Reference has already been made this afternoon to the fact that during a Select Committee hearing yesterday, the chief executive of Consignia announced that the Post Office intends to make up to 30,000 redundancies—twice the number that was being reported just a few weeks ago, news that comes at the worst conceivable time of year. Given that the Post Office remains wholly owned in the public sector and that Ministers have overall responsibility, have you received any indication that a Minister intends to come to the Chamber to make a statement about this matter?

I have had no indication, but I consider the matter extremely important. I hope that a Minister will come at some stage to make a statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification about today's business. I refer you to the Order Paper, where it is clear that there is an Adjournment debate on international terrorism. The front page of the Order Paper correctly points out that that debate can proceed until 10 pm. I now refer you to the programme motion that has been tabled by the Government in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. You will see that the knives for that motion fall first at 8.15 pm, in respect of amendments to parts 3, 10, 11 and 13 of the Bill, and that there is a further knife at 9.30 pm concerning amendments to part 4.

Clearly, that is a huge abuse of the House by the Government. It is very probable that the Adjournment debate will continue until 10 pm and that there will be absolutely no debate and possibly no vote on important amendments to an important Bill that is in dispute in the House. I believe that the House has been very shabbily treated. It looks to you for advice and guidance.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that we drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that that problem could easily result from taking business on which there would be no vote—the Adjournment motion—before matters that should be put to a vote in the House? May I also remind you that, if we had been successful in those representations, the votes would have occurred in prime time and in the full glare of publicity? Instead, the debate has been tucked away in the middle of the night. Will you use your good offices to ensure that the House is given a proper opportunity to debate what are extremely important issues?

Responsibility for the Order Paper and its shape lies with the Government and not with me. It is within the rules of the House to lay out the Order Paper in that way. What I am obliged to do as a servant of the House is to make my way through the Order Paper. That is the only advice that I can give to hon. Members at this stage.

I beg to move,

The question is what we should do. It is clearly unacceptable for the House or the country to have a strategy that does nothing, and it is not the position of the Government to tolerate that view either. We already have a commitment as a Government to a strategy that will eliminate child poverty. As a Parliament, we have committed ourselves to a 15-year strategy that will eradicate fuel poverty. I believe that the Bill will complete the anti-poverty strategy, so that we have a coherent and comprehensive picture to address.

The Bill is simple and comprises two basic elements. First, it places a duty on the Secretary of State to present to the House a strategy for the elimination of food poverty. Secondly, its implementation mechanism would require local government to set up its own local food authorities, which would be expected, first, to conduct an audit of food poverty as it emerges in their area; secondly, to develop a strategy for eliminating food poverty; and, thirdly, to construct local partnerships to provide the mechanisms for the strategy and for eliminating a national scandal.

Clearly, Parliament and the Government have a duty to set out the framework for such a strategy, but the delivery mechanism must be local. It will draw on the diverse, dynamic and locality-based ideas in local communities and local government. It will go down several different paths, which I do not wish to prescribe. We may choose to try to follow the lead of the Women's Institute, which, in its sweet way, is almost the Khmer Rouge of the safe food campaign. It establishes local food markets around the country, and sets standards for food freshness and food accountability that the rest of us would do well to follow.

We may choose to support and extend the burgeoning growth of farmers' markets, which involve local food production and accountability. We may choose to fund food co-operatives that are currently supported by several health authorities around the country. Whatever collection of ideas we pursue, we will have to consider incentives for dealing with places in almost all our cities and communities that have become food deserts where one cannot find fresh food outlets that are accessible to the food poor.

I am tempted to suggest that, rather than offering discounts to supermarkets for zero ratings on their car parks, we should explore the possibility of allowing local authorities to offer 50 per cent. business rate reductions to food outlets where the food has been produced within 50 miles of the urban locality.

There are a myriad possibilities for tackling the scandal of food poverty that continues to blight the social landscape of this country. We may invite the local food authorities that local authorities establish to negotiate safe food contracts between the hinterland of food producers in the agricultural communities that surround urban outlets and the urban concentrations of food consumers.

More than a century ago, local government greatly transformed the quality of life of working people by setting standards for sanitation and food hygiene. They genuinely improved the life and health of working people throughout the land. We now need a different vision that revisits the issue and applies to the challenges of the 21st century.

Throughout the country, swathes of the public are establishing their agendas for food safety, food accountability, food security and food sustainability. The challenge to Parliament is whether we can catch up with the public. One of the exciting aspects of the food justice campaign that the Bill launches is that it crosses party boundaries. In many respects, the formal party political agenda has failed to grasp a political challenge that the public have set for Parliament and every party that is represented in it.

