Operation Herrick

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is of course right. We are packing up and getting out—we are actively in the process of recouping our equipment. Hundreds of containers, hundreds of vehicles and pieces of major equipment have already returned, and it is an ongoing process. To try to do it any more quickly, particularly at a time of significant transition in Afghanistan and through the period of the presidential elections, which can be anticipated to be a difficult period for internal security, would be reckless with Afghanistan’s security but also reckless with the protection of our own forces.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why we are planning to keep more troops in Afghanistan after 2014, and say what purpose they will serve while in a place of enormous danger and huge political uncertainty? Would it not be better to say that the whole escapade has not been a great success and that we are bringing everybody out, according to a rapid timetable?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman’s views on this subject are well known. As I have announced, a small number of people—mainly logisticians—will possibly remain after 31 December 2014 to complete our redeployment from Bastion. In addition, we have committed to providing trainers and life support personnel for the Afghan national army officer training academy outside Kabul, which is a military training academy modelled on Sandhurst. Those are the only commitments we have made at the moment, amounting to a couple of hundred personnel on an ongoing basis. We judge that to be an effective and appropriate way for us to continue supporting Afghan national security forces, together with the £70 million a year cash support that we have pledged as part of the international community’s commitment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we already co-operate significantly. The conflict pool is a tri-departmental pool of funding that is used for upstream stabilisation and capacity-building operations. The Prime Minister was alluding to a commitment by all three Departments to look again at how we can do more of that to support the UK’s national interests, while at the same time support the development agenda. It is a simple fact that unless there is security it is not possible to have economic development or effective poverty eradication.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

2. What his most recent estimate is of costs up to 2016 of the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Trident D5 missile is expected to remain in service until the 2040s. No decision on a replacement system is expected to be made during this Parliament. The estimated cost remains at £2 billion to £3 billion at 2006 prices for the missile itself, as was set out in the White Paper published by the previous Government, whom he occasionally supported.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister undertake to report to Parliament regularly on expenditure on the missile replacement ahead of the 2016 main gate decision? Does the estimate that he has given today include the upgrading of AWE Aldermaston? Does he think that in a time of austerity it is really such a good idea to prepare to spend £100 billion on a nuclear missile system that will be our very own weapon of mass destruction, which will not help to bring about world peace?

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I have just said, we published an update to Parliament at the end of last year and we intend to publish such updates periodically. The upgrade at Aldermaston is part of the regular routine maintenance of that site which is needed for the existing programme, irrespective of the successor programme.

Deployment to Mali

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind her and other hon. Members of the risks to our society and the societies of our allies if we allow areas of ungoverned space to fall under the control of al-Qaeda and its associates and to become a place where they can plan and execute attacks on our interests.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that Mali is in a post-colonial situation and there is great tension between the north and the south, and that the failure of successive Governments in Mali to address the wishes of the Tuareg people has led to this conflict, as has the exploitation of the country’s minerals? Does he not accept that unless there is a political solution to those issues in Mali, western forces will be there for a very long time and we will be sucked into a horrible war from which we will end up ultimately having to make a humiliating retreat?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I of course accept that, for there to be a sustainable peaceful situation in Mali over the longer term, there will have to a political solution to the tensions that exist between the north and the south of the country—tensions that, frankly, were created by a colonial map drawer and were pretty predictable when one looks at the ethnic and religious make-up of that country. But the fact that the regional powers are prepared to deploy in support of the Malian army is something that we should very much celebrate and support. Let there be a regional solution to the short-term problems in Mali, and by all means let us be active and forward-leaning in our support for a long-term political solution to the problem.

Nuclear Deterrent

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I will give way, but it will be for the last time as otherwise I will be in danger of taking too much time. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in resuming his seat.

I wish briefly to make four political points. The first political argument is that when people are asked whether it is safer for this country to continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, a large majority of the population consistently take the view that we should do so and that it would be unwise and dangerous to renounce them unilaterally. We can ask different poll questions that seem to point to a different answer, but when that question is asked, the answer is surprisingly consistent.

The second political argument is that in the 1980s, under cold war conditions, two general elections demonstrated the toxic effect of one-sided disarmament proposals on a party’s prospects of gaining power. The third argument is that it was and remains widely believed—this refers to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) a few moments ago—that the nuclear stalemate of the cold war enabled all-out conflict between the majors powers to be avoided for 50 years, despite their mutual hostility and in contrast to what happened in those many regional theatres where communists and their enemies could and did fight without fear of nuclear escalation. The final political argument is that the ending of the east-west confrontation has not altered the balance of public opinion on this question. First, that is because a danger could easily re-emerge of a reversion to a confrontation of that sort. Secondly, it is because even today there are unpleasant regimes, such as Iran’s, on the point of acquiring nuclear weapons and some, such as North Korea’s, that have already done so.

The role of our strategic nuclear force remains what it has always been: to deter any power armed with mass destruction weapons from using them against us, in the belief, true or false, that nobody would retaliate on our behalf. The use of our deterrent consists of its preventive effect on the behaviour of our enemies. The actual launching of a Trident missile would mark the failure of deterrence and would presuppose that a devastating attack had already been inflicted on our country.

