Nuclear-powered Submarines

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I happily agree with my hon. Friend in those terms. This is not just about the 300 jobs at Rolls-Royce but about many highly skilled jobs throughout the supply chain across the United Kingdom, including among suppliers in Scotland.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State give us a figure for how much it will cost to negotiate our way out of these contracts if the Commons votes against replacing Trident? Will he explain why the taxpayer is paying for the upgrading of the Rolls-Royce plant given that it is a private company that saw its profits soar by 21% last year? Surely that shows that this is not a commercial project.

[Mr Hammond]

Let me answer the second part of the hon. Lady’s question. The reason is that where we are sustaining single-sourced sovereign capabilities—in this case, the ability to build submarine reactor cores, a product that Rolls-Royce cannot sell to anyone else but can supply only to the UK Government—we have to enter into agreements with it to meet the cost of the capital facilities needed to maintain that capability, and that is what we are doing.

[Caroline Lucas]

What about the first part of the question?

[Mr Hammond]

These are commercial negotiations and commercial contracts. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) also made. In negotiating contracts, we will always seek to give the Government, as the contracting party, the maximum flexibility, but flexibility in a contract comes at a cost, and we have to ensure that we get the best value for money for the taxpayer.

Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right. As we go through the withdrawal, our troops will face new and different challenges, and nothing that we say in the House should place them at any greater risk. I reassure him that my statement was made with the full agreement of the military commanders to the detail that it contained.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Figures suggest that UK arms sales to Afghanistan are doubling, while Transparency International’s corruption index still shows the regime there as one of the most corrupt in the world. In that context, as we bring our brave troops home, how will the end use of the arms that we sell to Afghanistan be monitored?

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have one of the most rigorous arms control and monitoring regimes of any nation, but if we want the ANSF to take over the combat role from us, we clearly have to ensure that it is effectively equipped to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Some of those returning from Afghanistan may at some point be involved in Olympic duties, but no one will lose their post-operational leave. Post-operational leave has to be scheduled anyway, and it will be scheduled around the requirements of the Olympic task.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I press the Minister for more detailed figures on the capacity being built at Aldermaston for a possible new warhead? When will he announce the specific breakdown of costs associated with that and, in particular, with the Octans and Orchard programmes, and will he do so through a statement to the House, rather than by slipping it out in a written answer?

[Peter Luff]

I do not know how often one has to say this: no expenditure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment is being incurred to enable a new warhead; it is to sustain the security of the existing stockpile. I do wish the hon. Lady would get this into her head: no money is being spent on new warheads.

Trident

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Minister shakes his head. It is his head, and he is allowed to shake it, but I hope that when he replies, he will be able to explain why Parliament has not been consulted on spending £2 billion on the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. If my figures are wrong, I am sure that he will put them right—that is the whole point of a parliamentary debate and of parliamentary scrutiny.

As I have said, the new figures announced this year for spending on replacing Trident are going up. The submarine will cost around £4 billion before the construction decision. As I understand it, it will cost £900 million on the concept phase before initial gate, which is from 2007 to 2011; £3 billion on the assessment phase between initial gate and main gate; and £500 million on long-lead items for construction. That will put the cost of the submarine replacement programme prior to main gate somewhat higher than what was spent on the Nimrod programme, which was cancelled in October 2010 after £3.4 billion had been spent on it.

Quite simply, we are moving to an enormous expenditure before a parliamentary vote in, presumably, 2016 or whenever, when all of us might still be Members of Parliament—or when none of us are. There will be a new Parliament, and a different Parliament will make that decision. I could write the speech for the Minister or his successor now. It will say, “We do not want to do it, and we do not like it. It is not good, but we have already spent so much money that it would be a shame to waste it.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the eye-watering figures that he is describing are of concern not only to some of the CND stalwarts in the Chamber today—myself included—but to those who care about the MOD’s equipment budget, given that all that will amount to around 30% of the budget over the 2020s?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. Not only is she a CND stalwart, but she has great responsibility, for she is a member of the CND national council, as I am. I am pleased that she is a member as well. She is quite right—many in the defence community express horror at equipment shortages of all sorts, the privatisation of air and sea rescue, and all those kinds of things that are planned, while at the same time someone is going ahead and planning to spend and spend on replacing Trident, a massive vanity project; that is what it is. It does not seem to bear any relation to any foreign policy strategy or to British membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which requires clearly under article 6 that the five permanent members of the Security Council, which are also the five declared nuclear weapon states, take steps towards nuclear disarmament. Britain is not taking steps towards nuclear disarmament—it is reducing the number of warheads, but the capability is to be increased. Any Government, whether this one or a future one, could increase the number of warheads.

