Falkland Islands Defence Review

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State on what is a busy day for the Ministry of Defence, with one oral ministerial Statement and no fewer than five written ministerial Statements.

In his Statement today, and on the radio this morning, the Secretary of State—in response to a question about a newspaper report that Russia was working on a deal to lease 12 long-range bombers to Argentina—said that he had been reviewing the defence of the Falkland Islands and it was right to do that every so often. He went on to say that we needed to modernise our defences in the Falklands to ensure that we had sufficient troops there and that the islands were properly defended in terms of air maintenance and maritime defence. He added that our commitment to the Falkland Islanders having the right to remain British, and to proper protection by our forces, remained absolutely clear. We would certainly endorse that commitment, not least in the context of the outcome of the 2013 referendum when the Falkland Islanders made clear their emphatic wish to remain British. We, too, wish to express our gratitude to our personnel who have served, and continue to serve, in the Falklands, and in particular to our 255 service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice and the hundreds who were injured in action retaking the Falklands.

Can the Minister say whether the Government regard the threat to the Falkland Islands as having recently increased and whether the Statement today is the response to that? On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State simply said that the threat had not reduced; he did not say that it had increased. Do the Government regard Russian influence in the region as increasing? What, if any, new diplomatic initiatives are taking place with the Argentinian Government and other Governments in South America, as well as with our allies?

In the Statement, reference was made to the refurbishment of the harbour in the Falklands. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when that work is likely to be completed. Can he also say how soon the missile system will be upgraded?

We certainly support the measures that the Government have announced today, but I would like to ask where this announcement fits in with the pending strategic defence and security review, since the Government have presumably decided that the announcements today could not wait until the SDSR planned for later this year. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State said that he had started a review of the defence of the Falkland Islands last year—not, as I think is indicated in the Statement today, that it had begun in 2013. Last year, the Secretary of State said in the other place that he was,

“very clear that the next SDSR is being carried out next year”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 662]—

that is, in 2015; and that the Government had not started on the review in 2014, since “that awaits next year”. Now we know that a review of what is surely one important part of our existing and future defence commitments was in fact already taking place when the Secretary of State made that statement. Can the Minister say what other aspects of our existing and future defence commitments are currently the subject of review at ministerial level? I ask that in the context of the Government’s apparent lack of willingness to engage with the public in general—and key stakeholders in particular—on the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which is now scheduled to be completed in some nine months’ time. Yet we now find that what appear to be key decisions have just been made in respect of the defence of the Falklands, which will surely have implications for the 2015 SDSR, on which very little significant progress, if any, has apparently been made.

Indeed, it appears that a further key strategic defence decision has already been made by this Government since the Secretary of State repeated on the radio this morning the statement made by the Prime Minister that there will be no further cuts in the size of the Regular Army, a statement that likewise must have some considerable significance for the direction and content of the SDSR. The Prime Minister’s statement was an interesting one. Does the reference to no further cuts in the size of the Regular Army also extend to no cuts in the future size of our intended 30,000 Army Reserve strength, or was the silence on any commitment in respect of the Army Reserve both deliberate and significant?

Have any other decisions impacting on the 2015 SDSR recently been made before there has apparently been any attempt to involve the public or key stakeholders in consultations on the 2015 SDSR? Finally, while I reiterate our support for the measures that the Government have announced today, do the Government feel that the situation in the Falklands from a defence point of view is such that the decisions could not have been announced later this year as part of, and in the context of, the 2015 SDSR?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his broad welcome for our conclusions to the review. I join him from these Benches in paying tribute to those who are currently serving in the Falkland Islands. Like him, we remember those servicemen who were lost in the battle long ago.

The noble Lord asked me a lot of questions; I was not able to write quickly enough to get them all down, but I will undertake to write him a letter with the answers as soon as I possibly can. He mentioned the recent referendum and the democratic right of the Falkland Islanders to remain British. This Statement sends a strong message to the Falkland Islanders.

The noble Lord mentioned the review. We review all our activity routinely. However, in 2013, given the time that had elapsed since the comprehensive review of the Falkland Islands, officials and Commander JFC advised that such a comprehensive review would be appropriate. Ministers agreed with this advice and provided clear direction for that review.

The noble Lord asked whether Russian influence had increased in the region. The Ministry of Defence undertakes regular assessments of potential major threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain an appropriate level of defence capability to address such threats. He asked if the threat had increased. There is no current evidence of Argentina’s intent or capability to launch a credible military attack on the Falkland Islands, but we are not complacent and the Government remain absolutely committed to the protection of the Falkland Islands and its population.

The noble Lord mentioned the story in the newspaper this morning. I have no idea where that came from; I have asked officials at the MoD and they do not know either.

The noble Lord asked me about the missile system being upgraded. Our current short-range air defence system—Rapier—is due to go out of service at the end of the decade. Due to the age of that system it would be impractical to sustain it in the longer term, and therefore it needs to be replaced if UK forces are to continue to be able to provide defence to our deployed forces against an air threat.

The noble Lord asked about diplomacy. We have warm relations with most of the South American countries. I meet a number of Foreign and Defence Ministers from these countries, and I assure him that none of them has ever mentioned the Falkland Islands to me. Still, I am sure that these diplomats have noticed the Falkland Islands referendum. We want to have a full and friendly relationship with Argentina as neighbours in the South Atlantic and responsible fellow members of the G20, but we will not negotiate away the rights of the Falkland Islands people against their will or behind their backs.

The noble Lord asked when the harbour is going to be refurbished. It will be done by the end of 2017. I am afraid I could not keep up with all his questions, but he asked me about the 2015 SDSR. As he knows, a lot of background work is being done on that. The decisions on the Falklands Islands announced today are separate from the SDSR, and in all honesty the Statement is not making very big decisions.

Conflict Zones: Protection of Interpreters and Translators

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her tenacity and determination in pursuing this issue.

The noble Baroness has not confined the subject today to the position of those who were interpreters and translators in Afghanistan but has extended the debate to the protection of interpreters and translators working around the world in conflict zones, and the steps that we can take to help in this regard. However, it is the protection of those locally employed staff who served us in Afghanistan that has raised the profile of this issue more than any other factor.

After the Iraq war, we gave Iraqi interpreters either one-off financial assistance or exceptional indefinite leave to remain in the UK with help to relocate, or the opportunity to resettle through the UK’s Gateway programme run in partnership with the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.

In June 2013, the Government announced a support package for interpreters who were serving our Armed Forces in Afghanistan in 2012, but said that no support or resettlement options would be given to interpreters who completed their duties between 2006 and 2011. In the June 2013 Statement, the then Secretary of State said that to be eligible for resettlement in the UK, local staff must have routinely worked in dangerous and challenging roles in Helmand outside protected bases, have been in post working directly for us when we announced the draw-down of UK forces on 19 December 2012 and have served more than 12 months when made redundant. Those whose employment ended before the 2012 date and those whose employment was ended voluntarily or for disciplinary reasons were not eligible. The Government estimated at that time that around 1,200 local staff would qualify for a redundancy package, and that of these up to 600 would be eligible for resettlement if they chose to take it rather than stay in Afghanistan.

The Government went on to say in the June 2013 Statement that there was also the issue of other local staff who faced real threats to their safety or that of their immediate family as a result of their service to our Armed Forces. For people in this category the Government said that the existing intimidation policy would remain in place for all local staff, regardless of their date and duration of employment. The intimidation policy offers relocation within Afghanistan and, to use the Government’s words,

“in the most extreme cases, the possibility of resettlement in the UK”.—[Official Report, 4/6/13; col. WS 90.]

The Government also said that they were currently reviewing the intimidation policy to ensure that it continued to provide a fair and robust system of assessing threats to, and ensuring the protection of, local staff.

