HC Deb 14 November 2001 vol 374 cc861-79 3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair )

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on events in Afghanistan.

It is now clear that the Taliban regime is in a state of collapse across Afghanistan. Carefully targeted coalition bombing of its front lines opened the way for the Northern Alliance to advance. The fall of Mazar-i-Sharif on 9 November was the key to the north. It accelerated defections from the Taliban, and allowed General Dostam and Mohammed Atta of the Northern Alliance to cut the lines of communication of the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda troops in the north-east.

One after another, Taliban positions folded: Taloqan, Baghlan, Bamiyan. The major city in the west, Herat, fell without a fight, to Ismail Khan. Now we see that the strategy that we have pursued is equally successful in the Pushtun south of the country.

Kabul fell without serious resistance on Monday night. Key cities in the Pushtun south have followed Kabul swiftly, including Jalalabad. It is clear that support for the Taliban is evaporating. Although there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this has been some kind of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban lie. They are in total collapse.

There are reports today that senior Taliban figures in Gardez—including Borders Minister Haqqani and intelligence Chief Ahmadullah—have surrendered. Kandahar airport has reportedly been taken by anti-Taliban forces. I have to say that regrettable incidents have happened as the liberated people have turned on their oppressors, and they should not happen. I appeal to the Northern Alliance and all other forces in Afghanistan to be restrained, to avoid acts of revenge and to engage with the United Nations.

I believe that the whole House and country should welcome the progress that has been made. Although conflict is never easy or pleasant, to see women and children smiling after years under one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world is finally to understand the true meaning of the word "liberation".

I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership that President Bush has given, and give heartfelt thanks to the British forces involved, now and in the future. There is no greater comfort to the British people than to know that we can call on some of the best armed forces in the world. Their work and their contribution to Britain's strength and international standing is immense.

I also pay tribute to European solidarity, to the countries of the European Union that have stood firm throughout this crisis and to our other coalition partners. However, there remain huge challenges—the military job is not yet done; Osama bin Laden is still at large, and so are his close associates; the diplomatic and political situation remains difficult; and the threat of an humanitarian crisis remains. The United Kingdom will continue to play a full role in the military, diplomatic and humanitarian aspects of this campaign, the objectives of which remain as set out in the document published in the House Library on 16 October.

So far, our forces have been involved in the air strikes using Tomahawk missiles and have provided support to US bombers. On the ground, our forces have been involved in liaising and working with the Northern Alliance, advising them and helping to co-ordinate action.

I can confirm to the House that several thousand of our troops are being put on 48-hour notice to move in case they are required in the area. Those include elements from 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault Brigades, including 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment and 45 Commando Royal Marines, as well as a range of supporting assets including RAF air transport, support helicopters, engineers, logistics teams and explosive ordnance experts.

For obvious reasons, I cannot give the House full details of how those troops may be used. Consultations with the United States and our other coalition partners continue. The main purpose of the troops would be in the context of multinational efforts to make safe the humanitarian supply routes that are now opening up as a result of military progress on the ground. Others may be focused on securing airfields and clearing unexploded ordnance, and on ensuring the safe return of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations to Afghanistan, thereby permitting the construction of the broad-based Government that is so badly needed.

The troops will remain in place for only a strictly limited period, while an international force to work alongside Afghan military commanders is prepared. We cannot, of course, rule out some of our troops being used in offensive front-line operations—40 Commando Royal Marines remain at a high state of readiness for contingency operations.

On the humanitarian front, an average of more than 2,000 tonnes of food a day has been dispatched since 4 November. That is four times the rate at the start of October, when it was about 500 tonnes a day. The World Food Programme is optimistic about reaching its targets: it has dispatched more than 50,000 tonnes of food to Afghanistan since the beginning of October—sufficient for 5 million people for one month. We look forward, however, to the opening of a corridor from the liberated areas to the borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In particular, the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan will be made safe for the passage of those supplies.

The UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross should now be able to improve delivery of food, health care and other assistance to 2 million vulnerable people in the northern region of Afghanistan. Plans are now being made for the international staff of the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs to return to Afghanistan. In addition, we will be able to accelerate deliveries to areas in central Afghanistan, which will become harder to access as winter sets in, so that sufficient stockpiles can be built up closer to the people who need them. That will further reduce the suffering of the Afghan people and, I hope, show the rest of Afghanistan that life for the entire nation will be better once the Taliban regime has gone.

The advance of the anti-Taliban forces has been assisted by defections from disillusioned Taliban supporters. It is time for the rest of Afghanistan—particularly the ethnic groups in the south—to join the uprising against the Taliban and throw off their oppressive rule. The sooner they act, the greater the benefit for all the people in Afghanistan.

The structure of post-Taliban Afghanistan will be for the Afghan people to determine. However, we will provide strong diplomatic and economic support to the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men, women and children, and committed to providing substantial local autonomy.

I spoke to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, yesterday, and he outlined to me the process that will now be followed. The first step will be an early UN-convened meeting of representatives of the various Afghan anti-Taliban groups—including Pushtuns—under the UN special representative, Mr. Brahimi. This would lead to a transitional Administration. To support that process under Mr. Brahimi, the UN Security Council will be adopting a resolution to underpin the principles on which Mr. Brahimi is working.

