Armed Forces Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I think he would agree that somebody who joins on their 16th or 17th birthday currently has no right to leave, although in practice they might be allowed to, which is a slightly different issue.

Why is this an issue for under-18s? We have a whole lot of rules for under-18s: we do not allow them to vote—although many of us think that we should because they are adult enough to do that—we do not allow them to have credit cards or to enter into other legal decisions because they are not treated as adults who are able to commit themselves for such a long time; and they cannot bind themselves to a credit agreement to pay a certain sum of money the next month, except in very exceptional circumstances. They can, however, commit themselves to an extended period in the armed forces.

It is quite clear that in many cases they are allowed to leave, even though they do not have that right. It is hard to be sure, however, whether that covers every case of somebody under 18 who wishes to leave. We would not know if they were too scared to ask their commanding officer or if some other social pressures made it hard. We know that there are cases of bullying in the armed forces and although I am sure we all abhor the fact that that goes on, there are a number of such cases and it is hard to know what would happen then.

The situation is unclear, so we proposed an amendment to make it absolutely clear what was and was not allowed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the report produced by the Select Committee on the Bill after the amendment was tabled and after a number of discussions, parliamentary questions and so on. He has made a welcome announcement, stating that

“for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 26WS.]

I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for taking that step, which is very welcome to a number of the people involved. I have a few specific questions, however, and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation for me.

First, what is this period of consideration or cooling off and roughly how long would it last? My amendment allowed 14 days’ notice; I suspect he has a different figure in mind and it would be helpful to know what it is. The second part of the JCHR’s report and of the amendment state that any person enlisting under the age of 18 should be informed of their right and I hope the Minister would agree that it would ideal for them to be told that they have it, even though he would hope that many of them would not avail themselves of it. Finally, will he update the Committee on the process as it stands? Has he given instructions that the rule should apply as of now and will people be told that there is this right? He talks about requiring secondary legislation to make such a provision, which I look forward to seeing, but when will such an instrument be laid before the House?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want, briefly, to support new clause 7 and I also want to express my thanks to the Minister for his statement about improving the system. He seems somewhat surprised to get unanimous support—

[Mr Robathan]

It is amazing.

[John McDonnell]

I can assure him that it will not last for long.

I also want to argue in favour of new clause 11. My new clause, like new clause 7, is based on the briefings that we have received from the Quakers and I pay tribute to them for the work they have done in raising the issues about the recruitment of under-18s into the military. I also want to thank Michael Bartlet for the work he has done in raising the profile of the issue over some time.

My new clause would simply end the recruitment of anybody under the age of 18, because I find it extraordinary that when it comes to military recruitment or their engagement in the military, we do not treat under-18s as minors. Legally, that is what they are. I therefore find it extraordinary that we allow children to sign up to involvement in the military, legally—currently—making a commitment for six years. They are minors, signing up to a process that could put them in harm’s way and which certainly puts them under a disciplinary regime and environment that has made a number of them vulnerable over the years.

For the record, I understand that there are currently 580 16-year-olds and 1,970 17-year-olds serving in the British armed forces. I have been surprised to learn from parliamentary answers and MOD information that between April 2007 and April 2010, three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq. I have also been concerned to learn, in answer to a parliamentary question, that on 1 December 2010, there were five under-18s serving sentences at the military corrective training centre at Colchester for having gone absent without leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I thought this might be a good opportunity to point out that new clause 7 would alleviate some of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. With extensions to education and training in 2013 and 2015 up to the ages of 17 and 18, more young people might find themselves momentarily attracted to joining the forces. They can get through the first part but, as the hon. Gentleman’s point about the young people who have gone absent without leave shows, they sometimes experience a crisis in their lives. New clause 7 would alleviate the problem.

