Our approach to Afghanistan is part of a wider international effort to help the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to build the security, democracy and prosperity which is essential to stability in this crucial region and to our own national security – helping those countries to take increasing responsibility for tackling the problems of terrorism, violent extremism and drugs.

Labour is determined that we will see our international commitments through. We must not repeat the mistake that the international community made in previous decades when we walked away to leave these countries to face these problems on their own – and those problems ended up coming back to the streets of Britain.

Three quarters of terrorist plots against Britain have originated from the Afghan/Pakistan border area. Our strategy is aimed at helping prevent Al Qaeda and the Taleban from undermining legitimate government in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Failure in either country would make Britain less safe.

Our objective in Afghanistan, as the Prime Minister said on 6 November:

“is clear and focused; to prevent Al Qaeda launching attacks on our streets and threatening legitimate government in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But if we limit ourselves simply to targeting Al Qaeda — without building the capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with terrorism and violent extremism - the security gains will not endure.”

This is also why last year we doubled the number of civilian stabilisation advisers, and why our joint civilian-military stabilisation teams – the first in Afghanistan – are now supporting not just Governor Mangal but district governors and village shuras on stabilisation and development in Helmand.

Despite the very difficult summer, progress is being made in a range of areas – including roads, basic justice, governance, and agriculture. To ensure this continued progress, we announced last month an extra £20 million for stabilisation in Helmand – money that is already being spent to help increase the number of Afghan national police in Helmand by 1000 a year for three years; to build a new police training academy; and to build new facilities for district governors. We are working with coalition partners to extend such support to the 34 provincial governors and 400 district governors right across Afghanistan.

In August the UN announced that poppy production in Helmand - responsible for around half of global supply – is down by 37% through a combination of security for farmers against Taleban intimidation, and support for alternative crops through the food zone programme led by Governor Mangal with British help, which has provided wheat seed for 30,000 farmers. An independent study from Cranfield University showed better results inside the zone than outside. We are in Afghanistan primarily to deal with terrorism not tackle the heroin trade - but in many areas of Afghanistan, including Helmand, the drug networks are among the most powerful forces opposing a stronger Afghan state that could deal with terrorism itself.

Gordon Brown also pledged that this Labour government will continue to support progress across Afghanistan on health and education – we must not forget that 6.6million children, including 2m girls, are now enrolled in school compared to 1m children, and no girls, under the Taleban; and that 80% of the population have access to basic healthcare, with 40 thousand more Afghan children reaching the age of 5 compared to 2002. All of this is due to the support of the international community including British support, eg helping to pay the salaries of doctors and teachers.

Equipment support to our armed forces in Afghanistan

We are committed to giving our Armed Forces in Afghanistan the best possible equipment – particularly focused on countering the threat from IEDs.

There is no single answer to IEDs, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech on 4 September at IISS. We have sent additional specialist counter-IED forces; extra surveillance and other equipment to find and defuse bombs; and have adopted new offensive tactics to target the networks that set the IEDs. 19 brigade, who are just finishing their tour, found and defused or destroyed over 1200 IEDs.

Military spending on Afghanistan - from the Reserve, over and above the defence budget - is now at £390,000 per soldier fighting, compared to £180,000 in 2006.

We have spent over £1bn from the Reserve on new vehicles for Afghanistan since 2006, including £20m on more Ridgback vehicles going into Afghanistan this autumn. We now have four times the number of mine-protected vehicles – Ridgback and Mastiff – in Afghanistan compared to six months ago.

“On the issue of troop carrying vehicles I think great progress has been made and I pay tribute to the government for that”

David Cameron, Sky News 18^th August 2009

We have increased helicopter flying hours by 84% compared to 2006, and with the arrival over the coming weeks and months of Merlin helicopters and extra Chinooks, and upgraded Lynx helicopters; this will rise to 130% more flying hours by spring next year.

Pakistan

The Prime Minister welcomed the recent success of the Pakistan Government against the Pakistan Taleban in Swat, Dir and Buner, and said that “the support of the opposition now demonstrates that a wide cross section of Pakistan society accepts that terrorism poses a threat as serious to Pakistan as to the rest of the world.”

He said that

“it is vital that basic services and economic assistance be provided in the liberated areas as soon as security conditions allow - so the Development Secretary is today announcing a further British contribution of £10m, in addition to the £22m we have already provided for humanitarian assistance.”

DfID’s national programme for Pakistan is increasing to £665 million during 2009-2013. We are making progress in tackling poverty: 22.3% of the population were below the poverty line in 2006-07 compared to 34% in 2001-02. Our support to the health sector has helped to save 200,000 children’s lives; stop 800,000 children becoming malnourished and increase the percentage of children being immunised from 53% to 76%.

We plan a substantial new investment in education - up to £250m over 5 years. The focus is on getting more children into school, improving education quality and providing young people with the skills they need to get jobs. By 2013, our support will help put 5 million more children attend primary school and ensure 500,000 young people benefit from technical and vocational training. DfID is also working with the government of Pakistan to help establish a Pakistan education task force formed of the best Pakistani and international experts to focus on improving the implementation of education policy in Pakistan.

In the border areas, DfID is planning to expand our current programme in North West Frontier Province and work in Balochistan and the FATA. We have already helped provide clean drinking water and sanitation to one and a half million people in NWFP between 2003-07.The PM announced £50 million for the border areas at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan summit in New York in September.

Wider support for our Armed Forces

Labour is committed to supporting all our Armed Forces – especially those serving Afghanistan but also the whole armed forces – across the full range:

·        We were the first government to introduce, in 2006, a lump sum operational bonus for those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan – over £2380 tax free for a six-month tour, flat rate for officers and junior ranks alike.

·        In 2008 we doubled the lump sum compensation for the most seriously wounded – but we accept that the scheme as a whole is not yet right, so we have announced an urgent review, independently chaired by former chief Lord Boyce and welcomed by the Royal British Legion.

·        We have continually upgraded the welfare package for troops in Afghanistan – more free phone calls (20-30 mins per week) internet access, and free wi-fi.

·        We have continued to improve the medical care and welfare support for wounded service personnel out in Afghanistan, in Selly Oak which now combines a military-run ward with the best NHS treatment, and at Headley Court.  Recent additions include new 58-bed staff & patient accommodation block at Headley Court, and a new rehabilitation complex will be completed by spring 2010.

·        Out of last summer’s Command Paper on Support for our Armed Forces, service families can now retain their place on an NHS waiting list when they move to a new area. Veterans have free access to university education. Injured personnel can now access grants of up to £30,000 to adapt their homes, without their compensation payments being means-tested. All veterans have priority status in affordable housing schemes, and we have changed the law in England and Wales to ensure service personnel can claim local connection like anyone else.  