The immediate next step is for the UN to establish a presence in Kabul. I am delighted that Mr. Vendrell, UN deputy special representative for Afghanistan, and Mike Sackett, UN humanitarian co-ordinator, plan to travel there on Friday. We plan to have a UK diplomatic presence in Kabul by the weekend. I have also spoken today to President Bush and to Chancellor Schroder. The coalition is as strong today as it has ever been.

In respect of the very basis of this action, we must never forget why we are engaged in it—it is because on 11 September al-Qaeda perpetrated the worst terrorist outrage in history. It is to bring it to justice and to eliminate it as a threat to world affairs that we have been and are acting as we are.

Today, I have put in the Library an updated version of the evidence document first published on 4 October. The new document will be translated into Arabic, Urdu and other languages. The intelligence material now leaves no doubt whatever of the guilt of Osama bin Laden and his associates. On 4 October, we knew that three of the hijackers were linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; now we know that the majority were. Indeed, the utterances from the al-Qaeda network and from bin Laden's own mouth leave no doubt: far from hiding their guilt, they gloat about it. On 9 October, one of bin Laden's spokesmen praised the 11 September atrocities as "a good deed", which transferred the battle into the US heartland". He warned that the storm of plane attacks will not abate". On 20 October, bin Laden said in an unbroadcast video tape: If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists. They are terrorists, and history will judge them as such.

Before the history books are written, however, we will continue to hunt them down, and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes to bring them to the justice they deserve. They are guilty and they will face justice, and today, thankfully, they have far fewer places to hide and far fewer people who wish to protect them.

As we have made clear from the outset, the campaign against terrorism is much more than a military campaign—it is diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and legal. It has meant changing our laws to protect ourselves at home, and working with others to protect ourselves abroad.

Above all, at this moment, I say to the people of Afghanistan: "As we hunt down those terrorists who committed murder and as we hunt down those who are hiding in your country, they and not you are our enemy. This time, we will not walk away. Your future is in your hands, but our hands are there in friendship to help you to shape that future."

The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from a brutal regime, from conflict, from famine and from drought. We want to see a country with a Government representing all the people of Afghanistan, occupying a proud place in the community of nations, growing economically, enriching its people and liberating their potential. Frankly, a country that has suffered so much deserves no less than a fresh start.

Let us be clear—the way that the world embraces and supports the new Afghanistan will be the clearest possible indication that the dreadful events of 11 September have resulted in a triumph for the international community acting together as a force for good, and in the defeat of the evil that is international terrorism. I think that we all know now that a safer world is built, ultimately, out of secure countries representing all their people living in peace with their neighbours. That is how terrorism will eventually be defeated, and that, step by step, must be the new international order that emerges from the worst terrorist outrage in our history.

Whatever the challenges and whatever the setbacks along the way, I believe that is a vision and a world worth fighting for.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)

We are grateful to the Prime Minister for responding to our and other requests for a statement this afternoon. May I start by saying that I join the Prime Minister in his warm and quite correct tribute to President Bush for the way that he has led and shaped the coalition?

Clearly, what has happened in Afghanistan during the past few days—as the Prime Minister has made absolutely plain—is a complete vindication of the strategy that has been pursued by the coalition, led to a great degree by the Prime Minister and his Government during the past four weeks. Had we heeded the calls of those who, for whatever reason, demanded a pause in the bombing, we would not have achieved the successes that have been achieved so far; nor would we be any closer to a situation in which effective humanitarian aid can be brought through. That is clear.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the general role of the coalition forces, including, as it appears, our own armed forces. The Opposition support the decision to place British troops on stand-by, ready to be deployed, if necessary, in Afghanistan, If the need arises for them to be deployed in areas such as Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif, we will continue to support the Government in that decision.

I also associate myself totally with what the Prime Minister has said about our armed forces being the best in the world. We are in no doubt that whatever they may be called upon to do, they will do it with their customary professionalism, bravery and effectiveness, and the thoughts of all hon. Members must surely be with them and, moreover, their families, who wait with expectation for what may come.

We welcome the fact that the UN is now able to establish a presence in Kabul, as the Prime Minister said. However, there have been some mixed messages from the UN in recent days about its role or how it saw its role. Does the Prime Minister now feel confident that the UN is clear about its objectives and its role, as that could affect any deployment of our armed forces and the length of time that they may have to spend in Afghanistan?

We have now achieved our first objective—the removal of the Taliban Government from Kabul—yet we cannot afford to be complacent, as the Prime Minister said. The Taliban remain undefeated and dangerous in other parts of Afghanistan. Does the Prime Minister agree that, even as we enter the month of Ramadan, any let up in the coalition forces' campaign would be disastrous? Will he confirm that, beyond defeating the Taliban, our objectives still remain as they were—to bring bin Laden to justice, to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist network, to deliver effective aid and to wage war on international terrorism wherever it rears its head?

Having come so far, the last thing that we now need is for a power vacuum to be created in Afghanistan, into which people or groups could begin to take the law into their own hands. As the Prime Minister said, and as I know he is aware, the Northern Alliance is, in essence, an alliance perhaps in name only, and it cannot necessarily fill that vacuum. There is now an urgent need for the formation of a new broadly based Administration who can command widespread support in Afghanistan and who are committed to handing over bin Laden and to dismantling al-Qaeda, as the Prime Minister said.

