Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Everyone agrees that ISIL represents the most serious threat we face and that we must do all we can to defeat it. We all —the UK, our allies and this Parliament—need to work together to achieve that, so why is it that the actions of our armed forces in Syria have come to light only as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, an Act the Government now seek to water down? Is it not clear that the Government had no intention of telling this House or the country about the involvement of British forces in Syria? It is a sad reality that the first we might have known about this activity was if something had gone wrong.

The Prime Minister and other senior members of the Government were aware of the involvement of our forces and indeed approved their action. The Prime Minister told this House:

“I have said that we will come back to the House if, for instance, we make the decision that we should take air action with others in Syria”.—[Official Report, 26 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1266.]

This House took him at his word, so does the Secretary of State not understand why there is such anger following these revelations? How long has he known? How long have Ministers known? Were they ever going to tell Parliament? Can he not see that his authorisation could have resulted in a British pilot being captured, tortured or indeed killed by ISIL? Can he not see how such an event would have undermined public confidence in our entire strategy to combat ISIL? It is crucial that, in these important and sensitive matters, the confidence and trust of this Parliament as well as that of the British people is maintained. The Government have acted in a way that puts that trust and confidence at risk.

Turning to some specifics, can the Secretary of State be clear about how many UK personnel have been involved, when they have been involved and in what action? The Defence Secretary has stated that

“these are a handful of British pilots embedded with American forces and are part of American military operations, for which the Americans have full approval.”

He restates that position today in his written statement. But is it not the case that Parliament should have been told? He will know that British troops embedded with US forces at the time of the Vietnam war were not allowed to take part. Similarly, Dutch marines embedded with the Royal Marines were brought home before the 2003 Iraq war, and US troops embedded with the British Army were not permitted to patrol the streets of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State be very clear with the House and explain why the Government took a different view in this case without seeking the support of this House? Furthermore, have there been any discussions with allies with regard to the use of our ground troops in Syria? Will the Secretary of State be clear that there will be no further use of embedded UK forces in Syria without parliamentary consent?

The Chair of the Defence Committee said yesterday that the Prime Minister is making up policy on the hoof. Surely what we want is a fully thought through strategic response to ISIL. We read in the papers of the Prime Minister’s plans to expand special forces and to procure more drones specifically to take on ISIL. How will that expansion in special forces be achieved from the current pool of regular forces? Can we expand special forces without an expansion of the pool of regulars? Will he be clear with the House and rule out any downgrading in the standards that we expect our special forces to meet?

On unmanned aerial vehicles, will the Secretary of State say what assets specifically he intends to procure, and over what timescale? How does he intend those assets to be operated, given that the number of RAF regular personnel will fall in every year of this Parliament?

Let me restate that we remain ready to work with the Government to defeat ISIL and will carefully consider any proposals that the Government decide to bring forward. But we all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our aim of defeating ISIL and about the nature of any action—both its objectives and its legal basis. The Home Secretary said this morning that the Government needed to take Parliament with them. The Home Secretary was right, but does the Defence Secretary not realise that he cannot take Parliament with him if he keeps Parliament in the dark?

[Michael Fallon]

I find it hard to construe answering a freedom of information request as some kind of concealment. When we were asked the question, we answered it. Let me be very clear about what the practice has been under successive Governments. There is nothing new about embedding; it has been going on for the past 40 or 50 years. We have had our forces embedded with other countries’ forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the Libyan campaign, and most recently with the French in Mali. There is absolutely nothing new about that. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the parallel with Vietnam. There is no parallel, because the British Government at the time did not agree with the American action in Vietnam. We do agree with the American action in Syria, and I hope that the shadow Secretary of State also supports the American action in Syria, which is helping to keep our streets safe. That is action that we agree with, that is legal and that we fully support.

As for keeping Parliament informed, it has been standard practice not to publicise the placing of embeds with other countries’ forces, as they are their forces and their operation. However, we will always confirm details if and when asked to do so. There have been, over the years, a number of parliamentary questions asking for details of embedded forces, and we have replied to them and we will go on doing that.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the risk to our pilots. There is always risk in any military operation. I can tell him that coalition aircraft are well equipped to defend themselves and there are recovery procedures in place, but he will understand that I am certainly not, on the Floor of the House, going to go into details of those defensive and recovery measures. Nor will I comment on his question about special forces—as you know, Mr Speaker, we do not discuss details of the operation of special forces. The provision of more unmanned aircraft and the training of the pilots we need to operate them will of course be matters for the strategic defence and security review.

Let me say in conclusion that as part of the coalition we support the American actions in Syria and the strikes that are being carried out there by American aircraft, by Canadian aircraft and by Gulf states’ aircraft. They are helping to defeat ISIL and are doing so in a way that helps to keep this country safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I note what the hon. Lady says. As I said, I use the term “Daesh” when I am in the middle east, talking to our partners in the coalition or the media there. Until now, ISIL has been the term that is better understood here in the UK, but it is certainly worth reflecting on whether we should now seek to move on to using Daesh, which does not confer the sort of legitimacy that the title ISIL—involving the word “state”—does.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Clearly, we all wish to see this country defeating terrorists and terrorism. Let me say again that they must not win and cannot be allowed to win. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made so far of the actions we have taken to defeat and degrade ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

The coalition, which involves over 60 countries, about two dozen of which are taking military action, has been assisting the legitimate, democratic Government of Iraq in checking the advance of ISIL, and has had some success in pushing it back—in the recapture of Tikrit, for example, and in other areas up the Tigris and west along the Euphrates. This is clearly going to be a long campaign, however, and it will involve further necessary reforms in Iraq itself, including reforms of its army and the introduction of a national guard that can give the populations that have been liberated the confidence and security that ISIL will not return.

[Vernon Coaker]

What the Secretary of State has said shows that this is a complicated picture. As I have said, we stand ready to work with the Government to defeat ISIL and will consider carefully any Government proposals for further military action, but will the Secretary of State reassure us that any proposals that he does present will have clear objectives in respect of defeating ISIL? Will he, in presenting such proposals, also make it clear what support will be provided by other countries in the region, and explain how the proposals fit in with the Government’s overall foreign policy objectives in the region and beyond?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

Our commitment to European security, including to article 5, remains unwavering. We stand by the open-door policy, which allows any European state in a position to contribute to the alliance to apply to join. That process requires consensus among all 28 existing allies, and there can be no short cuts to membership.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), will the Defence Secretary confirm that, according to the NATO definition, only intelligence operations in support of the military can be used to contribute to the 2% figure? Do the Government use that correct definition, and how much is it?

[Michael Fallon]

I was hoping that the shadow Defence Secretary might welcome the 2% commitment. Let me be very clear that it is for NATO to classify, according to its guidance, what is counted as defence expenditure. Money being spent on defence in our defence budget should of course count towards the 2% total.

Britain and International Security

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the new Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), to his role. I hope it goes well for him.

Today’s debate is of great importance. As the Secretary of State said, it has taken on even greater significance after the harrowing events in Tunisia and the separate attacks in Kuwait and France last week. Like him, I extend our heartfelt sympathies to the family and friends of all those killed or injured. This must be a truly desperate time for them, and they deserve our full and unstinting support. I also pay tribute to the consular staff, police, Foreign Office officials, service personnel and others who assisted in the highly professional multi-agency response to the appalling tragedy and horror in Tunisia. I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing our deep gratitude for their effectiveness in the face of a highly challenging and dynamic situation.

As if we needed reminding, the events of the past few days have shown that the security of British citizens does not begin and end at the border. The interconnected nature of the modern world is such that the radicalisation of a graduate in Tunisia can have consequences as profound for the safety of British citizens as if that graduate lived here in the UK. Last week’s tragedy again emphasised the fact that the fight against Islamic extremism will be gruelling and enduring. It would be easy to conclude, as some already have, that taking on such a poisonous ideology is all too difficult and we cannot win. That is a counsel of despair, and we should have no truck with it. This has to be the time when the democratic nations of the world come together with those battling the threat wherever it occurs. Terrorism cannot be allowed to succeed, and the terrorists have to know that our will to defeat them remains undiminished.