·        We have a £3bn programme for service accommodation over the next 10 years.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown today announced future plans on British troop levels in Afghanistan, in support of our strategy of Afghanization set out in December 2007 and again in April this year.

Please find below a copy of the Prime Minister’s speech on Afghanistan. In it, the Prime Minister set out why our mission in Afghanistan is vital to Britain’s national security. It is a campaign of necessity, not one of choice. Either we fight extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan – or we wait for them to carry out more terrorist attacks.

We have the right strategy. Afghanisation – the training up of Afghan security forces and getting them to take a lead role – is the right approach. We must continue with the mentoring/partnering approach that we have begun. It is risky. But it is only when Afghan troops and police can secure Afghanistan for themselves that our troops will be able to come home. That is what defines success and when we can exit.

The PM also set out five tests for President Karzai’s contract with the Afghan people for his second term:

·        Security, and the Afghanisation of the security effort. We want to see 134,000 Afghan troops trained by end 2010. The Afghan government must recruit 5,000 troops for training each month. The UK stands ready to partner 5,000 in Helmand, working together with the Afghans right up the command chain.

·        Governance. Karzai must lead the fight against corruption; make clean and strong appointments to his unity government. Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan.

·        Reintegration and Reconciliation. We want Karzai to reach out to bringing moderate elements of the insurgency back into the political fold, reintegrating them in an inclusive political settlement.

·        Economic development. Every Afghan must have a stake in the future – and like the security effort, we need to Afghanise the international aid effort. Outside the cities, agriculture must drive the Afghan economy. In the last 12 months we’ve seen a 38% drop in the poppy harvest in Helmand. We must build on this and work on schooling and infrastructure.

·        Relations with Afghanistan’s neighbours. President Zardari has said he will attend Karzai’s inauguration. We need Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together: the insurgency straddles their border, so must the solution.

Prime Minister’s speech on Afghanistan at the Royal College of Defence Studies

6 November 2009

Check Against Delivery

Let me first of all thank Admiral Style and everyone here at the Royal College of Defence Studies for the vital work that you are doing to support the development of international strategy and leadership across the world. It’s a great privilege to be able to speak to the college Fellows today and to support your leadership programme.

And to this event today I am particularly pleased to be able to welcome General Parker who is about to take up his new post as the Deputy Commander of international forces in Afghanistan. And also to welcome senior serving officers from the Afghan and Pakistan armed forces.

This weekend – as we do each year - we remember the sacrifices made by generations of our armed forces who have given their lives in the service of this country. We celebrate their courage; we honour their extraordinary dedication. And we remember them with pride.

For the sacrifice – and the great achievements - of our armed forces are defining features of our nation - a testament to the strength and irrepressible spirit of a Britain always prepared to do what is necessary to protect the liberty and security of its people; a Britain that fights for its values; that stands up against the things we know are wrong.

And this is not just an essential part of British history – it is at the heart of modern Britain – and epitomised today by the immense service and sacrifice of our armed forces engaged in operations across the world; and especially - as I have seen myself on each of my visits – in Afghanistan.

So, as this weekend we rightly remember and honour many generations of British service men and women - I want to pay a personal tribute to all those who have been killed or wounded serving in Afghanistan.

As a nation we share the sorrow and grief that comes from the loss of their lives. 93 have been killed this year. That 93 is not just a number; but 93 families whose lives will never be the same again. 93 families without a Dad, or a husband, a brother or son. 93 families this Christmas with a place at their table no-one else will ever be able to fill.

And as well as those who have died, more than 100 have been seriously wounded this year - in ways that will change their lives, and the lives of their families, for ever.

In the tragic attack earlier this week, three guardsmen and two military policemen were killed carrying out the work which is so vital to our strategy, the work so feared by our enemies - working alongside the Afghan army and police – training and mentoring them so that the Afghan security forces fighting against the Taleban can be strengthened and so that one day they will be able to take responsibility for the security of their own country.

These men are our heroes today. Our nation will pay tribute to their memory this Sunday and every Remembrance Sunday. And though we owe them a debt of gratitude we can never repay; we will remember them.

And just as in the past we learnt of the bravery and sacrifice of British soldiers in the First and Second World Wars; in their fight to protect freedom both in our nation and the world; so our children will learn of the heroism of today’s men and women fighting in Afghanistan - protecting our nation and the rest of the world from threat of global terrorism.

Fighting there, so that we are safer at home. Joined by countries from all over the world so that terrorism can be combated: a campaign of 43 countries prosecuted out of necessity, not of choice.

In the last decade, in hundreds of attacks across the world, Al Qaeda and those associated or inspired by them have killed thousands. These victims were Muslim, Christian, Jewish, of every faith and none.

This is a reality all the world has witnessed – in New York, Bali, Baghdad, Madrid, Mumbai, Rawalpindi - and of course right here on the streets of London.

So when people ask why we are in Afghanistan - why over 40 countries have troops on the ground – I ask them to look at this list of terrible atrocities.

We all face the same threat; we all agree on the need to take action to meet that threat; we must also agree on the strategy to meet it and the resources necessary to carry out that strategy.

Britain has consistently shouldered its fair share of the burden and more – especially in the last three years, since we deployed into Southern Afghanistan, the heartland of the Taleban. But when the main terrorist threat facing Britain emanates from Afghanistan and Pakistan; and when, although the sustained pressure in Pakistan, combined with military action in Afghanistan, is having a suppressive effect on Al Qaeda, we know that they continue to train and plot attacks on Britain from the region – this mission must not fail.

It is not easy; the choices are not simple. There is no strategy that is without danger and risk.

But that is the responsibility of leadership – of government, and of our armed forces. To do what is necessary, however difficult, to keep the British people safe. We can not, must not and will not walk away.

Investment in our borders and our domestic counter-terrorism capacity is vital: but when three quarters of terrorists plots originate in the Pakistan-Afghan border regions investment at home cannot itself insulate us entirely from the new terrorist threat we face.

Only by tackling this threat at source, can we prevent it reaching our shores. And it is the combined efforts of our armed forces, police, security services, border agency, and other agencies both at home and abroad which are our best protection against further attack.

And so I reject any suggestion that our efforts to tackle the terrorist threat abroad have distracted us from mounting the strongest possible defence against the threat at home. Our investment in domestic counter terrorism has continued to increase throughout the Afghan campaign – with the number of police working in counter-terrorism up from 1,700 in 2003 to 3,000 today, the security services doubled in size, with a budget that has risen from 1 billion in 2001 to over 3 billions by next year, with stronger protection at the border and for our crowded places, and an increasingly sophisticated approach to preventing radicalisation. Over 200 people have been convicted of terrorist offences since September 11^th, with over half of those convicted in the last year pleading guilty.

And at present the biggest domestic threat continues to come from the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So it is right that our first line of defence is there. First, we have to help build up the capacity of the Pakistani security forces – to support their efforts and the efforts of the civilian government in Pakistan, in taking the fight to the terrorists and extremists.

They have already taken decisive action in the Swat valley and Britain is supporting them with a £30m package of aid covering humanitarian help for displaced persons, through to a comprehensive development and reconstruction plan.

The Pakistan military have now moved 28,000 troops into South Waziristan – and as a reminder of the links between extremism in these mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border and the terrorist threat to Britain, we have seen reports of a passport found as part of this recent offensive, allegedly belonging to an individual known to be associated with the 9/11 hijackers. 

In Afghanistan our role is necessarily different, because the Afghan army is not yet able to mount this kind of offensive - and so our forces are by necessity playing a front line role. But our objective is the same: if the Taleban insurgency succeeds in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda will once again cross the border and re-establish themselves in sanctuaries in Afghanistan from where they will plan, train and launch attacks on the rest of the world.

This is what our security services report to me – and that is the basis for our assessment that our presence in Afghanistan is justified, and that our strategy, set out in the spring, is the right one.

Our strategy emphasizes the need to strengthen the legitimate authorities in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and recognizes that we cannot succeed in one country without succeeding in the other.

The Taleban’s original plan, when the Americans, British, Canadians, Dutch, Danish, Australian, Estonian and other countries deployed to Southern and Eastern Afghanistan three years ago – was to defeat us through conventional warfare. This plan has failed. The Taleban’s hope now is that even if they can not win outright, through asymmetric warfare, through intimidating the population and through preventing economic progress, they can undermine morale and erode public support back home – and persuade us to give up before the Afghan people get to see the benefits of legitimate governance, or share in the benefits of greater prosperity.

So our strategy has moved from straight-forward counter-terrorism, to more complex counter-insurgency – protecting the people, helping the government win their support, and providing them with a stake in the future.

And that is how our strategy in Afghanistan differs from previous foreign interventions, including that of the Soviets — which lacked the support of the population, and did not seek to empower Afghans in maintaining their own security.

So our progress is not measured in enemies killed, or battles won - it must be measured in the progress made each season in improving the quality of life of Afghan citizens, the quality of governance, and the capability of the Afghans to protect themselves - as we slowly but surely make it more and more difficult for the Taleban and Al Qaeda to rebuild their base in Afghanistan and the wider region.

Tuesday’s tragic loss of life happened as British troops were mentoring the Afghan army and police.

The Royal Military Police and Service Inquiry Board is currently investigating the incident - and in parallel, an investigation is being carried out jointly by ISAF and the Afghan authorities. The investigations will cover all angles of the incident and from its findings lessons will be identified and acted upon.

The truth is, as we have always been clear, that we have not chosen the path of training and mentoring the Afghan forces because it is an easier or safer alternative – often it is the opposite – but because it is the right strategy.

The Taleban and others who seek to undermine the work our forces are doing will not divert us from our strategy.

They understand that our efforts represent our commitment to leaving a lasting legacy in the ability of local security forces to resist the Taleban.  

Four hundred of our armed forces are dedicated to mentoring the afghan army; and over 100 are dedicated to mentoring the police, working together with British and European specialist police trainers. But all our forces are working increasingly closely with Afghan counterparts as we move towards the approach we call “partnering”.

I saw this partnering in action in August in the joint operational co-ordination centre in Lashkar Gah – bringing together the Afghan army, police and security services – all with British mentors.

I heard how the Afghan police are often on the front line, taking heavier casualties than even the Afghan army - and also that the challenge for their mentors here is even tougher than the Afghan army – with problems of illiteracy, drug abuse and corruption.

But despite these very serious challenges the Afghan police have played a role this Summer – involved in holding the Babaji area in Operation Panther’s Claw, and in the security effort around the elections, led out of the joint operations centre – which ensured that over 100 polling stations were opened and stayed open despite the Taleban threats.

We will not give up this strategy of mentoring. Because it is what distinguishes a liberating army from an army of occupation.

Not an army in opposition to local Afghan people but an army supporting local Afghan people.

And this approach to Afghanisation that we recommended more than a year ago is now the strategy of the whole coalition.

And it is essential for the whole coalition to implement it across Afghanistan.

It is well known that President Obama is considering his response to General McChrystal’s report.  It is clear that he sees that the response must come from the international coalition as a whole.  For as we consider the nature of the threat we face, it is not the US that is being tested in Afghanistan, nor Britain, but the international community.  We entered together eight years ago. We must persist together; in our different ways we must all contribute; in the end we will succeed or fail together.

I have made clear to President Obama that the UK will play its full part.  In July I indicated that the temporary deployment of 700 troops for the period of the Presidential election would remain beyond the elections.

Last month I announced that – if key conditions are met, including burden-sharing across the international community – then the UK would send an extra 500 troops. 

This would bring the total number of British troops to 9,500. It is proof that we will not be deterred, dissuaded or diverted from taking whatever measures are necessary to protect our security – but we will also rightly insist, every time a single soldier is deployed to Afghanistan, that we have the reassurance of the military chain of command that they have the best possible equipment; that they are there in support of a clear strategy, agreed across the international community; and that an Afghan government is in place which can live up to its side of the bargain.

The sad news from yesterday reminds us that despite the tragic incident earlier in the week, the deadliest challenge facing our forces remains that of defeating the new Taleban tactic of IEDs - mines and roadside bombs. These attacks have more than doubled over the past year, as casualties have increased across the coalition – three quarters of them now due to IEDs.

Responding to this growing threat requires not one response but many: new equipment, better surveillance, specialised troops, and offensive operations – not just to find and dismantle the IEDs but also to identify and target the networks who lay them. British forces have dismantled over 1500 IEDs this year and the proportion detected compared with those that exploded has almost doubled since Spring last year.

In August I announced that we would increase the surveillance assets targeted on the bomb-makers – and last month these increases came on stream. I also announced, and last week the Chief of the Defence Staff confirmed, further increases in helicopters – ensuring that by next Spring we will have increased the number of helicopter hours, including commercially leased freight helicopters, more than threefold over the last three years.

But let us be clear: what separates successful counter insurgency from unsuccessful counter insurgency is that it is won on the ground and not in the air. We are committed to giving our commanders more options for road moves as well: we have bought another 20 Ridgeback mine-protected patrol vehicles to ensure that more will be going into action this Autumn, joining the world-class Mastiff vehicles – and since 2006 we have spent over £1billion from the reserve on new vehicles for Afghanistan.