Because strategic nuclear deterrence is largely irrelevant to the current counter-insurgency campaigns with which the British Army has been involved, some senior Army officers have been suggesting that we must choose between fighting “the war” of the present and insuring against the more conventional prospect of state-versus-state conflict in the future. I say that that choice is unacceptable, and that the underlying message that the era of high-intensity, state-on-state warfare is gone for good is a dangerous fallacy. Every sane individual hopes that such warfare will never return, but to rely on that in the face of past experience would be extremely foolhardy. The lesson of warfare in the 20th century, repeated time and again, was that when conflicts broke out they usually took their victims by surprise. Obvious examples are: the failure to anticipate the first world war; the follies of the “10-year rule” from 1919 to 1932; and the entirely unanticipated attacks on Israel in 1973, the Falklands in 1982, Kuwait in 1990 and the United States in 2001. Conversely, and on a brighter note, the speed with which the Soviet empire unravelled from 1989 left even its sternest critics largely nonplussed.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will not, because I am about to finish. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Our current counter-insurgency campaigns are very important indeed, but they cannot be compared with battles for the very survival of the United Kingdom homeland. Such existential threats confronted us twice in the past 100 years and, if international relations deteriorate, they could easily confront us again.

My final remark concerns the alternatives. I can see only three possible alternatives to renewing Trident other than getting rid of the nuclear deterrent completely. The first is that suggested by the Liberal Democrats of putting cruise missiles on Astute class submarines. I have said in the past and say again that that would be more expensive and less effective, would put the submarine at risk because of the shorter range of the missiles, which would bring the submarine closer to shore, and could start world war three by accident because no one would be sure whether the launched missile had a conventional or nuclear warhead. Apart from that, it is a great idea.

The second alternative is to come off continuous at- sea deterrence, to put the nuclear deterrent on stand-by and to say that we will reactivate it if things get worse. That is an extremely dangerous suggestion as having a part-time deterrent is probably as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, having no deterrent at all.

The final suggestion is that we could perhaps combine our deterrent with that of the French and therefore have fewer submarines. All I can say about that is that our deterrent is strongly connected with the excellent working relationship we have with the United States, which would not admit of such a solution.

I hope that I have given people plenty of food for thought. We have an hour and three quarters left and I very much look forward to hearing both sides of the argument in the time that remains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will have to be very brief.

We must be clear that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and can only kill indiscriminately millions of civilians. We have enough nuclear capability in our 48-warhead submarines for a nuclear kill 384 times greater than that in Hiroshima in 1945—the only time when nuclear weapons have been used.

To replace the Trident system and procure new warheads would cost us £100 billion over 25 years. I dread to think that any Government in 2016, of whatever party, faced with all the social problems of this country—with the stress on housing, health, education, employment and infrastructure—would commit us to £100 billion-worth of weapons of mass destruction. That would achieve precisely what? It does not protect our position as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. It does not give us moral authority around the world. It has the opposite effect. I ask the House this question: when issues are raised in the world’s councils, who has greater moral authority—South Africa, which gave up its nuclear weapons specifically to ensure that there was an African nuclear-free zone, or Britain, which seeks to rearm unilaterally in order, apparently, to protect its status around the world? It does not defend us. It does not protect us. It does nothing but cost us a great deal of money.

I aspire to live in a nuclear-free world. It has been achieved in Latin America. It has been achieved in Africa. It has been achieved in central Asia. It has been achieved in Antarctica. There is real hope that, with the assistance of the Finnish Government and the UN, we will eventually achieve a nuclear weapons-free middle east, when Iran and Israel are brought together to the conference table to bring that great aspiration about. We live in a time when we can take a huge step forward. Our country can take a huge step forward by saying, “We do not see weapons of mass destruction as a defence; we see them as a threat and a danger. Accordingly, we will not replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, but will instead support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to ensure that that happy day comes about.”

The MPs around the world who have signed the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament network statement to bring about nuclear weapons-free zones are to be commended. World opinion is against nuclear weapons, which is also to be commended.

I finish with a point echoing that made by my Friend—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The very short answer is no, I cannot. That is not a point of order—I think the hon. Gentleman knows that. A point of order has to be a matter for this Chamber, but he has his point on the record, and I am afraid he will have to be satisfied with that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene on a point of order, but we have just had a good and interesting debate on nuclear weapons, and the time obviously had to be reduced. Some hon. Members did not get in and others withdrew from the debate because they were not going to do so. Could we invite the Backbench Business Committee to look favourably on having another debate on the subject in the foreseeable future, because there is far greater parliamentary interest than was anticipated when the debate was called for by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the number of hon. Members who supported him?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Corbyn, I think you know that that is not a point of order either, particularly seeing as the Backbench Business Committee’s determination of business in the House is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that when the Committee reads Hansard, it will take his remarks as an early bid, particularly if he has greater support for such a debate.

Afghanistan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

When any of my colleagues stands up and says that I have said something that no Minister has said before, my heart sinks, but I think on this occasion I am okay.