When the National Audit Office looked at the matter recently, in November this year, it cited problems with the Astute class submarines currently being built. They are now expected to cost £6.67 billion, a full £1.47 billion more than anticipated when the project was approved. Apparently, it is also running five years and one month late. Also, a report, “Looking into the Black Hole”, states that

“spending on the successor programme will rise sharply, probably reaching a peak of around 30% of the new equipment budget by 2021-22 or 2022-23”—

exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—

“when the first-of-class begins production. It is likely to remain close to this level until after the planned delivery of the first submarine in 2028.”

I want to turn to the issue of transparency—

Defence

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Armed Forces: Young People

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to give persons entering the armed forces under the age of 18 the right to leave on attaining the age of 18 if they consider at the age of 18 that they have been mistaken in their decision to enlist.

[Official Report, 10 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 3W.]

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 January 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

There are no plans to change the current policy. Service personnel under 18 years who have completed 28 days of service have the right to discharge at any time before their 18th birthday provided they give the required 14 days notice. A service person under the age of 18 years three months who registered before their 18th birthday, their clear unhappiness at their choice of career can request permission to leave the armed forces. They do not have discharge of right at this age but it is exceedingly rare for such an individual to be refused permission to leave. These safeguards help to ensure that young servicemen or women under the age of 18 years may, if they wish, leave the armed forces and that any commitment to service is both considered and voluntary.

The correct answer should have been:

Nuclear Deterrent

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The point of our nuclear deterrent is to deter a nuclear threat to the United Kingdom from wherever that threat occurs. I make the point again that it is not a choice between having a nuclear deterrent and having a stronger non-proliferation policy—we need both if we are to have a safer Britain and a safer global environment.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Secretary of State rightly says that the “first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people”. If it really is the case, as he also says, that the “nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security”, does he accept the logic of his own argument, which means that all nations should seek to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure the security of their people, and does he look forward to a world in which every nation is nuclear-armed?

[Dr Fox]

I look forward to a world in which the nuclear threat is being reduced, and we are reducing our nuclear stockpile as part of taking that process forward. I hope that we will see a time when fewer countries will want to enter into nuclear proliferation. We have an international non-proliferation treaty for exactly that purpose, and the status of the United Kingdom and other countries was recognised in that treaty when it was drawn up. In putting forward the proposals we believe not only that we are providing a safe future for the United Kingdom by maintaining our deterrent, but that in reducing the number of warheads we have, we are setting our direction very clearly towards a world in which we hope to see the elimination, over time, of this wider threat from weapons of mass destruction.

AWE Aldermaston: Fires

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston have resulted in attendance of the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service in each year from 2006 to 2010; and on what dates each such incident occurred.

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 624W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 9 September 2010. The date for the false alarm event in March 2006 should have been the 12th, not the 19th.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

Since 2006, there have been four events at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston site where the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) has been requested to attend. In addition, there have been three events where RBFRS acted as a stand-by resource while the AWE Fire and Rescue Service attended the event. These are summarised in the following table:

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, the House is answerable to the public for what it does, and of course at a general election it is right that the Prime Minister should go to the public and say, “Here’s what I’ve done during the last Parliament.” That applies to a wide variety of decisions that are not subject to a vote in this place. The second world war, the Falklands war and the first Gulf war were all conducted without a vote in this place, but the Prime Minister and the Government were none the less answerable to the public. Simply to say that having a vote here is the only way we can be answerable to the public is simplistic and not correct.