I doubt whether the Bill will make its way into law in this Parliament, but I am certain that, as with the warm homes campaign to end fuel poverty, in five years' time, the House will pass primary legislation to eliminate food poverty from Britain. I am therefore proud to present the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Drew, Tom Brake, Dr. Howard Stoate, Peter Bottomley, Ms Diane Abbott, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. David Chaytor.

Food Poverty (Eradication)

Mr. Alan Simpson accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 69].

First, let me apologise for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I shall be attending and reading a lesson at the parliamentary carol service in St Margaret's Westminster at that time.

Yesterday United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I led a simple ceremony in Downing street in memory of those who lost their lives on 11 September. At 1.46 pm Greenwich mean time, 8.46 am eastern standard time, we stood in silence to mark the moment three months earlier when the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Centre in New York. Then a brass band from the American school in London played both our national anthems.

Immediately afterwards I remarked to William Farish, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, that the ceremony had been a striking combination of sorrow and hope—sad, yet uplifting at the same time. There were sadness and grief at the terrible loss of life on 11 September, and hope because of what has been achieved since then and what can now realistically be achieved in the future—hope that springs from recognition that the military action has worked and, above all, recognition that in turn it has liberated the spirit and the future of the Afghan people, oppressed for so long by the totalitarian intolerance of the Taliban regime.

The loss of nearly 4,000 lives on 11 September resulted from the decision of the al-Qaeda networks to launch those attacks. The loss of life in Afghanistan in the weeks that followed resulted from decisions of the Taliban regime to go on protecting the terrorists in defiance of the will of the international community. At each stage, faced with real choices, the al-Qaeda networks and the Taliban protecting them chose the path of evil and destruction.

The United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the international coalition have faced their own choices. Following 11 September we could have chosen to do nothing and by our inaction invited further attacks. Instead we took the tough decision to embark on a military campaign. I respect the view of those who disagreed with that choice but I hope that they may in turn respect the fact that the choice of military action as part of an overall diplomatic and humanitarian strategy was right, and that the campaign on all its fronts—military, diplomatic and humanitarian—has been vindicated by events.

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

I will in a second.

The military coalition is well on the way to achieving the objectives of the campaign. The Taliban protectors of the terrorist networks have been driven out of Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat and now even Kandahar. The al-Qaeda training camps have been destroyed. The Taliban regime became a major obstacle to getting humanitarian relief through. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.

Is the Foreign Secretary able to give an estimate of the number of casualties in the military campaign in Afghanistan? What measures does he propose be undertaken to investigate the many human rights abuses on all sides in Afghanistan, in particular the execution of a large number of prisoners when the Northern Alliance took one of the Taliban divisions hostage?

I thought that my hon. Friend was going to say, in the spirit of mutual respect, that he recognised that some of his predictions, which he made with such certainty in the autumn, had not turned out to be correct. I look forward to that. We all have to learn lessons from what has happened.

I am happy to put this on the record. I believe that the military action was right but I did not believe that it would be over as quickly as it has been and with such relatively small loss of life. In time, casualty figures will emerge and we will put them on the record, but my hon. Friend has to face the fact that, had the military action not taken place, the Taliban would have maintained their stranglehold on Afghanistan, with the most outrageous and appalling abuse of civil and human rights we have ever seen.

So far we have seen no evidence—again, my hon. Friend speaks with a certainty that I do not find is possible in these circumstances—of executions of the type that he has described. When I was asked about that on the radio on 30 November, I said that if different evidence emerged we would consider it. We always abide by our obligations in international law.

Of course human rights should always be respected and one hopes that they will be, but does my right hon. Friend recall one or two people here and elsewhere saying that if military action were taken, the whole Islamic world would rise against us? That does not seem to have happened. Have we not seen evidence with our own eyes on television that a large majority of people in Afghanistan welcome the liberation from clerical fascism and totalitarianism? This has been one of the most justified military actions since 1945.

I share my hon. Friend's view entirely. The record speaks for itself. I am not going to be disobliging. As I say, I respect those who took a different view, but I hope that out of respect for the House they will look at the record of what they said and think about whether the certainty that they showed—for example, they said that the whole of the Islamic world would be up in arms—was correct.

In view of what the Foreign Secretary is saying, does he support the American policy of fighting terrorism around the world wherever it exists?

