| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that she has just cited a perfect example of the complexity of the benefits system? Would not a minimum income be a great deal simpler?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have put in place the minimum wage. That is what people can earn. What I seek to suggest is that because a minimum wage applies to everyone, it can take no account of personal circumstances because that wage would be paid to a single person of 25, as it would to the 35 year-old lone parent caring for two or three children, as well as it would to the Bangladeshi family who may have six children. The point of working families' tax credit is that it builds on the minimum wage and adds to that an income which is tailored to a family's particular needs, thus ensuring that work pays in comparison with the benefits entitlement—also tailored to individual need—that they would otherwise receive. I hope that, as a result of that explanation, the noble Baroness will endorse the policies and strategies that the Government are seeking to achieve.
Over the past few years I think that we have acted appropriately. I do not suggest that the schemes are not without complexity. Social security is a complicated matter. But the structure is simple and I believe that we are helping to take children and their families out of poverty. For example, in cash terms since 1997, we have doubled the allowance on income support for children under the age of 11. By 2003, we will have virtually doubled the additional premia for a disabled child in a household on income support, in cash terms.
Furthermore, we have delivered record increases in child benefit. We have increased the Sure Start maternity grant from £100 when we inherited the scheme to £500 next April. That enormous increase, together with the payment of the child tax credit, may go some way to meet what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was calling for; namely, extra support for parents during their child's early years.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the issue of debt and queried whether the social fund was adequate to meet the debt burden faced by families living in poverty. I absolutely
agree that debt is a major problem for such families. However, I think that noble Lords were unjust in their approach to the purpose of the social fund. The interest-free budgetary loans of the social fund have been designed to even out lumpy expenditure and to do so in ways that are interest-free, compared with the problems—rightly identified by the noble Baroness—of the pawn shop, loan sharks, brokers and the like. Of course we support the credit unions, but experience has demonstrated that they work only when the majority of those belonging to the credit union are employed and thus have moneys available to make savings. The problems of budgeting for loans are largely borne by those living on benefits. Once people have been in work for a time, they begin to accrue sufficient income to meet their debt problems.My noble friend Lady Thornton asked about the situation in regard to 16 to 17 year-olds. We want and expect children of 16 and 17 to be in work, education or training, but 36,000 are on income support and JSA, many of whom would otherwise experience severe hardship. We are not expecting to return to the days when such children were treated as adults and given benefit. We believe that they are entitled to the protection, support and opportunities of children— and that means help into work and, above all, help into education and training.
I am sorry to talk about money, benefit levels and so on, but poverty is about money and the lack of it. But, as many noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale—have said, it is not only about income; it is about public services, education, health and poor housing. I am delighted that the Rowntree report, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, acknowledged, identified that we have moved forward on almost all of these criteria.
Initiatives such as Sure Start, the Children's Fund and the Healthy Schools programme—which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Massey and covers a range of subjects from apples to speech therapy—are only three in a number of programmes that we have introduced to ensure that children have the best start in life and to break the cycle of deprivation between generations.
My noble friend asked me how, despite that, we will co-ordinate initiatives. We have a new Cabinet Committee for children and young people, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we have a new children and young persons unit, which has an advisory forum of young people to feed into and enrich its proceedings; and we have a series of interlocking sub-committees on children. I serve on a children and young persons at risk committee; on the Sure Start advisory committee; on the childcare review committee; and on the family and communities Committee. I have, obviously, a particular concern for child poverty and the parents affected by it.
I think, I hope, I believe, I trust that we will—I know that we must—deliver on child poverty. But before I finish, I should like to touch on our obligations to the
international community, so movingly spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harrison and other noble Lords. One in five of the world's population lives on less than one US dollar per day. Child poverty causes appalling suffering and jeopardises well being. Poverty reduction through sustainable development and the improved welfare of people cannot be achieved without bringing children out of deprivation.The best way of tackling child poverty is to address the causes of community poverty. Each year, more than 10 million children still die before the age of five, with 95 per cent of those deaths occurring in developing countries. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford raised this point and particularly mentioned the children orphaned by AIDS. We have made significant progress in establishing the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which was announced at the G8 meeting in Genoa in July 2001 and which will be up and running in the new year. The UK has pledged more than 200 million US dollars and the pledges overall amount already to more than 1 billion US dollars, which I hope will go some way to addressing the problems identified.
