Strategic Defence and Security Review
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not think it a bit rich for those who are now on the Opposition Benches to complain about a strategic defence and security review that is run by the pejoratively named bean counters? Perhaps they might like to cast their minds back to the last strategic defence review in 1998 and say how they think that one was conducted.
Richard Drax
I entirely concur with my hon. Friend.
On nuclear submarines, I entirely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who made a very eloquent speech on the defence of our submarine-based nuclear deterrent. It is essential. We have four boats. To non-service personnel, let me explain that four boats are never in the water at one time; at least two, perhaps, will be out of the water, or will certainly be in the process of being updated or serviced. We need to have four. As I understand it, those submarines are the hardest form of deterrent to detect; and to those who say to me, “Why do we need a nuclear deterrent?” my answer is: “You’ve just answered your own question.” As was so eloquently stated by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), it is our first duty to protect our country and her people.
Our long island history has shown how vital the role of the senior service is, as I am constantly reminded by my father, who served for many years in the Royal Navy. Two aircraft carriers are essential, and key to our future defence. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) who so eloquently stated the case for the two aircraft carriers. I was serving at the time of the Falklands war, and although I was not sent there—the Coldstream Guards were not sent—many friends were. That war showed the significance of a floating base where there is no friendly land-based alternative. There is no alternative. Of course, high-spec ships are needed to escort an aircraft carrier, but if we are involved in a NATO-led operation, they need not necessarily be ours. I would argue—many Royal Navy officers to whom I have spoken, both serving and former, have said this too—that we need more, cheaper vessels to carry out our maritime duties around the world. With ever-increasing globalisation, more and more of our trade will go by sea.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Howarth
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the strategic concept will be discussed at the Lisbon summit, but as yet the Secretary-General’s paper on it has not been seen. However, I understand that missile defence is a matter of interest, and I know that, as a former member of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in such matters. Indeed, when he and I were on the Committee, we both looked at missile defence. This is an important area that NATO needs to address, and I hope it will be addressed squarely in the context of the strategic concept.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows of my long-standing interest in the kingdom of Morocco. What future does he think NATO’s European Mediterranean dialogue has? In particular, what future does NATO’s relationship with Morocco have, in the light of Morocco’s participation in the Mediterranean dialogue since 1995, its assistance in the Balkans and its activities in Operation Active Endeavour? Does he agree that Morocco, as one of our oldest allies, has a strong part to play in future NATO operations?
Mr Howarth
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in Morocco; indeed, he is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Morocco. He has rightly pointed out that that country is part of Operation Active Endeavour, although I understand that certain technical difficulties currently preclude it from contributing to naval shipping. I must also point out to him that Morocco is not involved in Afghanistan. However, we welcome support from wherever we can obtain it, and I hope he will be able to use his good offices to that effect.
UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I commend the Government for their attempts to clarify the mission in Afghanistan. It is very important to articulate the geopolitical significance of this conflict if it is to command the support of the general public. I genuinely regret that the previous Administration signally failed to do that. Had they done so, the acceptance of what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan now would be far more general. I support the motion, and I believe that the men and women of our armed forces will expect us to do so in this House today.
It is worth bearing in mind that the price of our involvement in Helmand and Kandahar is paid by the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased to note that their welfare is mentioned in the three amendments tabled to the motion today. I want to talk a little about the duty that we owe them—a duty summed up at the start of Operation Enduring Freedom as the military covenant. The military covenant is a somewhat elegant turn of phrase written into British Army doctrine by a now retired senior officer who was no doubt sweating away in the Ministry of Defence in 2001—that is, the old Ministry of Defence, before the previous Administration turned it into a princely palace for mandarins at great public expense.
We must go back a bit to understand the provenance of the covenant. The first expression of the duty that the state owed to those who fought on its behalf is the Act for the Necessary Relief of Soldiers and Mariners. It was drawn up in 1601, following what were described as
“Her Majesty’s just and honourable defensive wars”,
just as today’s interest in the covenant has been encouraged by Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 1601 reference to “defensive wars” is important. Most of the conflicts in which this country has been engaged have been defensive, involving society at large and not just an expeditionary military. Although we can debate the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan—I supported the latter, incidentally, but opposed the former—the conflicts of the 21st century have been discretionary as opposed to the total war of the sort marked this week in the 70th anniversary of the blitz and the battle of Britain, which involved defensive warfare writ large.
