Ukraine

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The Minister for the Armed Forces says, “Answer that in five words.”

It is a very important message from China to Russia, and President Putin should listen to it, but of course the most important message is that we demonstrate our resolve to protect our values, because whatever we do or do not do in this part of the world, China is watching.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Secretary of State is being slightly more gracious about the work of European leaders in trying to find a diplomatic solution, but just a week or so ago he was saying that those efforts had “a whiff of Munich” about them. Does he want to apologise for that remark, which was not only crass, but undermined efforts to deliver Minsk II as the starting point for our best chance of avoiding war? Does he accept that if the Government are serious about playing a constructive role, they should start by getting their own house in order—first of all by repaying the almost £2 million that his party has received in Russian donations since the Prime Minister took office? Will he finally end London’s role in hiding the proceeds of Kremlin-connected corruption?

[Mr Wallace]

I am sure that the hon. Lady understands what I meant when I said that if President Putin invaded Ukraine, there would be “a whiff of Munich”. Of course, there were two parts to Munich: there was the appeasement, but there was also the fact that, all the way through, Hitler lied and had a plan to aggressively invade large parts of Europe. My point, as I set out in my article, was that if President Putin invaded, we would be chasing a straw man when all along he had a predetermined plan.

I suggest that, before making allegations of that sort, the hon. Lady should go back to the history books in order to understand what Munich was about. Then she will understand what I was saying. We know that, time and again, President Putin has ignored international law, ignored human rights, invaded countries, and murdered British people on these streets through orders to the GRU—and all that the hon. Lady can do is come here, stand up and tell us that we are in the wrong. Perhaps she should go to Moscow and tell it to them.

Middle East: Security

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend is right. What has been brought into sharp focus is the fact that time has run out. We must sort this out in the middle east on a collective basis and try to put in place a long-lasting solution. He is also right to make the point that, in one sense, Soleimani’s passing provides an opportunity for people to realise that his policy has done nothing but make Iran a pariah state. We should also not forget that the population of Iran, just like the population of Iraq, do not want America, do not want Britain and do not want the current regime; they want their own nation. Iraqis are nationalistic and Iranians are nationalistic. When dealing with those countries, we should never forget that, if we can give those people their country back, we can support their human rights. That is the best way for us in the west to proceed, rather than imposing a solution on them.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Now that the Iran nuclear deal, recklessly abandoned by President Trump, hangs by a thread, does the Minister acknowledge that, as well as doing everything that he can to help restore it, he should understand that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in May will be even more critical in rebuilding trust? Can he guarantee that the Government will play a very serious role at that conference in using it to demonstrate real commitment to multilateral disarmament?

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I would be very disappointed if they were not to be made in the United Kingdom. My understanding is that the bomber pins are manufactured here in the United Kingdom.

Even as we pay tribute to the submariners, it is equally important that we think of their families, too—those who often have to go for months on end without hearing from their loved ones. We must also pay tribute to the thousands of industry experts who have played a vital role in this national endeavour.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I wonder how the Secretary of State thinks we can possibly lecture other countries about not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. What moral high ground do we have to do that if we ourselves not only possess them but are upgrading them? Does he really think the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons, and if that is not the case, how on earth do we justify what we are doing?

[Gavin Williamson]

I firmly believe that the world is a safer place because we have a nuclear deterrent and because of the responsible way that it is deployed.

[Caroline Lucas]

But would the world be safer if all countries had them?

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady and I will probably always find room for disagreement on this. I will come on to the issue of deterrence later.

I want to make progress, because it would be remiss of me not to mention the town of Barrow-in-Furness and give our thanks to the people of Barrow, who have crafted these giants of the deep and continue to do so, ensuring that we have the right technology and the right vessels to deliver our nuclear deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

We are intending to see the first decommissioning of submarines over the coming year. That important issue needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) have been looking at it and have made some very important contributions. It is an issue that the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously. I was hoping—this was obviously very naive of me—that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) was going to talk about Scotland’s pride at being the home of our submarine forces, about the economic benefit that our continuous at-sea nuclear benefit delivers Scotland, about the fact that 6,800 people are employed at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde and about the fact that that will increase to 8,500. It is disappointing that he could not talk with a bit of pride about the service personnel who contribute so much. This is about saying thank you, to the submariners who have continuously put their lives at risk and done so much for our nation to keep us safe. I hope that all Members in this House, regardless of their view about the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, will have the courtesy to pay tribute to those brave men and women. We cannot wish away the rise of the atomic bomb, especially given that there are some 14,500 nuclear weapons on this Earth. That is not to say we have given up our determination to create a nuclear-free world. On the contrary, we have been at the forefront of arms reduction. Since the height of the cold war, the United Kingdom has reduced our forces by more than 50%. We have delivered on our commitment to reduce the number of warheads carried by our Vanguard submarines from 48 to 40, and we have decreased the number of operationally available warheads to no more than 120.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gavin Williamson]

I have given the hon. Lady the opportunity to speak.

We remain committed to reducing our stockpile to no more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s, but the reality is that other nations have not taken the hint from the lead that the United Kingdom has shown. Even as we have cut back, others are creating new systems to get around treaty obligations or are simply ignoring the commitments that they have made. I have already spoken about Russia’s breach of the INF treaty. The truth is that the only way to create the global security conditions necessary for nuclear disarmament is by working multilaterally. Our commitment to the deterrent is cast-iron.

We are spending around £4 billion every year to ensure the ultimate guarantee of our safety for the next 50 years, not least by investing in the next generation of ballistic missile submarines—the Dreadnought class. We have made significant progress.  We have already named three of the state-of-the-art submarines—Dreadnought, Valiant and Warspite. Construction has already started in Barrow on HMS Dreadnought. Those names recall some of the greatest ships of our naval history. We are investing millions of pounds in state-of-the-art facilities and complex nuclear propulsion systems, and we are ensuring every day counts by utilising our Dreadnought contingency, with access to up to £1 billion, to fund more in the early years to drive out cost and risk later in the programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke).

I want to make a couple of what I consider to be very important points, but let me begin by saying that I think it is really good that the British Parliament is discussing this fundamental issue. I have agreed with most of the speeches that I have heard today—although I have disagreed with the Scottish National party—but I think it important for us to recognise that we sometimes need that clash of views, that clash of opinions, to establish better public policy. I say that as someone who utterly supports the continuous at-sea deterrent. However, I also strongly believe that it is representative of, and to an extent a political declaration of, the importance of our country on the world stage.

I have no problem at all with stating that view. It is not an old-fashioned view, as was suggested earlier, and it is not a view that Members should somehow not be proud of expressing in this Parliament. We are a senior member of NATO; we are a senior power in the world; and we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Those are fundamental matters for our country, and they bring with them fundamental responsibilities. In my opinion—which is not held by everyone in the Chamber—those responsibilities mean something when it comes to military deployment, diplomacy, and our view of the world. I think that our country makes a massive contribution to stability and peace in many parts of the world, and part of that contribution is the deterrent.

I was very pleased that the Secretary of State—and, indeed, many other Members—observed that we spend a lot of time in this Parliament simply asserting the need for the deterrent. We do not argue the case. We do not take on, in a proper, intellectual way, those who oppose it. We simply dismiss their opposition, and I think that that is wrong. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), it is perfectly possible, and feasible, and a philosophy that some people support, that having a nuclear deterrent is fundamentally wrong. We should accept that philosophy and argue with it, rather than simply dismissing it.

I think that some of the arguments that have been advanced are very important, but I also think that the argument has to be won in our country again. I have to tell the Minister, as someone who supports the deterrent, that mine is not a view held universally across the country. [Interruption.] Not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK, there are people—people in my own party, people in my own family, people in my own community—who do not agree with what I am saying. They will ask me, for example, “Vernon, how does having nuclear weapons defend us against terrorism?” Well, of course they are not meant to defend us against terrorism, but it is no good just saying that; it is necessary to argue it.

We have other ways of defending ourselves against terrorism, through, for instance, special forces, policing and Prevent. However, as many other Members have said, we are witnessing a rise in the activities of Russia and other states, and not simply rogue states. We used to say, “There are rogue states: what happens if North Korea…?” However, it is not about that; it is about what is actually happening in the state of Russia, which, as far as I can see, is a very real threat to our country, to western Europe and to democracy. But we have to explain that, and put that point of view.

Many of my constituents do not see Russia as a threat, in terms of its using nuclear weapons against us, and do not understand why we have to have nuclear weapons to deter it. It is therefore incumbent on people like me to say that it is important for the stability of the alliance—the stability on which NATO vis-à-vis Russia works—that that nuclear deterrent is in place. I think that the concept of mutually assured destruction does bring stability, but it is necessary to argue that constantly.

Similarly, I understand where the SNP is coming from, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to challenge its members, and to say, “You may have a non-nuclear policy in terms of Scotland, but how does that fit with membership of the NATO alliance?” That is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. It is not dismissing what they are saying, but it is a challenge.

It is not only people in this Parliament who challenge that. Scottish National party Members know that at their conference in 2012, people resigned from the party because they saw it as a betrayal of policy to hold that a non-nuclear Scotland could still be a member of NATO, as NATO was a nuclear alliance. Indeed, one person said:

“I cannot belong to a party that quite rightly does not wish to hold nuclear weapons on its soil but wishes to join a first-strike nuclear alliance.”

That is a challenge to the SNP. I am not condemning that, but that is a challenge. Members of the SNP will have that argument within the party. All I am saying is, I believe in a continuous at-sea deterrent, and therefore it is important that I argue why I think that brings stability to our country.

President Obama made a brilliant speech in Prague, which inspired the world, in which he talked about global zero. He said he wanted a world where nuclear weapons did not exist. The challenge for people like me, and the challenge for this Parliament, and for the Defence Secretary, the Chair of the Defence Committee and all my hon. Friends, is, do we share that ambition? When has this Parliament ever debated how we re-energise, re-enthuse the drive for multilateral nuclear disarmament?

The Secretary of State rightly pointed to the fact that the last Labour Government and this Government, to be fair, have reduced the number of nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads. Who has got a clue that we have done that? The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will condemn any possession of nuclear weapons. That is a reasonable position to adopt. As for those of us who support that deterrent, how often have we gone out and explained to the British public that we believe that we can still defend our own country, but we can do it with fewer warheads, fewer missiles, in our submarines? That is a challenge as well.

How do we re-energise the non-proliferation treaty? How do we re-energise multilateral talks? These are big strategic questions for our country—even if there was an independent Scotland, they are massive strategic questions for us, and for NATO. When do we ever debate that, rather than simply hurl accusations at one another? There is a real need for that debate. I ask the Defence Secretary, how do we re-energise those non-proliferation talks, that non-proliferation treaty? Do we really mean that we want a multilateral process that leads to global zero?

[Caroline Lucas]

On that issue—a good issue—of how we revitalise multilateral talks, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would have a better chance if our Government had taken up their potential seat at the negotiations for the UN ban treaty, which had 122 countries supporting it? That is multilateral; it is exactly multilateral. Why were we not there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a real pleasure and honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), because she speaks with real authority and eloquence about these issues. I am happy to speak as well in my capacity as chair of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. Let me put it on the record at the top of my speech that I am very happy to pay tribute to the submariners for their service to this country and to their families for the sacrifice that they make, which the hon. Lady has set out very clearly.

I do not think that there is any contradiction between paying tribute to that service and also being very clear that, for me, nuclear weapons are abhorrent. Others have said during this debate that it is inconsistent to have a nuclear deterrent if we are not prepared to use it. I absolutely agree with that, and I am very proud to say that I would not, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons, and still less would I support the Prime Minister’s position of a first use of nuclear weapons. I believe that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, illegal and obscene.

Let us just think what that first strike, which the Prime Minister was so proud not to rule out, could really mean. The heart of a nuclear explosion reaches a temperature of several million degrees centigrade. Over a wide area, the resulting heat flash literally vaporises all human tissue. At Hiroshima, within a radius of half a mile, the only remains of the people caught in the open were their shadows burned into stone. People inside buildings will be indirectly killed by the blast and the heat effects as buildings collapse and all inflammable materials burst into flames. The immediate death rate in that area will be over 90%. Individual fires will combine to produce a fire storm as all the oxygen is consumed. As the heat rises, air is drawn in from the periphery at or near ground level. This results in lethal hurricane-force winds and perpetuates the fire as the fresh oxygen is burned. The contamination will continue potentially for hundreds of thousands of years. The Red Cross has estimated that 1 billion people around the world could face starvation as a result of a nuclear war.

Let me be very clear: I hate all war, but there is something particular about nuclear war. Simply saying that it is in the same category as other forms of war is wrong. What is wrong as well is to say that we cannot uninvent things that have already been invented. We saw what happened when it came to chemical weapons, biological weapons and cluster munitions being banned. If there was more support from countries such as the UK, nuclear weapons could be banned as well. There was the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and I found it frankly outrageous that the UK Government could not even be bothered to turn up to the talks. That was a campaign that was run throughout the world. One hundred and twenty two countries supported the nuclear ban treaty. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons won the Nobel peace prize for its efforts. The treaty is a strong and comprehensive text, with the potential to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. It opened for signature in September 2017 and will enter into force when 50 states have ratified it. It has so far been signed by 70 states and ratified by 22, and more and more are signing up.

I want to counter the argument made from the Labour Benches that the treaty is somehow not multilateral. It is, not least because there is no requirement for a country to join; there is no requirement on a country to have forgone their nuclear weapons before joining. If the UK had used its considerable clout on the world stage to have really shown some leadership on this issue, there could have been at least a chance of getting the countries around the table to have gone away and begun the process multilaterally of getting rid of their weapons.

[John Spellar]

The hon. Lady is very critical of the United Kingdom in this respect, but did Russia, China, France and the United States—in other words, the declared nuclear weapon states—attend either? Surely this is just another cul-de-sac, whereas the real way of reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons is through negotiations, primarily between Russia and the United States initially, but then involving all the nuclear weapon states. Is not that real politics, rather than gesture politics?

[Caroline Lucas]

If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that 122 countries around the world are engaging in gesture politics, I would suggest to him that it is perhaps more a gesture from him than it is from them. I believe in Britain taking a leadership role. Perhaps he does not. The constant sitting back and waiting for something else to happen—doing the wrong thing—would frankly be unconscionable.

It is very easy to characterise those of us who are against nuclear weapons as somehow not living in the real world, so perhaps I could just remind the House that there are plenty of people within the military world who do not think that nuclear weapons are a useful tool going forward. Back in 2014, senior political and diplomatic figures—including people such as the former Conservative Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary Des Browne and former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen—came together with very high-ranking military personnel to say that they believe that the risks posed by nuclear weapons and the international dynamics that could lead to nuclear weapons being used are being underestimated and that those risks are insufficiently understood by world leaders.

The Government’s main argument for replacing Trident appears to be that it is the ultimate insurance in an uncertain world. I argue that they fail to acknowledge that it is our very possession of nuclear weapons that is making that world more uncertain. Nor have the advocates of nuclear weapons ever explained why, if Trident is so vital to protecting us, that is not also the case for every other country in the world. The Secretary of State did not answer me at the beginning of this debate—it seems a long time ago now—when I put it to him that we have no moral arguments to put to other countries to ask them not to acquire nuclear weapons if we ourselves are not only keeping them but upgrading them. I put it to him again that a world in which every country is striving for, and potentially achieving, nuclear weapons would be an awful lot more dangerous than the world we have today.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Let me try this question again. If we were to give up our nuclear weapons, which other countries that possess nuclear weapons would follow suit? Does the hon. Lady know how many nuclear warheads have been reduced as a result of us reducing our nuclear warhead totals unilaterally? The answer is a big fat zero.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is why one needs international processes such as the UN treaty that I have described, which is supported by 122 countries, to make that happen. Although I am personally in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, that is not the case that I am making this afternoon. I am moving one step towards people such as hon. Members like himself—or right hon. Members like himself, perhaps, I cannot really remember—who I completely understand are never going to be persuaded by unilateral nuclear disarmament, but who I hope might be willing to engage in a serious argument about multilateral nuclear disarmament.

So far there has been very little recognition in this debate of the fact that nuclear weapons systems are themselves fallible. According to a shocking report by Chatham House, there have been 13 incidents since 1962 in which nuclear weapons have very nearly been launched. One of the most dramatic, in 1983, was when Stanislav Petrov, the duty officer in a Soviet nuclear war early-warning centre, found his system warning of the launch of five US missiles. After a few moments of agonising, he judged it, thankfully and correctly, to be a false alarm. If he had reached a different conclusion and passed the information up the control chain, that could have triggered the firing of nuclear missiles from Russia.

[Deidre Brock]

Parliamentary questions I have asked uncovered the shocking fact that since 2006 there have been 789 nuclear safety incidents at Coulport and Faslane, and half of the incidents at Faslane have taken place in just the past four years. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a very serious worry that nuclear safety incidents are on the rise under the watch of a Government who should not have control of a TV remote, let alone the most dangerous weapons on the planet?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She rightly shines a spotlight on issues that far too rarely get covered in the media or even in debates such as this one.

The UK Government have shamefully refused to participate in the treaty negotiations I have been describing while nevertheless claiming that they share the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. But it is not too late to make amends. The Government should now engage constructively and work towards signing that treaty and supporting the global moves towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. That, unlike a willingness to launch nuclear weapons and incinerate millions of innocent people, or to waste billions on a weapon that will never be used and therefore serves no evident purpose, would be the true test of a Prime Minister’s leadership.

Trident: Test Firing

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I understand why my hon. Friend asks that question, but I am afraid that I have to say to him that it takes us into the detail of the operation of the nuclear deterrent and I am not going there.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Following on from that, the Government continually refer to Trident as the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, yet the missile involved in the malfunction was designed, manufactured and owned by the US, with a US guidance system and leasing arrangements. It is not an operational issue to tell us whether the Secretary of State has known that the malfunction last year was reported at the time to the US President, nor whether the new President has been briefed about it, and nor who decided to cover it up—the UK Government or the US.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me be very clear about this: our Trident nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent of the United States. In our country, only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of these weapons, even if they are employed as part of an overall NATO response.

Trident

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make some progress.

Indeed, Members should not just take my word for it. In a Defence Committee evidence session last week, General Sir Richard Shirreff, referring to finding money for Trident, said:

“you either go down the line of nuclear capability at the expense of conventional capability or conventional capability at the expense of nuclear. It seems to be that sort of zero-sum game”.

The problem with Trident is that it puts pressure on the rest of the defence budget to the detriment of our overall security. Even Tony Blair, not someone I seek to quote often in this place, wrote in his memoir about Trident renewal that

“The expense is huge and the utility…non-existent in terms of military use.”

He decided to go down the road of Trident renewal, however, because it would be

“too big a downgrading of our status as a nation.”

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that nuclear weapons are actually making us less, not more, safe? They give out a signal to the rest of the world that the only way to guarantee security is by acquiring nuclear weapons, therefore driving proliferation rather than countering it.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree.

Tony Blair summed it up: the UK’s obsession with having an independent nuclear deterrent is little more than a former imperial power indulging in a desperate search for a better yesterday. Possessing Trident is not about defence; it is about the illusion of continuing past glories regardless of cost. The fact is that we cannot afford it. Pride, it seems, will not let us back down. We would rather cut benefits from the disabled. We would rather take tax credits away from the working poor, as long as the bottomless pit of Trident is fed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank my Scottish National party colleagues for securing this important debate. Hon. Members have been challenging one another to be clear on nuclear weapons, so before I come to the substance of what I want to say in the very brief time I have, I want to put my party’s position on the record. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that my party believes that nuclear weapons, the possession of them and the willingness to use them, are illegal, immoral and a grotesque diversion of resources from the real threats we face.

Let me start by focusing on the misguided claim that nuclear weapons make us safer. I would argue that they do not and I am not alone in that. Last year, under the umbrella of the European Leadership Network, senior military, political and diplomatic figures, including former Conservative Foreign Secretary and former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary Des Browne and former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, came together with the explicit aim of

“shining a light on the risks posed by nuclear weapons.”

Reporting in advance of the third international conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, they warned:

“We believe the risks posed by nuclear weapons and the international dynamics that could lead to nuclear weapons being used are underestimated or insufficiently understood by world leaders.”

I could not agree more, and that would seem true of our own Prime Minister here today. His main argument for replacing Trident, as he said in response to questions on the SDSR yesterday, is that they are the “ultimate insurance” in an “uncertain world”. What he fails to acknowledge, however, is that it is precisely our possession of nuclear weapons in contravention of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that is exacerbating that uncertainty. It is leading to the very scenario that he is so keen to avoid.

The Secretary of State has said that we live in an uncertain world. Yes, we do, but the logic of his argument must be that every other country in the world should also seek to protect its populations by acquiring nuclear weapons. Is he relaxed about a world in which every single country is trying to acquire nuclear weapons? Does he really think that that level of proliferation will make us safer? I don’t think so. By keeping and upgrading our nuclear weapons, we send a signal to the rest of the world that security is dependent on the acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the words of Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General:

“The more that those states that already have”

nuclear weapons

“increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.”

The logical conclusion of the Government’s argument is a world full of nuclear weapons, which will only make us less safe.

Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the Government have a duty to pursue negotiations, in good faith, on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament at an early date. Replacing the Trident system means committing the UK to maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come, in complete contravention of the NPT. Disarmament is the best way to reduce dangers and improve global security, strengthen the NPT regime, deter proliferation and de-escalate international tensions. Nuclear weapons are a diversion from the real threats we face, and we should get rid of them now.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend brings his very direct military experience to our debates, and I absolutely agree with him.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that so-called IS actively wants war? Its core message is to present itself as the guardian of Islam under crusader attack. That is a pernicious but effective message. Stepping up our involvement in air strikes reinforces that narrative, even if we stop short of being involved in a ground war. Moreover, it is likely to lead to more civilian casualties. Will he tell us how many civilian casualties there have been so far as a result of US-led air strikes?

[Michael Fallon]

I can certainly write to the hon. Lady on the latter point. Our rules of engagement only agree operations where the capacity for civilian casualties is minimised. I hope she is not suggesting to the House that we should take no action in Iraq or in Syria against ISIL. This is an evil organisation that has committed terrorist outrages on the streets of western Europe and on our own streets. It inspired an attack in the past couple of weeks in which 30 of our citizens were murdered.

Trident Renewal

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

I like the hon. Gentleman a great deal, but I note that even he, one of the leading supporters of nuclear weapons, could not give an example of circumstances where he would be prepared to see the killing of hundreds of millions of people.

The case is stronger than ever for embracing the non-replacement of Trident, which would offer serious strategic and economic benefits, as outlined in the June 2013 report “The Real Alternative”, including,

“improved national security—through budgetary flexibility in the Ministry of Defence and a more effective response to emerging security challenges in the 21st century”

and

“improved global security—through a strengthening of the non-proliferation regime, deterring of nuclear proliferation and de-escalation of international tensions”.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that opposition to Trident is not limited to CND or parties such as ours, but includes many in the military? The former British armed forces head described nuclear weapons as “completely useless” and “virtually irrelevant”.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are hearing ever more—and respected—people from within the defence community understanding the consequences of the replacement of Trident and the displacement effect that would have on conventional defence within the MOD budget.

I will come to that last issue shortly, but first I want to return to the advantages outlined in the 2013 report “The Real Alternative”, including

“vast economic savings—of more than £100 billion over the lifetime of a successor nuclear weapons system, releasing resources for effective security spending, as well as a range of public spending priorities”

as well as our

“adherence to legal obligations including responsibilities as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”,

and—think about this—the

“moral and diplomatic leadership in global multilateral disarmament initiatives such as a global nuclear abolition treaty and the UN’s proposed Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East”.

All this would be possible if the UK Government were prepared to embrace a new approach to weapons of mass destruction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure my hon. Friend, in response to his first point, that we are not planning to make future deals of any kind with the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we hope to be returned in May with an absolute majority that will restore defence policy to the hands of a Conservative Government. As for my hon. Friend’s first point, he is entirely right to draw attention to the absurdity of an unarmed submarine, perhaps several hundred miles from its base, asking our enemies to hold off for a time while it returns to be kitted out with missiles before heading off on patrol again. That is an absurd policy, and we rather look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman trying to justify it.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State return to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and pursue the logic of his argument? If the Secretary of State believes that nuclear weapons are so essential to our security, will he tell us whether he agrees that it is legitimate and logical for every country in the world to seek to apply them? Yes or no?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that that logic follows at all, but I am about to turn to the issue of disarmament—which has been quite fairly raised—and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

Let me be clear: we hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to go on delivering a deterrent effect. However, we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament. Retaining a nuclear deterrent and seeking to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons are not mutually exclusive options. Indeed, I am happy to announce that the Government have now met their 2010 strategic defence review commitment to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and that the total number of operationally available warheads has therefore been reduced to 120. Unfortunately, those reductions have not encouraged other states seeking a nuclear weapons capability to forgo their attempts; nor have they encouraged some other states that already possess nuclear weapons to follow our example. It is our conclusion that it would be rash further to disarm unilaterally while the capability to threaten us remains.

We ascribe the utmost importance to avoiding any use of nuclear weapons, to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology, and to keeping nuclear weapons safe and secure. We are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which is the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of those weapons—is successful, and next month we will host a conference in London for the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty states.

As I have said from the outset, the first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of the nation, its people and our vital interests. Defending the nation has always been challenging, and never more so than in a nuclear age. It was complex in the first nuclear age of cold war certainties, and it has become even more complex in this second nuclear age, when the problems of proliferation have become sharper and the emergence of new nuclear states has become a reality. We are now in an age of uncertainty and confrontation. History teaches us that the defence of this country means being ready for the unexpected, and that means a full-time nuclear deterrent—not one that clocks off for weeks or months at a time, or one that patrols pointlessly. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less now than it has ever been, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), and, indeed, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a fellow member of the council of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am also very pleased to speak in support of this important motion. I support it for moral, security, economic and legal reasons.

Let me begin with the legal reasons. I believe that using Trident would be illegal. That is what the International Court of Justice concluded about nuclear weapons in its advisory opinion of 1996, an opinion that reflected international humanitarian law and the principle that states must never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Even more specifically, that is the opinion of lawyers from Matrix Chambers who were asked for their judgment on two separate occasions, and who determined in both instances that

“The use of the Trident system would breach customary international law”,

in particular, under article 2(4) of the UN charter. The same lawyers found:

“Renewal or replacement of Trident at the same capability is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI”

of the non-proliferation treaty, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1968.

I wish to spend a moment discussing the NPT, because those in favour of nuclear weapons often cite it when making the case that countries such as Iran should not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. I certainly do not want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons, but I recognise that the NPT is based on two key clauses. It is based on a bargain, the first part of which is that nations that do not have nuclear weapons should not seek to acquire them. The other part of the bargain—the forgotten part—is that nations with nuclear weapons should seek to negotiate them away in all earnestness. We seem to forget that second part, and we are not seeing much earnestness from Members on either side of the House.

It is useful briefly to consider the claim, often repeated by many Government and Opposition Members, that we need Trident for our security. I argue that nuclear weapons make us less safe. They divert major resources away from tackling our main security threats, and the Government have stated that the security threats we face today are primarily terrorism and cyber-attacks; I would add climate insecurity to that list. It is not difficult to find experienced military and political figures who confirm that nuclear weapons are not strategically useful. I do not often quote Michael Portillo, but when he was Defence Secretary he described Trident as

“completely past its sell-by date”.

As I have said, the former head of the armed forces has described our nuclear weapons as “completely useless” and “virtually irrelevant”.

We need to examine this word “deterrent” in a bit more detail, because it is used far too simply. Calling Trident “the deterrent” as though that were somehow an intrinsic part of its identity is just plain silly—the language does not confer the capability to deter any more than calling a cat “dog” would give a cat the ability to bark. We need a mix of tools for deterrence and security, rather than investing blind faith in voodoo defence based on a cold war weapon that cannot deter but could very well obliterate us. The truth is that the idea of a nuclear deterrent is a public relations euphemism from the early days of the cold war. It was meant to close down debate by making nuclear weapons sound as if they were safe, sensible, useful and necessary—but they are not. Military history is littered with examples of too much reliance being placed on the latest weapon that some leader believed would deter. The consequences were often tragic, in part because those relying on the notion of a deterrent had failed to pay attention to the really important things that would have kept their people safer and more secure.

So it is even more short-sighted and dangerous for Britain to rely on a weapon of mass destruction that, if launched, would put our own survival at risk. If we are going to debate deterrence, we should do so honestly, recognising that it is a complex relationship requiring us to understand the fears, threat perceptions, and needs and values of others, and to communicate carefully and effectively. The best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to address the global threats we face, such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking in weapons, people and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuel so many conflicts and so much hunger and violence around the world.

Perhaps even more controversially for some Government Members, Britain needs to have a realistic view of its role in the world. We can be a force for good, and I hope we are, but the truth is that we are a small nation in an interdependent world. Recognising that fact, rather than seeking to grandstand on the world stage, might just be an important step towards making us more secure. The MOD has made clear its knowledge of the fact that climate change plays a big role in the major strategic threats we face. It has put on the record that things such as coastal flooding, climate-driven migration and rising food prices owing to drought and water stress will be some of the most significant impacts of climate change over the next 30 years, and that those pose a far greater security risk than anything a nuclear weapon might help us with. I agree strongly with that view.

I want to reiterate what others have said about the obscene cost of Trident. To be seeking to spend £100 billion on Trident replacement and maintenance at any time would be a massive diversion of funds from more socially useful things, but to do so at a time of economic austerity, when we have 1 million people using food banks and welfare is being slashed for so many of the most vulnerable in this country, is morally wrong and obscene.

Let me conclude by saying that that £100 billion could pay for 150,000 new nurses, tuition fees for 4 million students, 1.5 million affordable homes, insulation of 15 million homes and 2 million jobs. Those are concrete, tangible things that we could have and yet we are turning them down, not in return for something that will genuinely give us security, but, even worse, in return for something that is likely to make us less safe.

Nuclear Deterrent

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

Absolutely not. I am saying that those countries that do not have nuclear weapons already often have other reasons that make it difficult to defend their borders, whereas, fortunately, we find it easier to do so because of our physical separation from the continent.

The fourth argument is that our prominence as the principal ally of the United States, our strategic geographical position—to which I have just referred—and the fact that we are obviously the junior partner might tempt an aggressor to risk attacking us separately. Given the difficulties in overrunning the UK with conventional forces in comparison with our more vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more mass destruction weapons against us on the assumption that the United States would not respond on our behalf. Even if that assumption were false, the attacker would find out his mistake only when it was too late for all concerned. An independently controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospect of such a fatal miscalculation.

The fifth of the military arguments is that no quantity of conventional forces can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a war against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is especially instructive—not only because the Emperor was forced to surrender, but also because of what might have happened under the reverse scenario. If Japan had developed atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 and the allies had not, a conventional allied invasion to end the war would have been out of the question.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and press the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on the logic of his argument. How can it be right for us to claim that we should have nuclear weapons, yet lecture every other country against trying to acquire them? If we are saying that the UK depends on nuclear weapons to be safe, does it not logically follow that every other country has the right to make the same argument?

[Dr Lewis]

The answer to that is catered for by the point I made earlier: it is not the weapons we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that have them. I have no desire to lecture other democracies on whether or not they should have nuclear weapons, as that is a question for them and it is about whether they feel they can afford to do that. It does not bother me if democracies have nuclear weapons, but I do reserve the right to lecture dictatorships, and preferably to try to thwart, baulk and deter them from having such weapons, because they are the threat, not the weapons themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate, but sad that I have such a short time in which to do so.

I want to start by considering the overall concept of security and deterrents. I believe that we need a mix of tools for deterrence and security, rather than investing blind faith in voodoo defence based on a cold war weapon that cannot deter, but that certainly can obliterate all of us.

The greatest security threats that we face today are related to climate change and international terrorism. Those are things that nuclear weapons cannot help us with; rather, they deter and take resources away from addressing those issues.

When the leaders of our armed forces and security services balked at the Chancellor’s plans to charge the Ministry of Defence the full cost of replacing Trident, they exposed their own lack of faith in the notion that nuclear weapons give us deterrence and security. In a letter to The Times, three of those leaders—Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham and General Sir Hugh Beach—said:

“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face—particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear”.

If Trident really fulfilled the deterrence myths and claims that underpin the Government’s case for spending billions on its replacement, those responsible for our security would surely consider it well worth the money, but they do not. They know full well that Trident is political vanity and irrelevant to our real security needs.

It is time we stopped calling Trident “the deterrent,” as if that were its identity. That was a public relations euphemism from the early days of the cold war. It was meant to cut off debate by making nuclear weapons sound as if they were safe and sensible, so it was made impossible to ask the real questions, such as: does the deterrent deter? If we ask that question, we will soon come to the conclusion that it is short-sighted and dangerous in the extreme for Britain to rely on a weapon of mass destruction which, if launched, would put our own survival at serious risk, as well as that of many others.

If we are seriously to debate deterrence, let us do so honestly and recognise the complex relationship that requires us to understand the fears, threat perceptions, needs and values of others, and to communicate carefully and effectively. The best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking in weapons, and the poverty and desperation that fuel hunger, conflict and violence cause around the world. Calling Trident “the deterrent” does not confer on it the capability to deter any more than calling a cat a dog would give the cat the ability to bark.

Secondly, I will touch briefly on the upcoming inter- governmental efforts to ban nuclear weapons. The Government of Norway, who have worked closely with the MOD and Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston on projects to verify nuclear weapons, are hosting a major international conference in Oslo in early March, where the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons will be addressed by more than 100 Governments. I am pleased that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has told Norway that we will send a delegation to that important conference, but I plead with the Government to play a constructive role. As the focus is mainly on the humanitarian consequences of detonating nuclear weapons, I ask the Government what studies of nuclear weapons and their humanitarian effects they have undertaken that they will be sharing with their colleagues.

The expert studies on the short and longer-term effects of nuclear detonation are shocking. Let us consider the environmental, climate, agricultural and medical effects. If just a fraction of today’s nuclear arsenals were detonated, in what is termed a “limited nuclear war”, the studies point to climate disruption, widespread radioactivity and global famine. In other words, if the Trident weapons that are carried on just one British submarine were launched at Moscow and nearby cities, the effect would be a worldwide humanitarian disaster. That is immoral and obscene, and it should not be done.

Afghanistan

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Defence Equipment and Support, and in particular to draw attention to the extremely efficient way in which the UOR process has worked throughout both this conflict and the Iraq conflict before it. Resources will of course be available for the recovery of our personnel and equipment, and a huge logistic operation is beginning to get under way—reopening the reverse lines of communication both through the northern stans and Pakistan—to bring that vast amount of equipment out of theatre.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the news that more troops are to be swiftly withdrawn, but I want to go back to the question put by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about Afghan interpreters. They are worried that they will be sent back to Afghanistan and killed, and interpreters still serving UK troops in Afghanistan fear for their lives as more British troops leave. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will let us know as soon as he can whether a scheme similar to that in Iraq will be properly extended to Afghanistan? Legal proceedings are about to be mounted on behalf of those people, who fear that their lives are at risk.

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Lady says, legal proceedings are about to be instigated—we understand—so obviously it would be improper for me to say anything about them. This is a big and complicated issue. A large number of people are involved and not all of them are interpreters, who usually are quite highly educated. There are also large numbers of locally employed staff in other capacities. As I said, we are very much focused on the problem and we must have a properly thought-through and coherent approach. I give the hon. Lady an undertaking on behalf of the Government that once we have a clear plan we will announce it to the House.

Combat Troop Withdrawal (Afghanistan)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman should reread the title of the debate; it refers to the withdrawal of combat troops. We are not suggesting that those troops should not be responsible for the essential work that must be done when withdrawing from a field of conflict. We are talking about withdrawing our combat troops in the same way that Canada, the Netherlands and other nations have withdrawn theirs.

I pay tribute to the valour and professionalism of our combat troops. They have served the country honourably, and they are as distinguished as any of their predecessors in our great military history. I speak as the proud son of a soldier.

Dan Collins lived for the Army. His e-mail address began “Army Dan”. He served in the Welsh Guards; all he ever wanted to do was be a soldier. He served in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was shot twice—once in the back and once in the leg—and survived. He also survived two incidents involving explosives. The terrible thing that happened to him was not coming near to death on those and other occasions; it was the nightmare of seeing his best friend’s limbs blown away. Dan Collins held him as he died and watched the life drain out of his eyes. It was a picture that tormented him. In January this year, he took his own life.

Dan Collins is not recorded on the list of the UK Afghan dead, but he died because of what we as Members of Parliament decided to do, by acts of omission or commission. Amid all our debates—they may well have wearied some, because we have repeated the truths so many times—both Governments have relied on fiction to justify the war, and they are still doing so.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as I am sure he does, that it is not unpatriotic to recognise that there is no military solution to the situation in Afghanistan? Recognising the bravery and courage of our armed forces, as we do, is still perfectly compatible with saying that the best way to honour them is to bring them home as soon as possible.

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed. I would say so with some passion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for arranging this important debate, and I am honoured to follow his eloquent speech, which I hope will be heard far outside the four walls of Westminster Hall.