[John McDonnell]

I think that new clause 7 would bring an immense improvement to current practices and I support it, but I object in principle to the recruitment of children into the military. For 13 years, I was the part-time house father of a children’s home when they were run as family units and one could pursue one’s own career while also operating as the father of a family group. In that time we dealt with a large number of young people from extremely disturbed backgrounds and prepared them for fostering into ordinary homes. A number of those who came to us were extremely vulnerable and I remember many of them going into military service at a very young age, almost because they were looking for the security of an institution because they had, frankly, been institutionalised as a result of their lives in care. At the time, I thought those young people were extremely vulnerable and were making the wrong decision. At the age of 16, people are too young to make that major decision to go into the armed forces and put themselves under a disciplinary regime that can result, as it has done, in a number of youngsters being put in corrective establishments. As I have said, some others have been sent to war zones. I would welcome a careful rethink from the Government about this issue and I hope that they will consider coming back with proposals to accept the measures in new clause 7 and to follow other European countries in phasing out the recruitment of children into the Army.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their compliments. I am not used to that and, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, I do not expect it to continue. Never mind. We enjoy these things while they happen.

I was interested in some of the comments that were made because I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is quite keen on reducing the voting age to 16, which seems not entirely at one with some of the things that were said during the debate. However, I shall not dwell on that.

Young people who join the armed services at the ages of 16 and 17 are a valued source of manpower—it is particularly man power in the Army—but we take the duty of care seriously too. When the subject was first raised with me, I had not appreciated that there was what we might describe as a certain element of confusion over whether people could leave at the age of 18. The situation is changing, but currently if a young man—they are typically young men—approaching his 18th birthday said that he was unhappy, he would be dubbed an unhappy minor and in practice he would be allowed to go after a cooling-off period. However, the situation is slightly confused.

People who go absent without leave do not necessarily do so because they want to leave the armed forces. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might say that that is ridiculous, but sometimes people go AWOL because they have done something wrong and they do not want to face the music. There can be other reasons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) has spoken to me about the situation too and, after listening to people and to the debate in the Select Committee, it seems to me that it is important to clarify the position. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, people will have a right to leave up to the age of 18. However, I am not saying that we want them to leave, so we shall give them a cooling-off period. It is likely to be longer than two weeks. It is a genuine change and will be enacted in statute, because it is right that people understand that they do not have to beg to leave; they have the right to leave, but we shall make every effort to dissuade good young people from leaving if we wish to retain them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. People are currently informed of their rights and that will continue. The answer to his question is the old parliamentary expression, “We expect secondary legislation soon.” I hope it will be before the recess, but it may not be. I do not want to get it wrong.

I turn to people who are less satisfied, if I can put it that way, such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. We want good young people to join the armed forces and we get a pretty high quality of recruit these days, as I think the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would agree. Prohibiting the enlistment of people under the age of 18 would be to the detriment of the armed forces. We take real pride in the fact that the armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people.

Not all the young people who join the armed forces come from happy backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman talked about young people leaving care and joining the armed forces because they saw it as a way out of their difficult circumstances. It is important to bear that in mind.

I shall digress if I may, although it is absolutely germane to the discussion. Probably—notwithstanding other claims—the most decorated man in the British Army at the moment has two conspicuous gallantry medals, a George medal and an MBE. He is now a lieutenant-colonel. When I met him last year, he told me that he spent the night before he joined the Army, aged 17, in a police cell in Bradford. He will not mind my saying this because he told me quite openly—[Interruption.] I know; being in Bradford is a bit much—[Laughter.] Oh God, I’ve let myself in for a few questions now. Humour never translates on to the pages of Hansard.

That man decided that the future for him was either one that did not look very good and might involve further visits to prison and police cells, or that he would join the Army. He joined the Army at the age of 17 and he has not just made an outstanding career for somebody without great educational qualifications but, if I may say so, has made himself a role model for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I think the hon. Lady has in her hand a parliamentary answer that I gave her on exactly this issue. Those cases occurred under the previous Government and it was a mistake in each case. Funnily enough, the young men involved wanted to go on operations. A mistake was made, out of 24,000 reservists, as we have just heard, deployed on operations Telic and Herrick. Thousands are deployed each year and I am afraid that mistakes are made. If memory serves me right without having the answer in front of me, I think that two of the individuals mentioned were within a few days of their 18th birthday, and one was found out and sent back. We try to rectify mistakes when they are made, but there are a large number of people and if they do not own up to their age, that can be a problem. We do not intend that that should happen and we will pursue the matter to make sure that it does not.

[John McDonnell]

So that we get absolute clarity, it is the unanimous view of the Committee, therefore, that no minor should be taken to a war zone. Let us get that on the record.