We must protect the health of women; we must intervene on children's education; we must seek to challenge the concept of child labour which, at its worst and in its most abusive forms, puts children in physical and moral danger.
We know that children are terribly affected by conflict, which perpetuates poverty and reverses development. Of the 34 countries farthest from meeting the poverty eradication targets, 20 are in the midst of armed conflict or have only recently emerged from it. Ethnic and intra-community violence often leads to the destruction of families and brings a heavy burden of suffering on women and children. We are seeking to help displaced children and to reduce community conflict.
Next year, at the postponed United Nations Special Session on Children, the world will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen the commitment it made to children at the 1990 World Summit for Children. We expect a full range of measures to be embraced, including children's rights to health and education, and to protection from conflict, exploitation and mistreatment.
The United Kingdom will wholeheartedly join this global commitment to the children of the world. Children anywhere and everywhere, at home and elsewhere, deserve no less.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, the yarns spun by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Walmsley, about being down at heel and put out at the elbow, made for a darn good speech. It has been a darn good debate this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—including the usual suspects and the two new prospects—for their contributions. I congratulate the Minister, who will henceforth be known as "The Minister for doshing out money". In the spirit of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said
about the proximity of Christmas, perhaps I may, in offering season's greetings to the whole House, beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Kabul: International Security Assistance Force
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
-
"Mr Speaker, the recent Bonn agreement on the future governance of Afghanistan called for the deployment of an international force to Afghanistan to assist the new Afghan interim authority, which formally takes office on Saturday, 22nd December, with the provision of security and stability for Kabul. Two days ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the United Kingdom was willing in principle to lead such a force.
"I can now confirm that the United Kingdom is formally prepared to take on the leadership of an International Security Assistance Force for a limited period of three months. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has today written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inform him of our decision.
"Our decision follows further discussions with the United States, with the other nations that have indicated that they may be willing to contribute troops to the force, with the United Nations, and with the designated leaders of the interim authority in Afghanistan.
"There are a number of issues still to be finalised. We have not yet settled every detail about this force. But it is right that I should inform the House today, in particular about the letter to the UN Secretary-General. And today is the last opportunity for me to bring this before the House before the Christmas Recess.
"As the Prime Minister emphasised, the situation in Afghanistan remains fragile. The International Security Assistance Force is a vital part of the international community's efforts to assist the Afghan people in this early and difficult period of the reconstruction of their country.
"A deployment of this kind, involving troops, equipment and logistical support from several nations, is a complex undertaking. We have no illusions about Afghanistan—deploying forces there inevitably involves an element of risk. It is a challenging, difficult and sometimes dangerous environment.
"The force will be charged with assisting the Afghan interim authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding area.
- Responsibility for security will remain with the interim authority. Potential tasks could, however, include liaison with and advice and support to the interim authority as well as the UN on security issues, together with scoping future requirements for help in establishing and training the new Afghan security forces.
"The United Kingdom will provide the force commander and his headquarters. The force commander will be Major-General John McColl, who is currently serving as the General Officer Commanding 3(UK)Division based at Bulford. General McColl, as the House will be aware, led last weekend's reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul. The force headquarters will also be drawn from 3 Division, as will some of its main force and many of its essential support troops. Other elements will be drawn from the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade and key enablers and units that are maintained at very high readiness, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines and the Second Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
"Indicative planning to date suggests that the United Kingdom's contribution will be in the region of 1,500 troops, although the actual figure will depend on the contributions made by other nations. This will be an international force. It is too soon to say exactly how many troops it will include, or the nations from which they will come. But the force will number 3,000 to 5,000 and will include contributions from the armed forces of several nations.
"Sixteen nations were represented at last Friday's conference for potential troop contributors. Twenty-one nations are represented at today's follow-on conference at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. We expect to establish the detailed force composition over the next few days.
