Human Rights (Colombia)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan]

That is the objective of this debate: we are sending a clear message to the Colombian Government that what they are doing is simply unacceptable. We have sent clear messages to Syria and other countries on exactly the same issue.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is more fortunate than me, as my invitation to yesterday’s meeting is yet to arrive. I believe, however, that we, as parliamentarians, should send an important message to President Santos: in addition to the points raised this morning, we want to congratulate him on the courageous stand he is making to challenge the system that results in the prohibition of drugs throughout the world. We wholeheartedly support him on that.

[Jim Sheridan]

I am more than happy to concur with my hon. Friend, but, although I do not wish to be cynical, we have heard those words before. We are now at the stage where rhetoric is no longer acceptable and we are looking for deeds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing the debate and for his persistent campaigning. He clearly feels deeply about the tragedies that are taking place, and have been for decades now, in Colombia. He is absolutely right to continue to draw them to the attention of the House.

A low point was when we saw a British Foreign Office Minister posing and smiling among a group—

[Chris Bryant]

Not me.

[Paul Flynn]

Not my hon. Friend. That Minister was smiling with an army unit that was notorious for murdering trade unionists. We have a record of plenty of indignation and horror at the atrocities that are going on, but little practical progress that we can see.

I agree with those who say that we should seize the opportunity offered by the words of Santos and give him the benefit of the doubt—there are many reasons for doubting his sincerity, due to his past. However, he is now speaking a language that no one else has spoken for a long time in Colombia. The President of Mexico has made a similar plea to the one made by Santos the other day—Mexico has lost 40,000 people in the past five years due to drug trafficking and the drug wars—to address the core of the problem, which started not last year or 10 years ago, but in 1961, when the world decided, through the United Nations, that all illegal drug use throughout the world should be eliminated. It was a simple matter: we had only to increase the punishments and the surveillance and, within a decade or two, there would be no use of illegal drugs. In Britain, we passed the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We had fewer than 1,000 people addicted to heroin and cocaine then; now we have 320,000. That pattern has gone on throughout the world. Santos is right to say that the divisions in his country, the armies that are funded entirely by money from drugs and the chaos that exists in many other South American countries are problems that we in the west, and particularly in the United Kingdom, have created.

Last week, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction published a report that identified the United Kingdom as the second largest consumer of cocaine in our continent. The other countries that use drugs in similar record amounts are the United States and Spain. The reason for the chaos in South American countries is the demand that is coming from this country. We have mistaken the use of coca and cocaine. Coca has been used for centuries, particularly in Bolivia, as an appetite suppressant and to guard against altitude sickness. The way it was ingested ensured that there was no narcotic effect. In the west, however, cocaine is ingested in a manner that produces the narcotic effect. To a great extent, therefore, the problem is ours. If we are looking for some way to reduce this, we should listen to what Santos is saying now. He is bravely calling for a new look at drugs, perhaps including the legalisation of the use of cocaine and other drugs. He realises that he is taking a great risk and that he will be mocked and denounced, particularly by the United States.

Sir Keith Morris, former British ambassador to Colombia, said:

“Those of us who have campaigned for serious debate on the issue have been frustrated by the number of senior politicians who have agreed with us but said they could not take a public stand for fear of committing political suicide due to a hostile reaction from the US administration or public opinion or, in the UK, from the Daily Mail.”

How true that is. When we talk to one another and discuss these things—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) want me to give way? He does not. We know from private discussions among consenting MPs that there is general agreement that the drug laws are disastrous and that prohibition is increasing the problem. We must take a fresh look at the problem, which is what Santos is calling for. Sir Keith Morris went on :

“The fact that the president of Colombia, the country that has paid the highest price and fought hardest in the war on drugs, should have been prepared to speak out so courageously should inspire the many in American and European political circles who share his view about the failure of the war on drugs at last to make their voices heard.”

The problem and the bloodshed in Colombia would be best undermined if there was an act of courage by European and world politicians. We must face up to the awful fact that it is prohibition that is killing people in South America and on the streets of our cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

It is not a new policy. We are completely committed to strong human rights in Colombia. We want a normalised military that observes and protects human rights rather than risking or, on occasion, abusing them. We are trying to ensure that the Colombian military has the characteristics that we recognise in our own military rather than those that we do not wish it to have. It is as simple as that. I stand by my previous point. I am in favour of mature debate about drug consumption in the west, but all politicians and all parties must approach that debate with equal maturity.

[Paul Flynn]

I do not want to mislead the House. The words that I quoted on the cowardice of British politicians were those of a former ambassador. Does the Minister agree with President Santos’s call for a new look at prohibition?