That is a simplification of the American policy. I certainly support the policy of the United Nations of pursuing terrorism by all appropriate means, wherever it is, and I shall come to that matter in due course.

rose —

This is a short debate and I apologise if I do not take all the interventions that I normally would.

People also raised the issue of whether people would starve in Afghanistan if the military action went ahead. Well, since 11 September, the World Food Programme has brought 70,000 tonnes of food into the country. Never at any point did the humanitarian effort falter. At present, the aid agencies and the international community are getting four times as much food into Afghanistan each day as they were at the beginning of October.

On the diplomatic front, we saw last week perhaps the most astonishing success of all. Exceeding all expectations, the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, some of whom have fought each other at different times in the last 20 years, sat down together in Bonn and thrashed out an agreement which puts Afghanistan back on the path to peace. In recording that, I wish to express my gratitude to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and to his Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi's patience, insight and skill were a critical factor in bringing the negotiations to that remarkable conclusion. I also pay tribute to the Afghan participants. I am also glad that we in the UK were able to play an active part in the process, through diplomats Robert Cooper, Paul Bergne, Stephen Evans, Andrew Tesoriere and many others, and through the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.

Many of us expected that the next step after Bonn would be for the talks to reconvene in Kabul. Instead, it is an interim Afghan authority that will convene in Kabul on 22 December. The new Administration will include three women: a clear sign that the new Afghanistan is different from life under the Taliban. Like everything else in the agreement, that is the beginning of a process of returning Afghanistan to normality. Those who take the view that we should not have embarked on the military strategy, in the context of the overall strategy, need to reflect on the fact that had it not taken place women, in particular, would have continued to be oppressed in what was a benighted country.

Is not my right hon. Friend's triumphalism a little premature, if not provocative? After all, the vindication he speaks of will be seen only if we are less likely in the future to be attacked by violent terrorists than before the action began. At the very least, it is too soon to say that that is true, given that—according to General Powell—al—Qaeda are in 50 countries around the world, not all in Tora Bora being bombed. On the subject of the Muslim world, will my right hon. Friend accept that more people hate us more intensely today than they did before we embarked on that military action?

On the second point, I emphatically disagree with my hon. Friend. That is not the message that I receive from my Muslim friends, of whom I have many in this country and abroad. On his first point, I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would not be a bad idea if he examined the beam in his own eye before he started trying to pick out the mote in mine. If he wants an example of a speech that was not correct, he should perhaps examine what he told the House a few weeks ago. He said:

"Why do I say that the war is going so badly?"

He explained why and then continued:

"the course of action on which we are embarked and in which I predict we will still be involved—perhaps next year at this time—with casualties beyond imagination risks becoming the very third world war that the bin Laden fanatics set out to achieve with their attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September."— [Official Report , 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1113–4.]

rose —

My hon. Friend can make his own speech in his own time, but I wish to make progress. His earlier speech is on the record.

The House can be proud of this country's role in the liberation of the Afghan people, and we can be especially proud of the courage of our troops at Bagram airfield in securing the air base and making it safe for the United Nations and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. Not least, our deployment at Bagram has made it possible for delegates to fly to the talks in Bonn, and we were the first country to establish a diplomatic presence in Kabul.

Alongside that, however, there has always been the imperative on the international community to deliver a second liberation to free the Afghan people from the other scourges that have beset them for decades—fear, hunger, poverty and war.

There are several immediate and urgent tasks. First, there is the need to ensure that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are completely eliminated. Secondly, there is the immediate humanitarian emergency. Thirdly, there is the issue of the multinational force requested by the parties at Bonn to provide security in Kabul and the surrounding areas for the nascent political community, and for the institutions of that fledgling state.

We have always said that we stand ready to provide troops. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have indicated, in principle, a willingness to play a leading role in any UN mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan. No formal decisions have yet been taken.

These are merely the most pressing needs of the new Afghan state, but there are many other problems that cannot be resolved quickly. The country has known little but war, bloodshed and chaos for a generation. A quarter of all children do not make it to their fifth birthday, a third are orphans, and half are malnourished. The international community has let Afghanistan down in the past. We are not going to turn our backs on the Afghan people again.

The Bonn agreement set out a route map to a better future. We have to ensure that all the parties involved stay on the route and follow the map. There will be an emergency Loya Jirgah within six months, from which a broad-based traditional administration will emerge. Eighteen months after that, there will be a full Loya Jirgah to agree a new constitution, under which free and fair elections will be held for a fully representative government.

We must also ensure that donor countries provide good measures of support, and that the tangible support that is provided is conditional on progress being made in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Support Group, which brings together all the major donors, has met in Berlin to discuss practical ways of assisting the interim administration. Meetings of donors and other interested parties in Brussels later this month, and next month in Tokyo, will lead to firm pledges of funds. We have to get reconstruction work under way quickly to produce an early peace dividend.

I want to pay particular tribute to the central role that the United Nations has played since the beginning of this crisis. I spoke of the ceremony yesterday to mark the fact that three months had passed since the atrocities of 11 September. Today, it is exactly three months since the UN moved so rapidly into action by passing Security Council resolution 1368. Two weeks later, it passed resolution 1373, and further resolutions were passed when I attended the Security Council and the General Assembly between 10 and 14 November.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, but I want to make progress.

Important as the military, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are to the fight against international terrorism, their successful completion alone will not remove the scourge of terrorism as a force in international affairs. We therefore have to do all that we can to promote peace. That includes fostering the middle east peace process, which represents the only way in which Palestinian grievances can be addressed, and Israel's security guaranteed.

Forlorn though the hopes may be, we have to encourage both parties in that terrible conflict to go back, in appropriate circumstances, to the negotiating table.

We also have to step up international measures to combat terrorism. We have to work for universal acceptance of the principle that violence directed against civilians for political ends is never justified. We do not condone acts of terrorism carried out under the guise of fighting for freedom. Although we are prepared to talk to states that do not endorse this principle, our scope for active co-operation with them is severely limited.

We have to go on providing development and humanitarian assistance, and making the case for effective action to combat poverty, oppression, conflict, criminality and every malign force that excludes our fellow human beings from the benefits of a globalised world.

We should not delude ourselves that the defeat of al-Qaeda and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan spells the end of the international terrorist threat, or of the fight against it. We, the United States Administration and the international community have made it clear from the beginning that it will take a long time to remove the threat. However, we should take heart from the successes of the last few weeks.

We have shown that the determined will of the international community can defeat the evil that seeks to destroy us and that destroyed the lives of so many people on 11 September. We have shown that action to enforce universal values is a powerful force for good. Alongside the physical rebuilding of Afghanistan, we have to encourage and, above all, work for, the spiritual regeneration of that country. We have shown that we have not forgotten 11 September, and we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again.

4.15 pm

Since the House last met to discuss the war on terrorism, much progress has been made and Conservative Members welcome the success that has been achieved in recent weeks. It is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition, with the United States at its head. It is only the beginning, however, and we must never lose sight of the fact that the fight to eradicate terrorism wherever it is to be found will be a long, hard and unrelenting one. That fight did not start in Afghanistan and it will not end there. We must never allow ourselves to be tempted into believing that once the Afghan phase is over, our job is done.

In the House on 16 October, I outlined what I believed that our objectives should be. The first was to bring Osama bin Laden to book and to destroy his al-Qaeda organisation. The second was to enable the people of Afghanistan to regain their rights and to live in peace, not least by a determined effort to free them from the threat of famine that confronts so many of them. The third was the longer-term but equally essential aim of the eradication of international terrorism and the very real threats implicit in it. I believe that those objectives remain valid.

Achieving those objectives was central to justifying the international involvement of the unique and remarkable international coalition that has been so successfully sustained. These "agile partnerships", as President Bush has described them, have proved very effective, as, indeed, has the flexible approach that the European Union has adopted to the crisis—a flexibility that Conservative Members warmly welcome and endorse.

The right hon. Gentleman's third objective was the eradiation of international terrorism. Will he clarify whether that, in his view, means bombing countries other than Afghanistan? If it does not mean that, what does the eradication of international terrorism mean?

There would be many different ways in which we would seek to eradicate international terrorism, depending on the circumstances. It would be wrong to rule anything in or to rule anything out.

I hope that the conversion to a flexible Europe that I mentioned will be sustained by the Foreign Secretary in the weeks ahead. It has also been a salutary experience to work with a coalition in which Russia has co-operated so effectively with the United States and Europe. I hope that we will be able to build on that growing understanding.

Intrinsic to our prime objective was the early removal of the Taliban, which has almost been done now. Over the past few days, in their remaining erstwhile stronghold of Kandahar, the prospective surrender of the Taliban forces has been brokered by the man who is to be Afghanistan's interim Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai. Now the net is inexorably closing in on bin Laden and his al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The latest reports suggest that the battle among the caves at Tora Bora is reaching a conclusion.

The professionalism of our armed forces, American and British, working with and alongside the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, will help to ensure either that bin Laden is brought to justice or that justice is brought to bin Laden. I salute the courage and skill of our service personnel who have been in one way or another involved in ensuring the effectiveness of this campaign.

The Afghan phase of the battle against terrorism is not yet complete and there must be no let-up, no premature satisfaction and certainly no complacency until it is done. Nevertheless, the work of helping to establish a representative Government in Kabul must now be pursued with vigour. That second objective of which I spoke is urgent if the vacuum left by the collapse of the Taliban regime is not to be filled with further dissension and unrest.

In Bonn last week, a major piece in the jigsaw of our second objective fell into place when the major Afghan factions agreed on a transitional Government to run the country. On 22 December, when the interim Government come in, Afghanistan will start on a new path. It is important that the agreement was made by the people of Afghanistan, for the people of Afghanistan. The Opposition welcome that progress and I, too, pay special tribute to Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations. We wish him success in his continuing diplomatic efforts.

Understandably, there is now a tremendous sense of hope for the future, but Afghanistan has only just begun on the path towards exorcising the demons of its recent past. The next stage in that process is for the transitional Government to prove themselves genuinely representative of the whole of Afghanistan and resolute in ensuring that Afghanistan will never again be used as a haven for international terrorism.

There has been some surprise and concern at the way that announcements have been made over the past few days about the further deployment of British troops in Afghanistan—I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give me his full attention at this point—through leaks in newspapers— [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence suggests that there has been no announcement, but that is what I am complaining about.

There have been leaks in newspapers, hints have been given—not least by the right hon. Gentleman—in television interviews, and announcements have been made in other countries. As Mr. Speaker made clear yesterday, the House should be told first, and should be told fully, what is intended. The result is that we have grave misgivings about what is being mooted. We need answers to many questions.

I accept—as I have always done—the importance of making announcements to the House. However, in defence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself, the only occasions on which we have dealt with that matter have been when we explained to people that no decisions have been made, and so no announcement has been made. We have made a statement of the obvious, which I repeated in my speech: we stand ready in appropriate circumstances to take a leading role in that force, but no decisions have been made. That remains the case. Once the decisions have been taken, they will be made known to the House.

I hear what the Foreign Secretary says, but I read the front pages of all the national newspapers on Sunday and Monday. I also heard what the US Secretary of State said in Paris yesterday before he arrived in this country. I find it hard to accept that there has merely been a declaration in principle and that there is no intention behind it.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was reported speaking, outside the House—again—of British troops being involved in, as the Foreign Secretary correctly quoted,

Can some light be shed on the warning orders that are currently thrashing around in the joint rapid reaction force and the headquarters of 1 Armoured Division? Is that merely contingency planning?

As the Secretary of State for Defence has heard my hon. Friend's very valid question, I hope that he will be able to answer it at the end of the debate.

I have further questions to which I hope to receive an answer. What would be the involvement of the United States in the United Nations mandated force? Who is envisaged as commanding the force? UN officials recently expressed the need to leave "a light footprint", but how would the Government define that? Can they assure the House that any involvement would be time-limited, would not lead to mission creep and would not suck our armed forces into a long-term policing role from which it would be difficult to extricate ourselves?

I should also like the Government to enlarge on the speech made on Monday by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, in which he referred to the choices facing the country and the coalition in relation to the next phase. What were the national interests to which he alluded in contrast to altruism? What are the differences of emphasis between the United Kingdom and the United States at which he hinted? Do the Government think that the next phase involves a straight choice between continued involvement in Afghanistan or supporting the United States in the wider fight against terrorism? Or can we do both? What warning was he seeking to give when he talked about trapping

Am I right to conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Conservative party is prepared to support only a very short, time-limited involvement of British forces and that if the situation in Afghanistan requires international involvement that includes our forces, which play a crucial role, and our country, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Conservative Members will not support such a commitment?

I take it from the hon. Gentleman's question that he is prepared to support an unlimited, untimed involvement. On behalf of the Opposition, I am seeking to get some clarity into the suggestions, hints and inferences that have been made during the past few days, because the House deserves clarity on those issues.

Hand in hand with the diplomatic and military efforts there has been a humanitarian aid effort of unrivalled scope and dedication. That has further justified our actions. Sir Michael was certainly right about the need to address the hearts and minds of the population, and there is more to be done in that regard.

The World Food Programme has exceeded its target of 52,000 tonnes of food entering Afghanistan every month, but concern persists about reports by certain charities that food is not reaching the most vulnerable people. There are continued reports of aid convoys being looted, although security is said to be improving. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who would normally be in her place, is in Pakistan, visiting a land mine charity in Peshawar and attempting to discover whether food in Afghanistan is reaching those who need it, and we all look forward to hearing her report. On a positive note, Afghan refugees are slowly returning home. More than 120,000 refugees have returned to Afghanistan since November, and that is to be welcomed.

The events of 11 September have shown that there is no weapon terrorists will not use and no life they are not prepared to take. If we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. President Bush understands that. He is right to say that this is a moment to "rise up and fight terror". His Administration—many of whose members I met in Washington last week—also understand that that is vital if we are to have security in future. Furthermore, they appreciate that they must act, and be seen to act, in an appropriate, calculated and responsible manner, and they have done that with great skill and determination. That is why they took such swift action to freeze the assets of groups supporting the Hamas terrorists who only recently took the lives of so many Israeli citizens.

Indeed, the events of the past two weeks in Israel remind us that we still have a long way to go before the scourge of terrorism is eradicated. Fifteen people were killed in Israel by terrorism a week ago last Saturday. Twenty-five died because of terrorism the day after. What we were forced to accept from 11 September is that we cannot appease terror. The recent murders took place just as the American envoy, Anthony Zinni, was trying to negotiate a ceasefire. They have threatened stability in the region and in doing so played into bin Laden's hands.

Of course, we look to Israel to exercise restraint and to return to the peace process and the talks table, but after recent events the pressure is especially on the Palestinians. On Monday, the European Union called on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to close down the terrorist networks of Islamic Jihad and Hamas. EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels this week said that Mr. Arafat should also publicly call for an end to the Palestinian intifada against Israel, which has continued for more than a year. We on the Conservative Benches support that, and I believe that the Palestinian Authority cannot and should not renege on its obligations.

rose

I shall give way for the last time, because I want to make progress.

I and many others deplored the terrible atrocities that occurred in Israel last week.

However, is it not the case that the terror organisations that the right hon. Gentleman named are not in favour of any negotiations, hence the tenor during the Israeli prime ministerial elections? Is it not vital that, at long last, Palestinians get the justice that has been denied them? Does he therefore accept the need for a viable Palestinian state to end the Israeli occupation that has been taking place since 1967? Israelis deserve justice certainly, but why not Palestinians as well?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is always a balance to be struck in the middle east between the need for a just settlement for the Palestinians and the security of the state of Israel, and that, in the end, that can only be negotiated. We know that George Mitchell made proposals for the resumption of talks, and I look to the implementation of their requirements so that talks can resume. That is urgently needed.

The international campaign against terrorism must go far wider. We should no longer be prepared to tolerate Governments who themselves tolerate or sponsor terrorist activities. That goes for Afghanistan, but it must go too for other countries that we know, and can show, are involved in international terrorism. President Bush was right yesterday to set down a very clear and stark warning to such countries. When those states are unwilling to take effective action against terrorism, they must be prepared to face a determined response from the wider international community, and I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be at the forefront of that response.

There are further clear phases of the campaign against international terrorism to be pursued once the immediate fight in Afghanistan is over. The next immediate phase must be the continued pursuit and eradication of al-Qaeda wherever it still flourishes. First, the terrorists must be pursued to wherever they have fled. They cannot be allowed to establish new bases and boltholes. Secondly, wherever there is the potential for them to establish a new command and control structure, under a new leadership, that must be nipped in the bud.

Thirdly, where there are al-Qaeda cells independently capable of carrying out international terrorist acts, they must be ruthlessly hunted down and eradicated, as must any other terrorist organisations that can and might act as their surrogates. It would be a travesty to draw a line at Afghanistan, only to see the monster that is al-Qaeda regroup and re-establish itself. Let me make it clear that where there is evidence of such continuing terrorism, or the threat of it, Conservative Members will support whatever action is necessary to deal with it. But the fight against terrorism cannot end there either.

We must look at those countries who themselves pose a terrorist threat—rogue states who not only sponsor and encourage terrorism but carry the threat themselves. The further phase must be to bring appropriate pressure to bear on them to end their terrorist threat. When President Bush says that there can be no further justification for the continuing Iraqi failure to abide by the Gulf war ceasefire obligations to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country to monitor its weapons of mass destruction, we support him. The evidence suggests that Iraq has used the three years since UNSCOM was banished to build up its arsenal.