The Prime Minister is also right, in case there is any doubt, to restate bin Laden's guilt by even adding to the charges that there were already. I must say that I have always been surprised by those who have said that they needed more evidence of his guilt than that already available. He was guilty as charged when we last discussed this issue; whatever else comes simply makes his guilt even more obvious.

The other immediate priority is to deliver aid to those in the refugee camps and others who have been displaced from their homes around the borders. As the key supply routes are opened up, and with the Taliban no longer in control, we have a very narrow window of opportunity to do that before the winter sets in. I hope that the Prime Minister will state, a little more clearly perhaps, some of the aspects of that aid in which we shall engage. We welcome what he has said about humanitarian aid in general. Does he agree that the point has been made that delivering aid was always dependent on defeating the Taliban, without which it would have been nearly impossible?

At the outset, the President of the United States described this as a war against international terrorism, and I have always believed that he was right. Surely one of the lessons of 11 September is that, if we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. Last night, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said: We are clearly in this for the long haul. We need to find the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban leadership to stop them. Then we need to address that network and other networks elsewhere in the world, but it will take time". I totally agree with him, and I am sure that the Prime Minister does, too. The message must go out loud and clear: terrorism is not being tolerated now and it will not be tolerated in the future. The days of safe havens—wherever they are—are at an end.

No civilised country will any longer be allowed, or should be allowed, to foster groups such as the Taliban and allow them to use terrorism for their own twisted purpose. Therefore, does the Prime Minister agree that our long-term objective has to be the continued prosecution of the international campaign against terrorism, wherever it occurs and wherever it finds shelter?

The Prime Minister

I can be reasonably brief in my response because I think that we agree on all the main points. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given for the decision to put our armed forces on standby. I also agree with what he has just said about the importance of making sure that we defeat international terrorism in all its forms.

I wish to deal with two or three of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first relates to the United Nations being clear about its objectives. Obviously, aspects are still under discussion, but, as I know from my conversations with the UN Secretary-General, the UN wants to do all that it possibly can to help. However, some difficult logistical and practical questions need to be resolved. We are in conversation with the Secretary-General about them, but the decision to hold a broad-based meeting of representatives of the Afghan people, and the decision of Mr. Vendrell and Mr. Sackett to go to Kabul as soon as possible, are an indication that the UN is moving with the necessary rapidity.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's point about the power vacuum shows precisely why the UN should move with rapidity; we do not want a power vacuum to open up. As I said in an interview with BBC Pushtun radio earlier today, it is important that people understand that the Government in Afghanistan must involve more than simply the Northern Alliance. There is a very clear understanding on that.

The final point relates to the guilt of Osama bin Laden. At the very beginning, there was a thought—not so much in this country, but certainly in other parts of the world—that, because this was a terrible terrorist act and because Osama bin Laden was the best-known terrorist in the world, we had merely decided that we would simply say that he was responsible. In actual fact, it was very clear that the acts of 11 September bore all the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden. It is now also clear that we can trace the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda network. The intelligence evidence is now absolutely convincing about the complicity of al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

The document that we have placed in the Library today is an updated version of the previous document and provides a lot more intelligence detail about what we have discovered. We are now able to provide such detail. I hope that it is read not merely here but throughout the world in any situation where people have any doubt about bin Laden's guilt. Once people believe that he is guilty, we return to the question that has been at the heart of this from the beginning: do we let him get away with it, or do we pursue him? I think that most people—whatever their faith or country and whatever view they have of America, the west, the United Kingdom or any other country— will understand that we had no option. Some 6,000 or more people were slaughtered in cold blood in America, so when we knew who was responsible, we had no option but to pursue them. We shall continue to pursue them until they are brought to justice.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)

I am sure that the House will greet the Prime Minister's statement with a mixture of relief and apprehension given the current fast-moving situation. There is relief that tangible progress is now being made against the Taliban and towards the bringing to justice of bin Laden and the eventual elimination of his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Equally, however, there is apprehension based on the revulsion that many in this country and internationally have expressed about some of the atrocities that have been committed by the Northern Alliance. They have a bearing on the situation into which British forces may find themselves deployed in but a matter of days.

I make it clear on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that if and when British troops are deployed as part of the stabilisation force, they will have our full support in this most difficult and dangerous set of circumstances. Any such troop deployment must surely mark the beginning, not the end, of an integrated campaign on the ground further to isolate and ultimately to capture bin Laden.

May I ask the Prime Minister one or two specific questions about the British troops? Can he clarify under whose command they will be, and can he tell us more about the rules of engagement? For example, will the troops be able to intervene to stop atrocities that are under way, or will they be able to act only in self-defence? Can he also guarantee that all efforts will be made, beyond the UN Security Council resolution to which he referred, to secure a further resolution, so that if our troops are deployed, they are not viewed by the Afghans as taking one side of a civil war? That would lend still greater moral authority to the moral authority that we already possess in the action that we are undertaking.