[Mr Browne]

The point I am making is that that was an example of a politician trying to make a broader point about the consumption and legal status of drugs in Britain. I suspect that the way that the politician was attacked in that election provided a disincentive for others to take the same approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think the world has been not so much slow as not sufficiently united on this. It has not been possible for the Arab League to arrive at a clear, strong position, which makes the situation entirely different to that in Libya, where the Arab League called on the international community to assist and intervene. There has not been the necessary unity at the United Nations Security Council and at times Russia has threatened to veto any resolution. Our resolution, which was put forward with our EU partners, remains very much on the table and certainly has the support of nine countries. We would like the support of more than nine countries to be able to put it to a vote in the Security Council, but it is very much on the table and we reserve the right at any time to press it to a vote in the United Nations. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that recent events add further to the case for doing so.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We continue to work across all three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty to build on the success of last year’s review conference in New York. I am particularly proud of the work we have done towards ensuring the first conference of nuclear weapon states, which was held recently in Paris—the P5 conference—in which further progress was made, particularly towards disarmament. Does not the tumult of the Arab spring mean it would be a good idea to advance the date of the planned conference next year? That would give us a real chance positively to involve both Iran and Israel.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I thank him for, and congratulate him on, the quality of his Committee’s reports, particularly the last report on this subject.

It was a disappointment to hear the Prime Minister present a statement that was very much the traditional one of unreasonable optimism, of exaggerating the threat of terrorism from the Taliban, which is almost non-existent—there is a threat from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban—and of ignoring altogether the most optimistic sign: namely, the possibility of talks with the Taliban.

We have heard so much accentuating the positives and ignoring the negatives. The Prime Minister spoke of the progress with the Afghan army and police, but said not a word about the fact that NATO delivered the final blow by bringing the helicopter in following the recent attack on the Intercontinental hotel, and made no mention of the group of UN workers who were lynched by a mob, even though they were being protected by the Afghan police and army. Nor did he mention the most depressing incident, when 500 prisoners, many of them Taliban who were captured at grievous cost in blood and treasure, escaped, almost certainly with the collusion of local Afghans. Those 500 are now free to attack our soldiers again.

I am concerned greatly by our attitude. We are trying to deny the truth and to protect ourselves, but there are no good reasons for that. It is extremely wounding to the families of the bereaved to suggest that the cause in which their loved ones died bravely was a noble but vain one, but we must get that across. The Prime Minister has a difficult task to convince the country that we must not only talk to but negotiate with the enemy. That will be difficult for the relatives or loved ones of the fallen.

It is disappointing that the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer on the hurt that will be caused if the plan to take the remains of the fallen to Brize Norton continues. They would then be taken via a circuitous route that avoids the most populated areas. Local people, supported by many of the families of the bereaved, say that they want and appreciate the opportunity to give public expression to their grief, as happened in Wootton Bassett. The public would like to pay their respects as they have done before. No impression should be left that there is any attempt by the Government or local people to deny the country the chance to pay its tributes and accept the true effects of war.

That has been done twice before. Last year on a Monday and a Tuesday, the names of the fallen were announced, but that was at a time when the House did not have the maximum attendance, or the attention focused on it, that it has at Prime Minister’s Question Time when those names are announced. It is impossible now, because of the rules of the House, to do what I have done in the past, which is to read out the names of the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is now forbidden. I would not look forward to doing that again, though, because to read the names of the fallen in Afghanistan and the thousands with serious injuries would take about an hour and a half, if I was to include their ranks and give a suitable pause to each one. None the less, that is the most effective way of getting across to the House the consequences of decisions that we took.

I was grateful to see the report on Helmand on BBC 2. It is worth remembering that, as has been repeated, politically we went into Helmand because senior politicians believed we would be there for three years and hoped that not a shot would be fired. We are grateful for the evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee and to the Public Administration Committee in which we saw the incredibly trivial reasons we went into Helmand. At that point, we had lost two soldiers in combat—five in other regions—but now it is 375. A written report to the FAC attributed it to the hubris of the Foreign Office, which felt that it might suddenly become a footnote. The conflict in Iraq was coming to an end and it wanted to be in the limelight. The military use the expression, “We must use them or lose them”, knowing that if their battle groups are suddenly stood down, there is the threat of major cuts in a future defence review.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Although I disagree with my hon. Friend, I have huge respect for his principled stance. However, when the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff came before the Defence Committee only three weeks ago, that was not the reason they gave for the Army going into Helmand. They gave completely different reasons: there was a job that had to be done, and if it was not done by the British, it would fall to one of our partners in the international security assistance force.

[Paul Flynn]

The evidence is in the reports from both Committees—in evidence from a distinguished former ambassador in Kabul and from two senior people in the civil service to the PAC. The evidence is clear. One witness said that no attention was paid to the national interest. It is difficult to see where on earth the national interest lay in stirring up a hornets’ nest in Helmand, but we know the result. This was a peaceful province. We went in to ensure reconstruction, but the result, tragically, was the loss of an unknown number of lives—possibly 9,000—and there was no reconstruction. Instead there was destruction on a massive scale from collateral damage alone. We set up posts that we defended at huge cost in lives to our own people and to the others.