All this equipment has to be manufactured, delivered and adapted - and the personnel trained to operate it. It is simply wrong to question our commitment as we adapt to the new tactics of the Taleban – or to doubt our willingness to pay for it. This is why we are speeding up the deployment of vital equipment – but also making its delivery a condition for further troop increases. I am determined that while it is inevitable that conditions change and our strategy must respond, the fundamental principle must remain, that every soldier and unit deployed to Afghanistan is fully equipped for the operations they are asked to undertake.

But let me also be clear. People are right to ask whether our soldiers should be placed in harm’s way, if the government of Afghanistan is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations to the Afghan people. And this is the second condition I placed on any further British troop increases.

In all my conversations with President Karzai – and we have already spoken three times this week – I have said that he needs swiftly to set out his positive agenda for his second term.  He needs a contract with the Afghan people; a contract against which Afghans, as well as the international community, can judge his success.

When President Karzai takes the oath of office for the second time later this month, I hope he will set out his plans in detail. International support depends on the scale of his ambition and the degree of his achievement in five key areas: security, governance, reconciliation, economic development and engagement with its neighbours.

First, security – and the Afghanisation of the security effort.  The first priority of any government is to provide security for its people.  It is not sustainable to subcontract that task indefinitely to the international community. So the expansion and training of the Afghan army and police must be the new government’s first priority. 

We have made clear for some months that Britain accepts General McChrystal’s recommendation to accelerate the expansion of the Afghan army to 134,000 by this time next year. To achieve this Afghanistan has to provide up to 5,000 army recruits per month. The international community will help with funding and training – but it is the job of the Afghan government to find the recruits. And I have welcomed the Afghan intention to set up an army corps headquarters in Helmand. British forces, as part of our strategy of Afghanisation, will be ready to partner 5,000 Afghan troops in Helmand – not just embedding mentors with Afghan units, but working closer together right up the command chain.

Better governance – is the second strand of our Afghanisation strategy. Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a by-word for corruption. And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.

President Karzai agreed with me yesterday that the first priority of his new government would be to take decisive action against corruption. I proposed that there be a new anti-corruption law, that a new anti-corruption commission be formed with powers of investigation and prosecution, that the commission appoint an international adviser of substance, and there be new rules for the more transparent award of contracts.

But good governance is more than the absence of corruption. It is about having properly qualified men and women in the key jobs. The world will be monitoring the new government’s appointments – cabinet ministers and provincial governors - to ensure they are based on merit. Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan. 

Constitutional arrangements in Afghanistan were clearly severely tested by the Presidential election. Malpractice was exposed and dealt with.  But as we approach next year’s Afghan parliamentary elections, the flaws that have been exposed must be rectified. Neither we nor Afghanistan can afford a repetition of the quarantined ballot boxes from August’s first round.

Nowhere is democracy a perfect system. But I firmly believe that everywhere democracy is the best option. In an infant democracy it will function imperfectly. Faltering beginnings are not a reason to give up. All commentators have noted what was a setback about Afghanistan’s Presidential election – I accept that; but more might acknowledge that even up against insurgency, millions of people went to the polls in the first presidential election organised by Afghans themselves. A people for so long denied a say in their future, now beginning to take the destiny of their country into their own hands.

Third, a more inclusive political settlement. We commend President Karzai for reaching out to his defeated opponent.  More challenging still is to reach out to those who have been outside the political process. Reconciliation and reintegration are central to future security stability and prosperity.  So there needs to be an agreed process for bringing those who reject violence back into the political fold. 

That process needs to be led by Afghans, but we are ready to provide support to whatever process they adopt.

Fourth, an ambitious but realistic plan for economic development to give the afghan people a stake in the future. As Douglas Alexander set out yesterday, Helmand is one of the most aid-supported places in the world – the United Kingdom alone is spending over £80 million in Helmand this year, as part of the international community’s efforts totalling some £200 million. That means Helmand will receive some £200 in aid per person this year - around double the afghan national average.

So just as it is wrong to say that we are not giving the fullest financial backing to our troops, it is also a myth to say that our development effort is not directly supporting our military campaign. The challenge is to Afghanise this part of our strategy also – with an emphasis on identifying long term growth areas and investing in education and skills to match them.

Outside the cities the key to this must lie in agriculture. In the last 12 months there has been a 38% reduction in the poppy harvest in Helmand. Wheat has become the crop of choice in Governor Mangal’s food zone. Such changes must be entrenched in Helmand and across the country. And at the same time President Karzai’s government must deliver safe drinking water, reliable electricity, schooling for girls as well as boys, and for everyone a primary health care centre within two hours’ walk. We can help; but only he and his government can deliver.

And finally, stronger regional partnerships.  There are welcome indications that President Zardari will attend President Karzai’s inauguration, just as Karzai attended his. Relations between the leaderships of Afghanistan and Pakistan are better than for many years. But this has yet to translate into closer cooperation between key institutions. The problems of terrorism and extremism straddle borders; so too must the solutions.

I commend the European Council and the UN for the leadership they have shown – when I met Secretary Ban this week I offered our support and help in the face of the recent attacks on their staff – and they have assured us that their withdrawal of some staff is a temporary measure while security arrangements are reviewed.

If we are to help the Afghan government to deliver against these five tests, stronger international coordination is crucial – as well as clearer metrics to measure progress. In devising these metrics the international community – and the sovereign afghan government – must listen to what the afghan people want. As well as being very clear that they do not want the Taleban back, what they say they want above all - as I heard myself at a shura in Lashkar Gah earlier this year – is security, justice, and opportunity – which correspond to the first, second and fourth of the five tests I have set out today.

Measuring security is difficult. The perceptions of the afghan people are crucial – and so are the capabilities of the afghan security forces. This year we have conducted increasing numbers of joint operations, building their capabilities by fighting alongside them.  Kabul has been handed over to afghan overall control – over time, other areas will follow. We are making progress too in training Afghans in counter-terrorist and counter-narcotics operations.

As I argued in September, what we need above all is to encourage the advance of Afghan autonomy and responsibility in all these areas - because the more Afghans can take responsibility in the short term, the less international intervention will be needed in the long term.

If with our help the new government of Afghanistan meets these five tests, it will have fulfilled an essential contract with its own people.  And it will have earned the continuing support of the international community, despite the continuing sacrifice. 

If the government fails to meet these five tests, it will have not only failed its own people, it will have forfeited its right to international support.

What people here in Britain ask for is the same as our forces on the ground ask for – a clear sense of what success in Afghanistan would look like, and how we will get there.

My answer is: we will have succeeded when our troops are coming home because the Afghans are providing security themselves, continuing the essential work of denying the territory of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists.

The right strategy – for Britain and for the international community as a whole – is the one that enables the Afghans to take over from international forces sooner; at a higher level of capability; and with a greater level of assurance that the pressure on Al Qaeda and other terrorist and extremist groups will be maintained, and so that a safer, more stable and better-governed Afghanistan will contribute to a safer Britain – in a safer world.

Ends

The terms of reference for the committee of enquiry will be to examine and report on UK government policy and its implementation in Iraq from UNSCR 1441 in -summer of 2001 to the present day. Its main purpose is to provide a full assessment of British involvement in Iraq over this period, to learn lessons for the future.

A committee comprised of Privy Councillors will shortly be appointed with a non-political chairman.  The members of the committee will be from non-political backgrounds following consultation with Opposition parties (biographical details below). It is essential that if the right lessons are to be learned then the committee must be impartial and free to operate without political involvement. The committee will be chaired by a senior retired civil servant.

The committee will follow the procedural precedent of the Franks enquiry of 1983 which reported on the Falklands conflict of the previous year, and which is viewed as a model of its kind. 

The committee will begin work as soon as possible with a requirement to report within one year.

The government will cooperate fully with the enquiry committee.

The committee will sit in private – along the lines of the Franks enquiry. It is vital that the committee have access to all government papers, including secret papers, and those of allies, and is able to call witnesses to give evidence, and this means that the majority of its work must be in private. If witnesses cannot speak freely and fearlessly we cannot draw the right conclusions for the future.

The final report will be laid down in the House, but classified and sensitive material will be redacted.

The scope of the enquiry is as full as possible – all of British involvement in Iraq from summer 2009 to the present day. In this sense, it is a more wide-ranging, less constrained enquiry than Franks. The committee will take into account in its findings the evidence and conclusions of previous enquiries but will not seek to re-open the conclusions of these inquiries. [

The object of the enquiry is simple: to identify lessons to be learned. The committee will not aim or be empowered to apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability.

The government has maintained that it would be inappropriate to conduct an enquiry while combat operations were under way. The combat mission ended on 30 April 2009, and the last combat troops are in the process of leaving Iraq, leaving only a contingent of 100 for training purposes. The timing is now right to begin the enquiry consistent with the pledge made by the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 26 March 2009. We could technically have waited for the announcement until the complete drawdown of troops by the end of July. However, since combat operations are now over, and the process of final drawdown is well under way, we decided that the committee should begin its work as soon as is practically possible, before the summer recess, so the announcement of the enquiry has been brought forward.

The Franks enquiry conducted after the Falklands conflict will act as precedent. The advantage of a Privy Council enquiry lies in witnesses being able to attend without lawyers. The Franks enquiry was notable for being able to do its work effectively and to time without the release of interim findings, without leaks or briefings and without the distraction of daily news stories during the enquiry. For this reason, it would be preferable to conduct the enquiry in camera, although the precise structure and format of the enquiry will be decided in cross-party parliamentary consultations. A Franks-style Inquiry has merit in that private sessions would allow full access to relevant material, and that witnesses would not require lawyers as would be the case in a judicial inquiry. If witnesses cannot speak freely and fearlessly we cannot draw the right conclusions for future situations.

The Franks enquiry reported in six months and was restricted to the period before the Argentinean invasion. The Iraq enquiry is far more wide-ranging, covering the periods before, during and after the conflict.

William Hague has called for a Franks-style enquiry.

Why not a public enquiry?

The key objective of the Inquiry will be to identify lessons learned.  This requires access to a wide range of highly sensitive information, and witnesses who can speak frankly.  This was the model adopted by the Franks enquiry in 1983 set up by the Conservative Government following the Falklands War. We want a thorough Inquiry to produce timely recommendations to help future Government policy.  The Cabinet Secretary’s advice is that the best way to ensure this is through a Privy Council Inquiry. A Public Inquiry would be less likely to identify lessons learned, would take longer and would be far more complex as the Bloody Sunday Inquiry demonstrates.

17 June – Letter from the Prime Minister to the Chair of the Iraq Enquiry - Sir John Chilcot GCB

Dear Sir John

I would like to thank you for agreeing to Chair the Iraq Inquiry As I said in Parliament, I believe this Inquiry will, through lessons learned, strengthen our diplomacy, our military and our democracy I am fully committed to a thorough and independent inquiry, and guarantee the full co-operation of the Government As Privy Counsellors, you will have unhindered access to government documents. I have written to all relevant current and former Ministers to underline the importance of their full cooperation. And the Cabinet Secretary is writing to departments to underline the need for full transparency,

It is essential that all those appearing before the Inquiry do so with the greatest possible candour and openness, and that the Inquiry itself proceeds as efficiently as possible, while maintaining full public confidence in the integrity of the process and without in any way damaging national security Once you have met, as I have suggested, the Leaders of the other political parties and the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Select Committees it would be helpful if you could set out how you and your colleagues think these objectives can best be met in the way that the Inquiry is conducted.

I hope as part of this that you will consider whether it is possible for there to be a process whereby they give their contributions on oath. It is also essential that the families of those who gave their lives in Iraq are properly consulted on the nature of the inquiry. I hope therefore that you will be able to meet them as part of the preparations and as you continue your work, to explain how you are proceeding. This could be, at their request, in public or private

Once you have established your plans in more detail, I would

encourage you to hold an open session to explain in greater depth the significant scope and breadth of the inquiry.

I wish you and your Committee well with your important task, and

look forward to your conclusions.

I. A global plan: an agreed global plan for recovery endorsed by countries representing 85 percent of the world’s GDP.

II. Restoring growth and jobs: deliver a $5 trillion fiscal expansion, to raise output by 4 percent by the end of next year, commit to take whatever action is necessary to secure a faster return to trend growth. International Monetary Fund (IMF) to assess regularly the actions taken and actions required.

III. Additional resources: $1 trillion through the IMF, other international financial institutions (IFIs) and in trade finance to help kickstart the global economy, meet balance of payment needs and provide social support for countries in crisis.  

IV. Help for the poorest: agreements worth $50 billion in support for the poorest countries including through Special Drawing Rights, IMF gold sales and trade finance. a firm recommitment to achieve our aid promises and support for a World Bank vulnerability fund. 

V. Stopping the next crisis: created a new financial stability board to spot risks, agreed regulation of credit agencies and hedge funds, new commitments on capital and new rules on pay and bonuses. 

VI. Crackdown on tax havens: agree to take action against tax havens including tough sanctions to use in future against those that don’t come into line. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will publish list. 

VII. Governance: agreement to reform mandates and governance of IFIs to make them more accountable, more representative and more effective including heads of IFIs appointed on merit. 

VIII. Kick start trade: no new trade barriers before end of 2010 and rectify any measures taken with public WTO monitoring. Additional 250 billion dollars to support trade finance and close the global trade finance gap, including 50 billion through new World Bank programme. Renewed focus to WTO deal and use g8 to drive progress. 

IX. Greening the future: commitment to use fiscal stimulus for low carbon investment, to identify and work together on policies for green growth and to reach a new climate change agreement at Copenhagen. 

X. Commitment to more: G20 commit to meet again later this year with strict monitoring by IMF, WTO and FSB of the commitments we have made.

Global Plan for Recovery and Reform

Read the statement

1.    We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, met in London on 2 April 2009.

2.    We face the greatest challenge to the world economy in modern times; a crisis  which has deepened since we last met, which affects the lives of women, men, and children in every country, and which all countries must join together to resolve. A global crisis requires a global solution.

3.    We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world too; and must reflect the interests, not just of today’s population, but of future generations too. We believe that the only sure foundation for sustainable globalisation and rising prosperity for all is an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions.

4.    We have today therefore pledged to do whatever is necessary to:

• restore confidence, growth, and jobs;
• repair the financial system to restore lending;
• strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust;
• fund and reform our international financial institutions to overcome this crisis and prevent future ones;
• promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism, to underpin prosperity; and
• build an inclusive, green, and sustainable recovery.

By acting together to fulfil these pledges we will bring the world economy out of recession and prevent a crisis like this from recurring in the future.

5.    The agreements we have reached today, to treble resources available to the IMF to $750 billion, to support a new SDR allocation of $250 billion, to support at least $100 billion of additional lending by the MDBs, to ensure $250 billion of support for trade finance, and to use the additional resources from agreed IMF gold sales for concessional finance for the poorest countries, constitute an additional $1.1 trillion programme of support to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy.

Together with the measures we have each taken nationally, this constitutes a global plan for recovery on an unprecedented scale.

Restoring growth and jobs

6.    We are undertaking an unprecedented and concerted fiscal expansion, which will save or create millions of jobs which would otherwise have been destroyed, and that will, by the end of next year, amount to $5 trillion, raise output by 4 per cent, and accelerate the transition to a green economy.  We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth.

7.    Our central banks have also taken exceptional action. Interest rates have been cut aggressively in most countries, and our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed and to use the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional instruments, consistent with price stability.

8.    Our actions to restore growth cannot be effective until we restore domestic lending and international capital flows. We have provided significant and comprehensive support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalise financial institutions, and address decisively the problem of impaired assets.  We are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the normal flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions, implementing our policies in line with the agreed G20 framework for restoring lending and repairing the financial sector.

9.    Taken together, these actions will constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus and the most comprehensive support programme for the financial sector in modern times. Acting together strengthens the impact and the exceptional policy actions announced so far must be implemented without delay. Today, we have further agreed over $1 trillion of additional resources for the world economy through our international financial institutions and trade finance.

10.    Last month the IMF estimated that world growth in real terms would resume and rise to over 2 percent by the end of 2010. We are confident that the actions we have agreed today, and our unshakeable commitment to work together to restore growth and jobs, while preserving long-term fiscal sustainability, will accelerate the return to trend growth. We commit today to taking whatever action is necessary to secure that outcome, and we call on the IMF to assess regularly the actions taken and the global actions required.

11.     We are resolved to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability and price stability and will put in place credible exit strategies from the measures that need to be taken now to support the financial sector and restore global demand. We are convinced that by implementing our agreed policies we will limit the longer-term costs to our economies, thereby reducing the scale of the fiscal consolidation necessary over the longer term.

12.    We will conduct all our economic policies cooperatively and responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and will refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies and promote a stable and well-functioning international monetary system.  We will support, now and in the future, to candid, even-handed, and independent IMF surveillance of our economies and financial sectors, of the impact of our policies on others, and of risks facing the global economy.

Strengthening financial supervision and regulation

13.    Major failures in the financial sector and in financial regulation and supervision were fundamental causes of the crisis.  Confidence will not be restored until we rebuild trust in our financial system.  We will take action to build a stronger, more globally consistent, supervisory and regulatory framework for the future financial sector, which will support sustainable global growth and serve the needs of business and citizens.

14.    We each agree to ensure our domestic regulatory systems are strong.

But we also agree to establish the much greater consistency and systematic cooperation between countries, and the framework of internationally agreed high standards, that a global financial system requires.  Strengthened regulation and supervision must promote propriety, integrity and transparency; guard against risk across the financial system; dampen rather than amplify the financial and economic cycle; reduce reliance on inappropriately risky sources of financing; and discourage excessive risk-taking.  Regulators and supervisors must protect consumers and investors, support market discipline, avoid adverse impacts on other countries, reduce the scope for regulatory arbitrage, support competition and dynamism, and keep pace with innovation in the marketplace.

15.    To this end we are implementing the Action Plan agreed at our last meeting, as set out in the attached progress report. We have today also issued a Declaration, Strengthening the Financial System.  In particular we agree:

• to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission;
• that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them;
• to reshape our regulatory systems so that our authorities are able to identify and take account of macro-prudential risks;
• to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets.  This will include, for the first time, systemically important hedge funds;
• to endorse and implement the FSF’s tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms;
• to take action, once recovery is assured, to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system.
• In future, regulation must prevent excessive leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times;
• to take action against  non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens.  We  stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information;
• to call on the accounting standard setters to work urgently with supervisors and regulators to improve standards on valuation and provisioning and achieve a single set of high-quality global accounting standards; and
• to extend regulatory oversight and registration to Credit Rating Agencies to ensure they meet the international code of good practice, particularly to prevent unacceptable conflicts of interest.

16.    We instruct our Finance Ministers to complete the implementation of these decisions in line with the timetable set out in the Action Plan.  We have asked the FSB and the IMF to monitor progress, working with the Financial Action Taskforce and other relevant bodies, and to provide a report to the next meeting of our Finance Ministers in Scotland in November.

Strengthening our global financial institutions

17.    Emerging markets and developing countries, which have been the engine of recent world growth, are also now facing challenges which are adding to the current downturn in the global economy.  It is imperative for global confidence and economic recovery that capital continues to flow to them.  This will require a substantial strengthening of the international financial institutions, particularly the IMF. We have therefore agreed today to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the global financial institutions to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalisation, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover, and social support.  To this end:

• we have agreed to increase the resources available to the IMF through immediate financing from members of $250 billion, subsequently incorporated into an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow, increased by up to $500 billion, and to consider market borrowing if necessary; and
• we support a substantial increase in lending of at least $100 billion by the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), including to low income countries, and ensure that all MDBs, including have the appropriate capital.

