| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Goodhart: I have listened closely but I do not think that the noble Lord gave any justification whatever for rejecting the proposal in Amendment No. 15, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, or in Amendment No. 74, standing in my name, to restrict the power to use the regulatory reform orders under the Bill to remove the power of sentencing for more than two years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise to the noble Lord; I did not deal with those amendments in detail. They would have the effect that an order could not abolish an offence which is punishable, on conviction, by a prison term of more than two years. This is possible under the 2001 Act, and this is a power which we would like to be retained under the Bill. The relevant amendment is closely linked to Clause 7, which places a limitation on the order-making powers in Part 1. It sets the maximum criminal penalties both for any new offence that an order creates, or for any existing offence where an order increases the penalty. Clause 7 maintains the limits in the 2001 Act. The limits in Clause 7 are the same as those in the European Communities Act 1972 and have been taken over from the 2001 Act. In each of those cases, however, they relate to the creation of new offences, not the abolition or reduction of existing penalties. A number of regulatory regimes have systems in which sanctions for non-compliance exceed two years or a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. Health and safety and environmental legislation are two good examples.
It would be arbitrary not to allow Ministers by order to propose a reduction of those sanctions if it is considered by the Minister and the parliamentary committees that it would be more appropriate and targeted to do so. The amendment is not necessary for the following reasons: the provisions in Clause 7 have been carried over and, it can be fairly argued, have worked well; the provisions in the 2001 Act have not been abused and any order must meet the preconditions in Clause 4 that I have described; and the parliamentary committees will have a statutory power to veto.
For those reasons, we invite the noble Lord not to press those amendments.
Lord
Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I should say to the
noble Lord how grateful we all are to him for providing us with such a
large meal in response to the amendments. Personally, I am relieved
that he did not find another page in the extensive brief in front of
him. I am ever so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who was the
first to recognise that my simple and humble aim was to remove three
words, “criminal
3 July 2006 : Column 70
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Afghanistan: UK Forces
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans. The Statement is as follows:
“Before I answer the honourable gentleman’s question, I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to the families of Corporal Thorpe and Lance Corporal Hashmi, the two soldiers killed on Saturday in Helmand province along with their interpreter. I have no doubt either that I speak for the House in wishing a speedy recovery to the five soldiers injured in the same attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.“I should also explain first, Mr Speaker, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been unable to return to the House in time from his constituency, since the time that we decided to take this Urgent Question. “The losses of life that our forces have suffered over the past few weeks are a tragedy, but they do not mean that our mission in Afghanistan is somehow confused. The position of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan is clear. First and foremost, our troops are in Afghanistan to ensure that never again is it a safe haven for the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Quite simply, the risks are too great to us, our allies and the Afghan people for us to stand aside and allow the terrorists to return. That overriding aim was clear when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced our deployment to Helmand last January, and it is clear today.“Our forces are our contribution to the expansion of the UN-authorised and NATO-led international security assistance force—ISAF. This is not just a British mission. Danish and Estonian3 July 2006 : Column 71
3 July 2006 : Column 72
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.20 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We, too, send our condolences to the families of the two soldiers, and their interpreter, who were killed, and we wish a speedy recovery to the five soldiers who were injured in the attack.
I pay tribute to all those servicemen and women serving in Afghanistan. There is no question that they will receive full support from this side of the House. The question is whether they are all receiving the full support that they are entitled to expect from the Government. The Government have two tasks: to do everything to maximise the success of the mission and to minimise the threat to our troops. But it would appear from weekend reports that both are at risk of failure.
The Statement makes it clear that commanders have asked not for extra infantry or air cover but only for enablers and engineering equipment. But highly reliable sources on the ground have made it very clear that commanders do need more than they have got. I understand that the Minister cannot go into details, but will he specifically confirm in this House thatthe Government have received no requests from commanders on the ground or the chiefs of staff for any additional combat troops, fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, particularly now that the army has some experience on the ground?
Is the Minister still satisfied that we have sufficient support helicopters, particularly where casualties are involved? My understanding is that there is real concern among those serving in Afghanistan about this issue. Is there sufficient medical support in theatre?
3 July 2006 : Column 73
The Commons Defence Committee has already warned that the British force lacks sufficient air support or transport helicopters. Despite radioing for aerial support, the soldiers who managed to fight their way out of the recent ambush were apparently told that no aircraft were available.
While it is recognised that some of our troops may be killed when engaged in a firefight with the Taliban, those troops who were killed were successfully attacked within their own base. The Statement does not recognise this. The daily attacks raise fears over the lack of air cover for vulnerable outposts. It is acceptable to send our troops to Afghanistan but it is not acceptable to have them shot at with impunity.
As the Minister stressed, this is not just a British mission but a coalition. We welcome the fact that some of our NATO allies have made a token contribution. But what representations have the Government made with our NATO partners and European allies to ensure that they really do pull their weight? Are their combatants under the same rules of engagement as our troops?
I accept that reconstruction and opium eradication cannot start until the security situation is more stable. When do the Government anticipate that we may be able to make a start? Senior Taliban recruiting sergeants in Pakistan have revealed how they are smuggling very large numbers of new fighters into Afghanistan, despite Pakistani Government claims that they had tightened border security. What discussions are the Government having with the Pakistan authorities about insurgents crossing from the lawless border areas of Pakistan?
We agree with the Statement that this mission must succeed. The risk of failure is too great to this country, our allies and the Afghan people for us to stand aside and allow the terrorists to return. But the Government must give our Armed Forces the manpower and equipment to get this job done.
7.25 pm
Lord Garden: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and from these Benches we offer our deepest condolences to the families of Corporal Thorpe and Lance Corporal Hashmi, and our sympathy to those who were injured and their families.
I can be relatively brief, given that we had such an extensive debate only last Thursday, which covered many of the issues relevant to the Afghanistan operation. I have some sympathy with the military commanders who are trying to set up what is a difficult and challenging mission, which is in a process of transition from the US coalition to the NATO operation. They are getting a surfeit of advice, I suggest, from all quarters. I do not believe that it is the role of us in Westminster to try to micromanage the tactical decisions in the operational theatre. I agree with the Statement’s assertion that a serious force was sent out. We recognised that at the time when there was cross-party support from us all for the operation. We recognise that it is inevitable that as the situation develops changes will be needed depending on the intelligence gathered.
3 July 2006 : Column 74
We need an assurance from Ministers that requests from commanders will be dealt with promptly and will not be resource constrained. This is a real operation that cannot operate with resource constraints. I understand that the Prime Minister has today given such an assurance. In that case, perhaps the Minister will revisit some of the questions we asked on Thursday about mobility and in particular about helicopter lift and how this new opening of the treasure chest might help things. I am happy to give him one suggestion: that he might tonight go back to his office and authorise the necessary work on the eight Chinook HC3s that have been sitting in a shed for some years now, grounded through incompetence in how they were managed before. All that is needed is money to get those helicopters flying again. How long will it take from him making the decision tonight to our getting eight more Chinooks into theatre?
While I accept that the commanders may not at the moment be asking for more close-air support, it is clear that the current trend is for more engagements that are likely to cause difficulties in availability of close-air support. Indeed, the Sunday Times gave a graphic account of the difficulties for a unit when it is engaged by the enemy and has to wait several hours for close-air support to turn up. Will the Minister at least assure us that the Ministry of Defence is looking at options for how this might be taken forward if it looks as though we need extra forces? I am glad that the decision was made not to bring the Harriers home; that was a wise decision in the event but perhaps we need to think about how we rapidly reinforce the Harriers. In all of this, we must not forget our allies who own aircraft that could give close-air support and helicopter lift. Are we pressing them to prepare in case they are needed in future?
I mentioned on Thursday the end of the Canberra aircraft. I was at RAF Waddington on Saturday for the farewell to the Canberra. I learnt there—I was not aware of this—of the amount of work that the Canberra PR9 has been doing in Afghanistan over the past four years. It is a unique reconnaissance capability, which will disappear on 31 July, not to be replaced. The Statement referred to enablers. The reconnaissance capability that was there was an enabler; we are losing enablers, not necessarily gaining them.
