Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Appointment)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Mr Brendan Connor as a member of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body until 28 February 2018. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[HCWS177]

Future Reserves 2020 (External Scrutiny Team Report)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Written Statements

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

I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a letter that I have sent to Lieutenant General (Retired) Robin Brims, the chair of the Future Reserves 2020 external scrutiny team to update him on the programme, and particularly on the recommendations that his team’s report made. I am grateful for the work of that team.

The House will recall that the Defence Reform Act 2014 includes a statutory obligation to commission an independent report into the state of the volunteer reserve force. The first review under the statutory arrangements is under way and will report next year.

Nuclear Deterrent Update

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Written Statements

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

On 18 May 2011, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Liam Fox) made an oral statement to the House, Official Report, column 351, announcing the approval of the initial gate investment stage for the procurement of the successor submarines to the Vanguard-class SSBNs. He also placed in the Library of the House a report “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate Parliamentary Report”.

This Government committed to publishing an annual report on the programme and I am today publishing the third report, “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: 2014 Update to Parliament”. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Defence Reform: Review of Implementation

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend Lord Levene of Portsoken has conducted the third annual review of the implementation of his defence reform recommendations of 2011, and has written to me setting out his findings.

I welcome Lord Levene’s conclusion that he is impressed by the fundamental transformation the Ministry of Defence has undergone in the last four years. I am pleased that he recognises the significant progress we have made in many areas, not least the much stronger financial management he observed, which is such a key aspect of defence reform. Of course, I fully accept that there is always more we can do, and I have noted Lord Levene’s suggestions for further improvement.

I am grateful to Lord Levene for his commitment to the Ministry of Defence over the past four years and I am in no doubt that as a result my Department is now much better placed to achieve our objectives effectively and efficiently. We will continue in the spirit of defence reform to embed the changes we have put in place, and to build on them for the future.

I have asked Lord Levene to return next year, as he has offered to do, and I look forward to demonstrating further progress at that time.

I am placing a copy of Lord Levene’s letter in the Library of the House, together with the MOD’s summary of progress against the 53 defence reform recommendations.

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the al-Sweady inquiry into 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.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir Thayne Forbes, the chairman of the public inquiry into these incidents. I am grateful to Sir Thayne and his team for their painstaking work, and for producing a report that puts to rest once and for all these shocking and, as we now know, completely baseless allegations. As I know Sir Thayne will acknowledge, the Ministry of Defence has provided unstinting support for his inquiry. During 169 days of hearings, Sir Thayne heard evidence from 55 Iraqi witnesses, 222 current and former service personnel and four expert witnesses. He also considered the written statements of a further 328 witnesses. His findings are incontrovertible.

It was alleged that, following a planned and co-ordinated ambush of British troops by heavily armed Iraqi insurgents around the Danny Boy permanent vehicle checkpoint on the main road between Basra and al-Amarah, British service personnel captured up to 20 Iraqi men alive, took them back to Camp Abu Naji, and then tortured and killed them in cold blood. These are allegations of the most serious nature and they are untrue.

The allegations have changed several times over the years. This is how Mr Phil Shiner, of the firm Public Interest Lawyers, presented them at a press conference in 2008:

“What you have heard is evidence that these 5 survivors have witnessed, seemingly in three separate venues at close hand:

The execution of up to 15 men

Between 4 and 5 of these executions involving shots at close range and the remainder some sort of strangulation or throat cutting

Some of these executions preceded by torture or mutilations that are so horrific that our clients could not describe the prolonged screaming without breaking down.”

Today it has been confirmed that British soldiers did not carry out the atrocities falsely attributed to them. Sir Thayne deals unequivocally with the soldiers’ actions and the falsity of the allegations. I quote:

“this Inquiry has established beyond doubt that all the most serious allegations, made against the British soldiers involved in the Battle of Danny Boy and its aftermath and which have been hanging over those soldiers for the last 10 years, have been found to be wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility.”

He indeed contrasts the falsity of the Iraqi accounts with the truthfulness of the military witnesses:

“the vast majority of the allegations made against the British military, which this Inquiry was required to investigate (including, without exception, all the most serious allegations), were wholly and entirely without merit or justification. Very many of those baseless allegations were the product of deliberate and calculated lies on the part of those who made them and who then gave evidence to this Inquiry in order to support and perpetuate them.”

The counsel for the nine former detainees and the relatives of the deceased conceded only as late as March this year that the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the fact that, as the Government maintained throughout the inquiry and preceding judicial review, all those whose bodies were handed over to the Iraqi authorities for burial on 15 May died on the battlefield. The delay in making this concession is both inexplicable and shameful. By 4 July last year, expert witnesses had already demonstrated unequivocally that the Iraqis had died as a result of wounds sustained in the fighting. Had the concession been made then, it would not have been necessary for so many soldiers to give evidence, Sir Thayne could have concluded his hearings more quickly, and there would have been a significantly smaller bill to the taxpayer.

I turn now to the issue of detention. Following the battle, the nine detainees were taken to Camp Abu Naji. Sir Thayne has rejected most of the allegations made in connection with their treatment at the camp, including a lack of adequate medical care, assaults, the withholding of drinking water in contravention of the Geneva conventions and the use of white noise. However, I accept Sir Thayne’s conclusion that some instances of ill treatment did occur: the detainees were not provided with adequate food, and such food as was given was not provided until they had been tactically questioned; they were prevented from sleeping until three to four hours after they arrived at the camp; their sight was restricted almost continuously; and the use of “harsh” tactical questioning techniques—since withdrawn—amounted to ill treatment. Importantly, Sir Thayne observes that as a result of changes made by the MOD over the past several years, such ill treatment should not occur in future.

Sir Thayne also concluded that the requirement for detainees to undress fully as part of their medical examination and concurrent search for prohibited items amounted to ill treatment, and he did criticise the attitude of the regimental medical officer towards the medical examination of the detainees on their arrival at Shaibah, but he also concluded that only one of the detainees, who suffered discomfort for longer than he might otherwise have done, suffered any adverse consequences as a result of deficiencies in the medical examination. I wish to express my regret to the House that these instances of ill treatment should have occurred.

Sir Thayne Forbes has made just nine recommendations, and he acknowledges the progress that the Ministry has made since 2004 to improve all aspects of the prisoner-handling system—from policy and doctrine to unit-level instructions and procedures as well as training and oversight—and to ensure it complies with domestic and international law. I accept all nine recommendations in principle. I have commissioned urgent work on their practical implications—in particular, we will need to ensure that they will not prevent the armed forces from carrying out vital tasks—and I will announce to the House my detailed conclusions as soon as I can.

The Iraqi detainees, their accomplices and their lawyers must bear the brunt of the criticism for the protracted nature and £31 million cost of this unnecessary public inquiry. The falsity of the overwhelming majority of their allegations, the extraordinarily late disclosure of a document showing the nine detainees to have been insurgents and the delay by their lawyers in withdrawing the allegations of torture and murder have prompted the Solicitors Regulation Authority to investigate possible breaches of professional standards. The authority is expected to complete its investigation into the two firms responsible, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day and Co., early next year.

Had the Legal Services Commission been aware in 2008 of this document it would have refused legal aid for the judicial review that took place then. That would have spared the service personnel a further six years of uncertainty and anxiety. It would have spared the relatives of the deceased a further six years of false hope, and it would have saved the British taxpayer a very high bill.

Although procedural failures by the MOD led to the public inquiry being established, it is those who made these false allegations who bear the responsibility for saddling the taxpayer with what has turned out to be a £31 million bill. Although there is no provision in the Inquiries Act 2005 for recovering the costs of a public inquiry, my Ministry is exploring whether the claimants’ failure to disclose the militia document will allow us to recover some of the costs of the judicial review.

In conclusion, I regret that it was found necessary to hold a public inquiry to disprove these allegations. This is not another Baha Mousa or an Abu Ghraib. No one died in British custody and there was no deliberate ill treatment. The few instances of ill treatment that did occur were rather the result of failings in doctrine and training that have already been or are being corrected. This was a shameful attempt to use our legal system—our legal system—to attack and falsely impugn our armed forces. That it has failed reflects the diligence and skill with which Sir Thayne has uncovered the facts.

I quoted earlier the accusations made by Mr Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers in calling for this inquiry. At that time he said:

“Do not believe for one second that we make these allegations lightly or without the evidence available to substantiate every single word of what we say.”

It is now beyond doubt that those allegations were without foundation. I challenge Mr Shiner and the other lawyers involved, from both firms, to issue an unequivocal apology to the soldiers whose reputations they attempted to traduce and to the taxpayers who have had to pay the costs of exposing these lies.

I add only one final comment. Following the battle of Danny Boy, five soldiers were awarded the military cross and one the conspicuous gallantry cross for their conduct there and in other engagements in early 2004. Other acts of bravery emerge clearly in the accounts of the battle. This is who our servicemen and women are. The reputation of our armed forces has been hard won in the service of our nation. It will survive the baseless slurs of those who seek to undermine those on whom we all depend. I commend this statement to the House.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Fallon]

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

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

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

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

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in absolutely commending the report for reinforcing the honour and respect of the British soldiers. Having been based in Abu Naji and Maysan at the time, I encourage the Secretary of State to focus on the broader political context. It was completely tragic that not just a few Iraqis, but most of the Iraqi leadership in the province were convinced of these unimaginable atrocities. I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that in future we have the right role for political officers on the ground to ensure that bodies are treated in the correct fashion, that the survivors’ families are reached out to in the correct fashion and that trust is built between the British military and the local political leaders to ensure that our soldiers are protected from these baseless allegations.

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend makes the very important point that we need to reflect on the extent to which these lies and untruths were believed by the local community in the area. He makes the point all the more powerfully because of his personal experience and knowledge—not simply of Iraq, but of that particular province of Iraq. I will certainly reflect further on the point he makes about the role of political officers.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I commissioned this report only after the Department was very heavily criticised in the courts for having failed properly to investigate the allegations that were being made. I believed then, as I believe now, that the main reason for that failure was not a lack of will on our part, but a refusal to co-operate with an inquiry by the representatives of the Iraqis, public interest lawyers and Mr Phil Shiner. I have no way of knowing or proving what the motives were for that lack of co-operation, but I do know that public interest lawyers have a very lucrative business model.

We have to ensure that when serious allegations are made, they are properly investigated. That is the kind of nation we are and it is the way in which we manage to ensure that our armed forces maintain the very highest levels attainable. Equally, however, we have to protect the public purse from misuse. I urge the Secretary of State, his Government colleagues and the other parties in the House to think about how we can ensure that both those things happen. We need to continue to impose the rule of law in very difficult circumstances, but also to ensure that our systems are not being systematically abused.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining the circumstances in which the public inquiry came into being. He has much closer knowledge of it than others, because he was responsible for setting it up. He is right: the price that we pay for the reputation of our armed forces is that when such allegations are made—wherever they come from—they must be investigated, and they are investigated immediately in the field by the Royal Military Police and their special investigators. It is right that that happens.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about costs, and the fact that certain unscrupulous lawyers appear to be benefiting directly, at public expense, from their ability to trigger inquiries such as this. We need to look into how that might be curtailed, and I welcome his suggestion that the matter might be pursued on a genuinely bipartisan basis.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree—he appears to—that, while it is essential for a country with values such as ours to hold inquiries into the serious allegations against our armed forces or our intelligence services that are made from time to time, there is always the danger that a tiny minority of the legal profession will create something of an industry in pursuing them to the point of a long and difficult inquiry such as this? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to take the matter up with the leaders of the judiciary and the leaders of the profession, who I am sure will agree with him that there is a danger that needs to be tackled?

[Michael Fallon]

As I have already emphasised, when there are allegations they need to be investigated and when there are failings they need to be put right, but what has emerged very clearly from the report is that all those serious allegations had no foundation whatever. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the constructive suggestion that we should discuss not just with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary but with the leaders of the profession how we can curtail some of the abuse and cost involved. His point is all the more powerful given that he is a member of that profession; it is good to hear such a suggestion from the profession itself.

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

I fully accept the report’s conclusions, and I am delighted on behalf of the individual members of the armed forces who were accused of these vile atrocities. They have been completely exonerated, which is good for them and good for the armed forces generally. However—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—while I recognise that instances of ill treatment are few and far between and are relatively minor in comparison with the awful accusations that were levelled at the troops, I trust that they will be addressed by the Secretary of State.

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. As I said earlier, we have already made a series of changes in our procedures, and we will continue to do so. The report makes some important points about retrieval of information from the battlefield, archiving and the use of information systems to make it easier to get more quickly to the truth of what actually happened. Let me emphasise again, however, that when there are allegations they will be properly and fully investigated, and when there are failings we should own up to them and put the procedures right.

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

It is of course an absolute outrage that it has taken 10 stress-filled years to clear these young soldiers of the baseless slurs against them, but is there not a wider point to be made? Does the Secretary of State agree that allowing further claims and allegations of this kind—the baseless ones and even, perhaps, the slightly less baseless ones—to be pursued in the same way might interfere with the perfectly legitimate conduct of warfare, and that there is a real risk that legitimate warfare will be replaced with “lawfare”?

[Michael Fallon]

I am, of course, concerned that the operational efficiency of commanders in the field should not be inhibited by additional legal complications, such as fresh rulings by the European Court of Human Rights or attempts to extend a health and safety regime that would apply in civilian life to the battlefield. We must think carefully about the weight of law imposed on those whom we ask to do very dangerous things in our name and to react very quickly. This was a battlefield, and I think it important for the House to bear that in mind.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Obviously we should all support our armed forces, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his statement. We have very courageous, professional and decent armed forces who have to perform in some terrible and traumatic circumstances, and we have seen yet again that they are forces of whom we should all be proud. May I ask, however, whether the Secretary of State feels that improvements could be made in the chain of command to enable situations such as this to be dealt with properly in the first place, rather than developing to such an extent that an inquiry is necessary?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. He speaks with particular authority as a former defence Minister, and I will consider what he has said about the chain of command. As we heard from his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), a number of interlocking issues were involved. There was the judicial review and the public inquiry, and so on. However, I think that we would all want to avoid putting members of our armed forces through this process, given the time and cost that were involved in exposing an allegation—the major allegation—that turned out to be completely untrue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and the very clear outcome of an inquiry that was far more credible because it was judge-led. When he established the Gibson inquiry, the Prime Minister said:

“For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with that principle, and would he like it to be extended to other inquiries into allegations of British involvement in torture?

[Michael Fallon]

I think that my hon. Friend is tempting me to stray slightly from the subject of the statement. The inquiry clearly benefited from the professionalism and skill of Sir Thayne Forbes and his team, and I think we should leave it at that.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

In all my time in the House, I have seldom been more shocked than I was by the statement today. I cannot even imagine how those service people have coped for 10 years with such a cloud hanging over them. What support are the Government giving them and their families?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady’s question gives me an opportunity to update an earlier answer. One of the soldiers named in the report is still serving, but I understand that the rest have left the armed forces.

The hon. Lady has made a good point about the support available to soldiers who must either serve or, if they have left the forces, bear the brunt of allegations of this kind. If I may, I will look into the matter further and write to her.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the statement. It is important that we should inquire into serious allegations when they are made, and that we should have the sort of judge-led inquiry that we have had in this case.

I agree with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I share the sense of shock that I think the whole House feels about the people who made up such shocking lies about our armed forces. It is good that the forces have been cleared, but is there any indication of what the motivation was? Was it hostility to our country? [Hon. Members: “Money!”] Was it money? Does anything in the report explain this outrageous behaviour?

[Michael Fallon]

I am not sure that I should comment on the motives involved—I think that the report speaks for itself in that regard—but I believe that the House would be with me in questioning the motives of some of the advisers involved. I do not think that they have helped the reputation of the British legal system in any respect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the statement. The untrue and false allegations affected the British Army and directly affected these soldiers and their families; for many, they led to both physical and emotional changes. What can be done even now, 10 years later, to undo the untold harm done to the British Army personnel and their families who have been affected?

[Michael Fallon]

As I have said, I will certainly look at what support was provided to the soldiers against whom the allegations were made and whether we can improve our procedures in that respect. They do now, as of today, have the knowledge that those allegations turned out to be completely untrue, but I think the House will agree that it should not have taken 10 years and all this money for the truth to emerge.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I remind the House of just how difficult it is for a soldier in combat to change within milliseconds from a duty to kill the enemy to a duty to protect the enemy under the Geneva conventions? I am extremely proud that our soldiers from both the two infantry battalions concerned have acted so professionally on this occasion and I am very pleased by the outcome of this report. I thank the judge and I am very happy for the British Army.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, of course, brings to this House very direct experience of the battlefield and the instant decisions that have to be taken on it. He has particular knowledge of the obligation on our soldiers—which they accept gladly—to do their very best, when the battle is over, for the wounded and for those detained.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was asking the Secretary of State to agree with him, and the Secretary of State did agree with him. The hon. Gentleman is therefore now, I am sure, doubly happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I speak as someone who served in Iraq in both 2003 and 2004. While any mistreatment of detainees is completely unacceptable —the Secretary of State has referred to procedural changes that have been made—is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen and women have served with distinction and honour, and that, regardless of people’s different views on the conflict, as a country we owe them a debt of gratitude? I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that any British soldier who has been materially affected by their service in Iraq will, whatever the point in their life when they have been affected, be properly looked after by our country.

[Michael Fallon]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that thousands of British troops served in Iraq. They did so with distinction and they did us proud, and only a very small handful had these allegations made against them. We should remember that.

On supporting our servicemen and ex-servicemen, I am delighted that the armed forces covenant is now enshrined in law; we must now make a reality of that covenant. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has written to all colleagues in the House drawing attention to the role we can play in making sure that the covenant is properly implemented by our local authorities, GPs, jobcentres and the others involved in looking after our armed forces. Just yesterday, I think, we published the annual report on the covenant and its operation.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that we must hold our servicemen to the highest possible standards. He will remember that by April 2004 the detention of people in that region was already a point of controversy, but by then—when the Defence Committee visited Shaibah in April 2004—it was clear that any deficiencies had been seriously gripped by the chain of command. When we hold ourselves to such high standards, it is particularly outrageous that the consequences of what perhaps happened to Baha Mousa and the trials that then followed have been thoroughly and unscrupulously abused by extension by the representatives of these people. My right hon. Friend has made absolutely clear what actions he expects the Solicitors Regulation Authority to take, and may I tell him that I absolutely agree with that?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The events investigated by Sir Thayne were from 10 years ago, just at the beginning of some of the hardest fighting in Helmand, and it is noteworthy that right from the beginning the procedures were being examined and were improved. They have certainly improved significantly over the 10 years.

On the solicitors involved, as I have told the House, there is now an investigation into both firms by the SRA, but I think that before we see the result of that investigation the very least the lawyers involved in this case can do is apologise to the soldiers—and, indeed, to the taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will be aware of allegations of wrongdoing in relation to Northern Ireland back in the 1970s, where men were tortured and detained without charge. What actions will the UK Government now take to redress the imbalance in relation to that, which has been identified as involving hooded men being subjected to the five techniques of torture?

[Michael Fallon]

I understand the significance of this issue in Northern Ireland. It is not, of course, the subject of this report, but I know it is part of the discussions into the past that are now being conducted. I hope that will soon be resolved, but the hon. Lady is, quite reasonably, tempting me into areas outside my particular field.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, when the SRA concludes its investigation, the Lord Chancellor comes to the House to make a statement, so that the SRA knows that the eyes of Parliament are going to be on its conduct of this investigation, and not least the question of how the firms of solicitors got their clients? There are suggestions that they were paying agents to go around Iraq to drum up business, often not knowing who their clients were. This seems to me to be yet another issue that needs to be properly investigated by the SRA.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend raising that, and I hope it will be.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

As a former special envoy on human rights to Iraq, I am particularly pleased that we put ourselves in the dock, we answered the allegations, and we were not guilty of most of them. The reputation of the British Government and British forces is very high indeed in Iraq, and this incident has not detracted in any way from the strong feelings and admiration people in Iraq have for Britain and its forces. The MOD has made changes because there were some instances of ill-treatment. What precisely are these changes and how can the Secretary of State assure us that they will result in such ill-treatment not happening again?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with the right hon. Lady about the reputation of our troops; I heard that for myself on my visits to Baghdad and Irbil. They did an impressively good job in Iraq.

I hope, Mr Speaker, you will also allow me to make a correction. I think I misspoke a moment ago: I referred to Helmand. I am afraid that was the pressure of making this statement. I of course meant to refer to the early years of fighting in Iraq.

Improvements have been made to the procedures, and there are important recommendations, particularly about the retrieval and archiving of information to make it easier to find out exactly what happened and for that information to be brought back to the United Kingdom, so that when these allegations are made, they can be quickly and properly investigated.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

On behalf of all Members, I thank the Secretary of State for the outstanding tone and substance of the statement. I hope the Solicitors Regulation Authority will restore some standing to the profession of which I am a member, as we are all ashamed of the actions of certain members of it in the background. Will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary whether there has been an examination of those organisations, including some charities, to which the Government continue to give funds, and which use that money to instruct solicitors or to front actions against the Government or our armed forces?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his earlier comment, and I will certainly take forward his suggestion that that aspect should be investigated too.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State expand on the answer that he just gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? What assurances can he give to the public that not only will the recommendations result in the protection and humane treatment of detainees, but that our armed forces will get protection when they need to be able to operate effectively in very difficult circumstances where lives are at risk?

[Michael Fallon]

On the first point, Sir Thayne Forbes himself has accepted that some of the procedures involved have already been improved. Corrections have been made and the procedures are now operating far better than in the very early years 10 years ago, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a balance to be struck between the obligations that we ask our soldiers to accept when they are involved in very dangerous tasks, particularly on the battlefield. That is why I am concerned about the encroachment of other kinds of law on what is already a satisfactory basis of law—the law of armed conflict and our own domestic law.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Further to the excellent question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), a truly dreadful abuse of the legal system has caused untold stress to our loyal troops. Is there an argument for a civil claim against the two lawyers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two law firms in question and the lawyers involved should have their practice certificates suspended, pending the SRA inquiry?

[Michael Fallon]

On the first question, I lack the legal expertise to comment on whether a civil claim would have a chance of success. On the practice certificates of the two firms, that is a matter for the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I was interested to hear Sir Thayne Forbes say that the reason for gathering the bodies of the combatants was

“to see if there was amongst them an individual, known by the codename Bravo 1, who was suspected of having been involved in the murder of the six Royal Military Policemen in Majar Al Kabir in June 2003.”

The Defence Secretary will know that my constituent, Corporal Simon Miller, was among the Red Caps murdered in that massacre. Does he therefore agree with me that the attempt to identify Bravo 1 was justified? Can he tell us whether the suspect in question was indeed identified that day?

[Michael Fallon]

As I understand it—I am open to correction—all the detainees were revealed to have been insurgents. One of the things that the inquiry has thrown up is the distinction between general interrogation and what is called tactical questioning, where people need very quickly to get as much information as they can in order to save lives or to prevent further bloodshed on the battlefield. It is that distinction that Sir Thayne discusses when he comes to the various procedures. As I understand it, in terms of the very specific identification on that day, it did not take place.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We are the only country in the world that pays legal aid to sue our own Army. We then pay millions to defend our Army in those cases. Public Interest Lawyers has made over £1 million a year from such cases in each of the past four years. Is there a realistic opportunity for us to get some of that money back? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if there is, he will go after it as best he can?

[Michael Fallon]

We all regret the amount of time and the cost of this inquiry, but I am still proud to live in a country where these things can be fully investigated. It has taken far too long and cost far too much money, but I would rather the truth came out, however painful it has been. On the recovery of costs, as I said, we are looking at whether some of the costs involved in the earlier judicial review claim can now be recouped.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

One question that has not yet been raised relates to the asymmetric nature of so much modern warfare. When our troops go into battle, more often than not it is not against another nation state that observes international law and the Geneva convention, but against irregulars who do not observe the rule of law. This must put our soldiers in the heat of battle under immense psychological pressure. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the lessons from this report will be fed into the way our soldiers are trained, which has enabled them to maintain very high standards when fighting against people who do not maintain the same standards against them?

[Michael Fallon]

That is already part of the training that our servicemen and women now undergo, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The House should wonder whether the Taliban or ISIL would rush to provide bottled water before they were asked to do so if they had British detainees in their custody, or indeed if those detainees had survived to be in their custody.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State said that the cost of the public inquiry was £31 million, but that of course is not the total cost. Can he give us a figure for the total cost, including the costs before the public inquiry? Does this come out of the MOD’s budget or the Ministry of Justice’s budget? How many ships, planes and service personnel have we lost as a result of those firms taking this money?

[Michael Fallon]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the earlier costs. The figure of £31 million is specifically for the public inquiry. As he said, that is a huge and unacceptable amount. It comes directly from the defence budget and he is right—it could otherwise have been spent on providing more equipment for our troops and on many other things that people might have regarded as having a higher priority.

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

The Secretary of State may recall that in 2004 a number of nationalist MPs gave £14,000 of taxpayers’ money to that law firm for an earlier case. Does he think there is merit in the MOD raising this with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ensure that nationalist MPs never again squander taxpayers’ money on those ambulance-chasers?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not recall that, but perhaps I could look into it and get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I welcome the clarity and the robustness of the statement. On dealing with the aftermath of a battlefield situation and the handling of prisoners, the Secretary of State has mentioned on a couple of occasions that one of the lessons learned relates to data and intelligence gathering from the battlefield. Are there further lessons to be put in place in training or procedures?

[Michael Fallon]

There are a number of recommendations which we want to study in detail. I have made it clear to the House that I accept the principle and the intent that lie behind them. We have to work through some of the practicalities—for example, video recording and how that would work in a situation very close to the battlefield. I will, of course, come back to the House with my detailed conclusions within a few weeks, I hope.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Secretary of State on an extremely well-judged statement, in which I believe he spoke not just on behalf of his Department, but on behalf of the whole House. What more can be done to get the clear message out—particularly to communities and individuals, among whom I would count myself, who vehemently opposed the Iraq war in 2003—that British troops in Iraq did not torture or murder,?

[Michael Fallon]

That is indeed an important point. I will consider not only how we might disseminate the findings of this report across the United Kingdom but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, what more we can do to reassure the Iraqi communities that British troops do not behave in the way that was alleged.

Armed Forces Covenant

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Written Statements

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

The armed forces covenant was launched in recognition of the obligation and debt that the Government and the nation owe to those who serve, or have served, and to their families. Its two key principles are that members of the armed forces community should not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most, such as the injured and the bereaved.

It is entirely right that we should do this for those who give so much in support of their country. The Armed Forces Act 2011 enshrined the armed forces covenant into law, placing an obligation on the Defence Secretary to report to Parliament annually, on the effects of membership of the armed forces on serving personnel, veterans and their families. Today the Government have published their third annual report on the armed forces covenant and I am laying it in the House today.

The report sets out the action that has been taken to meet the commitments of the covenant, not only in the key legislative areas of healthcare, education, accommodation and the operation of inquests, but in all the other areas where we have an obligation to support our people.

Over the last 12 months we have:

changed our policy so that, from April next year, service widows, widowers and surviving civil partners will be able to retain their pensions for life, including if they subsequently remarry;

completed the £138 million Midlands medical accommodation project, a world class centre for excellence for the training and delivery of Defence Medical Services;

provided a further £20 million from LIBOR fines to improve the infrastructure in support of childcare provision for service families;

allocated £17.4 million, through the Department of Education to support the needs of some 58,000 pupils from service families;

increased the MOD education support fund to £6 million per year and extended the fund’s timeline to 2017-18 to help schools who support children from service families as personnel drawdown from Germany and rebasing takes place in the UK;

introduced the forces help to buy scheme to make it easier for armed forces personnel to get on to or stay on the property ladder. The scheme has already allocated around £29 million to help over 1,900 service personnel;

committed £40 million to support 16 new accommodation projects that will help veterans across Great Britain;

achieved a 100% sign up to the community covenant by all 407 mainland Great Britain local authorities, who have pledged to work to bring the civilian and armed forces communities closer together;

continued to grow the corporate covenant to over 370 organisations, including major names such as Tesco, Virgin Media and Liverpool FC, who have declared their support for members of the armed forces community who work for and use their services;

sponsored career assistance programmes designed for service partners which have already supported over 250 spouses;

implemented, with other Government Departments, the majority of the recommendations of Lord Ashcroft’s review of the armed forces transition process, and continued to strengthen the veterans support network, including: the development of a shared vision for veterans; and the setting up of a 24-hour veterans helpline;

for reserve personnel, we now provide better protection in civilian employment; we have also made changes to their terms and conditions of service including: granting an entitlement to paid annual leave, and enhanced occupational health care; and including them in the defence medical rehabilitation programme when they are mobilised and if they are injured during training;

£21 million from re-directed LIBOR fines the Chancellor announced recently in his autumn statement.

Looking ahead to next year, the report makes a number of commitments. We will:

launch a new £10 million consolidated armed forces covenant grant scheme;

make further announcements on the award of funding for veterans accommodation projects;

implement the majority of the healthcare infrastructure improvements recommended by the Care Quality Commission;

develop a system to transfer medical records between Defence Medical Services and the UK health services;

report on how LIBOR money has been distributed to support childcare provision for service families;

work with the National Foundation For Educational Research to produce some quantitative and qualitative data on service pupil premium use and improve understanding on its impact;

introduce a new, improved charging system for service family accommodation, coupled with a commitment only to allocate properties that meet decent homes standards on introduction;

improve MOD governance and work closely with the organisations who have signed the corporate covenant to ensure they deliver on the pledges they have made;

work with the financial services sector to address potential disadvantage associated with service overseas;

continue working to improve healthcare for reservists when not mobilised;

and provide a defined contribution to the future armed forces pension scheme for all paid service in the reserve forces.

The report has been compiled in consultation with the Covenant Reference Group, which brings together representatives from Government Departments, the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, and from external members, including the three Families Federations, the Confederation of Service Charities, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, the War Widows Association and Professor Hew Strachan of Oxford University. As in previous years, observations by the external members of the Covenant Reference Group are published as part of the report itself. I am most grateful to all external members for their continued involvement and assistance.

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Vernon Coaker]

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

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

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

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

[Michael Fallon]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Surely the key question is whether ISIS poses a threat to us, directly or indirectly. If it does, it needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. Are not too many western Governments getting close to conflict by opinion poll? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of co-operation with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, which remains a key factor in whether we can win a ground war against ISIS?

[Michael Fallon]

The advance of ISIL is a direct threat to this country and other western countries, which is why some 40 countries are involved in the international coalition and why a number of them are considering putting personnel in to assist the training effort. On my predecessor’s second question, the support and enlistment of the tribes of the Anbar is critical in pushing ISIL back towards the western frontier of Iraq. There have been encouraging signs, but it is up to the Iraqi Government and the reformed Iraqi army to ensure that, in all their actions, they command the support of Sunnis, Shi’as and Kurds.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Some of us had the privilege to meet British and Danish troops in Iraq last week. The training includes medical training. Given that 60% of peshmerga injuries are caused by improvised explosive devices, where loss of blood is a significant factor, why are we not training them in the use of tourniquets, which was very beneficial to our troops in Afghanistan?

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly look at that suggestion. We gained expertise in countering IEDs and vehicle-borne explosive devices in Afghanistan and, as the hon. Lady says, we also accumulated considerable expertise in dealing with the injuries that they cause.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I urge the Secretary of State please to ensure that, along with the trainers, we deploy people who have expertise in Iraq, both military and civilian, to look specifically at the role of the Shi’a militia and the Sunni tribes so that we can credibly sit at the table with the Iraqi Government and the United States to challenge and debate the overall strategy, and drive a Sunni reconciliation.

[Michael Fallon]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, said. It is vital that the new Iraqi Government not only consider themselves to be inclusive, but demonstrate that they are inclusive. They must command the support of the Sunni tribes and show that the Shi’a militia that are associated with the effort to halt ISIL are part of an overall inclusive effort that cuts across political, religious and tribal divisions. I have emphasised that throughout. There are encouraging signs in the Iraqi Government, in the reform of the Iraqi military and in Defence Minister Obeidi’s proposals for a national guard that can help to secure ground that has been won back from ISIL. However, there is a long way to go in ensuring that that effort is genuinely inclusive.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Given the current UK deployment in Iraq, what long-term consideration is being given to the implications of training the peshmerga on possible independence for Kurdistan in the future and on relationships with the Iraqi army and the Iraqi Government?

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome the recent rapprochement between the regional administration in the Kurdish areas and Baghdad. It is essential that that is built upon so that oil revenues can be properly allocated and spending, especially on the military, can be considered by the Government of Iraq as a whole. The priority now is surely to halt the advance of ISIL and help the Government of Iraq, the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces to push it back from the territory that it has claimed.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Last Monday afternoon, members of the Defence Committee were at the presidential palace in Baghdad, and in answer to my questions the President said no to British troops on the ground against insurgents but yes to more equipment and training and a continuation of the airstrikes. Does the Secretary of State agree with the President and me that if UK combat troops returned, they could be regarded as occupying forces, which would create other difficulties for Iraq?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with both my hon. Friend and the President of Iraq, in no particular order. The President of Iraq himself has said that he does not want British or any other foreign combat troops involved, which is why we need to make it absolutely clear that we are not proposing to return combat troops to Iraq. The effort that we are making is relatively small-scale and should be seen alongside the contributions being promised by others, including the Germans, the Spanish, the Danes, the Italians, the Australians and the New Zealanders, all of whom are considering what effort they can make to help with training and equipment.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to defeat this ISIL criminal caliphate cult, or Daesh, it will have to be done not just in Iraq but in its headquarters and heartlands in Syria? What is the international coalition of 40 countries to which he referred going to do about that?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of these matters through his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is right that in the end ISIL can be defeated only if it is defeated in both countries, Syria and Iraq. That is why we welcome the strikes that other members of the international coalition, including the United States but also our allies in the Gulf, have undertaken against ISIL, particularly in the north of Syria. That helps to disrupt ISIL’s supply lines into Iraq. Our part—it is all that the House will allow us to do at the moment—is in Iraq, but we have plenty to do there through airstrikes, surveillance, the supply of equipment and the consideration that we are now undertaking of further training.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I deployed to Bosnia in 1992, it was supposedly in a non-combat role, but the chiefs of staff insisted on ensuring that I had a field surgical team with an operating theatre and three general practitioners, for several hundred people. If we deploy several hundred people into Iraq, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are adequate medical facilities to look after our soldiers if by chance they are wounded, even though they are not in a combat role?

[Michael Fallon]

The House has the benefit of my hon. Friend’s considerable expertise in these matters, and I will certainly take up his suggestion. I emphasise that if we deploy further personnel, they will not be in the combat zones or on the front line. This will be a training effort to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces in some areas of expertise, in particular in encountering improvised explosive devices, as well as the sharpshooter tactics on which we have already been instructing.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Last week the members of the Defence Committee who went to Baghdad met Vice President Ayad Allawi. He brought with him 30 tribal sheikhs who described the total destruction of Shi’a and Sunni villages, the murder of men in the villages, and the abduction of women and children. People were left with nothing in an attempt to clear land for criminal elements within the militias. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the training we provide is not used by militias for their criminal activities, because often those militias are also part of the Iraqi army?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady is right and we must always be careful who we are training. It is important that the Iraqi Government—she will have seen this on her visit to Baghdad last week—follow through on the reforms they are proposing. The army must become genuinely inclusive and militias must be properly under control. Holding ground that can be liberated must have the full-hearted support of local populations, and that will be particularly important as ISIL is pushed back in the tribal areas of the Anbar.

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

The brave peshmerga whom we visited being trained by the British Army in Sulaymaniyah last week did a fantastic job in stopping the breakneck advance of ISIL in the summer, and they are to be congratulated. They did so against huge odds in terms of personnel, equipment and training, and to this day they are a pretty makeshift army. Does the Secretary of State agree that although it is vital that this should be a Kurdish or Iraqi battle against ISIL, we have a vast role to play in terms of equipment, training—particularly IED training—and we must do our part to combat the dreadful wickedness that is ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. ISIL is a threat to us in this country and generally to the west, as well as a threat to all those in Iraq—particularly those of other religions or indeed their own religion—who want to live at peace. That is why, with the support of the House, since early summer we have been considering what we can do to supply the peshmerga. We have supplied heavy machine guns and helped to airlift other equipment and ammunition that is needed, and we are considering—it is still only considering—the scope of training that we are able to offer in some of those specialist skills.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The public are right to be concerned about mission creep in Iraq, and about the lack of candour by the Ministry of Defence when it comes to boots on the ground. In September I asked the Secretary of State whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq. I was given a holding answer in October, no reply in November, and we are now getting towards the end of December. Can we have some candour from the Secretary of State on the simple question of whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq?

[Michael Fallon]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received an answer to that question and I will look into it. We have made it clear that we are not involved on the ground in combat in Iraq, as that goes beyond the wishes of this House. We are involved in air strikes, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and certainly in the supply of equipment and training.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on Syria? I met representatives of the Syrian national coalition last week. Bearing in mind the vital part that the repression in Syria plays in giving support to ISIL throughout the region, can the Secretary of State say when he intends to come back to the House to explain what more we can do to support fighters in Syria who are currently fighting Assad and the extremists in order to protect the Syrian people?

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend, who was a most distinguished Minister for the middle east, is certainly right to advise the House that Syria should not be neglected in all this. As well as the surveillance capabilities that the military is providing, we are in discussions with the international coalition about making a contribution to a programme to train the Syrian opposition, as I told the House during Defence questions on 24 November. We continue to scope that mission with our international partners. That kind of training would almost inevitably have to happen outside Syria itself, but it is under active consideration at the moment.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The urgent question has illustrated that we need a far broader debate than we are having at present. I visited Iraq 26 times when I was special envoy on human rights. Many of the things we put in place were not just military matters: we trained civil society, we retrained journalists, we insisted on the rights of women and we trained the judiciary. I have just visited both Baghdad and Kurdistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and we need to look again at what we actually achieved. My worry is that some of those gains are now slipping away and we need to reinforce them.

[Michael Fallon]

I think the House will endorse that. The right hon. Lady knows as much about Iraq, in particular about the Kurdish areas, as anybody in this House. There are lessons on the type of aid that was given and what we can do now to help the new democratically elected Government in Iraq to build on some of the earlier support we offered. On whether there should be a debate on Iraq, that is not a matter for me. However, I look forward to my appearance before the Select Committee later this week.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When insurgents such as ISIL break cover and seize and hold territory, they lose the advantages of secrecy and surprise. It should therefore not be too difficult in the short to medium term to expel them, but then they will go back to guerrilla and terror tactics. Will the Government have in place a medium to long-term strategy for containing that sort of warfare? We have lacked such a strategy in the past when we oscillated between nation building at one extreme and doing little or nothing at the other.

[Michael Fallon]

The tactics of ISIL vary and there is some evidence that it is already altering its tactics in the face of air strikes. The overall strategy has to be led and endorsed by the Government of Iraq. It is very important that, in the end, the campaign is led by the home-grown army of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with the support of the international coalition. The strategy has to be formulated there rather than here, but we can offer specialist expertise.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In 2003, there was massive opposition to Britain going into Iraq. Those concerns are still there, yet we have now heard that more British troops are going back into Iraq and that a British base is being built in Bahrain. Is the Secretary of State not presiding over an expansion and an extension of British military activity in the whole region? Is he really sure where all this will lead, what the cost will be, and what the casualties will be?

[Michael Fallon]

What I am sure of, first of all, is that ISIL presents a clear and present danger to us in the United Kingdom. There have been acts of violent extremism on the streets of our capital and elsewhere. This is a very direct threat and there are Britons, sadly, who have gone to fight for the jihadists. There is a direct British interest in ensuring that ISIL is not allowed to capture further territory in Iraq and is thrown back out of it. That is why we are supporting the legitimate Government of Iraq, and why we are acting at their request in considering what further training and support we are able to offer. So far as the base in Bahrain is concerned, we have ships and aircraft permanently present in the Gulf. Having a permanent base there will make deployment much easier.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

One of the most important things the Defence Committee heard last week was the strong desire by Governments in the region, particularly the Government of Jordan, to “Arabise the narrative”. What more can the UK Government do to support the strong desire that this be seen as an Arab-led initiative against an evil form of extreme Islam and that we in the west—countries such as Britain, the United States and France—be seen as acting in support of those efforts?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The extent to which our allies in the Gulf accept that they and other regional parties have a regional responsibility to help the Government of Iraq deal with this challenge is encouraging. The recent conference in Kuwait on combating the ideology of ISIL was an important illustration of that. In the end, this has to be dealt with by the legitimate Government of Iraq, with the support of the region and the international community.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Although the humanitarian work is valued and appreciated, should we not avoid mission-creeping into a new war before we have had an explanation of why 632 British soldiers died, having been ordered into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired?

[Michael Fallon]

I think that everyone in the House is awaiting the well overdue publication of the Chilcot inquiry, and anything that can be done to accelerate that would be welcomed on both sides of the House. Helmand is a better place than it was when our troops went in, however, and we should pay tribute to the work done there and the sacrifices made.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

We are all proud of the work done by the combined school for explosives and bomb disposal now based at Bicester. Do I understand it from my right hon. Friend’s statement that either Royal Engineer and/or Royal Logistics corps limited bomb disposal capacity will be deployed to help train Iraqi service personnel in dealing with bomb disposal and improvised explosive devices?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

No decision has been taken about which units are likely to be involved or which locations they are likely to be sent to; this is simply something we are considering at the request of the Iraqi Government. As my right hon. Friend says, however, this is expertise that we have in this country, and there are lessons learned from the Afghan campaign that we think we could usefully contribute to assist the Iraqi military.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to be clear about something the Defence Secretary just said. The House has only given permission for us to go up to the Iraqi border because it has never been asked to go beyond that. If he wants to do that, the Prime Minister should have the courage of his apparent conviction and ask the question. Will the Defence Secretary be specific about the request from the Iraqi Government? Have they made a specific request for the kind of increased ground force deployment he outlined to The Sunday Telegraph this week?

[Michael Fallon]

I did not outline any ground force deployment; I made it clear that we were not considering the deployment of combat forces to Iraq. I discussed the effort we might make in support of the Iraqi military with Iraqi commanders and the new Iraqi Defence Minister, Minister Obeidi, when I was last in Baghdad, and I discussed the same matter in Irbil. This is expertise that the Iraqi and Kurdish forces would certainly welcome.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to congratulate Prime Minister Abadi and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani on coming together to form the revenue-sharing and hydrocarbon deal, which will allow them to pay for some of the equipment, training and so forth. Of course there are challenges facing both—the unification of the Peshmerga and, of course, the militias that we have heard about today. There has also been talk of the formation of a Sunni national guard. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to discuss that with both parties in Kurdistan and Baghdad?

[Michael Fallon]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the agreement—only an interim agreement at this stage—between the Kurdish regional authority and Baghdad about the allocation of oil revenues. I hope both sides will build on that to forge a stronger relationship. So far as the national guard is concerned, yes, I did discuss the issue in Baghdad, and I view it as essential for that national guard to be truly national, so that it does not comprise simply Shi’as, Sunnis or Kurds but is genuinely national and cuts across all the political, tribal and religious divisions.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

This deployment is a new worry for the families of service personnel. Can the Secretary of State provide an estimate of how long the tour of duty will be on this particular mission?

[Michael Fallon]

I am sorry, but I cannot make any such estimate at the moment, simply because we have not yet decided the numbers or which units will be involved. As soon as we have further details, they will of course be reported to this House.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend further update us on the support for military training and aid that our allies in the Gulf states are providing to the Iraqi Government?

[Michael Fallon]

A number of allies in the Gulf have already contributed equipment and have been involved in air strikes, flying in support of the coalition efforts in Syria, in particular. They are looking to see what other logistical help they can provide. A number of them provide bases and other support for the international effort.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the threat presented by ISIL, I think the whole House would support any effective action. However, before we left Iraq, we trained, equipped and supported the Iraqi army, yet it crumbled in the face of the threat from ISIL. Why is the Secretary of State convinced that this intervention will be effective and will not simply drag us further into front-line involvement in this war?

[Michael Fallon]

We are not going to be dragged into front-line involvement, as I have made clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the previous Iraqi Government did not enjoy the full support of all parts of Iraq, which is why the army did not command the loyalty of all parts of Iraq and why it crumbled in the face of the ISIL onslaught. The new Government are, I believe, genuinely representative, comprising Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish Ministers, and the reforms we have seen so far show, I think, that the Government understand the need to be wholly inclusive of all the different elements of Iraq. It is early days and there is a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman said, in that these divisions still remain. It is up to us to help the new Government of Iraq to overcome them.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Given that the only strategy to beat ISIL is probably a large ground offensive involving tens of thousands of troops, does my right hon. Friend believe that such a resolution will ever by executed by the Iraqi and Kurdish forces?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do have confidence that ISIL can be pushed back if we are able to help re-equip and retrain the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. We have had some significant offers of support in principle from other coalition partners: the Australians are offering up to 400 personnel; the Germans about 100; the Spanish 300; the Italians 280; the Danes 120. A number of countries are coming together to offer the sort of training and support that they are each able to offer individually in overall support for those ground forces.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

When Parliament was recalled to debate ISIS in September, many of us expressed concern about the potential for mission creep, and I am afraid that the manner of the Secretary of State’s announcement has not reassured us. He said that these activities would be undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. Who will co-ordinate them, and is it true that, as has been reported in the press, we will be based at either of the training centres in which the United States currently reside?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

As the hon. Lady knows, everything that we are doing in Iraq is either at the request or with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. As for the location of any training effort, it has yet to be decided. The coalition is considering a number of sites divided between the Kurdish and southern areas and areas around Baghdad, but we have yet to finalise exactly which country is likely to offer further training where.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

There have been reports that, in addition to those in the countries mentioned by my right hon. Friend, Iranian military advisers are playing key roles in the fight against ISIL. Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about how the efforts of such a diverse range of international military advisers are being co-ordinated on the ground?

[Michael Fallon]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not co-ordinating efforts with Iran, but more than 40 countries are now involved in the international coalition, a number of which have made significant training offers. We are considering—scoping—what training offer we might be able to make, in addition to those that have already been made.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State said that there was an acceptance of regional responsibility and spoke of some of the contributions that had been made, but does he categorically believe that regional partners are providing enough support on the ground in the form of kinetic activity? If not, does he envisage any circumstances in which the fairly hazy commitment that he has described today could increase?

[Michael Fallon]

We have made it clear that we want to see this effort underpinned by support from the regional partners, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made exactly that point during his visit to Ankara last week. All the regional parties must be involved. We have seen how ISIL has swept across the borders between Syria and Iraq, and has managed to seize a large amount of territory. I think the regional partners understand that the integrity and survival of Iraq are key to the region. We are continuing to encourage them, as I did during the Manama conference in Bahrain two weeks ago. We are encouraging them to continue to contribute, not least because we think it important for public opinion in western Europe to take account of the part that they are playing in the effort against ISIL.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend shares my admiration for the Royal Marines and for what they did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is he considering using them to deliver the level of expertise and training that they have clearly demonstrated, so that they can provide the top-notch advice that I think is so desperately needed?

[Michael Fallon]

I much appreciated my visit last week, with my hon. Friend, to the Royal Marines in his constituency, and I am well aware of the formidable strengths and expertise that they bring to operations of this kind. I should emphasise, however, that we have not yet made any decisions about the number of personnel, or about the units from which they might be drawn.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Are there any differences between the Secretary of State’s assessment of the training requirements of the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi Government’s own assessment of its training needs?

[Michael Fallon]

Broadly, no. All this is being done in close co-operation and discussion with the Iraqi Government. I had discussions with the new Iraqi Defence Minister and his officials in Baghdad, who were fairly open about gaps in their military, their capabilities and their equipment, and about the areas in which they look to the rest of the international community for assistance.

UK-Bahrain Defence Arrangement

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Written Statements

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

The UK and Bahrain have agreed to enhance the naval and logistics facilities that are used by British forces in Bahrain and that support our basing and operations in the Gulf region. The new arrangement was signed at the Manama dialogue on 5 December, 2014.

This agreement will improve facilities at the Bahrain defence force Mina Salman port in Bahrain, where the UK has mine hunters permanently based and from where British destroyers and frigates in the Gulf are supported. Under the arrangement, the UK and Bahrain will work together to enhance the facilities at the port, and provide a bigger base for ships on operations, store equipment, and accommodate service personnel. Bahrain will make a significant contribution to the cost of the new facilities.

The UK will maintain a defence presence in Bahrain for years to come. The agreement reaffirms the UK’s and Bahrain’s joint determination to maintain regional security and stability in the face of enduring and emerging regional challenges. The expansion of Britain’s footprint builds upon our 40-year track record of Gulf patrols and is just one example of our growing partnerships with the Gulf states to tackle shared strategic and regional threats.

Senior Off-payroll Appointees

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Written Statements

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

A key requirement introduced as a result of HM Treasury’s review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees (Cmd 8350 published in May 2012) was that Departments must exercise governance over appointments where the appointees are not engaged directly on departmental payrolls. Each Department therefore has an obligation to ensure that such appointees are paying the appropriate amount of tax and national insurance.

On 9 March 2014, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced Departments’ compliance with the rules governing senior off-payroll appointments in central Government in the 2012-13 financial year, Official Report, columns 9 to 13WS. We have, however, subsequently established that the information provided for the Ministry of Defence was not correct, with the consequence that we did not fully conduct the necessary tax compliance checks in a timely fashion for 2012-13.

I apologise to the House for this error, which was due in part to a misinterpretation of the scope of the new requirements, and I provide a restatement of the position for the Ministry of Defence:

Annex 1: New off-payroll engagements between 23 August 2012 and 31 March 2013, for more than £220 per day and for more than six months, of which:

Future Reserves 2020

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Written Statements

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

As part of Future Reserves 2020 (FR20), the planned five-year growth of the reserve forces’ trained strength was set out in a statement to the House on 19 December 2013, Official Report, column 121WS. This included annual trained strength targets along with intake targets. I am announcing a public consultation on the reporting of performance against these targets to ensure a consistent approach is taken across all three single services.

Each service uses its reserve forces differently so, when the FR20 targets were set, each service proposed some small variations in the groups of volunteer reserves that should be counted. This has resulted in inconsistent reporting of the number of volunteers against the targets. The Army excludes volunteer reserve personnel serving temporarily on full time reserve service (FTRS), whereas the RAF excludes volunteer reserve personnel serving on either FTRS or additional duties commitments (ADC) from their FR20 trained strength numbers. For both the Army and RAF these personnel are included in the numbers once their FTRS or ADC service ends and they reassume part-time volunteer status. These complications do not exist in the maritime reserves, as the Royal Navy has always counted volunteer reserves serving on FTRS or ADC towards its FR20 targets.

In order to provide a consistent approach to reporting across all three services, the MOD proposes that all volunteer reserve personnel serving on FTRS and ADC should be counted towards the FR20 trained strength targets. The targets themselves will not change.

The targets also need to reflect the use of sponsored reserves as part of our overall reserve requirement.

The public consultation sets out the proposal in more detail. All responses to the consultation will be considered before any decision is taken to revise the population definitions. Performance against the FR20 targets is reported in the UK armed forces quarterly personnel report (QPR) National Statistics publication. This may be amended following the outcome of the public consultation.