This is a calamity on a scale nearly unprecedented in our military history—and that is saying something. When we went in, we did not take a decision in the House, but we had a debate. In that debate, someone said that this would be worse than the charge of the Light Brigade. This time Blair to the left of them, Bush to the right of them, holler’d and thunder’d:

“Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death”,

into the mouth of Helmand, drove the 5,000. Before, there were two dead; now it is 375. That is three times the number killed in the charge of the Light Brigade and twice the number killed in the Iraq war, and I challenge anyone to come up with any improvements that resulted from the incursion into Helmand. What is better now? It was peaceful when we went in. There was no threat.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to intervene on him again. The Chief of the General Staff, Peter Wall, and the Chief of the Defence Staff made it absolutely clear to the Defence Committee that if we had not gone into Helmand, the Taliban would have moved north towards Kabul. It is completely untrue to say that Helmand was a peaceful province; or rather, it was peaceful only because the Taliban had complete control over the area.

[Paul Flynn]

I was not present on the Committee, but I saw the sitting on the Parliament channel and was profoundly unimpressed by the evidence given. However, I do not want to dwell on this issue; I want to give other people a chance to speak—I have the advantage of speaking early. I believe that at some point an investigation has to be conducted into why we went into Helmand. Of course it cannot be done now, while we are still there, but I believe that the story revealed will be one of military incompetence and political weakness. We are in the position now—the hopeful time—of talking to the Taliban. I do not know why the Prime Minister does not emphasise this more, but for the first time we are in the position of taking practical steps to build peace that would result in bringing our troops home.

The alternative is that we are currently in a period like that the Americans found themselves in in 1970 and 1971, when they knew that the war was coming to an end in Vietnam. We know that there is no happy ending in Afghanistan, and we should not build up the prospect of an Afghanistan that will somehow be like a Scandinavian democracy or anything of the sort. The ending will be messy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for missing the first part of his speech. Does he not think that after 10 years in Afghanistan, the fact that the Prime Minister now says that there has to be negotiations, including with the Taliban—something that has been patently obvious for a long time—is an indication of just what a military and political disaster this whole thing has been?

[Paul Flynn]

I am sure that that will be the judgment of history. I am afraid that we in this House will be seen as not having taken the decisions that we should either. We have not challenged our continuing presence in Afghanistan or the continual sacrifice of the lives of our brave soldiers. This has been a bad episode in our history. Tragically, just as we saw one rotten Government in Afghanistan brought down in 2001—they were not as rotten as the one before, who included the Mujahedeen—the current Government might well be replaced in five years by another rotten Government, and we will ask ourselves, “What was the sacrifice for?” We are now in the position that General Kerry, now Senator Kerry, described in ’71 when he asked himself the agonising question, “Who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) because, in putting human rights at the heart of the long-term stability of Afghanistan, he touched on an issue that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier today about the preconditions that we might put not on talks—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that talks should be open and without conditions—but on power sharing.

The Afghanistan operation was legitimatised by the United Nations and was in this country’s national interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I pay tribute to the 375 members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in that part of the world. This country has spent billions of pounds on the operation and committed itself to the mission in that region for more than a decade. That gives value to the nation’s overall commitment to delivering both our security and a better future.

The Foreign Affairs Committee report makes it clear that UK operations and those of the international community have led to some tactical successes on the ground, but the situation overall remains precarious. The military surge has no doubt played a key part in that, but it is not sufficient. The Prime Minister was right when he said today that we now need a political surge. That political surge should be Afghan-led, however. It is right that initial conversations are being had with the Taliban. However, when we look to a future of power sharing, rather than just negotiation, it is right that we ask ourselves: what are our red lines on women’s rights? What are our red lines on minority rights within Afghanistan? Are we going to ensure that any Afghan Government that includes the Taliban maintains freedom of worship and continues to develop democracy within its borders?

The repudiation of violence is, of course, the first step to legitimising the Taliban, but it is not the only step that they need to take and it should not be the only line that the UK Government should push in discussions. We owe it to those 375 members of our armed forces to ensure that we deliver in Afghanistan the kind of environment that we ourselves would want to live in.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman has described in these red lines an Afghanistan that never existed in the past 2,000 years. Is there not a great danger that our beliefs and our aim of securing these rights are so unobtainable that they will delay the peace process?

[Stephen Gilbert]

The Afghan constitution enshrines those rights. I am not seeking anything more or less than what is already in that constitution. I simply want to ensure that we do not move backwards by involving in the government of Afghanistan parties that might seek to go back rather than forwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

That is certainly to be encouraged, but Tehran will have a degree of involvement. It has a Persian minority within Afghanistan, it is a significant power within the region and it suffers considerably from the impact of the drugs trade on its own population. It will thus have to be engaged in its own interest.

