Government of Afghanistan. That is what my answer to that question was designed to impart. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see I have used that phraseology in that very context on a number of occasions. Indeed, it has been used by myself and by the previous Secretary of State for Defence since March this year, in answer to very similar questions.
Let me just deal with General Richards’s view: I had the benefit of meeting him on Friday morning, and I do not have to rely on the way in which he was inaccurately reported in newspapers. Let me quote what General Richards—
Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for not reading out the entire speech that General Richards made, but he made it at a public gathering at the Royal United Services Institute and it has been widely reported. Either all the reporters have got it wrong, or there is something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman’s recollection.
I want to ask the Secretary of State something else about Afghanistan, which is extremely important. Increasing numbers of British troops are being deployed to Afghanistan and the United Kingdom has another role to play there. We have been charged specifically with the lead role in helping the Afghan Government to rid the country of drug production. Last week the Minister for the Middle East said what the strategy should be. Perhaps I am quoting inaccurately and the Secretary of State can tell us if the newspapers have got it wrong, but the Minister said:
“Go for the fat cats, very wealthy farmers, the movers and shakers of the drugs trade”.
General Sir Mike Jackson, Britain’s most senior soldier, said:
“To physically eradicate”
“before all the conditions are right seems to me to be counter-productive”—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are Back Benchers who are entitled to be called as well.
“The mission in Afghanistan offers the clearest example of how NATO is successfully transforming...Much progress has been made, and the strength, diverse capabilities, and flexibility inherent in multinational operations is being proved.”
Those were the words that General Richards used to conclude his contribution to the RUSI conference. They are entirely contradictory to the way in which his
speech has been reported. Those are his own words, not three or four of them taken out of context.
With regard to drugs, there is no inherent contradiction between our focus on reconstruction and our ambition to rid Afghanistan of narcotics. There is no long-term sustainability for Afghanistan if its economy is substantially based on narcotics. At this stage we are not asking our soldiers to be drugs police officers. That is a matter for the Afghan police. However, we have accepted a responsibility to build up the capacity of Afghanistan to deal with the issue. We are doing that. We are putting significant investment into it, and by the delivery of security, we are creating a set of circumstances where that can be done. All this is perfectly consistent.
Nuclear Deterrent
4. Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): What estimate he has made of the costs of replacing the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent. [87186]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): In preparation for decisions later this year on any replacement for Trident, officials are working on possible options and costs. Ministers will consider the outcome of that work later in the year. It is therefore premature to speculate on the possible costs of any replacement.
Mark Hunter: Given that the combined capital expenditure and through-life running costs of a Trident replacement could ultimately exceed some £40 billion, according to some experts, can the Minister say specifically where those funds will come from? Can he further assure the House that the funding for the UK’s conventional armed forces, which are already overstretched in many instances, will not be adversely affected as a consequence?
Des Browne: I have no doubt that in the context of the debate that will take place, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make clear, individually and on behalf of his party, when we understand what his party’s position is on the matter, where they stand. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman, like his colleagues, will have to live with the financial consequences of any decision that we make, just as we on the Government side, and no doubt the official Opposition, will be prepared to do, but he can be reassured that the timetable set for the decision is such that the decisions about the costs can be incorporated in the comprehensive spending review considerations, and decisions about costs will be made once we work out which option we want to adopt and what the costs of that option are.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): The development of our nuclear deterrent took place more than 50 years ago and involved the work of many armed forces personnel, not least the veterans who took part in the Christmas Island tests. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter of compensation for that ever-decreasing band of surviving veterans and their families, including my constituent, Mr. Tom Malone, before it is too late to help any of them?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister can write to the hon. Gentleman. The question is on another matter.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): When we have the debate on the strategic nuclear deterrent, could it include a discussion of the ballistic missile defence shield that America, South Korea and Japan have, but which Britain does not have? The Americans are looking for a third site. Could we have a debate about it possibly being located in the United Kingdom if they are prepared to pay for it?
Des Browne: Those are two separate issues. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to relate them, but to conflate them in that way will merely confuse the debate. He can rest assured that when there are any considerations in relation to any of these matters, we will be transparent and report them to the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): One of the ways in which we have managed relatively to keep down the cost of our nuclear deterrence is by our co-operation with the United States of America. If we want to do the same in future, would it not make sense for us to establish strong connections at every level with all our nuclear allies, including the French?
Des Browne: My hon. Friend will need to wait to see what recommendation the Government make after the risks, threats, options and costs have been considered before we have the debate about how that relates to our allies. I reassure him that we have the fullest appropriate co-operation with all our allies across all areas of defence.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Given the importance of the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding the money for any successor to the Trident submarine fleet, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether his good friend the Chancellor told him before he made his Mansion house speech, or only afterwards, that he was going to declare himself in favour of keeping the nuclear deterrent, not only in the present Parliament but in the long term?
Des Browne: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his persistence in trying to get from me an answer other than the one that I have given him now on a number of occasions, which is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have many discussions, the nature of which I consider to be confidential. It was hardly a surprise to me that my right hon. Friend should make a speech that was entirely consistent with party policy. I only wish that all of the people on these Benches would make speeches that were entirely consistent with party policy.
Dr. Lewis:
With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, not only was it consistent with party policy, it went rather further, because in talking about the long term it suggested replacement, not just continuation, of the existing fleet. But let us leave that aside and take the right hon. Gentleman’s answer as a no—he did not know until he read the speech. Given that the Prime Minister has said that the nuclear deterrent historically
has tended to be sui generis, thus implying that separate funds would be found to pay for any successor to the present Trident fleet, can the Secretary of State confirm that it is not intended to raid the conventional defence budget to pay for a new generation of strategic nuclear deterrent?
Des Browne: I can confirm that it is not intended to raid the conventional budget to pay for a new generation of nuclear deterrent, but I do that from a position that no decision has yet been made about whether there will be a new generation. The timing of the decision will be such that it will be able to be incorporated into the discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury in the comprehensive spending review, and that is when the decisions will be made. Finally, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to come to the conclusion that my answer meant that I did not have a conversation with my right hon. Friend about the content of his speech.
Iraq
5. Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): What the role of British forces is in reconstruction in southern Iraq. [87187]
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 that in the long run it is essential to build up the capacity of the Iraqis themselves to develop their own infrastructure? What are British troops doing to assist that process?
Des 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 over the
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 Government’s 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?
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 Basra’s 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.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |