---

Ministry of Defence

First, the Kurds were never asked. If we look at the constitution, we see that the regions are given an awful lot of autonomy. I am suggesting that that needs to be developed even further and that, where there is no segregation, exactly what happened in Bosnia will occur. If we remove the troops or money that are going into Bosnia, I am sorry to say that the area would be likely to return to civil war. I believe that to stick blindly to the initial plans created many years ago, having learned what we now know and when they are obviously failing, is to risk the efforts and, indeed, the funding that we have put in, as other countries have done, including Iraq. I should like to finish on Afghanistan, which I had the opportunity to visit a couple of months back, and refer to the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the Select Committee on Defence. Page 11, paragraph 18 states:"““MoD has stated that the estimated cost of the UK’s deployments to Afghanistan will be £1 billion””" over the next five years. It goes on to state:"““We asked for a breakdown of this cost by financial year and by purpose.””" I think that the response was wanting. I put it to the Minister that this House deserves more detail than simply saying, ““We would like a cheque for £1 billion over the next five years.”” Where will the money go, how will it be spent, where will it be invested and how will it help Afghanistan? There has been a US-led counter-insurgency operation on the one hand and NATO operations on the other. The two are not working together. There are completely different lines of responsibility. Now that we have moved into south-west Afghanistan, we have already seen evidence of mission creep. We are in the Helmand area, but no sooner did the Norwegians in the north get themselves into a spot of trouble than the British, who are supposed to be based in the south-west, were airlifted north to bail them out of trouble. There is nothing wrong with that—it is exactly how things should work—but straight away, we are seen as a rapid reaction force for the whole of Afghanistan. If that is the case, fine, but it should be stipulated and made clear. Those involved should not say that we are in charge of one region and then provide extra tasks. Are there enough troops in Afghanistan to do the job? We all want to support our troops, but we have sent 5,000 into southern Afghanistan to patrol and look after an area twice the size of Wales and somehow deal with the narcotics production and terrorism that are taking place there. That is wholly inadequate for what we are trying to achieve, and it is another example of how mission creep will play into the situation. My time is running out and I appreciate that others want to speak. There are an awful lot of answers here, however, and I encourage the MOD, Ministers and so on to reconsider what our true objective is in Iraq and to clarify what we are doing in Afghanistan, for the benefit not only of those of us here who are dealing with the finances, but of the troops on the ground.