18.    It is essential that these resources can be used effectively and flexibly to support growth.  We welcome in this respect the progress made by the IMF with its new Flexible Credit Line (FCL) and its reformed lending and conditionality framework which will enable the IMF to ensure that its facilities address effectively the underlying causes of countries’ balance of payments financing needs, particularly the withdrawal of external capital flows to the banking and corporate sectors.  We support Mexico’s decision to seek an FCL arrangement.

19.    We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity, and urgent ratification of the Fourth Amendment.

20.    In order for our financial institutions to help manage the crisis and prevent future crises we must strengthen their longer term relevance, effectiveness and legitimacy. So alongside the significant increase in resources agreed today we are determined to reform and modernise the international financial institutions to ensure they can assist members and shareholders effectively in the new challenges they face.  We will reform their mandates, scope and governance to reflect changes in the world economy and the new challenges of globalisation, and that emerging and developing economies, including the poorest, must have greater voice and representation. This must be accompanied by action to increase the credibility and accountability of the institutions through better strategic oversight and decision making.  To this end:

o        we commit to implementing the package of IMF quota and voice reforms agreed in April 2008 and call on the IMF to complete the next review of quotas by January 2011;

o        we agree that, alongside this, consideration should be given to greater involvement of the Fund’s Governors in providing strategic direction to the IMF and increasing its accountability;

o        we commit to implementing the World Bank reforms agreed in October 2008.  We look forward to further recommendations, at the next meetings, on voice and representation reforms on an accelerated timescale, to be agreed by the 2010 Spring Meetings;

o        we agree that the heads and senior leadership of the international financial institutions should be appointed through an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process; and

o        building on the current reviews of the IMF and World Bank we asked the Chairman, working with the G20 Finance Ministers, to consult widely in an inclusive process and report back to the next meeting with proposals for further reforms to improve the responsiveness and adaptability of the IFIs.

21.    In addition to reforming our international financial institutions for the new challenges of globalisation we agreed on the desirability of a new global consensus on the key values and principles that will promote sustainable economic activity.  We support discussion on such a charter for sustainable economic activity with a view to further discussion at our next meeting.  We take note of the work started in other fora in this regard and look forward to further discussion of this charter for sustainable economic activity.

Resisting protectionism and promoting global trade and investment

22.    World trade growth has underpinned rising prosperity for half a century.  But it is now falling for the first time in 25 years.  Falling demand is exacerbated by growing protectionist pressures and a withdrawal of trade credit.  Reinvigorating world trade and investment is essential for restoring global growth. We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.  To this end:

o        we reaffirm the commitment made in Washington: to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organisation (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.  In addition we will rectify promptly any such measures.  We extend this pledge to the end of 2010;

o        we will minimise any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions including fiscal policy and action in support of the financial sector.  We will not retreat into financial protectionism, particularly measures that constrain worldwide capital flows, especially to developing countries;

o        we will notify promptly the WTO of any such measures and we call on the WTO, together with other international bodies, within their respective mandates, to monitor and report publicly on our adherence to these undertakings on a quarterly basis;

o        we will take, at the same time, whatever steps we can to promote and facilitate trade and investment; and

o        we will ensure availability of at least $250 billion over the next two years to support trade finance through our export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs.  We also ask our regulators to make use of available flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.

23.    We remain committed to reaching an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Round, which is urgently needed.  This could boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum.  To achieve this we are committed to building on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities.

24.    We will give renewed focus and political attention to this critical issue in the coming period and will use our continuing work and all international meetings that are relevant to drive progress.

Ensuring a fair and sustainable recovery for all

25.    We are determined not only to restore growth but to lay the foundation for a fair and sustainable world economy. We recognise that the current crisis has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in the poorest countries and recognise our collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis to minimise long-lasting damage to global potential.   To this end:

o        we reaffirm our historic commitment to meeting the Millennium Development Goals and to achieving our respective ODA pledges, including commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and the Gleneagles commitments, especially to sub-Saharan Africa;

o        the actions and decisions we have taken today will provide $50 billion to support social protection, boost trade and safeguard development in low income countries, as part of the significant increase in crisis support for these and other developing countries and emerging markets;

o        we are making available resources for social protection for the poorest countries, including through investing in long-term food security and through voluntary bilateral contributions to the World Bank’s Vulnerability Framework, including the Infrastructure Crisis Facility, and the Rapid Social Response Fund;

o        we have committed, consistent with the new income model, that additional resources from agreed sales of IMF gold will be used, together with surplus income, to provide $6 billion additional concessional and flexible finance for the poorest countries over the next 2 to 3 years. We call on the IMF to come forward with concrete proposals at the Spring Meetings;

o        we have agreed to review the flexibility of the Debt Sustainability Framework and call on the IMF and World Bank to report to the IMFC and Development Committee at the Annual Meetings; and

o        we call on the UN, working with other global institutions, to establish an effective mechanism to monitor the impact of the crisis on the poorest and most vulnerable.

26.    We recognise the human dimension to the crisis.  We commit to support those affected by the crisis by creating employment opportunities and through income support measures.   We will build a fair and family-friendly labour market for both women and men.  We therefore welcome the reports of the London Jobs Conference and the Rome Social Summit and the key principles they proposed.  We will support employment by stimulating growth, investing in education and training, and through active labour market policies, focusing on the most vulnerable.  We call upon the ILO, working with other relevant organisations, to assess the actions taken and those required for the future.

27.    We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery.  We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure.  We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective.  We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28.    We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Delivering our commitments

29.    We have committed ourselves to work together with urgency and determination to translate these words into action. We agreed to meet again before the end of this year to review progress on our commitments.

The long term benefit to the UK economy from migration is significant and will be vital to ensuring the UK’s economic recovery.

Nonetheless the Government recognises that migration can place short term pressures on local public services including councils, schools, NHS and the police.

Today’s announcement - £70m over the next two years - is about ensuring that those pressures are managed effectively for the benefit of the whole community.

Economic migrants and students coming to the UK from outside the EU will be charged a levy in addition to their normal visa application fee. The revenue generated by this charge will form the Migrants Impact Fund. The fund will mean that migrants are being asked to pay an additional contribution to that which they already make through taxes, to support the communities in which they live.

All regions of England will receive a proportion of the funding. The amount each receives will be weighted towards the areas where international migration has had the greatest short-term impact.