We, too, support the aims of the Afghanistan operation. We regret that the adventure in Iraq meant that we had done too little, too late in the past four years in Afghanistan. We need to make sure that we do not make that mistake again.
7.29 pm
Lord
Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Astor,
made a number of points about the Statement, many of which I
fundamentally disagree with. His central tenet was that our Armed
Forces are not receiving full support from this Government. That is
absolutely not the case. As was made clear today by No. 10, if extra
resources are needed by our forces, those extra resources will be
found. We need to recognise that these issues are, first and foremost,
a matter for the military. It is for the military to assess what is
required and for military commanders to
3 July 2006 : Column 75
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned what he called highly reliable sources on the ground, but I think that we should listen to the commanders of our forces in Afghanistan. The commander of the British forces in Helmand has been quoted as saying that they are well trained, well prepared and well equipped. As today's Statement said, there have been no requests for combat troops or air cover. Therehave been requests for enablers and engineering equipment, but if our military commanders decide that they require additional equipment, resources or troops, those will be found.
It must be recognised that we have said from the very beginning that this was going to be a difficult mission. I met the Chief of the Defence Staff this evening before coming to the House and he went through with me the thinking that has gone into this mission. As he said, we always knew that it was going to be a difficult mission, that we would take casualties and that this would be a difficult summer. But the force package was agreed at all levels and was appropriate at the start of the campaign. No campaign evolves exactly as planned: you have to adapt. As I said in the House last week, for a variety of reasons, the pace of this campaign has been faster than we originally anticipated, particularly in the north of Helmand province, and we need to respond to that. The Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff visit Afghanistan regularly and for some time they have been clear about how the situation is developing. It is important that we do not pay too much attention to whoever these highly reliable sources on the ground may be, or to the press reports that we have seen over the weekend, but that we look at the situation in context.
I do not agree that we accept that our forces are there to be shot at with impunity—quite the opposite. The force package that we have sent is very robust. It is there to protect the people who are engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, the need to send artillery and the Air Assault Brigade was recognised from the beginning because of the environment that we were entering. We have recognised from the start the challenge in Helmand, but we know what we are doing and we are up to the task.
7.33 pm
Lord
Biffen: My Lords, from the Back Benches I join in
giving condolences to those who have suffered in the recent exchanges.
The Minister made a reasonable Statement in good faith, but perhaps he
will allow me to reflect on the background to the whole business of
invading and hoping to secure Afghanistan. To what extent has one
reflected on the misfortunes of the Russians in the 19th century and
more recently in trying to subject Afghanistan? How many troops did
they employ? What were their losses? To what extent are we seeing the
development of a
3 July 2006 : Column 76
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I agree absolutely that we learn the lessons of history, but it is important that we pay attention to the fact that this is a completely different strategic situation. The role of our forces in Afghanistan, as part of a coalition force, is to support the democratically elected Afghan Government, assisting them in the reconstruction of the country's democratic process of governance and helping the development of aid within the country. We must recognise the significant need within that country for aid and how important it is for us to provide such security support as we can to enable that aid to get through, and we make a mistake if we compare what we are attempting today in Afghanistan with the occupations of various imperialist troops in the past.
I disagree with the noble Lord’s criticism of the coalition forces. We have seen the effectiveness of NATO over the past 50 years or so, and it is vital that we work with our coalition partners to provide the environment within Afghanistan in which the rule of law can flourish. That is the precondition for our being able to provide livelihoods which are an alternative to the dominant opium trade in the country. When we recognise that only about 8 per cent of the population of Afghanistan is involved in the narcotics trade but that the economy is dominated by the trade, and when we look at the level of the population that voted in the recent elections, we can see that there is no shortage of support for what we, together with the coalition forces, are attempting to achieve there. I say to the noble Lord that we believe we will be successful in this cause.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. It suggests that the aims with which we set out, the force strength that we have committed and the opposition that we are currently meeting are more or less in line with the Government’s anticipations. That is obviously reassuring but it has to be seen against some quite disturbing eyewitness media accounts, about which we have all been reading recently. Nevertheless, one accepts the Government's assurance.