What implication does participation in discretionary warfare have for our duty under the military covenant? The public are quite clear. Citizens have shown themselves perfectly capable of separating their strong support for the men and women of our armed forces, as has already been mentioned, from their ambivalence, at best, about the mission in Afghanistan. That support must be reflected formally by Government, in my opinion. I would argue that the Government owe a special duty to those who have served in discretionary warfare, because such conflicts cut to the quick of what it is to serve in the military. It is a commitment without limitation and, in the absence of an existential threat of the sort marked this week in the capital and by the RAF, it may be emulated but not matched by any other group in society.
I argued two years ago, at the time that we set up the military covenant commission under Frederick Forsyth, that there are three identifiable parties to the military covenant: the men and women of our armed forces, the Government and the people. However, there might be a fourth: the chain of command. Its attitudes are informed by, but distinct from, the political leadership. The command has been crucial in tackling ingrained attitudes towards, for example, mental health. It has driven TRiM—trauma risk management—pioneered in Iraq and Afghanistan by the Royal Marines, but at other times in our history, the contribution of the top brass, like that of the Government and the people, to the well-being of the rank and file has been less obvious.
It is also necessary to consider within any fourth pillar the attitudes of officials. One wonders about the mindset of a senior civil servant who is prepared to commit to paper his observation that injured soldiers with “a significant media profile” would “require careful handling” in the context of a perfectly proper attempt by the MOD to ensure that our armed forces are fit for purpose.
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is quite right to insist that our need to optimise the fighting fitness of our units does not compromise our duty to those who have sacrificed much in the service of their country.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I very much agree that we need to appreciate the contribution of our armed forces. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he now regret some of the comments that were made in the early years of the decade commencing in 2000 about the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham? Members who are now sitting on the Government Benches made political capital out of the exceptionally good medical services provided to our armed forces. Will he pay tribute to the Birmingham hospital now?
Dr Murrison
I will certainly pay tribute to the men and women of our Defence Medical Services, that is for sure. One thing I would say about the previous Government is that they promised a great deal to the Defence Medical Services, but in Selly Oak they failed to deliver what was necessary in a timely fashion. I am pleased that now, belatedly, we have seen the opening of the new hospital in Birmingham—precisely what the DMS was led to expect to believe that it was getting from the outset.
On a perhaps more light-hearted note, I am bound to observe that our greatest naval hero managed to command the fleet decisively on 21 October 1805 without the benefit of an arm and a leg—I am doing the man a disservice, I mean an arm and an eye; I am supposed to be speaking at a Trafalgar night dinner next month, and I had better get that right. The man was chronically sick for most of his career. I point that out simply as a cautionary note and to say in all candour that it is perfectly possible to be disabled and yet to participate in active service.
Equally, well-meaning commanding officers who offer reassurances at the bedsides of casualties with appalling injuries that will always be with them need to be very careful about promising them that they will always have a place in the battalion—to use the usual turn of phrase—when it is clearly not necessarily in the interests of that person, who might otherwise be retrained, I hope with a quality package, for life in civilian street, which might ultimately be more fulfilling and rewarding. Our language is very important.
We owe it to the injured to ensure that through the evolving Army recovery capability and personnel recovery centres and through a revamped medical boarding procedure that we balance our paramount need for fighting forces that are fit with the obligation to do what is right by those who have paid a heavy price for their service.
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and he is making a truly excellent speech. As a footnote to it, may I ask him to agree that it is very unfortunate that as a result of changes 10 years ago, which were made with good intent but were, in my view, wholly mistaken, this is the first time ever in our country’s history that the costs of dealing with the aftermath of war are borne by the defence budget?
Dr Murrison
That is a point that my hon. Friend has made before and he makes his views known in a very powerful way. I am sure that there is much truth in what he has to say and of course the blame must lie with the previous Administration and how they managed the defence budget in this country.
The charity Combat Stress received 1,257 new referrals in 2009, an increase in two thirds since 2004. It is important to put that in the context of the generally positive mental and physical legacy left by service in the armed forces. I would strongly avoid the hysterical language used by some elements of the media, and I suggest that saying that we face a “mental health time-bomb” is unfair and not supported by the evidence. However, we have a significant problem and since it has been caused directly by military service we have an obligation under any interpretation of the military covenant to go the extra mile in sorting it out.
The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary hosted a mental health summit in the Commons in June last year and have ordered a review that I lead into how we can do more to promote the health of the service community. It is clear that we must do far more to be proactive in discovering in servicemen and women the mental health problems that they might be suffering—not just post traumatic stress disorder, I hasten to add. We must offer the means for casualties to accept help in a way that is amenable to them.
Four hundred years after Elizabeth I signed off the first expression of the state’s duty to its fighting men after her defensive wars, this Government, mindful of the sacrifices made in a very different theatre, intend to give it statutory definition. I support them in that aim and believe that it should command the approbation of all quarters of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I have always maintained that the hon. Gentleman is much nicer than his reputation. However, I have not said that we are cutting accommodation. As he knows, the whole country is faced with the appalling economic and financial situation that was left by the previous Government. We are considering all ways of saving money, including a pay freeze across the public sector. However, the spine increases for armed forces personnel will continue.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
T3. The Prime Minister’s announcement last month of £67 million to deal with the threat faced by our troops from improvised explosive devices was most welcome. Will my hon. Friend say what part of that will be for training, which is an integral part of the deal? In particular, will he note the excellent service provided by the International School for Security and Explosives Education in Chilmark in my constituency, which I visited on Friday?
Nick Harvey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no doubt whatever that high-threat counter-IED operations in Afghanistan are the most dangerous activity undertaken by members of the armed forces. The Prime Minister’s announcement of a further £67 million included £40 million for protected vehicles for use by CIED teams in Afghanistan and £11 million for remote control vehicles. The remaining funds will be used to enhance other critical capabilities in the counter-IED campaign, including enhancements to our military working-dog capability. There are problems with training, which we are doing our best to address. One problem is the inherited shortfall in counter-IED experts, which needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Andrew Murrison Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in offering my commiserations, thoughts and sympathies on the loss of the 300th member of our armed forces in Afghanistan. We must remember that each loss, whether or not it is one of the milestones that attracts the media so much, is a tragedy for the family and friends of the individual concerned. It ought also to serve as a reminder to Members of the unique commitment made by our armed forces on our behalf.
As others will obviously and understandably do the opposite, we ought also to restate our support not only for the members of our armed forces but for the mission that they are undertaking. When we visit our armed forces in Afghanistan, they expect, require and repeatedly tell us that they want support not only for them as individuals but for the work they are doing. They believe in the mission in Afghanistan and that it is achievable, and they expect support, from both sides of the House, while they are in theatre carrying out such dangerous work. I hope they will continue to receive such support.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in opposition, does he agree, on quiet reflection, that it is a pity that at times in the past few years the previous Government were less than clear on the mission statement in Afghanistan? They allowed themselves to be diverted so that, in the minds of many, it seemed that the purpose of being in Afghanistan was international development. However, the prime mission always has been, and must be, the national interest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Ainsworth
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has said that, as it gives me an opportunity to say that I do not agree. However, there were times when members of the media, as well as some Members on his side of the House, made it difficult for us to get our message across. The current Government will find that we as the Opposition will genuinely support the mission in Afghanistan, and will not play fast and loose with that support. We will not state in the House that we support it wholeheartedly, and then say things, without first checking them properly, that effectively undermine the confidence of the British public in the British Government’s ability to support their troops. If there have been mixed messages about Afghanistan, they have the potential to continue, and we ought to join together to ensure that they are not effective.
I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that his Government need to make sure that the messaging is correct. We do not need the Secretary of State for International Development saying that development opportunities are central to our ability to succeed in Afghanistan, while the Secretary of State for Defence appears to say something different. It is important that we all say clearly what we are trying to achieve and how we are trying to achieve it. The mission in Afghanistan and, overwhelmingly, the way in which we have joined up the mission in Helmand province, is the envy of many nations operating in that theatre, and that ought to be recognised.
I can understand the temptation for a new Government, but they should not try to suggest that a new strategy is being pursued in Afghanistan. What our troops expect—and what I believe is the fact—is continuity between what the new Government are doing and what the Labour Government were doing a month or so ago. We were pursuing a coalition strategy laid out by General McChrystal last year, and the new Government are doing that. There is no year zero; there is continuity in what we are trying to do, and in the methods we are using in order do it.