"The United States has indicated that it fully supports the deployment of the International Security Assistance Force. The United States will provide essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. That is a vital and a considerable task.
"The House will wish to know the arrangements for command and control of the International Security Assistance Force. The force will have a particular mission, distinct from Operation Enduring Freedom. If the United Kingdom's offer to be lead nation is accepted, the United Kingdom will exercise command of the International Security Assistance Force. As I have said, General McColl will be the force commander. The force will work very closely with the United States, as set out in the letter from the Foreign Secretary to the UN Secretary-General—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
"I would like to place on record our gratitude to the United States. The United States has led the global coalition's offensive operations against
- international terrorism with great success. Their generosity in also finding the capacity to support the International Security Assistance Force, by providing enabling capabilities that no other country can match, should be recognised and applauded.
"I would also like to take this opportunity to record our appreciation of all the nations which have indicated that they are willing to provide troops for the International Security Assistance Force.
"The International Security Assistance Force is a reflection of the strong international support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It will go to Kabul with the backing of the wider international community. Work is under way in New York to draw up a United Nations Security Council Resolution to authorise the deployment under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. We anticipate that it will be agreed within the next few days.
"The House will have a number of proper questions about issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not yet finalised all of the details about the force. There are still major questions, both about its size and composition—including which nations will contribute. We hope to refine the answers to these questions over the coming days.
"We also need to agree with the Afghan authorities the precise tasks that the force will undertake and the modalities of its deployment. Let me be clear: the international community is sending the force to assist the Afghans, not to interfere in their affairs. Discussions with designated members of the Interim Authority, including its chairman, Defence, Interior and Foreign Ministers, indicate that they welcome our intention to lead the ISAF.
"General McColl's reconnaissance and liaison team met leading designated members of the Interim Authority to discuss how the force could best assist the Afghans and how it should relate to the Interim Authority. Further discussions are required and General McColl will be returning to Kabul later this week. These tasks will need to be encapsulated in a detailed military technical agreement, which we anticipate finalising with the Interim Authority as soon as possible after it is established. Once this agreement and the authorising UN Security Council Resolution are in place, the International Security Assistance Force will be able to deploy in full.
"Needless to say, British forces deploying to Afghanistan will be properly equipped for the tasks that they will undertake and they will be provided with robust rules of engagement.
"The United Kingdom has been invited to take on lead nation status because we and others believe that our forces have the capability and experience required to undertake this operation. We have the ability to get a force in and up and running very quickly. It is, therefore, right that we take on this responsibility, when so much depends on the early success of the political process that the force will support.
"I am absolutely satisfied that this operation is within our capacity. Our commitment is limited in numbers—up to 1,500 troops—and duration, up to three months. After three months, we will hand over lead nation status to one of our partners. There have already been indications that others may be willing to take this on.
"General McColl and his immediate team will be returning to Kabul later this week to continue detailed negotiations with the Afghan authorities on the terms of a detailed military technical agreement. They will also be present for the inauguration of the Interim Authority on 22nd December. Troops from 40 Commando Royal Marines will be available to support General McColl and, if required, the Interim Authority. A company of Marines is being sent this week to bolster the existing presence at Bagram. They will also enable the International Security Assistance Force, once it is formed, to deploy more quickly.
"The deployment of the main elements of the ISAF will be dependent on the outcome of discussions on the military technical agreement and the complexity of the task. Given the circumstances, the main body will not begin to deploy before 28th December at the earliest. It will be a matter of weeks before a substantial force can be deployed.
"I am very conscious that our decision to lead this force will mean that some of our troops will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. Some of our troops have been at Bagram for some time. Separation from friends and family is never easy, least of all at this time of year. Our troops will, however, deploy to Afghanistan knowing that they will be carrying out a vital and a worthwhile task, contributing to restoring peace and stability to a country that has been torn apart by strife and international terrorism.
"In offering to be the lead nation for the ISAF and to deploy British troops to Afghanistan, we are aware that we have taken on significant responsibilities. The war there is being won; we must now secure the peace. The United Kingdom is proud to be able to play an important role in this. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will".
5.47 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say from the outset that we shall support Her Majesty's Government on whatever decision is taken about the deployment of troops to the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan.
However, your Lordships may recall that in the excellent debate last Monday I sounded words of caution about British military involvement in any multinational peacekeeping force, as did four former Chiefs of Defence Staff and one former Secretary of State for Defence.
We on these Benches support the case for Al'Qaeda to be located and destroyed wherever it is; but if we had to commit many more troops, significant overstretch would occur. The Army is now at full stretch, and if this commitment should last for an indefinite period and replacements are required, and if the Army should be required to be deployed to Somalia or other areas in support of the destruction of Al'Qaeda, it would become significantly overstretched.
The Statement refers to a commitment of up to three months. How do we know that it will be for only up to three months? Who has agreed to replace us? This must be made known as soon as possible, as whoever it is should start assembling the replacement force now and start immediate training in the likely tasks once they are known. The Secretary-General of the United Nations must bring pressure to bear to nominate the replacement lead nation now.
I should like to ask why we should commit our troops to peacekeeping operations when their many military skills may be needed in further fighting. Many other nations can carry out peace-keeping duties, leaving our troops available for more serious fighting operations.
Before I ask the Minister some questions that arise from the Statement, I stress that if we are to commit troops to the operation, it is essential that they are able to meet the unexpected. It is therefore vital that the force is robust, with a secure airhead, protected air corridors and a secure forward operating base. It is essential that there are enough troops to deal with the unexpected and that reserves are on immediate call to reinforce the situation when required.
What is the exact mission for the British troops and the security force? There is mention of potential tasks of liaison and of advice and support on security issues to the interim authority, but the fact that the precise tasks to be undertaken by the force that we are about to commit still have to be agreed with the interim authority is hardly acceptable. They must be clarified in a mission statement.
There still do not seem to be answers to some of the questions that I raised in the House on Monday evening, which I shall repeat. We have not been given a reason why a Muslim force could not take the lead role and assume command of ISAF. What are the reasons for that not happening? What are the reasons for France and Germany not leading ISAF if a Muslim force is not acceptable to Afghanistan? Will the United States remain in overall command? Will they continue to provide the necessary air superiority for complete air cover?
The UK will be in command of ISAF, but to whom will the force under the command of Major-General McColl report? In other words, who and where is the superior headquarters? What will be the exact chain of command? The Statement refers to US essential enabling support to deploy and sustain the force. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that and clarify the command situation.
Who will provide the heavy airlift for the insertion and extraction of the force? What other support will the United States provide? What will be the precise objectives of the force? They have not yet been mentioned.
Is the Minister aware that in such situations it is impossible to know when we will be able to withdraw and hand over the commitment? Only time will tell. The operation is totally different from those in the Balkans, with extremely long lines of communication and many difficulties. The unexpected may well come about, bringing about changes and sucking in many more troops.
I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement and look forward to his reply. I repeat again that my party supports Her Majesty's Government on the deployment of troops to Afghanistan.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement. During the debate on Monday he did not give any details, but told us that if we waited there would probably be some movement before the end of the week. It is gratifying that he has come forward with a Statement before the House rises.
The Statement sets out the movement of troops. That fits well with the remit set out in Annex 1 of the Bonn agreement. It is worth noting, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, that the body will not have a peacekeeping role. Unless I have misunderstood the remit of the force, it will be there to support the civil authority, which we hope will assume power on 22nd December.
I am not going to ask 101 questions this afternoon, because the situation is very fluid. I said the same on Monday, because we were awaiting the assessment of Major-General McColl. Asking too many questions now might lead to no answers being given.
We are concerned that so far, although the Bonn agreement has been signed, there does not seem to be much overt support for it on the ground from many of the leaders of the different factions. Although I believe that such overt support will be forthcoming, a good deal of political persuasion will be required.