The Green party opposed the war in Afghanistan from the outset, but I and many others have stood by in growing horror at the death and destruction unfolding there. As we have been reminded, last month was the 11th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, so troops have been there for longer than the first and second world wars combined. We have a tradition in the House whereby, at each Prime Minister’s questions, there is a roll-call of those brave troops who have been killed in Afghanistan. Their names are read out by the Prime Minister, and it sometimes seems as though that tradition will go on for ever. Each week, there are more names. Our troops are doing a brave and courageous job and we pay tribute to them, but they are also doing an impossible job, which is why the best way to honour them is to bring them home as soon as possible.

We are constantly told that our troops are fighting in that country to keep us safe in this one. That is a lie, and the hon. Gentleman was right to say so. The terrorism on our streets has never come from Afghanistan. The attacks that we have suffered were plotted by those in al-Qaeda who have since been dispersed to Pakistan and to Britain itself. The terrible truth is that British troops are dying in Afghanistan because no British Government have the guts admit that they are fighting an unwinnable war. Let us nail once and for all the myth that the presence of combat troops in Afghanistan is making the British people safer. As other hon. Members have said this morning, the truth is likely to be precisely the opposite.

We have been told so many lies and untruths about this war that it sometimes feels difficult to separate what is true from what is not. We have been told, for example, that we must defeat the Taliban, who once hosted bin Laden, and reshape Afghanistan into a functioning society that can never again give shelter to al-Qaeda. However, if al-Qaeda remains the ultimate enemy, rather than the Taliban, it makes no sense to continue to spill so much blood in Afghanistan, as al-Qaeda has mostly long since left.

The longer that the occupation continues, the more jihadists around the world are likely to be inspired to target Britain and the more that Afghan villagers are likely to side with insurgents. The tactics that have been pursued, both by the British and the Americans, are deeply counter-productive. Like the hon. Gentleman, I celebrate this morning the re-election of President Obama, but I regret his so-called surge strategy—the 30,000 extra troops that he put into Afghanistan. Let us look, however, at the impact that those extra 30,000 troops had while they were there, before they were withdrawn again. In July 2009, there were 2,000 insurgent attacks. That was before the surge, and afterwards, in July 2012, the number of insurgent attacks increased to 3,000. There were 475 attacks using home-made bombs in July 2009, and that increased to 625 in 2012.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we were also told that the war in Afghanistan was to stop the drugs trade, yet, 11 years later, there is no sign of that being true. Before the invasion, 90% of heroin coming into the UK was from Afghanistan; the same amount is still coming in today, and if anything it is probably cheaper. We are told that the troops are there to bring human rights to Afghanistan. Although there was perhaps some improvement in human rights between 2001 and 2005, since then, they have drastically deteriorated. Vicious warlords in rural areas can be just as bent on enforcing sharia law as the Taliban. As an example of how little impact we have had on human rights, the country famously passed into law the so-called marital rape law. That was passed by President Karzai, whom we are there to support, yet that law gives the husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance for his wife if she refuses to obey his sexual demands.

Nor is this a war that prioritises development, as though it ever could. The comparative amounts that have been spent put paid to any claims that this is a war about bettering the lives of the Afghan people. The US has spent 20 times as much on military operations as on development in Afghanistan, and Britain has spent 10 times as much, but the UN Security Council notes that 25 times as many Afghans die as a result of under-nutrition and poverty as they do from violence. Almost all the development indices in the country are worse today than they were in 2001, before the invasion. Child malnutrition, for example, has risen in some areas, which is an effect of the chronic hunger that now affects over 7 million people. We also know that one in five children dies before the age of five, which is the highest infant mortality rate in the world. A shocking one in eight Afghan women dies from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and life expectancy is just 44.

Despite what we are told, there is simply no evidence that those or any other war objectives are being met, and we have paid a terrible price for that failure: the 437 British troops who have lost their lives and countless more Afghan civilians. No official count is kept of civilian casualties, but all the signs suggest that August 2012 was the second worst month for civilian deaths in the 11 years since the invasion.

As we know, leaked war logs reveal that coalition forces have tried to cover up the fact that they have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. The number of civilian deaths looks set to increase even further, as the controversial deployment of drones is stepped up in a few weeks’ time. The UK is to double the number of armed RAF drones flying combat and surveillance operations in Afghanistan, and for the first time the aircraft will be controlled from terminals and screens in Britain. The UK has been flying drones in Afghanistan non-stop since 2008.

A study by the law schools of Stanford and New York universities has condemned targeted drone attacks as politically counter-productive and responsible for killing large numbers of civilians and undermining respect for international law. In many ways, it is hard to think of a more effective recruiting agent for the Taliban than the drones that are being sent from the west and are killing civilians indiscriminately.

The Ministry of Defence admits that it does not know how many insurgents have died because of its drone attacks. It explains that it is difficult and risky to verify who has been hit. Instead, it relies on Afghans making complaints if a friend or family member has been wrongly killed. Such a system is deeply flawed and makes a mockery of the MOD’s claim that only four Afghan civilians have been killed in its strikes since 2008 and that it does everything possible to minimise civilian casualties, including aborting missions at the last moment.

We are also told that, on withdrawal, a 350,000-strong local police force and army will be able to enforce law and order. Again, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, that is not necessarily a view shared by the experts. I shall underline the quote that he gave us from Lieutenant-General David Capewell, who said that it was

“an assumption we have to make”.

In other words, there is a blind hope that somehow, as a result of our maintaining our troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan forces will be sustainable once NATO-led troops have left, but there is absolutely no real evidence that that is likely. It is given as yet another reason to extend the time that troops remain in Afghanistan. We need a bit more honesty from politicians.

The Afghan people also need a bit more honesty from their politicians. Their Government spend a massive 30% of their budget on the security sector. In 2008, they were spending fully seven times more than the world average on the military and more than twice as much as other countries undergoing war. This unwinnable war is costing us more than £7 million a day. I need hardly remind hon. Members of the so-called austerity that we are suffering. At the same time as we are spending £7 million a day on an unwinnable war, we are cutting and slashing welfare payments for the most vulnerable people in this country. That leads me to ask who is benefiting from the situation. Again, the hon. Gentleman hinted at this when he talked about the shadow army of private military and security companies, which are operating largely outside legal or democratic control in Afghanistan.

Moreover, in the past 16 years, more than 3,500 former military personnel and Ministry of Defence officials have taken up roles working in arms companies. There is very much a revolving door. The safeguards meant to be afforded by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments are a farce. That committee is toothless; it has no power to act. The industry has been shown to swoop on former officials and military personnel once they have left service, and there is evidence that relations between the military and defence companies are incredibly cosy.

The MOD has launched an investigation into the access that former members of the military have to serving officials. That could result in a tightening of current restrictions, but it may well be too little, too late as far as the situation in Afghanistan is concerned. True to form for successive Governments who prioritise private profit above all else, this is a privatised war, with huge contracts for huge private security companies, and when the troops finally do withdraw, there is the prospect of lucrative mineral licences to be fought over.

As the 2014 deadline approaches for when NATO combat operations are due to cease, it is imperative that we listen to what the people of Afghanistan say about the support and help that they might need. We need to listen to what they say about their priorities, not to politicians who are asking soldiers to act as human shields for their political reputations.

As Malalai Joya said on the eve of the 2009 election,

“Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces. The struggle will be long and difficult, but the values of real democracy, human rights and women’s rights will only be won by the Afghan people themselves.”

We should pay attention to those words.

We should also pay serious attention to the Select Committee on International Development, which concluded last month that Ministers

“may have to recognise that a viable state may not be achievable”.

I believe that we need to recognise that sooner rather than later. We need to recognise that withdrawing later simply risks more lives being lost and more damage being done. We are warned that if we pull out now al-Qaeda will have an area from which to operate. Again, that is a myth. They already have Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen.

The way forward is not just about development. Engaging in talks to secure a regional solution to the war now is also critical, as is involving the Taliban in that process. But let us stop pretending that we have all the answers or that trying to mould Afghanistan at gunpoint into our idea of what it should look like is the same as our democracy. The only sensible and ethical way forward is the immediate withdrawal of our troops and dialogue with the people of Afghanistan about what role, if any, they would like us to play in the future of their country.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. In the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, it is important to remember those who have lost their lives in the service of their country, not just in Afghanistan but in all the wars. This is also a fitting time to think about the members of our armed forces who are deployed in Afghanistan at the moment. I pay tribute to the men and women of all three services who are working on our behalf and to their families back at home. I also pay tribute to those people who are not mentioned very often—the civil servants and civilian contractors who make that deployment possible. We should thank them for their contribution to our nation’s security.

I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on securing it. Hindsight in politics is a great thing. If we had it earlier, the world would be a great and different place. I think it would make politics rather boring, not just in this country but internationally. However, I need to address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made, because there is a tendency in these debates to make statements as though they are facts, but without questioning them.

I think that we should start by considering the reasons why we are in Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion says that the Green party was against the invasion of Afghanistan. That is fine if people live in a great, perfect world, but I certainly do not think that we do. There is an idea that somehow we can put a bubble around the UK and insulate ourselves from world events. I would have asked what the Green party’s alternatives were to what happened in 2001. It is easy to say; it is more difficult to do in reality when we are facing the threat that we were facing in 2001 and that continues to be—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that the situation in Afghanistan is better today than it was before we invaded.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I do, and I will tell the hon. Lady why from personal experience, but I will also challenge her again to say what the solution would have been in 2001. It is easy to sit and criticise; it is more difficult when people are having to take real decisions about this nation’s security. The hon. Lady is in a privileged position as a member of a party that will never have to make those decisions. That is a luxury that many people do not have.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not have time now to go through a full explanation of what the Green party would have done, but I would love to have a meeting with the hon. Gentleman outside these four walls to explain what we would have suggested should be done. At the very least, not doing harm is quite a good start. There was no justification for the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to the terrible atrocities in New York.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. We are in Afghanistan because of a United Nations resolution—resolution 1386. I remember her and some people on the left arguing in relation to the invasion of Iraq that we should have had a United Nations resolution. We cannot have it all ways. That is why we were in Afghanistan, and our time there has been extended by other UN resolutions.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry to keep intervening, but the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately provocative. Those of us who were against the invasion of Iraq did not think that it was any better once the Government managed to get a UN sanction—the stamp of approval. A resolution certainly did not make our decision on Iraq right, and the absence of one was not the reason we were against it.

[Mr Jones]

I wait with interest to see what the solution is to security problems around the world. Having an academic discussion as if we are in a common room is not the answer when the country faces the threats it does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said that our reasons for invading Afghanistan were similar to those of the Soviet Union. No, they were not. I totally disagree with his view that the situation would have been different had Obama been elected in 2001. People should not be selective in how they interpret history. There was no instant response from the Americans after 9/11. In the period before the invasion of Afghanistan, there was a window of opportunity. I accept that there was a window of opportunity for the Taliban to give up bin Laden, but did they? No, they did not. Afghanistan gave him and other terrorist groups a safe haven, and now that it is no longer a safe haven and he is no longer here, the world is a safer place.

My hon. Friend also raised the idea that there is somehow a Christian campaign against the Muslim world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I understand that point. All I am saying is that that is not without risk. In 2014, even in a training role, our armed forces will not be out of harm’s way. As for the way forward, building up the Afghan security forces will be the key element, and progress is being made on that, but I actually agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that what we need to achieve from the process is a political solution. That is about engaging not only with the Afghan people but with Afghanistan’s neighbours.

I completely disagree with the conspiracy theory nonsense that there is a military-industrial complex and that people actually want war to ensure that they can sell weapons. The idea that senior military individuals get some pleasure out of war is wrong. The military that I have worked with in the Ministry of Defence feel every single loss as hard as anyone else, and they certainly do not want to put people in harm’s way if they can avoid it.

Finally, let me touch on drones—unmanned aerial vehicles. A common impression is given—the hon. Lady did it again this morning—that these weapons are under no control and are firing at will at any targets. May I suggest that she ask the MOD for a briefing on targeting policy? She might be surprised to learn that there is a legal mandate before any target is chosen. Lawyers sit in—

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Jones]

Lawyers are involved. The hon. Lady can laugh, but she is only showing her ignorance of the subject.

[Caroline Lucas]

That does not give me any confidence.

[Mr Jones]

Perhaps it does not, but that is the fact of the matter. The hon. Lady mentioned the fact that there are occasions when missions are aborted if harm is going to be brought elsewhere, but there are strict protocols about the way in which the UK Government target sites in Afghanistan, as in Iraq.