There is also a concern about what the consequences would be for the Backbench Business Committee of different outcomes of tonight’s debate. Suppose for a moment there were to be a no vote—it is very unlikely—and the House voted not to leave our troops in Afghanistan. What would then happen? Would the Government say, “Very well, the House of Commons has voted against staying in Afghanistan, so tomorrow we will order an immediate withdrawal.” I doubt that would be the case—indeed, I hope that would not be the case—and if it is not the case, what is the purpose of voting no? Does that not in itself undermine the force of the Backbench Business Committee? However, if the answer tonight is yes, does that mean we are staying in Afghanistan indefinitely? Does it mean that we support what the Government have said about withdrawing in 2015? What is the force, the importance, the wisdom of the vote we will take this evening?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As the person who tabled an amendment—and I would have liked to move it—calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, I should say that had the House voted for it tonight, it would have sent out an incredibly strong signal that we recognise that our presence in Afghanistan is not making us safer. Even our own security forces raise questions about whether our presence in Afghanistan is making this country safer. A vote tonight would be a wake-up call to look at a different strategy in Afghanistan.

[Mr Gray]

Of course, the hon. Lady is right. It would send out a strong signal, a wake-up call and all the other things she said. I just wonder whether formal Divisions and motions of this kind in the House are designed to send out signals and messages in the way she described. If the House votes that we do not wish to be in Afghanistan, surely it is right that the Prime Minister should be instructed to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. How could it be that the majority of Members, who are answerable to the electorate, could say, “We have decided to withdraw from Afghanistan,” but the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister then say, “Well, despite what you said, we do not intend to withdraw”?

There is an extra complication, which is this. Let us imagine that the House were to vote for withdrawal and that there were to be an election in a year or two. What would bind the following Government, who might be of a different party from the current one? The strength of Backbench Business Committee motions, which I strongly support, is undermined by having a vote on something that is impossible for the Government then to carry out. That is something that the Committee perhaps ought to consider.

I very much hope that we will vote overwhelmingly in support of what our troops in Afghanistan are doing, which I strongly support personally. Every single bereaved family whose eyes I look into down the High street in Wootten Bassett, once or twice a week, would not understand it unless we sent out an enormously strong message that we firmly support what those lost soldiers have done in Afghanistan. If we do not do that, we will also be sending a message to the Taliban—the enemy—that we in this place do not support our troops on the ground. I would therefore prefer there to be no Division. I would like to return to the old tradition in this place, which is that the message to our troops on the ground is that this House unanimously supports them. I will be supporting the motion this evening—I will be in the Aye Lobby, as I hope 95% of Members will be. Even better would be to have no Division, but to send a unanimous message to our troops on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I start by echoing others in saying how much of a privilege it is to speak in this historic debate. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an important tradition of this House that the names of the brave troops who have been killed in Afghanistan are read out at the beginning of each week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time. Yesterday, that roll call seemed to go on for a very long time, and after it the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“Each of those men was an heroic, selfless individual who has given his life for the safety of us and the British people.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 313.]

Each of those men was heroic and selfless, and our troops are doing an extraordinary job with great courage, but we need to nail the myth that their presence in Afghanistan is making the British people safer. We are constantly being told that our troops are fighting in Afghanistan to keep us safer in this country—the Minister said so earlier in this debate—yet even our security services suggest that the war on terrorism is making this country less safe, not more safe. We also know that the terror plots against Britain were hatched not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan and in Britain itself.

The Afghan war was put to the British people on a simple premise: that it was an act of self-defence in response to 9/11. The objective was supposed to be to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and prevent al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base from which to launch further attacks. That rationale now seems a distant memory; al-Qaeda has been dispersed effectively around the world—over the border into Pakistan and further afield into Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere. So if our motive is really tracking down al-Qaeda, we are looking in the wrong place.

An alternative explanation given is that we are in Afghanistan to bring human rights to that country. Although some improvements were made between 2001 and 2005, the situation is, again, drastically deteriorating and for many Afghans, especially those outside Kabul, the improvements were only ever slight, or they were non-existent. Vicious warlords in rural areas can be just as bent on enforcing sharia law as the Taliban. According to Malalai Joya, the outspoken woman MP who was expelled from the Afghan Parliament, the Government of Hamid Karzai are

“full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban.”

