| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: There is a 41-nation coalition that sees its responsibility as making sure that we can deal with the terror threat of al-Qaeda and that the Afghan Taliban do not return to power in the way that they did before. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that 6 million children are at school in Afghanistan-1 million girls, who would never be at school if we left Afghanistan to the Taliban, are at school. More importantly, people in Britain are safer. Three quarters of the plots that we have discovered in Britain come from the Pakistan border area. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda are allowed to roam free there, we are at risk. Whatever difficulties he diagnoses from the history of Afghanistan-many conclusions can be drawn from its vexed history-we have a duty to protect our citizens and to ensure that we do everything in our power to build the capacity of the Afghan people to run their own affairs.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the growing opposition in Britain to the military position in Afghanistan is that people simply cannot see victory occurring, even if we were to stay there for another eight years? I, for one, am totally opposed to increasing the number of troops, and if there is an opportunity to do so, I will certainly vote against this.
The Prime Minister: I have to say to my hon. Friend that we have laid out a strategy that does not leave things as they are. It is a strategy that says that we have to train Afghan forces and that they must be in a position to take responsibility where British troops, and American and other troops, are taking responsibility now. That seems to me to be the best way forward. That training function will require us to make a contribution to it. We are prepared to make our contribution, and I believe that there will be wider support, both in this House and among the general public, than he suggests.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): The Prime Minister admits that 80 per cent. of our casualties have been caused by roadside bombs. What proportion of the convoys attacked by those bombs were resupply convoys, which could and should have been transported by air but which were not because of the disgraceful shortage of air transport capacity?
The Prime Minister: I just do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. A lot of the casualties have, unfortunately, been those people who have been on foot patrol, trying to build relationships with the Afghan people, so that we are seen not as an occupying army, but as an army that works with them. Where vehicles have been blown up we investigate what has happened, and I am happy to give him the details.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): How dare we ask more British soldiers to risk their lives for a corrupt President, his depraved police and the barbaric warlords, when we have already lost more British lives than have been lost by all our European allies? Every surge of British troops in the past has resulted in a surge of targets for Taliban bombs and British deaths. Do we not need new thinking, rather than more troops putting their lives at risk in an impossible war?
The Prime Minister: We have been setting out the new thinking about Afghanisation over the past few months. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that we are doing everything in our power to counter the IED threat; we have taken very big steps to increase the surveillance and the detection, and we have had a great deal of success. As I have said, 1,500 instruments have been dismantled or discovered as a result of the work of our security services and our forces. He should understand that a great deal of progress has been made. On the regime, he is right to say that we must continue the battle against corruption, but I say to him that we are part of a 41-nation coalition. We are working with other countries, and they are suffering casualties, too. We must understand that the high rate of casualties this summer has been the result of the change in tactics by the Taliban, and that America and other countries have been as affected as we have been.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Yesterday, my son was deployed to Afghanistan for the third time. I wish to take this opportunity to say how proud I am of him and his colleagues, and of the outstanding service that they give to our country. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has any plans to extend the Chinook fleet, because in Afghanistan flying is safer than driving?
The Prime Minister: There are more Chinooks going to Afghanistan next year.
Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): At a meeting of the Pakistan-India friendship forum last weekend, I was struck by the number of people whose families live in the region who expressed their concern that the Government might pull out prematurely. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that notwithstanding the process of Afghanisation, which many people who spoke to me support, he will maintain the support for the change in governance that those families so clearly want?
The Prime Minister: We want to see that change in governance. We want to strengthen, first of all, the Pakistan Government, as they take on not only the Pakistan Taliban, but al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in Quetta. We also, of course, want to strengthen the Government of Afghanistan to make them free of corruption. At the same time, we want them to have a security force that is equal to dealing with the problems of creating order in their own country. I assure people that that is our purpose.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): Public opinion on Afghanistan is, at best, hanging by a thread, because of the anxiety about corruption, because of the ongoing concerns about the loss of military and civilian life and because the public do not know what success in Afghanistan will look like. Will the Prime Minister tell us today not a time scale, but how he will define what success in Afghanistan will look like, so that the public can measure against that and know when the troops can come home?
