Nuclear Deterrent

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Most Members will be aware of this, but for the record I should like to state that I firmly believe in our nuclear deterrent. In this uncertain world where countries that are not necessarily friendly to the west have nuclear weapons, it is an unfortunate fact of life that we need them as well to guarantee Britain’s safety. However, that does not stop us also working towards arms reduction. When President Obama launched his global zero initiative, I very much welcomed it. We also owe a debt of thanks to the Royal Navy and our Vanguard submariners, who are always on patrol, for safeguarding the country and providing the essential British contribution to NATO.

I want to suggest that our commitment to our nuclear deterrent should not just be about the current capability and future plans. There is a legacy from the dawn of our deterrent that we have still not yet fully recognised. We have to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to another group of people, who also deserve our recognition and thanks, without whom Britain would never have joined the top tier of nuclear powers. They are, of course, our nuclear test veterans.

In the 1950s and 1960s, in the largest tri-service operation since the D-day landings, 20,000 service personnel participated in British nuclear weapon tests in the south Pacific and Australia. These men’s service was unique. When they took part, the science was largely unknown. Pre-test precautions were primitive and inadequate and failed to protect individuals fully from the effects of heat, blast shock and ionising radiation. Many veterans believe that their health was adversely affected by those tests, a view substantiated by scientific research undertaken in New Zealand by Professor Rowland that was peer-reviewed and accepted by the then New Zealand Government.

Some years ago, following an inquiry from a constituent, I became involved with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and I am now its patron. After a long campaign, the BNTVA and I succeeded in persuading the Ministry of Defence to undertake a health needs analysis of all surviving veterans. It showed that 84% of them believed that their main health condition was caused by radiation. If anybody thinks that that was an easy task and analysis to accomplish, they have not dealt with the MOD, but I thank it for taking that on.

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

It was me.

[Mr Baron]

To a certain extent, yes.

Many helpful, practical measures are now being introduced as a result—for example, small but important things such as markers denoting veteran status on NHS records.

Following the success of the health needs analysis, the BNTVA and I recently started a new campaign with three objectives. The first is to secure a lasting legacy for these men and their descendants. There is still much to learn about the effects of exposure to radiation and how we can continue to make nuclear energy safe. The second is to secure public recognition from the Prime Minister of our debt to these veterans. That could include recognition through the medal system by adding a clasp to the general service medal. The third is to establish a benevolent fund courtesy of Government, the suggested figure being £25 million. This would support atomic veterans and, more importantly, their descendants, who have also suffered medical setbacks that can be attributed to their fathers’ exposure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baron]

If I am allowed a second intervention that will add another minute to my speech, then by all means.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was pleased to put in place the health study, against the opposition of a lot of the civil service, when I was a Defence Minister. A generous settlement proposal was put to the lawyers—I got the Treasury to agree to it—but it was rejected. That was an opportunity missed for veterans to get some compensation.

[Mr Baron]

I recognise the part that the hon. Gentleman played in the health needs analysis. However, let us be absolutely clear about a confusion that is all too readily accepted by the MOD: the BNTVA has never participated in the legal cases that some individual veterans have brought. That is a vital distinction to make and I ask the House to take it on board.

Although £25 million sounds like a lot of money, we should set it in the context of how other nuclear countries have treated their veterans. The US gives each veteran £47,000 plus a further £47,000 for any secondary attributable illness. No causal link is required between the cancer suffered by the veteran and the fact that they were there. If they were at the tests and they have cancer, they automatically get the compensation. Canada pays more than £15,000 in addition to money, from pensions and compensation legislation. The Isle of Man makes an ex gratia payment of £8,000 to any resident test veteran.

In all three cases, the service personnel in question have access to free health care provision. The MOD argument that veterans in this country have access to the NHS therefore does not stack up. The fact remains that this country’s nuclear test veterans are almost at the bottom of the scale in the international comparisons going by how they are treated by this country. I hope that the House will accept that that needs to be put right. Against those comparisons, the campaign for £25 million, which works out at about £6,000 per veteran, is modest.

I should at this stage repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and make it clear that the BNTVA has never participated in the legal challenges brought by some veterans.

We have had several meetings at the MOD with successive Ministers for veterans. I wrote to the Government in November to set out the details of our campaign. Despite chase-ups, I still await a response. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), will carry that message back to the MOD. Meanwhile, I have written to all Back Benchers requesting their support for our campaign for recognition. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, many have been kind enough to write back positively. I will be taking the matter further in due course.

In conclusion, as the Government are on the verge of commissioning the next iteration of our nuclear deterrent, it is right that we remember those who first created it and finally, after so long, repay the debt that we owe them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

The UK must decide by the middle of 2016—just three years from now—whether to proceed with a like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. I do not believe we need a further generation of nuclear weapons based on the scale we thought we needed in 1980 at the height of the cold war, and I do not believe we can afford to have one. I do not believe that national security assessment and strategy suggest we need it, or that our defence posture can stand it—our posture would become lop-sided if we were to commit to another generation on the same scale. In addition, I believe that the opportunity cost of committing so much money and manpower, and such a large proportion of our equipment budget, would have a malign effect on our general military capability.

In 1980, at the height of the cold war, we had a known nuclear adversary—the Soviet Union. It had British targets in its target set, and we had Soviet targets in our target set. There was a logic—I do not say that I necessarily subscribe to it hook, line and sinker—to having continuous at-sea deterrence, because we had a known adversary. Today’s circumstances are very different. At that time, we computed that the only way to fulfil the classic definition of deterrence—to put into one’s adversary’s mind the certainty that we were capable of inflicting damage that would be unacceptable to him—was to maintain the capability of overcoming Moscow’s nuclear defences and being able to flatten that city. Moscow was where the Soviet elite hung out and the only things that they valued, and to which they considered damage would be unacceptable, were themselves and their regime. The Russia of the 21st century, for all its imperfections, is very different. It is perfectly possible to deter modern Russia from a nuclear attack on us by a variety of other means, and there are other ways of inflicting on them damage that they would consider unacceptable.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Why then have the Russians recently upgraded their anti-ballistic missile protection in and around Moscow?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I did not say that they would be willing to see Moscow flattened—most certainly they would not. I am saying that there are other ways of inflicting damage on Russia that it would consider unacceptable.

I mentioned that there will be a vast opportunity cost to be paid if we decide to commit these funds, which, let us refresh our memories, in today’s money will be approximately £25 billion to £30 billion on the capital investment in a further generation of submarines. On top of that, we have to factor in the running costs of a nuclear deterrent on this scale for 30 or more years of through-life costs—more than £3 billion a year in today’s money. Beginning to total that out and factoring in decommissioning at the end, we are talking about an expenditure of more than £100 billion. We need to look closely at whether that is justified in the context of the size of our defence budget, and what we are able to make available for other forms of defence and security in an increasingly dangerous and changing world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by paying tribute to members of our armed forces and their families for the work they do. In the context of this debate, I particularly commend members of the Royal Navy who work on our independent nuclear deterrent. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate about the cornerstone of our nation’s security.

The security landscape today is both uncertain and unpredictable. New threats such as cyber-warfare and biological terrorism exist alongside the conventional threats. In response, we must have a broad, advanced equipment programme that enables us not only to detect, but to deter and tackle the whole spectrum of threats we face as a nation.

We on the Labour Benches are clear that an independent nuclear deterrent is in our national interest. It has been argued, and it has been repeated today, that our nuclear deterrent was a cold war legacy. It is correct that many of the old divisions of the cold war have gone, but they have been replaced with new uncertainties: the recent unrest in Pakistan, advanced missile testing in North Korea and the intractable problem of Iran. Although it is impossible to predict the future, the one thing that is certain is that it is unpredictable. All that shows how important it is for the United Kingdom to retain an independent nuclear deterrent.

In 2007, Parliament took the view—supported by the Labour Government of the day—that a submarine-based system with ballistic missiles provided for the minimum credible nuclear deterrent, and was the most-effective model to meet our strategic needs. It is also our stated objective to play an active and constructive role in international efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that a unilateralist posture would advance that goal.

The United Kingdom is a proud and prominent signatory to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That treaty has three pillars, through which we must view our nuclear deterrent: non-proliferation, disarmament, and facilitation of the peaceful use of nuclear technology. That is why I am proud that the last Labour Government reduced the size of the nuclear stockpile. We cut the number of operationally available warheads from 300 at the time of the 1998 strategic defence review to fewer than 160 by the time of the 2010 general election, reduced the number of warheads carried per submarine from 96 to 48, and withdrew the WE177 nuclear capability from service. I believe that it should be a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on that path towards nuclear disarmament, alongside our international allies.

It is essential for our decisions on the future of the deterrent to be based on evidence and on what is in our national interest rather than on any political-party interest. We are therefore committed to examining any new evidence rigorously in order to establish whether there are alternatives to the conclusions of the last review in 2006. That examination must feature two priorities, capability and cost: they must be our guiding principles. We want the UK to have the minimum credible deterrent, in line with our national security needs and our international obligations, and we want to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money. All options must be examined, and we look forward to close examination of the Government’s review of alternatives. I consider that to be a responsible and rational approach.

While we must insist on rigorous policy-making, we fear that the review is an exercise in Liberal Democrat and Conservative party management rather than the management of our national interest. We question the validity of a review that has lasted more than two years, and whose conclusions the Prime Minister rejected before it even began.

The president of the Liberal Democrats says that he wants to make the review an election issue, so why is it being run from the Cabinet Office at the taxpayer’s expense? Can it have any credibility, given that the Liberal Democrats opted out of ministerial responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, and given that the person in charge of the review, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), does not even have a pass allowing him to enter the MOD’s main building?

The real test of the review, however, should be not whether it allows the Government parties to indulge in a strategy of differentiation, but whether it explores in sufficient detail and depth what is—as has already been explained—an inherently complex and technical subject. If it appears to promote an alternative as an end point in itself, it will have not just failed all those who seek a genuine debate, but punctured the Government’s claim to have credibility on this vital issue.

There are a number of potential alternatives to the current nuclear deterrent, which I hope the review will explore. Let me briefly comment on each of them.

The first option is an air-based system. It was considered to be the most costly option of all in the 2006 review, requiring the procurement of new aircraft, a new missile and new operating bases. In addition, its visibility would increase its vulnerability. The estimated cost of the second option—a land-based silo system—is double that of the current submarine-based system. It has also been questioned on strategic grounds, as it is immobile and unconcealable, and therefore vulnerable to attack. Any review would also need to address where the system would be located. I am not sure there would be many volunteers to have that based in their constituency. Thirdly, any consideration of a surface ship-based system would also need to cast aside doubts about vulnerability and detectability. Fourthly, the review will need to focus on a submarine-based system armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The costs of this option will need to be examined closely, including the cost of developing a new warhead independently from our US allies. Also, Astutes would have to be adapted or another platform would need to be procured, which could result in a lessening of our current hunter-killer capability. Concern has also been expressed that arming submarines with dual-use cruise missiles could prove escalatory during a crisis, as our enemies would not know whether the submarine was a conventional or nuclear-armed vessel.