That is notably true of the judiciary, which she said is “dominated by fundamentalists.” This is the President whose authority our troops are dying to defend but who passes the so-called “marital rape” law, which gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance for his wife if she refuses to obey his sexual demands.

On Afghanistan it seems that we are struck by a peculiar kind of amnesia; there is so much that we have forgotten. As Dan Plesch of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy has said, there is no sense that we sought to crush and dominate that country throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. We appear to have no memory of that, but the Afghans do. There is no sense either that the sentiment expressed time and time again by advocates of war—that to pull out now would be a betrayal of those who have given their lives so far—is exactly the same as was said about Vietnam. Yet it is clear that the real betrayal is to be sending more people to die in a war that cannot be won.

We might remember the last time a mighty superpower tried to subdue Afghanistan. The Soviet Union invaded in 1979, and within a few years its soldiers were losing their limbs or lives to landmines—the improvised explosive devices of their day—and the same kinds of angry complaints were made about a shortage of helicopters. As the journalist Jonathan Freedland has said, whatever other reactions we should have to the fate of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan—horror, grief or despair— surprise should certainly not be one of them.

It is not unpatriotic to seek to recognise that there is no military solution to the crisis in Afghanistan and to bring our troops home safely. Almost everyone agrees that sooner or later a negotiation will have to take place. My amendment says that what we should be doing is negotiating now—let us make it sooner. It will not be clean; it will be messy, as others have said. But let us make it sooner and stop the bloodshed sooner.

We should do so because the collective amnesia from which we seem to suffer at the moment has an enormous human cost. The evidence of escalating violence and increasing insecurity in Afghanistan was reinforced by the WikiLeaks circulation back in July of huge amounts of official communications and reports about the US war on the ground. Those leaked war logs reveal that coalition forces have tried to cover up the fact that they have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents. As they increasingly use deadly reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada, civilian deaths rise still further.

As of last month, more than 330 British personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan and several thousand more have been injured. More than 1,000 US troops have died. What of the Afghan casualties? As we know, no official count is kept, but the estimate is that there are many, many thousands. As the military forces increasingly use those deadly reaper drones, those civilian deaths rise still further. ISAF’s own confidential report of August 2009 concedes that its military strategy is causing what it calls “unnecessary collateral damage”. Leaders publicly say that their attacks are proportionate, yet US Lieutenant-Colonel David Kilcullen has said that the US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qaeda leaders at the expense of 700 civilian lives.

Alongside the US and British military in Afghanistan is a “shadow army” of private military and security companies, operating largely outside legal or democratic control. A recent article in Le Monde diplomatique asked, in characteristic diplomatic language:

“How can efforts to put down an insurgency be effective or credible when the countries contributing to the intervention force…use mercenaries whose motivation is not necessarily the restoration of peace?”

That is put very diplomatically, but one British contractor is quoted as saying, rather more bluntly, that for his firm, the more the security situation deteriorates, the better it is for business.

All that might not be so horrific if the lives of ordinary Afghans were significantly improving and the country was developing, but although on some indicators there has been some improvement—such as access to education, for example—overall the situation is bleak. Indeed, by some indicators, Afghans are getting poorer—child malnutrition, for example, has risen in many places, which is an effect of the chronic hunger that now affects more than 7 million people. Despite that, the US has spent 20 times as much on military operations as on development in Afghanistan while Britain has spent 10 times as much. The UN Security Council notes that 25 times as many Afghans die every year from under-nutrition and poverty as from violence.

Finally, there is not just a human cost but a financial cost, too. This is an unwinnable war that is costing us more than £7 million a day. If the Chancellor is looking for places to make cuts, he should start right here and bring the troops home. The financial cost to Afghanistan is huge, too. The Afghan Government spend a massive 30% of their budget on the security sector. That money would be much better spent on development in Afghanistan.