As President Bush again made clear yesterday, the threat that Iraq poses is not one to which a blind eye can be turned. To do so would be to entrench the threat and merely to postpone the need to deal with it. Iraq, by whatever appropriate means, must be brought to mend its ways. It is to be hoped that the example of Afghanistan will bring helpful pressure to bear on Iraq, if only as an indication that the international community will no longer tolerate rogue Governments who cultivate international terrorism. There are many means by which pressure could be brought to bear. It is not necessary for the moment to speculate on what action would be appropriate or where, but it is necessary to demonstrate the resolve of the coalition to deal with terrorism or the threat of it, wherever it occurs. Again, where the evidence justifies it, we on these Benches will support whatever action is appropriate and necessary to close down that element of international terrorism. I hope and believe that the Government will do the same.

I hope that today the Government will take the opportunity to restate their determination, in the words of the Prime Minister,

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way again because I want to finish.

This is a campaign that must be won. We must never forget that it is a campaign about peace and the threat that international terrorism poses to peace. The fight for peace and for freedom from terror can never be qualified or restrained. It cannot be pursued half-heartedly. That is why we Conservatives wholeheartedly support the fight and support the Government and the United States in their pursuit of it.

As we in Britain know only too well, terrorism threatens us all. We have to pursue it relentlessly and without compromise wherever it occurs. We must not let up until the battle against it is won. The House should know that there is a long way to go, but we Conservatives are ready and prepared to see it through.

4.36 pm

First, I pay my respects to our colleague Sir Ray Powell, who died this weekend, and send my sympathies to his family. As one who knew Ray throughout my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, I have many happy memories and many stories to tell in after-dinner speeches for the rest of my life. I send my best wishes to his family.

We all know where we were on 11 September. I was 30,000 ft up in the air flying into London Gatwick when the terrible atrocity occurred. As I walked off the flight, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who was returning with me from Gibraltar, tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he had just received a teletext message that an aircraft had flown into the World Trade Centre. It was horrific news, but we thought that a terrible accident had occurred. However, as I walked into the airport lounge on my way to catch my connecting flight to Scotland, I saw the full horror of the events.

That is something that lives with us all, and none of us can adequately describe it. I hear pundits, commentators and colleagues saying that we should never forget 11 September, but it is impossible for us to forget it. In my local constituency newsletter, I commented that life would never be the same after 11 September. I am sure that everyone agrees.

Are we for war, or are we against war? Surely we are all against war. To every inch of my being, I am against war. I think that it was James Connolly who said that the working man is at both ends of the bayonet. That is the view of a pacifist and a great socialist, but he was speaking at a time when wars were fought on the battlefield; the war against international terrorism is one that no one could ever have contemplated. It will be difficult for us to come to terms with the horror of it.

I have to say to many of my dear and good Friends who are opposed to the action that has been taken that, although I have regard for their genuine views, while disagreeing with them, only one thing would have been worse than taking action, and that is not taking action. We should reflect. We were worried that there would be a knee-jerk reaction from America, with military action being conducted unilaterally. We were all pleased—some of us were surprised—when the involvement and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led to the forming of a coalition and an understanding of what we were facing. None of us understood the seriousness of the threat. The consequences of not defeating those who perpetrated such a terrible act are too horrific to contemplate.

My constituency is in the west of Scotland. It is a rural area. There is not a large Muslim community—the Asian and Muslim community is about 5 per cent. or less of the entire community. Much has been said about Muslim communities. My experience in meeting, living with and representing Muslim families has been wonderful.

I hear that there is a debate that stems from something that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is alleged to have said about teaching immigrant families English. There is nothing more wonderful than to be in the west of Scotland and to hear a Pakistani child speaking in broad Scots. Please believe me. That is perfect English in a broad Scots accent.

We should not lecture Muslim families on how they should bring up their children. I have never met a more respectful, polite and conscientious group of people. That is my experience of Muslim communities, wherever I have met them. We should talk more about that. We have taken it for granted too often, and I should put that on record.

There are issues with which I am not comfortable. None of us can say that we support 100 per cent. everything that has been happening. I have great concern about what is happening in the middle east. Israel has many friends in the House. They are on both sides of the Chamber, and they are vocal and supportive. I support the Palestinian cause for an independent state. Given our experience of the past three months, we must not ignore the middle east and say that it has nothing to do with what happened on 11 September. The evil people who perpetrated that evil terrorism were using, are using and will continue to use the lack of a settlement in the middle east.

That is an excuse.