[Mr Robathan]

That has been policy since before I joined the armed forces, which I am afraid to say was in 1970. [Interruption.] No, not 1870. It was 1970.

I can assure the Committee that we recognise the need for special care in recruiting and training under-18s. There are currently no plans to revisit the Government’s recruitment policy for under-18s, which is fully compliant with the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Libya

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend: the objective and the targets would remain exactly the same, but we would have at our disposal a weapon with a greater degree of precision, which is better able to hit targets, including moving ones, and with a lower risk of collateral damage. This would be a tactical switch from using one asset to using another, which is why I do not believe it would constitute an escalation, but I repeat that no such decision has, as yet, been taken. The French have taken a decision and announced it. We have not taken that decision, but I confirm that it is an option we are considering.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

This decision, if it is made, would make a qualitative difference to the strategy, because it would mean a greater risk to British service personnel. For that reason, the Government should seek not only a debate on the Floor of the House, but a renewed vote to sanction any such measure. May I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made, again, to get a negotiated settlement to this war?

[Nick Harvey]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The use of attack helicopters in contested territory is certainly inherently dangerous—about that there can be no doubt—but they have been used elsewhere very effectively and those dangers have not had a deadly effect. I repeat that this is a consideration of using another tactic; this is not a step change in what we are doing. The suggestion that while we are in the course of operations we would come to the House of Commons for a full debate and a fresh resolution every time we took an operational tactical decision is not realistic, and I do not think it would be justified.

Military Covenant

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I might have expected, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the programme for government, we listed a number of measures that will start the process of rebuilding the covenant, and I am pleased to be able to set out to him those that we have already accomplished.

As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, no decisions taken in the strategic defence and security review will have a negative impact on our mission in Afghanistan. In fact, we have already made great strides in improving the conditions for those serving on the front line. In our nine months in office, we have doubled the operational allowance that was paid under the previous Government to over £5,000. Labour could have done so, but did not. We have changed the rules on rest and recuperation, so any lost days of leave—due to delays in the air bridge or any other operational requirements—will be added to post-tour leave. The previous Government could have done that, but they chose not to. We have also pledged to provide university and further education scholarships to the children of members of the armed forces who have been killed since 1990. The previous Government could have chosen to do so, but in 13 years they did not. The current Government have now included 36,000 service children as part of the pupil premium, recognising the uniqueness of service life and its effect on service children and service communities. Labour could have done so, but did not in 13 years.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why not.

[John McDonnell]

I want to concentrate on a more serious issue, which I would like the Secretary of State to—[Interruption.] May I complete what I am saying? The Secretary of State has focused on the past Government’s record, of which I have also been critical, but last week the current Government introduced an immigration fees order which I objected to, and which I see has been carried on a deferred Division today. The explanatory notes explain that it introduces for the first time the power for the Government to charge fees for the registration as British citizens of the children born to British armed forces personnel serving abroad. It cannot be right that we are penalising the children and families of service personnel serving abroad on our orders. I ask the Secretary of State to liaise with the Home Secretary to ensure that she exercises her discretion to waive these fees.

[Dr Fox]

I am also aware of some of the implications of that, and my officials have already had discussions about the issue with my Cabinet colleagues. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have some progress to report.

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the convenor of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. May I appeal—[Interruption.] Order. May I simply appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly? It is quite simply a matter of courtesy—nothing more, nothing less.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I refer to my interest as the convenor of the RMT group of MPs. I requested this debate to draw attention to and applaud the work of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and to raise concerns about its future in the face of looming cuts to ships and crew, and the threat of privatisation.

In the statement to the House on the strategic defence and security review, the Secretary of State for Defence made no reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, nor is there a reference to it in the document. However, in the supporting documents, the future of the RFA is explained more specifically. It is clear from the policy briefing that there will be a range of cuts to ships:

“We plan to withdraw from service one Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary, one Auxiliary Oiler and one Auxiliary Oiler replenishment.”

It goes on to state that there will be personnel cuts:

“The Department has announced that there will be sizeable reductions in the number of civilians employed by MOD. The RFA will bear its share of these. The future manpower strength of the RFA will reflect its reduced size. Details will be announced in due course.”