In the longer tern, Britain and the United States will need to maintain pressure on the Northern Alliance, for reasons of common humanity and in terms of strategy towards establishing a broadly based, post-conflict Administration for Afghanistan as a whole. Does the Prime Minister agree that that must go hand in hand with giving support now to the refugee camps on the borders in Pakistan and Iran, and support later to the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

Finally, on wider issues, the Prime Minister is well aware of the pressures in Washington—opinion in the Administration—on President Bush to make the action in Afghanistan part of a wider action. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will use his influence with the President to stop military action being expanded to include Iraq? In the likely long winter ahead, not least for our troops and the poor people of Afghanistan, all of us must hope that evil and insanity can yet give way to good and stability.

The Prime Minister

I shall work back through those points. In relation to any wider effort, as I have always said, there are two phases: the military action focused on Afghanistan and the need to pursue international terrorism in all its different forms. That is a matter of investigating its financing, how terrorists move across frontiers and how they acquire their weapons. Any action will be the subject of discussion among the coalition.

As I said a few days ago, it is important that we get the military action completed in Afghanistan. I stress to the House that it is not yet complete. We still have many difficult things to do. We will make sure that we get help to the refugee camps in Pakistan and elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has pointed out to me, the biggest need is inside Afghanistan, where it is far more difficult to get food and aid to people. That is the real problem. Of course, we want a new UN Security Council resolution which will give the necessary authority to the UN and to people acting under the UN to improve the situation.

In relation to UK troops, it is too early to discuss under whose command they will be or the rules of engagement. That will have to be decided when deployment takes place. Finally, in respect of the Northern Alliance, everyone knows that there are pictures in newspapers today, and so on. It is worth pointing out that in any situation, especially when people have suffered years of repression under the Taliban regime, there will be acts of revenge. I regret them. We do not condone them; we condemn them and ask that they do not happen. However, it is fair to say that many of the more exaggerated fears about what the Northern Alliance would do in Mazar-i-Sharif and in Kabul have not been fulfilled.

We, the Americans and other coalition partners have maintained close links at every level. I stress to the House yet again that the situation is difficult. There could be no more difficult place to undertake military action, to try to put together a new broad-based Government, and to mount a proper humanitarian effort when there are millions of refugees on the move. Those are all very difficult issues. On the military side, we have succeeded to a significant extent, but not yet fully. The political and humanitarian aspects remain immensely difficult, but we will do everything that we can to make sure that they, too, are brought to a successful conclusion.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Has not the lie been exposed—I hope for ever—that the coalition has been conducting an anti-Muslim crusade, bearing in mind how many people in the liberated areas are only too glad to see the end of the Taliban? Would it not be appropriate for the critics, be they in this House or outside, to accept that they were wrong, as they were about Kosovo? It would do no harm if they now recognised the error of their ways.

The Prime Minister

That is a very tempting offer, but in the interests of general harmony I shall refrain from accepting it. However, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point that is worth emphasising. I hope that, not merely in what is happening now but in the humanitarian and political actions that we take in Afghanistan, the whole of the Muslim world can see that we acted against terrorists—people who were abusing the true spirit and teachings of Islam. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, some years ago in Kosovo we were defending Muslims against oppression by a power that happened to be Orthodox Christian. However, the reason we acted then was not that they were Muslim, but that they were people who were suffering an injustice. There are many elements that we should move forward once the conflict is over, but one of them is a far greater understanding between the different faiths in the world--in particular, a far greater understanding of Islam in the west and, perhaps, a greater understanding in Arab and Muslim countries of why we chose to act in the way in which we did and why we want nothing but friendship and fellowship with the Arab and Muslim world. I hope very much that, when the situation calms, we can get that message across and demonstrate it clearly by our actions as well as our words.

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire)

I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Government on the way in which they have handled this matter. Today, a worrying survey has been published about UK Muslims, almost a third of whom have felt themselves to be subject to hostility and abuse. Clearly, it is utterly unacceptable to attack people for being Muslims. However, does he accept that it would be the wrong answer to introduce a new law on incitement to religious hatred and that we should instead concentrate on better enforcement of the laws that we already have?

The Prime Minister

On that last point, the difficulty, as I understand it, has always been that there is a gap in the law, because incitement to racial hatred is an offence but incitement to religious hatred is not. As the two can be very closely linked, it is felt to be right that that is a gap in the law that should be filled. I personally think that some of the objections that are made are very exaggerated in their claims about how great an interference such a law would be. Each case will be considered on its merits, but surely it should and must be unlawful for a Christian to incite the killing of Muslims or vice versa. I would have thought that that would be important. It is important that we fill the gap in the law.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some legitimate questions about how that poll was conducted. I believe, having talked to many Muslims in different parts of the country in the past few weeks, that many of them understand exactly why we have been acting. The one thing that was a clue from the people who were polled as to why they might hold their view was that more than 60 per cent. of them, I think, said that they were dubious about the guilt of Osama bin Laden. I hope very much that anybody who is doubtful about that will look at the evidence. They can get it perfectly easily; we make it available through our website. People can get that evidence and study it for themselves. Once they are convinced that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible, most people, unless they are entirely pacifist, which is a perfectly principled position, would accept that we had no option but to act as we did. We acted against bin Laden and in Afghanistan not because the people there were Muslims—far from it—but because the people who committed this atrocity were terrorists. We pursue them as terrorists in exactly the same way in which we pursue terrorists in any part of the world, whatever their religion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Is the leadership of Pakistan comfortable with the continuation of bombing during Ramadan? The Leader of the Opposition used the word "disaster". Would not the real disaster be nuclear devices in Pakistan falling into the wrong hands?