I wish to respond directly to the Secretary of State’s comments about the possibility of further action against ISIL. We are all horrified by what has happened in Tunisia and by the growing threat that ISIL poses. We must tackle that threat to our citizens both at home and abroad. We stand ready to work with the Government to defeat ISIL and will carefully consider any proposals that they decide to bring forward. We all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our objective of defeating ISIL, the nature of that action, its objectives and its legal basis. Any potential action must command the support of other nations in the region, including Iraq, and the coalition that is already taking action in Syria.

This is a time for a considered assessment of the best course of action that we can take to defeat this deadly threat to the UK—an objective that unites all of us throughout the House. In redoubling our efforts to tackle extremism in the middle east, north Africa and beyond, we need to be honest not only about the scale of the challenge but about where we may have gone wrong. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the past decade, a territory controlled by jihadis, spanning northern Iraq and Syria, is hundreds of times larger and better organised than anything al-Qaeda ever conceived of. The fall of Mosul was a victory of 1,300 men over a 60,000-strong force of Iraqi army and police. The United States has said that five of 18 army and police divisions disintegrated completely in the fall of northern Iraq last year.

The Syrian crisis comprises five different conflicts that cross-infect and exacerbate each other. It started with a popular revolt against Assad, which soon became intertwined with the struggle between Sunnis and the Alawites. That then fed into the wider Sunni-Shi’a conflict, with a standoff between the US, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on one side and Iran, Iraq and the Lebanese Shi’a on the other.

That all demonstrates that it is essential that the Government and all of us recognise that, given the ever closer relationship between development, foreign policy and defence, political solutions are essential in order to ensure long-term stability. That is the crucial point at the heart of this afternoon’s debate. Military activity can create the conditions for politics to succeed, but there have to be strong alliances and clear objectives. That is the strategic challenge that will have to be met in the coming years if the threat to us both at home and abroad is to be tackled successfully.

I acknowledge that there are no easy solutions, but is it not crucial that the Government work with our allies to bridge the sectarian divide and bring together what seem, at least from the outside, implacable enemies to fight ISIL? Will the Minister who winds up the debate say what more the Government propose to do to tackle the threat of ISIL and how we can improve Iraqi resilience on the ground? How can we better empower and work with our regional allies and build up the relationships that are so crucial to the success we need? Similarly, what role are the armed forces playing here at home to support operations by the police and the security services to prevent Islamic extremist terrorism here in the UK?

Today’s debate is one of the most crucial of our time—not the debate in the House, although that is important, but the debate in our country about what our future global role should be. Many hon. Members have participated in that debate. Our belief is that the country stands at a crossroads. Which path should we take? Our view is that withdrawing from the world is not just undesirable but impossible. Britain can and must play a positive role in securing and improving international security. Our allies look to us to take up that mantle, and in short we have a responsibility to do so.

[Mr Spellar]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to the more general issue, will he clarify the fact that the House’s refusal in 2013 to become involved in a brief bombing campaign against Assad—Members of all parties were involved in that decision—has absolutely no logical connection with taking military action against Daesh? Linking the two does not serve the interests of developing a proper national policy.

[Vernon Coaker]

My right hon. Friend’s well made point is crucial to the debates that we will have in the House. The decision about whether we should take action in 2013 was related to Assad and his use of chemical weapons. The House as a whole took the view that it was not convinced that the motion before it would help us deal with that problem.

The Defence Secretary has not put a proposal before the House today, but he suggested that we may need to consider what further action can be taken, and how we should deal with Islamic extremism and with Daesh or ISIL. The situation is totally different today compared with 2013, and we do no service to the country—or to anyone—if we are not clear about the difference between 2013 and 2015. We must all consider how we tackle Islamic extremism and terrorism, and keep our country and citizens safe. There will be debate and discussion on that, and people will have different views, but if we conflate 2013 with 2015, or whenever, we will not do the country a service, let alone anyone else.

[Alex Salmond]

Unless I am very much mistaken, the hon. Gentleman is preparing the ground to move the Labour party’s position potentially to support air strikes in Syria. Given the complexities of the Syrian situation that he has described, and given that terrorist targets in Syria are already being bombed by our allies, what exactly can he or the Government identify regarding the participation of UK forces that will make any vital difference in this situation?

[Vernon Coaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but he should also reflect on what I have tried to say, which is that we will consider the Government’s proposals. As yet, the Government have made no proposals. This is not about preparing the ground; it is about saying what action we will take. The right hon. Gentleman will unite with everyone in the House in asking what we must do to tackle extremism and terrorism, and we must consider any proposals that the Government may bring forward.

Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I have access to the intelligence or military advice that is available to the Defence Secretary, and we must consider what that advice might include. If military or intelligence advice suggests that a headquarters is directing terrorism across the world from parts of Syria, and that those who are conducting terrorist activities and killing British citizens who are on holiday do so on the directions of people in northern Syria—[Interruption.] UK citizens—English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or whatever: all citizens who are under threat from terrorism. All I say is that it would be right and proper to consider that information, and take whatever action is felt appropriate to deal with it. That is not the same as saying to the Government, “It does not matter what you say. We will support you”. It means that we will be responsible—as will the right hon. Gentleman—and consider what advice the Government have received and what action we should or should not take.

[Alex Salmond]

We both know that the Defence Secretary, for some considerable time—as long as he has been Secretary of State—has wanted to extend the bombing campaign into Syria. If we examine the anguished debate that is taking place in America, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Syria it is difficult to define targets, and to know who is who, which organisation is being struck, and what the effect will be of such airstrikes? Syria provides incredible complexity in such a campaign.

[Vernon Coaker]

I accept that point. Of course the situation in Syria is complex, as I stated earlier. All I say to the House is that we will consider any proposals that the Defence Secretary brings forward and, like the right hon. Gentleman, we are united in tackling Islamic extremism and terrorism. There is no difference between us on that. When the Defence Secretary comes forward with proposals—if he does—we must consider them and see whether we can support any such action. That is all I am saying.

I was speaking about Britain’s global role and how we cannot remove ourselves from that responsibility. We are uniquely placed: a P5 member, a leading EU country, the second largest contributor to NATO, a founding member of the G7 and—this is often missed out—a central partner in the Commonwealth. We are the only country that is part of all those things. That is not overblown rhetoric, jingoism or national chauvinism. We must be confident in the role that we could, should and will play. By the end of the decade we will have taken the decision to renew the nuclear deterrent, which we support, delivered new attack submarines, and be close to the regeneration of carrier strike. We are still a significant military force, and that is allied to our considerable political influence in the decision-making bodies of the world, and the defence engagement that we undertake in all regions by advising, supporting and training our friends. Such work is often unrecognised but it is crucial none the less. We must also accept that our armed forces have been shaped by more than a decade of conflict, and the British public have become far more sceptical about the use of military force. The case for our military must be made by us all.

Our highly capable armed forces are vital to the UK and its interests. Indeed, military power is not an alternative to, but acts as a support for, political solutions. Our armed forces project power on a global scale and deter potential enemies. The lesson of history is that deterrence, alongside politics, is the best course of action. In the modern world we must treat defence and security as separate sides of the same coin because we must do all we can to prevent a latent threat from becoming a patent one. We must ensure that we have responsive, high-tech armed forces with the capability to respond to emerging interconnected threats in an unpredictable security landscape, including hybrid warfare.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

As well as top-quality armed forces we also need the best security services, both at home and abroad, so that we can build up vital intelligence and utilise our armed forces to their best ability.

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about intelligence. We in this House are proud that our intelligence services are some of the best in the world, and the Defence Secretary will know about the work that our intelligence services are doing across the world to keep us all safe—the rest of us will not know so much, but no doubt attacks and various other terrorist outrages across the world are being thwarted. We must ensure that our intelligence services have the best possible support and resources.

This is a time of multiple and complex global challenges —a far more uncertain security landscape than was envisaged in 2010 by the coalition Government in their national security strategy. Countries such as Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen and Libya are being torn apart by internal conflict, helping to incubate groups such as ISIL and other ideologically affiliated groups from whom we face a growing terrorist threat. From Vladimir Putin’s Russia comes growing hostility, with military breaches of sovereign territory that we hoped had been consigned to Europe’s brutal past. Who among us believed that we would ever see the day when once again actions appropriate to the cold war era would be taking place within eastern Europe?

Alongside that, humanitarian crises are causing death and human misery with growing regularity and increasing scale, with migration not only a result of instability but a cause of it. We are all aware of the threat that climate change and resource scarcity will play in the coming years in causing instability and potentially sparking conflict, and new emerging threats such as those involving cyber seem to grow at an exponential pace. Our defence and security policies need to navigate that unpredictable and changing landscape by offering certainty and stability.

One part of the debate that gets little coverage or discussion is the renewal of the 2010 national security strategy, which is critical. I do not criticise the Government for failing to see into the future, but the fact that the 2010 strategy fails to mention many of the threats that we are now discussing shows the difficulty of this situation. For example, Russia and ISIL are not mentioned in the 2010 strategy, and the concept of hybrid warfare is not addressed either.

Let us be clear: the process must identify the threats the country faces. From that, we should identify the military capabilities needed to defend us from such threats. The debate is crucial but the Government need urgently to address the lack of transparency and sense of importance. The relationship between the national security strategy and the SDSR is vital. The strategy was a welcome innovation, but it is time to build on it.

In 2010, the Government trumpeted their rejection of strategic shrinkage, yet in the past five years it is said that Britain has lost influence in Europe and the wider world. The Defence Secretary argued just a few weeks ago that we are more engaged than we were in 2010, but we all know that, wherever we go and whatever the reason, it has seemed to our friends and allies that we are less globally relevant than we were five years ago.

The argument barely needs rehearsing, but the previous Government presided over a strategic defence and security review that was strategic in name only. They began by asking what could be cut instead of focusing on ensuring that we have a strong, high-tech armed force equipped for the many emerging and interconnected threats of the 21st century. This time, we should ensure that there are no last-minute deals or rushed decision making based on inadequate thinking. We should not be afraid to debate the future of our country in an open and inclusive way. We might not agree, but the argument is important. I believe there is a great deal of consensus about our global role.

We should ask the important questions on the regeneration of the carrier strike, and the operation of the two carriers and what that means. We should ask questions about the regeneration of the maritime patrol aircraft, which is essential; and the need to refresh Army 2020 and Future Force 2020. It will be interesting to hear what the Defence Secretary says over the next week or two about the future of the reserves, and whether there has been a change of policy. Is the policy on the integration of the reserves with the regulars the same as it was a year ago? Army 2020, Future Force 2020 and the upgrading of our ISTAR capability are major issues that we will need to address, alongside recruitment to 77 Brigade and the need for forces who are able to combat new forms of hybrid warfare. In short, we need to fill the strategic vacuum at the heart of the Government.

The Government have put us on the road to an EU referendum and we need to have a debate about the security aspects of that vital relationship. How can we ensure that NATO not only remains relevant in European security in the 21st century, but develops a coherent and effective response to Russian aggression on our continent? In that regard, the stakes could not be higher. With Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine, its upgrade of its nuclear arsenal and its bellicose rhetoric towards NATO, we have seen a dramatic shift in the strategic balance on the continent of Europe. Let us be clear: we must convince our allies to do more. The debate has mainly been about resources, but it should also be about our willingness to defend one another and to live up to our treaty obligations, especially article 5—and, yes, that means having a frank discussion about our country’s commitment to the 2% NATO target.

The MOD is scrabbling around Whitehall this year looking for pots of cash to include in our defence spending. It is redefining £800 million of war pensions. The Defence Secretary said on Monday, as he has said many times in the past, that spending plans will be set out in the autumn. Can he guarantee that, this year, the reductions he has been asked to make by the Chancellor will not result in any reductions in the training activity of our armed forces? Where threats are identified, they need to be addressed and appropriately resourced. That is how we expect an SDSR to be run.

Briefly on other parts of the world, I recently visited Japan, where there are growing concerns. Do we need to consider our strategic interests in that area? How do we build on our burgeoning relationships with Japan and how do we renew our deep links with Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

On Monday, the Prime Minister mentioned that the G7 wanted to create a kind of clearing house to ensure that countries that need assistance receive help from the nation most able to give it effectively. How will that work? What role can the UK play to ensure its success?

At the end of the previous Parliament, the Defence Committee produced a series of excellent reports on the SDSR. The third report came up with more than 70 questions that the SDSR should address. That would be an excellent starting place for a more wide-ranging debate.

In 1998, Robin Cook and George Robertson toured the country, holding in-depth seminars with expert panels, where the public could engage. The process may have taken longer and might have been more unwieldy from a Whitehall perspective, but it produced a piece of work that is unrivalled as an assessment of the UK’s role in a global context. So far, we have not seen that ambition from the Government. I call on them today to open up a wide-ranging dialogue with the British people about the future defence of our country.

I said that we stand once again at a crossroads as a nation. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post wrote that Britain had resigned as a world power. The Defence Secretary claims we are doing more than we did five years ago, but it is not good enough just to assert it—we need to demonstrate it. The Prime Minister has called ISIL an existential threat to the UK. The Government need to live up to their rhetoric. Britain remains a global power. The SDSR is a chance for us to refresh, renew and rethink our strategy as a nation. We should and must take that chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I am coming on to explain exactly why I am sceptical about that argument. I would be delighted, however, to receive a signed copy of the hon. Gentleman’s book if he would care to provide one; in return, I shall give him a copy of my recently published book, which is nothing like as useful or informed as the hon. Gentleman’s. None the less, he might find it of some interest.

I particularly support the words of the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee on the question of the description of the terrorist organisation as Daesh, as opposed to the variety of other acronyms and descriptions that have been widely used. It is fundamental. It is not a matter just of semantics or language; it is fundamental to the campaign of ideas that we should be conducting. This is, fundamentally, a campaign that is going to be decided by whose ideas and whose vision of society and the world have the most attraction to generations of young people across the planet.

I would like to compliment both my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) who have been taking this matter forward so avidly over recent days. I have done a lot more thinking about this over the last few weeks than I have previously, and the more one looks at the arguments, the more sensible, rational and substantial they become.

There is in the Library an article written by Alice Guthrie, who is an expert on these matters and a translator of Arabic. I was struck by the logic and the coherence of the argument she advanced in the article. As I say, it is available in the Library and it is entitled “Decoding Daesh: Why is the new name for ISIS so hard to understand?”. She quotes a number of important sources—for example, al-Haj Saleh, the Syrian activist, writer and influential figure, who impressively said:

“If an organisation wants to call itself ‘the light’, but in fact they are ‘the darkness’, would you comply and call them ‘the light’”?

Clearly, the answer is no. Alice Guthrie herself goes on to say:

“All of this is why some Syrian activists therefore see it as so important that use of the word 'Daesh' spreads, and have been working hard to make that happen – so effectively in fact, as we know, that the word has been taken on by several global heads of state and their associated media, who have a limited grasp of the specifics behind the term. Originally hailing from the city of Raqqa, Daesh’s current Syrian headquarters, al-Haj Salih says his main goal in making a new name for Daesh was to avoid people getting used to referring to a tyrannical and despotic movement as a ‘state’… In terms of its use by global heads of state and media, he feels that this is only natural, and right, as ‘The people who suffer most at the hands of Daesh should decide what they are called’.”

This is much more than a matter of semantics. It is at the very heart of the need to remove from a terrorist organisation the legitimacy of its aspiration to statehood and a new caliphate, and of its claim—a misleading, wrongful and hurtful claim—to represent one of the world’s great religions. I think that that is absolutely fundamental to the question of how we deal with this matter.

I intervened on the right hon. Member for New Forest East to make the point that, as he later acknowledged, it is crucial for us to unite as a Chamber if we believe this issue to be important, as I do, and as my hon. Friends do. I think that the Secretary of State himself was sympathetic to that when, in response to an intervention, he said it was something that we must reflect on. I think we should reflect on it very soon. I am sure that if we unite, as a Chamber and as a House, in recognising the importance of the war of ideas behind the words, then the broadcasting organisations in this country will follow, as broadcasting organisations have followed in other countries. If we have the confidence to state something which is, at its heart, of fundamental importance, then let us do so. If the broadcasting organisations do not see the wisdom of it, then, and only then, will perhaps be the time for us to open up the full fusillade and barrage of gunfire against the BBC that the right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested.

My second major point is this. I am sceptical about the basis for the extension of the United Kingdom’s participation in an air campaign in Syria. There are questions that I think should be considered, and considered profoundly. The first relates to the legal basis. I have here a summary note which was presented by the Attorney General on 25 September last year and laid in the Library, and which provided the legal basis for the UK’s participation in the air campaign in Iraq. It is a one-page note, and it leans heavily—almost exclusively—on the argument that such action was beyond reproach in international law, because it constituted reaction to a request from a legitimate Government in Iraq.

The Secretary of State suggested that, by extension, it could be said that the Government in Iraq were requesting an intervention in Syria, but it is difficult to see how that could be justified on exactly the same legal basis as the one on which the Attorney General relied last September for participation in the air campaign in Iraq. Let me say to the Secretary of State, and to the Minister who will sum up the debate, that if that is to be the legal basis, we must be given, and presumably will be given, a further summary note explaining the legal basis for participation in Syria. Does the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) wish to intervene?

[Vernon Coaker]

No. I am just listening.

[Alex Salmond]

I am glad that I have captured the attention of the Labour Front Bench, and I hope what I have said will receive wide support in the House.

Another reason for my scepticism is my experience—an experience that I have shared with a number of Members over the last 12 years—of successive military interventions in a range of Islamic countries. At each stage it was argued, and we were assured, that the next intervention would be the absolute key, or at least would deliver progress towards the objectives of this country. I think it must be said that, on each and every occasion, exactly the reverse has come about.

According to the House of Commons Library, 2,047 days have passed since Sir John Chilcot made his opening statement in the Iraq inquiry. By contrast, the first world war lasted 1,561 days, and the second world war lasted only slightly longer than the Chilcot inquiry, at 2,075 days. I am told that a trip to Mars and back would take 520 days. We are also reminded that the Franks inquiry into the Falklands war took a little over six months.

I think it very important—and I would apply this, with great respect, to those who voted for intervention in Iraq, including the present Prime Minister, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Secretary of State for Defence—for us to reflect on the lessons of that intervention, and also the wider interventions which have, in my view, removed despotic tyrants only to create political vacuums from which unspeakable horrors have now emerged. I think that we should reflect on the wisdom of what we are doing before embarking on another extension of military intervention without at least establishing a specific line of causality between the latest atrocity carried out against United Kingdom citizens and the way in which military intervention would affect it. My view of this matter is tempered by experience, and that experience has not been helpful to those who advocate military intervention.

The third reason for my scepticism is one of practicality. I hope that I shall be able to type in my eight-numeral password so that I can find something that I read a few minutes ago on this iPad. I had looked up the derivation of the dictum “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” . I was once told that it had originated from Sandhurst—that it was the Sandhurst view of diplomacy—but further examination reveals that it is much, much more ancient than that. In fact, the original dictum came not from Sandhurst but from Sanskrit. It is as old as recorded history itself. Having consulted my iPad, I now understand that there is a Bedouin Arabic version of the proverb which reads “Me and my brother against my cousin, but me and my cousin against the stranger”.

The dictum about “my enemy’s enemy” no doubt applies to many situations in many countries in the world, but I think that one country where it certainly does not apply—or where it is not easy to fathom—is Syria. In Syria, your enemy’s enemy is just as likely, perhaps more likely, to be your enemy than to be your friend. It is a country of extraordinary complexity. We read of the anguished debates about Syria that are taking place in the United States at the moment about the wisdom of specific air strikes on specific targets, and whether the allied air force will end up bombing the wrong people in Syria and undercutting the aims that the campaign is meant to engender. For that third reason, practicality, we remain to be convinced that this is a wise course of action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right that he and I were elected on a mandate to replace the nuclear deterrent with four new nuclear ballistic submarines; to maintain the current size of the regular armed forces; and to increase our spending on the equipment programme by inflation plus 1% each year. It is our task now in this review to ensure that those commitments are held to and that our armed forces have the equipment and the resources that they need.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Defence Secretary on his reappointment and wish him and his ministerial team well for the future. I also pay tribute to all the crew on HMS Bulwark who are doing such a fantastic job in the Mediterranean at this time.

Owing to a lack of transparency—almost secrecy—nobody outside a small inner circle in the Government has a real clue about what is going on with respect to the forthcoming strategic defence and security review. At a time when Britain is being accused of resigning as a world power, should the Government not get a grip, abandon warm rhetoric and set out a clear timetable for discussing how we address our role in the world and the military capability that we need to match it?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for what he said and congratulate him on hanging on in there, at least for the moment. I thank him for his tribute, which I hope the whole House will echo, to the crew and the air crew on HMS Bulwark. I visited Bulwark myself on Saturday afternoon and saw at first hand how the crews were preparing to cope with this extraordinary number of migrants who need rescuing from the sea.

As far as the strategic review is concerned, I have set out the timetable to the House today, and the scope and the ambition of the review, which has already started and will be concluded towards the end of this year. We will also consult key external voices, such as academics and those in other areas who have something to contribute to the review. I hope that will include the hon. Gentleman.

[Vernon Coaker]

That answer really shows just how complacent the Government are. Just yesterday, the US President spoke to the Prime Minister. The US Defence Secretary said that our actions seemed to indicate disengagement. I ask the Secretary of State again: when will the Government set out their plans to discuss, with Parliament and the rest of the country, the threats we face, our global role and the military capability we need? For example, when will they discuss the lack of a maritime patrol aircraft and what the availability of two aircraft carriers actually means—just two examples of the decisions facing the country? This is the Defence Secretary’s chance to launch a wide-ranging debate about the forthcoming SDSR. Will he do it?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, of course we will engage with Parliament and I look forward to engaging with the newly established Select Committee on Defence. However, the hon. Gentleman has chosen two rather odd capabilities to put on the table. We are addressing the gap in maritime patrol aircraft because the previous Labour Government were supposed to deliver 23 Nimrods but, when we came into office in 2010, the programme was eight years behind schedule, £800 million over budget and not a single Nimrod had been delivered. He then went on to mention aircraft carriers, but it is this Government that are building two aircraft carriers and this Government that are committed to sailing them both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to this place. I am delighted that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal recently named training ship Royalist. Cadet forces are hugely influential in the development of young people and in raising awareness of the armed forces. That is why I increased funding for 100 new cadet units in schools last year, and why we have committed to increasing the total number to 500 by 2020. I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend one day on a visit in his constituency.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Defence Secretary recently attended a conference in Singapore, where the ongoing tensions in the South China sea were discussed. I recently visited Japan, where concerns were also raised. Does he agree that Britain has considerable interests in this area of the world, and that we all need to work together to defuse potential problems before they escalate? Is it not yet another example of where we need to be clear about what the Government’s actual strategy is in dealing with a very real potential problem?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Nearly half the world’s trade passes through the South China sea. When I spoke at that conference, I called on all those involved in land reclamation, not simply China, to exercise restraint, to pursue these claims through proper legal frameworks and to avoid the danger—the very real danger—of some local miscalculation that could escalate. He is right: this is a very serious issue, and this is a part of world in which we have a very strong commercial interest.

Falkland Islands Defence Review

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.

Let me state at the outset that it is right, on occasions such as this, once again to remember and pay tribute to the courage of the men and women of the armed forces in retaking the Falklands in 1982—in particular, the 255 Britons who made the ultimate sacrifice, and the hundreds of service personnel who were injured, and their families.

We should also remember, as the Secretary of State said, that the views of the Falkland islanders are firmly on the record. Does he agree that the recent referendum was a democratic process overseen by international observers that has again made it clear that the islanders wish to remain British? Our position is clear: the only people to determine the future of the Falkland Islands are the Falkland islanders themselves.

The Government are therefore right in their vow to remain vigilant and committed to the protection of the Falkland islanders at all times. We support the current deployment of assets—Typhoon combat aircraft, Rapier surface-to-air missiles, and about 1,200 troops permanently stationed on the Falklands, supported by visiting Royal Navy warships and attack submarines—as a realistic deterrent to any potential threat to the islands. However, is it not the case that that position should be continuously reviewed and that the Government should remain constantly vigilant for any emerging threats?

For some years, Argentina has been trying to replace its antiquated and increasingly unserviceable fighter fleets with a newer and more capable air frame. Will the Secretary of State therefore say a little more about Russia’s involvement and what conversations he has had with our allies about its role in the region? Will he share his assessment of the actual threat facing the Falklands at the moment and whether it has increased in recent months?

How will the measures that the Secretary of State has announced today be funded? In the context of the spending plan set out in last year’s spending review, it became clear that the Ministry of Defence budget would come under severe pressure and the Chancellor’s Budget did nothing to dispel those concerns, so how will this ongoing commitment be met?

Will the Secretary of State say more about why it was that certain parts of the media were this morning reporting a greater number of troops, yet he has made it clear in his statement that the number will remain at about its current level?

How soon will the missile system be upgraded? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that there will not be any capability gaps between the end of the Rapier and the commencement of the new system? Can he also reassure the House that we have the appropriate number of Typhoons deployed in the Falklands? Is he satisfied that there is an appropriate level of intelligence sharing to ensure that we are able to deploy all our assets effectively? Will the Secretary of State say more about the time scale for modernising the infrastructure of the Falklands, including the harbour?

The involvement of Russia is clearly a worry, and the deterrent of enhanced military capabilities is to be welcomed, but surely we can all agree that the best way forward is diplomacy. What diplomatic activity is taking place, and what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Foreign Secretary?

Finally, is this not the clearest indication that we need an open debate about the defence and security challenges facing the UK and that the next strategic defence and security review needs to be strategically driven, equipping our armed forces for the challenges of an increasingly unstable and dangerous world, as the Defence Committee has said today?

The will of the people of the Falkland Islands—their right to self-determination, expressed in the recent referendum—must be respected, and Argentina’s transition to democracy should give us some confidence that that will be the case. However, we believe it is prudent to take the measures outlined by the Secretary of State as a proportionate response to the current threat. We believe that these measures should command the support of Members on both sides of the House.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his comments and for his broad welcome for the review’s conclusions. I agree with him about the importance of the referendum and its verification and the overwhelming result showing that the islanders want to remain British.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, including about how often we conduct such a review. The last review was conducted in 2008 and this review was set in train in 2013, which is about right as an interval: we should look at the issue every four or five years.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the potential involvement of Russia and press speculation. I am not responsible for speculation in the newspapers about either Russia or, indeed, troop numbers. So far as the threat is concerned, I re-emphasise that the principal threat to the islands remains the unjustified claim of Argentina to ownership of them.

On the budget, I made it clear that the expenditure is a 10-year programme: there will be expenditure of £180 million over the next 10 years. On Rapier, we expect it to go out of service in about 2019 or 2020, and there will be no gap before we introduce its replacement.

The hon. Gentleman asked about diplomatic discussions with Argentina. He will have noticed the presence on the Front Bench of my colleagues from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who are always ready to talk to Argentina. However, if the discussions are to be about the future of the Falkland Islands, it is very important that representatives of the Falklands Islands Government are present in the room when they take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Ahead of the second Minsk meeting, Russia stepped up its military support to the separatists. It transferred hundreds of heavy weapons, including rocket launchers, heavy artillery, tanks and armoured vehicles. It maintains hundreds of regular soldiers, including special forces in Ukraine. Since the latest Minsk agreement, we have seen the ground offensive at Debaltseve, leading to the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces, and the denial of access for OSCE monitors—both flagrant breaches of the Minsk agreement. What matters now is that Russia returns to what it agreed at Minsk and implements it as soon as possible.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Does the Defence Secretary agree that episodes in recent months in which RAF jets have been scrambled to escort Russian bombers close to our airspace, aircraft from our NATO partners have been asked to help locate a suspected Russian submarine off the west coast of Scotland, and the Royal Navy has been seen escorting a Russian warship in the English channel are very serious and risk a very serious incident? Will he tell the House how is he meeting these ongoing challenges and assure us that gaps in our military capability such as the lack of maritime patrol aircraft do not hinder us in any way in responding to such events?

[Michael Fallon]

These are indeed serious issues and serious threats. So far as the incursion of Russian aircraft around British airspace is concerned, we have successfully intercepted all of those potential incursions and they have been shadowed by our quick-reaction aircraft based at either Lossiemouth or Coningsby. Our Royal Navy has picked up and shadowed the transit of Russian ships through the channel. We will, of course, respond, though not in the sense of being provoked; we will ensure that any potential incursion into our airspace or maritime area is properly dealt with.

So far as maritime patrol aircraft are concerned, of course we will look at that capability again in the new review, but we share capabilities with our NATO allies. We helped to lift French troops into Mali and, in return, we share other capabilities with NATO allies.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Defence Secretary for that answer. He will, of course, be aware of ongoing events in eastern Ukraine and concerns about the stability of other areas in the region. He recently talked of Russia seeking to “test” NATO, so, while our response needs to be calm and considered, it also has to make strategic sense. What is the Defence Secretary’s latest assessment of the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, especially in the light of the deadly incident in Kharkiv yesterday; and what role is Britain playing, as a leading member of NATO, to reassure our partners of the fortitude, resilience and involving nature of that alliance?

[Michael Fallon]

It is pretty clear that the ceasefire agreement is not being properly respected. Russia needs to get back to the terms of that agreement and ensure that the fighting stops, that the heavy armour and other equipment I have referred to are withdrawn and that the territory of Ukraine is therefore respected. We have already been supplying non-lethal aid to Ukraine, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we are continuing to consider what further help to provide in terms of training that might help to reduce the number of casualties and fatalities and build up the capability of the Ukrainian forces, which have been subject to an awful onslaught.

Trident Renewal

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

What I am seeking, and what I have still not heard, is a recommitment to a continuous at-sea deterrent, but those words seem to have slipped out of Labour’s position. I hope that, when we hear from the hon. Member for Gedling—

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Fallon]

Ah! We are going to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Defence Secretary read out our policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) reiterated it. Our policy is quite clear: we want a minimum independent credible deterrent based on continuous at-sea deterrence, and of course we want to provide it in the most cost-effective way possible. Indeed, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, the Defence Secretary will find that that is exactly what he said a few moments ago.

[Michael Fallon]

I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that he is still committed to a continuous at-sea deterrent. I hope that he will send a copy of those words to the Leader of the Opposition, so that there can no longer be any lingering doubt in Scotland about whether or not this is a continuous at-sea deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for the contribution he has made, and often makes, in his speeches on this issue in the House of Commons. I do not mean to question the other parts of his speech, but may I tell him that its last couple of minutes encapsulated what the debate is about in a nutshell?

I do not believe that anybody in the House would not prefer a world without nuclear weapons or would not wish to see the end of nuclear weapons as soon as possible. No matter what party we belong to or how big or small it is, we are all united in trying to secure a world that is safe and secure, and rid of nuclear weapons. As hon. Members have said, this debate is about how we go about achieving that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on holding this debate. We disagree with each other, but I do not doubt that we all want to achieve the same end.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vernon Coaker]

I will make some progress first. I have only just started my speech, so let me have a minute or two.

I am grateful for the opportunity to outline clearly our position on nuclear deterrence and multilateral disarmament. The Labour party is an internationalist, multilateralist party, and proud to be so. We are firmly committed to working with our allies and partners around the world to advance our ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we are proud of our strong record in office on multilateral nuclear disarmament.

The previous Labour Government abolished the UK’s free-fall bombs, reduced the number of deployed warheads from 96 to 48, and almost halved the UK’s nuclear warhead stockpile to 160. Today, a written statement in response to the hon. Member for Moray states that the current Government have continued that policy with further reductions from 48 to 40 warheads, and that available operational warheads have reduced from 160 to 120—something we all commend. However, we believe that the Government could be doing more to advance that agenda. That is why, as the Defence Secretary said, the shadow Foreign Secretary and I wrote to the Prime Minister in November, urging the Government to ensure UK representation at the recent Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons—a conference they did attend in the end.

Multilateralism is making progress and the UK took the lead in achieving global reductions and international bans on landmines, chemical and biological weapons and cluster munitions. A strong and consistent voice for nuclear disarmament on the world stage means that the UK has played its part in reducing the global nuclear stockpile by more than 70% since the end of the cold war.

[Angus Robertson]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify an important matter? His Labour colleague, Neil Findlay, is a member of the shadow Cabinet in Scotland and responsible for fair work, skills and training. On the “Andrew Marr show” on 16 November 2014 he said,

“Andrew, it’s already Labour party policy in Scotland to oppose the renewal of Trident. Has been for some time.”

Is that correct?

[Vernon Coaker]

All I can say is that I am espousing the UK position, and what I am saying is consistent with the leader of the Scottish Labour party. Clearly, there is much more to do. The non-proliferation treaty conference later this year will be a key moment for a future Labour Government—or indeed any Government —to achieve concrete progress on global disarmament and anti-proliferation measures, and it would be wrong to jeopardise the significant progressive steps in multilateral nuclear disarmament made in recent years. To abandon unilaterally our nuclear deterrent at this stage in the disarmament process would do more harm than good, and in the current climate it would make Britain less secure and send out exactly the wrong signals at a sensitive moment in international relations.

The House will be all too aware of the significant and multifaceted challenges that this country faces from re-emerging and newer threats, as well as those that may emerge in future. Russia has been testing in UK waters and airspace while upgrading its conventional and nuclear capabilities—as the Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned in his thoughtful remarks—and the House will be aware of the serious events in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We have an increasingly erratic and unstable nuclear armed North Korea, and nuclear negotiations with Iran have reached a key moment. Now is not the time for the UK to act unilaterally.

[Pete Wishart]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from multilateralism may I say that, to me, Trident renewal is unilateral nuclear rearmament that is adding to the stockpile of nuclear weapons. The vote will be on Trident renewal. Will Labour Members oppose the motion, or are they happy to spend £100 billion and vote with the Tories in favour of an extra £30 billion of austerity?

[Vernon Coaker]

To try to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, this is about replacement and maintenance of our deterrent. He does not believe in us having a nuclear deterrent. Labour’s position is the policy I have espoused, which is that we must look at replacing our deterrent. He disagrees and that is fine; that is his point of view and he will articulate it in his own remarks, but Labour does not agree with it.

[Pete Wishart]

So you’ll vote with the Tories?

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to respond. We will vote for the policy we believe in. That is the policy I am laying out before the House, and we will vote accordingly.

Multilateral disarmament works only if all parties feel more secure. Were the UK to abandon its nuclear deterrent on its own, and not in conjunction with other nuclear states, then neither the British people nor our NATO allies would feel safer.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we would be in deep breach of not only the principle of deterrence, but the collective international responsibility we currently have through owning Trident and being a member of P5?

[Vernon Coaker]

I very much agree on the need for us to recognise our international obligations.

On the subject of NATO, I would like to return to a point that others have made. Is it not time for the Scottish Nationalists to be frank and open with us all? NATO is a nuclear alliance. The Scottish National party wants to be a part of that nuclear alliance. It has to recognise—I say this with respect—that membership of NATO comes with membership of the nuclear umbrella group and the nuclear planning group. Every single nation that the SNP points to as not having nuclear weapons is a member of that nuclear planning group, and is therefore involved in nuclear possession. The SNP position appears to be: no to nuclear weapons unless they belong to NATO. I understand that the motion has been moved not only by the Scottish National party, which is in favour of being in NATO, but by Plaid Cymru and the Green party, which are against being in NATO. Clearly, the smaller parties need to talk to each other.

Labour is clear. Let me say this unequivocally: our position, in an increasingly uncertain and unstable world, is that it is right for the UK to maintain a credible, minimum independent nuclear deterrent based on a continuous at-sea posture. It is right to want to deliver that deterrent in the most capable and cost-effective way, and in a way that best contributes to global security. It is right, therefore, to want to examine all the UK’s military capabilities, including nuclear, as part of the next strategic defence and security review, and to state that we would require a clear body of evidence for us to change our view that continuous at-sea deterrence provides the most credible and cost-efficient form of deterrent. That is why, as the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned, in 2007 Parliament voted to maintain the deterrent and to authorise spending on the concept phase and initial gate. It is why MPs will be asked again to vote on constructing a new class of Vanguard submarines in 2016. As the Defence Secretary said, no single successor submarine will be built until approval is guaranteed by this sovereign Parliament. We should not forget that this is a programme that would create thousands of high-quality jobs and apprenticeships in Scottish docks, Barrow construction yards and throughout a multibillion pound supply chain that will benefit about 850 companies, the overwhelming majority of which are based right here in the UK.

[Mr Dunne]

The shadow Defence Secretary has just laid out very clearly to the House the current Front Bench position of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Will he add to that clarity by confirming that he believes at present the most cost-effective way to deliver continuous at-sea deterrence is with a four-boat solution?

[Vernon Coaker]

As I have said, the evidence before us is that the continuous at-sea deterrent requires the current posture. What we have said is that, as part of the strategic defence and security review, we will consider whether a continuous at-sea deterrent can be delivered in a more cost-effective way. That is exactly what the Defence Secretary said in his remarks earlier today. I suggest to the Minister that the important principle here is that there is continuous at-sea deterrence. It is incumbent on all of us to do that in the most cost-effective way.

Of course, a decision on the UK’s future nuclear capabilities must primarily be based on strategic requirements and an assessment of the global proliferation and disarmament agenda. However, does that mean we can afford to ignore the thousands of livelihoods that depend on our building a new class of Vanguard submarine? Neither should we be drawn into a debate between funding vital public services and maintaining the deterrent. A future Labour Government would commit to delivering public services that the British people can be proud of and to maintaining the security of the country.

As well as issues of capability, costs and jobs, it is right to ask serious questions about how the UK can best contribute to multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts, and for that, Britain needs to show leadership on the global stage. It does not need a part-time deterrent of the like proposed by the Liberal Democrats—or whatever the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) was talking about. Theirs is a policy that would only add to instability and insecurity and which their own “Trident Alternatives Review” did not even consider worthy of consideration.

Is it not more telling that the review by the British American Security Information Council into Trident—a cross-party, independent assessment of the UK’s nuclear capabilities that, unlike the “Trident Alternatives Review”, did consider unilateral disarmament as an option—recommended that the UK continue its current Trident system while seeking to further enhance our multilateral disarmament record. For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth quoting a section of the report. On page 6 of the 2014 final document, it says:

“Based upon the two key specific considerations, namely national security concerns and responsibility towards the”

NATO

“Alliance, the Commission has come to the unanimous conclusion that the UK should retain and deploy a nuclear arsenal, with a number of caveats expressed below. Most notably, it remains crucial that the UK show keen regard for its position within the international community and for the shared responsibility to achieve progress in global nuclear disarmament.”

We could not agree more. The UK should maintain the minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent through a continuous-at-sea system, delivered in the most cost effective way, while advancing along the path to multilateral disarmament. We have the opportunity to advance the cause of global disarmament for a safer world. Britain can play a leading role in this while ensuring the security of the British people. Let us grasp this opportunity.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

I am afraid that I cannot take interventions.

I remind the House that it is the first duty of any Government to ensure the security of the nation, its people and their vital interests. This Government do not, and will not, gamble with the United Kingdom’s security. We recognise that people wish to be reassured that money spent on replacing the current Vanguard-class submarines will be money well spent. That has been reflected by several hon. Members in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee on Defence, eloquently pointed out, this is not just about money. It is a big decision, but costs are important too. The Government agree that the strategic deterrent should be subject to the same discipline in bearing down on securing value for money for taxpayers that we are applying across defence procurement.

We will continue to scrutinise and improve the procurement programme for Successor, but we should not forget that capability is a long-term issue. We are talking about maintaining a strategic deterrent in service until 2060, and it is essential that we can protect the UK against future uncertainties during that period. The world has always been an uncertain place, and the task of defending the nation has always been supremely challenging, and never more so than in the nuclear age. Some hon. Members have questioned the threats and the nature of deterrence—Members have very different views on the subject. As the Secretary of State said, we are now in the second nuclear age, with existing nuclear powers commissioning new capabilities. The problems of proliferation have become sharper, and the emergence of new nuclear states is a reality. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less than it has ever been. Only today there have been reports in the US raising doubts about continuing co-operation by Russia and its working with the United States to protect stockpiles of weapons and materials.

We have heard impassioned speeches by Members on both sides of the debate. I commend the consistency that most speakers have shown on this vital topic. I was reminded by some speakers, notably the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), and the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), of speeches from the 1980s. My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) argued with equal passion and considerable expertise. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) has clearly travelled in one direction in this debate, while at the same time the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) have travelled in the opposite direction.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as usual, is trying to have it both ways. During the campaign last year on the referendum, which settled the issue of independence for Scotland, he argued that Scotland’s defence would rest on the presumption of NATO membership. To be accepted as a member of NATO requires a nation to accept protection under an umbrella of nuclear compatibility, yet the motion seeks to do precisely the opposite in respect of our own nuclear deterrent. As the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) pointed out, all NATO allies except France, a nuclear-weapons state, participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group, so an independent Scotland would either have to participate in NATO’s nuclear planning process, which would be odd for a Government with a declared opposition to nuclear weapons, or it would have to persuade the 28 allies that it should hold a unique anti-nuclear position in a nuclear alliance—not a credible position.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) showed that he did not understand his own party’s motion. We should be clear about this. We are making the maingate decision next year on replacing four Vanguard-class submarines with four Successor submarines—that is, no increase in proliferation or stockpiling of weapons. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, and as set out in today’s written statement, this Government have already reduced the number of warheads deployed on each boat from 48 to 40 and the number of operationally available warheads from 160 to 120.

The hon. Member for Moray and several others made much of the cost of the overall programme, particularly the sums being spent or committed ahead of the maingate investment decision. It might help the House if I clarify the actual rather than the fantasy costs of the programme. Several hon. Members have referred to £100 billion as the cost of replacing Trident. We simply do not recognise this figure. The Government White Paper presented to Parliament in 2006 estimated a cost of £15 billion to £20 billion, at 2006 prices, for the Successor submarine infrastructure and refurbishment of warheads. We remain within these initial estimates, which in 2011 were updated for the capital costs of Successor submarines to £25 billion at outturn prices.

Some hon. Members acknowledged the economic impact of this programme. In addition to the important design and manufacturing facilities for the submarines at Barrow, which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned, for the propulsion in Derby, and for the warheads in Berkshire, there are of course those involved in the submarine operating base at Faslane—the largest employer in Scotland. We have identified over 850 businesses in the supply chain across the UK that will potentially be involved in the Successor programme. This is one of the largest capital projects in the UK.

The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling, revealed two things. First, we heard the renewed commitment to a minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent delivered through CASD—continuous-at-sea deterrence—in the most cost-effective way. I, and other Government Members, welcome that. It will be interesting to see how many of his colleagues join him and me in the Lobby to reject the motion. I hope that he has the support of his party. I noticed that he claimed the support of the leader of the Scottish Labour party, but not of his own leader.

Secondly, and revealingly, the hon. Gentleman declined to confirm, in answer to my specific question, that the Labour party is committed to a four-boat solution. Perhaps this explains the nuances between the hon. Gentleman, who spoke before Christmas of a minimum credible deterrent, and the Leader of the Opposition, who, when challenged, talked of a least-cost CASD.

[Vernon Coaker]

We should not be playing party politics with an issue like this, but if we are, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who said,

“At the moment the assessment is we need four…So at the moment the technology says four. That’s something that can always be kept under review”?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We are looking at the gaps in the capability of the Kurdish and Iraqi forces, and if we can help with additional equipment, we are ready to do so, and we have already played a very active part in transporting to those forces equipment that has been gifted or sold from other nations.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The House stands united with the people of France, and, indeed, with all who support the principles of freedom of speech, tolerance and democracy in the face of the barbarity that the world witnessed last week on the streets of Paris. This morning the Defence Secretary attended high-level meetings in Whitehall to discuss the United Kingdom’s response to those tragic events. Given that one of the terrorists said that he was acting on behalf of ISIL, will the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what further steps the Government are taking to combat this threat in Iraq and beyond?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for, in particular, the tone that he has struck in the light of the tragic events in France. We all have sympathy with those involved.

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are clear about the fact that if we are to reduce the threat from ISIL in France and the United Kingdom, ISIL must be defeated in both Iraq and Syria. This morning, under the Prime Minister’s direction, we again reviewed our standing preparations for a terrorist attack, including the number and readiness of troops available to assist the police, and we are keeping the security situation under continuous review.

[Vernon Coaker]

I think that the whole House will be grateful to the Defence Secretary for his response. Does he agree that following those recent events the need to tackle the threat is even more urgent, and that we must work ever more closely with our allies in Europe—such as France—and with our partners in the region, including Turkey? Will he update us on the progress that has been made by United Kingdom forces in their crucial work of training Iraqi and peshmerga troops in Iraq to combat the ISIL threat there, and also, importantly, preventing future acts of terrorism here in the United Kingdom?

[Michael Fallon]

We are already co-operating closely with France in particular, and we have reinforced our offer of assistance to France over the last few days. If ISIL is to be defeated and the threat to our own country and other European countries reduced, we will of course depend on the co-operation of the entire international community, but especially on the co-operation of partners in the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the role that Turkey and other regional partners can play.

We have been training Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and are doing so at the moment. Training courses in Kurdistan are being managed and led by British troops, and I hope that they will help the peshmerga, in particular, in their fight against ISIL.

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for providing a copy of the inquiry report this morning. I also join him in thanking Sir Thayne Forbes and his team for their diligent work and comprehensive and conclusive report.

As the Defence Secretary said, our armed forces are the best in the world. British servicemen and women carry out their duties with bravery and distinction, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude for their service to our country. They often face the most difficult and challenging conditions. The battle of Danny Boy in southern Iraq in 2004 was one such occasion when the battle was ferocious and our troops were in great danger.

As the Defence Secretary rightly pointed out, five soldiers were awarded the military cross and one the conspicuous gallantry cross. As well as their courage, British soldiers pride themselves on their conduct in battle and the high standards to which they are held and indeed hold themselves. Does he agree that they are and will remain accountable both to international law and to the Geneva convention?

Does the Defence Secretary also agree that this House and any UK Government are not afraid to be open and frank when those high standards are not met and our armed forces do not adhere to the conduct expected of the British military? There are many examples of that—most strikingly, the statement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in 2010 after the publication of the report of the Saville inquiry into the events known as Bloody Sunday, and the response to the Baha Mousa inquiry. It should be a source of pride that we are a country where that can happen.

Does the Defence Secretary agree that, likewise, we will not tolerate calculated, malicious and baseless untruths against our servicemen and women? This report states in those very terms that the serious allegations that precipitated the inquiry were just that. There were no unlawful killings on the battlefield, no mutilation of bodies and no executions in custody. I want to establish that very clearly before I ask him some questions about the report’s findings.

In dismissing the serious allegations made against British troops, the report nevertheless draws attention to some areas where we should learn lessons. Opposition Members support the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the implementation of its nine recommendations can be achieved with speed and efficiency? We will support him in achieving that.

The report says that the conduct of some individual soldiers did amount to actual or possible ill treatment. I of course join the Defence Secretary in expressing regret that that occurred. It is not acceptable. Have the soldiers been identified? Are they still in service and, if so, what steps are being taken to address those concerns? The report states that Ministry of Defence procedures in place at the time might have contributed to what happened. Can the Defence Secretary confirm that, if those procedures have not been updated already, they will be reviewed now?

The report identifies ways in which we might be able to avoid the need for such costly inquiries in future. I share with the Defence Secretary the concerns about the legal representatives and the legal process in this instance. In that sense, the recommendations in the report will ensure a better way of examining allegations against the armed forces, avoiding unnecessarily cumbersome processes and, as he pointed out, significant financial costs.

What progress has been made on the collection and storage of and ability to search documents and other records? Has the shooting incident policy been reviewed and updated? Are there plans to do so? What changes have been made to the recording of the circumstances of a prisoner’s detention? More generally, how does the Defence Secretary plan to review any shortcomings in existing practices and procedures, and ensure that they are updated and amended?

In its conclusion, the report compared, as did the Defence Secretary, the testimony of those alleging and those being accused. The report said that the Iraqi witnesses were

“unprincipled in the extreme and wholly without regard for the truth”

while the British military witnesses were, by contrast, “truthful and reliable”, despite the difficulty and distress caused by recalling traumatic events of battle. I think the House will join me in saying that that speaks for itself—and it speaks volumes.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for what he has said and for the tone in which he said it. I agree with his comment about the baseless untruths. He started by saying that our armed forces must be accountable to the law, and it is important to emphasise that—that they are accountable under both domestic law and the law of armed conflict, and that where there are allegations they will always be investigated. We should be open and frank about that. Where instances of some ill treatment or harsh treatment occur, they should be fully and honestly investigated. I do think that there are very few countries and judicial systems that would put themselves through this kind of inquiry to get to the truth.

The hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions. On the recommendations, I am studying the report in detail and I will respond, as is customary, within the next few weeks on the detail of the recommendations. I hope it is clear that I accept the spirit of them all and the principle behind them all. I just have to look at some of the practicalities of implementing at least one or two of them.

I do not have any up-to-date information about where the personnel are currently serving. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to write to him on that specific point.

On the procedural changes, these were the procedures that applied 10 years ago, in 2004. Sir Thayne himself acknowledges that many of the procedural changes have already been introduced. On the public inquiry, it might have been easy for the incoming Government—the inquiry was set up under the previous Government—simply to halt the public inquiry, but I believe that it was the right decision to allow it to run its course. However, we now have the Iraq historic allegations team, which will be able to get at the truth of these allegations probably in a different format and a little more quickly than a public inquiry, inevitably. That is not a criticism of Sir Thayne—far from it.

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the role of UK armed forces in Iraq.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The United Kingdom is providing substantial support to the Government of Iraq through air strikes, surveillance, the gifting and transporting of equipment and the training of Iraqi forces in specialist skills. About 50 UK personnel are working with the Danes in Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq, carrying out combat infantry and sharpshooter training, and we are coming to the end of the second of four three-week courses. We also have about 10 military personnel in Irbil, seeing how we can assist the Government of Iraq in training and equipping other Kurdish forces. The international coalition is developing its plan to build the capacity of Iraqi security forces and any future UK training contribution would be absorbed into this coalition plan.

In early November, I announced our intention to provide further training to the Iraqi military. No decisions on troop numbers, units or locations have been made, although we expect to focus on providing expertise in countering explosive devices. During Defence questions on 24 November, I also announced our intention to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of advisory personnel to command headquarters. We are considering what contribution we can make and the details of any of these decisions will be announced to Parliament in the usual way.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am sure that many Members will, like me, have been surprised and dismayed that the Defence Secretary told a Sunday newspaper about the deployment of UK armed forces to Iraq before he told this House. Is it not true that that led to turmoil in his department? Yesterday morning, he said that hundreds of troops would be deployed across four training bases, but yesterday afternoon a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that no decisions on troop numbers, units or locations had been made, so how many are there? What message does he think this sends to our armed forces? Is it one of clarity and decisiveness or one of confusion and uncertainty? These are serious matters and the British public will want to know that this is not being undertaken lightly.

We have supported steps taken by the Government, regional partners and the international coalition to combat ISIL, including the provision by UK forces of training and equipment to the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces, but we will scrutinise any developments and ensure that appropriate questions are asked. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the risk involved in expanding the training role to several locations across Iraq and the status and rules of engagement of force protection personnel? Will both training units and combat-ready personnel be solely under UK command and comprise UK servicemen and women alone? What role will the RAF, which is currently undertaking combat missions in Iraq, play? What discussions has he had with the Iraqi Government about this deployment? Does he agree that there must be no misunderstanding about British involvement in Iraq at any stage, which is why we need a clearly defined strategy?

There has not been enough clarity about the role of the UK armed forces, the scale of their involvement and the time frame for training operations. The Defence Secretary said just over a month ago that that would be very limited and at that stage only a dozen UK troops were involved in specific training tasks. Is there a strategy or are the Government making it up as they go along? Will the Defence Secretary explain reports that the National Security Council is meeting later this week to discuss and approve something he has already announced?

Finally, does he intend to come back to the House to report on the deployment so that we can have a full, open and proper discussion on these hugely significant matters? That is what the British public would expect and demand.

[Michael Fallon]

As I said, I have already announced, including in this House, that we are considering what further contribution we can make to the training of Iraqi forces. There is nothing new about that. Yesterday, I made it very clear that the numbers are yet to be finalised. When they are finalised, they will, of course, be announced to the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked whether there will be a proper assessment of risk. Yes, I will take advice from my military advisers on the risk involved. On force protection, we must make sure that any training that we provide is properly protected, even though it is well away from the front line. The RAF strikes will continue. I will keep the House updated on the number of missions that are flown and the number of strikes.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the Iraqi Government. I make it clear to the House that everything that we are doing in Iraq and everything that we are considering doing in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi Government. I clarified that in my visit to Baghdad and Irbil last month. It is precisely because the Iraqi Government have asked us and our coalition partners for help that we are considering this action at the moment.

I cannot comment on specific details in respect of the National Security Council, but I repeat that the details of our final decisions will be reported to the House.