The Prime Minister: We can immediately measure our success in dealing with IEDs and preventing the deaths that they have been causing. We can immediately measure the number of Afghan forces that are being recruited, so that we can pursue our policy of Afghanisation. In the longer term, we want to see the Afghan forces be able to take responsibility, with the police in Afghanistan, for areas of the country, so that our troops are able, as a result, to come home.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Following that point, this year this war has cost not only 200 British lives but 1,000 Afghan lives. It has also destabilised whole areas of Pakistan, all to install a Government who are a byword for corruption. Now we are sending a further 500 British troops and putting their lives at risk. What are the specific criteria for the success of the investment of those 500 troops, because many of us fear that we will back in a few months' time for another 500 lives to put at risk?
The Prime Minister: I have just said-I hope that I am able to emphasise this-that the reason why those troops are being put into Afghanistan, which is being done on the conditions that I have set out, is to achieve not only security for our existing forces, but the training of Afghan forces. That is why we are doing this, and that is why the policy has moved from where it was a year or two ago to emphasising the build-up of Afghan forces and of Afghan police, so that Afghans themselves are able to take responsibility for their own affairs. If we do not build up the capacity of Afghanistan to deal with its own problems, at some point either the Taliban or al-Qaeda, influencing the Taliban, will have a bigger say in the running of that country. That is something that we need to avoid.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): The recruitment, training and retention of an additional 52,000 police are a challenge and will take time, but the real challenge is the creation of a genuinely national police force in Afghanistan. When we were there in July, we were told that there were problems in persuading some people to serve in different parts of the country, which led to corruption and intimidation. What moves are therefore being made to ensure that the police force in Afghanistan becomes a genuinely national one?
The Prime Minister: I have just said that there is going to be a new training academy for police. That is one of the ways in which we can improve the quality of the police. I have also been in Helmand and watched how the Afghan police have worked side by side with the Afghan army and with the British civilian and military efforts. That has been a successful operation, and by building out of these successful operations, we will get the progress that we need for the future. Yes, national police training is essential. Quality is necessary, as is a corruption-free police force, and people will have to move around the country, because the recruits come from areas that are not necessarily the areas where we need people to be placed. However, the measures that we are putting in place-including the national police training academy-are designed to achieve that.
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): The role of non-governmental organisations and skilled civilians from across Government Departments, working alongside the Army, is critical to a comprehensive approach to supporting and building civilian capacity. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether UN resolution 1325, which builds on the important role of women in working to build civil capacity and towards peace, is part of our overall approach in Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister: It must be and will be. I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how we want to move this forward after the end of questions.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Following that question, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that President Karzai is excluding women from his Government? In his discussions with President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah yesterday, what steps did he take to ensure that women will have a significant presence in any new Government, however it is formed, at both a national and a local level and that they will have access to secular courts of justice rather than having to rely on sharia?
The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have regularly spoken to President Karzai about the need to respect the rights of women in the laws that are being enunciated in Afghanistan. I have sought from him regular assurances that there will be no changes in his position. The laws that are passed in Afghanistan must avoid discrimination against women and discrimination against the human rights of girls as well as those of women.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman has said that the additional deployment is dependent on coalition countries taking a fair share. Will he tell us what he means by that? What assurances has he received, and will he give an undertaking that we will not see an additional deployment of British troops until other coalition partners have made their intentions wholly plain?
The Prime Minister: First, what I meant was that there has been no announcement yet from America about what its future disposition will be. We want to work with the Americans as well as with other allies to find the best way forward for our work in Helmand as well as in the rest of the country. I also meant that consultation between our country, other NATO countries and partners external to NATO will take place very soon. I believe that we will have announcements from America, in particular, in the next few weeks.
Mr. Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): Frankly, I am staggered at the Prime Minister's characterisation of the deaths from IEDs as being caused by foot patrols and not by the lack of helicopters. Commanders regularly complain of unnecessary logistical road moves. Will he not admit that many of these people are dying for lack of helicopters-yes or no?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have seen that Tim Radford, who commanded Operation Panther's Claw, said that the operation was not hampered by the absence of helicopters. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the deaths that have occurred from IEDs have occurred in different ways-some have been from vehicles that have been blown up and some from foot patrols-and he must look at the evidence.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP):
From the long IRA campaign in Northern Ireland, we recognise the
value to terrorists of being able to set up training bases in the haven of a safe foreign country. For that reason, we believe that the troops in Afghanistan are doing a sterling service for all people in the UK. I also welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that we are now spending £3.5 billion on supplying troops, but given the reports about the unreliable equipment, the underestimation of the reserves that are required and creaky procurement in the MOD, what efforts are being made to ensure that the money is being spent on the right equipment and on an effective supply chain?