More specific details were announced in a memorandum from Commodore Bill Walworth:

“SDSR for the RFA means we will lose a tanker, probably Bayleaf, an LSD(A)”—

landing ship auxiliary—

“probably Largs Bay, and an AOR”—

auxiliary oiler replenisher—

“probably Fort George.”

He stated that that would probably happen by April 2011. At the same time, we heard about the regeneration of Fort Austin, which is certainly welcome.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely surprised and alarmed at the suggestion that one of the Bay class ships might be disposed of. Those ships are brand new and have enormous military value, so much so that the Royal Navy has cast covetous eyes on them in the past, thinking that they ought to be fully RN-manned. Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that there is a suggestion that Largs Bay might be disposed of so early in its service life?

[John McDonnell]

I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the memorandum from Commodore Bill Walworth, who is responsible for the RFA, which specifically names those ships. I think that it is now in the public domain as a result of reports in Lloyd’s List. We will know the situation more clearly by April 2011, but those ships have been identified. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is worrying that a relatively new craft is concerned.

Further reviews are taking place, in particular the value for money review. The value for money review undertaken by the previous Government came to conclusions about the future of the RFA and its retention in the public sector. A further value for money review is linked to the SDSR and the comprehensive spending review. It looks as though the proposals, again according to a memorandum from Commodore Walworth, identify a target figure of 10% savings, which includes a significant number of personnel. If 10% is translated across, 220-odd seafarers could be faced with redundancy.

Anxieties have been raised in the various memorandums and documents that have entered the public domain about the potential privatisation of the service. A letter from Commodore Bill Walworth that I believe went to all personnel, including the unions, refers to a benchmarking exercise that has taken place with the shipping industry that was

“intended to demonstrate the value for money of the operational outputs that we all deliver.”

Benchmarking is perfectly appropriate if we are trying to ensure that there is value for money, but I have anxieties because of a further e-mail that is quoted in Lloyd’s List—I am not sure whether it has leaked or is in the public domain. It is from the RFA’s value for money review group:

“To date there has been work carried out to establish baseline costings of the RFA to inform the review and establish a set of requirements for the RFA that is understandable to”

the shipping industry. It continues:

“Two members of the Review Group will approach”

the shipping industry

“shortly to gauge their appetite to conduct the range of operations carried out by the RFA…This will probably start next week and we can anticipate some press interest.

RFA management has been involved in this work, to ensure that the private sector understands what is required to replicate current activity.

We will continue to work to ensure that when commercial offers are considered by the Review Group they take into account all that the RFA offers alongside that of the commercial options.”

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on securing the debate, which gives us an opportunity to say that the Government must be aware that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, with its unique place in our maritime history, is held in very warm regard on the Conservative Benches. Any attempt to privatise it, or to deal with it through death by a thousand cuts, will be fiercely resisted.

[John McDonnell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. My reason for seeking the debate was to get some clarity from the Government about what their intentions are, because at the moment we rely on e-mails circulated within the service itself appearing in Lloyd’s List.

The information that has been put into the public domain has left the RFA in an extremely worrying climate of uncertainty, which is not good for the service, certainly not good for the RFA personnel and their families, and not good, I believe, for the defence of the country.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the long and proud history of the RFA, which the hon. Gentleman has just touched upon. It celebrated its centenary in 2005, having started life in 1905 to give the Royal Navy capability and support at sea, food, fuel, ammunition and supplies. Its motto is “Ready for Anything”. It has always been crewed by civilians, who act as reservists, and has played a major role in every engagement of the past century. RFA officers and ratings delivered distinguished and professional support in every naval theatre of operations in the second world war, from the Arctic to the Pacific. Since then, the RFA has served to support the Royal Navy and Army in Korea, Suez, Cyprus, Kuwait, Borneo, Belize, Aden and even the Icelandic cod wars.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend reads out that roll of very considerable honour, so I am sure he needs no reminding that the RFA vessel Sir Galahad suffered fatalities in the Falklands. Those who crewed that ship died for our country at that time.

[John McDonnell]

I can only say that it reflects the professionalism, commitment, courage and determination of the officers who served on the Sir Galahad that they held to their task throughout the period of being blitzed.