International factors must also be considered, such as compliance with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the USA’s 2010 nuclear posture review. If we were to go down the cruise missile route, we would need more warheads in order to penetrate targets and it could be argued that that would break one of those treaties.

I do not have time to cover every detail, but we do need to have a meaningful discussion—a function today’s debate is fulfilling. This is a delicate topic that sparks strong passions, even within parties. That is why an evidence-based approach free from political positioning is so important. We will consider the technical, military, security and financial issues, and look closely at all the details of the Government’s alternatives review. For Opposition Members, the facts that support our national security needs will always be our focus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and say in passing that I look forward to visiting the Newark patriotic fund in his constituency later this week. On the question about incentives, I hope that the House will forgive me if again I pray in aid the White Paper. We are considering the issue as we prepare our plan, which we will lay out in the spring, and I can assure him that we are mindful of his point.

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

We know that the Government are reducing the size of the regular Army, with the constant issuing of redundancy notices to members of our armed forces. There is clearly a concern that there will be a gap between regular service personnel and the new plans for reservists coming into place. How confident is the Minister that reservists will be able to meet those demands and that he can get employers to release reservists covered by the present legislation?

[Mr Francois]

I hope that I have already mentioned the point about legislation in an earlier answer. With regard to numbers, we continue to manage the growth in the Army reserve and the reduction in regular numbers closely. Beyond the end of operations in Afghanistan, these trajectories will be kept under close review to ensure that we can take early action to maintain an appropriate force level to meet our planning assumptions.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh—for the first time, I think—if only because you have given the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) a history lesson.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate. She has brought to it the same level of expertise and knowledge that we are lucky enough to draw on in the Defence Committee, where she is also a voice of moderation and reason.

The history of warfare is one of innovation and, some would argue, progress, although I am not sure that the latter view is always valid. No one is clear about which of the city states was the first to deploy ballistic weapons, but it is fair to say that those were first used to great effect by the Romans in defeating the Greek hoplite phalanxes between 300 BC and 100 BC; it was the first time that stand-off weapons were used on a large scale. To pick up the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, at that point stand-off weapons were still limited by the kinetic capacity of the thrower or archer.

The first recorded use of gunpowder on the battlefield was in the 13th century. It was used in—I will try to pronounce this correctly, Mr Leigh; I am sure that you will correct me if I get it wrong—Ain Jalut in south-east Galilee by the Egyptian Mamluks against the Mongols; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was there at the time and will correct me if I am wrong. The Chinese are known to have invented gunpowder, although we do not have an earlier record of their use of it on the battlefield.

The Mamluks in Ain Jalut represent the first recorded use of hand cannons, and they were the first to cause the Mongol horsemen to turn back on their ride westwards. That is significant because it is the first recorded indication that the capacity for ballistic weapon use need not be limited by the human kinetic ability to pull or throw.

We then go forward to the 16th century and the decline in the use of pikes and halberds. Until the middle of the 17th century—probably the end of the civil wars in the British Isles and slightly later in continental Europe—the pike is still the weapon of choice for generals for turning the tide of battle. By the middle of the 17th century, pikes are in decline and there is the rise of the musketmen.

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

I think my hon. Friend has inadvertently forgotten the effectiveness of the archers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We want no obscene gestures.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate.

Any debate on the deployability of UAVs should be determined by military requirements, by the ethics of the conflict and, above all, by facts. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) that some of the supposed facts that are being circulated are getting in the way of the proper debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston initiated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) mentioned Afghanistan, and I would like to put on record our admiration for, and thanks to, the members of our armed forces who are serving there.

Today’s technology and security issues are changing at an ever more rapid pace. The technology that has been developed was unforeseen a matter of years ago, but so too were the threats and dangers that we now face as a nation. Any threat that we face must be put in context, and the context and objectives for deploying force must involve a number of criteria: the maximum strategic advantage over our enemy, protecting UK service personnel and—quite rightly—minimising civilian casualties and acting at all times within humanitarian and international law. Also, we should make sure that deployment is in line with our national interest and our right, as a nation, to self-defence.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a strong case for the use of UAVs, but does he accept that the continuing criticism of and controversy about the misuse, sometimes, of drones, particularly in parts of Pakistan, where there are high levels of civilian casualties, undermine the rightful case for UAVs when they are in our strategic interest?

[Mr Jones]

I shall refer to Pakistan later, but having been there, and having been a Defence Minister, I accept that there is a big gulf between those who are democratically elected in Pakistan, and the military. I do not accept that some of the actions being taken in northern Pakistan are being done without the knowledge of the Pakistan military. I accept that that creates tensions in Pakistan, but not the idea that some of those things are being done without any knowledge on the part of people in authority there. Having spoken to politicians on my last visit to Pakistan I know that they find that situation difficult; however, that is a debate within the context of the democratic accountability of the armed forces in Pakistan. I assure my hon. Friend that some intelligence and other targeting involve co-operation with the Pakistan military.

In the context that I have outlined, our judgment is that the UK’s current position on deployment of UAVs seems to meet the criteria I have specified. However, we should keep that issue under constant review. It has already been said that it is important to distinguish the deployment of the UK’s UAVs from the deployment of those of our allies. I understand that at present some 76 nations operate UAVs and, as has already been described, the UK deploys four types in Afghanistan. However, only one of those, the Reaper, has an armed capacity. The main focus for our UAV technology in Afghanistan is surveillance and support of our operations, and I have seen at first hand the tremendous job it does in protecting convoys and intelligence gathering, which is vital for the security of our and our allies’ armed forces personnel.

As a matter of technology, UAVs can be more cost-effective in carrying out surveillance and other forms of projecting power. If we did not use their surveillance capacity in relation to convoy protection we would have many more casualties in Afghanistan. I do not accept the argument that UAVs are more indiscriminate, when used in a kinetic role, than conventional aircraft. Their ability to loiter for a long period gives more information to those who are deciding the targeting than is available to a manned aircraft. It would be wrong to give the impression that UAVs are a magic solution to all our defence needs; but they are very important in the defence of the country. The Opposition’s policy is clear. We support unmanned technology as an important element of military capability that complements our manned aerial capability, but with a desire to ensure that it is used in the right context.

The UK does not work on operations in isolation; it works with allies—and not only on operations, but, as has been mentioned, in co-operation on development. It would be interesting to hear what stage of development has been reached after the new Anglo-French agreement on co-operating on the next generation of UAVs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and other hon. Members mentioned, the use of UAVs by our most important strategic partner, the United States, has caused public controversy. It is important to distinguish the UK’s use of UAVs from that of the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made the important point that most of our UAV deployment in Afghanistan is for surveillance and is not armed, and that deployment of UAVs is only within the borders of Afghanistan. However, we must all recognise the threat that we, the United States and our other allies face from concerted Islamic terrorism and groups who seek to undermine our way of life and destabilise Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

A lot has been written and said about civilian casualties, and all civilian casualties are a matter of great sadness and deep regret. It is difficult to get the true picture and figures. I do not want to talk in statistics, because one life lost means a family is mourning a loved one. Our major aim should be to do anything that can be done to minimise civilian casualties, whether from a strike by a UAV or by any other conventional weaponry. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence that the military take that very seriously. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) mentioned artillery rounds and other things that are far more indiscriminate than some of the technology.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is setting out an eloquent and articulate argument. He mentioned minimising casualties, and the families left to mourn. Does he agree that without the use of UAVs in Afghanistan the number of families of British service personnel mourning a loved one would undoubtedly increase?

[Mr Jones]

With respect to the use of UAVs for intelligence gathering and protection of convoys I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire raised. To people who are against war, we must be honest and say that war is not a pleasant thing; people die in wars. There are individuals and groups active in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan who are bent on undermining not only the way of life of the United States but the one that we take for granted. It is important that any use of force should be a proportionate response.

There has been a lot of talk about the United States and whether the UAV strikes in northern Pakistan are legal. They were authorised post the 11 September authorisation of the use of military forces and have been reinforced by the Obama Administration. When I was at the Ministry of Defence there was a big debate about whether they would continue when President Obama took over, and clearly they have. Article 51 of the United Nations charter, on a nation’s right to self-defence, is also relevant. We must remember that the individuals in question are not sitting around discussing philosophy; they are planning terrorist strikes and atrocities across the world. In the debate about whether we use force to counter those individuals, I am comfortable about recognising the existence of a threat: that has led to disruption of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and it would not have happened without that type of action.

We support the move by the United States to codify the use of UAVs, which relates to the points made about new technology. It is partly because of the controversy that we need to do something. It is important that the UK examine whether we should have a code covering the contexts and limitations of usage, the process for internal Government oversight of deployments, command and control structures, and acceptable levels of automation. I accept that there is now someone at the end of a UAV, but the next generation of UAVs may be completely autonomous, and we must ensure that such a change is within a legal envelope.

One important point is that I am in no way criticising the Government by saying that no laws are in place. I am well aware of the legal constraints on the selection of targets, and that the same rules of engagement are used as for manned flights. We should however explain UAVs to the public. With the new technology, trying to codify their use and explaining to individuals exactly how targets are selected, for example, and how UAVs are used for both surveillance and military purposes would be a great step forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

UAVs could be used for piracy patrols on the east coast of Africa and for fishing enforcement. Those two examples would clearly show that drones can have acceptable roles. I agree about their acceptability, and I believe that other people can be persuaded to have the same opinion.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Certainly, if we can have unmanned vehicles in the UK—once agreement is reached with the Civil Aviation Authority—there may be many uses, as he says, including for security.

It would be helpful if we codified the operations. Am I arguing that no laws currently govern the situation? No, I am not. The rules are based on the Ministry of Defence joint doctrine note 2/11 on “The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems”, but the MOD sometimes has a tendency not to answer questions and to think that it has to shroud such things in secrecy. Whether or not what is being said is true—in many cases, I do not think it is—the perception is that the technology is used indiscriminately and without control. Some type of code would go a long way towards reassuring people that there is a chain of command, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, for the individual who takes the decision.

There is also a perception that people sitting in Nevada or Florida are killing indiscriminately with no thought of the consequences of what they are doing. I do not accept that. Anyone who has met members of the armed forces of this country or other countries knows that the decision to fire—whether that is Winston Churchill with his revolver, a UAV operator or a pilot dropping munition—is not taken lightly. It is important that people know the full legal background. Unless someone has been involved in operations, they think it is strange that there is a legal context before targetings happen. If we explained that in a codified system, it would help the debate on the use of a new and developing technology.

The Opposition support the use of UAVs. The technology is important in relation not only to military capability, but to the development of our industry and technology in that area. We are developing technologies that will have applications other than military use. As has already been demonstrated in Afghanistan, the technology helps to protect and support our armed forces.

In conclusion, I accept that some of the information about what has happened in northern Pakistan is alarming. The important thing is to understand the context and how the deaths of some individuals have disrupted terrorist networks that were bringing danger not only to parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan but to the streets of London and the capitals of our allies. In terms of the general debate started by my hon. Friend, the use of weapons will never be something that people take lightly, and nor should they. If we can debate the use of UAVs as no different from the use of any other military weapons and we put that into some kind of code, which we could be open about, not secretive, it would do a lot to ensure not only that we in this country are moral leaders in the use of weapons, but that the public have full confidence, as they should, in the existing military chain of command.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, in a different capacity from when you chaired the Public Accounts Committee, on which I was privileged to sit.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate. As all speakers have said, it demonstrates the increasing interest among not only Members of the House but the public at large about the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, as currently deployed in Afghanistan and as might be deployed in the future. As she said, only last month I responded to a similar debate, which had been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). He made a brief intervention during the hon. Lady’s speech, and I am sorry that he is not with us to hear mine, because I will try to cover many of the issues raised in this debate and since the previous one in early November.

I start by setting out the context of how, where and why the UK armed forces employ remotely piloted aircraft systems, or UAVs as they are regularly referred to. In this debate, I shall use the term RPAS—remotely piloted aircraft systems—as the more accurate description of their capability, not only because that is what they are, but because that is how they are commonly referred to by the armed forces, particularly the RAF. Although the vehicles are unmanned, the system is guided by a whole team of highly trained and skilled people. Pilots, sensor operators and analysts all make decisions in real time, just like the crew of a manned aircraft. Defence remains a human endeavour. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) said, humans have taken stand-off weapons development through the generations and the centuries, but there has always been human involvement.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the Minister agree that there are also lawyers in the chain of that decision-making process, who ensure that the targets selected fall within legal parameters?

[Mr Dunne]

I will explain how the UK armed forces use rules of engagement that are clearly defined and informed by legal opinion, as the hon. Gentleman indicates.

RPAS technology is principally required and used by our armed forces for surveillance and reconnaissance tasks, as several Members mentioned, providing vital intelligence in support of our forces on the ground. While the utility of sensors is broadly similar to those aboard conventionally manned aircraft, RPAS have the ability to loiter for longer, building an intelligence picture that significantly enhances the situational awareness of commanders, forces on the ground and air crew.

RPAS surveillance and reconnaissance capability and the requirement for ever better intelligence, precision and situational awareness are such that they are now vital to mission success, as has been clearly demonstrated in theatre in Afghanistan. The UK currently only deploys RPAS for support of operations in Afghanistan. With the progress of technology and increasing appreciation of their military utility, the number deployed in Afghanistan has continued to increase, with further task lines of Reaper due to become operational next year.

To deliver operational RPAS capability for our forces in Afghanistan, a number of UK RPAS are being used for development trials and training in the UK and in a number of our partner nations. I confirm again that currently the operational deployment for RPAS is for the purposes of operations in Afghanistan, and that UK RPAS are saving the lives of both British and coalition service personnel and Afghan civilians on a daily basis. In that respect, RPAS are no different from other aircraft. The same rules that govern the use of conventional military aircraft apply to RPAS. As I said, UK RPAS are anything but unmanned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

As I have explained a couple of times, we are at present using RPAS on operations in Afghanistan, and at present we have no other operational use in mind for UK assets beyond Afghanistan. I think that is as far as I can go on that matter at the moment.

I will pick up on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful for his support for the continued use of unmanned aircraft systems. I am glad that he referred to the joint doctrine document, because it begins to set out some of the issues that are of concern. However, I do not accept the need to undertake a codification of separate rules for RPAS. As I have already mentioned, and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, all aircraft operators must follow national and international laws, together with the rules of engagement. Those rules are the same whether an air, sea or land-based platform is being used. Similarly, we have well-established command, control and supervisory frameworks for all our operational assets, so we do not believe at this point that additional measures are needed for RPAS. I will just pick up on the thrust of why I think he was suggesting that we need to take the public with us in our use of RPAS, which is something that I agree with. There is a greater role to be played by politicians and the military in explaining to the public the utility of unmanned systems from a military perspective, from the safety perspective of our own personnel, which is obviously vital, and in minimising the risk of collateral damage when weaponised systems are used. As a Government, we need to do more, and I welcome the help of the hon. Gentleman in advocating the use of such systems to the public at large.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said that we have to bring the public with us. The Americans are already looking at codification. Would it not be a help to the MOD in getting the arguments across? I accept that an anorak like me reads those documents, but the average person in the street does not. If we had a clearly laid out code, it would give reassurance to individuals who are rightly worried that this new technology is not under any type of control; that is not the case, so it will at least give them some reassurance.

[Mr Dunne]

The difficulty with a code is how it is differentiated from rules of engagement. For the reasons I have explained, we do not wish to publish specific rules of engagement, so having a code would head us down a direction of potentially having to publish more about our operational use than would be safe for us to do.

We already have procedures in place for the oversight of all the military capabilities that we have deployed, and the National Security Council will consider whether forces should be deployed in the future. It operates with the benefit of the NSDR and NSDA, to use military acronyms—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister has been captured already.

[Mr Dunne]

I am in danger of falling into a trap that I should not have set myself.

Finally, RPAS is not shielded in secrecy, which was the expression used in the article in The Times that was referred to earlier in the debate. During the last few weeks, months and years, we have released significant details about our use of RPAS, but our use of RPAS should not be confused with general MOD policy on safeguarding information relevant to targeting and intelligence. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is an overriding requirement and puts to rest the need for any potential confusion with a system of codification, rules of engagement or secrecy over the matter.

Let me finish by restating that the UK complies fully with its obligations under international law, as set out in article 36 of additional protocol 1 to the Geneva conventions, to review all new weapons, and means and methods of warfare. That process applies to unmanned capabilities as well as to other manned weapons systems.

I welcome the opportunity presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston to put on the record once again the Government’s clear view of the benefits of RPAS in minimising the risk to civilians, as well as to our own service personnel and other coalition forces. RPAS provide vital intelligence to our forces on the ground and I can only see their importance increasing, as part of our overall service capability.

Defence Personnel

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stuart]

That may well be the case, but we have to start with where we think we should be and then we can work out where we ought to be. It is not just the MOD that lacks that strategic sense. At one stage, the Department for International Development had a clear statutory duty of poverty reduction, but even that is being reviewed and rethought at the moment—I am not entirely sure where that takes us. Our Foreign Office is also reducing its influence. If we consider how this country projects itself to the rest of the world, we will see that there is a lack of clarity in those lead Departments that ought to provide a collective view.

I asked myself whether this was happening all over the world and looked at comparative figures for GDP spending on NATO. Even if we look back as far as the 1950s, there is a consistent pattern within the European Union. Our country and France contribute well over 2% of GDP commitment, so we clearly have a view on where we should be in terms of spending.

It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons between armed forces numbers, because we ended conscription. The Italian and German figures in particular—they sometimes include police forces—are somewhat misleading, but nevertheless the pattern shows that we are still big significant players. We have no sense, however, of why we want to be the big players. What are we going to do?

I want to leave the Minister with a final example of that muddled, confused thinking. In my experience, it is always when we are not entirely sure what we want to say that we end up constructing sentences that are utterly meaningless. The Defence Committee took evidence yesterday on the Army 2020 review and I was struck by something called, “Figure 1: Force Development Deductions”. I invite the Minister to look at the relevant paragraph. I will not bore the House by reading it. It has about 10 sentences and I am glad that the word “broadband” is in there, because that is about the only word I understood. I drew the attention of our witness, General Sir Peter Wall, to that paragraph and asked him about it, and he confessed his confusion about the precise meaning of that integral part of the report. He promised the Committee that he would consult the Babel fish and provide us with an English translation. I think that demonstrates that the MOD needs to be much clearer, particularly post-Afghanistan, of what we think our forces are for. It is no good just to say, “This is how much money we’ve got,” even though the money is important.

This might again be a sign of my emotional attachment as a foreigner, but I am always struck by the island blindness of this country. This is an island, so how can we compromise some of our surveillance abilities? What will happen to maritime security? It is staggering. That is my general point for the Minister.

My second point is much more grounded at home. Last week, I went to meet Malala Yousafzai’s father—the family are currently in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, which do extraordinary work. It was particularly pleasing for me to see that good work, because I was the evil Minister who closed down the military hospitals in places such as Gosport and I remember being denounced in endless Adjournment debates for doing so.

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

I closed the last one.

[Ms Stuart]

But we closed them not because we wanted to, but because the royal colleges were telling us that the MOD could no longer provide the best medical services. Ten years ago, the NHS looked at the Ministry of Defence and said, “You guys really need to step up to the plate and improve your act.” Now, some of the work within defence medicine is miles ahead of what the NHS is doing in terms of rehabilitation and care. We have unexpected survival rates among soldiers, which one can see in the latest evidence from Afghanistan, that are well beyond what the NHS could do. That is a good development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the time for this important debate.

The defence of the realm and the security of our people is the first and most important duty of any Government. Governments must demonstrate that they value the service and sacrifices of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Our defence personnel, both on operations and at home, do an awesome job. I know that the House is hugely grateful for everything that they do. I would like to put my personal thanks and appreciation on the record.

We must ensure that our defence personnel have the kit that they need, and that we are clear and candid with them about the changes and challenges that they face. If we do that well, we will create an armed forces and a Ministry of Defence that are militarily effective and sustainable.

The Government have done much of which they can be justly proud in regard to our defence personnel. The historic enshrining in law of the military covenant will change for ever how Governments and our society fulfil their obligations to our forces personnel, veterans and their families. The doubling of the operational allowance was also most welcome.

However, aspects of the 2012 armed forces continuous attitude survey should give us all pause for thought and concern. Satisfaction with pay and pensions is down and our troops feel undervalued. The Government must appreciate that, no matter how resilient our armed forces are, uncertainty over their future is breeding low morale. I would like the Minister to address in his winding-up speech what steps the Department will take to ensure that all defence personnel are informed in a transparent and direct manner of exactly what changes will be affecting them as soon as is practical. Our armed forces are the best of Britain—there is no doubt about that—and they understand that changes need to take place. So let us not insult their intelligence. Let us be as clear and as frank as we can be. They will respect that, whatever the decisions may be.

There are changes that need to be made. When the Government took office, it became abundantly clear that there was no money left. Under the last Government, the MOD was placed in special measures by the Treasury because of its inability to manage its budget. By making the difficult decisions and taking action, this Government have brought the finances back in order and under control.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am intrigued by that point. The claim of both the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the current Defence Secretary is that they were left a £38 billion black hole. They seem to have plugged that within two years, which is remarkable. Clearly, the two of them should be Chancellor. I notice that there is no mention of that in the introduction to today’s annual accounts. We are still waiting for the figures. How can the hon. Gentleman claim that the budget has been balanced when no such evidence has been produced by the Department?

[Jack Lopresti]

There is no question but that the MOD’s finances were a mess when we took office. The words that I used were that the Government have “brought the finances back in order and under control.”

I praise the Government’s ambition to have a more flexible armed forces on a sustainable footing, but I disagree that a smaller armed forces is needed. Ministers have said repeatedly that no one wants to see reductions in our armed forces, so why are we protecting spending on international development and aid and giving £9.3 billion a year to the EU? I was elected, as were my hon. Friends, on a mandate that called for an increase in the size of the Army.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who, with his experience, has much to bring to debates such as this, as well as the Chair of the Defence Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and I are members of the German caucus of the House of Commons, and I am pleased to follow her as the next Opposition speaker.

I will concentrate on the forthcoming base review, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to get clarity on why the statement is not being made on Tuesday and on when we can expect it. The base review is directly related to defence personnel because it will concentrate on arrangements for the return of UK forces from Germany and confirm the configuration of basing arrangements—which units go where, which will change their role or close, and which will not return. That is what we expect to hear.

We should put ourselves in the position of servicemen and women and their families, whether they are at a base in the UK, Germany or somewhere else. It is coming up to Christmas and they are expecting some clarity, but unfortunately they will not get it, which is a shame. It would be helpful for the Minister to offer clarity on the time scale.

I want to focus on the impact of the basing review on service personnel and communities not only in the UK, but in Germany. I had the good fortune to be in Lower Saxony two weeks ago—I visited the area around the Bergen-Hohne training area—to meet the local authorities. An announcement on basing will have an impact on those authorities and the service and civilian communities around the training area. Speaking to the mayor of Bad Fallingbostel, Rainer Schmuck, reminded me of the experience we had in Moray recently—as part of the review of RAF bases, the local community had to plan for all kind of eventualities, which is incredibly destabilising. The basing announcement will have a tremendous impact on local authority budgets available in communities such as Bad Fallingbostel.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When the hon. Gentleman was in Germany, did he get any indication of whether the British Government have given two years’ notice of withdrawal, which they must give under the treaty? It is my understanding from a recent conversation that that has not yet been given, which is adding uncertainty about what will happen in Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

Yes, absolutely. I believe that the Government are working on schemes that will make it possible for ex-service personnel to get their foot on the housing ladder. I look forward to what I hope will be positive recommendations by the Minister on this subject.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that I started that scheme in the last four months of my time as veterans Minister, and the take-up showed that it was very popular.

[Dr Lewis]

I am delighted that there appears to be consensus across the House. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been in post a little earlier than he was, he would have started the scheme a little earlier in Labour’s long period in office.

On a more positive note, Dr Milroy and his organisation recently had a considerable success when the Government acknowledged and accepted their campaign saying that minor military disciplinary offences should no longer be allowed to count against Commonwealth soldiers who, after their period of service to this country, often in dangerous theatres, were applying for British residency and British citizenship. It was a massive injustice that issues that would normally be regarded in civilian life as minor infractions and not criminal in any way were being used by, I believe, the UK Border Agency, against the applications of individual Commonwealth servicemen or ex-servicemen to become British citizens. I am glad that Hugh Milroy and Veterans Aid mounted a successful, high-profile campaign and that the Government listened to them.

Finally, I hope that the Government will be in similar listening mode with regard to a very high-profile case—I think I was the first MP to raise it on the Floor of the House—namely that of Special Air Service Sergeant Danny Nightingale. I am aware that the case is going to appeal on the question of conviction, so I will not stray into the issue of whether that appeal should succeed. I note with great pleasure that the appeal against sentence was successful and I was privileged to be present in the court. I thought it was absolutely grotesque to see a man of Sergeant Nightingale’s character and record in the barred dock of the court, but it was a great result that his sentence was reduced and suspended. He should never have been in custody in the first place.

The only point I wish to make is that Ministers should bear in mind that if the appeal is successful—I say if—the question will arise of whether there should be a retrial. I hope that, if the appeal against conviction is successful, Ministers will have the good sense to say that enough is enough and to make that opinion clear.

My mind goes back to one of the first service personnel campaigns that I was involved in when I came to this House in the late 1990s, namely the case of the two RAF Chinook pilots who were killed when their helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre. That case dragged on and on, and for no good purpose. Lord Chalfont and others in the House of Lords, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in this House, and, I would like to think, many of us—in my case on the Back Benches and later on the then Opposition Front Bench, where I held a role similar to that held today by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—pressed the case continuously. Our argument was that, given that the rules were changed after the crash so that no future pilots who were killed in a crash could ever be blamed in the way that they had been blamed, it was nonsensical and unfair that those whose case had led to the change in the rules should not benefit from it.

The same situation could well arise with Sergeant Nightingale. The Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he is considering—I hope that he will continue to consider it and, indeed, go ahead with it—an amnesty for other service personnel who have brought back and are holding on to, as trophies, weapons that should not still be in their possession. It would be absurd for the person whose trial had led to the amnesty—we should also remember that an amnesty has already been held locally, which led to other members of the SAS handing in a lot of unauthorised weapons—not to be given the benefit of the fact that an amnesty was now available for everyone else.

I will close as I began by saying that anything that any of us has to say pales into minor significance compared with what we heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham. It was a privilege to be here during his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this afternoon’s debate. Let me put on record everyone’s thanks and tributes to the members of our armed forces and their families, who are an integral part of the defence of our country. I also agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) about the army of civil servants and civil contractors, without whose support we could not deploy forces.

There have been 11 very good contributions to today’s debate. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire talked about Afghanistan. I agree that the deadline has focused minds in Afghanistan; my concern is about what role UK armed forces will play post-2014. There is a naive assumption that a training role will be without its dangers, but the people performing training roles with the embedded teams in Iraq were in harm’s way. We need clarification from the Government on that before 2014, because people will be in harm’s way. We also need to know what our armed forces’ footprint will be in Afghanistan post-2014.

The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the Service Complaints Commissioner, as did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). This was a tremendous success for the Defence Committee, following its report on the duty of care in the last Parliament, although I agree with the hon. Lady that the next step needs to be some type of ombudsman—a proposal that was in the original report to give the post teeth. I, too, pay tribute to the Service Complaints Commissioner, who has done a first-rate job in not only highlighting and dealing with complaints, but getting the trust of senior members of the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) raised the issue of medical support for our armed forces. She, like me, was heavily criticised at the time for the closure of Army, Navy and RAF-dedicated hospitals, but in hindsight it was the right thing to do. She rightly paid tribute to the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the investment that has gone into it, as well as the dedicated NHS staff working closely alongside the military personnel, breaking new ground not only with new surgical techniques but by keeping people alive who even a matter of years ago would not have survived, as she rightly said. However, I have concerns about how the NHS integrates with the Army recovery capability—which she also raised—which is something I am glad the Government are committed to. We need to ensure a seamless transition into civilian life for those people, and that they get the appropriate NHS care once they have left the armed forces.

My hon. Friend made some interesting points about finance in relation to the strategic defence and security review. No one will be surprised when I reiterate that the SDSR was not a defence review but a budget-led, Treasury-led review. As a nation, we need to ask what our role is in the world. That was not done as part of the SDSR, as it was led by the Treasury. That led to some of the mistakes that are now being unpicked as the new Secretary of State tries to get to grips with the situation.

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about the defence budget. The Government keep pushing the myth that they started with a £38 billion black hole, even though no one has yet been able to explain the calculations behind that figure. The original National Audit Office report said that there would be a £6 billion black hole if the budget continued on its present basis. The only way of arriving at a figure of £36 billion would be to add flat cash over 10 years and to include everything in the equipment programme. That still leaves an unexplained extra £2 billion. Members will be pleased to know that I am now on Twitter, and I had an interesting exchange last night with the former Minister for defence procurement, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who told me that the figure was even higher than £38 billion. If that is the case, why do we not know what it actually is?

That brings me to the Ministry of Defence’s annual report and accounts, which make great reading. It is interesting that claims by the previous and present Secretaries of State to have balanced the budget are nowhere to be seen in the introduction. It will also come as no surprise that the accounts for this year have been qualified.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

May I gently draw the attention of the shadow Minister to the fact that the accounts were qualified in every year under the last Labour Government as well?

[Mr Jones]

I acknowledge that, but I did not make wild claims about somehow having magicked away a £38 billion black hole in two years, which the Secretary of State is now doing.

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke mentioned Defence Equipment and Support, and I agree with him that there is uncertainty in that regard that needs early resolution. He might be interested to know that the accounts show that the average length of time that the MOD equipment programme was delayed in 2010-11 was 0.46 months, and that the figure has now increased to 5.5 months. No great progress has been made in the efficiency of the delivery of that programme.

Another startling fact to emerge from the annual report and accounts is that the Department has not received approval for the remuneration package for the Chief of Defence Matériel, who is earning considerably more than the Prime Minister. It has been suggested that the Department has somehow acted outside its authority in this regard. We need clarification of some of the issues raised in the annual report and accounts.

We keep being promised an explanation of the Secretary of State’s assertion that the defence budget is now in balance. On 14 May and 11 June, he told the House that he would shortly publish the figures, and he told the Defence Select Committee on 12 July that the NAO report would be published in September and that it would explain exactly how he had balanced the budget. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised an interesting point about this matter.

Yesterday, during the Chancellor’s statement, it was mentioned almost as an aside that defence had somehow got off lightly, given the further 1% cuts that other Departments were being asked to make—but that is not the case. It will have to swallow cuts of its own, and, according to The Daily Telegraph today, that will involve another £1.3 billion coming out of defence. It is important that we get clarification of this so-called balancing of the budget, when it is clearly not in balance. We also need an explanation of where the original figure of £38 billion came from.

The reason that is important is that members of our armed forces and their families know that we are in tough times and that they have to take some share of the pain. What they do not want to see, however, are spurious figures and spurious claims made to justify some of what is being done. There are only two ways of getting money quickly out of the defence budget: either by cutting the number of personnel or by cutting in-year programmes, leaving capability gaps, which is what the strategic defence and security review has done.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made some points about Germany and rebasing. We have been promised a statement next week, so it will be interesting to see whether that comes forward. I thought it completely bonkers when the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made the announcement. I looked at the issue when I was a Minister, so I know that four years ago the price tag was £3.5 billion—but where that is coming from, I do not know. It is important to have clarification not only for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave regarding communities and individuals here, but because we must know what is actually happening for our servicemen and women along with civil servants, educationalists and others based in Germany. If the cost was £3.5 billion then, it is surely a lot higher today. It is not just about bringing people back, as it is also about evaluating the costs of withdrawal—environmental and other costs that will be added to the clean-up of those areas. Under the treaty with the Germans, it is quite clear that two years’ written notice has to be given, but I am not aware that that has happened. I do not mind if the Government have changed their policy on this issue, but they should say so, as we do not want the uncertainty.

The hon. Member for Moray spoke about the so-called future Scottish armed forces, claiming that they will comprise 15,000. I am not sure what type of role they will take: if they are to be in NATO, what would they deploy? Will the army act as a border force to stop riotous Northumbrians crossing the border? Will there be a navy of fishing boats? Will the air force be of gliders? In this debate, it is important for the Scottish National party not only to deal with the present lay-down of armed forces, as the hon. Gentleman has, but to be honest with people and say what the future defence structure would look like in an independent Scotland.

I join the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) in paying tribute to Wootton Bassett and to Sir Neil Thorne. I also commend the hon. Gentleman’s role on the marching parades, which have been supported across the parties.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his quite proper recognition of the contribution of people from Northern Ireland to the armed forces. I visited Northern Ireland when I was a Minister, and I was very impressed by the dedication I found there to all three of our armed forces.

I know that on many occasions the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) adopts a light-hearted approach in his contributions to the House. Today, however, he made a very serious contribution, which I think shows the House of Commons at its best. He paid tribute to the victims of the Droppin’ Well bombing. It must have been very difficult for him to relive some of those experiences today, so I pay tribute to him for doing so. He is right that 30 years seems a long time ago, but not for him and the people who were there. Speaking as he did in this debate greatly honours those people and pays a fitting tribute to their memories. I hope that his contribution gives some comfort to those who were injured in the ways he described and to the families, relatives and friends of those who lost their lives.

The hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned another matter, and his position was the same as mine when I was veterans Minister. It is fine to get things right now for veterans and those injured in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. My concern, in common with the hon. Gentleman’s, is what happens to these people in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time. We, as a society and a nation, owe a great debt of gratitude to those individuals. Irrespective of our political parties, we need to ensure that that remains the case. I hope that the work with service charities in relation to the Army recovery capability scheme, which is in the pipeline, involves something of that joined-up approach, but we shall have to monitor this on a yearly basis. We shall need to look after the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—who are already injured as a result of service in Afghanistan and Iraq—when they are older. There can be no if or but; we must do that.

When it comes to housing—the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Colchester—we must ensure that we continue to listen to the views of the British Armed Forces Federation.

Let me end by saying that it is always good to hear such well-informed contributions, and by again paying tribute to our brave servicemen and women.

Ex-service Personnel (Psychological Welfare)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

As chair of the Unite the Union group in Parliament and of the all-party group on health and safety, I have spent most of my working life in politics standing up for people who have been disadvantaged because of the career they have chosen. As Major Cameron March MBE, from the Army’s operational stress management team, recently said:

“If we put people into difficult places we’ve got to have something in place to look after them”.

That is true in all walks of life, whether we are dealing with builders exposed to asbestos, lorry drivers travelling over long hours or, as I will speak about this evening, service personnel exposed to traumatic experiences. The issue I have brought to the House today seems to me to be an extreme example of occupational health and safety. As employers, we have a responsibility to those brave individuals to ensure they can live a fulfilling life following their service.

I was delighted to read in one of the tabloid papers today that the Prime Minister has announced £1 million for veterans’ charities. I would like to say, “It was this debate wot done it”, but something inside tells me that another event is taking place tonight that has been organised by one of the tabloid papers. The £1 million is welcome and I am sure the veterans will appreciate it.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD as it is now known, is not a new phenomenon. It was first identified during the first world war, and was called “shell shock”. We have moved on since then and correctly recognise that it is a serious condition that in no way undermines the brave work undertaken by our armed forces. Despite that, there is still a significant stigma attached to mental health issues among veterans. Many still consider themselves “weak” if they suffer in the adjustment to civilian life.

A culture change among veterans is needed, but for policymakers that is difficult to achieve. However, if the Government direct more funding to the condition, which is what I shall argue for today, we can give hope to those suffering and help them to recognise that they are not weak and that the condition is a natural reaction to the horrors they have seen.

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

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of Dr Ian Palmer and the medical assessment programme at St Mary’s? Until recently it was open to all veterans who could go for individual psychological assessments. That has now been downgraded and moved to Chilwell in Nottinghamshire. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that and agree that open access, even later in life, is important for veterans?

[Jim Sheridan]

I am not aware of the precise details, but I am extremely disappointed to hear that. I am sure that the Minister will address that when he gets the opportunity.

My right hon. colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, has said that he

“takes the issue of mental health very seriously, and we recognise that operational deployments will inevitably expose personnel to stressful experiences.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 447W.]

Similarly, when he was a Health Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), claimed that the coalition Government

“considers the health and wellbeing of…armed forces personnel, veterans and their families to be a top priority.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 801W.]

I agree with these sentiments, as I am sure we all do. Those veterans have put their lives on the line so that we can be safe. They have done a great service for their country and they deserve the top service from their country in return. So why then do the actions of Ministers not speak louder than their words? Their statements are commendable, but their funding commitments are not. I am calling today for more public funding to be directed to the issue and for the psychological well-being of our veterans to be considered a top priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I have told the House that we provide some financial support to employers when we mobilise a reservist. We are examining this closely in the context of the Green Paper, but I encourage my hon. Friend to submit any specific suggestions to the Green Paper process. I should also add that companies such as BT, Carillion, Serco, the Automobile Association and BAE Systems have shown their support to our reservists in the consultation process, but clearly we would like to see more contributions from SMEs, too.

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

Earlier this year, the Government announced quite radical changes to our reserve forces. I understand that the recruitment campaign has already begun. What confidence does the Minister have that those recruited will have their employment rights protected without a change in the law? Will he update us on where the Department is with the review of Defence Estates?

[Mr Francois]

I take a close interest in this matter. I spent the best part of a day at Army HQ last week going in detail through proposals to increase the size of the reserve forces. We are considering the issue extremely closely. The Green Paper asks employers and others whether we might need primary legislation to change some of the terms, but as the consultation has only just begun it is perhaps a little rich of the hon. Gentleman to ask me what the answer is.

Military Covenant

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he will probably face many cases in his constituency that are similar to those in Newark.

In another plug for the Newark Patriotic Fund—forgive me, Mr Speaker—one thing we find is that those who are without an arm or leg have probably come to terms with that. The groundswell of support and popularity—I do not quite use the word “glamour”, but I hope the House will understand what I mean—helps those individuals to come to terms with their situation. Those who are nursing, hiding or developing mental health problems find that much more difficult to talk about, but we find at our so-called drop-in centre that people are able and willing to talk in the company of other brave men and women who are empathetic and sympathetic.

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

rose—

[Patrick Mercer]

I give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I looked at this issue when I was the Minister responsible for veterans, and may I suggest that screening at the point that someone leaves the forces is not the answer? We must ensure that individuals are flagged up so that GPs know they are veterans—the Labour party made a commitment to that, although I am not sure whether the Government have followed it through—and improve their access to mental health services. A lot of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions do not present until many years later and would not be picked up. I would prefer the money to go to help people at a later, rather than earlier, stage.

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention but I am obviously not making myself clear because that is exactly my point. There will be awful problems with this. It was difficult enough for us catch up six months later with one regular soldier who had been discharged, and ask him to re-enlist in the Territorial Army because he had disappeared into the system. I understand that this matter is not simple. Care must be provided in five, 10 or 15 years’ time and offered to everyone, as the hon. Gentleman said, not just to those who leave the forces having identified a problem.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This could be quite easy but I was frustrated with GPs who wanted to charge for putting an indicator on the QOF—the quality and outcomes framework. That is where money should be spent so that if people present after they have left the armed services, GPs will at least know that they have served in the forces. I am not sure whether the Minister has made any progress on that, but it is an important point and would be a better way to spend money.

[Patrick Mercer]

Absolutely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing forward this very important debate. I am pleased that we have some time to debate this issue. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke with great authority from his experience of military life.

The failure to provide adequately for the needs of ex-service people stretches back well over a century, so I shall not make any political points today one way or the other. Kipling wrote of Tommy Atkins giving everything in service and returning to face virtually nothing in return. David Lloyd George, in a momentous speech at the beginning of the last century, poignantly referred to ex-service men returning from war as “broken men”—they mostly were men, then—and deserving of special treatment such as exemption from the payment of national insurance.

How much has changed in the intervening decades, and many conflicts later? The topic we are discussing today is the military covenant—the pledge to the armed forces that we will continue to look after the welfare of veterans after they leave the service. It is evident that the majority of armed forces personnel adjust to civilian life normally after discharge. Despite this, a significant and—alas—growing minority of veterans experience acute social rupture when discharged from active service, becoming homeless, cut off from mainstream welfare services and isolated. Unless they undertake further training or are fortunate enough to have completed relevant training prior to joining the forces, it can be very difficult for veterans to enter further education and/or employment.

If a veteran falls into a downward spiral, it is likely that he—and it is predominantly a male problem—will fall foul of the criminal justice system. Abuse of alcohol and drugs, and mental health problems, often act as catalysts. There is a lot of good work going on—it is not all downs—and next year, one of the main banks will announce a suite of financial services dedicated to ex-service people. I am pleased and proud that I have persuaded the bank to do that. It will be rolled out in Wales first and, if successful, then throughout the UK. One of the problems of people who have been in the forces for a long time is that they understandably get out of the normal money management routine that we all have to deal with every day.

I have campaigned for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans over the years and have raised the issue in the House and elsewhere since 2008. In 2010, I published a paper entitled “Support for Veterans”, which contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular those who came into contact with the criminal justice system. I chair the veterans in the criminal justice system all-party group, held under the auspices of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA Forces Help and others.

When our campaign began, very few were raising the issue, but I am glad to see that it has now become a core manifesto commitment for every party. The Armed Forces Act 2006 also enshrined the principles of the covenant in law. Much work has been done—and that is to the Government’s credit—but much remains to be done, and I await the annual report in the coming weeks.

As a matter of urgency, a thorough audit should be completed of the number of ex-service personnel who are in our prison system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We did one.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am not going to get involved in arguments about figures with the hon. Gentleman. We have tried that before—I do not accept his figures and he does not accept mine. NAPO and various other organisations do accept my figures.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is like a broken record. As Minister, I got all the data for all three services, in some cases going back to 1968. The Howard League report accepted those figures. I am sorry that they do not match up with some of the figures that he and others want to keep perpetuating, but I do not know what else I could have done to get those figures or what the Minister could do now.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was an adviser to the Howard League report. The hon. Gentleman’s scoping exercise did not include women, reservists—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is not true.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, that is what the then Minister told the Howard League. It did not include reservists, those under 21 or those who had served in Northern Ireland—that is what the Minister at the time told the inquiry. [Interruption.] That is the evidence that we were given and some of the conclusions we reached.

[Mr Jones]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that to get the 25% figure that he often quotes—

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I never quoted that.

[Mr Jones]

Well, I think some of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have. The figure was about 3% or 4% of the prison population. Is he seriously suggesting that he could make another 23% by adding reservists to it?

[Mr Llwyd]

I have never said it is 25%: 10% is the highest figure that I have ever canvassed, so I am not getting involved in a sterile figures argument. There are other issues to discuss.

As a matter of urgency, we need to have another look at those who are involved in the system. I became involved in this issue when I was working in courts in north Wales and Cheshire. I noticed that an increasing number of those appearing for very serious offences professed to come from a military background. Thus, I tabled some questions. At the time, in 2008, no information was held centrally. The shadow Minister says that a scoping exercise was thereafter undertaken—fine, I accept that.

[Mr Jones]

It was not a scoping exercise.

[Mr Llwyd]

Well, an exercise to determine the figures was then entered into by the Government. I accept that. Whatever the figure is, it is quite substantial—that must be common ground.

I honestly and sincerely believe that more resources should be put into helping veterans with mental health problems. Many people who have served leave the forces without any trauma whatever. However, at present, as I understand it, veterans do not undergo a compulsory mental health assessment prior to leaving the armed forces, except for the more obvious cases that demand it. Because of that, it is difficult to calculate the prevalence of mental health issues most commonly associated with veterans, among them post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is a convenient umbrella term, but it is just one complaint. The difficulty with it is that it can become evident within a couple of week or after 12 years.

[Mr Jones]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the figures, he should read Simon Wessely’s very good study, going back to the first Gulf war and before. It provides the figures for PTSD, which are between 3% and 4%. It is a very good study that is internationally recognised as a groundbreaking work.

[Mr Llwyd]

That may or may not be the case, but in the United States, for example, the authorities talk about 35%. There is a substantial problem and I hope that we are able to look not just at PTSD—that is just one thing—but traumatic brain injury and other conditions. We have yet to see the scale of the fall-out from the first and second Iraq wars and from Afghanistan. However, I think there is a tendency to focus on PTSD. There are literally dozens of other mental health conditions that can affect personnel, including traumatic brain injury and anxiety-related problems, such as obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. The idiosyncratic needs of the veteran community must be taken into account when providing funding for research and treatment.

A paper recently produced by Dr Ian Palmer of the Medical Assessment Programme of King’s College London reported that, based on the findings of a clinic-based study on a self-selecting group of 150 veterans, veterans involved with the NHS mental health service tended to be middle aged, ex-army and male. That demographic picture reinforces the view that mental health problems can take years to develop—from the time of discharge to up to 12 years later.

I gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, and, as I understand it, so did the Minister. The impression was given that the problem of alcohol misuse was being addressed, and that it was less of a problem than it had been. According to the report, however, 80% of those in this group had misused alcohol, and one quarter had encountered problems with the law. The barriers to seeking help included pride, guilt, shame and remembrance of lost colleagues. Obsessive compulsive symptoms were prevalent among many of those who reported problems readjusting to civilian life, while those not in a stable relationship were less likely to seek help, reinforcing the view that support from loved ones is vital for returning veterans.

Further research would have to be done, but the results are telling. Most crucially, it is clear that psychological assessments should be made mandatory for all those leaving the forces. The shadow Minister and the Minister talked about GPs flagging up patients who have done military service, but I understand that there might be a problem with data protection. I do not know whether that is right, but it needs to be cleared up. The flagging up is perfectly acceptable and a very good idea, but we need to address the data protection issue, so that we can provide a seamless service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely, but there has been a problem historically. For example, I remember that there was a designated centre in north Wales dealing with PTSD that was run by a very experienced clinician called Dr Dafydd Alun Jones. I went to see the then Labour Minister at the MOD and asked whether he could put in a good word to secure funding for people to be treated there. He gave me a wry smile and said, “I sympathise with you, but unfortunately it’s a matter for the Health Department.” Some months later the Minister was transferred, as Secretary of State, to the Department of Health, so I went to see him. I got the same wry smile and words of sympathy: “It’s not my problem, guv. Have a word with either the DWP or the Ministry of Defence.” What that implies to me is that until very recently this matter was never taken as seriously as it warrants.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That may be his view, but I am pleased that this matter is now being taken seriously. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is now looking at it and the Welsh Government are doing good work, as are our colleagues and friends in Scotland—for example, in Edinburgh there is a one-stop shop, which again could be a model for all countries in the UK—so at long last stuff is happening.

I want to end on what might be a discordant note, by quoting from a letter I received a couple of weeks ago. It is from a gentleman who served in the armed forces who lives in Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan, and he says:

“I spent much of my working life as a member of the RAF as an aircraft engineer, completing over twenty years service. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, I suffered a spinal injury that eventually led to the RAF and I going our separate ways after a medical discharge. Some months later the spinal damage worsened and led to my being hospitalised for an emergency operation to remove a damaged disc. However, due to a delay, much of my nervous system was wrecked, although I did manage to gain some mobility…The upshot of all the foregoing trauma was that my mobility was curtailed due to nervous damage and continuous pain. Over the past 17 years my condition has worsened due to age, however I can just cope—or I could until recently, when I received a letter from the DWP which informed me that I had to go and play performing monkeys for ATOS.

The question is: ‘What the hell happened to the much trumpeted Covenant between the Armed Forces and the Government?’ And no it cannot just apply to the Army. From personal experience, those on the other side give no heed to the colour of the uniform worn—they will try to kill you anyway. As I understand it the Covenant promises to take care of those injured in the service of this country. Seems from my point of view to be failing big time—not a good thing for those lads and lasses putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan. Has the MoD told them this fact yet?

So what does the future hold for me and mine? Playing performing monkeys for ATOS, whose operatives are, as I understand it, under orders to fail 90% of all those seen. So given that I have a 90% chance of failure, this will mean that I will lose the use of the Motability vehicle that is my only mode of transport, however, now being housebound, I’ll probably not have a house to live in, as the loss of income will put our mortgage in jeopardy. Even so, I would launch an appeal against the ruling which, if the various stories I have heard are true, I will probably win. This has its draw backs as those that have won their hearings are then dragged back by ATOS to undergo the whole process again…as many as four times. Isn’t this illegal under the Disability and Equality Act?”

That confirms what the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was saying about the DWP, and about the need for extra care when dealing with ex-service personnel. The letter supports what has already been said.

We spend many months training these young men and women to the highest level to prepare them for active duty. Once deployed, they will often witness the kind of horrors that few of us, myself included, could ever comprehend. The least we can do for them is to spend a similar period decompressing them as they approach their discharge, and to ensure that no veteran is left to fend for himself or herself. As the Ministers know, there is a time-honoured maxim in the armed forces: “Leave no man behind.” Unless and until we can make the military covenant fully and positively deliver the necessary services, however, that is precisely what the Government will be doing.

Combat Troop Withdrawal (Afghanistan)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, I do, but I know from a report from the United States that only 7% of them are capable of acting alone. One third desert every year. We have given them the job of guarding prisoners, but in one incident 500 prisoners escaped. Many soldiers and policemen use the drugs that we are there to eliminate. The police are hated in many parts of Afghanistan not only because they are endemically corrupt and always have been, but because, unlike the Taliban, they practise bacha bazi—a perverted abuse of young boys that has always been part of the Afghan police’s tradition. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the Afghan army and police will behave like British bobbies or British soldiers? That will not happen. They will revert to the cruel practices of the past. Afghanistan is a country of massacres and inter-tribal bloodshed between the Hazaris, the Baluchis and so on. The idea that we can impose our will by passing an Act in Parliament is a myth.

Whenever such issues come up on television and a new death is announced, BBC News 24 and Sky News bring in the same old regular half a dozen people—someone from the Royal United Services Institute, or a leader of our soldiers in Afghanistan—to say the same soothing words. Rarely do we hear the voices of my hon. Friends and those of us who opposed this bloody war for the past 11 years. We are rarely heard.

There is a new fiction, being used—astonishingly—by the new Secretary of State for International Development. She took me to task when I said that the result of this war is that we have lost 437 UK lives and uncounted Afghan lives, and 2,000 of our troops have come home broken in body and mind. Eight Afghans were killed in one day in September. August was the worst month for Afghan civilian deaths in the whole 11-year period, but the Government wanted to conceal that. There was no event to mark the 11th anniversary of the start of the war, but there were celebrations for the anniversary of James Bond on that same weekend. We try to hide the deaths by diverting coffins from Royal Wootton Basset and taking them around back lanes. The Government have twice tried to stop the naming of the dead at Prime Minister’s questions. It was moved to Monday, and then to Tuesday. Only because Back Benchers were angry and wanted it back where it belonged, so that it received the attention of Parliament and the press, was it moved back.

We now have a new and breathtaking fiction that we will hear about this weekend. I told the Secretary of State for International Development that 2,000 of our soldiers had come back broken in body and mind, and that if the pattern of the Falklands war and the Vietnam war continues, more of our soldiers will take their lives in the years to come than died in combat during the war.

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

I am sorry that I must again knock down that myth, which keeps being repeated. I know that the Minister agrees with me on this. The claim that more Falklands veterans committed suicide than died in the war is just not true.

[Paul Flynn]

Okay, we will have this out. If my hon. Friend does not believe that of the Falklands war, he should believe it of the Vietnam war. The figures come from America—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend will have his chance to speak.

Let us see what the Government’s thinking is. This weekend, there will be worthy celebrations of an Afghan veteran who achieved a Paralympic medal. The Secretary of State for International Development told me that I was being pessimistic about the war in saying that 2,000 soldiers were broken in mind and body, when about half a dozen came back from Afghanistan and earned Paralympic medals. We are all delighted to see the success of the Paralympians—not only the victims of war, but others who have been cheated by life or nature and have achieved an eminence that we all celebrate quite rightly. However, was the right hon. Lady trying to say that the deaths of British troops, the terrible injuries, and the suicides that I mentioned are somehow justified by that? Was it somehow ennobling that 16 million people died, as the Prime Minister seemed to be saying? The man quoted by the Prime Minister did not acquire immortality; he acquired oblivion. His name was forgotten; it was not even mentioned. His life was stolen from him by the lies of politicians and the military.

We are in the same position that we were in at the end of the first world war, in which my father fought. He was shot on 10 April 1918. He was taken prisoner and his life was saved by a German patrol, but he lived to curse the military that he believed in when he was a boy of 15 who went to war, as a patriot, to protect the small nations of the planet. He could never again do what he called a man’s job, and in 1935 his pension was changed. It was a tiny pension, paid to him because his wrecked physical condition was attributable to his war wounds, but a cost-cutting Government changed the word “attributable” to “aggravated”. He went in as a perfectly fit 15-year-old, but later they halved his pension. For understandable reasons, he was bitter about those who on Armistice day stood erect, with a tear in their eye, mourning our brave boys. Quite rightly, the word that came to him was “hypocrites”.

I believe that we should mark the war and the consequences of it not in the heroic terms of Rupert Brooke and others who suffered in war. We must see the reality of what we have done and the consequences. We should bring our troops home from an unwinnable war. Rather than the picture presented of a worthy war and the half-a-dozen deserving Paralympic medallists, we should see war for what it is and in terms of the description of death in war by Wilfred Owen:

“Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, —

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Graham Stringer]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, I wish to say that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Getting bin Laden was a completely justifiable objective, but was the mission not over and finished in December 2001 when he escaped through the mountains at Tora Bora? There has been a huge mission drift since then.

[Mr Jones]

No, it was not. Let us remember: in Afghanistan we were also dealing with a failed state that had been in chaos, with warlords and fighting since the fall of the Communist Government. In terms of the safe havens it would have given, it was right to try to bring stability and benefit to the Afghan people.

The hon. Member for Newport West refers to some kind of Christian campaign. He should remember that Muslim nations are fighting alongside our forces in Afghanistan, including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and, one of the largest Muslim countries, Malaysia.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman is disgracefully fictionalising what I said and attacking an absurdity of his own creation. Does he not agree that the main question we have to deal with is why we behave as the poodle to America, in a way that Harold Wilson did not. We believe that we have to go wider and wider still; that we have to punch above our weight, which always means dying beyond our responsibilities. Why did we go into Helmand?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talked about conspiracy theorists, and I have to say that he makes a very good one; perhaps he ought to take it up as a career. Muslim nations are fighting alongside ISAF. To describe Afghanistan as some kind of Christian crusade is complete nonsense.

[Paul Flynn]

Mr Crausby, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is outrageous. It is an outrageous speech.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Kevan Jones.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman did say it—

[Paul Flynn]

Read what I said.

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman does not like what he says being challenged, I am sorry—

[Paul Flynn]

The facts are in a letter that I wrote in 2003 to Tony Blair. It is there, it exists and I stand by that letter. By going into Iraq and Helmand, we increased the terrorist threat. Answer that.

[Mr Jones]

I will move on to the point the hon. Gentleman made about Daniel Collins and the individuals who lost their lives in recent conflicts in Afghanistan and other places.

I accept that people have come back from Afghanistan and Iraq with mental health problems, their bodies broken and their lives transformed for ever. Something that has come through the debate is the idea that politicians and Ministers take decisions easily. They do not. The Minister will back me up on this point: one of the hardest parts of being a Defence Minister is getting the phone call, sometimes late at night, reporting that someone has lost their life in Afghanistan. A memorable weekend for me was in 2009, when I was duty Minister, and we lost eight individuals. Ministers do think about those people. It is not easy to divorce our emotions from such situations. Like me, the Minister will have met many families after such events and spoken to them, and he knows it is not easy. It is not the case that we take decisions with no thought of such events. Of the work that I did in the Ministry of Defence, I am most proud of putting in the Army recovery capability to assist those injured in the service of our country. It is a credit to the Minister that he continued that work when he was veterans Minister.

It is easy to say that nothing has improved in Afghanistan. I first went there in 2003, with you, Mr Crausby, and I have been six times since. It is very different now from the place it was in 2003: six provinces have transitioned to Afghan security control and Kabul, which was under curfew and blacked out with little activity on the streets, is today a bustling and different city. Is the security threat still there? Yes, it is. Is that only in Kabul? No, it is not; it is throughout Afghanistan.

People sometimes give the impression that Helmand has not improved. I first went to Lashkar Gah—with you, I think, Mr Crausby—in 2004. The only place that we could go was the provincial reconstruction team’s office. In the town itself, there was no market, no activity, no schools, no functioning public works or any local government. When I went back three years ago, I went to central Lashkar Gah to see the governor, and it is a very different place. Progress has been made.

I hope that I do not misquote my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West again, but I would like to touch on the point he made about education and girls. One of the most moving things I have seen was at a girls’ schools in Kabul in 2003—you were with me, Mr Crausby. We met a courageous lady who described how she taught 3,000 girls in a school; she had to do so in shifts, because a lot of the older girls had missed out on education—I do not accept that the Taliban allowed girls to be educated. I said to that lady, “What did you do when the Taliban were in power?” She said, movingly, that she and other teachers taught girls privately in their homes. I said that that must have been a brave act, and she said, “No, that wasn’t brave. My deputy head, who was executed, was brave.” Her only crime was bringing education to girls—such was her dedication to education. It is not the case that we are not making progress in girls’ education and so on.

With regards to the combat role, the Opposition have put it on record that we will support the Government on the deadline for combat missions to end in 2014. What my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said about ending the combat role is interesting. He gave the impression that somehow we will continue our training role with the Afghanistan security service—I apologise if I am misquoting him again.

[Paul Flynn]

We can take troops out of harm’s way as we did in Iraq. We are waiting in the departure lounge there to bring the troops out. There must be a way. When we left Aden, we put the equipment together and bombed it. We have an enormously costly task, and it will take at least three years to bring out the equipment. We are handing over £1 billion of equipment to the Afghan police. What does the hon. Gentleman think £1 billion of equipment will be used for?

[Mr Jones]

All I was going to say was that the hon. Gentleman is therefore not in favour of continuing to train the Afghan security services.

[Paul Flynn]

I did not say that.

[Mr Jones]

Well, is he or is he not? If he is in favour of continuing a training role, it is not without risk. In Iraq, we had embedded teams in the Iraqi armed forces, and that was not without risk. It is not the case that somehow after 2014 we will be able to avoid all casualties.

[Paul Flynn]

Let me make it clear. In corresponding with Ministers, I have said that one of the things that we should stop is instructing our soldiers to dismantle improvised explosive devices. There is no point in finding out who made the IEDs, because if the makers were put in prison, they would be allowed to escape. There is no point in going on many of the patrols that the Americans are currently doing. People go on fruitless patrols and are killed. We have to withdraw from that combat role because it will disappear. There are other tasks that must be done before we can pull out.

[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.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Aberporth is one of the areas where the drones are being tested. The northern part of my constituency, between Aberporth and Epynt, is on the flight path for such tests. The psychological impact on the people of Pakistan where the drones are being used is huge. The drones are buzzing around all the time, and people do not know when weapons are going to be fired. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the problem is not just the hits from the drones, but the impact on the population of the drones flying around all the time? It affects my constituents and they are not being bombed.

[Mr Jones]

I find that difficult to believe. The fact of the matter is that they are put in some places as a deterrent, without firing at anything, because the sight of them apparently discourages insurgents. Harrier jets and Apache helicopters have been used in Afghanistan without firing their weapons; just their presence seems to stop action. It is wrong to suggest that there is no law governing the use of these drones or that somehow there is some trigger-happy pilot sitting in a base in Nevada. In certain cases—I know this for a fact—high-profile attacks require ministerial approval as well. The hon. Lady needs to have confidence that there is a process in place.

[Paul Flynn]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because I need to give the Minister time to reply. In conclusion, people talk about winning wars, but it is not about that in Afghanistan. I never liked the expression “the war on terror”, because this is an ongoing struggle with Islamic terrorism not just in Afghanistan, but in the rest of the world for many generations to come. I pay tribute to our armed forces, and hope that we all think not just of those who have lost their lives and have been injured but of those who are on service today in Afghanistan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Ministry of Defence has a terms of business agreement with BAE Systems Maritime Naval Ships. That agreement commits the company to maintain warship design and build capability, and elements of support covering all complex service warships in the UK. The Government continue to work with BAE Systems on the utilisation of shipbuilding capability once work on the current carrier programme is complete. As my hon. Friend knows, Corvette offshore patrol vessels are currently under construction by BAE Systems in Portsmouth for the royal navy of Oman.

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

I welcome the Minister to his new position. As he will know, there is a long and proud record on the Clyde of building warships for the British Navy, and a complex ship for the British Navy has never been built in a foreign country. Will the contract for the Type 26 ships contain a clause for the event of a vote for an independent Scotland in 2014?

[Mr Dunne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said, the Government are not currently planning on the basis that the Scottish people will vote in favour of independence in a referendum. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is right to say that the UK has not built a complex warship outside its shores since the second world war, and I believe that the only times it did so during the first and second world wars were in then colonial territories for local use. The Government remain committed to using UK industry to build UK warships.

In the unlikely event that Scotland should decide to separate from the UK, the Scottish defence industry would be eligible to bid only for contracts placed by a future Scottish Government or competed outside the UK, or placed by the UK or other Governments. That is because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many UK defence contracts are exempted from procurement rules for reasons of national security.

2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I also begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to the Royal Fusiliers. As a Newcastle city councillor, I was always conscious of the tremendous contribution that they made, and I remember the well-turned-out serving and former members of the Fusiliers who attended the Remembrance Sunday events. As a Defence Minister, I also saw the tremendous work that they did on the ground in theatres such as Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman mentioned their history of bravery, sacrifice and courage, and I concur with his comments on that. The Fusiliers remain a constant source of pride in the north-east, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has said, as well as in Manchester, London and Birmingham. The local communities in those areas have great pride in the Fusiliers.

Our concern is that the decision to disband the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers derives from a rushed defence review and an inadequate Army reform plan, known as Army 2020. The basis of any review should be sustainability and value for money.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the way in which these matters should be decided. Will he cast his mind back to 2004, when he was a Defence Minister? A total of 19 battalions were closed or amalgamated at that time, and there was no defence review then.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the decisions to make those changes were made by the Army during its restructuring. They were not made for political reasons; such decisions have been made for many reasons over many decades.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I must ask my hon. Friend not to fall into the trap that so many others have fallen into—namely, of setting one against another. We should all be arguing that a major mistake is being made, and that we cannot allow that to happen. If the regiment’s numbers fall below a critical mass, it will not be able to recruit when it needs to.

[Mr Jones]

Indeed, and the decision was budget-led, rather than being made in the best interests of the Army.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because of the time limit.

The conclusions of any review should also take into account the long-term strategic objectives that will be in the interests of this country, but neither Army 2020 nor the strategic defence and security review did so. The SDSR was rendered out of date within weeks of being written by events in Libya, with equipment that had been scrapped weeks before being brought back into service. Army 2020 has got rid not only of some of the British Army’s best battalions, but of some of the bravest and most dedicated members of the armed forces. The Minister must explain what his criteria are, and how he is going to maintain the necessary skills, even though many have already been lost.

We are told that the numbers have to be cut, but I want to concentrate on the way in which that is being done. There was confusion this summer as the Government let the process linger on, allowing rumours and uncertainty to continue, mainly to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of making this announcement before Armed Forces day. There have also been substantial cuts in the numbers of our armed forces personnel. Let us remember that, when in opposition in the last few years before the general election, the Conservatives were calling for a larger Army and a larger Navy with more personnel. They have achieved exactly the opposite since they have been in power. They are saying one thing and doing another. [Interruption.] I will come to the question of budgets in a minute, if the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) will just hold his water.

These decisions are resulting in the Government having a credibility deficit on defence matters, not only with the public but with our armed forces. It is no wonder that there is confusion. The planning assumptions in the SDSR were based on an Army whose manpower was 95,000. Will the Minister tell us whether those assumptions are still being achieved, now that the number has been reduced to 82,000? Will he also be precise about the time scale for the build-up of the reserves? It has already been pointed out that there could be a capability gap in that area. I pay tribute to the members of our reserve forces. It is not surprising to discover from the continuous attitude survey of the armed forces that morale is at an all-time low.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about the criteria that had been applied when making the decisions. Serious questions need to be asked about how and why they were made.

[Mr Robathan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not. I would if I could get extra time—[Interruption.] No, I could not. I have already taken two interventions; those are the rules.

We are told that the units that were having the greatest recruitment difficulties would be abolished. The 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment was only six short of its full establishment, and the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers was only eight short. However, other battalions with much less favourable recruitment records were maintained. It is no wonder that the honorary colonel of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers said that the decision to axe his battalion would not “best serve” the armed forces and

“cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option.”

It has been pleasing to see the turn-out today outside Parliament, and I know the strength of feeling that exists in the north-east of England. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) has already mentioned the tremendous campaign being run by the Newcastle Journal and the Evening Chronicle. We are seeing the ad hoc nature of decision making in whole areas of defence. The fact that Ministers have announced further reductions, over and above the numbers proposed in the SDSR, shows the short-sightedness of their proposals. We said when the SDSR was produced that it was not a blueprint for our strategic future so much as a Treasury-led defence review.

I have already paid tribute to our reservists. The Secretary of State has said that the proposal to back-fill the Army with reservists presents a risk. The fact that the only announcement he has made so far is that he is going to change the name of the Territorial Army leaves questions unanswered. There has been no clarification on training, or on whether employment law needs to be changed, as is quite likely if people are to be released from their employment to serve in the armed forces. So there are still a lot of loose ends, and there will be a capability gap if we are not careful. It is quite clear that Government policy is about deficit reduction and not about what is in the best interest of this country’s defence.

I will touch on the thorny issue of budgets, because we are told that the cuts are justified because of the big, bad Labour Government who left the Ministry of Defence with a £38 billion black hole. From this Dispatch Box, I have repeatedly asked the Government to explain this. The Public Accounts Committee has asked them to explain it, too, but to date nothing is forthcoming. I will be happy to hear, when the Minister replies to the debate—

[Mr Robathan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not.

[Mr Robathan]

Why not?

[Mr Jones]

Because I do not have the time. I shall wait with anticipation for the first ever breakdown of this figure. As I was saying, this has been the justification for the cuts that we have seen. It is quite clear what has to be done: if we are to take these cuts, the Government must set the record straight and be honest not only with the British public but with our brave servicemen and women.

Historic battalions are being axed for short-term savings without any coherent strategy for our armed forces. We have no confidence that the abolition of battalions, such as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is either in the best interests of the country or is being done on a fair basis. Until Ministers fully explain the criteria behind Army 2020 that justify the abolition of these regiments; until they clarify the reforms to the reserves and the rebasing of forces in Germany on which we still await explanation; and until they are more honest about the state of MOD budget—simply coming here to say that the budget is unbalanced is not good enough—it will be difficult for the Government to have any credibility on defence. More importantly, the people who are quite rightly campaigning against this decision will think that decisions have been taken in an ad hoc way, without taking into consideration the interests of either the 2nd Battalion or of this country’s defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am not maligning them, and I am not maligning their historic contribution. I am acknowledging that contribution. However, our public policy is now to support the right of Nepalese families to come to the UK as a result of their service to the Crown.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

You voted for it.

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, I did, and I was wrong. I am happy to put on record that I regret it. One of the consequences is today’s debate, and another is the fact that we have done Nepal no favours by taking some of its finest people into the British Army and giving them the right to settle here as a result of their service. The British Army, which is a fantastic training machine, is taking some of Nepal’s finest young men, and they are not returning to Nepal to give it the benefit of their Army training. Moreover, we are probably building up social problems of our own, because the population who are coming into the United Kingdom with their families are going to find it tough to adjust to life here.

We have ended up with an expensive part of the infantry which is much more restricted in its employment than a British light infantry regiment such as the one that we are debating today, in the wake of a policy decision made on grounds of wholly understandable sentiment and for exactly the historic reasons alluded to by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), including its awesome contribution during two world wars and the Falklands war. It is our responsibility here to try to exercise proper judgments about public interest and public policy. We need to decide what is the right thing to do, and what is in the defence interests of the United Kingdom.

It is easy to be carried away by sentiment. If I did not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay had made his case in support of the 2nd battalion, I would not be supporting his motion today, because battalions have to face disbandment. I will of course listen to what is said by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the fact is that we are having to trade off British tommies against Gurkha battalions because of national sentiment, and because decisions were made in Downing street for reasons that were political rather than connected with military logic. I can summarise the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay by saying that decisions such as this should always be based on military logic, not on political calculation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about jobs? In the north-east as well, the regiment gives young people—men and women—life chances that they would not have in the communities from which they come, and in many cases it changes their lives for ever.

[Simon Danczuk]

I entirely agree. That is particularly important in places such as Rochdale, where the level of unemployment is unhealthily high.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people throughout our town have served in the Fusiliers, and continue their association with the regiment. Through the Royal British Legion and the Fusiliers Association, we regularly celebrate the commitment and dedication of these soldiers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I would also like to sing the praises of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for bringing this topic before the Chamber.

Seldom has this Chamber—I mean the Chamber in its entirety—been so full of so many gentlemen of such distinction.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

And women.

[Richard Drax]

And women, of course, but I am talking about those in the Gallery, whom I am not allowed to mention, although I just have. It is a great pleasure to be here today.

First, I am angry at the Opposition, because of their years of profligacy, their spending on social experiments and their continual reduction in spending on defence.

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Drax]

No, I will not.

As a consequence of that spending, when the cuts have come, the defence of this country has not been on a level playing field.

As Members can imagine, I am not exactly happy with the Government, either. It is our solemn duty in this place to protect our country, her people and our dependants, and to meet all our commitments, not least our NATO ones. Our ability to do that is now seriously in doubt. It is clear to me, and to many others, that the defence spending review was carried out by accountants, not according to military logic. For example, we are now preparing to have a higher proportion of Territorial Army personnel. I have the highest respect for the TA, but if we are to reduce our forces, we need a higher, not lower proportion of regulars. Consequently, we now find ourselves making decisions for political expediency. As a former soldier, I find that shameful.

This is all about priorities. As I said, the priority should be to defend our country and her people. Our priorities are wrong. We have plenty of scope to cut state expenditure, which the Government have said continually that they will do. We have started down that road, but we have a long way to go. Throwing money at the Soviet-style bureaucracy that some people call the EU, and at foreign aid to states that practise genocide, is utter madness at a time when we are cutting our armed services, and it has put us in the terrible situation that we are in today.

I have been in this political game, if that is what it is, for two and a half years, and I am tired of our selling out on integrity, honesty and the defence of our country. We have to wake up, all of us, and defend our country in this House with every ounce of our being. If we do not, we betray our people and regiments that are sadly under threat today. That cannot go on. The people of this country will not accept it, and nor will I. Nor, I know, will many colleagues on both sides of the House. We have to face our responsibilities seriously, put politics to one side and look at the future of our country—our country, our country, our country—and not at our careers and whether we will be re-elected in five years’ time or whenever. Our country comes first, our careers come second.

We must reverse the Government’s decision. I will vote against the Government today, as I have on many occasions already. I take no pride in doing that, but I am not necessarily here to support the Government. I am here to support my constituents and what I believe in—my country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I have been punished with time taken away from me as well.

This debate has been a healthy and valuable reminder of the important role that our armed forces play not only in meeting our national and international obligations but in maintaining links with society and community, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) also stressed. The armed forces are also the force of last resort to which we turn when there are problems with, for example, flooding, foot and mouth and, most recently, the Olympics—let us remember their last-minute contribution there.

Sadly, the Opposition did not recognise, register or apologise for the dire financial situation that led to these tough decisions having to be made and the fact that there was a specific funding gap of £38 billion.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am happy to show the hon. Gentleman the National Audit Office report specifying that exact figure and showing that the Opposition stole money from future budgets.

[Mr Jones]

The NAO report does not state that. It states that the only way to get to a £36 billion figure on the procurement budget is with flat cash. Without it, the figure would be about £6 billion. I suggest he read the report first.

[Mr Ellwood]

We have read the report carefully. It is true that the last Government took money from future budgets, and of course that money cannot be spent twice. It is also true that in the good times prior to 2007 the then Government cut the defence budget in real terms, while other budgets across the board went up.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but I remember the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members at the general election calling for a larger Army and Navy, but what have they done in power? They have cut, cut, cut.

[Mr Ellwood]

We did not call for a larger armed forces at the election itself. It was our intention. It is where we would like to go. When we made these announcements, we were not expecting Labour to have ruined the Treasury numbers, as it did.

As has been repeated again and again, Labour made a mess of something else. I refer to the madness of its procurement strategy, which wasted billions of pounds in overruns. The worst of it was delaying the carrier build by one year, which cost £1 billion alone. Given that the capitation cost of a brigade is £100 million, let us think how many battalions we could have saved. To take an operational perspective, for years our troops in Afghanistan were forced to use Snatch Land Rovers, but suddenly the last Government woke up to the fact that they were not adequate and there was a flurry of buying off the shelf. The Cougar, the Mastiff, the Ridgback—all these vehicles were purchased off the shelf, wasting huge sums of money, while our armed forces suffered on the front line. All those funding issues had a knock-on effect on the decisions we are debating today and the decisions for the future, not only on battalion and brigades, but on the order of battle.

I am an infanteer—I served in the Royal Green Jackets, another regiment that disappeared under the last Government—but I am also a national politician. We are all national politicians, and we must consider the capability of our entire armed forces—the demand to save ships; the demand to save planes, such as the Harrier, which has been debated by this House many times; the demand to save intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability; and, of course, the demand to save regiments, not least my own. As we have heard, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has an amazingly proud history, dating back to James II —I am sorry that the Father of the House is not here to confirm that—and it has had an impact not just in its own area, but right across Britain as a whole. When the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was formed, it was given the most up-to-date weapon of the day, the fusil, which gave it its name, and in the first world war it had a total of 196 battalions in operation. How different the picture is today.

We have heard some powerful arguments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to the support we have heard for the Fusiliers. However, I would also say to him—I hope he listens carefully to this proposal—that if it is the Government’s intention to reconfigure the balance of our armed forces between regular forces and the Territorial Army more towards the Australian and American models and to increase the size of Territorial Army units, and if it is also the Minister’s intention to decide to disband the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, then why not allow this fine battalion to configure immediately into a Territorial Army unit? I absolutely accept that that is not an ideal solution, but it would prevent that footprint in history and the contribution made by this amazing battalion from disappearing in their entirety.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

We have heard some very heartfelt, passionate and emotional contributions today. I do not criticise hon. Members for that emotion in any way; indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for many of the points that have been raised.

I would like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate, which has allowed so many people to contribute and make their points, which is very important in this House of Commons. I welcome this opportunity to explain the situation. We have come to these decisions, as has the Army, after a great deal of consideration and analysis. The British Army and the regiments concerned are now looking to get on with the difficult task of implementing the decisions, which, frankly, have not been palatable.

In May 2010, when we entered government, we faced a dire financial situation. A £38 billion black hole, possibly a great deal more—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Of course I will give way, although I must point out that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to give way to me and would not do so, even though he had been told, on a piece of paper that I saw being slipped to him, that he could take as many interventions as he wanted.

[Mr Jones]

That is not what I said at all. It is interesting to hear what the Minister is saying. He talks about the £38 billion, which he has never explained before at the Dispatch Box, and he is now telling the House that the figure could be bigger. How much bigger?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman did not explain at all; he just said that he would not take any interventions. I can see the piece of paper there. Perhaps he would like to read what it says—

[Mr Robathan]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), left a note saying that there was no money, and there is no money. We are working on producing a detailed analysis of the money, which will be made available to the Defence Committee at some stage. I am not quite sure where we have got to on that.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Not for a third time. He would not give way even once. Can we crack on?

We have to deal with that hole in the budget, and the hole in the defence budget, if we want to put the defence of this nation on a sound and sustainable footing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) chunters away, but we cannot spend money that we do not have.

[Mr Jones]

You don’t even know how much money you’ve got.

[Mr Robathan]

As hon. Members will know from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence—

[Mr Jones]

You’re making it up.

[Mr Robathan]

Have you finished?

As hon. Members will know from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence, the Ministry of Defence is now—for the first time I can remember—living within its means, and we can plan for the future with a much greater degree of certainty than was previously the case.

[Mr Jones]

I find what the Minister is saying completely remarkable. He has just told us that he cannot explain the £38 billion. He has also told us that the figure could be bigger, and he is now saying that the defence budget is in balance. If he did not know how big the hole was in the first place, how the hell can he now claim that the budget is in balance? That is complete, incoherent nonsense.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think that this debate should be argued on party political grounds—

[Mr Jones]

You started it.

[Mr Robathan]

I regret very much the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. Others will look at the debate and decide whether he started it, or whether we did. Frankly, it is pathetic and childish to argue in such a way.