| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We have had an excellent, wide-ranging debate that, understandably, had an emphasis on Afghanistan. I should like to follow that pattern, but first I want to pay tribute to all those, including those from our armed forces, who have been helping to rescue people from the
floods in Cumbria. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Sea King helicopter crews and the military mountain rescue teams who have worked tirelessly to get many people to safety. Protecting our citizens at home is a core part of the work of our armed forces, and we should never take that for granted, even when there are considerable pressures elsewhere.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I now confine my remarks to defence business, and mainly to Afghanistan. At the outset, however, I want to make a quick reference to Europe, as it relates to defence. In the world today, no nation-not even the United States-can hope to protect its national security or promote its national interests on its own. Of any single country in existence today, however, the United States has the greatest capacity to project power, and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. It is the key element in NATO's effectiveness as a vehicle for deploying military force, and the key reason why NATO is and will remain the bedrock of UK defence.
The European Union has in recent years developed the ability to deploy military force, specifically to complement its civilian capability and its economic influence in managing crises such as those in the Balkans and Africa. When looking for partners for operations of that nature, and in consultation with NATO, the EU has great potential to be a force for good in the world. I welcome and encourage the efforts of the EU member states to improve their capacities, not least because, for 21 of them, those capacities will also be available to the alliance.
Let us be clear, however: each European nation has national armed forces. There is no prospect of a European army, and each nation will continue to decide on the deployment of its national forces-just as they do in NATO. However, we must have a rational debate in the UK about closer European military co-operation, common procurement and interoperability. The European Defence Agency is designed to promote that closer military co-operation and common procurement as a key part of the European security and defence policy-the ESDP.
The recent developments on the European helicopter initiative are extremely promising. It is a multilateral initiative that includes pilot training sponsored by the European Defence Agency, and with good co-ordination between NATO and the EU. On this side of the House, we are committed to military co-operation in Europe. The Foreign Secretary has referred to the policies of the Conservative party. Is pulling out of the ESDP, the European Defence Agency and the helicopter initiative part of their agenda for isolation and marginalisation in Europe?
Sir Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman did not get an answer to his question, but if he had asked the same question in Washington, he would have found very considerable support for a European security and defence policy.
Mr. Ainsworth: That is why it is not in this country's interests to adopt the policies of the Conservative party, which would do us no good in the wider councils of the world, never mind in the European Union.
Let me now turn to Afghanistan-
Ms Gisela Stuart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: No, I am afraid that I have very little time.
The operations of NATO and other coalition allies in Afghanistan are vital to the national security of the UK, to our allies and to international security more widely. When the Afghans are themselves able to defend the security of their people and deny the territory of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists, we will have succeeded and our troops can come home. At the moment, it is a tough fight, and the sacrifice has been significant. This year alone in Afghanistan, 98 UK troops have been killed, while the coalition as a whole has lost 481. These are brave and courageous people, every one.
From the military point of view, we have taken essential steps in the right direction this summer. In the south, the spiritual home of the Taliban and the centre of the insurgency, the inflow of thousands of additional troops has enabled the Afghan Government to extend their authority around the main population centres. Try as the insurgents might, they failed significantly to disrupt the first Afghan-led elections. This is a measure of the progress that has been made, but the elections have proven to be messy, imperfect and drawn out. As the Foreign Secretary set out at the beginning of this debate, the commitment of President Karzai to reach out to his opponents to promote national reconciliation, to strengthen the Afghan security forces and to stamp down on corruption is now crucial.
Last week, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary set out clearly the way ahead-building on the McChrystal report, setting out our political strategy and the essential steps required by the Afghan Government. The use of military force to bring security is a means and not an end. It will be the simultaneous application of politics, good government, and economic and infrastructure development that will consolidate success. We are competing for the support of the Afghan people, in every village, in every home and on every street. Only a comprehensive approach that marries security to governance-one that is people-centric and supports a robust political strategy-will meet our collective objectives in Afghanistan.
That is why the new UK force level of 9,500 that we have set out in principle must be part of a wider commitment by the alliance on both strategy and delivery. Each member of NATO must at this crucial time consider the size of its commitment and revisit the role their troops are playing on the basis of a commonly agreed strategy. Clearly, the US, as the largest contributor, leads this process. The UK is stepping up efforts to persuade our European NATO allies collectively to pledge 5,000 more troops to operations in Afghanistan. I am confident that progress will be made and I look forward to each member of the coalition clarifying their commitment.
Paul Flynn: If President Obama announces a policy of retreating from the countryside to the cities, will we support it?
Mr. Ainsworth:
We have been in discussions with the American Administration at every level-Prime Minister to President, for example, and I spoke to Secretary Gates on Thursday. I think that General McChrystal's
direction of travel is in line with our own thinking and I am confident that when the announcement is made, it will be in that direction. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is wrong and that we continue to be committed, with the appropriate level of forces, to a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan.
I understand the strength of public feeling when confronted with the reality of the fighting. Progress has come at a heavy human cost. I also understand when there are questions about whether or not the sacrifice is worth it, but we cannot afford to be half-hearted in Afghanistan-and neither can we afford to be so here at home. The Taliban cannot defeat NATO in the field. They will attempt to outlast us; they will hope to sap support at home; but they will succeed only if we lose our resolve. If that happened, the result would be Britain less safe, NATO diminished and the terrorists resurgent.
I am a little kinder to the Liberal Democrats regarding the comments made here tonight. I would take them as a reaffirmation of their commitment to the operation in Afghanistan and a rowing back from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) at the Liberal Democrat conference. I would like us to be able to send a clear message to our troops that we have the entire support of the House and all the parties in it for the operations in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is and must be the main effort for defence. Last month, in the defence policy debate, I set out to the House the steps that we have been taking on equipment, personal protection and capability more widely: to target directly the threats of IEDs; to provide commanders on the ground with further tactical flexibility to get the job done; and to provide better protection for our troops. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen to reflect the situation, from £700 million in 2006 to more than £3 billion this year, on top of the defence budget of more than £35 billion a year.
I make no apology for making Afghanistan the main effort for defence, not only through drawing on the Treasury reserve but by looking at how the core defence budget can support the effort too. It is right to do that, particularly in the current fiscal climate. The Treasury will continue to fund urgent operational requirements and the net additional costs of operations. However, by taking tough decisions and choices, we will reprioritise the defence budget to fund additional enhancements that will directly support the mission in Afghanistan. We will also work to adjust our defence programme to bring it into balance with future requirements and resources through the current planning round.
In each of our decisions, the following principles will apply. First, each decision will be tested against its effect on the operational requirements in Afghanistan as the main effort for defence. Secondly, each will be a contribution to bringing the defence programme into balance, both in the short and long term. Thirdly, we will avoid as far as possible significant decisions on capability which should properly be made as part of a strategic defence review.
Defence will have to maintain credibility in its primary role as the ultimate guarantor of territorial integrity, and engage abroad at differing levels of intensity, preventing and resolving conflicts in order to protect our national
security and pursue our national interests. The defence review will be designed to get the posture right for the years ahead.
Let me respond to some of the points made today. In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) raised the issue of Bulldog, which has been widely reported in the press. Some people who criticised the decision have relatively short memories. We took decisions to upgrade Bulldog in 2006 when, if people wish to recall, we had only just gone into Helmand province, and our troops in Basra were running convoys into and out of an aggressive environment. There was an absolute need for an upgraded armoured vehicle. Bulldog in part met that need, and was well thought of at the time.
The priority then was saving lives in Iraq. We were of course trying to bring other vehicles, such as Mastiff, into the supply chain as quickly as possible, but the upgrading of Bulldog also made a considerable contribution to meeting the threat faced at the time-not in Afghanistan, for which it was never intended, but to ensure the safety of our troops who faced indirect, rocket-propelled attacks on armoured vehicles in the Basra area of Iraq. It did the job that it was required to do.
I am afraid that I am running out of time, so I shall write to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks on his points about what the Prime Minister said.
The Foreign Secretary has set out how the Government's active multilateralism and internationalist outlook have given Britain real influence in the world over the past 12 years. The courage, commitment and professionalism of our armed forces are key components in that success. It is an honour to serve as Secretary of State for Defence. In this Session, I will ensure that Afghanistan is the main effort for defence, that our troops get every support necessary to get the job done, that we seek to balance our books at this difficult financial time, and that we prepare our forces to face the threats of the future. That is the right and responsible action.
10 pm
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
That the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the House of Commons Members' Fund shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.-( Mr. Frank Roy.)
Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 16 December 2009, do adjourn till Tuesday 5 January 2010.-( Mr. Frank Roy.)
The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 25 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Delegated Legislation
That the Merchant Shipping (Light Dues) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1371), dated 8 June 2009, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.- (Mr. Frank Roy.)
Delegated Legislation
That the Non-Domestic Rating (Deferred Payments) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 1597), dated 30 June 2009, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.- ( Mr. Frank Roy .)
Delegated Legislation
That the Business Rate Supplements (Rateable Value Condition) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2542), dated 18 September 2009, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.-( Mr. Frank Roy.)
Delegated Legislation
That-
(1) the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 21 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee;
(2) if, after the Committee has reported the Instrument to the House, the Motion in the name of Tessa Jowell relating to the draft Order is made, the Speaker shall put forthwith-
(i) the Questions on any amendments to the Motion which he has selected and which may then be moved, and
(ii) the Question on the Motion, or on the Motion as amended; and
(3) such Questions may be put after the moment of interruption and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. -( Mr. Frank Roy.)
Sittings of the House
That-
Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
(1) In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.-( Mr. Frank Roy.)
Committees
That Mr Adrian Bailey be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Ian Stewart be added.- (Mr. Frank Roy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
That Mr Mark Harper be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Chloe Smith be added .-( Mr. Frank Roy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Cowboy Builders
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Frank Roy.)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |