Taliban and IS/Daesh Attacks: Afghanistan

Debate between Mark Field and John Redwood

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Let me touch on the issue he raised last, that of humanitarian aid and the NGOs on the ground doing incredibly important work in difficult circumstances. Although the UK Government do not pass on information on threats to NGOs or other project partners directly—due to our security rules, we can pass on only what is on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel page, although he will appreciate that in many districts there will also be an opportunity for ongoing dialogue—we do require NGOs receiving official development assistance to manage their security, and an assurance process is required as part of that due diligence. He will therefore appreciate that there is a lot of ongoing dialogue, and we remain open to providing assistance to any humanitarian organisation on the ground there that has UK connections or may have UK employees. However, I appreciate that the parents and other relatives of those working out in such difficult circumstances must be increasingly alarmed by what they have seen in the headlines over the past 10 days.

From the UK’s perspective, we feel broadly speaking that progress is being made. It is sometimes very slow and painstaking progress, and when such events happen, particularly in quick succession, one is inclined to think that the Taliban and others have suddenly decided to do what they are doing in part because of the peace process conference taking place in February.

If I may respond to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) made earlier, it is our understanding that, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, only 13 districts are under Taliban control. Although that is still 13 too many, I hope the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) will recognise that that provides some evidence of progress. However, some of that progress is slow and painstaking, and we have to be patient.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is the insurgency in part being reinforced and supplied from outside Afghanistan? What action are the Government and their allies taking to try to tackle that aspect of the crisis?

[Mark Field]

While I agree that there is clearly some of that taking place from outside groups, my right hon. Friend will recognise that a lot of it is subject to close intelligence that I would not wish to comment on at this stage. He is right to say that we are doing our level best to try to ensure that any assistance to terrorist groups from outsiders is kept to a minimum. However, he will also recognise that, as I have said, there are now, I am afraid, global networks of terrorist groups. The Taliban have received co-operation not just from the Pakistan side but from other sides of the Afghanistan border, and Daesh or so-called Islamic State are a global network and can utilise help from beyond the Afghan borders.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Mark Field and John Redwood

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Yes, indeed. My point, which is not hostile to the Minister and is merely an attempt to inform the debate, is that we are discussing a set of very different projects and we are not sure what we are talking about because the Bill is very generic and general. We can probably all come to the conclusion that for this to work we will need precise control over what is being proposed—of how much of it is public, how much is private, how much involves a direct charge on the taxpayer and how much involves a guarantee or indemnity.

If a guarantee or indemnity is involved, I am sure that the Minister, with his forensic financial backgrounds and skills, will be able to keep control of it and to reassure the Committee that it is unlikely to be called on unless it was absolutely essential and a very important project would not go ahead without it, which would mean that it was a reasonable risk to run. I am happy at that end of the spectrum, as we will have to trust the Minister’s judgment and this is a good Minister with the skills and ability to do such things. We need to probe when such projects are proposed, however, as we are the custodians of public money and do not want to end up with white elephant projects with huge guarantees and indemnities that will in due course have to be met by some Government.

I am also concerned about the projects in which there is more of a mixture or a muddle, because they must be fitted in to the public expenditure plans. That does not prejudge whether the expenditure should be higher or lower, and there will be different views on that in the Committee, but they will need to be fitted into the plans. A large sum is involved—£50 billion—and we do not know the time scale. The Government might want to come back and ask for more money, and a provision allows them to do so by order, so I want a little more information from the Minister about how such projects will fit into the public expenditure plans and how Ministers collectively will evaluate the mixed projects that receive a big flow of public subsidy and, more particularly, those that really are public sector projects. They might be dressed up as private sector projects, but as far as I am concerned if all the money for the provision on behalf of customers or users of the service comes from the state, that is a public sector project and the private sector is merely a franchisee or agent of the state. If all the money comes from the state, I expect the state to have a grip of the project and to satisfy us that it represents value for money that is being organised in the best way.

I am not ideologically driven as regards the provision of state services. I think that should be done in the cheapest possible way, provided that they offer good quality, and that always causes problems, but I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance about how he will differentiate and seek reassurances about the granting of those indemnities and guarantees and about what proportion of the projects will involve pure public spending, as the Bill entitles him to spend as well as offer guarantees.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I accept much of the thrust of what my right hon. Friend has to say, does he not accept that if too much time and Treasury orthodoxy are spent on evaluating schemes at this stage, many of the infrastructure projects will simply not be built? We need to move ahead with getting them under way at the earliest opportunity if there is to be economic growth and some of the evaluation process to which he refers might be better placed at a later date.

[Mr Redwood]

I normally agree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I do not on this occasion. There is not now an excuse to go in for projects that do not make any economic sense just because we all want some more growth and jobs. Indeed, that would be a very good way of setting us all back further as it would damage the public finances without giving us the benefit of a good project that people wanted to use and that produced plenty of user revenue. When one is in a financial hole, as our country is, one needs to be very careful. We look to the Treasury, in particular, to evaluate such matters carefully and I want a little more guidance because £50 billion is a huge sum. I am not surprised that so few MPs want to discuss it—if we were debating £500 million, the place would probably be packed, but because we are discussing £50 billion everyone has gone off for a tea or a coffee—but to me it is a serious sum of money and I want some reassurance that we will get something worth having for it.