[Paul Flynn]

My right hon. Friend will recall that when we went into Afghanistan, one of the reasons for doing so that we heard from the Dispatch Box was that Afghanistan provided 90% of the heroin coming into Britain. Will he remind us what percentage of heroin comes to this country from Afghanistan after the sacrifice of 375 British lives?

[Mr Spellar]

Still far too much, but I think my hon. Friend would also recognise the role of the Taliban in that trade and the money they obtain from it to fund their activities. As I point out again in this context, it is in the interest of the wider world and in the particular interests of the regional powers to act along the lines I mention and the regional powers obviously need to be engaged in the process.

Let me deal now with the Select Committee report. There has understandably been a debate about the decision to announce a deadline for British combat withdrawal by 2014 and about the manner in which it was taken. This features quite strongly in the report and was obviously the subject of the Prime Minister’s statement today, which was welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition.

I have to say, however, that the Government’s response was, frankly, inadequate—almost embarrassing—and if I were a member of the Select Committee, I would have been rather insulted by such an inadequate response to the very significant questions that it posed. The Select Committee might well want to pursue these at a future date. It reads very much as a “seat of the pants”, “top of the head”, “don’t bore me with the details” response.

Let us examine the Government’s response to paragraphs 156 and 157, which makes it clear that the 2014 decision was not made by the Cabinet or even the National Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham quoted from it earlier. The decision

“was made by the Prime Minister following discussions with a number of senior Ministers”.

It is not even clear whether those discussions took place collectively or individually. Obviously, in this context, sofa government is alive and well.

Nowhere in their response do the Government answer the Select Committee’s questions about what advice they had received from the military before the decision, and we consider that a significant omission. Equally unclear—especially in the context of the many references today to our engagement with the United States—is the answer to the question asked in the Select Committee about what consultation the United Kingdom had had with the United States. I do not know whether there has been any subsequent communication from the Government to the Committee on the subject, but the reply given on May 2011 did not match the significant questions that the Committee had posed. That is no way to run a war, and it is certainly no way to treat a Select Committee.

Further questions arise from today’s statement by the Prime Minister. First, it is clear that a dozen helicopters were ordered by the previous Secretary of State. The current Secretary of State, when he was the Opposition spokesman, raised the issue regularly—according to an estimate by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), about 161 times—before the general election. Now he has put the order on hold. Given that the Prime Minister has committed British forces to two more fighting seasons, will the Government activate this order immediately? I gave the Minister notice of that question. I hope that he has a reply, not only for me but for the House, and, more important, for the troops.

Secondly, the Prime Minister announced a continuing military relationship with Afghanistan, and stressed that it would not involve a combat role for our troops. We have to ask—and the military too will seek an answer to this question—how force protection will be provided, and by whom it will be provided. We must also think again about the dangers of mission creep.

Because I want to give the Minister time to respond, I will end my speech now. The role of the Opposition in these matters is to support the national interest and, in particular, to take a long-term view of the issues and support our armed forces. However, on behalf of the country and our troops, we must also hold the Minister and the Government to account for their performance, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply to the questions that he has been asked.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Negotiations on statehood are certainly the best way forward, but it is when those negotiations get nowhere that discussions about unilateral recognition get going in the world. That has to be recognised by all concerned. Yes, it is of course important for any peace in the future that all concerned recognise Israel’s right to exist, forswear violence and recognise previous agreements.

I am conscious that at this rate of progress mine might be the only speech in this debate and that I am yet to touch on Pakistan and Afghanistan, so I am going to be a little less generous in giving way and I will shorten what I was going to say about Iran.

The same urgency must apply to our efforts to address Iran’s nuclear programme, which remains a vital international issue. Tackling Iranian nuclear proliferation will remain at the centre of our approach to the region. We are seeking to intensify, including through the EU, the impact of existing sanctions in order to slow down Iran’s acquisition of material and finance for its nuclear programme and press the Iranian Government to reconsider their position. The people of the middle east aspire to a better future. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to that future, as are the continued efforts of terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

No country has suffered more from the scourge of terrorism than Pakistan. In the 10 years since 9/11, more than 30,000 of its civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured, including the 80 people killed in a suicide attack last week. Osama bin Laden’s death is therefore a blow against the forces undermining the Pakistani state and an opportunity for Pakistan, working with Britain and its allies, to redouble the fight against violent extremism. Pakistan should certainly address the many serious questions surrounding bin Laden’s likely support network in Pakistan. We welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation, which must be credible and thorough, but it is right that we support the Government of Pakistan in their efforts to defeat terrorism. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in the UK and what happens in Pakistan directly affects us. As we help Pakistan today, we are also investing in our future security. The enhanced strategic dialogue that our Prime Minister launched with Pakistan last month strengthens our co-operation on many shared interests and supports that long-term goal.

We want the people of Pakistan to know that the UK seeks a long-term partnership with Pakistan for generations ahead. British development support is helping to tackle inequalities in Pakistani society, to get more children into school and to build communities that are more resistant to radicalisation. Whatever its concerns about sovereignty, Pakistan should use the opportunity of bin Laden’s death to side unconditionally with all those aiming to defeat al-Qaeda, including Muslim countries. We hope that Pakistan will decide not to turn its back in any way on the west, but to take up the offer of partnership from us and the Americans and to use this moment in order to build long-term strategic partnerships.

Neighbouring Afghanistan remains at the top of the Government’s priorities in foreign affairs.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very welcome report last week that the Prime Minister intends to make an announcement this month on the repatriation of 450 British troops—a report that gave great hope to the loved ones of those soldiers?

[Mr Hague]

I am coming on to Afghanistan, and I will talk briefly about troop levels, but I will leave any such announcement for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

We have received news in the past 24 hours—the hon. Gentleman’s remarks relate to this topic—of the death of a Royal Marine from 42 Commando Royal Marines, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to that officer and in expressing our sincere condolences to his family.

Osama bin Laden’s death will not mean the end of the security threat posed by the insurgency, or of the need to build up the capacity of Afghans to take charge of their own affairs. We remain committed to building a stable and secure Afghanistan that is able to prevent international terrorist groups from operating from its territory. Bin Laden’s death presents a clear opportunity for the Taliban to break decisively from al-Qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process.

I wish to spend the remaining few minutes of my speech—so that others can speak—updating the House on recent developments and on the Government’s overall strategy, treating these remarks as our quarterly report to Parliament on progress in Afghanistan. At the close of this debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will inform the House of development progress.

The next four years in Afghanistan will be decisive. The Prime Minister has made it clear that by 2015 our troops will no longer have a combat role or be there in the numbers they are in now. President Karzai and the international security assistance force coalition have confirmed that, by then, Afghanistan will be in charge of its own security. That process of security transfer is already under way, and President Karzai announced in March the first group of provinces and districts where the transition will begin. Lashkar Gah district in Helmand is in that first group, confirming the progress that we have made in improving security in central Helmand. The National Security Council has approved our strategy that will support this transition over the next four years.

The momentum of the insurgency has been halted and, in many areas, reversed. Afghan and ISAF forces are now working to consolidate gains, which are not yet irreversible, and levels of violence have been relatively low in recent months, although a little higher than in the same period last year. In April there were a number of insurgent attacks, including the barbaric assault on a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif and an attack on the Defence Ministry in Kabul, and there was the escape of a large number of insurgent detainees from prison in Kandahar. Those incidents underline the need to continue pursuing our counter-insurgency strategy and our efforts to build Afghan security capacity, but they should also be seen as of limited wider impact when placed in the context of the campaign. In early May, Taliban leaders announced the start of their spring offensive, and we must therefore be prepared for such attacks to continue.

The UK’s overall military contribution is well over 10,000 troops. In task force Helmand’s area of operation, our focus is on maintaining momentum and retaining the tactical initiative in preparation for the end of the poppy harvest, when Helmand’s fighting-age males, many of whom have in previous years turned to the insurgency for employment, must be encouraged not to do so again. We keep our force levels under constant review, and some reductions this year may be possible, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), dependent upon conditions on the ground and the implementation of the security transition.

If the transition of security responsibilities to the Afghans is to succeed and endure, we have to build up Afghan capacity, and we are making progress on that. Afghan security forces responded capably to the Taliban’s co-ordinated assault on Kandahar city on 7 May. The numbers in the Afghan security forces continue to grow ahead of schedule, but just as important are the improvements being made in their capability and professionalism.

Some 95% of ISAF operations are conducted side by side with Afghan forces, and about 74% of Afghan national army kandaks and 75% of Afghan national police are now rated as effective with advisers or effective with assistance. Eleven out of 12 planned ANA branch schools are now open, teaching the soldiers the skills they will need to move from an infantry-centric force to a more self-supporting organisation.

Literacy rates in the army continue to improve, with 80,000 members of the security forces having now completed a period of literacy training and a further 60,000 in training at any one time. The NATO training mission estimates that in nine months more than half the Afghan security force will have completed basic literacy training, compared with just 15% today.

We continue to work with the Afghan Government and our international partners to support reconciliation in Afghanistan and to make progress towards a political settlement. We want a durable and inclusive settlement that respects the interests and rights of all Afghans. I agree with Secretary Clinton, who said on 18 February that we must intensify our efforts on a political process. We need to take advantage of military and civilian gains to make 2011 a year of reconciliation and transformation in Afghanistan. We will work with anyone who genuinely shares the goal of a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan that is not threatening to its neighbours and who are not threatened by it, and we look to the Bonn conference later this year as an important opportunity for progress.

In all the countries and regions that I have discussed today, we have a strong national interest in both democracy and stability, and our country is playing a major role bilaterally through the European Union, the United Nations and NATO, including in Afghanistan, where we are the second largest contributor of international forces.

This year already stands out as a momentous year in foreign affairs—one that not only gives rise to great optimism about the potential for greater economic and political freedom in a part of the world that has known little of either, but that generates risks to the United Kingdom which we will work to anticipate and address, working with our allies to protect our nation’s interests while standing up for the highest values of our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The parallel is Vietnam 1963, when several thousand CIA advisers descended on that country. That eventually turned out to be 500,000 US troops, 100,000 of whom died there. A million Vietnamese also died in that conflict. We should be slightly more careful, more sanguine and less gung-ho about the process.

Turkey has tried to bring about a peace process, as has the African Union, but what hope is there for a peace process and a diplomatic settlement if the language coming from NATO and others is, “We are going to win this conflict”? That is the subtext.

[Paul Flynn]

It is an extremely rare event when I disagree with my hon. Friend on this subject, but does he understand the predicament of many of us in the House when that vote was taken on whether we should intervene? If we did not intervene, we were leaving the people of Benghazi defenceless against the bloodthirsty threats of Gaddafi.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have no doubt that the forces of the Gaddafi regime were being very brutal to people in Benghazi, just as the forces in Tunisia and Egypt were brutal to people in those countries. If the west was serious about bringing about a diplomatic solution in Libya, the Secretary-General of the UN and Heads of State would have gone there and there would have been a real effort, but the subtext the whole time, by Sarkozy particularly, was that they wanted military intervention and a no-fly zone. I voted against it because I do not believe that the intervention was as high-minded as my hon. Friend suggests it may have been, and many Members who voted for the motion on that day are having some doubts about what went on on that occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the proud son of a soldier who was grievously injured on a battlefield and later cheated out of his pension by an ungrateful Government, giving him a sense of grievance and injustice that he took to his early grave at the age of 43, I do not need any instructions on the need for a military covenant from the Government. However, I believe that the military covenant should have as its first sentence the obligations of the Government, and it should read that they guarantee never to send our armed forces into conflict for causes that are avoidable or vainglorious. Earlier, I was accused of being a pacifist for suggesting that, but I point out that I have supported with my vote or voice all the conflicts and military interventions in which we have been involved over the past 24 years, except for two. Those were the ones that conflicted with what I hope will be the first line of the covenant: the second Iraq war and our intervention in Helmand province in 2006.

In the case of the Iraq war, Labour Members were bribed, bullied and bamboozled with a three-line Whip into voting for the war. To the great credit of 139 of us, we resisted that. In the case of Helmand, in March 2006 the total number of British soldiers who had died in Afghanistan, after five years there, was seven, only two of whom had died in conflict. It was said that to go into Helmand was to stir up a hornet’s nest, and it was compared with the futility of the charge of the Light Brigade. We have now lost not two but 365 of our brave soldiers, and I believe we have achieved very little for that. We are perhaps coming to consider why we went in there.

I wish to mention some points that give reason for optimism. On a point of order last Thursday I mentioned a story in The Daily Telegraph that gave us some hope, and I raised it again with the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. It stated that a decision was going to be taken within a matter of days that would bring 450 of our troops home from Afghanistan. As a result of that point of order, I had a stream of messages from wives, grandfathers and other relatives of soldiers out there saying, “For goodness’ sake, keep asking this question. Keep putting pressure on.” The character of the conflict in Afghanistan at the moment is such that they do not feel that the risk that their loved ones are taking is justified. There is good reason for that.

Will the Government please learn the lesson? We have never asked the Taliban why they are killing our soldiers. It is always easier to go on repeating the old lies than to reveal the new truth. We need to know why they are killing our soldiers—is it because, when they have killed them all, they want to come over to London and Newport to blow up people on our streets? Or is it because we are there as the ferengi, the foreigners, and it is their sacred religious duty to kill our troops in the same way that their fathers did the Russians, and as their great-grandfathers and all the previous generations have done? The great lesson of the recent actions is that the number of deaths that we have suffered has gone down greatly, not because the Taliban are slightly less wicked than they were, but because we are not in the north of Helmand. The sooner we make our exit, the better.

Another serious point is that as the rate of deaths has gone down, an increasing proportion of them have been among the immensely brave people who dismantle improvised explosive devices. The justification for taking the great risk of dismantling them rather than blowing them up, which would of course be perfectly safe, is to capture the members of the Taliban who constructed the IEDs. Details can be found such as fingerprints and so on, so that the Taliban who made them can be captured and put in prison. We know what happened recently—500 prisoners escaped. Those who risked their lives to ensure that those Taliban bomb makers were put in prison will now question whether their sacrifice was necessary. I urge the Government to re-examine their tactic and, instead of risking more lives by dangerously dismantling IEDs to capture Taliban who are detained for a very short time, to consider blowing up the IEDs.