The Prime Minister

I agree that that would be a disaster; we can all agree about that. President Musharraf did not call for a halt to the bombing, as was reported in some newspapers. He said that he wanted the action to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We all want that. However, he also said that that had to be consistent with fulfilling the objectives.

One can take a principled position against the conflict and any form of action in Afghanistan, but one must accept the consequences: a terrorist network that is based, trains and is funded in Afghanistan, and has slaughtered 6,000 people in cold blood in the middle of the day in America, will be allowed to get away with it. There is no diplomatic solution to the al-Qaeda network; negotiations cannot be held with it.

Let us consider bin Laden's demands: obliterate Israel, kill all Jews, kill all Americans who support Israel, indeed all Americans. The United Kingdom and many other countries are probably also included in the list. Such people hold an extreme position. They also want the overthrow of any Arab regime that does not follow their fundamentalism. We cannot negotiate with them; we can either say that they can do what they want and get away with it or do what we can to prevent that.

We waited several weeks before we began the campaign to make the Taliban, which are an oppressive and hateful regime, choose. They made a choice, and it is increasingly obvious that it was impossible for them to separate themselves from al-Qaeda because they were effectively one and the same. Many people in Afghanistan objected not only to oppression by the Taliban and the terrible things that they did, but to their provision of a haven for people from outside the country from which they could export terrorism, much of it funded through the drugs trade.

Pakistan needs a stable and secure neighbour. It rightly wants a broad-based regime and its own strategic interest to be considered. It will be. President Musharraf has shown enormous courage. He has made the right decision for his people; that can already be demonstrated. I assure him that the commitments that we have made to the Government of Pakistan about the broad base of the regime and taking Pakistan's interests into account will he met in full.

Mr. John Taylor (Solihull)

I commend the Prime Minister for his international coalition building, and for sustaining the coalitions, but does he acknowledge any limit to the maxim, My enemy's enemy is my friend"?

The Prime Minister

I do, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Northern Alliance, it was necessary to support it in the way that we did

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley)

In the hourly changes in Afghanistan, is not it easy to forget that the purpose of being there is to pursue the guilty? Does my right hon. Friend know that Justice Scrivener QC has said that he would not convict a shoplifter on the evidence that we have shown so far? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he has placed in the Library, but does he believe that my constituents, who have also complained to me about the quality of evidence, will be convinced? On the day of reckoning when we are all held to account in a democracy, is my right hon. Friend convinced that we can say that we pursued the guilty?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend's point deserves an answer. I have not seen the comments to which she referred. Let us leave aside the intelligence evidence—people may say that we are simply providing whatever evidence we want, although I believe that anyone who examined it would be convinced. Two other things are important. First, we have now traced the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. That is where they were trained, where they came out of, and where they were connected to. One would have thought that that was hardly a coincidence.

Secondly, the best evidence since 11 September has increasingly come from what bin Laden and his spokesmen have said. People can read the full transcript of the video recordings of interviews that he has given. One might have thought that, if he was innocent, he would have been proclaiming his innocence and condemning the outrage. However, he has not done any of those things. On the contrary, he has said that it was absolutely the right thing to do, that he welcomed it, that the people who did it were heroes and, what is more, that he wants a lot more of it to happen. With the greatest respect to whoever it was who made the comment about the shoplifter, I think that although there is no convincing those who will not be convinced, if people study this matter, the evidence is clear and plain.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It may well be necessary to deploy United States and United Kingdom troops as a stabilisation force in Afghanistan, and I will support that. None the less, should not that be a temporary measure, bearing in mind that the United States and the United Kingdom have been engaged in a conflict with the Taliban and are likely to continue to be so engaged? 1 will support that engagement, too. However, is it not necessary for a degree of evenhandedness to be perceived to exist in, for example, the Pushtun areas? We have given support in concert with the Northern Alliance. In those circumstances, should we not try to engage, as rapidly as possible, in the stabilisation force troops from countries that have not so far been engaged in the conflict, so that we do not put ourselves in an apparently divided role?

The Prime Minister

That is a perfectly reasonable point. We do not want UK troops to remain there in the long term. They are there simply to perform certain duties that they may be called on to perform, and they may be the only ones who can do that at the moment. There will be not only US and UK troops, but troops from other countries which have been part of the coalition; for example, France and other countries that have been involved already.

In the medium term—while the United Nations exercise is, hopefully, taking increasing control—it is entirely sensible that we involve other countries as well. Obviously, discussions are going on about what type of force could help in this situation. As I said in my statement, we need to be able to work alongside the Afghan military commanders to ensure that stability is restored to the country. We are well aware of the sensitivities there, and it is important that we take account of them.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

As a Member of Parliament who has been to Afghanistan and seen the way in which the people there are repressed, may I ask my right hon. Friend, his coalition and the United Nations to make sure that it is not only the Afghanis who are liberated, but the women, too?