The Minister mentioned that there would be 1,500 troops on the ground. I have two questions about that. First, he mentioned that further troops would be needed for 22nd December. Will they have enough time to be on the ground by then? If they are not on the ground then, will the troops that we already have there be sufficient for the job of the handover? What is envisaged for the handover? Secondly, although 1,500 troops are envisaged, that number could be greatly reduced if other nations are prepared to take the strain. My party and most others in the House feel some pride in the fact that other nations are prepared to accept our expertise in the lead role, but if others also take the strain, will the troops that we put on the ground be made up less of infantry and more of headquarters staff and logistics staff such as engineers?
The Minister mentioned that Christmas is fast approaching. Although we wholeheartedly support the movement of troops, it is worth mentioning that we very much echo his sentiments that at this time of year our thoughts go to the families of those troops who are being sent out to what is still quite a dangerous situation.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general support on behalf of their parties for the action that the Government are taking. That is much appreciated. It has been present from the beginning of the conflict and I have no doubt that it will last as long as the conflict lasts.
My second point before I deal with the questions is that ideally the Statement would not have been made today, but, as this is the last sitting day of another place before Christmas, the choice was between waiting until everything was absolutely in order—which would have meant recalling Parliament to make the Statement—or making the Statement today. A Statement was necessary, because both Houses want to know what is going on before they break up for the Christmas Recess. I apologise in advance if I cannot give as many answers as I would like.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked about the exact purpose of the mission. The tasks that will be required will no doubt emerge as a consequence of the military technical agreement that will be negotiated and announced on or just after Saturday, when the interim authority comes into being. We have said as much as we can about the sort of jobs that will be required of the international force.
Why us? I hope that the Statement makes that plain. We are committed to helping the Afghan interim authority, which is so important if we are to achieve the wider objective of breaking the link between Afghanistan and terror. We have highly capable forces with experience in rapid expeditionary deployment. Our task will be to get ISAF in and running. We will then hand over leadership to one of our partners.
As for command and control, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, to look at the letter—there is a copy in the Library, and I know that he has a copy—from the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations Secretary-General. The letter deals with the particular point as best we can at the moment, and it makes clear what the command and control structure will be.
The noble Lord's last question was on how the force would get in and then get out. Part of the American support will be an overall operational interest in how we get in and get out. However, we shall have to wait a few days for the details of the individual countries that will be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about Afghan support. As he knows, deployment of an ISAF is included in the Bonn agreement, which was reached by all the Afghan parties and is at the root of the force. The deployment will of course be made with the agreement of the Interim Authority. As I said, we shall finalise the details of our agreement with the authority
later this week. However, in recent discussions, Hamid Karzai has welcomed both the United Kingdom's help in recent months and the deployment of an ISAF. He noted that the force symbolises the international community's determination to help Afghanistan and gives the Afghan people hope for the future.I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on our troops spending Christmas away from home. The comments will be appreciated by our troops and are a view shared on all sides of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also asked about our 1,500 troops, and particularly about the ones we want to be there by 22nd December, which is the day on which the Interim Authority effectively comes into being. Those troops are not part of the ISAF; I have made it clear that the ISAF members would not begin to be in place until 28th December at the earliest. However, those troops will be there by 22nd December to assist in the inauguration which is a very important event for the new administration.
As I said, a large number of other nations want to play a part, and their very role is being discussed in today's Northwood conference to which I referred in my Statement.
Before I sit down, I should also like to echo the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we should be very proud as a country that we are taking on this role. I shall leave it there for now.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement. As it acknowledges that there is still much to be settled, I think that it would be quite inappropriate to bombard the Minister now with a series of questions that may be difficult to answer. It is, however, perhaps worth touching on two points.
First, although the involvement of the United States is very welcome, the command arrangements between the United States and ISAF need most careful consideration and to be formalised. The Foreign Secretary's letter to Kofi Annan states that
- "the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force".
Secondly, we must welcome the fact that our service men will be given robust rules of engagement in this area. However, it is also very important that all other forces operating in ISAF work with similar rules of engagement. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the rules of engagement agreed for United Kingdom forces will be applied throughout ISAF.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page