I am hoping that there is a truth in what the Foreign Secretary expressed today, and that President Obama and the Prime Minister make a statement on making a start on the only sensible thing that we can do: bringing our people home. The question by which the Government should be haunted is the one that troubled Senator Kerry in Vietnam in 1971: who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a mistake?

Escape of Taliban Prisoners

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask what repercussions the escape of Taliban prisoners will have on United Kingdom soldiers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for raising the subject of this serious incident. It might help the House if I give some of the background to it.

At 4 o’clock in the morning on 25 April, 476 prisoners escaped from the national security unit in Sarposa prison, Kandahar. This prison is under the control of the central prisons directorate of the Afghan Ministry of Justice. A number of prisoners have been recaptured by Afghan security forces, and they continue to search for escaped prisoners. The Afghan Ministry of Justice will conduct a joint investigation into the escape with the national directorate of security. The head of the CPD, General Jamshid, is travelling to Kandahar and General Tahir, of the detention and investigation section of the NDS, is already there. In the meantime, all prisons in Afghanistan have been put on alert and have reviewed their security accordingly.

The UK has had no involvement with infrastructure builds, training, mentoring or any other support to Sarposa prison. We continue to support the development of the Afghan prison sector by assisting the Afghan Ministry of Justice’s central prisons directorate in developing prison infrastructure, policies and working practices; supporting and structurally maintaining the high security unit within Policharkhi prison in Kabul; providing training and mentoring to improve prison officer standards; and funding the construction of a prison in Lashkar Gah.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, this is a serious event that vividly underlines the importance of building a secure prisons sector in Afghanistan. We urge the Afghan Government to put every effort into recapturing those who have escaped in order to minimise the danger and damage to anyone—be they UK forces and personnel or anyone else—and to apply lessons learned from the planned investigation to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Paul Flynn]

The valiant professionalism of our soldiers in Afghanistan is as distinguished as that of any in our proud military history. They deserve our gratitude and they also deserve our vigilance to protect them against avoidable risks. This was not just a small incident—it was a disaster. Many of those who escaped were captured originally at grievous cost in blood and treasure. Now hundreds are liberated to attack our soldiers again.

The Government have been accused of being optimistic in their faith in the reliability and loyalty of the Afghan police and army. This is the second major escape from Kandahar. Three British soldiers were murdered by an Afghan soldier. This month, the Afghan police stood aside as United Nations peacekeepers were lynched. The Afghan security services have proved themselves, to a large extent, to be endemically corrupt, inept and probably, in this case, infiltrated by the Taliban. Their loyalty is often for sale. When will the Government realise that they cannot build an ethical reliable army and police force on rotten corrupt foundations? Will they now concentrate on a political solution in Afghanistan and abandon our misplaced trust in the Afghan army and police, which is now a deadly threat to the lives of our British soldiers? Optimism and trust become naivety when we do not know who to trust.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand, and go along with, a certain amount of what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a significant event—a disaster, to use his term. It is a disaster in security terms; of course it is. Were those held in the prison detained at great cost? Yes, they must have been, to all who were involved. I understand that only three or five of them were originally UK detainees who were passed into the Afghan system, but that does not mean that others who were involved in capturing and holding them were not upholding the very standards that he was talking about, or that they have not been let down by the security situation. That is why there must be an investigation, and why we must find out what happened.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, it is of huge importance to us all that there be a transfer of power and responsibility to allow Afghanis to be responsible for their security, because there is no other answer. Security cannot be held indefinitely by those outside Afghanistan. I am sure that he is well aware of the political process that is going on in parallel with the transition process and everything else. I do not think that those members of the Afghan national security force who, along with the international security assistance force, were involved so much in Helmand last year in clearing out the Taliban and working so hard to create a safe space for their fellow Afghanis would quite recognise his description of them. Of course, maximum effort must be given to the training of new security forces—both police and army. Loyalty must be an absolute basic and training must be rigorous, but it is not correct to dismiss them all because of individual incidents.

That this matter is serious there is no doubt. We must get to the bottom of it and there must be tightening regarding those responsible and the security system. The future for Afghanistan is, as the hon. Gentleman makes out, a political solution, but the military and tactical support we are providing to the Afghanis, who must ultimately be responsible for their own security and safety, must continue despite the setbacks.

Africa and the Middle East

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I absolutely condemn the burning of the Koran in that or any other instance. It is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful. As he said, that does not excuse what then happened in Afghanistan, but we should be very clear that we condemn both.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does not the failure of the armed Afghan police to stop the lynchings of the United Nations workers, along with the previous retreat by 300 members of the Afghan army when they were attacked by seven members of the Taliban, cause the right hon. Gentleman to reassess his very optimistic belief that the security of Afghanistan can be left in the hands of the police and the army when our troops retire?