The Prime Minister

What my hon. Friend says is right. Some of the people who are rejoicing most visibly today are the Afghan women who will no longer have to suffer quite appalling repression. Under the Taliban regime, they had no proper education and were excluded from many walks of life. Also, as I know from talking to women who have been in Afghanistan, they suffered the most brutal repression, including physical beatings for anyone who did not obey rules that are, on any basis, grossly unreasonable and wrong.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I wholeheartedly endorse what was said earlier about the United Nations. What does the Prime Minister envisage in terms of the United Nations intervention? Is it to involve a form of protectorate or trusteeship while the building of a broad-based representative Government goes ahead in Afghanistan? I also fully share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that there will now be a huge increase in the amount of humanitarian aid going into the country.

The Prime Minister

It is envisaged that the UN will help to facilitate the coming together of the new Afghan Government. That is the sensible limit of its ambition there. We shall, of course, try to step up the humanitarian aid now—although, in my view, it is only because of the military action that we are able to get the humanitarian aid into the country.

Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he work with his coalition partners to try to ensure that, under any post-Taliban regime, the drugs trade does not start up again? Will he also update the House on the important financial measures needed to tackle the flow of funds to terrorists, particularly given that the Taliban received such large sums from terrorist sources?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend has raised two important points. On the drugs trade, what we shall do in helping with the reconstruction of Afghanistan is make it clear that we want Afghanistan to develop farming—of proper agricultural produce, not produce for the drugs trade—and business, so that they can grow again in a legitimate way. That will take some time, but as I was told when I was in Pakistan a few weeks ago, Pakistan used to have a very active drugs trade but it closed it down with the help of measures taken with the international community. So it is not impossible for a country that has been involved in drugs to shut down its drugs trade, and we must work to ensure that Afghanistan does that.

In respect of financial measures, we need first to make it clear to countries that have been somewhat lax in enforcing their laws on financing terrorists that we shall not tolerate that. Secondly, we must tighten up provisions on money laundering and the disclosure of information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been working on that and there has been international agreement at an EU level and, I am sure, at other international levels.

Patrick Mercer (Newark)

I congratulate the Prime Minister and our armed forces on the efforts made and the successes enjoyed. However, may I enjoin him to look carefully at the specialist reservists? More than a month ago, 150 were called for, but so far only 13 have volunteered. Can measures he taken to encourage and protect them further with legislation?

The Prime Minister

We shall do what we can in that regard. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is immensely important that we do everything possible to acknowledge the contribution that has been made. There are practical issues that we need to get right, but I am sure that with good will and discussion we can do that.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

The Prime Minister has rightly condemned excesses by the Northern Alliance in retribution, which is now going on in Kabul and other cities. What influence and pressure are being put on the Northern Alliance to cease those activities? How quickly can the UN command take over, so that it is clear that the Northern Alliance is not running the show, but somebody else is? In analysing the whole situation, will he encourage the US Administration to sign up to the International Criminal Court convention so that we have a future based on law rather than solely on the use of military force?

The Prime Minister

This country's position on the International Criminal Court is clear; America's position is up to it. Irrespective of any court's existence, the military action would still have been right. We have made it clear to the Northern Alliance that we want no reprisals or revenge killings against the civilian population. In many ways, that has happened to a lesser degree than people might have expected. Of course we want to ensure that the UN is as effective as possible in the interventions that it makes.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)

Events in Afghanistan, and over many years, have emphasised the importance to this country of British forces' expeditionary capacity. I agree with the Prime Minister that our armed forces are second to none and that, furthermore, they must have the best and sufficient equipment and ships. Currently, we have two assault ships and only one helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, which is in refit. Will the Prime Minister consider urgently the ordering of a second helicopter carrier so that one is always available?

The Prime Minister

To answer the hon. Gentleman plainly, I am not in a position now to give him assurances on that; the armed forces Minister is beside me and I have no doubt that he has heard what was said. We currently have, I think, one of the largest naval programmes ever. However, I shall have to leave the hon. Gentleman's specific representation to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of victory, however great, are infinitely preferable to the problems caused by defeat? As we turn from the speed of the military advance to the political track, could he give the House an update on the draft resolution that is now being debated at the United Nations? What will it say, for example, about security? Could he also be a little more clear about the British forces that are on 48-hour stand-by? When they go—with French, German, Italian and Spanish forces—under whose command will they be?

The Prime Minister

The difficulty is that we have not yet decided the precise nature of the command because we have not yet finalised not only what our troops but what other troops will do. Obviously, I hope that the House will understand that the situation has moved very fast in the past 48 hours. The requirements, too, are moving very fast. We may now be able to go to parts of the country that we could not go to before, and we may no longer need to go to other parts of the country where we thought that we might be required. Very many issues still have to be decided.

As for the United Nations resolution, it is obviously important that we get the most broad-based regime possible and that the international community—which has been remarkably solid in the action that has been undertaken—remains solid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) is entirely right in saying that the problems of having been effective in Afghanistan are far more welcome than the problems that we might have had otherwise. I think that, if we do this in the right way, it opens up the possibility of making real progress not only in Afghanistan but in many difficult areas of the world.