We have had debates on this issue on a number of occasions, as well as Oral Questions. It is an issue that is unresolved, and recently the Government’s different approach to Afghan interpreters compared to the package offered to interpreters who had worked for us in Iraq was the subject of legal proceedings by two Afghan interpreters. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked what the current position was on this particular point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an update on the matter of these legal proceedings. Our view has been that the Government should offer a resettlement scheme for Afghan interpreters who helped British troops and who feel they face threats to their security and safety as a result, particularly now that our troops have left the country.

In response to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, at the beginning of December last year, the Government said that of the 600 locally employed staff, mostly interpreters, who were eligible for relocation under the ex gratia redundancy scheme, approximately 390 had chosen the relocation option. The Government went on to say that it was,

“not possible to give a definite timescale for the relocation process”,

but that in the previous four months, 36 locally employed staff and 19 immediate family had been brought back to the UK. No doubt, the Minister will be giving us the latest figures when he replies to the debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, also asked the Government last December to,

“comment on the plight of the large number of interpreters who do not qualify for the ex gratia scheme but who have appealed for help under the intimidation policy”.

She went on to ask whether,

“the terms of this policy could be made more generous, bearing in mind that some of the interpreters could continue working as much needed linguists in the UK”.

The Minister replied that the Government were aware of no staff killed or seriously injured off duty, and said that they welcomed the noble Baroness’s ideas on interpreter opportunities and were,

“working closely with the Home Office to try to take this forward”.—[Official Report, 2/12/14; col. 1225.]

It would be helpful if the noble Lord could say what progress has been made on this latter point with the Home Office since the beginning of last December.

As far as the Government’s statement last December that they were not aware of any staff killed or seriously injured off duty, perhaps the Minister can say whether that is still the Government’s position. Can he also say whether the Government are aware of any locally employed staff who worked for us being the subject of any threats to their personal safety or security or that of their families, and if so how many? Can he say how many staff have approached us for help under the intimidation policy? Of those, how many have been returned to the UK under that policy, and how many staff are there in total who are potentially eligible to claim help under the intimidation policy if they feel that their safety and that of their families is at risk? Can he also say how many people there are in the team in Kabul that is responsible for delivering our intimidation policy, and whether it is engaged full time in that capacity?

I have asked previously, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, how we can be satisfied that we are aware of any threats made to locally employed staff who worked for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and particularly as interpreters. The fact that such a very low number have been returned to the UK under the intimidation policy is surely hardly an encouragement for them to potentially put their heads above the parapet and approach us for help when they may know that the form of help they would most like to receive is almost certainly not going to be offered.

Of the 600 staff who are eligible under the current schemes for relocation to the UK, it appears that some two-thirds have chosen this option. Is it the Government’s contention that in reality none of these staff are living under any significant threat in Afghanistan; they just want to take advantage of the offer to relocate to the UK? Unless that is the Government’s view—and if so, what is the evidence to support it?—how do the Government explain the fact that in respect of those whose service with our Armed Forces in Afghanistan as interpreters had been completed between 2006 and 2011, there has apparently been only one instance in which the Government have agreed under the intimidation policy that relocation to the UK was justified on grounds of threats to personal safety and security?

This is one of the key issues that have emerged during every debate on this subject over the last couple of years. The Government maintain that locally employed staff who worked for our Armed Forces and whose service ended between 2006 and 2011 are in no real danger to justify relocation to the UK, and that there is no need to make the same or similar arrangements in respect of relocation for them that applied to interpreters who served our Armed Forces in Iraq. Many others are not so convinced and do not believe that we should be taking serious potential risks with the safety and security of locally employed staff who served us so well in Afghanistan. The additional concern, if we are not seen to fully protect those who have served our Armed Forces in this way, is that we run a real risk of not being able to find sufficient local staff prepared to carry out roles such as interpreters for our Armed Forces when we need them.

That brings us back to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins: that we ought to be looking at steps that we can take and pursue to protect interpreters and translators working in conflict zones around the world, and the safety and security of their families. If we cannot, or will not, provide effective protection, we could be leaving our Armed Forces, if and when involved in action abroad, facing a significant handicap. The noble Baroness has made helpful and constructive suggestions involving international guidance or guidelines, United Nations resolutions and conventions for addressing the issue of protection of interpreters and translators in conflict zones worldwide, and the translator/traitor mentality with which they have to contend. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the noble Baroness the considered response that the points she has raised deserve, as well as responding now or subsequently to the specific points and questions I and other noble Lords have raised.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his typically calm and measured explanation of the amendments made to the Bill in the other place, which we support and which I understood—I hope not wrongly—had the support of senior serving military personnel. The amendments were among those called for by the Common Defence Select Committee in its report published last year, and were opposed by the Government in Committee in the Commons in the same way that proposed changes to the Bill, some along similar lines, were rejected by the Government during debates in this House.

The Government were clearly unhappy about their defeat in the Commons when one part of the coalition broke ranks and voted with the Opposition. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and the Government themselves put forward amendments on Report in the Commons to make sure that the changes adopted in Committee worked correctly from a drafting point of view.

The changes made in Committee extended the role of the ombudsman in three ways. The first, as the Minister said, was that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance or merits of an individual complaint and not just at whether there had been maladministration in the way the complaint had been handled by the services. The second was that the ombudsman should not just look at any maladministration alleged by the complainant but should be able to consider any other maladministration that comes to light. The third change agreed at Commons Committee stage allows the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay in the laid-down circumstances to which the Minister referred in his introductory comments.

Clearly, one effect of the Commons amendments is to increase, potentially, the workload of the ombudsman. The Minister in the Commons said that the effect of the amendments carried in Committee, against the Government’s wishes, would be to extend the role and remit of the ombudsman. In opposing in Committee the extension of the power of the ombudsman to look at any maladministration that came to light—not just maladministration alleged by a complainant—the Minister in the Commons said that it was undesirable and might add considerably to the time it took each case to be concluded.

Now that the Government have accepted the outcome of the votes in the Commons Committee, could the Minister say, in the light of the comments from his ministerial colleague in the Commons to which I have just referred, what further additional resources will be provided to the ombudsman in the light of the extension of the role and remit of the position? How much additional money will be provided over and above that originally required before the role and remit was extended by the Commons amendments, and how many additional staff do the Government now consider the ombudsman will require when the position of ombudsman finally comes into being? One would assume that, without additional resources, there would be a danger that effective delivery of the extended remit provided for by the Commons amendments we are now considering would be put in jeopardy.

I will raise a few specific points about some of the Commons amendments. Commons Amendments 1 and 2 refer to “a person”, “the complainant” and “the person who raised the matter”—that is, always in the singular. Does that mean that the ombudsman cannot consider a complaint about the same matter made by, say, half a dozen people? In that situation, will the ombudsman have to treat them as six individual separate complaints even though they relate to the same issue?

Commons Amendment 21 refers to the transitional provisions,

“in connection with the coming into force of sections 1 to 3 and the Schedule”,

and gives the Secretary of State powers,

“to modify the operation of the old complaints provisions in relation to pre-commencement complaints”,

and,

“to apply any of the new complaints provisions … in relation to pre-commencement complaints”.

Can the Minister say a little bit more about what the Government envisage in respect of the transition provisions? The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, also referred to this issue. Will an individual who has a complaint being considered by the Service Complaints Commissioner at the time that the new position of Service Complaints Ombudsman, with the enhanced remit, comes into being, be able, if they so wish, to have that complaint considered under the enhanced remit of looking at the complaint itself rather than just the issue of maladministration under which it would currently be considered? If not, will the individual be able to submit the complaint again to the ombudsman asking for the substance of the complaint to be considered?

The Minister referred to what the ombudsman could and could not investigate. Commons Amendment 1 states:

“The Service Complaints Ombudsman may … investigate … a service complaint”,

among other issues. Who defines how much information, what kind of information, what kind of inquiries and how extensive those inquiries need to be in order to “investigate” a service complaint in order to determine findings and make recommendations to the Defence Council? Is that a decision for the ombudsman alone? Is it for the ombudsman alone to decide whether, in order for it to be undertaken properly, the investigation needs also to investigate factors and events surrounding and prior to the issue giving rise to the complaint? Is it for the ombudsman alone to decide how wide-ranging or narrow the recommendations to the Defence Council should be? When is it expected that the new position of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the associated new system of enhanced remit will come into effect? In addition, why are the Commons amendments relating to Northern Ireland, to which the Minister referred, being brought forward at this late stage in the passage of the Bill?

We fully support the Bill and we welcome the Commons amendments. We believe that the new arrangements will lead to a better, more widely accepted and more effective means of addressing situations that inevitably will occasionally arise, where things have gone wrong or have been felt by Armed Forces personnel to have gone wrong, and have not been resolved to the satisfaction of those concerned. We wish the new Service Complaints Commissioner well in her current role and we also wish her well when the commissioner becomes an ombudsman, with an enhanced remit and enhanced powers. We also hope that the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon will, as we believe, prove unfounded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the response that he gave to me on additional finances and staffing. Is the additional £500,000 as a result of the extension of the remit that is covered in Commons amendments, or was it the amount that was going to be needed anyway in additional money to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Was the increase in staffing from nine to 20 also to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Surely if the remit has now been extended in the way that it has under the Commons amendment, does that not require additional resources and additional staffing? I was not entirely clear from the answer that the Minister gave to me whether that was what the £500,000 and the increase in staff from nine to 20 covered.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I stand to be corrected, but I think that the extra cost of £500,000 would have arisen anyway and we would have needed to increase the number of staff from nine to 20 anyway under the original Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

Does that mean that, if that was what was deemed necessary under the original Bill, no further money is coming forward to take account of the enhanced remit—and it is an enhanced remit—under the Commons amendment and there is no provision for any additional staff?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I need to check on this, but the message that I received was that everything would come out of the £500,000 and that the staffing level would be adequate for the additional responsibilities.

Ukraine

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we very much follow the wise advice of former President Teddy Roosevelt to talk softly and carry a big stick.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, so far there has been no real attempt by the Government to engage in any public debate about the 2015 strategic defence and security review and the future direction of defence strategy in the light of developments both at home and abroad, including in Ukraine—unlike the previous Government, who issued a Green Paper. Why have the Government so far declined to have any such public engagement, and is it not as a result becoming increasingly likely that if the next SDSR is to be finalised in 2015— in less than 10 months’ time—it will, like the last one, have to be another rush job carried out without the level and degree of engagement with key stakeholders and the public which such an exercise surely both merits and requires?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we are thinking very seriously about the next SDSR. The MoD has conducted some early thinking to prepare for the review, and this programme of work will provide a solid and sound basis on which we can consider whether adjustments to current policy and plans will be required when the review gets under way later in the year.

Ukraine

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. We agree that the international community must continue to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia and we endorse the non-lethal support for Ukraine just set out by the Minister.

I wish to raise a few points. On what basis was the conclusion reached that up to some 75 military personnel should be deployed in Ukraine as opposed to a significantly higher or lower figure than that? For how long are we committing to deploying members of our Armed Forces in Ukraine? Can the Government confirm that our Armed Forces will not be deployed under any circumstances anywhere near the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine and that, as a result, issues of force protection should not arise?

In what circumstances, if any, would the Government decide to either withdraw these military personnel from Ukraine earlier than intended or, alternatively, significantly increase their numbers in Ukraine? When do the Government envisage making a decision on the further requests from Ukraine, to which the Minister referred, for additional assistance and support?

Finally the deployment of our Armed Forces in Ukraine is not, as I understand it, being done under the NATO umbrella. Is that regarded as a potential strength or a potential weakness by the Government, and which other NATO countries are also deploying, or have committed to deploying, members of their armed forces in Ukraine, and in what numbers and capacities?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for non-lethal support for Ukraine.

The noble Lord started by asking me about the 75 military personnel. Up to 75 UK service personnel will be based in Kiev to provide the training advisory support in four areas, as mentioned in my speech. In practice, lower numbers of personnel will be in country initially, and the numbers of personnel required to train in each area will be assessed according to Ukrainian requirements and capacity to absorb the training.

The noble Lord asked for how long the deployment will last. The length of training will be dependent on the Ukrainian capacity to absorb this. We will work closely with them to continuously refine the length and forms of the training packages.

The noble Lord then asked for a commitment that there will not be any deployment near the conflict zone. I can confirm that UK service personnel will only be training well away from the conflict in the east. Most of the trainers will be around Kiev in the west, which is an area that we know very well. It is peaceful, and we do not expect our troops to be armed, but obviously we are keeping that under review.

The noble Lord asked under what circumstances we would withdraw our troops earlier or possibly increase them. Training will be tailored to meet Ukrainian requirements; for example, the medical teams will initially deliver short combat life-saver courses to Ukrainian students.

Gurkhas

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to her work as an ambassador for the Gurkha Welfare Trust. Gurkhas within the British Army are proof that different religious and ethnic groups can work together in defence of a set of common values based on the mutual trust and respect that has grown over the last 200 years and I am immensely proud to have served alongside Gurkhas in Malaysia and Hong Kong.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We on this side also recognise the unique contribution made by the Gurkhas over the last 200 years. Do the Government agree that the best way to mark the 200th anniversary would be to ensure a clear and continuing role for the Gurkhas in Army 2020? Can the Minister say whether that is the Government’s objective and what that role might be?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, of course we are very keen on a proper role for the Gurkhas, and we feel that they have a proper role at the moment.

Defence: Type 26 Frigates

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. As an example, we acknowledge that there have been in-service reliability issues with the Type 45 destroyers’ power and propulsion systems. I can assure my noble friend that we have learnt lessons. We are addressing them as we take forward the Type 26 programme.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can the Government indicate to what extent a decision to order Type 26 frigates before the election, and the number of them, pre-empts options on the future strategic role of the Navy under the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which has yet to be undertaken? Could the Government indicate their assessment of the extent to which there will be an export market for the Type 26 frigates and whether there have been any expressions of interest?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, bilateral conversations are ongoing with a number of international partners to explore opportunities for co-operation on the Type 26 itself, as well as on its design and on the systems that are planned to be fitted to it.

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place earlier today. We, too, express our thanks to Sir Thayne Forbes and his team for their diligent work and their very comprehensive and conclusive report. Our Armed Forces often face the most difficult and challenging conditions, and the Battle of Danny Boy in southern Iraq in 2004 was one such occasion. The battle was ferocious and our troops were in great danger. As the Defence Secretary said in his Statement, five soldiers were awarded the Military Cross and one the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross.

Not only do our soldiers show courage but they pride themselves on their conduct in battle and on the high standards to which they are held and, indeed, to which they hold themselves. They are, and will remain, accountable both to international law and to the Geneva Convention. As the inquiry chairman says in the report,

“the events, with which this Inquiry was concerned, commenced with a deadly, planned and co-ordinated armed ambush of British troops on Route 6 on 14 May 2004. That ambush was carried out by a large number of heavily armed Iraqi insurgents”.

The inquiry chairman went on to say,

“it does seem to me that the evidence clearly showed that the British soldiers responded to this deadly ambush with exemplary courage, resolution and professionalism”.

However, in our country we are not afraid to be open and frank when those high standards are not met and when our Armed Forces do not adhere to the conduct expected of the British military. Examples of that are the statements of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition in 2010 following 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 is a source of strength, as well as of pride, that we are a country where that level of frankness, openness and honesty can happen.

However, we are also a country where we will not tolerate calculated, malicious and baseless untruths against our service men and women. This independent public inquiry report by Sir Thayne Forbes states in those very terms that the serious allegations which precipitated this inquiry were just that. They were serious allegations that British forces tortured and executed up to 20 Iraqi men on 14 and 15 May 2004 and mistreated nine others between 14 May and 23 September 2004. The report finds that there were no unlawful killings on the battlefield, no mutilation of bodies and no executions in custody. The first casualty of war is indeed the truth.

The report, while dismissing the serious allegations made against British troops, draws attention to some areas where we should learn lessons. It states that certain aspects of the way in which the nine Iraqi detainees in question were treated by our Armed Forces during the time they were in British custody in 2004 amounted to actual or possible ill treatment. It is regrettable that that occurred and it is not acceptable. We support the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry report. Will the Minister again confirm the Government’s position on the nine recommendations and perhaps give some idea of how long it will take to implement them?

The report identifies ways in which we might avoid the need for such costly inquiries in the future. We share the concerns about legal representatives and the legal process in this instance. On that point, the recommendations in the report should help to ensure a better way of examining allegations against our Armed Forces which avoids unnecessary and cumbersome processes, significant financial cost and creating uncertainty over a period of many years, not least for members of our Armed Forces who are the subject of serious allegations. Can the Minister say what support is now given to service personnel who find themselves in this situation, including personnel who have left the Armed Forces before an inquiry has been finalised?

Our Armed Forces are the best in the world. Our service men and women carry out their duties with great bravery and distinction, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude for their service to our country. I end by drawing attention to the conclusion of the report, which compared the testimony of those alleging and those being accused. The Iraqi witnesses were,

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

British military witnesses were, by contrast, “truthful and reliable”, despite their difficulty and distress caused by recalling traumatic events in battle. Those two quotations from the report speak for themselves, and they speak volumes.

UK Armed Forces in Iraq

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given to the Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The thrust of the Answer appears to be that the headlines in yesterday’s papers—in the Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the Mail on Sunday and the Sun, for example—which said that hundreds of British troops are going back to Iraq are wrong. Are the Government saying to us that these headlines, which appeared in a number of newspapers close to the Government, have just been made up, and have not come as a result of comments made by an inside source, whether injudiciously or otherwise?

The Secretary of State for Defence was quoted as confirming that our Armed Forces would be deployed to four separate sites in Iraq next month to train Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, and that the training we are going to be offering in January will be in infantry skills and some of the basics, particularly on how to deal with IEDs. The Ministry of Defence has been quoted as saying that decisions on numbers, units or locations have not been made. How long will it be before decisions are made on this issue of providing further training? This will also show just how accurate or otherwise the apparently speculative leaks in yesterday’s newspaper reports were. Bearing in mind what the Government have said about not involving combat troops, what will be the size and composition of the force protection element of the training mission? What is the nature of the requests for further help that have come from the Iraqi Government?

We have supported steps taken by the Government, regional partners and the international coalition in combating ISIL. Do the Government not accept that rather greater clarity is now needed about the role of our Armed Forces in Iraq, the scale of their involvement, and the timeframe of training operations? Would they agree that the public, our Armed Forces and Parliament are entitled to be told about this directly by the Government, rather than via what appears to be a leak—from whatever source—to the media?

Afghanistan: Interpreters

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we recognise the huge debt that we owe to our Afghan employees, and we are working with the Home Office and the Afghan authorities to avoid any unreasonable delays in relocation. We take intimidation very seriously and trained police investigate claims. We provide security advice and relocation in-country—or, in extremis, back to the United Kingdom. We are aware of no staff killed or seriously injured on duty. We very much welcome the noble Baroness’s ideas on interpreter opportunities and we are working closely with the Home Office to try to take this forward.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we, too, extend our condolences after the deaths of the Afghan interpreter and the British security guard in an incident that is a stark reminder of the dangers that those in Afghanistan still face. How do the Government now keep track of the continuing safety or otherwise of those Afghans who were interpreters with our Armed Forces? It is surely only with this information available that a realistic assessment can be made of whether an application to move to this country under the intimidation policy should be agreed. Who in Afghanistan is now responsible for what the Minister, in responding to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, last December, described as the,

“very thorough anti-intimidation policy which applies to all staff employed since 2001”?—[Official Report, 10/12/13; col. 713.]

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, on continuing safety, we have an enduring commitment to ensure the safety of our Afghan staff. Anyone who feels in any danger will contact our staff. On who is responsible, it is the same team in Kabul which was previously responsible for delivering our intimidation policy.