My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan: first, on our work with the Government of Pakistan to counter the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda and the Taliban; secondly, on our priorities for Afghanistan in the next stage of the work our Armed Forces and civilians are undertaking there; and thirdly, on the conditions that we are setting down for the next stage, including for the best possible protection of our troops, especially against the growing threat of IEDs.

Earlier this afternoon we honoured those who have died serving our country in Afghanistan. Today I also want to honour and thank all those who serve, and who have served, there. Each time I visit them, as I did a few weeks ago, I find myself in awe of the immense skill, courage and sacrifice of our forces. It is right that we also put on record in this House—and for times to come—our gratitude for their immeasurable contribution to our security. We should also pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of our allies in the 42-country coalition, including that of the 873 American soldiers who have been killed, and of two of our closest partners in central Helmand—the Danes and the Estonians—who have disproportionately suffered among the largest losses of all.

Every time I read to this House the names of those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, every time I write a letter of personal condolence to their families, every time I meet the wounded at Selly Oak, I ask myself the question that has already been asked today—whether we can justify sending our young men and women to join our allies to fight on the other side of the world. I have to conclude: that when the safety of our country is at stake, we cannot and will not walk away; that three-quarters of the most serious terror plots against the UK have roots in the border and mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan; that, as our security services report to me, while the sustained pressure on al-Qaeda in Pakistan, combined with military action in Afghanistan, is having a suppressive effect on al-Qaeda, the main element of the threat to Britain still emanates from al-Qaeda and Pakistan; and that a peaceful and stable Afghanistan would be a strategic failure for al-Qaeda.

Our objective 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. So, over the past two years we have sought to build and support the Afghan army and police and to work with the Pakistan security forces. Our strategy is dedicated to counter insurgency and what we have called Afghanisation. This guiding purpose, reinforced in our strategy and in the NATO strategy in April, is at the heart also of the announcements that I am making today.

The first is our work with Pakistan against terrorism and extremism. At the meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan, which I chaired in New York on 24 September together with President Zardari and President Obama, there is now a clear plan for stabilisation and a policy that will assist reconstruction. We welcomed the recent success of the Pakistan Government, who have decided to take action against the Pakistan Taliban in Swat, Dir and Buner. 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. It is vital that basic services and economic assistance be provided in the liberated areas of Pakistan as soon as security conditions allow. So the Development Secretary is today announcing a further British contribution of £10 million on top of the £22 million that we have already provided for humanitarian assistance.

Secondly, in Afghanistan we will now move further and faster to implement our strategy—one that starts with training, mentoring and partnering the Afghan army and police. The more the Afghans can take responsibility for security, the less our coalition forces will be needed in the long term and the sooner our troops will come home.

In recent weeks I have discussed this approach with President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen. I have met Admiral Mullen, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Generals Petraeus and McChrystal, as well as our own military commanders here and on the ground. Britain supports General McChrystal’s ambition to accelerate the growth of the Afghan security forces, with the Afghan army building to 134,000 by next October. The Afghans are committed to the recruitment of 5,000 soldiers a month from next spring; the new NATO training mission established at Strasbourg expects to help train 40,000 Afghan soldiers in 2010; and Britain is setting up a new training centre which will train around 900 junior officers and NCOs each month.

In Helmand last year there were only 4,200 Afghan soldiers. This year there are 50 per cent more. At our request the Afghan Government undertook to send more units to support Operation Panther’s Claw. While those units arrived, they were below strength and not yet fully ready for the task. In a province which faces 30 per cent of the violence in the country we need more and better Afghan participation, and we need it now. That is why I can announce that the Afghans will set up a corps headquarters in Helmand and that British forces will be ready to partner 5,000 of the 10,000 Afghan troops. The coalition will be training in Helmand over the next few months, not just embedding mentors with Afghan units but working integrally right up the command chain. In future operations the protection of populated areas must be the shared responsibility of Afghan and coalition forces. This will be central to the new benchmarks and timelines that we and General McChrystal will set out as part of a new framework for the transition to Afghan authority—Afghan forces taking responsibility for security for the Afghan people, and doing so area by area.

As 19 Light Brigade completes its tour of duty, I know that the whole House will join me in thanking Brigadier Tim Radford, and the men and women he leads, for their service throughout this hard-fought summer, and join me also in sending our best wishes to 11 Light Brigade, who are replacing them. 11 Light Brigade will deploy with further enhancements to deal with the deadly threat from IEDs, including more specialist troops and more equipment to protect our forces, to find and defuse the IEDs, and to identify and target the networks who build and set them. 19 Brigade were able to prevent 1,200 IEDs from being detonated. They will pass on this experience to their successors, together with the equipment enhancements I announced on my recent visit and which are now coming on stream this month and next: increased flying hours for unmanned aerial vehicles—33 per cent for Hermes, 50 per cent for Desert Hawk and, next year, 80 per cent for Reaper; an extra £20 million contributing to a fourfold increase in the total number of Mastiff and Ridgeback mine-protected vehicles since April; and the first Merlin helicopters to be deployed to Helmand in two weeks.

This is highly specialised equipment, which must be manufactured, delivered and adapted—and personnel must be trained to operate it—before it can be put into action. But no one should doubt our commitment to responding as fast as we possibly can to the new and deadly tactics of the Taliban; nor should they doubt the scale of our financial commitment to our soldiers and to this campaign. Since 2006-07, we have increased annual military spending on the Afghan operation—spending from the Treasury reserve, in addition to the defence budget—from £700 million to £1.5 billion to £2.6 billion to more than £3.5 billion this year.

We are determined to provide our forces with the resources they need to keep them safe, but we are also determined to make the right decisions about equipment and troop deployments as part of our wider strategy. To meet the changing demands of the campaign, which require greater concentration of our forces in central Helmand, we have confirmed the decision we made at the National Security Committee in the summer: that one of the British units, the regional battle group for southern Afghanistan, will be redeployed to Helmand with immediate effect.

To support our plan to train more Afghan soldiers and police, while at the same time maintaining the security of our forces, I have agreed in principle a new force level subject to the following conditions: first, that a new Afghan Government demonstrate their commitment to bring forward the Afghan troops to be trained and to fight alongside our forces—I talked yesterday to President Karzai and Dr Abdullah and received assurances that, with their determination, that will happen; secondly, that, as before, every soldier and unit deployed to Afghanistan is fully equipped for the operations they have agreed to undertake; and, thirdly, that our commitment is part of an agreed approach across the international coalition, with all countries bearing their fair share.

The combination of force levels, equipment levels and tasks that I am setting out today follows the clear military advice from our chiefs of staff and commanders on the ground on implementing our strategy and on reducing the risk to our forces. It is on this basis that I have agreed in principle to a new British force level of 9,500, which will be put into effect once those conditions are met.

As I said, we do not yet know the result of the first round of the Afghan elections. Although they were the first ever elections run by the Afghans themselves and took place against the backdrop of a serious insurgency, we cannot be anything other than dissatisfied with the intimidation and corruption which has been exposed by Afghan and international observers. The Electoral Complaints Commission has set out a process of investigation, including the disqualification of fraudulent votes, and that process must be allowed to run its course.

When I spoke to President Obama last week, we agreed that when a new Government are formed, the international community, including Afghanistan’s neighbours, must develop a contract with the new Government including a commitment to growing the Afghan army; tough action on corruption; a more inclusive political process, including reaching out to reconcilable elements of the insurgency; and stronger Afghan control of local affairs. Those are the necessary changes that I discussed with President Karzai and Dr Abdullah yesterday, for without them the efforts of our military will be hampered, and the new Afghan Government will not gain the trust of their people.

A better future for Afghanistan, with its village and rural population, can be forged only if there is stronger governance right down to district level, so last year we doubled the number of civilian stabilisation advisers, and now our joint civilian-military stabilisation teams—the first in Afghanistan—are supporting not just Governor Mangal but district governors and village shuras. During the past year, four new district governors have been appointed in Helmand. The Afghan Government are now functioning in nine out of their 13 districts, compared to five last year, and we are supporting community councils to consult with thousands of local people.

To ensure this work has immediate backing, I announced last month an extra £20 million for stabilisation in Helmand—money that is already being disbursed—increasing the number of Afghan national police in Helmand by 1,000 a year for each of the next three years, building a new police training academy and building 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. British aid will therefore continue to help pay the salaries of teachers and doctors, but we are also ready to fund and partner the first Afghan stabilisation teams sent from Kabul to work alongside us in Helmand, and we want to reinforce the hard-won gains of our forces in this hardest of summers, while fostering greater Afghan responsibility for their own affairs.

We will have prevailed in Afghanistan when our troops are coming home because the Afghans have not only the will to fight but the ability to take control of their own affairs, so the right strategy is the one that finishes the job by giving the Afghans the tools to take over. A safer Afghanistan is a safer Britain. A stronger Pakistan is also a safer Britain. We must never again let the territory of this region, or any region, become a base for terror on the Underground, the streets, the cities and airports of Britain. We must not permit it, and we will not permit it. We have the right strategy, and we will see it through.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, we are of course all very grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating this very important and sombre Statement. Will she at the outset accept that we endorse, 100 per cent, everything that has been said about our brave troops, about those who have fallen, and about the grief of their bereaved families? Let us also keep at the forefront of our minds those who have been severely disabled, some grievously and for life, and the need for sustained care and support for them in the years ahead. We must never forget them.

We all realise the immensely difficult decisions at stake here, but we also need to see this latest Statement in the correct and wider context. The obvious first question that I have to put to the Leader of the House is whether we yet have a really clear definition of our objectives, strategy and vision in Afghanistan—in Helmand province—and in Pakistan and the other areas where al-Qaeda is setting up training cells and where its units are flourishing, such as Somalia, which was mentioned towards the end of the previous Session in this House.

Secondly, is the balance between military effort and civilian-led strategy to entrench stability and squeeze out the terrorists yet anywhere near correct? Have we taken account of the fact that the US is revising its whole aid and reconstruction strategy at this moment? Indeed, just how does this announcement today fit in with Mr Obama’s imminent announcement on troop levels and on overall Afghanistan strategy? Have we got the proper focus on the central task of helping to eliminate al-Qaeda leadership and encouraging the Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border and the Durand line to yield up, or at least curb radically, Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, who are almost certainly still hiding in these areas?

Thirdly, while we welcome words about support for Pakistan, how in practice can we contribute most effectively in encouraging Pakistan to fight the Taliban or its more extreme elements, or maybe eventually to bring some of the less extreme ones to the negotiating table? Is that what the Prime Minister means in the Statement when he talks about “reaching out to reconcilable elements of the insurgency”?

Fourthly, are our security and intelligence resources providing all they can to support co-operation with those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and even of Russia and China, as urged in a recent article by His Excellency Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi ambassador here and in Washington, who is known to many of us? The noble Baroness may have seen that very important article.

Fifthly, what can we do to reinforce the apparently increasingly successful American-led efforts to throttle al-Qaeda financially? That really does seem to be yielding some dividends, if that is the right expression.

Sixthly, we have a direct interest in the opium and heroin issues. What progress are we at last making in replacing all the poppy crops, as the Americans did effectively in Turkey some years ago? Indeed, what progress are we making in our overall counter-narcotics strategy, with which we have been struggling now for several years?

Finally, what success have we achieved in persuading our NATO allies and our European neighbours to commit larger forces to the theatre? Are we planning a new international conference with allies to clarify aims, as I think was earlier proposed and promised?

In the longer term, the political need is clearly, in the very accurate words of Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles, to put the leaders of the area’s many tribes “back in charge”, as well as to give the Afghan Government, Afghan forces and Afghan police full responsibility for stabilising and governing their country. That, I know, is what we aim to do. In the short term, however, more troops on the ground may be the only answer. It is very hard to judge and we need to see what President Obama will shortly decide, because that must influence our overall approach.

We welcome the provision of mine-protected vehicles and Merlin helicopters, although the only thing that one can say about that is, “About time too”. One thing is crystal clear: any soldiers we send, as well as all those already there, must have the best possible equipment. The Prime Minister seeks assurances from the military that it will be so equipped, but surely this is the wrong way around. It is the military that needs assurances from the Government because of past disappointments and clear past failures. That is the very minimum requirement that the Armed Forces deserve and the public now expect from this Government, and it is what we want to hear unequivocally from Ministers in all future reports to Parliament on Afghanistan and Pakistan developments, which we hope will be both full and regular.

My Lords, we always start these Statements with a good deal of cross-party support, but the very detail of the numerous questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, shows that, although there is cross-party support with regard to a safer Afghanistan and a stronger Pakistan—we certainly share the tributes which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, paid to the dead and the wounded—it is right, when forces are fighting such a war, that the Government are questioned closely.

I have always felt that, by any definition, the fighting in Afghanistan is a just war. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, reminded us yesterday, as the Prime Minister did today in the other place, of just the price that we are paying for that war, so it is always, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, a sombre moment when we talk about sending troops into battle. We appreciate the very real dilemma for Ministers when faced with these decisions. Afghanistan, of course, has a long history of humbling empires, so “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here” is not a strategy for a commitment such as this. We need to justify extra troop deployment in terms of a clear and winnable strategy and what one expert has called obtaining an “exit ramp from combat”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has said, the Government must also guarantee that troops are well equipped. There is the worry that, in the Statement, Ministers are simply playing catch-up on equipment supply. Any really decent forward planning would have shown that this kind of material was needed and should have been ready, rather than implying that there are still problems in supply.

I understand that Ministers have to take decisions and that the buck stops with them. That is why the military advice that they get should be untainted by politics and I hope that, in giving frank advice to Ministers, the senior military retains itself within that. Otherwise, trust does break down. As well as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I worry when the Prime Minister talks about this new commitment being in the context of commitment from other allies. Has any country, other than the impending announcement from the United States, made such a commitment?

I was glad that the Statement linked in Pakistan because quite clearly this is now not just an Afghanistan problem but a regional one, and important on many fronts. However, the description of the present state of Pakistani politics by the Prime Minister is a little on the sunny side, if one listens to other informed observers about the situation there. I also share with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the query about what has happened to Europe’s call for a broader-based international conference, because that is important.

It is also important that, when looking at the regional commitments, we look at two contrasting neighbour countries, both with a probable role in a long-term solution. What are our relations with the Saudis, supposedly some of our closest allies, in the fairly open knowledge that the Saudis are major contributors to some of the more extreme Islamic organisations? On the other hand, Iran—that problem child of the region—could and should be playing some role in solving that region’s problems.

Finally, and again echoing the noble Lord, Lord Howell, there is the question of whether what is announced today—an upgrade in troop commitment, with further numbers—matches what most people argue is probably the longer way forward of getting a proper hearts-and-minds policy in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Clinton said something about the need to have some outreach, and in his own Statement the Prime Minister talked about involving reconcilable elements. How is that to be progressed? How are those initiatives going to be taken? As I have said, nobody comes to these Statements without a sense of the heavy responsibility that Ministers carry, but there is a duty on the Opposition to question, within a broad desire to see ultimate success, the strategy and content of policy.

My Lords, I am grateful for the endorsement from both noble Lords opposite of the bravery of our troops and the sacrifices by them. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, drew our attention to the families, who we often think about only in the context of the troops who, sadly, die when they are in theatre. It is good to remember today the families that are left behind when their loved ones are away fighting. Not long ago I met several brave wives and partners and I promised to bring their bravery to the attention of the House. I am glad that the noble Lord also mentioned the sustained needs of the wounded. I believe that not only are this Government providing the most excellent care for soldiers when they go to Selly Oak, but also that things are improving for their long-term care.

The noble Lord asked for a clear definition of objectives, strategies and vision. Today’s Statement clearly articulates what our strategy is and what it has been for some time. I am reminded of the Statement made by the Prime Minister in April this year. Today’s Statement builds on that strategy by taking a slightly different approach, but still building on the strategy of “Afghanisation”. The noble Lord also asked how our strategy fits in with that of the United States. In many ways we are trailblazing here. As the Statement says, the Prime Minister has had many conversations with President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton and I am confident, from what the Prime Minister has said, that our strategy will dovetail with that of the US when it is announced.

Before I go any further, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to a recent statement by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, in which he says:

“I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of an increase to our force level for the mission in Afghanistan”.

There is also a statement from Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff:

“We asked for 9500 and that is what we have got”.

I believe that this is tangible proof that the Government are working in tandem with military chiefs of staff, which is something that was much needed.

In relation to Pakistan, our contacts with the military in Pakistan are good and I would draw the attention of noble Lords to a brief mention made in the Statement of a meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan that took place in September. There were several key outcomes from the meeting which point to the fact that all these friends are working together to support Pakistan, including the establishment of a multi-donor trust fund for the border areas to provide co-ordinated financing mechanisms for donor-supported areas affected by terrorism, militancy and extremism. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Friends of Democratic Pakistan include Saudi Arabia and Iran, so we are all working together for the benefit of the people of Pakistan and in fighting the terrorists there.

I have been asked about the poppy crop. Great progress is being made through the wheat initiative that we have had this year and it is clear from the statistics for 2008-09 that the poppy crop has gone down. However, we are anxious to ensure that counternarcotics is not a strategy on its own, but that it is mainstreamed into all aspects of governance. Like all noble Lords, we are aware that there is a direct link between finance for terrorism and the poppy crop.

We talk to our NATO allies all the time and we are trying to encourage them to send more troops to Afghanistan. We believe that one or two countries may be ready to do that, but we will certainly keep talking.

In response to the points made about equipment, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who said that the Government are not doing their duty and are somehow shifting the blame on to the military—not shifting the blame, I shall not put it like that, but saying that it is the military that must decide. I believe that the Government are doing their job and that we are going about this in the right way. We are working with the military, but of course the needs of our troops on the ground change all the time and these types of equipment are not kept on the shelf. It takes time to ensure that the right equipment is available in the right place, and that is what we are doing all the time. I think that we are now getting the balance right.

The noble Lord was quite correct that it is important that the Government are questioned closely about this just war. While all of us in this Chamber broadly agree that this is a war that has to be fought and are wholeheartedly behind our troops, we have somehow failed to undertake our duty as Members of the House of Lords, as well as members of the Government and Opposition, to get that message out to the people of this country, whose support our troops on the ground need and deserve.

I agree that military advice should not be tainted by politics. I was asked about the EU. I do not know where we are in terms of a conference being called, but we certainly welcome the increased attention that the European Union is paying to Pakistan. The UK is giving its full support to the work of the Swedish presidency of the EU, designed to lead to an enhanced and more coherent EU contribution to the civilian effort in Afghanistan. We look forward to the outcome of the October European Council, which will endorse and give momentum to this strengthened approach. It is just one more reason why it is important for us to be working with our allies in the European Union and why we need a strong European Union.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. I make it clear that the questions that I shall pose today are based on consultation with my Afghan colleagues.

Does the noble Baroness agree, first, that the insurgency will not be eradicated by force alone, however augmented it will be? Does she agree, secondly, that the Afghan police are just not up to the job and thus urgently require adequate training resources in order to put in place anti-corruption and civilian protection mechanisms? A further run-off of the election would probably result in a far lower turnout; fraud and violations would continue; and the expense would be prohibitive. Therefore, should not the votes as collected be now announced? At the same time, there should be a vast increase in investment in regeneration programmes in the safer zones. There should also perhaps be a clear-cut, long-term and timed agenda for the country, which should be agreed with all bilateral and multilateral donors, who will have significant influence if acting as a body. Finally, does she agree that the future focus should be on training, development and co-ordination of aid donors and the promotion of Afghan leadership, together with a possible new, transitional Government, and away from armed conflict?

My Lords, I agree with each and every one of the points made by the noble Baroness. It is of course right that the insurgency will not be eradicated by force alone, but that is the whole purpose of our strategy and that which has been outlined by General McChrystal. It is about “Afghanisation”, which involves both a military effort and a civilian effort working in tandem. It is all about providing support to, and working in partnership with, the Afghan troops and police and improving the governance of that country, so that the Afghan people are able to take control of their own country and ensure that it is not overrun by terrorists. It is about hearts and minds and development as well as the military effort, but without the military effort, these other things could not fall into place.

The noble Baroness spoke about the elections. We have to be patient and let the process run its course. We support the various investigations that are taking place and hope that there will be a declaration in the not-too-distant future.

My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that the whole House recognises the grave situation that we now face? We may not be losing, but we are certainly not yet winning. The Statement has not to my mind changed things in any way that will make a significant difference to the grave situation that is being carried mainly on the courage and amazing bravery of our forces, who are paying a very heavy price.

I found the timing of the Statement rather extraordinary. I do not know whether it was meant to pre-empt what President Obama is going to say. The United States is the lead player. If, as the noble Baroness said, the Statement dovetails with the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President and is an indication of what President Obama is going to say, I have a real concern as to whether a new and adequate strategy is being prepared.

In that connection, this very carefully worded Statement makes clear that even this proposed very limited increase is conditional on three conditions and will not happen unless they are met. The second condition is that every soldier is fully equipped. As Secretary of State, I certainly saw it as my responsibility on behalf of the Government to see that our forces were properly equipped and in no sense sold to a general that it was his job. Everyone knows that there are not enough helicopters. Even with the welcome announcement today, that is nothing like enough. Compared to the American provision it is woefully inadequate. So that condition is not yet met.

The third condition is that all countries in the coalition bear their fair share. I have now listened to three Secretaries of State for Defence, in the rapid speed at which they turn over in this Government, each saying, “Everyone else has got to bear their fair share. We are going to talk to them and make sure that they do”. They never come back with any adequate answer. With great respect to the noble Baroness—I understand entirely the position she is in—she has repeated exactly the same sentence. She said, “We are going to go on talking to them”. If other countries in the coalition do not bear their fair share and the conditions are not met, will the Prime Minister not provide even this very limited number of extra troops?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, earlier referred to the conditions. The three clear conditions do not relate to troops from our NATO allies. I will have to check, but I believe that they relate to extra troops from the Afghans themselves. If one looks at the Statement, I believe that it refers to extra Afghan troops, not to allied troops.

In relation to the three conditions, I read briefly an extract from the Chief of the Defence Staff, which I cannot find just at the moment. He said that he is confident that the conditions will be met. As regards the timing, is the noble Lord saying that if our commanders on the ground and our military troops are saying, “We need more troops”, we say, “Sorry, you have to wait for the Americans”? We are not saying that. We have put down three important conditions which do not relate to the Americans. They relate to three other things which we are confident will be met. I am sure that our troops will be on the ground in the not too distant future.

I know that this is a very difficult and long Statement and that the House will have great—

With great respect—

My Lords—

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord King, we do not have a debate at this stage in a Statement. It is questions and answers.

The Statement says,

“thirdly, that our commitment is part of an agreed approach across the international coalition, with all countries bearing their fair share”.

I beg the pardon of noble Lords. I was not wishing to mislead the House and I take back what I said earlier. However, I am confident that the Prime Minister would not have made this Statement if he were not confident that this condition could be met. That is exactly what the Chief of the Defence Staff also thinks. This is not me speaking: it is the Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff who will have had conversations with their counterparts.

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House continues to assert that we have here a well founded strategy. We are questioning her so vigorously because it seems to be a set of aspirations and conditions rather than a strategy. I say that because a strategy should incorporate what will happen if the three conditions are not met. That is missing today.

I say with respect to the noble Baroness that the bottom line of page 4 says,

“which will be put into effect once these conditions are met”.

On that note she tells us that Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir David Richards are completely behind the increase in force levels. Will she also tell us what will happen if the conditions are not met? What will be the positions of Sir Jock Stirrups and Sir David Richards?

Finally, given the Government’s rosy view of what is happening in Pakistan—which does not seem to take into account the divided political parties, the infiltrated army, which we saw only this week in an attack, and a population that does not possess any resilience—what will we do if our strategy of Pakistanisation fails?

My Lords, of course noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, are right to question me carefully on this. The Government have a strategy—it is right to have a strategy—but all noble Lords would wish the three conditions to be there to ensure that our troops are properly supported in every way, with enough troops on the ground and enough equipment. That is why we have the conditions. We are confident that the conditions will be met. Again I say that Sir Jock Stirrup, and all those people who are so much better equipped to deal with these matters than I am, are confident that they can be met. Noble Lords laugh at me—they do not think that that is adequate—but it is the case that if the conditions cannot be met it must mean that the 500 extra troops will not be going to Afghanistan; that is the clear outcome.

In relation to Pakistan, I am sure the Statement does not wish to put an over-rosy view on the situation but it is important, as the noble Baroness will agree, to consider both Afghanistan and Pakistan together. As I understand it, the Opposition in Pakistan are now working together with the Government to ensure that there is much more consensus in the country in favour of doing what has already happened in the Swat Valley and what is happening in other places—that is, beating the Taliban.

My Lords, while expressing our condolences and paying tribute to our soldiers and to the soldiers of our NATO allies, can we also pay tribute to the Pakistani soldiers, who have suffered heavy losses recently?

Support is needed by the Pakistan Army. There is considerable support and determination within Pakistan to fight with the Tehrik-i-Taliban and the Taliban in the Swat Valley and the north-west frontier, but there has to be more financial support for Pakistan. We have to remember that NATO and the allied forces of 40 countries are paying for the war in Afghanistan, but Pakistan alone cannot do it. The multi-donor trust fund has not realised much money other than from our Government and the Americans. What pressure are we putting on our European friends to give financial support to the Government of Pakistan and, particularly, the Pakistan army? I can assure my noble friend that with financial support for the Pakistan army—I have recently come back from Pakistan—there is a huge determination that it will fight on.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, especially for his last comment, which is proof that there is determination in Pakistan for the army to fight on. We will continue to put pressure on our EU friends and colleagues to support Pakistan. The Kerry-Luger Bill, which is currently going through in the United States, will provide $7.5 billion-worth of aid for Pakistan which, when it is disbursed, will be a major boost for Pakistan.

My noble friend was right to bring to my attention and the attention of the House the deaths of Pakistani soldiers and Pakistani civilians, who have been sorely hit by terrorists in recent times.

My Lords, in Devon we are very proud of our long association with Her Majesty’s forces and are deeply aware of their level of professionalism and selfless service. We are also deeply aware of the costs borne by service families. I am glad that mention has already been made of that because it brings me to my question. Every further deployment of British forces brings an increased pressure on marriage and family life and, sadly, in some cases, consequential marriage and family breakdown. Will the Minister assure the House that this increased deployment will be without an increase in back-to-back overseas tours of duty? What resources are being put in place to support service families and to ameliorate the effects of long-term overseas deployment?

My Lords, 24 months is the harmony period that we should and must respect when troops go into different theatres. We and the military are doing everything possible to respect that period, and in the vast majority of cases it is being respected. We realise the immense pressures on the troops and their families. Recently, we released a Command Paper that dealt with the very issue of support for families. I have recently been with families myself and many of my colleagues are going out to talk to families, to find out what their real needs are and to try to ensure that the various government agencies work together with the military. The military is working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health to ensure that there is proper support, not just for the soldiers when they come home but for the families, and to ensure that there is childcare so that the wives and partners can go out to work and so on, if they wish to.

I pay tribute to the way in which the military itself works with the families. It provides fantastic support, as do organisations such as the Royal British Legion.

My Lords, I have a question about public support for this conflict, but I would like to put it in a context that relates to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord King. If we go down the road of having a party-political divide on this—he did ask us to compare the current situation to his record as Secretary of State for Defence—we will end up in a party slanging match, and that would not be beneficial to him. I could start talking about the housing provision at that time; he will know how much damage that did to morale in the Armed Forces. His question was inadvisable because if we go down that route, the only people who will gain will be our opponents in Afghanistan and the surrounding area.

My specific question is this: there is a lowering of support for this conflict in Britain, Europe and north America. Part of the reason is obviously the increase in the number of deaths, but we really have yet to match our opponents in our ability to convey what we are doing there and why and how we are doing it. Given the problems within NATO in terms of delivering fighting forces, there is a very real role for it here, particularly using the internet and other means, to convey a much more powerful message about what it and the United Nations are doing, how they are doing it and the linkage between the military and civilian roles. That is immensely important.

My Lords, with regard to my noble friend’s initial comments, I think it is right that at this Dispatch Box I am closely questioned about what the Government are doing. However, I know that the clear message from this House as a whole is that we are in support of what the Government are doing in Afghanistan, and that we are behind our troops and their families.

On communication, my noble friend is right: support for the conflict is being lost. That is why it is incumbent on us as Government, Opposition, NATO and the UN to explain that this is a conflict that the UN has asked us to engage in. Not a lot of people understand or know that, so we have to get out there and use all the tools at our disposal to try to ensure better understanding and more support for our troops.

My Lords, I invite the Minister to return to the question that has already been raised about the presidential election held on 20 August this year in Afghanistan. She will recollect that President Karzai claims to have attained more than 50 per cent of the vote, but the United Nations-backed independent body, the Elections Complaints Commission, is of the view that some 1.5 million votes—in other words, about one-third of the totality of votes received by the President—are very suspect. I appreciate that the Minister says that the Government will soon come to a conclusion about this matter. In view of the independence of this distinguished body, and indeed of the considerable work in which it has already involved itself, will the Government be prepared in principle to accept that body’s verdict in this connection? It is essential, if there is to be credibility for an Afghan Government, that validity and legality should be established in relation to that matter.

My Lords, naturally, we support the ongoing IEC and ECC investigations into the elections. They have not reached their conclusions yet, but the noble Lord is right about what President Karzai said. However, we have to wait until those bodies have concluded their investigations. Once they have been concluded, we will accept what they say.

My Lords, could we have greater clarity about this 9,500 force level? Our commanders have asked for it, but my noble friend has just established that the Prime Minister is saying that the force level will be achieved only when those conditions have been met. The Minister said that if they have not all been achieved the troops will not go, which must naturally follow. In what timescale do the Government estimate that the conditions will be met? In answer to questions this afternoon, the Minister said, “We are trying to encourage our allies, and we think one or two of them are ready to do so”. It does not sound like a very immediate timescale. Can she help?

My Lords, I do not have a timescale and cannot give the noble and learned Lord one. We just have to wait until those conditions are met. However, I am confident, because of the conversations that have taken place between the Prime Minister and his counterparts and between the chiefs of staff and their counterparts that, unless we were confident that those conditions would be met, the Prime Minister would not have made this Statement today.