Since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the good news that at Doha a new round of World Trade Organisation negotiations has been launched, which is a very important development. I understand that the agenda for the trade round has been agreed. It would have been difficult to foresee that success even a short time ago. However, immense work has been done and there is far greater will in the international community to try to solve some of the problems facing us. That trade round will be important to world trade and to our economy, even though it may seem very distant to jobs and living standards here on the streets of Britain, because if we manage to get the trade round under way, it will open up new prospects for our business and for investment. It will also hugely help some of the poorest countries in the world.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

Although I greatly welcome the military progress that is being made, does the Prime Minister agree that the collapse of the Taliban in itself does not necessarily constitute any reduction in the terrorist threat? Will he therefore assure the House that there will be absolutely no let-up in the intensity of the efforts being made both nationally and at the United Nations, under the British ambassador's chairmanship, to strengthen our national defences against terrorism and deal with those individuals who may be conspiring to commit the next act of terrorism before they are able to engage in another act of mass murder?

The Prime Minister

I agree with that. It is important that we recognise that the closing down of that terrorist network is not complete. We do not know, for example, what planning it had put in place even before 11 September. Although I doubt that it is able to plan much at the moment because of the position it is in, we simply do not know what it may have done prior to 11 September or immediately after the acts of 11 September. It is important that we do not relax our guard for one instant in the fight against terrorism here and abroad.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the progress that has been made in the past 48 hours and his emphasis on aid and the need to ensure that Afghanistan has a Government in whom all the people of Afghanistan have a stake. I also welcome his comments on the suspicions about the west that sometimes exist in parts of the developing world. That was why he was right to go to the middle east. Does he agree that, if our words are to be taken seriously, we must redouble our commitment to bring a just peace to the middle east and show that our commitment to United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 is no less than our commitment to other United Nations resolutions relating to other parts of the world?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important, if we possibly can, to restart the process—the search for a durable peace in the middle east. I have no doubt at all that that is important. I also have no doubt at all that the process should be based on the two fixed points of principle that we have talked about over the past few weeks. One is the state of Israel—secure and confident in its own borders, accepted by its Arab neighbours and accepted in its right to exist by its Arab neighbours. The second is a viable Palestinian state where the people can live together, side by side, in justice and equality.

I am sure that whatever happens over the next few weeks and months, at some point people will have to come back to the relaunch of that process, and there is no better time to do it than now.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

Will the Prime Minister find time today to pay tribute again to Squadron 39, the reconnaissance squadron based at RAF Marham? Is he aware that it is currently based in Oman, and experiencing extremely tough, gruelling conditions in the desert there? Day in day out, they are flying over theatre, taking aerial photographs and risking their lives. They are very, very brave men.

Is the Prime Minister also aware of concerns about defence expenditure when the conflict has come to an end? Will he do all he can to ensure that our armed forces are properly funded in the future?

The Prime Minister

I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of Squadron 39, and indeed to all others that have been involved in the action. Reconnaissance in these circumstances has of course been a dangerous and difficult mission.

As for defence spending more generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have now had the first real-terms rise for many years. What this conflict has shown, once again, is not just the strength of our armed forces in terms of what they can do by way of defending our country, but that they are an enormously important part of Britain's standing in the world and of what we can do. As I have often said, I think that our defence forces are invaluable in themselves in defending our country and doing the traditional work of defence forces; but they are also a very important part of this country's foreign policy.

Mr. Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the supply of humanitarian aid and the deployment of the United Nations force will continue even after the formation of the next Afghan Government, on a long-term, structured basis and not just as a short-term answer to the current situation, to allow the people of Afghanistan to lead a normal life?

The Prime Minister

I entirely agree. We will ensure that that humanitarian commitment is there for the medium and the long term.

I read my hon. Friend's article recently—I think it was in The Observer. I thought that his argument constituted the best defence of why we are taking this action, and why it was important and right, irrespective of one's faith—Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu—for the action to be supported. I thought that the article was one of the best things I had read throughout the entirety of the conflict.

Tony Baldry (Banbury)

Way back in August, the United Nations co-ordinator for Afghanistan reported what we are seeing unfold in 2001, which will without doubt continue through the first half of 2002, is not only a catastrophe. but also a gradually cumulative humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions. Conflict, drought. displacement, grinding poverty and human rights abuses add up to a deadly combination, a chain reaction of misery upon misery. Did the Prime Minister note that?

It is important always to realise that under the Taliban, way back, there was going to be a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister assure us that, long after the television cameras and the journalists have disappeared from Afghanistan, the United Kingdom will continue to provide humanitarian and development aid for the restructuring of that country?

The Prime Minister

I totally agree that that is the test of our commitment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to point out that this is a humanitarian crisis that was going on long before 11 September, partly for natural reasons but partly because of the appalling nature of the Taliban regime. It is important that we stay with the commitments we have made, and recognise that helping Afghanistan to become a stable and secure partner in the region is not merely in the interests of people in Afghanistan but—as we can see from what happened as we let Afghanistan decline and descend into chaos—in our own interests too.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

May I reassure my right hon. Friend that, in addition to the relief and apprehension that we all must feel, as expressed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, there was joy in my heart and that of many others on Friday evening to hear that there had been movement on the ground to signal the beginnings of the end of the Taliban? I feel really happy that, so far, the movement has been very positive in getting rid of the Taliban and setting the scene for the delivery of aid and the development of a future far better than anything that Afghanistan has had over the past 30 years.

