Mull of Kintyre Review
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence. As a result, an opportunity has been provided to enable noble Lords from all sides of the House to express their views in the light of the Statement on a tragedy that has been the subject of considerable comment and concern.
We pay tribute to the 29 people who died in the accident, and to the dignity and bravery of their families. We add our thanks to Lord Philip for his review of and report on the tragic accident in June 1994, when a Chinook mark 2 helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre, and also to the panel of three Privy Counsellors who assisted Lord Philip in his work, two of whom are Members of your Lordships’ House.
The review was mainly of the written record of the board of inquiry and of other related evidence that, it was felt, might throw light on the findings of the board. The original board of inquiry made no finding of culpability, but the two reviewing officers made a finding of gross negligence in respect of the two pilots. It is unfortunate that some of Lord Philip's conclusions were apparently leaked, as they were fairly extensively reported over last weekend. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on this in his response and tell us what action, if any, is being taken.
The principal recommendation that the board of inquiry finding of negligence to a gross degree should be set aside has been accepted and implemented by the Defence Council. Lord Philip felt that the Ministry of Defence should consider offering an apology to the families of Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant Cook. The Secretary of State for Defence has just given that apology and we agree with that.
There is also an issue of the large number of key personnel who were travelling together on the Chinook that crashed. The matter was reviewed after the board of inquiry and guidance was produced, and I note from the Statement that the Secretary of State intends to take another look at this issue to reassure himself that procedures are adequate and appropriate. Lord Philip has also commented on the board of inquiry procedures at the time of the accident but indicated that his concerns have been met by subsequent changes to those procedures.
The terms of reference of the review were:
“To examine all available evidence relating to the findings of the board of inquiry into the fatal accident at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994; and to report conclusions to the Secretary of State for Defence as soon as possible”.
The review was not asked to make conclusions as to the cause of the accident but it did not find new evidence to suggest mechanical failure, and no safety issue with the Chinook mark 2 has been raised in the report. Lord Philip’s conclusion is very specific. He states that according to the regulations in force at the time, a finding of negligence should only have been made against air crew who had been killed in an accident if there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” about the matter. Lord Philip indicates that competent persons did have doubts, albeit not the reviewing officers, and that accordingly the findings should not stand.
It would appear that successive Secretaries of State, initially from the Conservatives and then from Labour, serving from the time of the incident until the last election, felt they should follow the view of the reviewing officers, which was backed up by legal advice, even though it now seems from Lord Philip’s report that the RAF’s own regulations were not followed since there was not the necessary level of proof—namely, “absolutely no doubt whatsoever”—which there should have been for a finding of gross negligence. Indeed, investigations by the Public Accounts Committee in 2000 and a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House in 2001 both found that the findings of the board of inquiry did not satisfy the burden of proof required.
The Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence accept Lord Philip’s finding that there was room for doubt on the matter and that therefore the finding of negligence to a gross degree was unjustified. We believe that, in the light of Lord Philip's report, the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence have made the correct decision. It is only right that if a finding of negligence to a gross degree is to stand, the evidence must be such as to leave no doubt whatsoever. Lord Philip has quite clearly found that not to be the case.
I have three questions to put to the Minister. In the Statement, it was said that the report reveals that the pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft. Could the Minister tell the House how this matter was dealt with at the time, and what lessons have been learned and implemented? Secondly, can the Minister say what issues surrounding compensation for the families of the deceased arise from the report? I hope that this now brings this matter to a conclusion—one that all will feel able to accept. With that sentiment in mind, I have only one further question to ask the Minister: will he confirm that there will now be no further reviews or enquiries seeking to establish the cause of the accident?
Afghanistan
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we do not comment on the specific rules of engagement but any use of force in Afghanistan must comply with the laws of armed conflict. However, commanders take the threat of IEDs very seriously. Since June last year, the Government have spent £330 million on equipment to help them tackle that threat.
Turning to my noble friend’s other question, the Afghan economy has been growing at an impressive 9 per cent, on average, each year since 2003. It now collects almost $2 billion in revenue. We are optimistic about Afghanistan’s economic prospects but recognise that it will need the support of the international community for some time to come. We, alongside our allies and other international institutions, stand ready to support Afghanistan for the long term.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on this side, we also offer our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Highlander Scott McLaren, who was killed in Afghanistan last Monday. His death is yet another reminder of the harsh reality that our Armed Forces put their lives on the line in the service of our country.
In her response to the Statement on Afghanistan last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon asked whether our Armed Forces would continue to receive all the equipment that they need in the months ahead, including the 12 additional Chinooks, which the Prime Minister promised but for which the order has not yet been placed. No direct answer on when the order would be placed was forthcoming. Will the Minister tell the House when the Ministry of Defence will have completed working towards the main investment decision on these helicopters; when it is expected that the order for the 12 additional Chinooks will be placed; and when they are expected to be operational?
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, extend my thanks to the Minister and his officials for the briefings on the Bill that have been provided. I am sure that it will have come as no surprise to your Lordships that today’s debate on the Armed Forces Bill has proved both interesting and highly informative. Views, sometimes powerfully put across, have been expressed by noble—and noble and gallant—Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, who really understand the culture, concerns and commitment of our Armed Forces from first-hand experience and knowledge acquired over a number of years.
The Armed Forces Bill, which we need every five years, provides an opportunity for a debate about all aspects of the work of our service personnel, and it is already clear from what noble Lords have said today that a number of important issues will be raised during the Bill’s further stages. My noble friend Lady Drake had some interesting comments to make on young recruits to the Armed Forces and I hope that the Minister will be able to address the key points she raised.
Concern has been expressed about the extent of the commitments being undertaken by our Armed Forces at a time when financial resources are in short supply. We have heard the word “stretched” in comments attributed recently to senior military figures regarding the effect on both service personnel and equipment.
On 27 June the Minister gave a commitment in this House that we can sustain our operation in Libya for as long as we choose to, and that the Government would continue to provide sufficient resources to achieve operational success in Afghanistan and elsewhere as long as we are in Libya. Although we have no reason to doubt that that is what the Government will do, we will nevertheless make sure that the Government deliver on the undertaking that they have given.
That brings me to the issue of the strategic defence and security review, which has also been the subject of comment during the debate today. Although the Armed Forces covenant does not mention the SDSR, surely part of our commitment to the covenant, and to the welfare of our Armed Forces, should be an updating of our current defence strategy when potentially significant new commitments are taken on, as in the case of the operation over Libya. An updating would also assess the impact on our resources and capabilities, and particularly on our people and on their training and development, to ensure that both now and in the future our admirable Armed Forces will have the resources, without being stretched beyond breaking point, to deliver the commitments that we as a nation have decided we require them to undertake.
The Government’s belated decision to keep to the Prime Minister’s undertaking in June 2010 to enshrine the covenant—the bond between the nation and our servicepeople—in law, through the amendments to this Bill which they introduced last month in the other place, has been welcomed by virtually all of your Lordships who have spoken. We support and welcome this development, although we will wish to explore further the details of the Government’s approach as set out in those amendments. We support the principle laid down in the Bill that no member of the service community, including dependants, should find themselves at a disadvantage arising from service, and that special provision may sometimes be needed to reflect the specific sacrifice some individuals have suffered.
However, it appears that the Secretary of State will only be required to “have regard” to the principles in preparing the annual Armed Forces covenant report. That raises questions about whether the principles will apply to all policy issues across all departments or whether the Secretary of State will be the sole arbiter of what issues should or should not be covered by the principles through the decisions that he makes on what matters should be referred to in the annual Armed Forces covenant report. Will there be any independent audit of progress made in delivering the covenant and commitments or proposals made in previous annual reports by the Secretary of State? Will there be an obligation on all public servants and Ministers to apply the principles in the covenant in all aspects of public policy-making? Will each Minister be accountable for their own sphere of responsibility? The Government’s decision to abolish the chief coroner’s office, which the Royal British Legion has described as a “betrayal” of Armed Forces families that “threatens the military covenant”, suggests that the principles may not apply across all areas of government policy.
We welcome the decision to have an annual debate on the covenant in this House, but only three subjects are specified in the Bill for inclusion in the annual report by the Secretary of State—namely, education, housing and healthcare. Why are other welfare matters, such as pensions and benefits, employment, training and rehabilitation services excluded from specific mention as issues on which the Secretary of State has to report? The three fields that are specified for inclusion—education, housing and healthcare—are devolved, so presumably Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Armed Forces and veterans face the prospect of being excluded from any proposals in these areas that the Secretary of State may make in his report. Is that the position, or will the report apply equally to all UK forces, including veterans, to whom a number of noble Lords have referred with some passion and feeling?