Of course it is an excuse, but it is not an excuse from our point of view. My hon. Friend and I and many other Members have argued for a peace settlement in the middle east, and it was once within our grasp.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that there will never be lasting peace in the middle east until both Israelis and Palestinians have their own separate states. However, is he not being unrealistic? Is not the objective of those who are carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel nothing less than the destruction of Israel?

I concede that people are perpetrating evil acts of terrorism by becoming suicide bombers and, more importantly, encouraging others to become suicide bombers. However, they are extremists who feed off the sort of response that the Israelis have made. There is no way that I could even try to justify the Israeli Government's response. I can understand their anger and the need to protect themselves against terrorism, but one cannot defeat the evil of international terrorism with state terrorism. I tell Israel and the friends of Israel who want a middle east peace settlement that we should address that issue. We should tell Prime Minister Sharon that behaving like a state terrorist is not the answer to the problem; I say that as a supporter of the present international action.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance to the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is that Sharon is increasingly giving the impression that his intention is the destruction of the potential state of Palestine?

That will never happen without war in the middle east. If we cannot get our minds round what happened on 11 September, believe me, a middle east war will be a lot worse. It is in everybody's interest, as well as in the interests of morality and social justice, to give the Palestinians their own state within their own lands and, along with that, to give the Israelis peace. We cannot criticise the evil of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to supposedly friendly countries that embrace state terrorism. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that, sadly, what the Israelis are doing is wrong. How Mr. Peres can remain in that Cabinet is, frankly, beyond me.

I was delighted to hear from the Home Secretary the statistic that four times as much humanitarian aid is now going in.

I am the Foreign Secretary.

I must apologise to my right hon. Friend; he has a new job.

I saw a television report today about young boys playing football in Kabul. Before the downfall of the Taliban. they could have been put in prison for wearing football shorts, let alone playing football. That says a lot about what is happening. We are seeing changes; we welcome the new interim Government that will be set up in Kabul, and we welcome the liberation of women, and their inclusion in the new Government. We should take the opportunity to get more humanitarian aid in to save the many millions of Afghans who need it.

In conclusion, I hope that in our next debate on this subject we will have many more joys to discuss. Perhaps in two or three months' time the Government will be up and running, military action will have ended in Afghanistan, and there will be an end to the terror. I see that the Secretary of State for Defence, whose position I shall not get wrong, is on the Front Bench. It is my honest view—and history will tell—that the Prime Minister performed as great a service as anyone could have done in giving support to the American Government. I commend him for doing what he did when he did, and the way in which he did it. Hawks in the State Department now want to expand military action into parts of the Sudan and Iraq, but I caution against such an extension. We should argue that what we are doing to defeat international terrorism is moral and right, but we should not allow the hawks in the State Department to take us that step further, which would undermine our moral case.

4.50 pm

I propose, so far as I can, to strain neither my voice nor the patience of the House in this short debate. I hope that those two objectives are mutually consistent.

In the light of recent domestic political events, it would be right for me to restate once again Liberal Democrat support for Government policy since 11 September. Our support has never been slavish, as the Foreign Secretary knows, but I am satisfied now, as I was after 11 September, that action in Afghanistan is justified in law and is necessary for our protection. Like the Foreign Secretary, I could not have predicted that the action would be so successful so swiftly, or that a political framework would so quickly be put in place.

Does that support extend to the Liberal Democrat's newest recruit, the hon. former Labour Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)? If not, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the Liberal Democrat Whips succeeded, where the Labour Whips so signally failed, in keeping the hon. Gentleman quiet on the subject, as I do not see him in his place today?

If the hon. Gentleman has any pretensions to fly-fishing, he will have to learn to cast a rather more gentle line than that. Such decisions are far above my pay grade—I am a humble foot-soldier in the Liberal Democrat army. All I can say is that in my father's house there are many mansions.

More seriously, may I sound a note of caution? As our American friends say, it's not over till it's over. There may yet be substantial loss of life in Afghanistan before victory has been achieved. I know that to some extent it has been dismissed by those on the Treasury Bench, but I remain anxious about events at Mazar-e-Sharif and so, too, do many people.

It is true that terrible things happen in conflict, but prisoners of war are entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention. I do not shrink from asserting without qualification that those who fight wars in the name of civilisation have a duty to observe civilised standards. There are as yet too many unanswered questions about what happened in the fort at Mazar-e-Sharif. Who, for example, took the decision to bomb the prisoners? How many of the dead, in truth, had their hands tied behind their back? What was the role of British forces?