I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the United States, but my current understanding is that US planning very likely envisages the retention of Camp Bastion. Of course, any remaining footprint in Afghanistan—strategic base or otherwise—depends on the agreement of the Afghan Government, and as my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are under way between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan about a long-term strategic partnership agreement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much money has been spent by the UK in the Afghan operation over the past 11 years—[Interruption.] It is not a joke. Can he also tell us what the comparative figures are for poverty among the ordinary people of Afghanistan now and 11 years ago?

[Mr Hammond]

On the first part of the question, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head what the total expenditure has been since the beginning of the operation in 2001, but I am happy to write to him to give him those numbers. I think they have been published, but I am very happy to write to him and place a copy in the Library.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point about poverty, Afghanistan is still a very poor country, but its economy has been growing, and although it is of course relative, there is a strong sense in Afghanistan of growing prosperity. People are able to get their goods to market; if they farm their produce, they can actually sell it. There is investment in towns and cities, and the economy has been growing at 9% a year for the last few years. Those are positive signs for ordinary Afghan people, and the progress that has been made in moving the combat—the insurgency—out of the populated centres is crucial in restoring confidence in the local economy and allowing it to thrive and prosper.

Defence

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Military Aid

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have hosted a British Military Advisory Training Team since 2007; and in each such case on what dates and at what costs.

[Official Report, 25 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 982-85W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 25 October 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

[holding answer 22 October 2012]: British Military Advisory Training Teams are small military teams based permanently within the country where they are delivering military training and advice. The following table also shows other permanent small military teams that have delivered similar effect since 2007.

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think we might get further if we listened to the military advice, and in this case that is exactly what we have done. General Allen has made a tactical decision, which he is absolutely entitled and right to do, and we should allow military commanders in theatre to execute our strategic plan in the way that is best at the time and that best protects the safety of our troops.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State concede, hand on heart, that within two years he will have to bring the British troops home? They cannot be expected to remain in that situation for two years, under attack from the Taliban and completely unconfident of the loyalty of their supposed allies. Is he really going to allow more troops to die for a war that has not been won and cannot be won, and that will become increasingly unpopular with the public in this country?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many things, but I will say this. I recognise, as does everybody in ISAF, along with President Karzai, that the incidence of insider attack is sapping public morale in the ISAF home countries. That is why we are determined to solve the problem—to nip this trend in the bud and ensure we get on top of it. Huge resources have been put in by both the Afghans and ISAF to address the problem, and I am confident that we will see a significant improvement over the coming months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

The Government remain concerned about the security situation in Sinai and we regularly raise it with the Egyptian authorities. There continue to be credible reports of significant quantities of weapons—particularly rockets—being smuggled into Gaza. The UK recognises that Israel has legitimate security concerns and that the people of Gaza are suffering at the moment, which does not serve Israel’s long-term security interests.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the last nuclear non-proliferation review conference agreed on a strategy of a nuclear weapons-free middle east and that, because Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, a special conference, hosted by the Finnish Government, will be held in Helsinki at the end of this year. Will he assure the House that the British Government remain fully behind the process, will be represented at that conference and will do their best to ensure that both Israel and Iran are also present, to bring about a nuclear weapons-free region?

[Nick Harvey]

We continue to support that initiative, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be represented at that conference. We would like it to make progress, but we do not underestimate the inherent challenge.

Defence

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Hammond]

The answer is about a quarter. Of the £1.1 billion, £500 million is investment in the capital infrastructure at the Rolls-Royce plant. The remaining £600 million represents the cost of sustaining the capability out to 2023 and producing the core for the reactor for the seventh Astute-class boat and the first successor-class boat.

The following is the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), to the supplementary questions asked by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) during the Urgent Question concerning nuclear-powered submarines on 18 June 2012.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

A week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), told the House that the total cost of long-lead items was £3 billion, but that has risen by a third in the Secretary of State’s statement today. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all he is doing is building up huge expenditure in advance of a main gate decision in 2016, which will lead this country towards wasting £100 billion on a weapon of mass destruction of dubious legality and total immorality? Do we not need to think again?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with any of that; I do not think he listened to the answer to the previous question but one. This is not an increase in the £3 billion previously announced; the part of it that relates to the successor programme was included within that £3 billion.

[Official Report, 18 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 615-16.]

Letter of correction from Philip Hammond:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 18 June 2012.

The correct answer should have been:

Nuclear-powered Submarines

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ensuring this nation’s security involves two things—having a strategic deterrent capability and having highly capable, flexible, deployable and well equipped forces at the conventional level. The coalition Government will ensure that we have both.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

A week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), told the House that the total cost of long-lead items was £3 billion, but that has risen by a third in the Secretary of State’s statement today. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all he is doing is building up huge expenditure in advance of a main gate decision in 2016, which will lead this country towards wasting £100 billion on a weapon of mass destruction of dubious legality and total immorality? Do we not need to think again?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with any of that; I do not think he listened to the answer to the previous question but one. This is not an increase in the £3 billion previously announced; the part of it that relates to the successor programme was included within that £3 billion.[Official Report, 26 June 2012, Vol. 547, c. 6MC.]