Export Licensing: High Court Judgment

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I do not think that the judgment could have been more unequivocal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We have been utterly vigorous in the process. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MOD and the Department for International Trade have worked extremely closely. Our officials have done a wonderful job. I am not sure that they necessarily appreciated the number of letters between us to ensure that the process worked as tightly as it has, but I am sure that they will all feel totally vindicated by the judgment on the way in which they have carried out their duties on behalf of this country’s international reputation and law.

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

I welcome the judgment, which demonstrates the robustness of the Export Control Act 2002, which was introduced by a Labour Government. It also supports the hard-working defence workers in our industry. The judgment states that the coalition did not deliberately target civilians and that the Saudis have procedures to abide by the principles of international humanitarian law. In the light of that, may I urge the Secretary of State to make representations to the Saudis to publish the outcomes of their own inquiries into the alleged incidents?

[Dr Fox]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I have said, I think we have the most robust system in existence on defence exports. We have been very clear with the Saudis that they have to carry out investigations into incidents and make those investigations clear to the United Kingdom Government, and we had to be very clear that, if we were to license further defence exports, those lessons had been learned and that mechanisms had been put in place to ensure that they would not happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why in the strategic defence and security review we chose an adaptable posture for the UK’s defence and security. We specifically rejected the concepts of fortress Britain or an over-committed Britain, which would result in a lack of agility. The events of recent days have shown how unpredictable the external environment can be. That is why we were correct to maintain that flexibility and agility in our armed forces.

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

A week ago 50 senior military figures called for the SDSR to be reopened. They signed a letter saying that the SDSR

“seems to have been driven by financial rather than military considerations”.

However, when the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee last week, he refused to deny reports that the Ministry of Defence was facing another £1 billion of cuts. Is it not becoming clear that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in the driving seat in the MOD, not the Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I will not be the only one to set out that information, as I am sure the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee as well as the Select Committee on Defence will want to make it perfectly clear. I have made it clear, including in the evidence I gave to the Select Committee last week, that I would like to see greater transparency in how the Department makes its information available. As for the unfunded liability we inherited from the previous Government and the damage it has done to our ability to plan for the future—

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

Where has the £38 billion gone?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman asks where the £38 billion has gone; he should know; he left it behind. It was his Government who were responsible for it. We shall diminish that unfunded liability and put the Department back on a sound footing—something that Labour Members were incapable of doing.

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I believe the Confederation of British Service and Ex-service Organisations is working with the Veterans Minister to consider how we can get better co-ordination between those charities, which will be very important, especially when the clientele of some of the smaller charities pass away over the next few years. I am thinking, for example, of the Association of Wrens, which I believe has an end-date by which it will wind itself up and merge with other naval service charities. I put on record again my thanks to the individuals involved in such charities.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the covenant, which it is important to consider. The previous Government were quite clear in our Command Paper about where our work on that would go next, and the Green Paper that I produced in 2008 considered ways of embedding in law the covenant and other matters covered in the Command Paper. I am sad that the Government are not following through on that work, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister’s commitment on the deck of the Ark Royal is in sharp contrast with what has happened in practice.

The opportunity provided by the Armed Forces Bill is being missed, because the covenant is not being enshrined in law. Members have mentioned the Royal British Legion, which clearly feels let down. It saddened me that when I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee a few weeks ago, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted against it. That was a missed opportunity, and we need to revisit the matter.

[Dr Fox]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State is rethinking the matter, I will very much welcome it.

[Dr Fox]

This has been a very open debate so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me whether, in his eyes, putting the military covenant into law means creating specific, definable rights for certain members of society. Will he give us an example of what sort of rights those might be, and what legal advice the Opposition have been given about the justiciability of such rights?

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State has looked at our Green Paper, he will have seen what I was proposing. I agree that we should not create a feast for lawyers, but we wanted to ensure, for example, priority access in the health service, which we believed could be legally enforceable. My recent amendment suggested that the local government ombudsman should be responsible, as was suggested in the Green Paper. I accept that there is resistance to that, not from the Ministry of Defence but from other Departments. However, people ask whether veterans should get special treatment, and, in my opinion, they should.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Yes, acquisition will be part of what the DRU does; my right hon. Friend makes an important point. There will also be an announcement—I hope in the very near future—about a new chief of defence matériel, who will be important in that process. I hope the report on the acquisition reform will be available before the end of July 2011.

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

The SDSR projected savings from the redundancies of 25,000 civilian civil servants in the MOD. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State has previously stated that the cost of redundancy packages are yet unknown. Will he today share with the House the cost of making 25,000 civil servants redundant, or is this just another area of the SDSR where announcements are being made before the work has been done?

[Dr Fox]

Given the financial position the Government inherited, it was necessary to make major reductions in costs, not least in personnel. How those costs ultimately are manifested is dependent upon whether we require compulsory redundancies, how many are voluntary redundancies and how many are early retirements. These matters are subject to discussions with the civil service at the current time.

Defence Treaties (France)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. For a moment, I thought we were going to hear how “cordiale” in his private life the entente can actually be.

One of the big changes in French politics has been the emergence of President Sarkozy and the willingness of the French Government to put themselves at the heart of NATO.

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

Not for ever.

[Dr Fox]

But it is surely in the interests of the United Kingdom to welcome a trend that we have been calling for for a very long time. When we can draw the French into greater co-operation with NATO, where they are clearly in a much more transatlantic orbit, and are able to supplement and augment what the United Kingdom can do without interfering in our sovereign capability, we should welcome it. It is not a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) suggests, of the joint ownership of fleets; it is about our willingness to operate them together when it is in our mutual interest to do so.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Lord Beamish and Liam Fox

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government’s position on this, given his own experience will he enlighten colleagues as to why the previous Government came to the decision that Trident was the most effective and cheapest way of providing us with a continuous at-sea deterrent?

[Mr Jones]

Well, because it is, and we had the White Paper in 2006 that said that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness raised an interesting point—the idea that we can play stop-go with the building of nuclear submarines is wrong; instead, we need to keep the skills base together. People must recognise that key point. That policy is what led to the problems we are currently facing with Astute. The options were looked at in detail and it was found that, in terms of the procurement of warheads and of the boats themselves, Trident is the most cost-effective way to proceed.

However, I must ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether, in terms of the review, we are talking about basic principles or simple value for money? A yes or no answer will suffice. Alternatively, is this, as we all suspect, simply a bit of political posturing to keep the unilateralists in the Liberal Democrats on board while not scaring the cold war warriors in the Tory party such as the hon. Member for New Forest East?

Much was said in the debate about the covenant and the work on that—or lack of work, as the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said. She should look at what we actually achieved in government, and it would be nice if she could support and build upon that.

On value for money, the Treasury will of course look in detail at whatever review takes place, and it is clear that the Secretary of State is also looking at that requirement. In the article that I mentioned earlier, he said that there might not be so much “fat in the system” as was previously thought, but that although the overall defence budget would be protected, dramatic savings would still have to be made. Between 1997 and 2008, Labour added an average £1 billion a year to the defence budget and there was the longest-sustained growth in defence expenditure ever in this country. It is important to get some clarity tonight. If the defence review says there is a need for more defence expenditure, will the Secretary of State argue for that or will he simply take an inflation increase, which would effectively be a cut in the defence budget?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I was responsible for personnel issues within the Department. There has been much criticism in the past few weeks about bloated public sector pay and pensions. Armed forces personnel are public sector workers, although we do not see them as such, and it will be interesting to see whether he will exempt them from the pay restraint being suggested. Is he going to implement fully the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, as we did in the last Government? On pensions, will he exempt armed forces pensions from the review that is taking place? If he is looking for hopeful signs from the former Member for Barrow and Furness, Mr John Hutton, let me tell him that when I suggested that we should look into this, Mr Hutton was the one who scuppered it and then went against the permanent secretary who recommended that the issue should be looked at.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) said earlier, we welcome the responsible way in which we will make a contribution to this debate. However, there is still confusion around what programmes are included in all this and about the finance. For five years, the Secretary of State has been going around promising larger Armies, bigger Navies, better accommodation and higher pay. Some of his Front-Bench team have even called for higher defence expenditure, although I notice that he has never offered a penny more in relation to any of those commitments. Will he now, with his party and its new Liberal Democrat friends, be straight not only with the armed forces but with the country? We need an effective strategic defence and security review not just to meet our commitments at home and abroad, but to do the right thing by the men and women who daily put their lives at risk on our behalf.