3 July 2006 : Column 77
However, I am concerned that we are now exposed on two fronts in two different theatres against insurgents, whose performances are pretty unpredictable and can get extremely unpleasant. In either or both theatres, there will be pressure on some of the supporting elements—the helicopters, the transport and so on. Can the Minister reassure the House that there is sufficient reserve to cope with any increase in the opposition which our forces are meeting in either Iraq or Afghanistan? It would be great to know that reinforcement is available, should it be called upon. I am not asking for details but for confirmation of the general principle that the need for reinforcement could be met if required.
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for highlighting a central point: that much concern has been raised by newspaper reports over the weekend. In those circumstances, it is very important for us to pay clear attention to what our commanding officers—the military officers on the ground—are saying. For example, Lieutenant General David Richards has said, “Bottom line, I am content with what I have and I have the resources required to carry out the mission”. The noble and gallant Lord asks whether we have sufficient reserves to cope with the two main operational theatres that we face today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we have the reserves to do that. We shall provide additional resources quickly if they are requested by the military commanders. I stress again that decisions on what resources are required in the field are not decisions for politicians to take.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about helicopters. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked specifically about the eight grounded Chinooks. I wish the only problem was money. If I could get those eight Chinooks fixed by just throwing money at the problem, the situation would be much simpler to resolve. We are working very hard to find a fix-to-field solution for those Chinooks that makes sense and I hope that we can get that done this year. That is part of a general issue; on a number of occasions we have said to the House that we lack enough helicopter lift. That is absolutely right. We estimate that at about 15 per cent. As we have recently announced, we need to take action on improving the serviceability and availability of our existing fleet and on ordering more helicopters. I want to make it absolutely clear that, if we require more helicopters for our operations in Afghanistan, they will be provided. I understand that military commanders have already authorised additional helicopter hours, which was the point that we discussed in this House about a week ago. We shall look at options for extra resources closely and, if they are requested, they will be provided.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the developing situation with which the Statement is concerned re-emphasises the need for the rules of engagement to be clear, realistic and fit for the developing purposes? Will he undertake to publish in this House the rules of engagement and any extent to which they may be amended?
3 July 2006 : Column 78
Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, absolutely not. Publishing the rules of engagement would just play into the hands of the opposition. It would be very helpful for the opposition to know exactly the rules of engagement under which our forces are operating at any time. Rules of engagement are set by Governments. Different Governments operating within the coalition framework operate under different rules of engagement. That has been the practice for many decades, and is not a particular issue relating to these operations. Despite not being able to disclose to the House the detail of the rules of engagement, I reassure noble Lords that they are absolutely robust enough for the job. In all the issues that have been raised regarding operations in Iraq, there have not been issues relating to firefights. We do not regard any concerns about rules of engagement to be relevant to our operations at present in Afghanistan.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I join others in sending my sympathy and condolences to all those who have been affected by these deaths, especially the close families. The Statement focused mainly on the military aspects of the situation, but within that there are important political considerations. On the military, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the training of local Afghan forces to support and to replace the international forces. The Minister spoke of the aim of developing sustainable governing institutions in Afghanistan. It would be good to hear more about the evidence of real progress towards sustainable governing institutions. In that connection, the role of the warlords and poppy cultivation come to mind.
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for highlighting those two very important aspects. On the security forces, two battalions of the Afghan National Army are currently in Helmand province, although they are not at full strength. One of the key roles that we have in the province is to develop the capability of the Afghan National Army and the police. From our experience in Iraq, we know how that can be done. We believe we have been extremely successful with the Iraqi security forces and we regard that as something that will be successful in Afghanistan.
On the police, in January, the latest month for which I have data, there were approximately 1,700 police personnel. We have to be realistic about the reliability of the police within that area, where governance and the rule of law are only beginning to be established. That is why it is so important in that environment in Helmand province, where our troops, as part of the coalition, are providing the security framework to enable the reconstruction to take place, to recognise that we start from a very low base. It is a very challenging area, as it is dominated by narcotics production and by the factions of the warlords and the mafia.
It will take time to
address those issues and to provide alternative livelihoods. The
strategy that we are adopting is based on the development of so-called
“ink spots” of reconstruction, with improvements in
3 July 2006 : Column 79
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |