---

Defence in the United Kingdom

I do not think that in anything I have said—or, indeed, in what was said by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff—I have attacked any serving soldier. What I am saying to the Secretary of State is that there is a genuine problem on the ground. I am glad that he acknowledges that. For the well-being of our troops, particularly those who are engaged in dangerous missions overseas on our behalf, that cannot be allowed to continue. Far from the buoyant Army that was described by the Minister of State, the armed forces have problems. Having said that I know the Secretary of State has their interests at heart, I hope that he will address the problems not just with rhetoric, but by finding a way to give the armed forces the moral support that they deserve. I turn to some of the tasks undertaken by our armed forces. Those tasks may be overseas, but they are undertaken because they are part of the way that we defend ourselves. I said earlier that our involvement in Afghanistan was based on article 51, which is about self-defence. I would argue that even in Iraq, given the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, what we are doing relates not only to that country but to our security in the United Kingdom. The issues arising in these areas are complex. In Afghanistan, the broadening of ISAF control over the areas where new provincial reconstruction teams are deployed may lead to merging the command structures of Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO/ISAF operation. We are led to believe—the Secretary of State may know more about this than I, but I saw a report this morning—that not only France but now Belgium could yet veto any integration of US-led forces and NATO-led forces under one command. What is the Government’s position on this? What role will UK forces play—peacekeeping, counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, or a combination of them all? If it is a combination, is it seriously suggested that the British contingent could operate under a number of different commands? How will that affect the rules of engagement? The idea that UK forces could be asked to operate under two rules of engagement, with the sort of confusion that arose in Kosovo, is unthinkable. Harmonisation of the rules of engagement of each of the participating countries is essential. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that incipient deployments of additional troops to Afghanistan, if and when the decision is made, will not be at the expense of our commitment in Iraq? I may have been wrong in suggesting that requests for further troops in Iraq have been made. It would be extremely damaging and dangerous at this moment if our troops in southern Iraq were moved over to Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum there.