[Mr Hague]

I do not think we have ever suggested that the Afghan national security forces are able to look after every security situation in Afghanistan on their own—clearly they are not. If they were already able to do that, we would not need to be in Afghanistan. We want to get them in a position in which they can do that from 2014 onwards.

Since the hon. Gentleman points to some of the deficiencies of the Afghan national security forces, it is important also to point out that many of them are doing excellent work, partnered with our troops in Helmand, and that a huge proportion of the military operations around Kandahar over the past year have been undertaken by the Afghan forces themselves. We must not give an unrepresentative account of the capabilities of those forces.

Libya and the Middle East

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is true, as far as we know, that Libya continues to have stocks of mustard gas. We continue to call on the Libyan regime to ensure that any stocks it has are absolutely secured, because the level of violence in Libya gives rise to concern about what might happen to them.

I am not sure whether the previous Government had knowledge of the stocks or why they did not comment on them, but this Government have been very open about our knowledge that those stocks exist, and they must be secured.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recall the day when Minister Michael Heseltine, clad in a camouflage jacket and accompanied by 1,500 soldiers and police, arrived at Molesworth peace camp by helicopter in order to evict 17 peace campaigners and a goat? Is it not true of the Government that our brave British soldiers—our brave British lions—are still led by Tory Ministers who have overdosed on James Bond?

[Mr Hague]

I do not fully recall the incident that the hon. Gentleman describes—I was at university at the time and was probably doing something else—but I take his point. However, I would have thought that he would have taken this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that our troops did in rescuing so many people from the Libyan desert the weekend before last.

Bahrain

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Thankfully, that is the case on all subjects, so it is hardly necessary to make that latter point. My hon. Friend is right—we have had a long friendship for the past 40 years with Bahrain, and it is felt strongly in that country. He is also right to point out that protests have been going on in Libya, where television cameras are not present, so they may not be so much in the news. However, we should remember those protests, too, and we call on the Government in Libya to recognise the right to peaceful protest and to avoid the excessive use of force. That message should also be conveyed clearly today.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The great changes would not have happened without fresh information from the platforms of social networks and from the most reliable, trusted news organisation in the world. As the Government are in the mood for U-turns, should not they look again at their planned wasteful cuts to the BBC world services?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right that social networking sites have played a strong role in recent events across the middle east. So has satellite television, which brings us to an important point. The BBC’s services must adapt to the changes in the world—the vast majority of people in the Arab world keep in touch with those events through watching satellite television channels. That is the way for the BBC to develop its services, including its online services, rather than thinking that every service that it now provides has to stay exactly the same. Medium-wave transmissions across much of the Arab world will be continued. Shortwave transmissions will continue into the Arabian peninsula and into Sudan, but the right way to go is to develop the BBC’s satellite television services. That is the sort of thing people are watching.

Russia (Exclusion of Journalist)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is certainly true that Russia has become more oppressive and that it does not respect the agreements that it has signed. Would it not be a great shame if the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, which are the main protectors of freedom in Russia and many other countries in Europe, were undermined this week by attacks in this House? Should the right hon. Gentleman not urge his hon. Friends to make sure that the valuable work of the ECHR continues?

[Mr Lidington]

I will not be drawn into what the House might be debating later this week, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he says that, alongside those decisions of the ECHR with which we might strongly disagree, we must weigh in the scales its decisions, as in the case of Russia, to uphold firmly basic human rights and personal and media freedoms, and its severe criticism of the Russian authorities for their failure to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

7. What recent steps his Department has taken to support measures to reduce the incidence of corruption in Afghanistan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We are encouraging the Government of Afghanistan to live up to the commitments they made on anti-corruption at the conferences in Kabul and London last year. In addition, I met yesterday with General McMaster, the head of the international security assistance force’s anti-corruption task force, to discuss how the coalition could assist Afghanistan in bringing those involved in corrupt practices to justice.

[Paul Flynn]

Has it been worth the sacrifice of 350 of our valiant British soldiers to protect the election-rigging President of Afghanistan who refuses to arrest his corrupt brother, the vice president who was caught smuggling $51 million to his bolthole in Dubai, or the Government cronies who have stolen 70% of the country’s GDP from the national bank? Is not the truth that it is not the system that is corrupt in Afghanistan, but that corruption is the system?

[Alistair Burt]

There are, of course, wider issues involving national security that contribute to the presence of our forces in Afghanistan, in company with those of 47 other nations. It is not appropriate to discuss individuals, but I should say that the British Government are entirely clear: no one is above the law, no one is above inquiry, and the people of Afghanistan deserve a system of justice that ensures justice for all and that those involved in corruption are brought to book.