The fund is part of a wider package of significant and practical actions the Government is taking to maximise the benefits of migration and manage its impact, with measures tailored to meet current economic challenges.

The full document Managing the Impacts of Migration: Improvements and Innovations can be found here

The money will support the first phase of rebuilding Gaza which is still devastated from the recent fighting. It will include the repair of essential infrastructure including water, sewage and electricity supplies. This brings the total response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to nearly £47m since the conflict began.

During a visit to Gaza and Israel in early March Douglas Alexander called for improved access and urged the Israelis to relax tough restrictions on the type of goods that are allowed across the border.

He also met with representatives of the Israeli Government, the UN and organisations working on the ground in Gaza. He called for an end to rocket attacks and a political settlement that includes both a viable Palestinian State and a secure Israel.

Many people are still living in temporary housing and over 90% of the population require food aid. United Nations assessments have indicated that urgent repair work is needed to initiate the first stage of recovery.
Construction materials are desperately needed to help repair homes and infrastructure but restrictions on access to Gaza are preventing supplies getting through.

Most recently, the Department for International Development has committed £1.5m to the World Food Programme’s Emergency Operation to meet the urgent basic food needs of 365,000 conflict-affected people in Gaza, and £340,000 to help the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) coordinate the provision of emergency water and sanitation.

Other organisations that have received funding include the International Committee of the Red Cross, which received £4m to provide food and carry out health and protection work, £661,000 to Islamic Relief to repair and rebuild houses and schools, and £200,000 to Mines Advisory Group to Assess to survey and clear the danger of unexploded ordnance.

Background on the humanitarian situation:

Casualties: As of 26 February, Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that 1,452 Palestinians were killed in the conflict (404 children and 114 women) and 5,380 injured (1,872 children and 800 women), although reliable figures are hard to obtain. According to Israeli authorities, four Israeli civilians and eleven soldiers were killed during the conflict with 182 civilians injured.

• Power: Scheduled power cuts of 6-8 hours in most of Gaza every few days and unscheduled power cuts continue. Up to 15% of the power network is not functional and some areas are still without electricity.

• Water: 50,000 people are without running water, and a further 100,000 only receive running water in their homes every 7-10 days. Pollution of water supplies is of major concern.

• Food: 90% people now partially dependent on food aid compared to 76% before the conflict. Shortage of currency makes purchasing food difficult for many. Approximately 43% of farmland is within 1 km buffer zone inside Gaza which has reduced food production significantly.

• Health: 58 health facilities were either destroyed or damaged during the conflict – most are now operational again. Many hospitals were already run down due to ongoing access restrictions and lack of spare parts for repairs.

• Shelter: As of 23 February, only 178 people remained in shelters – down from 51,000 at the peak, but thousands remain homeless.

• Destruction: 21,000 homes destroyed or badly damaged.

• Environment: Estimated 6m tonnes of rubble, mixed with poisonous materials and, possibly unexploded ordnance, needs to be removed before any reconstruction can begin.

• Security: At least 7.5 tonnes of unexploded ordnance has been found. This is hindering the clearance of rubble and posing a danger to the public. Essential equipment to make unexploded bombs and shells safe is being refused entry.

Article by David Miliband which appeared on guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 February 2009

Louise Christian’s misrepresentations

Contrary to claims, I have been consistent and honest in seeking Binyam Mohamed’s release and safeguarding national security

Louise Christian claims that my parliamentary statement on Binyam Mohamed contradicted the government’s evidence to the high court. It did not. And it is irresponsible of her to repeat a claim that has been comprehensively refuted.

The British government’s position on torture is clear. We unreservedly condemn the use of it and take allegations of mistreatment very seriously.

These are the facts. Far from suppressing evidence, it was our efforts that got documents disclosed to Mr Mohamed’s lawyers. Far from neglecting his human rights, it is our efforts that have secured the principle of his return to the UK. Far from neglecting our responsibilities, it was the home secretary’s intervention, the day after the high court published its October judgment, to refer allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing to the attorney general.

Louise Christian’s article simply misrepresents the facts. The US government did not threaten to “break off” intelligence cooperation if their intelligence documents were disclosed by order of an English court. They did alert the court to the danger of harm to the intelligence relationship if they were disclosed. That is what I said to Parliament and to the court.

I would have been negligent in my duties if I had ignored this. The point is nothing to do with the contents of the documents. In fact, we have made clear we have no objection to the US deciding to publish them. And the US attorney general has said he will review every case of state secrets privilege to assess whether publication would compromise US national security.

But the principle at stake is whether English courts should decide to disclose documents belonging to a foreign government against its wishes, and the damage this would do to our national security. It was on that basis, and no other, that I set out the position to the court. And it was the court that made it abundantly clear that justice for Mr Mohamed did not depend on public disclosure of the documents. The point would apply equally in the opposite direction: British intelligence that we share with foreign countries should never be disclosed by them against our wishes.

The British government never orders or condones torture. It is nonsense to suggest that we do.

Letter from David Miliband to the Times, published 18 February 2009

Julie Christie’s letter (”Britain and torture”, 16 February) suggests that the British Government has been duplicitous in Binyam Mohamed’s case. This is not the case.

We worked hard to secure the release of all 42 US documents relating to Mr Mohamed’s treatment in detention to his defence lawyers. We have equally worked hard for his release and return to the UK. The allegation of possible criminal wrong-doing was rightly and properly referred to the Attorney General.

The US made clear to us their view that damage that could be caused to intelligence cooperation by disclosure of their intelligence by a foreign court without their agreement - violating the fundamental principle of confidentiality around intelligence exchanges. Their views are a matter of court and public record. We sought Public Interest Immunity in this case solely because of the harm that would be done to our national security if US intelligence was made public by an English court, without US agreement.

We do not order or condone torture. We condemn it, unreservedly.

The focus is now on maintaining peace. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have called publicly and privately for a robust and durable ceasefire.   With over 1,000 dead, many of them civilians and children, the urgent need for a diplomatic solution is clear.  Violence is not the answer.

The Government has announced a further £20 million to help rebuild Gaza and to provide humanitarian assistance. The extra funding will be crucial to help provide food, water, shelter and medical supplies for ordinary Palestinians.

We have all been appalled by the violence and suffering we have witnessed in the news during the last three weeks. It is vital that the ceasefire holds, so that the UN can use this latest funding from the British Government. Fuel is desperately needed for power stations so that hospitals can function again, peoples homes can be heated and lit, and access to safe water can be re-established.
The additional £20 million contribution will be used to allocate funds to emerging humanitarian priorities, making them available to UN agencies and non-governmental organisations working in Gaza.