Monday Volume 503 11 January 2010 No. 21 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 11 January 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 391 11 JANUARY 2010 392 but what the EU can do and is doing should be House of Commons complementary to NATO. After all, most of its members are also members of NATO. I was at fleet command in Monday 11 January 2010 Northwood only a few days ago, where the EU is working well with NATO on anti-piracy and making a real contribution. The House met at half-past Two o’clock Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): Although the PRAYERS transatlantic relationship will obviously remain our most important alliance, does the Secretary of State agree that in the 21st century the Americans will increasingly [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] look towards the Pacific and less towards the Atlantic? Will the Green Paper offer an opportunity to reappraise the military relationship with some of our key European partners and move it on to a scale that we have not seen Oral Answers to Questions in the past? Mr. Ainsworth: Our bilateral relationship with the DEFENCE United States is, as the hon. Gentleman said, the most important security and defence relationship that we have and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. The Secretary of State was asked— However, no serious people in the US expect us to do National Security anything other than build good working relationships with our European neighbours and the European Union. They see that as a positive thing, so there is no competition 1. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Whether his in that regard, as some people appear to think there is Department’s forthcoming Green Paper will include an or should be. assessment of the contribution to national security of the UK’s EU and transatlantic relationships. [309564] Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Given the The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): state of the defence budget, the fact that we are fighting Effective international partnerships are crucial to our a war and the possible danger of duplication by investing security as a nation and we will benefit from strengthening sums of money in European alternatives to NATO multilateral and bilateral co-operation. We expect to defence structures, what possible justification can there build further on both our European Union and transatlantic be for spending any significant sums at all on the relationships. Those who think that it is a choice duplicatory European defence capability? misunderstand where our interests lie. The EU, NATO and our bilateral relationships are complementary one Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman would have to to another. The Green Paper will address that issue. explain exactly where we have done that and where there has not been effect from European Union involvement Chris Ruane: The world faces threats from global in the operations that it has undertaken. As I said, I terrorism, global warming and global poverty. Those recently visited fleet command, where we have run international issues require international solutions. Does Operation Atalanta without any structures and without my right hon. Friend agree that the UK’s defence is best building any unnecessary bureaucracy. We have got that served by strong alliances with mainstream parties in operation up and running in pretty short order, under a Europe, not with those on the lunatic fringe? European flag and co-operating with NATO. Why is his party so totally opposed to such effective operations? Mr. Ainsworth: Totally. Those who believe that the EU has no effective role to play in our security, of whom there appear to be some in the House, really miss Force Levels (Afghanistan) the point. As I said, the EU is complementary to our other alliances and relationships and can play a very 2. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): What significant part in our security. We should welcome that recent discussions he has had on the contributions of and build those relationships. NATO and other allies to force levels in Afghanistan. [309565] Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): Although I agree with the burden of what the Secretary of State says, it is nevertheless true that because of the European 8. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Union’s poverty of ambition and its disorganisation, it What recent discussions he has had with his NATO needs to be directed towards the military operations for counterparts on their contributions to coalition forces which it is equipped and in which it is able to take part. in Afghanistan. [309572] Does he agree that stabilisation operations are ideal for the EU, but that we need to look to NATO for the The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): serious war-fighting operations? We continue to press our international security assistance force allies to share more of the burden in Afghanistan. Mr. Ainsworth: I agree with much of what the hon. We will encourage a focus on what they can realistically Gentleman says, but not exclusively. The EU can play a deliver, including military and non-military assets and role. We should not build concrete alternative structures, other contributions. 393 Oral Answers11 JANUARY 2010 Oral Answers 394 Rosie Cooper: Will the Secretary of State indicate in a possible to make a contribution. Many have seized it, little more detail how the London conference could be and although it is not often in the form of force capability used to ensure greater military and political burden that can do the job in Helmand province, those matters sharing across the alliance? are and will continue to be discussed in NATO. Mr. Ainsworth: There has already been a significant Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): Our armed forces response to General McChrystal’s requests for additional value political consensus on Afghanistan when possible, forces for Afghanistan, and we are getting pretty close so let me begin the new year on that basis. Counter- to the number that he asked for. Of course, we will try insurgency is about protecting the population. It requires to address burden sharing even more to ascertain how a better force-to-population ratio than we currently people can co-operate and help one another and the have in Helmand province—that is why the expected contribution that they are capable of making. As I have uplift of American and Afghan troops is welcome. said in the House previously, not all our partners can Britain is currently responsible for two thirds of the make the contributions that others can, but there are population in Helmand, with only one third of coalition things that they can and should do to help. There will be troop strength. Does the Secretary of State agree that other issues to address at the NATO conference, such as that has to change? Would it not be sensible to have a trying to get a framework for transition and maintaining better equalisation of troop densities as the number of momentum and progress in Afghanistan, but burden US troops in Helmand increases? sharing will be an important part of the discussions. Andrew Gwynne: For those NATO countries that Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his either do not contribute troops or do so with restrictive question and I welcome and agree with his comments. caveats, what other forms of assistance are being requested, As Major-General Nick Carter, who commands the such as police training, money and development whole of Regional Command South in Afghanistan, professionals? What are those countries pledging? has said, he has already had an additional 20,000 troops. He will receive another 21,000 troops and it would be Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Not a lot. strange indeed if he were not considering how to balance the force in areas in the south. That is primarily a Mr. Ainsworth: I heard, “Not a lot” from a sedentary military decision. No decisions have been made yet, but position. We are approaching the figure of 40,000 additional it is appropriate that he looks at the matter. troops that General McChrystal requested. The Americans have overwhelmingly provided them and we have made Dr. Fox: Further to that, does the Secretary of State a substantial contribution, but so have other partners—it agree that there needs to be a rebalance between UK is wrong to deny that. The countries to which my hon. and US areas of responsibility, even if that might mean Friend refers are providing all the things that he mentioned, concentrating Task Force Helmand’s assets into a smaller such as money—sometimes nations have the ability to geographical area in central Helmand? Does he agree make a military contribution in Afghanistan but cannot that that should be interpreted not in any way as a finance it, so bringing different partners together to try downgrading of the UK effort, but as representing a to help finance things that others are prepared to do is better match between resources and commitments? It is another aspect of burden sharing that we are encouraging essential that the UK play a full role in Afghanistan, and getting into in detail with some of our allies. including a full military role, but one that is proportionate to our force strength and configuration. Mr.