In a debate on 8 June on the War Widows Association, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked whether the Government could draw up a shopping list of what the War Widows Association recognises to be the areas of greatest need, insert them into the covenant and then set out in the covenant that the Secretary of State should be required to report every year to Parliament on how the shopping list is being met. The Minister said he would take back to his department the point made about the association’s shopping list, since he considered it to be an excellent suggestion. Could the Minister indicate what the current position is on this matter?
We welcome the Secretary of State’s intention of a continuing role for the external reference group, with its new name and updated terms of reference, more specifically identifying it with the implementation of the covenant, the welfare of our Armed Forces and the annual report. Is the composition of the group going to change, or will it remain as at present? Is it going to become a permanent body charged with overseeing the implementation of all policy that relates to forces welfare?
Apart from the Secretary of State’s annual report and the debate in Parliament, what system will there be for addressing complaints by service personnel over whether the principles of the covenant are being upheld? In addition to the chain of command, the service complaints commissioner will presumably continue to have a role, but in her last annual report she said that the existing complaints system was ineffective, caused extreme delay, failed to deliver justice and led to inconsistencies. The commissioner proposed that an Armed Forces ombudsman be introduced. Is this something that the Government are considering? What changes are the Government contemplating in the light of the commissioner’s comments?
While most of the debate has centred on the covenant, the Bill does address a number of other issues, some of which will no doubt be considered in more detail during further stages, not least because they were barely touched on at all during consideration in the other place. One such issue is the role of reservists and the duties they can be called on to undertake, which has been the subject of comment by a number of noble Lords. We see much sense in what the Government seek to achieve by making the statutory role of the reservists less restrictive so that they could in future be called upon to help in addition to, or instead of, regular Armed Forces—for example, when there are significant floods, as there were recently in Cumbria, or something like a major outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
However, can the Minister say whether it would be the Government’s intention, under the provisions in the Bill, to use reservists to help in other known, pre-planned events, in addition to the Olympics, as opposed to unforeseen events? Can he also say what would be the Government’s intentions in relation to using reservists in a situation where industrial action is taking place? It would also be helpful to know the Government’s reasons for not taking powers in the Bill to introduce permissive random testing on alcohol, which applies in some parts of the transport industry. Likewise, perhaps the Minister could provide information, if not tonight then shortly, on what percentage of positions in the Armed Forces—and why—the Government consider not to be safety-critical, and therefore are not covered by the alcohol provisions.
Although there are a number of aspects that we will want to probe in more detail, we welcome the Bill as it has emerged from the other place, as opposed to how it started out in the other place. As my noble friends Lady Crawley and Lady Taylor of Bolton said, the previous Government had a proud record in the field of the welfare of our service personnel. The Armed Forces Act 2006 introduced a single system of service law that was, in effect, a complete overhaul of legislation on military law and service discipline. The Bill we are considering today also makes some modest but sensible changes to those arrangements. The previous Government also ensured that forces pay increases were among the highest in the public sector, invested in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities and increased NHS access for dependants.
In 2008 the service personnel Command Paper was published, which was the first cross-government strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel. Following that, compensation payments were doubled for the most serious injuries; the welfare grant for the families of those on operations was doubled; better access was given to housing schemes and healthcare; and free access was offered to further education for service leavers with six years’ service. Impartial oversight of the Government’s progress was provided through establishing the external reference group as an independent monitor of the Government’s implementation of the service Command Paper.
The enshrining of the Armed Forces covenant in law, as provided for in the Bill, is a step that we support, not just in its own right but particularly at a time of major cuts to the defence budget, which has seen allowances and pensions cut, significant numbers of personnel facing redundancy and additional commitments being taken on. As an Opposition we will always support the Government when they do the right thing by our forces, whom we all admire and respect. The Bill as amended in the other place represents a good start. We shall consider what has been said in this debate and what other interested parties are saying and then decide what amendments to put down, and on what issues, with a view to strengthening the Bill.
Armed Forces: Overstretch
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord the confirmation that he has asked for. I cannot praise the chiefs enough. They are showing very strong leadership at a difficult time and when we are fighting two wars. As regards the noble and gallant Lord’s second question, as recent events have demonstrated, we are still capable of making a major contribution to NATO operations. In Libya we are the third largest contributor after the United States and France, while maintaining our efforts in Afghanistan and meeting our other standing commitments.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, in the Statement yesterday on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence, the Government said that service chiefs would run their individual service and also be accountable for their budgets and delivering strategy. Under the new regime, with greater accountability by service chiefs, are the Government saying that service chiefs will not be allowed to speak out on concerns about the overstretch of the Armed Forces if they believe the resources they have been given do not enable them to implement the strategy commitments they have been told to deliver?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said, the chiefs have the right, whenever they want, to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Prime Minister—that is the proper way to do it.
Armed Forces: Resources
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, dealing with the economic legacy that we inherited has required us to reduce the size of the Armed Forces and cut or gap a number of low-priority capabilities. However, the SDSR states explicitly the need for an adaptable posture to defend our interests in the world. As a result, we have structured and resourced our forces to give us flexibility to conduct operations.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we on this side also wish to extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Craftsman Andrew Found and Corporal Lloyd Newell, who have both been killed recently in operations in Afghanistan. We also join the Minister in paying tribute to the courage and fortitude of the wounded.
The Foreign Secretary has said that the Arab spring is a more important event than 9/11. The national security strategy, published last year, does not mention Libya or, indeed, Egypt and Tunisia. Should the Government not be looking again at the strategic defence and security review in the light of that to make sure that we have a review that has been updated to reflect what is now happening and the impact this has on our resources and capabilities to enable us to sustain our current commitments, including over Libya?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the SDSR was a thorough assessment of the threats we face. Its conclusion, that we need an adaptable posture with flexible forces, has been validated by recent events, and it will ensure we can continue to conduct operations today while preparing our future force. Those who argue for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending, but they fail to spell out the inevitable result: more borrowing, more tax rises or more cuts elsewhere.
Defence: Reform
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State. I have not yet had time to read as carefully as I would wish the report that has been presented on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence, but we add our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and his colleagues for the work they have undertaken. Support for our Armed Forces is vital and acknowledged by us all. They protect our national security and the security of others, and are prepared to put their lives on the line to do so. An effective and efficient Ministry of Defence is a key element of that support.
The Statement addresses reform. Based on the details in the Statement, we welcome the widening of the pool of promotion, making service chiefs more accountable for spending and, in principle, some of the changes in Ministry of Defence structure. We agree with measures to streamline the higher levels of the military.
Clearly, we will need to examine the detail but, from what we know so far, we support the introduction of a joint forces command. There are arguments in favour of the new Defence Board in minimising interservice rivalry. Are the Government of the view that the strategic defence and security review was adversely affected by interservice rivalry and differing interservice objectives?
Some will note that this proposed change involving just the Chief of Defence Staff being on the board, not the three service chiefs, comes just after the Prime Minister was quoted as saying last week, “I’ll do the talking, you do the fighting”, and wonder whether the Prime Minister's view is now being confirmed in the future structure of the Ministry of Defence.
The report, as we understand it, is not primarily about finding ways to save money or an exercise in how to improve the procurement function; it is a report about the management and structure of the Ministry of Defence. Bearing that in mind, it would be helpful if the Minister could give examples of what recent decision-making processes or activities would have been improved or been more effective had the new structure now proposed been in place, and why. Would it, for example, have led to a better strategic defence and security review, devoid of rushed decisions? Would the new structure have avoided what appears to be a considerable black hole between the declared intent of the strategic defence and security review and the amount of money available to deliver it, as the Government seek efficiency savings that they have not found and are engaged in events that they did not forecast?
How long is it anticipated that it will take to implement the new structure and management arrangements in full? Bearing in mind that we are currently fighting two wars, how will the Government ensure that the attention of those senior personnel involved is not deflected, to the detriment of the actions in which we are engaged, by having to implement a reorganisation?
The change in structure would appear to have an impact on the workload of the Chief of the Defence Staff, as the occupant of that post will be required in future to keep closely in touch with the service chiefs, who will not, as we understand it, be based at the Ministry of Defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff will be responsible for co-ordinating, determining and putting across the views and position of the Armed Forces at the new Defence Board. Is the Minister satisfied that one person can effectively undertake that role, and what level of support staff will the occupant of the post require?
The change in structure indicates a more hands-on role for the Secretary of State for Defence and other Defence Ministers, as the Secretary of State will be chairing the new Defence Board, which will presumably be meeting not infrequently. Does that mean that as a result, any functions currently undertaken by defence Ministers—in particular, the Secretary of State—will no longer be undertaken by them?
The report indicates that increased length of time in office by the most senior personnel would help. It would presumably assist in ensuring consistency of decision-making, as well as greater depth of knowledge of at least recent past events and the reasons for the approaches and decisions adopted and commitments made. It would also mean that some of those responsible for decisions were more likely to have to see them through to fruition and completion. Do the Government intend to act to ensure greater length of tenure in office for senior personnel, including defence Ministers?
The new Defence Board, chaired by the Secretary of State, will apparently be responsible for strategy. Will it also be responsible for ensuring that resources, including financial resources, will be provided over the whole timeframe for the strategy that has been determined? Does that mean that if the money is not there to deliver the agreed strategy, the responsibility rests with politicians, and the Secretary of State in particular, who will be chairing the board?
Do the Government see the changes set out to the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence as increasing or decreasing the involvement of Ministers in defence decisions and strategy? Do they see the changes as increasing or decreasing the involvement of service chiefs in those decisions? Could the Minister also say who, under the new structure, will assess future threats and scenarios? Will it be the Ministry of Defence at, say, the Defence Board, or will it be the National Security Council? We should bear it in mind that last week the Prime Minister referred to the current role of the National Security Council’s weekly sitting, asking whether we have the right resources and the right strategy. Have the Government, as part of their consideration of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, considered the relationship between the restructured Ministry of Defence and other government departments and bodies whose decisions can impact on defence policy?
The Minister will accept that no change in structure, roles or responsibilities can achieve anything in itself. At the end of the day, any structure is dependent on the people who have to make it function. Only time will tell if the changes being made in the Ministry of Defence will deliver the objectives the Government have set in the light of the Levene report.
Armed Forces: Foreign Pilot Training
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I was aware that my noble friend was doing the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme and I very much commend the important work that it does. The Ministry of Defence recognises the value to the country obtained from training pilots from partner countries. We are at the early stage of discussions with the UK defence industry to explore how best to take this issue forward. Supporting the training needs of our partners and allies provides important defence and diplomacy benefits—for example, the involvement of Denmark in operations in Libya—and is also a critical factor in securing contracts for defence export sales, which are worth billions of pounds and thousands of jobs to the UK defence industry.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, on this side we, too, offer our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Colour Sergeant Kevin Fortuna, Lieutenant Oliver Augustin, Marine Samuel Alexander MC, Corporal Michael Pike, Lance Corporal Martin Gill, Rifleman Martin Lamb, Corporal Lloyd Newell, Craftsman Andrew Found and Private Gareth Bellingham, all of whom were killed recently on active service in Afghanistan. Like the Minister, we pay tribute to those who have been wounded and face lengthy rehabilitation. We have been reminded again this afternoon of the enormous sacrifices being made by the members of our Armed Forces.
The Minister said that the Government were seeking to offer any surplus training slots to foreign trainee pilots. Will such personnel pay the marginal costs of their training or the full economic costs, bearing in mind the additional expenditure that we now face in respect of our operations in Libya? How long will the training of foreign personnel continue—the Minister referred to the time that it would take to remove spare capacity from the training programme—and approximately how many foreign personnel does he expect that we will be training?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, flying training for foreign students under international defence training is provided at full cost. Training provided by the UK Armed Forces is rightly considered as some of the best in the world. As such, we expect demand to continue. We have no plans for that to diminish. I do not have with me the figures on how many foreign students are trained. I am aware that for this financial year— 2010-11—the requirement was for 155 students in total to be trained. I will write to the noble Lord with the exact figures on foreign students.
Libya
Lord Rosser Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement an Urgent Question that was allowed in the other place. We have always been clear that we support the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in order to protect Libyan civilians and implement a no-fly zone. We have also said that we support the Government’s actions and that we scrutinise their actions. I note that the Minister has referred in the Statement to the Foreign Secretary’s comment that it is now,
“necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime”.
However, the Minister went on to say that, while the use of attack helicopters was one of a range of capability options under consideration, no decision has been made yet on whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya. The Minister in the other place also said that once they have, Ministers will come back to inform the House.
Certainly, an inference might be drawn from the phrase “once we have” that the decision is more about when rather than if. But if the words simply refer to once we have made a decision, is the Minister saying that if the decision is not to use our attack helicopters in Libya he will also be coming back to tell the House? When does the Minister anticipate coming back to inform the House, bearing in mind that a short recess is imminent? Is no decision likely before the date that this House resumes after the Recess?
I should like to refer to the reports in the newspapers this morning. The Guardian, which may not be the Government’s favourite newspaper, said, without any ifs or buts that Britain and France are to deploy attack helicopters against Libya and said that the French Foreign Minister had confirmed that his country had dispatched a dozen helicopters. Indeed, the dispatch of 12 French helicopters to Libya on 17 May was reported in yesterday’s Le Figaro newspaper.
The Sun, which certainly is one of the Government’s favourite papers, said that the Government would announce the deployment of Apache attack helicopters today. The Daily Telegraph, which sometimes seems to be better briefed on the Government’s thinking and intentions than some Cabinet Ministers, said that British attack helicopters would be in action in Libya within days and would fly in from a Royal Navy warship. It said that the operation will take the allies closer to a full ground operation. The report went on:
“Whitehall officials said that, by the weekend, the Apaches will begin flying missions from HMS Ocean … Their use was authorised by David Cameron at a meeting of the National Security Council”.
Those newspaper reports bear the hallmark of concerted briefing since they all say much the same thing. Will the Minister tell the House who was responsible for those briefings? I hope that he will not tell us that such briefings have not taken place. Will the Minister also say why briefings of this kind, which are not far removed from a running commentary on our imminent military intentions, are given to newspapers before anything is said in Parliament? Is that not another example of the way in which the Government are seeking to marginalise Parliament’s role of being able to question, to challenge and to call the Executive to account?
Will the Minister say whether a meeting of the National Security Council has recently taken place and if decisions on the use or otherwise of helicopters were made, as confidently asserted on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today? The French Defence Minister was quoted yesterday as saying:
“The British, who have assets similar to ours, will also commit. The sooner the better is what the British think”.
In view of the statement by the French that they have dispatched a dozen helicopters, and in the light of the Government’s Statement that we have made no decision yet on whether to use our attack helicopters in Libya, how well is the close military co-operation between ourselves and the French in relation to Libya and in other areas of activity going?
On the face of it, an announcement by the French that they have made a decision to dispatch helicopters at a time when we are still considering a range of capability options and have made no decision yet on whether to use our attack helicopters, does not suggest that the co-operation is quite as close as it might be. It could be inferred that there is not always unanimity over the advantages of acting in concert either on what to do, when to do it or how to do it, or over the appropriate timing of announcements. Is this a matter that Ministers intend to pursue with their French counterparts?
Does the Minister accept the view that the deployment of helicopters by the French, and possibly by ourselves, represents an escalation of the conflict? While helicopters will add to firepower and give precision targeting, they are more vulnerable to ground fire than high-altitude fighter jets and thus, if we deploy them, will potentially put British personnel in greater danger. If we do deploy the helicopters, would it be the Government’s intention that the British personnel involved will also receive the operational allowance that their colleagues in Afghanistan do?
The Minister referred to the Foreign Secretary’s comment on the necessity for intensifying military pressure on the Gaddafi regime. If the Government are still considering a range of capability options, what are the objectives that are not being achieved now in pursuit of UNSCR 1973 that the Government seek to achieve through the use of one or more options now under consideration, including possibly the deployment of attack helicopters?
The Government need to be clear about how their ultimate objectives in Libya will be realised without the conflict becoming something other than that which was stated at the outset. When the Government do the right thing, we will always support them. So far they have, and so they continue to have the support of these Benches. But the events of the past 24 hours have raised a number of concerns about how matters are being handled rather than the decisions being made or considered. I hope that the Minister will now be able to address those concerns.
Nuclear Deterrent
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we on this side of the House associate ourselves with the condolences expressed by the noble Lord to the families and friends of Marine Nigel Mead, from 42 Commando Royal Marines. Tragically, we often find ourselves expressing condolences to families and friends of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. I hope that the frequency with which we need to say these words does not appear to detract in any way from the heartfelt sincerity with which they are said from all sides of your Lordships' House. We also associate ourselves with the tribute which the Minister paid to those who have been wounded.
I thank the Minister for the early sight of the Statement and of the initial-gate parliamentary report. We endorse what he said in tribute to the crews and support staff who ensure the continued success of deterrent operations, and to their families.
In December 2006, the then Government published a White Paper entitled The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent. The issue was debated in Parliament and a vote taken in favour of renewing the deterrent with a successor class of ballistic missile submarines. Since then, the Ministry of Defence has been undertaking work to assess potential submarine designs and propulsion systems. The Minister has now announced the Government's decision on an outline submarine design to be powered by a new-generation nuclear propulsion system, which will, in the words of the initial-gate parliamentary report,
“ensure our future nuclear armed submarines have the performance required to deliver our minimum credible nuclear deterrent out until the 2060s”.
It is our view that, in today's world, as long as there are other countries with such capability, it is right that United Kingdom retains an independent nuclear deterrent.
I have already referred to the December 2006 White Paper. The previous Government met their commitment in that White Paper to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160, meaning that the United Kingdom has now reduced the UK nuclear arsenal by 75 per cent since the end of the Cold War. We thus welcome the Government’s announcement in the strategic defence and security review to reduce operationally available warheads and to reduce the overall weapons stockpile. We will continue strongly to advocate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty since non-proliferation, disarmament and the right peacefully to use civil nuclear power provide the framework around which we should base our policy.
We face potential nuclear threats today from unilateral armament, specifically from North Korea, which we know has a nuclear capability, and Iran, which we know has nuclear ambitions. We cannot ignore the present possibility that other countries may join the list. The appropriate response to these threats is for the United Kingdom to remain committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to be an active disarmer alongside our allies and other nuclear-weapon states. We want a world free of nuclear weapons and need a multilateral process to achieve that. Maintaining our own independent deterrent as part of the international non-proliferation efforts is therefore vital in enabling us to combat the threats we face at home and to sustaining regional and global security.
I should like to raise some specific points. In the Statement the Minister said,
“that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the UK and that it should be maintained, and that remains Government policy”.
In the next breath, though, the Minister said:
“But to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives I am also announcing today the initiation of a study to review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures”.
First, what does “postures” mean? Secondly, since the Statement says that:
“continuous at-sea deterrence … remains Government policy”,
is that—in the light of the study now being made,
“to assist the Liberal Democrats”—
a government policy that is now under review? That is literally one sentence after it was confirmed. Or is the policy of continuous at-sea deterrence not something that is within the remit of the study just announced on “alternative systems and postures”?
Will the review look at international co-operation over nuclear policy, including deeper co-operation with France above and beyond the agreements made in the UK-France defence co-operation treaty? Will the review look at the Government’s procurement policy in this Parliament for successor submarines? Will the study conclusions be published? What will be the cost of the review being undertaken—by inference, I think it is not because the Secretary of State thinks it necessary but to “assist the Liberal Democrats”? Can the Minister give an assurance that the study will be evidence-based and in the interests of national security, and not be driven by the dynamic—or lack of it—between the coalition parties? The strategic defence and security review stated that the Government would reduce the costs of the successor programme by a total of £3.2 billion over the next 10 years. What part of that sum is savings and how much is deferrals? Can the Minister say whether that £3.2 billion takes into account the £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion additional costs of extending the life of the Vanguard-class submarines in service until 2028?
Finally, will the Minister say what the total cost of the replacement programme will be and over what period, and confirm what I think he said—that the figures are still in line with those indicated in the 2006 White Paper? We have made it clear that we will support the Government when we believe what they are doing is in the national interest. We therefore welcome the Statement made today on the minimum credible nuclear deterrent programme.
Armed Forces Covenant
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Defence and for the advance copies of the three reports on the Armed Forces covenant and the Statement itself. We of course endorse the Minister’s comments on the support and respect that our Armed Forces merit and deserve from all of us. We welcome today’s Statement and will examine the details closely, including the amendments to the Armed Forces Bill which the Government propose to bring forward.
The Statement represents a U-turn in policy and in intention; one that we welcome. In June last year, the Prime Minister said on “Ark Royal” that a new military covenant would be, as he put it,
“written into the law of the land”.
“Ark Royal” has since been decommissioned and, until today, it looked as though the Government were determined that the Prime Minister’s pledge on the military covenant would suffer the same fate. The Government brought forward proposals which would reference the covenant in law but without a formal definition. The Royal British Legion said that it was “nonsense” to suggest that that would deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge. The Royal British Legion, the public, the media and Members from all sides of both Houses of Parliament have been pressing for amendments to be made to the Armed Forces Bill currently in the other place to honour the pledge and enshrine the military covenant in law.
In February, amendments were tabled in the other place to the Armed Forces Bill which called for a statutory instrument to establish a “written military covenant”. They were voted down by the Government. In mid-March, the Prime Minister said that the proposals in the Armed Forces Bill were the “right thing to do”, at the same time as the Royal British Legion said that the proposals were “completely counter” to his original pledge.
The Armed Forces Bill has now been delayed for the major rethink which the Government announced in Parliament today, after first announcing it in the media over the weekend. We do not have to look far to find the reason for the welcome U-turn: the likelihood of defeat in the other place and the certainty of defeat in your Lordships’ House. The Government are not changing their policy because they want to but because they have to. If that is to be disputed, why has the Armed Forces Bill been delayed? I had been asked for a day for Second Reading, and had agreed it, only for it to be postponed. Why have the Government been speaking and voting against implementing the clear pledge given by the Prime Minister on board “Ark Royal”?
In recent months we have seen pensions for injured soldiers and war widows cut; we have seen allowances cut; we have seen warrant officers sacked by e-mail and announcements of redundancies leaked to national newspapers; and we have seen the pay of service personnel frozen. We hope that today’s Statement is the start of a fresh approach to how this Government support our Armed Forces, although I acknowledge the commitment that the Minister has shown, does show and, I know, will continue to show to our Armed Forces.
The covenant is made in recognition of the fact that a career in the Armed Forces differs from all others. It recognises that service personnel agree to sacrifice certain civil liberties and to follow orders, including to place themselves in harm’s way in defence of others. In return, the nation recognises its obligations and helps, supports and rewards those in the Armed Forces. As the Minister put it in repeating the Statement:
“The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it … That obligation is encapsulated in the Armed Forces covenant”.
In his foreword to the report, The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, to which the Statement referred, the Secretary of State for Defence also acknowledges the steps taken by the previous Administration.
The Government will now set out in the Bill the key principles which they consider underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. With that objective in mind, the Government will bring forward amendments before the Bill’s Third Reading in the other place. Can the Minister confirm that that means that the Government will not be accepting the amendments tabled by Mr Philip Hollobone MP in the other place, which were supported by the opposition Benches there, as well as by a number of Members on the government Benches?
Is it the Government’s intention to seek to draw up the amendments they are bringing forward on a cross-party basis and in discussion with the Royal British Legion and forces’ families? In the light of the strength of feeling that the Government have caused through their lack of enthusiasm until now for delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge, it is surely vital that they do their utmost to make sure that there is now agreement across the board on this vital issue so that the covenant is taken out of the cut and thrust of party politics.
The Statement referred to the introduction of a community covenant, which was one of Professor Strachan’s recommendations. The amount allocated is £30 million over the next four years. Can the Minister say a bit more about the kind of joint projects at a local level that the Government have in mind?
The Statement also referred to a new fund of £3 million per year to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. Is this all additional money which does not come in whole or in part from any existing funding programmes for children of members of the Armed Forces? How many service children do the Government envisage that this money, over and above the pupil premium arrangements, will in reality be able to support in a meaningful way?
The Government’s report entitled The Armed Forces Covenant, made available with the Statement, refers on page 11 to what the Government “will consider” in relation to measures to minimise the social and economic impact of military life and to enable equality of outcome with other citizens, as well as special treatment for the injured and bereaved. The use of the words “will consider” might seem to some a bit weak and vague. Why would the Minister disagree with that view?
The Statement outlined a number of measures, at least some of which appear also to have been the previous Government’s policies, as set out in 2008 in the first cross-government strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel and in the 2009 Green Paper, which proposed innovative policies to improve welfare. Can the Minister confirm the total amount of new investment that will be provided to implement the proposals to which he referred in the Statement? Will he also confirm that all this is new investment and is not to be found from within existing resources, and that it is not already contained in whole or in part in any existing programmes announced by this or the previous Government? I also ask that in the context of indications that further cuts may be made by the Government in Ministry of Defence expenditure.
In conclusion, we will support the Government when they do the right thing. In setting out to enshrine the covenant in law, the Government are entitled to the support of the Opposition, and, if they do it properly, that is what they will have. Our Armed Forces and their families would expect us to come together and to work to make a success of this important announcement.