The Prime Minister: We are giving more money to the Afghan effort, not less. The money has gone up substantially over the past few years and for one reason-we want our troops to be properly equipped. Let me make it absolutely clear that the people who are in Afghanistan are in the numbers required for, and are equipped for, the operations that we agreed. If different operations were agreed, there would have been different numbers, but the numbers were there for the operations that were agreed and to meet the requirements of those operations. There should be at least some understanding of that. Of course, there could have been different operations and different numbers, but for the operations that were carried out, the forces that were required were there.
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): Was the Prime Minister asked for a further 2,000 troops or not? It is a straightforward question, and a straightforward yes or no will do.
The Prime Minister: It is a straightforward question and I have answered it on many occasions, including before the Select Committee on Defence. A number of options were put to us, but not one of them included 2,000 extra troops.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Returning to the vexed problem of backsliding by certain of our NATO colleagues, which makes it difficult for those of us who strongly support the mission to persuade our sceptical constituents, what more is the Prime Minister going to do to name and shame those colleagues and make it clear to them that the NATO alliance will crack without their full participation?
The Prime Minister: I think that I should tell the right hon. Gentleman-although he might not accept it-that over the past few months, in the run up to the election, additional troops were put in by some countries. That was a result of the meeting of NATO that took place on the borders of Germany and France earlier this year, where a number of countries committed to extra troops. We said-this was controversial, because some Members of the House did not agree with it-that we would review the position after the Afghan elections and in the light of General McChrystal's review. That is what we have done, and it is what we will ask other countries to do, too.
Bill Presented
Equalisation of Tariffs for Gas and Electricity Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Austin, supported by Dr. Alan Whitehead, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Miss Anne Begg, Susan Kramer, Dr. Brian Iddon, Peter Bottomley, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Martin Caton, John McDonnell and Mr. Don Foster, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of equalising certain tariffs for gas and electricity; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 150).
Cervical Cancer (Minimum Age for Screening)
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.47 pm
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require NHS bodies in England to provide cervical screening for women aged 20 and over.
The Bill would bring England in line with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which all begin screening at the age of 20. Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women under 35 in the UK. Every year, more than 2,800 women in Britain are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and every year 1,000 women die from the disease. Thankfully, regular cervical screening can detect and treat early the abnormalities that, if left untreated, could lead to cervical cancer. Since the launch of the NHS cervical screening programme in 1988, early detection and treatment has had an excellent success rate. More than 90 per cent. of screening results come back normal, but for the few whose results do not, the test can, quite simply, make the difference between life and death.
The new human papillomavirus vaccination programme-HPV-was also introduced last year for girls aged between 12 and 15, and this autumn it will be extended up to the age of 18. So, we have a vaccination programme that ends at the age of 18 and a screening programme that begins at the age of 25. That leaves young women between the ages of 18 and 25 caught in a medical limbo, eligible for neither vaccination nor screening.
My Bill seeks to narrow that gap. By making cervical screening available to any woman aged 20 and above, an extra 1.3 million women would have the choice of cervical screening. The support for lowering the screening age to 20 comes from organisations that range from Marie Stopes International and Jo's Trust to The Sun newspaper, which ran a petition with over 108,000 signatures. In addition, recent polling by Harris for the Metro newspaper showed that 82 per cent. of 16 to 24-year olds in England agree with lowering the screening age.
In 2004, the Government raised the age from which cervical screening can begin from 20 to 25. Their justifications were that cervical cancer is rare in women under 25, that the anxiety and stress of unnecessary investigation and the treatment for abnormal cells is proportionally excessive, and that the age limit is now in line with World Health Organisation recommendations.
Cervical cancer may be rare in women under 25, but it is inexcusable to dismiss the cases that occur as negligible statistics. Unnecessary investigation and treatment when an abnormal test is proved wrong may be stressful, but it is not for the Government to presume to know best what young women want. If a young woman knows the risks associated with treatment, the decision about whether to proceed with screening and any further treatment should, by rights, be hers alone.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |