Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Russell Brown

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and freely acknowledge that there have been teething problems with the IT support systems for the recruiting campaigns for the Regular Army and Army Reserve. I was in the Army recruiting centre myself last week with the Chief of the General Staff. This matter has the highest level of attention, both ministerial and military, and a number of initiatives will be implemented over the next few days and weeks that I expect to deliver a significant improvement in the areas that my hon. Friend highlights.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I suspect that we will experience regional variations in recruitment, with it being more difficult in some localities than in others. In answer to Question 1, the Secretary of State mentioned that he will produce certain data. Among those data, will there also be an indication of where there are difficulties and what extra efforts are being made at those locations?

[Mr Hammond]

The targets that we will publish will be national, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there will be different recruiting challenges in different parts of the country. The job for us is to ensure that the Army recruiting centre, the senior officers responsible for it and their recruitment partners, Capita, are agile enough to respond to the data coming in from the front line in the recruitment campaign and flex that campaign accordingly. The plan will not be implemented without change over five years; it will be highly responsive and we will monitor it regularly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Russell Brown

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The current intention is that DSG will be privatised, and we are in the process of achieving that objective. On the equipment support budget, one important innovation—hon. Members might have thought that this was standard practice, but it has not been until now—is to ensure that no equipment is allowed into the programme for procurement unless we also clearly have a budget to support that equipment over the 10-year horizon to which we budget. Achieving that will ensure not only that our equipment will be first class, but that we can maintain it in first-class condition.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

On an all-too-frequent basis, we hear of cyber-attacks on global businesses and Government Departments globally. Last month, the Select Committee on Defence published its report on defence and cyber-security, which appears to highlight a number of failings. Bearing in mind that cyber-security cuts right across the Government, does the Secretary of State recognise the need for even more investment in it? What percentage of any additional governmental spend will go to his budget?

[Mr Hammond]

Cyber-security is a cross-Government agenda led by the Cabinet Office, but the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in the programme. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the increasing frequency and severity of attacks on industrial and civilian infrastructure targets not just in the UK but throughout the western world. The arrangements the Government have put in place for a quinquennial strategic defence and security review give us a framework within which to review our responses to cyber-threats and to make any adjustments in priority that we need to make for the next five-year period. The allocation of costs across Departments would be a matter for the next spending review.

Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Russell Brown

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance sight of it. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State is in Scotland at a family engagement and could not return to the Commons because of the short notice of the statement.

Labour Members have been consistent, both in government and in opposition, in our support for the mission in Afghanistan. We have immense pride in our armed forces, who fight for others’ security and peace in order to protect our own here at home. We will offer the Government our support where they do the right thing, but we will scrutinise their decisions and urge them to make the case for a conflict that we believe remains firmly in our national interest.

We agree with the Secretary of State that there has been progress in Afghanistan. The continued growth in the size of the Afghan national army and the Taliban’s agreement to open an office in Qatar as a place to hold peace talks are notable examples, alongside those he mentioned, but such gains have been overshadowed by recent events. Key allies have unilaterally announced divergent withdrawal dates; instability in the US-Pakistan relationship remains; infiltration of the army by the Taliban remains a serious concern; and, most worrying, we have all recently seen the Taliban’s continued capacity to launch “spectacular” attacks in allied-controlled areas. Any discussion of troop numbers must be held in that context. Although we welcome today’s update, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer some further questions about long-term Afghan security.

It is the political conditions within and beyond Afghan borders that will ultimately determine whether the conditions that led us to war in the first place never return. Disconcertingly, last month the Prime Minister made clear his view that the handover to Afghan forces could be achieved satisfactorily without a political settlement, but that is contrary to all experience. A power vacuum would encourage neighbouring countries to seek influence, could allow the Taliban to return, and would jeopardise the gains already outlined. A clear political strategy must match military might. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government’s efforts are focused on achieving an inclusive political settlement and give us an assessment of the progress made?

The Secretary of State will know that, painful though the process may be, constructive, proactive and flexible negotiations with the Taliban are necessary if any lasting settlement is to be reached. We must demand a denunciation of violence and an endorsement of the principles of the constitution, but there will be no peace without a settlement reflective of a diverse nation. Will he therefore outline how Britain is supporting the Afghan Government in facilitating that and, indeed, the role of regional partners in that effort?

We agree with the Government that there must not be a cliff-edge withdrawal, and that reductions must take place in areas where Afghan forces have the skill and capacity to take full responsibility. It may worry some that the Secretary of State has talked today of transition as a sign of progress, because recently British fatalities have tragically occurred in Lashkar Gah, an area where transition has been completed. Does he have full confidence in the capacity of those to whom we are transferring responsibility? What assurances can he give the House that, following those events, the scrutiny of Afghan forces assuming lead security responsibility has been strengthened?

Further, will the Secretary of State expand on the nature of the role of British personnel in Afghanistan post-2014? What is involved in the combat support role that they will play, and can he confirm that any British personnel in Afghanistan post-2014 will be non-combat and will rely entirely on Afghan forces for their security? Does he have full confidence in that arrangement and does he believe that changes need to be made to the police and army recruitment processes? That is particularly pertinent to the police, whose quality, by their Government’s own admission, has not yet reached the required standard.

What assessment has been made of the size of the residual British presence in Afghanistan, and what commitments will the Government seek to gain from NATO partners at the Chicago summit next month on their long-term commitment post-2014? The Secretary of State mentioned the recently announced £70 million contribution to a £4 billion international fund for Afghanistan to support Afghan forces, and we support that important investment. Does he expect a greater UK contribution to be announced at the Chicago NATO summit? As we approach the summit, what will the Government’s goals be? Does the Secretary of State agree that they need to include a co-ordinated timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces, a stable funding package for the Afghan security forces and a status-of-forces agreement on the role of any international forces after 2014? To that list, I hope he will add genuine progress on a stable political settlement in Afghanistan, bringing regional powers into the agreement.

In all these discussions, uppermost in our minds are all those who are still serving in that most difficult environment and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We pay tribute to them and to their families.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and delighted, as will our armed forces be, that once again the cross-party consensus on a campaign that was entered into for reasons of our national security interest, and continues to be prosecuted for those reasons, has been reasserted by an Opposition Front Bencher.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who leads for the Opposition on defence, is not able to be here. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) says that this was because of the statement’s short notice, but I make it clear that the title of the statement was laid last night before the House rose, as is the proper procedure.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the US-Pakistan relationship. He is absolutely right that good relations between the US and Pakistan are crucial, and recent disruptions to those relations are a matter of concern. Good relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan will also be central to ensuring the stability of the region.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Taliban’s capacity to mount attacks and refers, I think, to the Kabul attack. Yes, that attack caused significant disruption, but we need to be clear that it was a complete failure: the attack itself failed to inflict any casualties or any significant damage. A number of members of the Afghan security forces and some civilians were killed in the clearance operation afterwards, but there is no doubt that the attack was a failure.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the handover of security responsibility to the Afghans potentially creating a power vacuum, but that is definitively not the case. ISAF is very clear that the draw-down needs to be measured and calibrated to match the building capability of the Afghan security forces, so that they can take over the ground-holding and security role, and we ensure that a power vacuum is avoided. I agree that it is not something we would tolerate.

I agree also that we need an inclusive political settlement. All Afghan citizens who are prepared to renounce violence and accept the constitution need to be brought inside the tent, and we need to see diversity in the way Afghanistan is run. I have to say that Helmand is leading the way: we have the significant engagement of female political and community figures in community councils and district councils in the area of operations for which we are responsible, and the Afghan peace and reintegration programme has so far recruited 4,000—admittedly, mainly low-level—Afghan fighters back into mainstream Afghan life. That is a basis on which we will want to build very significantly over the remaining two and a half years of ISAF combat operations.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the scrutiny of Afghan forces, referring, I think, to the very tragic recent “green on blue” incident in Lashkar Gah. There is in fact no evidence that that was an act of infiltration. Of course we have to be constantly alert to infiltration, but we have also to recognise the reality that Afghanistan is a society where people are used to settling personal grievances by resorting to violence, including violence with firearms. I have seen no evidence that the incident was an act of Taliban infiltration.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the UK’s role and the size of force lay-down post-2014, but no decisions have been taken yet, other than that we will not be there in anything like our current force strength and we will not be there in a combat role. We have made a commitment to run the Afghan national officer training academy, but beyond that we will make our decisions with our allies over the coming months and, probably, years. It is not a decision that we need to make now; the process will start at Chicago but it will certainly not be completed there.

The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the UK contribution that I announced last week of £70 million, or about $110 million, to a fund of $4 billion—not £4 billion, as he said—to fund the future ANSF is likely to be increased at Chicago. That is not the case. That £70 million is the UK’s proposed contribution, and we have decided to make the announcement early to encourage others to make a commitment.

Of course we will co-ordinate with our allies on the timetable, but the timetable for draw-down will be responsive. It will depend on what is happening on the ground and on what our allies are doing, and of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that any ISAF forces remaining in-country after 2014 will need a stationing-of-forces agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Russell Brown

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. and learned Friend is conflating two issues. I have already said that we are looking at the carrier programme along with the rest of the equipment programme, and as soon as I am in a position to do so, which I expect to be shortly, I will come and update the House fully. The disposal of the Harriers was a separate decision taken because of the cost pressures facing the Government and taken consciously to save the Tornado, which proved to be an invaluable aircraft in the Libya campaign. It was the right decision.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words about the tragic loss of life of two serving personnel and, obviously, Captain Rupert Bowers, last week?

In responding to the initial question, the Secretary of State referred to the Prime Minister’s words last week. I remind him that in introducing the SDSR, the Prime Minister said that the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the F-35 was an error. He has obviously seen fit to change his mind. Does the Secretary of State agree with that position, and will he confirm that the Government will deliver continuous carrier strike capability by 2020, as outlined and pledged in the SDSR?

[Mr Hammond]

I can only say what I have already said. We are looking at all the issues around the carrier strike programme, and I will make a statement to the House shortly. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that I will not take any lectures on the carrier programme from him. He supported a Government who delayed the programme by two years and drove £1.6 billion of costs into it, and whose management of the programme was described by the Public Accounts Committee as

“a new benchmark in poor corporate decision making.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Russell Brown

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On Wednesday I am going to meet my Nordic and Baltic counterparts, and I have already had discussions with my Italian counterpart. It will be the Government’s policy to seek bilateral arrangements with other European allies where it is appropriate and in the interests of both parties to collaborate.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), who is responsible for NATO matters, is not here, but I am sure that the Secretary of State can respond. I agree with response he gave to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). The Secretary of State is aware that Holland has withdrawn its main battle tank fleet and that Denmark is cutting its navy and ground-based air defences. These are just two examples of defence cuts among our European allies. As a nation, we are part of a European collective, but will he detail what work he and his ministerial colleagues are undertaking to ensure that NATO maintains a coherent capability?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that there is cross-party support for resisting the temptation or blandishments for an EU operational headquarters. On ensuring that the European part of NATO remains effective, I again pay tribute to my predecessor, who never tired of exhorting our NATO allies to do their bit to maintain NATO effectiveness. I shall certainly continue in his footsteps.