More recently, the RFA played a crucial role in the Gulf war and was cited by the Select Committee on Defence for its vital contribution through the effective delivery of logistics and support. Its crews are civilian and follow the merchant navy training qualification pathways, but over the years it has developed specialist training in helicopters, firefighting, the use of defence systems, specialist navigations, naval communication systems and command systems. It now provides amphibious support and strategic sealift facilities, and provides casualty reception and forward repair functions.

Interestingly, an element of the RFA’s work that has not been sufficiently highlighted in the past is its role following natural disasters. It has provided aid and support, playing a key role in a number of African countries, in Sri Lanka and in the Caribbean. It is now working heavily alongside the US coastguard to tackle drug smuggling operations, and some may have read in the past month that RFA Fort Victoria, in a patrol between Somalia and the coast of the Seychelles, intercepted Somali pirates. That is an incredible record of professionalism, service, courage and determination, and the service is a world leader in its field.

There are 2,300 seafarers in the RFA, and they are employed under RFA conditions of service, which reflect their need to serve in war zones and face war hazards at times. The cost is £100 million. It is cost effective and highly efficient, but stretched to meet existing demands.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I would like to associate myself with his comments on the excellent service that the RFA provides. Does he agree that there is real innovation in how it works with industry? In particular, I am thinking of A&P, the ship repairer at my port of Falmouth, which in the Minister’s own words has delivered excellent value for money.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I have the Minister’s response to the hon. Lady’s parliamentary questions demonstrating the RFA’s broader contribution to what is described as the maritime cluster and the excellent role the service provides beyond the narrow remit of logistics.

If there are to be cutbacks to ships and crew, many of us will be extremely concerned. There is already pressure on this severely stretched service, and further cuts will undermine the service’s potential. It is an ever-changing world. We cannot judge what the challenges will be in the future, so we need to retain the capacity to respond to threats and disasters that might occur. However, it is extremely doubtful whether, with the planned cuts, the threat of privatisation and the cutbacks in personnel, the service would be able to respond to those challenges. The whole edifice of the RFA will be put at risk if the cuts go ahead.

There are wider ramifications for the maritime industry. The RFA is now the major employer of UK officers and ratings. It has gone down from 30,000 UK officers and ratings in 1980 to fewer than 9,000 today, and the RFA is the largest single employer. Cuts on this scale would significantly reduce our national pool of merchant seafarers, deny opportunities to the next generation and damage what we describe now as the maritime cluster and our ability to rise to future challenges in terms of both the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy. It would also be a devastating blow to the morale of the existing personnel.

If job cuts are to happen, may I suggest to the Minister that, given the age profile of current serving personnel, they could be achieved through natural wastage rather than redundancies? However, my intention is to persuade the Government not to pursue any further jobs cuts or closures of ship or craft at all.

On the threat of privatisation, there is concern that the service could, if privatised, be subject to commercial pressures of the market that would not maintain the long-term commitment to the service required. The search for short-term profits by sweating the assets, as we have seen in other privatisations, could undermine the service. It is a risky enterprise. Also, if it is privatised, it is highly likely that it would be taken over by a foreign-owned company, with the potential for a foreign crew. Again, Maersk, the Danish conglomerate, has already expressed an interest. However, there are strategic and political sensitivities, if not risks, if such a key strategic service is no longer in the ownership and control of the state it serves. This is not a back-room function; it is a front-line service operating in war zones.

Before the Minister responds, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would like to say a few words, because he played a role in the last Government on this issue. May I quickly say, therefore, that if the cuts, or the threat of privatisation, go ahead, there will be a sense of grievance and anger at the thought that this service and its personnel, with a history of courageous and effective service, could be sold off to the highest bidder from wherever.

I warn the Government that there would be a backlash. Yes, it would be led first by the unions, but there would be a much wider sense of betrayal in the wider community. I therefore urge the Government to make clear their intentions for the future of the RFA and reject the cutbacks and privatisation. On behalf of the RMT—Nautilus will feel the same—I would welcome a meeting with the Minister to talk through the issues facing the RFA and to look to plan its long-term future. The service is too important to allow considerations of short-term savings to put it at long-term risk. I urge the Minister to think carefully before any further decisions are made.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate, and to the Members who have contributed to it. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) set the tone from both sides of the argument in a way that has enabled a thorough debate. Without patronising anyone, let me say that a large number of the new Members who came to the House after the last election have added a great deal to the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) with his expertise.

