Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Our position remains that there needs to be a robust response to the illegal use of chemical weapons. The House of Commons has ruled out military participation in any such response, but we will pursue every diplomatic, political and other channel to continue to deliver the robust message that my right hon. Friend calls for.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I want to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). On Thursday, after the vote, the Prime Minister ruled out UK involvement in military action in Syria. The Government of course will remain engaged diplomatically and on aid policy, but will the Secretary of State spell out for the House in what, if any, circumstances, following changes in Syria or internationally, the Government would bring back to Parliament the issue of UK military involvement in Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

If I may say so, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who last week trooped into the Lobby behind the leader of his party, giving rise to the very situation in which we now find ourselves, to demand that I tell him precisely in which circumstances we might revisit this issue. I have already said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that we believe that Parliament has spoken clearly on this issue, and is unlikely to want to revisit it unless the circumstances change very significantly.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The defence of the United Kingdom and the protection of our national interests must be the priority of any Government. The brave men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job, and I am sure all Members of the House will wish to pay tribute to their dedication, and to the sacrifices they make not only on operations but, as the tragic events in the Brecon Beacons at the weekend reminded us, on a daily basis.

The armed forces can perform their vital role only if we provide them with the capabilities they need to operate effectively and safely. We have a duty to them to ensure they have the tools they need in terms of manpower, training, equipment and logistical support. At the same time, we must deal with the black hole we inherited in the defence budget, and the Ministry of Defence has had to contribute its share to the broader challenge of correcting the public sector structural deficit.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I wish to respond not to the Secretary of State’s discordant point but to address his earlier comment and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition wholeheartedly share the expression of sympathy offered by the Secretary of State about events in Brecon. I know there are limits to what he can say at this early stage because it is subject to a police inquiry, but can he share any more details with the House about his understanding of those tragic events? In particular, there have been suggestions that training regimes may recently have been altered as part of efforts to boost the number of reservists, but I suspect that they are unfounded. Will he say what he feels he can say at this early stage?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get to the bottom of this matter—as do we all—but he is right that there is little I can say. An inquiry by Dyfed-Powys police is under way, and when it is complete there will be a service inquiry into the events of last weekend. We will get to the bottom of what happened, and if there are systemic lessons to be learned, we will learn them. I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that once the inquiry is complete, I will report to the House in an appropriate way.

The need to address the public sector structural deficit and the deficit in the defence budget has meant tough decisions and a relentless focus on squeezing more capability out of what remains the world’s fourth largest defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am happy to clarify that point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of devolving budget responsibility to the front-line commands, including responsibility for equipment procurement and support, starting with the smaller equipment procurement projects, but eventually including all but the very largest and most strategic. They will be the customers for the GoCo, just as in the current model they are the customers for DE&S. One of the disciplines that the proposed change will introduce is a harder boundary between the customer and the provider. At the moment, we suffer from a permeable boundary that allows decision making sometimes to be a bit woollier than it should be.

[Mr Murphy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that genuinely helpful intervention. In Committee, we will have to interrogate the expertise of the civil servants operating at that interface. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but they are up against remarkably talented negotiators with an entirely legitimate commercial interest, so we have to get that interface right. The simplicity the Secretary of State spoke about is important.

[Mr Hammond]

I apologise for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again, but that is exactly the point: the civil servants and the military people in the front-line commands—who are the customers—will interface with DE&S-plus or GoCo, which is their service provider. It is the service provider that will have to deal with the hard-nosed negotiators of the multi-billion pound international defence companies, and which will need to hire and fire in the marketplace at market rates in order to face them across the table on a level playing field—if I may mix my metaphors.

[Mr Murphy]

We are looking for a level playing field and a level negotiating table—if a metaphor it is—because this issue is so significant. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about hopefully simplifying and strengthening the process. However, procurement might have become a little more complicated as a consequence of a speech given today by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place—which would normally mean the second Chamber, but which on this occasion appears to mean the Royal United Services Institute. We are pretty clear: Labour have always said that we are committed to the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent. Actually, I should correct myself: we have not always said that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), it was impossible for him not to take the bait. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sensibly says, “He’s the only Lib Dem here.” There is no audience, as it were, from his party for him to perform for, although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make the Lib Dems’ policy clear tomorrow in the Chamber—I hope. However, there is an issue—I will finish on this matter after this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—about how taxpayers’ money has been used to inform a Lib Dem process. I accept that the Government will say that the review is a Government document, but it was intended to inform the Lib Dem manifesto.

One of the primary arguments for a GoCo is its supposed ability to attract and retain higher skills and prevent a loss of talent from DE&S. The Opposition are clear about the need to increase the skill levels in our armed forces, but we recognise that this requirement limits itself to those in uniform. Those at the front line of defence procurement within government should be the equal in experience of those within industry—a point to which the Secretary of State has alluded. We will carefully scrutinise the procedures in place to ensure that the assessment phase is fair and transparent, and that sufficient controls are in place to ensure that those involved in the possible preparation of a GoCo cannot immediately go and work in that GoCo, a point to which we will return.

While we are on this theme, it seems unacceptable that the Government have not yet fully published their findings on The Sunday Times revelations on cash for access within the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State, of course, wrote to me on the matter, explaining the outcomes, but this was a private letter and I was not at liberty to disclose its contents and have chosen not to do so. I think it important, however, for the Secretary of State to provide the full details to the House.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but I was not aware that I had not explained the situation publicly. If he would care to ask me a written parliamentary question, I will publish in the public domain the full information I have provided to him.

[Mr Murphy]

That is a kind offer from the Secretary of State, although he could have done so off his own back, and the problem is that we are running out of time for named day questions and replies. The alternative, with his permission, would be for me simply to tweet his letter. That would be quicker and I would be happy to do so if he so wishes. [Interruption.] With the Secretary of State’s permission, I will now tweet the letter I received some months ago detailing the Government’s response to The Sunday Times revelations.

These issues, alongside the impact of any reform of our strategic and working relationships with major international partners, particularly the US, and providing clarity on the ownership of risk, will be priorities for the Opposition. The restructuring of DE&S, however, should also be seen as part of a wider structural reform of defence procurement.

There is much else that I could have said, but time is against us today and my colleagues will raise in Committee additional points about sovereign capabilities, long-term planning and predictability for British industry, so I shall now turn briefly to reform of the reserves.

The Opposition want to ensure that reservist recruitment is successful so that the reserves can work alongside regulars to project force globally. Our reservists make an enormous contribution here at home in many ways. About 2,000 of them, some of whom I saw for myself when I went to see the Greco-Roman wrestling, helped to protect the London Olympics. Many serve overseas in far-away terrain in the name of national security. We should pay tribute to each one of those who have served, and above all to those who have lost their lives serving our nation.

While we champion the reserve force, we recognise the need to modernise. The name change to “Army Reserve” will reflect a modern composition and hopefully help to attract a new generation of recruits. The task ahead is, however, enormous and we should not pretend otherwise. The plan to double the size of the reserve forces to 30,000 by 2018 is now central to the Government’s ability to deliver their planning assumptions—originally, of course, designed for an Army of 95,000, but after further cuts now reliant on a regular force of just 82,000.

The scale of this task is underlined if we consider that the reserve forces of the US, Canada and Australia make up between 40% and 50% of their armies, as opposed to 20% here in the UK. Many analysts worry that, rather than reform of the Army being synchronised with that of the reserves, both are disjointed and the reserve uplift will not complement the regular Army but supplement lost capacity. Cuts in the regular Army are happening regardless of the success of any uplift in the reserves, rather than the one being contingent on the other.

This development comes as Army reserve recruitment has hit real trouble. The figures are publicly available—that recruitment targets were missed by more than 4,000 last year. Great care has to be taken to ensure that the loss of 26 Territorial Army centres does not make civilian communities in certain areas more disconnected from the military and disinclined to volunteer for the reserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

My point is that in the same context, Regular Army numbers increased. I do not want us to bat each other about the head on this; I am assessing how we can make a success of the boost in reservist numbers. The comparison the hon. Gentleman invites me to draw, however, is with the Labour Government, and we boosted the size of the Regular Army. His party said that it was not big enough; it wanted an even bigger Army and was elected on a manifesto of going in that direction. The comparison is clear: we boosted the number of regulars. Of course, there is always pressure when it comes to reservists, who were under-recruited for about nine decades, so this is not a short-term problem for us or the current Government to grapple with.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Does he accept that the six-month cancellation of TA training announced by the previous Government in October 2009 was not the way to stimulate TA recruitment and confidence? Also, as he is talking about Regular Army numbers, does he now accept a Regular Army of 82,000 as the basis for Future Force 2020, or does he still hanker after a reversal of that reduction?

[Mr Murphy]

As the Secretary of State knows, the previous decision on training was based on the recommendation of the Regular Army and the best available military advice. It was the type of situation that he faces whenever it comes to considering the best available military advice. We will make the detailed shape of the formation of our forces clear in our strategic defence review and in advance of the election.

The Opposition support moves to improve the training for reservists and ease their deeper integration with regular forces. We also support moves to use niche civilian skills, for example on cyber, in a military setting as well as to expand occupational health services. There are, however, areas where we believe the Government could go further. It is essential that the changes, particularly the extended periods of training and deployment, be compatible with employment patterns and that the reforms be designed in collaboration with employers.

It is worth noting the huge impact the changes could have on employers, particularly small employers. More than 600,000 businesses in the UK employ between two and four people. I suspect that we Members all employ a similar number of people in our parliamentary offices. We should ask how we would cope with losing a staff member for up to a year. Although I am sure that each and every one of us would be enormously supportive of a staff member’s military ambition, we might struggle to fill that space. Once we reflect on how we would feel about that, it gives us a better understanding of what many within that core group of 600,000 businesses will be confronted with.

Our view is that the reservists in those businesses will be a remarkable bonus and asset for them, but we must do more together to make that argument. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that for one in three businesses, nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, whereas almost 40% of those who had employed or would consider employing a reservist said that they believed that the Government’s proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their business. I do not agree with that; nevertheless, it is a sentiment felt by all too many businesses.

I welcome the announcement about access to unfair dismissal tribunals, but, as we have said before—and the Secretary of State referred to this—we believe that Ministers could go further. Current legislation clearly states that an employer has a duty to re-employ a returning reservist in the occupation in which he was employed before his service, on the same terms and conditions. There is, however, no legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against reservists in their hiring procedures on grounds of military affiliation.

We hope that, rather than embarking on a new consultation, the Government will work with employers on new legislation to provide further protection against discrimination in the hiring of reservists, which would need to be coupled with an obligation for reservists to make a transparent declaration at the interview stage. We believe that that should be part of a wider collaborative approach, and that a permanent employer engagement committee should be established to enable Governments to take the lead in advocating the employment of reservists.

There has been some debate about whether £1.8 billion is the right amount to invest, but we should also consider whether it will provide value for money. We hope that Ministers will be able to shed light on that in Committee. We shall want to know what proportion of the money is intended to fund financial incentives for employers and the “reservist award”, which tops up reservists’ salaries to match their civilian salaries. We shall also want to know whether the £1.8 billion covers reservists’ training, medical costs and pension payments, or whether those will come from another part of the MOD’s core budget. We are keen to establish what elements of the Reserves 2020 plan have clear funding streams, and where there may be unknown liabilities in a budget that involves competing interests.

The Bill has the potential to help the United Kingdom develop world-class procurement procedures that will be the envy of every nation. It gives us an opportunity to make a success of the enormous challenge of doubling the reserve force. The Opposition will support and scrutinise its proposals in Committee, and will give it a fair passage today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Both areas mentioned by my hon. Friend are identified gaps in European NATO capability. Once again, I made it clear at the NATO ministerial meeting that the UK will have surplus capacity in air-to-air refuelling once our new Voyager fleet is fully delivered, and that we are more than willing to share that capacity with other NATO allies in the spirit of pooling and sharing.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The Government and other NATO members have our support in difficult circumstances in trying to end the bloodshed in Syria. As the UK and some other NATO nations consider arming the rebels, will the Secretary of State say what successful precedent there is for the UK arming an opposition force and using a vetting process to ensure that weapons provided are quarantined so that they do not fall into the possession of those whose aims we do not share?

[Mr Hammond]

I think there is a hypothetical hidden premise in the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The UK has made no decision to arm the rebels in Syria and we maintain our focus on achieving a political solution, in particular at the Geneva II peace conference, and that will be a central theme of the discussions going on right now in Lough Erne. We must, of course, leave all options on the table while the terrible attrition of the Syrian population continues at the hands of the Assad regime.

Better Defence Acquisition

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Reform of defence procurement is one of the major challenges facing UK defence. Those on both sides of the House will want to see reforms that deal with overspends and overruns, and ensure that world-class equipment is delivered when and where our forces need it. For too long, the good intentions of successive Administrations have not delivered sufficient reform in defence procurement. However, just as some of the responsibility can be shared, our resolve to learn the right lessons and deliver far-reaching reform must also be collective. We therefore welcome much of today’s statement.

Future procurement systems must provide value for money within financial constraints. Better performance will come from greater professional project management, faster decision making, fuller accountability for outcomes and a more considered use of military expertise. Labour supports reforms—the Bernard Gray report, on which today’s White Paper is based, was commissioned by the previous Government. We have proposed a new budgetary discipline, whereby deferred decisions that increase cost are accounted for within a rolling 10-year cycle, and increased certainty for industry over sovereign and off-the-shelf capabilities.

Labour Members are open-minded about how that is achieved, but I wish to be clear that welcoming this process today is not the same thing as supporting a GoCo in principle. There needs to be rigorous examination of all the possible options and a robust comparison between the two options of a GoCo model and DE&S+. That comparison should rest on the principles of ensuring value for money within programmes; industry adhering to new targets on time and cost; maintaining parliamentary accountability; enhancing a culture of consequence for decision makers; and military involvement being based on tri-service working, not on single-service rivalry. So reform must extend across the Ministry of Defence. Too often, scope creep has led to systems exceeding identified need, and major decisions have been pushed to the right to save in the short term at the expense of longer-term budgetary bow wave. Today’s challenge for Ministers is not just to determine a management model, but to demonstrate that decades-long entrenched behaviours are being corrected.

Let me deal with the specifics of today’s announcement. On the assessment phase, will the Secretary of State pledge to publish the findings of the two value-for-money studies and allow for a consideration by this House prior to a final decision being taken in the legislation? It is essential that Parliament, industry and our armed forces have full confidence that strategic affordability is the determining factor in this process. On costs, will the Secretary of State say whether the new management team of either model would re-cost the baseline of the core equipment programme, or would the figures published earlier this year remain? Furthermore, in the light of the National Audit Office’s observation that the MOD’s assessment of risk is “not statistically viable”, would the new management be able to reform the current method of risk assessment? On staffing, the MOD has said that current reductions will not affect outputs. Would either management model be able to make decisions over staffing independently from the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that trade unions will be consulted throughout the assessment phase?

It is essential to maximise military expertise, so will the Secretary of State say whether he considers it preferable to change the current ratio of military to civilian numbers in procurement within the MOD? Specifically on the GoCo, will he pledge that senior officials currently working on this process within the MOD will not be able to work for the GoCo consortium without a prolonged period of purdah? Many in the country will have a concern about the extent of a private entity’s potential reach over public policy. So, under these plans would a GoCo model cover the whole equipment programme, including the nuclear deterrent? What is the time scale for the implementation of a GoCo? That will enable us to judge when efficiencies may begin to accrue.

One of the biggest uncertainties around GoCo has to do with the ownership of risk and whether contractors could generate private profit while financial risk remained in public hands. For example, can the Secretary of State say whether liability for the £468 million cost overrun noted in the National Audit Office’s “Major Projects Report 2012” would have rested with the taxpayer or the GoCo, had it been established?

On the single source regulations office, we welcome the proposal in principle and will examine it closely. It is essential to drive down cost where possible in single sourcing, as the Secretary of State said. Will he say a little more about who would appoint the members, and whether regulations would be subject to the one-in, one-out rule?

In conclusion, we will support what we hope is a genuine competition. We will scrutinise the processes carefully, because efficient and effective defence procurement is essential, not just for the Ministry of Defence bottom line, but for the remarkable men and women of our armed forces, whom we place in harm’s way to serve on the front line.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of this announcement. Of course I completely accept that the Opposition’s willingness to look at the issues with an open mind is not the same as an uncritical endorsement of the GoCo concept, and just in case I did not make this clear in my opening remarks, we have not yet accepted the GoCo concept as the chosen outcome; we are conducting an assessment. However, I think we agree across the House—Opposition Members who have, in office, experienced the challenge of trying to make the defence budget add up will certainly agree—on the need for change. The intentions are very clear.

The process that we are talking about was kicked off by the Gray report, published in 2009. I note that the then Secretary of State has strongly endorsed the GoCo model, which he feels is the way forward. We are examining the case for GoCo against the baseline of DE&S+. We have two separate teams, working with Chinese walls between them, that are equally resourced. One is trying to build the maximum fully-public-sector case that it can, taking advantage of all freedoms and flexibilities available. The other is working with potential GoCo bidders to look at the value that they can deliver. At the end of the process, we will make a comparison.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost drivers from past scope creep. One of the clear advantages of changing the way that DE&S works is creating a harder boundary between the customer and the company supplying the requirements, making it less easy for scope to creep without a proper change process and proper recognition of the costs involved. He asked me whether the baseline would be re-costed. We do not anticipate a re-costing of the programme baseline. If we go down the GoCo route, we will negotiate with GoCo bidders for an incentivised fee structure, based on the existing costed programme. He will know that an independent cost advisory service sits alongside DE&S, and will play a continuing role in independently assessing the costs of projects and the appropriate level of risk to be attached to them.

Unsurprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about staffing levels in a post-GoCo DE&S, if GoCo is the selected solution. The staffing transfer would be made under the TUPE regulations. We anticipate about 8,000 of DE&S’s projected 14,500 2015 staff numbers transferring to the new entity, with the remainder—in naval dockyards, logistics, communications, and information services—remaining in other parts of Government, or being outsourced.

There is no reason to suppose that the GoCo route is more likely to deliver further staffing reductions than any other route. Clearly, the new management team, whether it is a GoCo or DE&S+, will seek to run the business efficiently, and to use the freedoms and flexibilities available to it to deliver outputs as effectively as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the ratio of military to civilian personnel in DE&S. At present about 25% of the personnel in DE&S are military. We expect the military role, which will be performed by secondees in the future, to focus on providing specifically military advice to the DE&S organisation, rather than filling line management and project management roles, so I do not expect the military proportion of staff to increase, and it may decrease under a future model.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, the motivation for which I entirely understand, about senior officials. Nobody wants to see such exercises becoming a gilded exit route for senior officials, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Chief of Defence Matériel, the most senior official in DE&S, will transfer to the MOD side—the customer side—of the equation and will be responsible for designing and managing the customer side. I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, give him an absolute assurance that other officials in the Department, should they choose to leave the Department, would not at some point in the future be able to join a GoCo, but of course there are rules and restrictions in place—a Cabinet Office regime which has been reinforced following revelations in The Sunday Times last year—and we will make sure that nobody is able to abuse this process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the GoCo would cover the nuclear deterrent. It will certainly cover the procurement of Vanguard replacement submarines. The management of our nuclear warheads is carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, itself already a GoCo. We have not yet finally decided whether the new GoCo, if there is one, will be responsible for managing the MOD’s relationship with AWE or whether that will be managed directly. That will be one of the issues dealt with in negotiation with potential GoCo bidders.

On timescale, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we expect to reach a decision in the summer of next year, with a view to the new arrangements, whether GoCo or DE&S, being stood up before the end of 2014.

Finally, I turn to the question of risk ownership. This is an important point which has been somewhat misunderstood by some commentators. Clearly, it would be very attractive to think that we could transfer the programme risk in the defence equipment programme—£160 billion of it—to somebody in the private sector, but the reality is that there is nobody who has a balance sheet big enough, probably anywhere in the world, and the taxpayer would not be prepared to accept the price for taking on that risk, so the risk ownership in the programme will remain with the Government and the taxpayer. What the private sector partner will be at risk for is his fee, which will be structured in such a way as to incentivise the delivery of the key performance indicators that will be agreed with the partner during the negotiation process. That will be designed to align the GoCo partner’s incentives with the interests and priorities of the Department. That is where a great deal of our time and energy is being invested at present.

Operation Herrick

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing notice of it, although unfortunately much of it appeared in this morning’s media.

I wish to start in the same way as the Secretary of State by paying tribute to those who lost their lives recently in Afghanistan: Corporal William Thomas Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint, both from the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and Private Robert Murray Hetherington form 7th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Little we can say in this House can heal the hurt that their families feel, but they should at least know that they remain in our thoughts and prayers. Members on both sides of the House will always remember the remarkable individual acts of heroism and the collective acts of courage that define our armed forces. It is their sacrifice and bravery that is helping to make Afghanistan more stable and the UK safer.

It is essential that the progress our armed forces are making in Afghanistan becomes permanent and that full transition to an Afghan lead on security is successful. This remains a mission that is not just in our national interest, but in the interests of international stability.

The Opposition consistently commit to bipartisanship on Afghanistan and our support is, of course, complemented by scrutiny. Today is no different: we see the logic in the Government’s move, but many will be concerned about the impact on the individuals affected.

The enormous operation mounted over the past 12 years will require extensive and expensive effort as it is brought to a close. Recouping and reintegrating equipment, training the Afghan forces, facilitating inward investment and seeking a political solution are all essential elements of the international community’s task. As part of this, we see the merit in ensuring that there is not a destabilising changeover during the Afghan presidential election next year and that personnel are present to ensure that equipment is repatriated efficiently.

Could the Secretary of State say which regiments and units will be affected, how many of those expected to stay for longer he anticipates will be reservists, and why the Herrick draw-down allowance does not start from the beginning of the extended tour?

I say gently to the Secretary of State that there appeared to be a slight contradiction in his statement. He said that he was not aware of the exact number that will be expected to stay beyond six months, but towards the end of his statement he said that everyone who will be expected to stay for longer than six months has been informed by their commanding officer. There therefore seems to be a glitch, if not a contradiction, in the logic of his argument.

Many people will worry that a smaller force operating in Afghanistan after the withdrawal deadline may be subject to higher risk. Will the Secretary of State say whether all those who are planned to be in-country in 2015 will be combat troops with NATO-provided force protection?

Extended exposure to conflict increases the risk of physical and mental health problems. Research for King’s College London has shown the importance of adherence to the Harmony guidelines. Will the Secretary of State say how the Harmony guidelines will be altered for those affected by today’s announcement? Research for King’s College London also shows that if tours are longer than anticipated, servicemen and women are much more likely to report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is a one-off measure which, as I have said, has merit. However, many will note that the 2010 strategic defence and security review stated categorically:

“We need to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions which drive force generation, such as tour lengths and intervals”.

It stated that the single service chiefs would carry out the review,

“completing their work by the spring of 2011.”

Last year, that work was still ongoing. Will the Secretary of State say what work has been done internally on the wider application of longer tours of duty? If there is to be a shift to longer tours on a more regular basis in any future conflict, the military community will want a better understanding of the recommendations of the service chiefs.

Today’s announcement also raises the issue of the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. As part of an alliance presence, training and support for Afghan forces post-2014 will be essential. There is no word yet on the size and scope of such a force or the UK’s role within it. Who will be responsible for the protection of UK service personnel? Will any commitments that are made before 2015 be open-ended or time-limited? When does the Secretary of State expect more detail to be forthcoming?

Today we are focusing on the temporary extension of two tours. I want to turn, finally, to how we will mark permanently the contribution of all those who have toured and, in particular, those who have not returned. The Opposition believe that there should be a national memorial for all who have served in Afghanistan. We have also proposed that streets be named after fallen personnel, should their families and communities request it, and that veterans champions should be working hard in every local authority to help service leavers with the transition to civilian life. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to support those and other measures.

As the operation in Afghanistan draws to a close, our nation is rightly showing huge support for those who have served. That public sentiment will prevail beyond any withdrawal timetable and so should the commitment of the Government, no matter who is in power. It is in that spirit that we want today’s announcement to be successful. We offer to work with the Government to achieve a fitting legacy in Afghanistan and to support our troops.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reasserting the bipartisan approach that has prevailed on matters relating to Afghanistan. I welcome his pragmatic engagement with this announcement and his perfectly legitimate questions.

I should say at the outset that when I said that the people who were eligible and likely to be affected by the announcement had been informed, I should have used the military term warned off. Those in the pool from which the people will be drawn have been warned off that they may be affected. It will be some time before we can be clearer about who precisely will be affected. Although the next Herrick rotation is in preparation, we have not yet announced the precise composition of the next brigade. That will be determined by the practical evolution of things on the ground. I am afraid I cannot therefore give the right hon. Gentleman more detail today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me why the Herrick draw-down allowance is not payable from day one of the tour. It is intended to compensate for the longer period of duty, the uncertainty and the austerity that may exist in the final part of the Herrick campaign. Normal allowances will be payable throughout the deployment. The Herrick draw-down allowance is an additional allowance payable from the seven-and-a-half-month point. That ties in with the current campaign continuity allowance and makes it fair and equitable among those who have served longer than six and a half months historically and those who will do so in the future.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman’s points about additional risk and the additional potential for physical or mental health issues arising from longer tours are legitimate, and we have considered them carefully. It is worth pointing out to the House that as we draw down, a higher and higher percentage of the troops deployed will be deployed to main operating bases, where they will be relatively much safer than they have been in the forward operating bases, patrol bases and checkpoints that they have occupied in the past. Conditions will generally be significantly better.

The Harmony guidelines will not routinely be breached. Harmony is measured by the number of nights of separated service over a three-year cycle, and nothing that I have announced today is expected to have an impact on the armed forces’ ability to maintain Harmony. I should also say that this is emphatically not a systematic shift in policy with regard to tour lengths. It is a bespoke solution to deal with the final few months of the Herrick campaign and will not affect our standard deployment policy for the future.

On the two generic points that the right hon. Gentleman raised about the timing of our announcements on post-2014 deployment, he will know that discussions are going on with NATO literally right now, as we sit here, on the post-2014 configuration. We will continue to discuss the options with allies, and as soon as we have come to a conclusion we will of course inform the House.

Finally, I am pleased to say that we are in complete agreement on the question of a national memorial. My expectation is that the memorial wall in Bastion will be dismantled and recovered to the UK, probably for re-erection at the national arboretum in Staffordshire. My personal view is that we should also look at having a fitting memorial in central London to those who have given their lives both on Op Herrick and, before, on Op Telic. I would be happy to enter into a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman about that to see whether we can make it a bipartisan initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would go further and say this: the life expectancy of the replacement ballistic missile submarines will be about 35 to 40 years, and it would be a very brave man who would claim now that he could see, 40 years ahead from the 2020s, that there will be no need for that capability.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

It is in all our interests that the situation in North Korea is resolved not only peacefully but meaningfully so as the US deploys military assets to the Korean peninsula, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with his US counterparts about the provision of any UK logistical support? Should the US move any military assets out of Afghanistan to that region, has he confirmed to the US that the UK would be willing to fill any of the gaps created by that redeployment?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been no discussions with and no requests from the US, as far as I am aware—certainly at ministerial level—regarding any form of logistical support in relation to the tensions on the Korean peninsula. Again, as far as I am aware, there is no proposal by the US to move any assets from the Afghanistan theatre in response to this crisis.

Army Basing Plan

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for providing advance sight of his statement earlier today. While the strategic defence review did not survive its first contact with world events, the assumptions within it did not survive contact with the Secretary of State. The country remembers that the Government were elected on a promise of a bigger Army. The SDSR promised five multi-role brigades and cut 7,000 troops. Army 2020 is based on a cut of 20,000 troops and promises seven infantry brigades.

In that context, we welcome a steady, costed withdrawal of UK troops from Germany. Today’s announcement will impact on Army deployability, our ability to meet planning assumptions, service families’ livelihoods and the integration of service personnel with local communities. That is why I want to ask some detailed questions of the Secretary of State about how to make these measures successful.

On Germany, the right hon. Gentleman says the total cost of returning troops from Germany is £1.8 billion. Will he spell out specifically where this money has been found and say whether any cuts to the MOD non-equipment budget are being made as a result? Undisclosed underspends cannot be the gift that keeps on giving for the Secretary of State, and all those in the military who have recently lost their jobs will want to know that today’s announcement has not been funded at their expense. Will he say how much is allocated to each of the RAF bases being converted to make them fit for the Army, and for each of them, when the conversion will be completed? The public will also want specifics on how the £240 million savings will be achieved and in which year they will begin to accrue.

It is vital there is a positive impact on the local communities to which our forces and their dependants will be returning. How many new homes for soldiers and families will be ready by 2016? It is hard to see this being achieved in the time frame set out. Given that MOD figures show there are 7,000 service children currently being educated in Germany, will the Secretary of State say what will happen to those whose new homes will not be built in time? There will be an expectation that the Secretary of State can today guarantee that no one returning will be forced to take on expensive private rented accommodation because the specified new accommodation is not ready.

It is essential that local services can provide for our military families. Will the Secretary of State say what assessment he has made about the local impact of returning military families specifically in the areas surrounding the seven permanent bases referred to today, and what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Department of Health and the Department for Education, as well as the devolved Administrations? With the grant to local government falling by a third over the current spending review period, which Department will meet the additional costs to local authorities?

Can the Secretary of State confirm that he has had the requisite discussions with German authorities about these plans? What will the cost be of redundancy of the civilian force in Germany? Although there is much less strategic need for our forces to be based in Germany, it can still play an important role in providing training facilities. How does he envisage this function being supplemented if it is no longer available there?

With reference to lay-down, there will be real disappointment at closures across the UK today, from Canterbury, Ripon and Shrewsbury to Brawdy, where historic bonds are being broken. The Secretary of State says that his disposal plans will bring in substantial receipts, which have already been factored into future MOD budgets. After the Government’s 4G debacle, he will forgive the public if they wait for further details before taking that assertion at face value.

The armed forces remain crucial to Scotland’s future but today the Government have reneged on their promise. Although there is positive news about the return of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and the Royal Marines staying in Arbroath, a previous pledge of thousands more troops to Scotland has become a plan for just hundreds. This is a real blow to Scotland and will not be forgotten.

UK defence planning assumptions rely on doubling our number of reservists by 2018. Despite this, there is uncertainty over employer engagement, workplace protections and missed recruitment targets. It is disappointing that today we heard little of where reserve units will train or of the fate of existing units. The Army 2020 plan on which today’s announcement is based remains in jeopardy while these issues are unresolved.

In conclusion, UK troops have been stationed in Germany for almost 70 years and we support their return home, but this will, as I know the Secretary of State would expect, be matched by detailed scrutiny. So I hope he will be able to outline further the implications of today’s announcement for personnel and their families, as well as for local communities, which will, I am sure, give our returning troops a warm and patriotic welcome upon their return.

[Mr Hammond]

I hope the document that has been distributed will answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, particularly about providing the certainty that personnel and their families will want in terms of where they are going and when they are going to go there. I note that his references at the beginning of his remarks about multi-role brigades and the subsequent evolution of the Army force to match the resources available made no reference whatever to the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government, which has been one of the key drivers in our efforts to deal with the challenges ahead.

Let me try to deal with some of the right hon. Gentleman’s perfectly legitimate questions. He asked me about the £1.8 billion capital spend. Essentially, he sought assurance that this money had not been found at the expense of the budget for employing our forces. It is, of course, a capital budget quite separate from the resource departmental expenditure limit budgets of the Department and it is largely a budget that was in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s capital spend programme, supplemented by some of the capital underspend from last year, which we have been allowed to carry forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to explain how DFID proposes to spend its budget. There is already a high level of co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DFID. It makes absolute sense to look at how we spend the budgets available across those three Departments in order to achieve their objectives and secure the UK’s vital national interests.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Last May the Secretary of State announced to an outburst of self-congratulation that he had balanced the MOD’s books and, as we have heard, he even called on the National Audit Office to validate his assertion. Instead, however, the auditors have declared that his costings are “over-optimistic” and his approach “not statistically valid”. Put simply, the NAO said:

“The costings are not sufficiently robust to support the affordability assertion.”

Is it not now time for the Defence Secretary, just like the Prime Minister, finally to admit that he has failed to deliver on his boasts on the MOD budget?

[Mr Hammond]

No, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) has stolen the right hon. Gentleman’s thunder. We now have an equipment plan that includes £4.8 billion of centrally held contingency, £8.4 billion of contingency in the individual projects, and £8 billion of unallocated headroom. The right hon. Gentleman might have noted that the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) recently said that, since the election, the MOD has made

“welcome progress…particularly on the purchasing of equipment”

and “great strides forward”. That is in marked contrast to the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee’s assessment of what happened under the previous Government.

[Mr Murphy]

The Secretary of State should spare us the lecture. This is the party that sold off the Harriers, that could not decide which aeroplanes to put on the carriers, that sends our one carrier to sea without any aeroplanes and that cost the country tens of millions of pounds.

To return to the budget, we now know that when the Defence Secretary told this House that the defence budget was balanced, he meant that only 40% of it was costed. The National Audit Office looked at just £1 in every £5 of the MOD’s budget, and even then it discovered a £12.5 billion black hole in the plans. The NAO said:

“Achieving affordability is…contingent on savings being achieved elsewhere in the budget.”

Will the Defence Secretary confirm the NAO’s figure for the new black hole and that his plans to boost the equipment budget will fall on the back of further cuts to our armed forces and their welfare?

[Mr Hammond]

No. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The figure of £12.5 billion is from CAAS—the internal cost assessment and assurance service. It was quoted by the National Audit Office and has subsequently been reassessed at £4.4 billion. [Interruption.] No, it was by CAAS and has been reassessed at £4.4 billion. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Labour has to decide whether it is going to engage seriously in this debate or not. At last year’s Labour conference, the right hon. Gentleman told his party that it

“must deal with the issues we would if we were in power…No smoke and mirrors, no delay in tough decisions”.

Just two weeks ago, however, he told The Daily Telegraph:

“I’m not going to say we will guarantee to overturn this cut or the other.”

Which is it to be: tough decisions or more ducking and weaving?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

When Ministers were last asked about the need to double the reserve force numbers, they dodged the question, instead talking about the increase in Territorial Army inquiries. Today we have heard from Ministers that they are hopeful that the policy will be a success. However, a policy that the country needs to be a success is being totally mishandled, with missed targets and too few businesses aware of the Government’s plans. Instead of talking about inquiries, will Ministers now place on record the fact that recruitment targets are being missed? Surely, in relation to this important issue, accepting that there is a problem would be the first step towards dealing with the problem.

[Mr Hammond]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the way in which we will not increase confidence in the Territorial Army, and will not increase reserve numbers, is arbitrarily cancelling its members’ training, cutting their kit and relegating them to the second division, which is what his party did in government. [Interruption.]

Deployment to Mali

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. First, the UK has a clear interest in the stability of Mali and in ensuring that its territory does not become an ungoverned space available to al-Qaeda and its associates to organise for attacks on the west. Secondly, we have established military co-operation with France, which is an important part of Britain’s strategy for the future, and this situation, along with the Libya campaign, is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the validity of that working relationship with France. The role of British troops, as I set out in my response to the urgent question, is clearly not a combat role, and it will also not extend, as we envisage it at the moment, to a force protection role. We are looking for force protection arrangements to be put in place, probably by the French, but certainly by the European Union in relation to the EU training mission.

My hon. Friend asked me about the exit strategy. France has made it clear that it envisages a short intervention to stabilise the situation on the ground while the African forces from neighbouring countries and the Malian army deploy to sustain the situation in the longer term. We concur with that strategy. I should say, again, that it is not our intention to deploy combat troops; we are very clear about the risks of mission creep and we have defined very carefully the support that we are willing and able to provide to the French and the Malian authorities.

My hon. Friend referred to UN Security Council resolution 2085 and the time delay in deploying African forces. I think it is well known that the intention was to deploy African forces in support of the Malian authorities later this year, but the situation on the ground has become more urgent, hence the decision by the French to intervene. Some of these forces require equipment and some require additional training, and the response time to the mobilisation envisaged by resolution 2085 has perhaps been longer than we would have liked. The lesson we can learn from that is that if we want local forces to be able to deploy and respond to resolutions of this nature, we may have to take a more proactive role in resourcing them to do so.

On the broader strategy for encouraging local forces to tackle extremism, part of our defence posture, set out in the strategic defence and security review 2010, is to devote an increasing proportion of our defence resources to upstream engagement, building capacity in fragile nation states to allow them to deal with early threats to their security, rather than waiting for the situation to degenerate to the point at which it requires outside intervention.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to discuss security in north Africa today, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is essential that Mali does not become a haven for terrorism, which would allow militants to oppress a people, hold territory, destabilise a region and threaten UK interests. It is therefore vital that the international community enables Mali and its neighbours to defend themselves.

Let me turn to six specific issues. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that no UK personnel will be redeployed to Mali from Afghanistan? What other European allies plan to commit trainers and at what level?

There will be broader worries about mission creep. The UK commitment to Mali has grown from lending the French two transport aircraft to the deployment of perhaps hundreds of troops to the region. It appears clear that Islamists have chosen to abandon population centres and might now melt away across near-non-existent borders. It is possible that they will be able to regroup and return to carry out the type of terror attacks we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the ability and intent of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its associates to do so?

I want the Secretary of State to say more about force protection. If UK trainers are based in Bamako, which has not to date been the centre of violence, that might make them and the capital a target. Our forces will, I assume, be armed, so what will the rules of engagement be? UK trainers might be non-combat, but that does not mean that they are without risk. They are deployed and will need to be protected in a hostile environment, so what security guarantees has he received from French forces about protecting UK trainers as a condition of this deployment from day one?

We all know that lasting stability will be achieved through a political process, so will the Secretary of State outline the strategy to achieve that? In particular, will he give his assessment of whether the Tuareg people will be part of the process?

While we consider the importance of winning hearts and minds in Mali, there is another country where public consent must be retained and that is here in the UK. The public are wary and weary of conflict as a consequence of recent history. There will be worries about mission creep and the safety of UK trainers and it is essential that the Secretary of State allays those fears today.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, although I have to say that there was a little bit of fence sitting. Although we all recognise that the public are wary and weary of conflict, I did not hear a clear indication of whether he supports the actions that the Government propose to take in support of this French mission.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the redeployment of troops from Mali to Afghanistan and I assume he meant Afghanistan to Mali. We are acutely conscious of the primacy of the operation in Afghanistan and the limits of what we have been able to offer the French in this operation are defined largely by the need not to degrade our capabilities in Afghanistan. We are looking all the time at what we can do without impacting on the air bridge or the operation in Afghanistan. As he noted, our initial response was to offer logistical support as that was what was urgently required to get French troops and equipment into Mali. The French ask has evolved to include additional surveillance capability, which we have now provided with the Sentinel R1. Over the next weeks and months the requirement will be for training of the Anglophone African troops who will provide the force in support of the Malian army in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assessment of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. It is fair to say that our situational awareness of the Maghreb is not as great as we would like it to be. It is not an area where Britain has had traditional involvement, but we are making strong efforts to obtain awareness of what is going on there. We should not underestimate the potential for terrorist threats to emerge from the Islamic Maghreb, but nor should we overestimate the strength of the Islamists in this region.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about our forces on the ground in Bamako. Bamako is well to the south of Mali and the problems are in the north. I agree that it is not impossible that Islamists could penetrate the south of the country in small groups, but there are many reasons why it might be difficult for them to operate there. The rules of engagement for British personnel will be on the basis of self-defence when they are based at Bamako. Force protection is provided within the airfield at Bamako by the French forces on the ground. As I said earlier in relation to any UK training mission, we will not allow any UK trainers to deploy until we are satisfied that adequate force protection measures are in place.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the political process, and of course a political process is essential. I envisage that the European Union will be engaged in economic and political development in Mali in the future. The involvement of the Taureg people, of course, is essential to a sustainable and lasting peace in that country.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his quarterly statement. On each occasion when we meet to discuss Afghanistan, we rightly pay tribute to our service personnel and their families. That is even more poignant as we approach Christmas. As we prepare to celebrate Christmas with our families, we remember those in Afghanistan, separated from theirs, and those who have been lost, never to return to their loved ones. They are in the thoughts of us all and in the prayers of many of us.

The commitment to success in Afghanistan runs deep on both sides of the House. Although we on the Opposition Benches will scrutinise Government decisions, we will support the intentions with which they are made. Afghanistan has seen significant, but not irreversible progress. Al-Qaeda has been dispersed; we have overseen elections; the army and police forces are being trained; and a rule of law is developing. However, none of those tasks can be said to be complete. There are immense challenges to overcome. Facilitating free and fair presidential elections, tackling green-on-blue attacks, improving the representativeness of the police and the army, developing an education system and, above all, helping to deliver political reconciliation are all issues that necessitate our commitment up to and beyond 2014.

We all want to see our troops home as soon as possible, and we welcome today’s announcement. However, can the Secretary of State say when he will be able to tell us which units will leave and from which parts of Helmand? We are all concerned about the continuing risk to UK personnel who will remain. Can he tell us whether any force protection capabilities will be drawn down as a consequence of his announcement?

The Secretary of State spoke in general terms. Can he be more specific about how the capacity of those who are departing can be sufficiently replaced by Afghan forces? Can he give the House more details about the capability of Afghan forces specifically? What capacity do they have in providing an airbridge, aerial surveillance and intelligence?

The Secretary of State told us that 3,800 of our forces would leave by the end of next year. Does he currently envisage most of them remaining until the end of the fighting season, and does he expect the UK forces who remain after 2013 to be withdrawn throughout 2014 or to remain until the end of combat operations?

The co-ordination of the military coalition is essential. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether today’s announcement is part of a synchronised international set of announcements? Can he also say whether all those who return from Afghanistan, whether in 2013 or in 2014, will be exempt from any future tranche of compulsory Army redundancies?

Although the focus is rightly on withdrawal, it is also necessary to consider the post-2014 military settlement. The Chief of the General Staff is right to say that our commitment to Afghan institutions must be long-term, but we need more clarity about the nature of that commitment. Will the Secretary of State be more specific about the role of non-combat personnel? Is it his current thinking that our trainers will be embedded with the ANSF, and, if so, who will be responsible for force protection?

The Prime Minister rightly alluded to this earlier, but it is still unclear how many UK forces will remain post-2014 and from which services they will be drawn. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to give us more details abut that, as well as the UK’s equipment legacy to Afghanistan?

We all know that a long-term settlement for Afghanistan will be achieved through politics, not just through military might. There have been reports recently of a road map to peace from Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, outlining plans for talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban early next year. How confident is the Secretary of State that such talks may indeed take place, and does he believe that talks between the Taliban and US officials will recommence in Qatar in the new year? Will he also comment on the significance of Pakistan’s release of 18 Afghan prisoners? Does he feel that it marks a potentially significant shift in the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship?

One of the main measures by which we will judge progress in Afghanistan is the progress of women. Sadly, a recent detailed UN report showed that Afghan women remain frequent victims of abuse. What efforts are the UK Government making to ensure that women’s safety does not deteriorate once ISAF forces have left? In particular, beyond DFID’s efforts, what are the Government doing to sustain the progress that has been made for women in relation to the political process, the police and the judiciary?

As we enter the 12th and penultimate year of UK combat operations in this bloody but unavoidable conflict, there will rightly be lessons and consequences from Afghanistan. The time will also come for us to reflect, as a nation and free from party politics, on how we can mark in a lasting way our commemoration of those who have fallen and those who have been injured. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how NATO can achieve withdrawal while maintaining the stability for which so many Britons have fought so fiercely. We need to get this right. This is our fourth conflict in Afghanistan, and we have no intention of there ever being a fifth.

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the tone in which he made them. I know that he expressed the views of Members in all parts of the House in sending best wishes for Christmas to the members of our service personnel who will be in theatre over the Christmas period. I am grateful for his continued support and for that of the whole Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to emphasise the scale of the challenge ahead, and the reversibility of the achievements that have been won. It is for precisely that reason that we are engaged in the ongoing process of building the Afghan national security forces and the institutions of the Afghan state for the long term, and it is for precisely that reason that we have gone out of our way to emphasise the nature of our ongoing commitment to the Afghan people way beyond the end of our combat operations in 2014.

The right hon. Gentleman understandably asked some questions about the draw-down of our forces during 2013. He asked which units would leave and from which parts of Helmand. Owing to our six-monthly rotational pattern in which units are deployed to theatre routinely around March-April and September-October each year, it is less a question of which units will leave than a question of deploying fewer units to replace those that are coming out of theatre at each successive turn of the handle. I expect that there will be some draw-down of numbers next April, a period during the fighting season in which numbers remain constant, and a further draw-down in September-October, towards the end of next year.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about force protection measures. Ours is an integrated force. The 5,200 figure was arrived at through a bottom-up process of military logic and military planning that took account of the shape and scale of the force that will be required to deliver the tasks that we expect to be delivering by the end of 2013.

As for the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces who will increasingly fill the gap as we reduce our numbers, the message is clear. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard it: I know that he has heard the back-to-office reports of returning commanders from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister mentioned it earlier, and I have heard it myself. Everyone talks of the Afghan forces’ increasing confidence, increasing competence and increasing willingness to engage. There has been a step change in the level of what they are able to do.

However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, at present Afghan forces still depend on ISAF allies for some key enablers: air cover, air support, indirect fire support—they are building a capability of their own in that respect, but it is as yet immature—and, crucially, medical evacuation, which gives the Afghan army high levels of confidence on the battlefield. Over the next two years, we will focus on developing Afghan indigenous capabilities so that they can replace those enablers at the end of our combat involvement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the international dimension of draw-down. There is an emerging ISAF plan, which is being discussed among the ISAF nations, and today’s announcement is entirely consistent with that plan. Other allies, including the United States of America, will make specific announcements in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the rules on redundancy. Announcements about future tranches of Army redundancy will be made in the new year, and the rules will be set out to be as fair as possible. That means ensuring that the field of redundancy is as wide as possible, while ensuring that those who are about to be deployed on operations, those who are currently deployed and those who have just returned from operations remain exempt. The more widely we set the field, the fairer the process of redundancy selection will be.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the post-2014 non-combat commitment and about embedded training. Those matters have not been decided, beyond the commitment that we have given to take the lead role in running the Afghan national officer training academy. There are a number of things that we could consider doing beyond that, but we have decided that it does not make sense to make firm commitments earlier than we need to, before we see how the situation develops on the ground and before we see what other allies intend to do. We will make announcements to the House in due course, during 2013, as those decisions are made.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban and between US officials and the Taliban. The Government are working very hard and very diligently. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is routinely engaged in encouraging the process of dialogue, as is the Prime Minister. We know from our own experience over many years that conflicts of this kind invariably have to be settled by means of dialogue and compromise. At the heart of that dialogue and compromise will be a renewed shared understanding of the need for future dialogue and co-operation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I am pleased to say the UK has played a significant role in enhancing that and in ensuring there is genuine engagement with Pakistan in these discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have received no evidence whatever, but this is not simply about people in Gairloch: the impact of the 6,000-plus jobs at Her Majesty’s naval base in Clyde is felt throughout the entire west of Scotland. The removal of those jobs or any erosion of their numbers would be a devastating blow to the Scottish economy.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The veterans interview programme aims to get private sector employers to guarantee job interviews for unemployed veterans. This scheme was designed by the Labour Opposition and is today being rolled out nationally by Jobcentre Plus. For months, Ministers have been asked to do something similar in the public sector. Will a Minister—any Minister—update the House on the progress made in getting public sector employers to guarantee job interviews to suitably qualified unemployed veterans?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not sure from the right hon. Gentleman’s tone whether he is pleased or saddened by the news today. He does not sound very joyous about it. The Department for Work and Pensions is rolling out a programme to ensure that veterans leaving the services are guaranteed interviews. I should have thought that he would be rather pleased about that.

Let me make a further point. Any suggestion that people leaving the services are unable to get work would not do them any favours. More than 90% of people leaving the services have found work within six months, and more than 97% within 12 months. I would have thought that that was rather a good record to build on.

Future Reserves 2020

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for advance sight of it and the Green Paper.

Our reserve forces can make an enhanced contribution to our regular forces and UK force projection capability. In recent years, reservists have operated in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and, most recently, in Libya. We remember each who has been lost or injured, and pay tribute to their courage and their sacrifice—a comment that is more pertinent in this Remembrance week. We, like the Government, support the modernisation of the reservists and support a name change to reflect their contemporary composition.

Today’s plans build on the last Government’s record of support for reserves, but when the Government announced deep cuts in the regular forces of 30,000 and a doubling of reserve numbers to compensate, many would not have known that the cut in regulars would go ahead regardless of whether the target for reservists is met. Given that it is the Government’s policy to rely on reservists to meet the defence planning assumptions, surely it would make more sense to make the cut in regular capacity contingent on growth in reservist capability. The Secretary of State’s comments today will be checked to some degree by concerns that he has announced a policy without yet having a clear idea of how it will be achieved, and today we have a new list of unanswered questions. Concerns will be heightened by the criticism, made by the Green Paper’s co-author, of a backlog of applicants. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House and others on whether he has increased the number of medical officers and computers available to applicants?

In the limited time available to me, I want to ask specific questions and look for specific answers in five areas. On employment, the Secretary of State announced that three companies are supporting his consultation, and we look forward to more being announced. Support from employers is vital, and we therefore welcome the approach outlined, in particular the consideration of a kitemark. Does the Secretary of State envisage such a kitemark being taken into consideration in decisions on defence procurement? Will he also say what specific incentives there will be for private companies, and whether those already taking on reservists will be recognised? It is vital, in our view, that legislation is now considered to protect reservists against discrimination in employment interviews, pay and career promotion.

On the nature of deployment and integration with regular forces, it is our judgment that reserves should not form stand-alone units on operations, and that the present system of integrating individually into infantry companies should remain. One great strength of the reserve force is its local identity, so will the Secretary of State say a little more and offer clarity on the fate of existing TA units?

On training, an enhanced front-line role must be matched by a proportionate improvement in pre-deployment training. The integrated concept should extend beyond tours of duty to preparation too, so we recommend that reservists train alongside regulars with more advanced equipment. What is the Secretary of State doing specifically, in addition to what he has already commented on, to enable such a change of practice to take place?

On mental health, reservists’ new role comes at a time when medical analysis shows us they are more susceptible than regulars to post-deployment mental health problems and post-traumatic stress disorder. Many reservists return to civilian life without decompression with those who share their experiences, and do not have access to military medical services. What improvements are being made to post-deployment care?

On benefits, our support for reservists should extend to those signing up while they are signing on for benefit. Greater mandatory training requirements for reservists could, it has been reported, lead to individuals not meeting claimant eligibility criteria. A condition of claiming must be about consistent search for employment, but someone who has lost their job should not lose their benefit because they volunteer. I hope the House agrees that no one who fights for their country should be made worse off. I have asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State, but I would like clarity and an absolute guarantee on the record that no one will be affected in that manner.

In conclusion, it is in our nation’s interest that, at a time of enormous uncertainty across the world, a greater degree of clarity is provided on how we recruit and retain a new generation of reservists. We will support and continue to scrutinise the Government’s actions, because it is now clear that our nation’s security will depend on the professionalism of our reservists and on the Government’s ability to get this right. We wish them well in that endeavour.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) at least for the very first and very last sentiments he expressed. I am grateful for his broad support for reform of the reserves and for the name change, which might seem trivial but is hugely symbolic of our intentions. I am also grateful for his good wishes at the end.

The right hon. Gentleman tells the House that what we are doing builds on “the last Government’s record of support for the reserve forces”. That would be the proposal to cut their funding by 30%, slash their training days and stop live firing of ammunition, I suppose! He asked me about the balance of regulars and reserves, but he was quoted this morning on the BBC website as saying that we need a smaller but stronger armed forces. That is the first time I have heard him admit that our armed forces have to be smaller, as we cut our coat to fit the budgetary cloth that we have inherited from Labour.

The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the backlog of applicants in the system following the move to common selection in April 2012. We are aware that we must deal with this issue before we publish the White Paper next spring. Steps are in hand to deal with his points about medics and computer access. The Army is acutely aware that it has to get people quickly from the point of application into the reserves, and not keep them hanging around, as I am afraid has happened in some cases over the past few months.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the kitemark proposal and whether it would be taken into account in the awarding of defence contracts. I do not believe that that is the appropriate way to award contracts. Where those contracts are subject to competition under European competition directives it would be illegal to offer priority to an accreditation that is only available to UK companies.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about specific support for employers. He will see, when he reads the Green Paper, a number of questions about the nature of the support that we should give. Financial support is already available to employers when reservists are called up for deployment. We have not closed our minds to the possibility of further financial support, but there is a fixed pot of money available to support this initiative— £1.8 billion—and, if we use it to pay employers, we cannot use it for kit and equipment for reservists. I want to ensure, therefore, that where we offer financial incentives, they are precisely targeted—at the smallest employers, I would expect—where they will do the most good. We have some excellent large companies supporting the initiative, but, with the greatest respect to them, I do not want to hand them a wodge of taxpayers’ money to recognise the excellent work that they are already doing. However, I am much more open to the idea of financial support for smaller companies.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about discrimination. We make it clear in the Green Paper that if there is evidence of widespread discrimination against reservists and if we cannot find an effective way of dealing with it without legislation, we will not hesitate to legislate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the existing basing lay-down. We cannot set out now the future basing lay-down for the Army Reserve, because we have not yet set out to the House the Regular Army basing lay-down. I expect to be able to do that before Christmas so that, when we publish the results of the consultation and our White Paper in the spring, we will be in a position to set out the planned lay-down of TA units around the country. Those will have to reflect the population centres where we expect to be able to recruit in the future, and we must be hard-nosed about ensuring that our limited resources are deployed in the areas where we can expect to recruit reservists.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about training alongside regulars. As the White Paper makes clear, that will be standard practice in the future. He also talked about mental health. I completely accept his point. One issue that the Green Paper raises relates to full access to the military mental health support system, both for serving regulars and reservists, and for regular and reservist veterans, and the assurance that reservists will be offered decompression time after operations. The lessons learned as a result of the Murrison report—the work done by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has responsibility for international security strategy—will be transferred to the reservists.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of jobseeker’s allowance. I have just asked for this to be checked, and I can confirm to him that jobseeker’s allowance is preserved for reservists and is not removed. That is an important point. People who find themselves facing a period of unemployment have an excellent opportunity to undergo their basic reserve training.

I want to finish by remonstrating with the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I do not know whether he realises the significance of what he said about deployment as formed units and sub-units, but for people in the reserve forces that goes to the very heart of this question. If we cannot support them to be able to deploy in formed sub-units and units, they will regard this as a pyrrhic victory indeed. I urge him to look carefully at what he said on this matter and consider the Opposition’s position, because the Regular Army and the reservists, to a man—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend will know, the excellent report produced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is being taken forward by the Government. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and others to look at how best we can implement the remaining recommendations in that report.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the new ministerial team who have found their places on the Front Bench today? It is only a shame that that comes at the expense of their dedicated and highly effective predecessors, who deserve the thanks of everyone in all parts of the House.

Many of our armed forces are currently being made redundant. One of the worries is that the Ministry of Defence seems to be trying to save money by sacking experienced people very close to their full pension entitlement. I have been contacted by angry and disappointed family members who feel very let down by this approach. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in future rounds of service redundancies he will take into account proximity to pension qualification when deciding whom to make redundant?

[Mr Hammond]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments on the retiring ministerial team, and I am sure that he will appreciate that my new Front-Bench colleagues will give him an equally hard time in future.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, proximity to pension point is not and cannot be a determining factor in selection for redundancy. Wherever we set the bar—we have made some reductions in the immediate pension point for those being made redundant—some people will, unfortunately, fall just short of it and it is inevitable that they will feel a sense of injustice. The legal advice that I have received is that it would not be appropriate—we would be subject to challenge—if we used proximity to pension point as a criterion in redundancy selection.

[Mr Murphy]

There will be disappointment at that answer, not least in the pension justice for troops campaign, one of whose high-profile supporters is Sergeant Lee Nolan, who served our country in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo, and who was sacked just 72 hours before qualifying for his full pension. So disgusted is he that he has returned all six of his medals to Downing street in protest. Will the Secretary of State at least enter into all-party talks, with the aim of guaranteeing that no one currently serving in Afghanistan will be affected in this way? It is simply wrong and not good enough for someone who has served our country bravely and for many years in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other theatre to be sacked so close to qualifying for their full pension entitlement.

[Mr Hammond]

Before the right hon. Gentleman climbs any further on his high horse, I remind him that we are having to make reductions in the size of our armed forces to deal with the legacy that we inherited from the Labour party. Nobody who is serving on operations or who is on post-operational leave is eligible for selection for redundancy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are deeply sympathetic with regard to those very difficult cases in which people missed their immediate pension point by a very short period, but I assure him that the legal advice is unambiguous on the issue.

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

There were a lot of questions there. First, my hon. Friend talks about consultation with Governments. This is not a strategic initiative; it is a tactical initiative, taken by commanders in theatre, operating within their delegated responsibility. We would not seek to interfere with the military judgment of commanders on the ground.

On information, I can tell my hon. Friend that this FRAGO was issued on Sunday evening. I was told about that during a meeting on Monday, along with information about several other measures that ISAF has taken. No particular significance was attached to it.

My hon. Friend talks about partnering at below kandak level. I should stress to him that US forces have not routinely partnered below kandak level. It has been the practice of the British-led Taskforce Helmand to partner and mentor Afghan units at tolay—company—and even platoon level. That is not a practice used by the Americans, so the impact of the announcement will be far less significant than he suggests. As I made clear in my opening remarks, General Gurganus, Regional Commander of RC Southwest, has this morning confirmed that he is happy for Taskforce Helmand to continue in its current mode of operations. In other words, he has endorsed the risk assessment and management approach that we have been using. We will continue our operations as we were carrying them out last week in Helmand.

My hon. Friend asks, at the more strategic level, about our mission in Afghanistan. I touched on that yesterday, and he knows my position very well: we can ask British forces to place themselves at risk for the defence of Britain’s national interest, and legitimately for no other reason. I am clear that the mission we are carrying out in Afghanistan is to protect Britain’s national security by denying Afghan space to international terrorists. That is our mission, and that is the mission we will complete.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s priority in Afghanistan is, rightly, to achieve the mission while protecting our forces and those of our ISAF allies. In that, as in Afghanistan policy more generally, our approach is to support and scrutinise the Government’s actions. While the details of today’s announcement are still not clear, it appears to mark a significant change in the relationship between UK, ISAF and Afghan forces.

May I ask questions about three areas? First, on the training of Afghan forces, if the approach is that we will not automatically and routinely partner with smaller Afghan forces at company level, what impact will that have on the training of individual Afghan recruits by UK forces and on the safety of UK forces, which will increasingly be patrolling without Afghan partners?

Secondly, on the ISAF announcement, the Secretary of State did not even refer to this new ISAF approach yesterday when he made his statement. I know him, and I know that he would not want to keep Parliament in the dark, so many are now assuming that the UK was not fully sighted yesterday on the ISAF announcement. What changed between his making his Commons statement on the UK’s approach and ISAF announcing a different approach just hours later? Did he discuss that with the US Defence Secretary and the Secretary-General of NATO?

The Secretary of State said in response to an earlier question that he knew about the new approach on Monday. Did he know about that before the statement was made? If he did, why did he not share it with the House? If he did not know before the statement, why was he not sighted on it?

Thirdly, on progress towards a 2014 timeline, today’s announcement will undoubtedly have an impact on combat operations and security, so how is ISAF adjusting its assumptions on what can now be achieved by 2014? Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced increased patrols outside the wire of Bastion. How, if at all, will the ISAF announcement impact on his announcement?

To lose a loved one in Afghanistan is heartbreaking. To do so in a cowardly insider attack multiplies that hurt. In dealing with that threat, we rightly seek continued consistency from the Government in their policy in Afghanistan. Our forces and our nation deserve nothing less.

[Mr Hammond]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not have seen General Allen’s press release, and had to write his speech before he heard what I had to say, but frankly he has completely ignored the information that I have given the House. I thank him for his support for the overall policy and strategy in Afghanistan, but I repeat that this is not a significant change. There is no change of strategy. We will continue, in Taskforce Helmand, routinely to partner at tolay level. The United States has never, or not in recent years, routinely partnered at levels below the battalion or kandak, so there is no practical impact on operations. [Interruption.] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s chuntering question in just a moment. This is not a different approach.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically when I became aware that this approach had been implemented. It was during a routine meeting in the Ministry of Defence on Monday afternoon, after I had made my statement, when I was in a video telephone conference with the deputy commander of ISAF in theatre. We went through some of the measures that had been put in place. No significance was attached to this particular measure at that time. It is a tactical measure, decided on by commanders in theatre. UK commanders in theatre were aware of the measure and were involved in the discussions, but we do not engage in debate with commanders about tactical military measures; it is not appropriate. It is not a strategic change.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s last question, there will be no impact whatever on the additional patrols that I mentioned yesterday around Camp Bastion. This will not make any difference at all to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to publishing a consultation document in the autumn that will look at employer engagement and terms and conditions for reservists. We will set out clearly our proposals for the new deal for reserves under the new arrangements I announced last week.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

There is all-party concern about forces’ pay during the Olympic games. The Secretary of State is right that there is no exact comparison with other workers, but the country has noticed that London bus and train drivers are getting Olympic bonus payments and that our forces are not. What contact has he had with G4S about it paying bonuses to troops who are called up at the last minute? I do not begrudge the transport workers their bonus, but just because troops rightly cannot go on strike, they should not be ignored by the Government.

[Mr Hammond]

Clearly the union got to the right hon. Gentleman and made sure he included that last bit. We are determined to ensure that the welfare of our troops who are engaged in the Olympic project is properly looked after while they are deployed on that operation and that they are properly recognised. I am in discussion with senior members of the armed forces about how best to do that.

The Government do not have a direct contractual relationship with G4S—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games holds that relationship—but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that whatever resources we need to ensure we offer an appropriate package to our armed forces will be made available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

As I said, we will publish a consultation paper in the autumn. The consultation period will take us through into the new year and we expect to be able to publish full details of our plans for the Army reserve in the spring, including the order of battle.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

How many contracts does the Ministry of Defence have with G4S? Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing them in the light of recent events, and will there be a moratorium on the MOD signing any future contracts with that company until the findings of those reviews have been reported in full to Parliament?

[Mr Hammond]

I cannot given the right hon. Gentleman a simple answer on contracts we have in place with G4S—

[Mr Murphy]

Why not?

[Mr Hammond]

I am quite happy to look into the matter and write to him. Depending on the type of contract being let, the MOD is bound by the regulations binding all Departments—European procurement directive regulations—unless it is a contract for war-like supplies, and must conduct its procurement in accordance with them.

Defence Budget and Transformation

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in offering my condolences to the families of Corporal Brent John McCarthy from the Royal Air Force and Lance Corporal Lee Thomas Davies from 1st Battalion Welsh Guards. They will be for ever missed by those who love them, and their sacrifice should always be honoured by our nation. I agree with the Secretary of State. We continue to support the mission in Afghanistan, and we all wish to see political progress there to match our force’s bravery.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of his statement. He might lack the passion of his predecessor, but he should not mimic his assertions. His predecessor said, about the strategic defence and security review, that defence was back on a stable footing, and at the time of the three-month review, he said:

“For the first time in a generation, the MOD will have brought its plans and budget broadly into balance”.

Today we are hearing the same thing, but we will judge today’s statement not on these reheated claims but on the detail published and on whether the Defence Secretary’s plans provide the right balance between flexible force structures, strategic reach post-Afghanistan, strengthening alliances within NATO, support for our forces and their families, and budgetary stability.

The Defence Secretary has said that there will be no more cuts over and above those he has already announced. Let us not forget, however, that he has announced cuts up until 2020, with thousands of service personnel and civil servants yet to be sacked, £900 million of allowances still to be lost and veterans’ and war widows’ pensions being frozen year-on-year.

Short-term control of defence costs to support careful deficit reduction needs to be coupled with long-term reform, but the Government have been reckless where care has been essential and timid when boldness has been required—reckless because decisions on the Astute class submarines and the Trident and carrier programmes have massively increased costs, and timid because long-promised reform of Defence Equipment and Support has been stalled. Only this Government’s review into speeding up defence delivery could itself be four times postponed. Hundreds of defence workers have lost their jobs, and major projects were last year delayed by a combined 30 months and at a cost of £500 million.

Last week, the Secretary of State stumbled into three different figures on the aircraft carrier U-turn. Let us see whether he is any clearer today. In the interest of the Liberal Democrats, the Government have delayed the biggest procurement decision of them all—Trident replacement. Will he therefore tell the House how much that decision to delay will add to the total projected costs of Trident’s successor? Will he also tell the House whether any cuts have been made since the three-month review and whether any programmes have been delayed to enable today’s announcement?

The Secretary of State talks about balancing the books, but I also want to ask him about the balance of our forces. What will be the precise up-front costs in this Parliament of converting RAF bases to Army bases for those returning from Germany? There is also consternation in Scotland about his plans for historic Scottish regiments. Scotland has a proud history in UK armed forces that simply cannot be cast aside, so will he guarantee that the names, identity and cap badges of Scotland’s regiments will be preserved? Failure to do so will show yet again that the Government are totally out of touch with Scotland.

We welcome the new investment, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the full cost of major projects, including the future tanker, the carrier programme, the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter fleets, have all been factored into the figures he is publishing today, and will he publish—perhaps not today but shortly—details of each programme and their costs? Ministers have committed to publishing a 10-year equipment plan. Without that, his claims today cannot be substantiated. Will he therefore honour his commitment to publish the equipment plan with its projected cost and available resource over the same period, or do his comments today about the National Audit Office override that previous commitment?

The Secretary of State has said that there is now a departmental reserve in each year. Will he guarantee that the contingency will be ring-fenced for defence?

In conclusion, Governments take the gravest decision of all by sending our forces into harm’s way. Today’s statement is about the quantity, quality and cost of the equipment we provide them with. We will hold the Secretary of State to each and every one of his commitments today, because it is in the nation’s interests that he gets it right; and where he does, we will support him.

[Mr Hammond]

They still don’t get it. Still they do not understand that a balanced budget is the essential underpinning to effective defence. Still they are in denial about the £38 billion black hole they left, even though we have the internal Labour party documents admitting that the £38 billion black hole is Labour’s biggest weakness in defence. Still they appear to believe, like children in a sweetshop, that it is better to have a big programme that cannot be delivered than a smaller one that our armed forces and defence industry can rely on. Where would we be if the right hon. Gentleman was in charge? We would be right back where we were in May 2010, because he will not make the difficult decisions that support effective defence and will get the MOD back on track.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the process from the SDSR and the three-month exercise. It has been a long and drawn-out process, with savings made at the SDSR, further savings made in the three-month exercise to get to the position announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—that the defence budget was broadly in balance—and, now, the work that we have done to go the final mile, which has enabled us to say that we have a fully balanced budget.

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on his point about pensions. Pensions are not frozen, as he very well knows, and using emotive language like that will not help him.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £500 million increase in the defence programme projects over the last year. What he forgot to tell the House was that in the last year of his party’s Government there was a £3.3 billion increase in the equipment programme. I can also tell him, in answer to his question, that there is no delay to the Trident programme. The timetable of the Trident programme allows us to include all the critical path items in the PR12 period, and we have done so in the figures that I have announced today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about regimental structures in Scotland. I can say this to him: I, too, have read in a newspaper that I am determined to introduce a continental-style Army, without a regimental structure. I can say this to the House: I understand absolutely the vital role that the regimental structure plays in the British Army, and as long as I am Secretary of State for Defence, the regimental structure will remain.

The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he asked how, when the equipment plan in all its detail cannot be published—as it never has been published in the past—I can substantiate the statement that I have made today. I can do two things. On the one hand, I can ask the armed forces committee and the chiefs of staff to confirm that they can deliver the Future Force 2020 capability within the budget that I have announced, and they have done that. On the other hand, I can ask the National Audit Office to review the statement that I have made—the plan that we have produced—and confirm that it is deliverable within the available budgets. As I said earlier, once the National Audit Office has completed its review, we will publish the equipment plan at the same level of detail as it has been published in the past.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I was confident that managing the Department’s budget prudently, with in-year unallocated provision and contingency provision in the equipment plan, would not lead to a Treasury raid, in an attempt to snatch back the headroom. May I guarantee that it will be retained for use in defence? He might have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He gets it—he understands that the only way in which we will be able to manage the defence budget effectively in future is to have an open and transparent relationship between the Treasury and the MOD, where we both understand the boundaries and drive the incentives that will change behaviour in that Department.

As we have taken the painful decisions in the best interests of our armed forces and of Britain’s defence, we have required no lectures from the party that shirked them. As we have tackled the £38 billion black hole, we have asked for no advice from the Labour party, which has yet to take any action to deal with that black hole.

Carrier Strike Capability

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Let me start by saying again that when the Government do the right thing on defence they will have the support of Labour Members. In politics, however, one can often judge what a Government genuinely feel about their own policy not just by what they say but by when they say it. They have told the media that this is positive news and yet they announced it here in the Commons the very first day after the council election defeats. It must be the first ever example of a Government waiting until the polls close to announce good news.

It is worth reminding the Secretary of State how he got here. The Government were elected promising a bigger Army but are delivering the smallest Army since the Boer war, they have curtailed anti-piracy duties owing to Royal Navy cuts and the RAF has lost long-term surveillance capabilities. On the defence budget, decisions this Government have taken have increased costs. Changes to the Astute class submarines added a further £200 million and the carrier U-turn has cost up to £250 million. On top of that, they are failing on reform with the defence procurement plan delayed for two years. Last year, the largest defence programmes were delayed by a combined 30 months adding £500 million to their costs and while hundreds of defence workers across the country are losing their jobs the Government have no defence industrial strategy to speak of whatsoever.

The biggest blow to the Government’s defence credibility is this chaotic carrier programme. Standing at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister announced his plans to U-turn on Labour’s carrier strike policy, scrap the Harriers, sell Ark Royal, build two carriers but mothball one, sack trainee pilots and downgrade British sea power. But that U-turn has now come full circle. Nothing has been gained and two years have been wasted. In tough times, £250 million have been squandered while the forces are having their allowances cut. Harriers are being sold to the Americans for a fraction of their value, we are subject to international ridicule and there will be no jets on carriers for a decade. Mr Speaker, you do not have to be a military strategist to know what aircraft carriers are meant to carry—the clue is in the name.

The Government say their policy is cheaper, but it is more expensive. They said there would be interoperability with the French but their chosen jet cannot land on the French carrier. The Prime Minister personally derided a policy that he is now defending. The Government said that Britain did not need jump jets and Ministers scrapped the expertise needed to operate STOVL aircraft only now to decide to buy a new fleet of jump jets. We now need to retrain people and redevelop the skills that were so carelessly cast aside just two years ago. That is as incoherent as it is ludicrous.

The Secretary of State’s defence today is that the facts have changed, but that is not the full story. I know the advice that the Prime Minister received—that the defence review policy was high risk and high cost—but the Prime Minister overruled that. The Public Accounts Committee warned of rising costs, the National Audit Office said that the Government had an “immature understanding” of the costs, and the Select Committee on Defence warned against strategic shrinkage. The Prime Minister’s decisions have cost British time, British money, British talent and British prestige.

I know the Secretary of State always likes to blame someone else, and he has done that again today. He recently accused British families of causing the financial crash, but he cannot scapegoat the former Defence Secretary for this decision. He has to take some responsibility for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. The Secretary of State has carefully nurtured a reputation as a spreadsheet king who is most at home over his paperwork, so he needs to share some of it with us today. Will he publish a full breakdown of the costs of the plans being abandoned? Will he confirm that the cost of the U-turn is greater than the income from the sale of the Harrier jump jets? How many of the new aircraft does he plan to purchase? Will he confirm that Ministers were warned 18 months ago about the risks and costs inherent in this decision? If Britain will have two aircraft carriers, will the Royal Navy have to increase the number of its personnel? Finally, there is another question that the Secretary of State did not cover in his statement: what will now be the total cost of the carrier build programme?

In conclusion, the Secretary of State has said the Government will do the right thing when the facts have changed, but the previous Labour Government got things right whereas this Government’s policy has unravelled. In recent weeks we have seen incompetence piled upon political hubris. Only a Government who started a petrol crisis when trying to avoid one and whose idea of putting more police on the streets is having thousands demonstrating outside Parliament would have a policy of building two carriers, mothballing one immediately, selling the Harriers and having no planes to fly off aircraft carriers for a decade. Describing the Government’s defence strategy as an “omnishambles” would be a compliment. It is time the Prime Minister started to take responsibility. He should be at the Dispatch Box apologising for his and his Government’s incompetence.

[Mr Hammond]

Before the right hon. Gentleman climbs too far up his high horse, perhaps we should, to give a bit of context, remind ourselves of the role that his party played in the history of this project. It was Labour’s fiscal incontinence that created the black hole that we are trying to climb out of and Labour’s decisions that left us facing the challenges we faced at the time of the strategic defence and security review. It was Labour that ordered two 65,000 tonnes carriers, three times the size of a typical STOVL carrier, without cats and traps.

It was Labour who let the contracts on a sweetheart deal, which meant that cancelling the second carrier would have cost more than going ahead and building it. It was Labour who ordered the ships without having the money to pay for them, and then drove costs of £1.6 billion into the carrier programme by delaying the build to accommodate a £250 million cash-flow problem—a performance described by the Public Accounts Committee as setting

“a new benchmark in poor corporate decision making.”

Let me turn to the couple of specific questions buried at the end of the shadow Defence Secretary’s rant. He asked me about the timing of the statement. I have come to the House at the earliest possible date after the National Security Council took the decision to make the change. He said that £250 million has been squandered. I tell the House frankly that expenditure has been incurred in appraising the option of building a CV carrier and fitting it with cats and traps, but it has been nowhere near the £250 million that the right hon. Gentleman referred to. He asked me if I would publish details of the costs involved.

[Mr Murphy]

You don’t know.

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman says that I do not know. If he had ever been a Defence Minister, or inside the Ministry of Defence, he would understand why I do not know. These are complex contracts. I can give him an approximate idea. We think the cost of the design work that has been carried out and the appraisal work will be between £40 million and £50 million. There may also be some exit costs payable to the US contractors responsible for the EMAL system. We will be negotiating around those issues, and I give the right hon. Gentleman this commitment: once we have a definitive figure, I will make it available to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we will have no jets on our carriers for a decade. I do not think he was listening to the statement. We will take delivery of the first test aircraft this year. We will receive the first STOVL variant aircraft in 2016 for operation off land. The carrier will go into sea trials in 2017 and, as soon as she has completed them in 2018, flights will begin from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth. It will take us two years to work up full military operational capability, but it is important that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is shaking his head, understands what that means. It is the gap between getting from the point when we fly the jets off the carrier to the point when the military are satisfied that we have full operational capability.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of aircraft that we will be purchasing. The plans for deployment of aircraft have not changed as a result of this announcement. We will routinely embark 12 aircraft and we will be able to surge that number to 36. On the purchasing of aircraft in the joint strike fighter programme, I can tell him that there is no requirement for us to go firm with numbers at this early stage of the programme. Where we can retain optionality, we will do so, as part of prudent budget management.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about risks and costs in this project and in the carrier variant project. We are talking about a project with a total cost of around £10 billion. It is hugely complex, probably the second largest industrial project under way in this country today. There will always be risks, and there will always be risks of cost escalation in such a project. The challenge is not to eliminate risks, but to manage them. That is what proper management of the Ministry of Defence is all about.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the operation of two carriers. If at the next strategic defence and security review, the Government and the National Security Council take the decision to operate two carriers in order to give us continuous carrier availability, there will be an additional cost of about £60 million a year on average for additional crewing and maintenance to keep the two carriers in high readiness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I wish to return to the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about one of the most controversial decisions of the Government—the decision to sell the Harriers, leaving the UK with carriers but no aeroplanes to fly from them. I have in my hand an internal MOD document that reveals that the Government sold the Harriers for much less than they were worth—in fact for a sixth of the cost of a recent upgrade. The document shows that there is a fear about viable capability being thrown away and points out that at the point of sale the aircraft should be moved in secret to avoid media attention. May I ask the Secretary of State why, when money is so tight, the Government sold the Harriers so cheaply to the US?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I think the right hon. Gentleman perhaps spends too much time reading the Sunday newspapers. I too read an article yesterday that said we had spent £500 million refurbishing the Harriers shortly before selling them to the United States. In fact, the programme in question was instigated by the previous Government in 2002 and sustained the Harrier through to the end of its service with UK forces. Far from sneaking the Harriers to the US in secret, when the deal was signed the MOD issued a press release announcing the sale price, $180 million, which was nearly twice the figure that I was told when I arrived at the MOD had been pencilled in as the receipt. It was a success, although the right hon. Gentleman would hate to admit it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Anglo-French summit consisted of two separate parts. First, there was a defence meeting where we were able to have direct discussions with my counterpart in France and talk about all the joint procurement programmes and opportunities that we see for collaborating together in future—for example, in the combined joint expeditionary force—and for procuring together as both defence budgets come under financial pressure. The broader summit conducted between the President and the Prime Minister reasserted at the highest level the desire of the two countries to work together in areas such as nuclear collaboration and the unmanned aerial programme.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Owing to the nature of this question, I will ask it gently. Forces children receive a service pupil premium, but it has recently come to light that a child who is orphaned due to the bravery of their parent in combat loses that payment. I welcome the fact that the Government say they will act upon that, but have they now implemented the change? How many children receive the premium? Can the Minister guarantee that no child will lose the premium as a result of a seriously injured parent being discharged from Her Majesty’s forces?

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government took a decision to give a large slug of parliamentary time to the Backbench Business Committee, to be allocated according to the priorities that Back Benchers identify. That was a bold decision for a Government to take. The result is that we have that defence debate today. I hope the Committee notes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire said, the strong attendance, and that that will mean we have more defence debates on Thursday afternoons in future.

I am delighted also to have the opportunity to address the House—I have said that once so I will not say it again.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

It was pretty good.

[Mr Hammond]

I agree.

Today’s debate is about the reform of defence. That reform is for a purpose. Sometimes, amid the minutiae of budgets and organisational structures, we need to take care not to lose sight of that purpose: the defence of this nation and our dependent territories against those who threaten our security and our national interest.

The challenge we face is to deliver that defence on a sustainable basis within a resource envelope that the country can afford. That challenge must be set in the context of the fiscal and economic circumstances, as other Members have noted. History tells us that, without a strong economy and sound public finances, it is impossible to sustain in the long term the military capability required to project power and maintain defence. The debt crisis is therefore a strategic threat to the future security of our nation and to the security of the west. Restoring sound public finances is a defence imperative as well as an economic one, and defence must make its contribution to delivering them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Murphy]

I have learned from experience that it would never be wise to misrepresent the words of the shadow Chancellor, and I dare say the hon. Gentleman is doing just that. We have been pretty clear; we cannot commit to reverse specific cuts that the Government have made. Similarly, before the 1997 election we said we would stick to the size of the state for the first two years of a Labour Government. It is important to be clear: before that election, we committed not to reverse individual spending cuts.

On defence reform, we know that we must meet the ambitions for our forces that we share across the Chamber, and which the Secretary of State referred to at the end of his comments. Reform is more important than ever before and when the Government make the right choices, they will have our backing. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who spoke with real passion about an important issue that can often be quite dry. Much of the restructuring of the MOD announced in the Levene report was as welcome on the Opposition Benches as it was, in the majority of cases, on the Government Benches, in particular, greater financial powers for service chiefs. Some of the rebalancing of the equipment programme, notably cutting tank regiments, was necessary and has our support.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for every decision taken in the Government’s controversial and much criticised defence review, which has set our country’s defence policy on an uncertain path. However much some try to depict the process as a success, the evidence to the contrary is striking. The strategic defence and security review was immediately reviewed in a three-month study that announced thousands of further redundancies in our forces and the civil service. There are new unfunded liabilities on the balance sheet and further cuts to the equipment programme appear imminent. The conflict in Libya saw military equipment planned for the scrapyard recalled. The UK has been left with serious capability shortfalls for a decade, most notably the carrier strike capability gap. Military experts have repeatedly been open in their criticisms, and all in all it is a cuts package still in search of a defence strategy and there should be a rethink.

On forces welfare, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said in the announcements that he has made in advancement of forces welfare, but last week saw 400 Gurkhas being made redundant—the second painful cut they have had to endure in just a few months. The whole House will recall that the Prime Minister championed those remarkable soldiers in opposition, and many will agree with the Defence Committee’s statement that the level of compulsory redundancies among those in uniform is “grotesque.” That comes alongside cuts to front-line allowances, and permanent changes to pensions that will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at an earlier stage in life than almost anyone else.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

rose—

[Mr Murphy]

I will happily give way, because I anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman’s fidgeting—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One standing up, one sitting down, not two standing at once.

[Mr Hammond]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman says he is giving way, then stays standing up for another three sentences. I am confused. He says the redundancies in the armed forces are grotesque, but he says he will not reverse the spending cuts that the Government have announced. Which is it? Is he going to reverse the cuts or is he going to accept the redundancies?

[Mr Murphy]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am echoing the assessment and the assertion of the all-party Select Committee, and now that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have sacked those soldiers, we cannot re-employ them. That is very clear indeed.

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman is not going to wriggle out by putting it in an historical context. A tranche of military redundancy is going on right now, and regrettably there will have to be further tranches. Would he scrap them and, if so, where would he get the money from?

[Mr Murphy]

It is ironic and peculiar that the current Secretary of State is seeking a commitment from the official Opposition to reverse cuts that he has not even yet announced. It is a ludicrous way to conduct politics and economics.

This cut comes alongside cuts to front-line allowances, and permanent changes to pensions, which will detrimentally affect those who require to take their pensions earlier in life. A corporal who has lost both legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related pensions. War widows will also lose out enormously. A 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would be almost £750,000 worse off throughout her life.

Ministers blame deficit reduction but the argument does not add up. These changes are permanent, so the impact will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth.

I believe it is uncomfortable for us all that Sir Michael Moore, the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has been moved to say:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly”.

What has been the Prime Minister’s response? It has been a Cabinet Sub-Committee of his Ministers. To those in the front line, that will be little consolation. Indeed, given some of the decisions that have been taken, they are likely to want fewer, not more ministerial meetings. As I have previously said, I think there is a case for fewer Ministers in the Ministry of Defence in and of itself.

As the Secretary of State has rightly said, UK armed forces are a “force for good” across the globe, bringing peace to the Balkans, promoting stability in Sierra Leone, building capacity across Africa, supporting the actions around Libya, the normalisation of Northern Ireland and counter-terrorism at home and overseas, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want our forces to continue to play such a world-leading role, but their ability to do so is being challenged by the decisions of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The simple answer is that the conditions of service requirement attached to that medal is five years’ continuous service. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that some members of 16 Air Assault Brigade might be deployed for one more Herrick tour before our operations in Afghanistan are complete, but the jubilee service medal is a separate issue and the conditions set for it are very clear.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

In this week before Christmas, our thoughts are with our forces who are separated from their families and in particular those families who continue to feel the loss of a loved one in Afghanistan.

The Bonn conference on Afghanistan cannot be considered to have been a strategic success. I am not blaming the Government for that failure—it was an international responsibility—and the Opposition remain committed to the Afghanistan mission, but for the Government, bipartisanship in Afghanistan cannot mean just getting agreement between the two parties in the coalition Government; it is also about persuading the public and Parliament. What else can the Secretary of State say about his early assessment of the levels of non-combat troop involvement from the UK that will be needed in 2015 in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

I am pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Afghanistan strategy, as it is vital that we go forward with a broad measure of consensus. On the post-2014 troop levels, no decisions have yet been made about the level of UK troops in a training, support and advisory role. We will want to take that decision nearer to the time, when we have seen what other international security assistance force nations propose to do and when the level of international funding for the Afghan national security force has been determined and committed to, so that the scale and competence level of ANSF forces can be seen clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The single service chiefs are reviewing force generation issues in the light of the proposed change structure of the armed forces. The issues around harmony are different in the three services, and it is right that the individual services develop harmony guidelines that are right for their conditions and allow them to operate within their single service budgets.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The Minister with responsibility for veterans has confirmed the proposals to cut MOD police by 50%, which has been described by the Defence Police Federation as “irresponsible and ill thought out”. There will be real worries about the impact on the protection of munitions stores and barracks. Will he guarantee that there will be no cut in MOD police numbers at the most sensitive of bases, particularly Faslane and Coulport?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I believe that progress has been made. The composition of the Afghan national police is different from that of the Afghan national army in terms of the distribution of locally raised forces. There is a greater affinity between ANP forces and local people than between the army and local people, but there is still further work to do, and I fully recognise what my right hon. Friend says.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

We remain committed to the Afghan mission, and we now want to see military might matched by substantial political progress. The Secretary of State will know that reservists will play a bigger role in Afghanistan and beyond, which may require additional mandatory training. At a time when many reservists have lost their full-time jobs, the benefits system might be unintentionally penalising them and hindering their freedom to take on extra reservist training or allowances. It would be a disgrace if a single reservist lost a penny in benefits because of their service. Will the Secretary of State undertake a wider piece of work with the rest of Government and conduct an urgent review to ensure that our welfare state does not punish a single reservist?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for again reasserting the cross-party support for the Afghan campaign, and he is right that reservists are playing an important part in it. Sadly, one of those killed in action most recently was a reservist serving his country.

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tells me that the problem the right hon. Gentleman raises is one that we are acutely alert to and aware of. There is work being done across Government to look at the problem and ensure that the concerns that he has raised are dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The story that has been running this weekend has been deeply unhelpful to morale in our armed forces, and is based on untruths and misconceptions. There has been no change in the Government’s position on the number of Army posts that will go over the remainder of the decade and no change in the procedure for exempting those recovering from injuries incurred on active service from the redundancy process.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

We fully understand why the dedicated international security Minister is not with us today, but can the Secretary of State not come to a conclusion where he makes this temporary absence permanent and cuts the number of Ministers at the MOD? This is nothing personal against the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth)—he is a good man, he works hard and I am not suggesting that he should be sacked in his absence. However, the Levene review recommended a head count reduction in MOD Ministers and, at a time when the Army is being cut by almost by 20,000 and the Air Force and the Navy by almost 5,000 each, why is it that the only place in the MOD exempt from head count reduction is the ministerial offices?

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister. But I cannot help noticing that the Leader of the Opposition does not appear to have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman’s self-denying recommendations.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Jim Murphy

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Afghanistan.

Let me begin by paying tribute to Rifleman Vijay Rai of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, who died in Afghanistan on Saturday. His commanding officer described him as tough, loyal, utterly professional and immensely proud to have been serving in the British Army. I am sure I speak for the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time.

The House will appreciate that I have not yet had an opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan. I intend to do so as soon as is practical. The purpose of this statement is to provide information on progress in Afghanistan since the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 6 July. Our mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for international terrorism, and the presence of our armed forces in Afghanistan to achieve this aim is supported on all sides of the House.

This mission has a cost: 383 members of our armed forces have lost their lives since operations began—eight since the Prime Minister’s statement of 6 July. I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute both to their sacrifice and to all those who have returned with serious injuries, and to the families who support them. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the troops from Estonia, Denmark and Tonga who are operating under British command in central Helmand. Since 6 July, two Danish soldiers and one Estonian soldier have also lost their lives, and I am sure the House will want to join me in expressing condolences to their families.

I am clear that this is an operation to protect our national security and national interests. That view is shared by the 49-nation, UN-mandated coalition. We share a common purpose: to enhance security and build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces and the Afghan Government, so that Afghans themselves can be responsible for their own territory, their own security and their own affairs. We ensure our national security and the security of the NATO alliance by helping the Afghans to take control of theirs.

Our strategy is comprehensive, drawing security, governance and development objectives together. In 10 years, with international support and assistance, Afghanistan has come a long way. Governance and the rule of law are improving across the country. The Afghan Government are providing increasing levels of basic services, with Afghans enjoying much greater access to health facilities, and more education opportunities—including for girls—than in 2001. We welcome the Afghan Parliament’s decision on Saturday to approve the supplementary budget to recapitalise the central bank, paving the way towards agreement on a new International Monetary Fund programme of support in the coming weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been actively engaged with the Afghan Ministry of Finance and the IMF in support of this objective. Agreeing the new programme will reinvigorate the Kabul process, allowing donors to align themselves behind Afghan Government priorities and systems as we move through transition and beyond.

Let us not understate the tangible improvements that have taken place, but let us also not underestimate the scale of the remaining challenge. We are working from a very low base. If progress is to be sustained, the commitment of the international community, including the UK, will have to endure for many years to come, long after international troops have withdrawn from combat operations.

On the security front, progress has been real and meaningful, but it has been hard won and is not irreversible. In many areas, Afghanistan remains a dangerous place. Levels of violence vary dramatically from region to region, but the insurgency continues to be a nationwide threat. The insurgency is under considerable pressure, but its leaders remain committed to conducting a violent campaign. Over recent months we have seen them increasingly focus on high-profile attacks, such as that on the British Council in August and on the US embassy and the international security assistance force headquarters in September. The murder of former President Rabbani is a particular setback. It is important that his death does not derail efforts to engage with those willing to renounce violence and work towards peace. We will continue to support President Karzai’s efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, and are encouraging engagement to support this from all those in the region, including Pakistan.

Despite that difficult background, there is also cause for optimism. In the UK area of operations in central Helmand, there is clear evidence that the ISAF troop surge has brought security gains, limiting the insurgents’ ability to prosecute their campaign. UK troops, partnered with Afghan security forces, are having a tangible impact on insurgent activity in our area of operations. On 9 October, 20 Armoured Brigade assumed authority for Task Force Helmand from 3 Commando Brigade, who can be proud of the progress made during their tour.

The central achievement this summer has been the commencement of the formal security transition process. July saw the first group of three provinces and four urban areas across Afghanistan, covering almost a quarter of the population, begin that process. This included Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, where the Afghan national police now lead on security in this bustling community of 120,000 people. ISAF remains ready to provide support if needed, but the ANSF have been able to respond effectively to insurgent attacks and to pre-empt many. That has been a source of considerable pride, both to the Afghan security forces and to the civilian population. Here in the UK, we should remember that the ANSF have suffered very considerable losses themselves.

The process of transition is on track and will continue. The Afghan Government, with ISAF support, are continuing the preparatory work needed to begin the transition process in the next set of provinces and districts. October also saw Task Force Helmand resume responsibility for the upper Gereshk valley. That follows the temporary deployment of US marine corps to the area, during which time UK forces provided security on the strategically significant Highway 1, outside the UK area of operations. UK forces will now work with the ANSF to prepare the district to enter the transition process in the future. We look forward to the second tranche of transition and an announcement later in the autumn by President Karzai outlining which areas are to be included.

Strong Afghan national security forces are key to achieving our objectives. The ANA now stands at 169,000 men and the ANP stands at 134,000, and both are on track to meet their target levels by October 2012. But progress cannot be measured in quantity alone—it must be measured in quality too—in respect of the effectiveness of the Afghan forces and the strength of their organisation. The Afghan-led response to the attacks on the US embassy and ISAF headquarters saw the ANSF successfully complete an exceptionally difficult night-time building clearance and, for the first time, Afghan air force helicopters were deployed in direct support of troops on the ground. Operational effectiveness rates are improving, allowing the ANSF to take the lead in many operations. Literacy rates among the ANSF are also improving. All 12 of the Afghan army’s planned specialist branches are now functioning, which will, in time, improve self-sufficiency and professionalism. Measures to improve retention rates in the ANSF have also been introduced. Such measures include a pension scheme and a work cycle consisting of periods of operations, training and leave. So the ANSF are improving but, as the recent report by UNAMA, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, shows, there remain important areas where further improvement is crucial.

President Karzai has stated his commitment to his Government assuming lead security responsibility across the country as a whole by the end of 2014, which is a goal that we share and support. That means that British troops will not be in a combat role by 2015, nor will they be deployed in the numbers they are now. The ANSF will, however, still need support from the international community even after the conclusion of the transition process. We will continue to support their development: for instance, through our lead involvement in a new officers academy announced by the Prime Minister in the summer.

On 5 December, the Afghan Government will chair an international conference in Bonn. This is a key opportunity to advance the political track. The Istanbul conference in November and the Chicago summit next May are further opportunities for the international community to reiterate its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. That commitment is crucial if we are to deliver on our key objective of ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for international terrorism. Our armed forces will continue to protect our national interests with the selfless devotion to duty we have come to expect. I am sure that we in this House will reciprocate by maintaining the staunch cross-party support that has underpinned the operation from the outset, and I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I echo the tribute paid to Rifleman Vijay Rai of 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, who died in action on Saturday. On all such occasions it is right that we should recognise the sacrifice and dedication of our service personnel here at home and overseas. They fight for others’ security and peace in order to protect our own. They carry our pride and our patriotism and they, and their families, must be the constant in our minds. It is also right that we should pay tribute to our allies, many of them nations that have also been scarred by terrorism.

I welcome the new Secretary of State and thank him in advance for his statement. I want to put on record my personal view that, whatever other disagreements I had with the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), I never doubted his passion about doing the right thing in Afghanistan, his personal commitment to supporting our forces, and the skill that he showed in trying to build consensus on the operations in Libya. As I made clear to him, when the Government do the right thing we will strongly support them, while carefully scrutinising their decisions. Will the Secretary of State take this early opportunity to reiterate his predecessor’s welcome commitment that nothing in the strategic defence and security review will adversely impact on the Afghan front line, and will he say whether anyone currently serving in Afghanistan is in line for compulsory redundancy?

Media attention has understandably been on Libya in recent months, but it has been another difficult summer in Afghanistan. Despite the painful losses, British casualties have mercifully been significantly lower than in the last two years, and casualties among all international forces lower than last year. There are, however, worrying security trends, with high-profile terrorist attacks including that against the British Council, which reminded us again of the danger in which many of our people, including civilians, put themselves for the sake of stability in Afghanistan and security at home. There have also been increased targeted assassinations across the country, and signs of insurgency spreading to previously calmer areas, and mixed messages on the political track. Despite that, our forces are doing brilliant work in central Helmand, jointly with the Afghan army and police force. This remains an intense and challenging campaign and one that is in our national interest. I hope the new Secretary of State will consistently make the case for why our forces are engaged in Afghanistan.

Let me turn now to my specific questions. We continue to support the intention to end the British combat role in Afghanistan by 2014. Will the Secretary of State share his assessment of the security situation and how it has changed in the districts and provinces involved in the first phase of transition? Will he assure the House that detailed plans for troop withdrawal will always be based on military advice and conditions on the ground?

On security, last week I spent time at NATO HQ and met the Secretary-General of NATO, who was full of praise for our forces. We discussed the security situation in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State comment on reports that Pakistani militants are exploiting a security vacuum left by the departure of US troops from parts of eastern Afghanistan, notably Kunar and Nuristan?

This is an issue for the whole of NATO, so how does the Secretary of State think we can persuade other nations with forces in Afghanistan to bear more of the burden? Pakistan is, of course, central to the future of Afghanistan and the wider region, so could he reflect on the worrying assessment by Admiral Mike Mullen that Pakistani intelligence is currently supporting extremists in Afghanistan? The campaign of targeted assassinations has also suggested a pattern of infiltration by the Taliban into Afghan forces. Could he say what changes are being made to Afghan national army and Afghan national police recruitment procedures and effective background checks to protect against this in future?

On the political process, we all know that for progress to be made in Afghanistan, there must be inclusive politics inside and beyond the country’s borders. Within its borders, could the Secretary of State reinforce the importance of protecting the gains made in development in Afghanistan in reducing child mortality and improving education? There are more than 7 million students in schools across the country, one third of whom are now girls. Beyond Afghanistan’s borders, India has recently signed a strategic partnership with Afghanistan. What does he see its significance as being, and what does he read into Pakistan’s response? The forthcoming Bonn conference, as he suggested, can be a real moment of strategic progress. Will he share his assessment of the credible likely outcomes coming from the Bonn conference?

In conclusion, we need Afghan security forces that are strong enough to defend and sustain the political and economic progress, and a constitution that reflects a changed Afghanistan, but to do so we need genuine and deeper achievements on economic development, political reconciliation, and better involvement with neighbours. Britain fought three wars in 80 years in Afghanistan; this is our fourth, and we have no intention of there being a fifth. That is why it is essential that real progress be made at the forthcoming Bonn conference.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and indeed for his continuing endorsement of the cross-party approach to this issue. He asked about the impact of the SDSR on the Afghan front line and I can tell him that in the very short time that I have had at the MOD, one of the first things I have done is to ask for an assessment of the equipment and personal protection available to our troops in Afghanistan. I am satisfied that they have the best level of protection they have had since this campaign began and appropriate equipment to carry out the task that they are being asked to carry out, and I will ensure that that remains my No. 1 priority. He asked about compulsory redundancies. No troops serving in Afghanistan will be subject to compulsory procedures either while they are serving in Afghanistan or during their recovery period upon return.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of the political track, and I absolutely agree with him. If Afghanistan is to have a stable and sustainable future, there has to be an inclusive solution to the political challenges that the country faces. I recognise that there are huge issues in achieving that but it must remain our focus. He was also right to draw attention to the success of our forces. A military solution alone will not be sufficient, but without a climate of security we will not be able to achieve the nation-building and reconciliation process that is so important for the future. I confirm that I will consistently make the case for the presence of our troops in Afghanistan.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the current security situation. In the districts and provinces that have transitioned, the experience is good and the Afghan national security forces are showing good capability. Indeed, ISAF in Lashkar Gah has had to intervene only once since the transition took place.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Pakistani militants, and I think he was referring to Haqqani network activity in the more easterly provinces to the east of where Task Force Helmand is operational. There has certainly been an increase in activity and the pattern clearly is that there has been a reduction in military activity in Regional Command South West but a corresponding increase in some other areas, including the area subject to Haqqani network influence.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the centrality—the crucial involvement—of Pakistan in the long-term solution to the problem. We should never forget that Pakistan has borne a burden as great as that of any other country in the fight against terrorism, taking more civilian casualties than any other nation. We will continue to work with the Pakistanis to ensure that they engage in the interests of Afghan security, and indeed of their own long-term security, by ensuring that the insurgency is defeated.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the infiltration of the ANSF through recruits. I absolutely accept that this is a critical issue. I have been assured that progress is being made, but I do not have the details that I can give to him across the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to write to him later today.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about protecting development gains. We are clear that a long-term lasting solution must involve the securing of those development gains and building on them—enhancing them. Afghanistan has to become a viable nation capable of offering its citizens basic services that they require, and capable, in a sense, of competing in its offer with what Taliban and other insurgents have been offering at local level. We have to build on those processes. We have to secure the gains that have been made, and I hope that at the Bonn conference the international community will take the opportunity to send a very clear signal of its long-term commitment to this process, beyond the draw-down of forces at the end of 2014.