Will the agenda that my right hon. Friend laid out so persuasively at the Labour party conference and here in London this week now become a focus for the United Nations, to deal with the major problems not only of the middle east but of many other areas in the world, such as, to mention only two, Zimbabwe and Sudan?

The Prime Minister

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that most people will have welcomed what has happened in the past few days. The military success on the ground allows the political and humanitarian work to proceed in a much more coherent way. That is important and we must build on it. The challenge, however, is still formidable on both fronts—political and humanitarian—and there is no point in disguising that.

On the broader global agenda, I hope that we can make progress. We are working very hard with African countries on the new Africa initiative. It is very important to ensure that, by the time of the G7/G8 summit next year, we have a viable plan for economic and political development in Africa, led by Africa itself. The concept of partnership is there, and it should be seized on. I hope that, today more than ever before, people understand that international issues can be domestic issues, too.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Following the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), does the Prime Minister agree that those who have been crying out for humanitarian aid should be leading the van of thanksgiving for the successes that have happened, because if the Taliban had remained in power, the people who really needed help would not have got it?

Will we equip fully for winter conditions our forces that will be in Afghanistan?

Is the Prime Minister convinced that the al-Qaeda network has not moved out? What about the suggestion that bin Laden himself may have moved on to Somalia? Can we have an assurance that there will be no pulling back and that international forces will continue to pursue him until they bring him to justice?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: it is only because we have been able to secure places on the ground militarily that we can put in the humanitarian aid where we need to.

Our troops will be properly equipped for anything that they may do there.

We believe that Osama bin Laden and the main al-Qaeda network are still in Afghanistan. It is true that, prior to 11 September. various parts of the organisation and terrorists connected with it were in different parts of the world. That is why it is important that we ensure that, wherever they are, they are hunted down. They have shown by their acts how dangerous they are.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)

I thank the Prime Minister for his timely statement. In the light of what he has said, will he reconsider, even at this late stage. the perceived necessity for clauses 21 to 27 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we are to debate next week, which allow for imprisonment with neither charge nor trial? Precisely why is it thought necessary to preclude any appeal to any court on matters of fact, by way of either habeas corpus or judicial review?

The Prime Minister

I think that I can answer those questions. I am afraid that we believe that it is right to take those powers for the reasons that I gave to the leader of the Liberal Democrats earlier. The choice is simple. There is no doubt at all that there are suspected terrorists—I have dealt with such cases myself—who have entered this country who cannot be deported to their own countries because of legal decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which are binding on this country irrespective of whether the European convention has been incorporated into British law. Those people have been released here, even though in some instances the courts have accepted that those people were involved in terrorist offences and were plotting more. There are not many of those people.

We must present evidence to the appointed commission, which will be headed by experienced people—lawyersand we will have to present it in private, because of its confidential nature. It will be a small number of cases, presented in circumstances in which we genuinely believe that our national interest is at risk or that of other countries. There is no alternative, other than saying, "That's fine, they are going to be let out, can stay here and do what they wish to do." There is no alternative to that.

The second reason why it is important that we take this action is that the one question I have found impossible to answer when having conversations with other world leaders is when they say to me, "You want us to join this great coalition against international terrorism, but you have people in your country who want to commit acts of terrorism in our country, and you are doing nothing about it." I have not yet found a convincing answer to that and I genuinely believe that it is right, in very specific circumstances, to take exceptional action. If we do not do that, we will put our own people at risk. The people who would abuse our laws and hospitality would put many more people at risk, because they have no compunction about what they do. Secondly, if that small group of people get away with being here and plotting their acts of terrorism, with nothing being done about them, they make life a lot more uncomfortable for the vast majority of asylum seekers who come in through the proper immigration procedures and who deserve to be treated well and with respect.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus)

The Prime Minister said in his statement that part of the troops that may be deployed in 48 hours is 45 Commando, which is based in my constituency. I am pleased to see that the mission will be, at least initially, a humanitarian one, but is the Prime Minister aware of reports this morning that both the former president and former king of Afghanistan are travelling to Kabul, possibly to vie for power? I noted that the Prime Minister said in his statement that he had links at all levels with the Northern Alliance and although I do not expect him to give me any details of discussions, can he assure me that discussions with the Northern Alliance have been held and that it agrees with the need to deploy troops, whether from the UK or the UN, in those areas that it has recently seized from the Taliban, so that there will be no problem once the troops have been sent to Afghanistan?

The Prime Minister

I pay tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines and the work they do, which is ery important. I do not think that any one can give guarantees in this situation, but it is correct that we are in discussion with all the different parties in Afghanistan and the work is being co-ordinated and led by the United Nations. The best chance of success is in the efforts being made by Mr. Brahimi, who is the designated special envoy for the United Nations. I believe that he can be successful, but I emphasise again—I hope that I have done so sufficiently this afternoon—that the military conflict is not yet over, because our objectives have not been achieved, and the humanitarian and political challenges are formidable. However, the fact that they are formidable does not mean that they do not have to be overcome.