At the start of the debate, there was an emphasis on recognising the audiences who will be listening and the importance of not having an impact on the morale of troops. I take that caution carefully, although those arguments have been used in every debate about every recent war, even during the first world war when people were arguing about the tragedies of the trenches. I interpret my duty in the House as to ensure that we never put our troops in harm’s way unnecessarily or irresponsibly, so I encourage their withdrawal from Afghanistan as rapidly as possible so that they no longer face the risks that they have faced there. Like other Members, I find it heart-rending to hear the names read out at Prime Minister’s Question Time, because I think that, tragically, our troops are dying unnecessarily. The best way that we can serve them is to secure their withdrawal.

I was in the Chamber when the decision was made to send in the troops. There was no sense of jingoism; there was serious concern, but the then Secretary of State for Defence expressed the hope that not a shot would be fired. That hope has not been realised, and with 330 dead it is a tragedy that we have allowed the conflict to go on for so long.

In our last debate on Afghanistan, I was one of the few Members who urged that negotiation with the Taliban should be commenced. Subsequently, I was roundly abused in the media and, as often happens to Members, received correspondence and e-mails calling me a traitor and saying that I lacked courage or conviction—all the usual things. However, it is interesting that debate has moved on. There have been some expressions of victory during today’s debate, but they have not been the same as in the past. There is much more serious and sophisticated discussion about how we can withdraw. The debate today demonstrates that part of the withdrawal process needs to start quickly and with a negotiated settlement.

Some years ago, we debated a proposal for a Ministry for peace, following which we set up the all-party group on conflict issues. I am one of its joint chairs; the others are from other parties. The group brought us into contact with a wide range of international organisations and experts in promoting and securing peace. I refer Members to an excellent report produced recently by the Afghanistan Study Group in America. It is entitled “A New Way Forward: Rethinking US Strategy in Afghanistan”. The study group includes a range of specialists—ex-military, intelligence experts, regional specialists and people involved in conflict resolution in the past across the world. The report reflects many of the statements that have been made by Members today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

The report includes sober analysis of the need for us to enter direct dialogue with participants in the conflict. As many Members have done today, it analyses the war in Afghanistan, describing it not as a struggle between the Karzai Government and an insurgent Taliban movement allied with international terrorists seeking to overthrow the Government, but as a civil war about power-sharing. The lines of contention are partly ethnic, chiefly but not exclusively between Pashtuns, who dominate the south, and other ethnic groups such as the Tajiks and Uzbeks who are more prevalent in the north. The conflict is partly rural versus urban, and of course partly sectarian. As many Members have said, it is also influenced by surrounding nations with a desire to promote their own interests—Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. As others have emphasised, the conflict is interpreted by many in Afghanistan as having elements of resistance to what is seen as a military occupation.

The key issue that has arisen from the debate is how we can further discussions about resolving the distribution of power in Afghanistan among the various factions and between central Government and the provinces. That is a critical crossroads. The proposals in the report emphasise, first, power-sharing, political inclusion and the start of a dialogue among all parties to enable such inclusion, including a fast-track peace process. Secondly, they suggest downsizing and, eventually, ending military operations in southern Afghanistan and reducing the military footprint immediately.

The issue is about focusing security efforts, as some have said today, on al-Qaeda and domestic security, encouraging economic development and engaging regional and global stakeholders. We and the Government have a critical role to play in that process, and the study group’s blueprint is a good one for our debate about how we go forward. However, there is a sense of urgency, because I do not believe that there is any potential for military victory. Indeed, I believe that, if we go further, the cost in human lives could even escalate.

That is why I take up the point made my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton. Who do we go to now? In what forum can we find an arbitration model and arbitration partners? We have to go back to the United Nations for an open discussion about the process and where we are now, because where we are now is certainly not in a successful position, and it can only deteriorate from hereon in. Given that there is an unstable Government, allegations of corruption and conflicts between central Government and the regions, we are obliged to involve the UN, but, if a peacekeeping force is offered, those who were involved in the invasion certainly cannot participate in it.

We are now entering a critical period, and I urge Members to study the report by the US study group. It provides a way forward to secure peace and protect the interests of this country in the long term, in combating terrorism, combating drugs and securing the region itself for the long-term future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—