Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Jim Murphy Excerpts

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

Jim Murphy Excerpts

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.

Army 2020

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the courtesy of a briefing this morning in his office.

I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Flight Lieutenant Hywel Poole, Squadron Leader Samuel Bailey and Flight Lieutenant Adam Sanders. As he rightly says, our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

Today’s statement is, correctly, long on detail but totally short of strategic context. New threats are emerging and weak and failing states outnumber the strong by two to one. There is an arc of instability from west African states to central and south-east Asia. Non-state actors are on the rise, and climate and population change are new sources of tension. The United States is pivoting towards the Pacific while the European end of NATO will take greater strain. In that context, a statement that delivers plans for the smallest Army since the Boer war is an entirely inadequate response.

We can judge a statement not only by what is said but when it is said. This statement has been delayed deliberately to spare the Prime Minister’s blushes during Armed Forces day. He sought the reflected glory of the heroes while preparing to cut the prestige that they embody. This process has been chaotic, and the Prime Minister’s behaviour has been cynical and should never be repeated.

The British Army is an institution that is central to our national security as well as our national identity. The UK is cutting a higher proportion of our Army than many major allies. Indeed, France and Germany have higher net debt than the UK and yet they are cutting their forces by less. The SDSR announced cuts of 7,000 to the Army and new defence planning assumptions which stated that the UK could carry out one major and two lesser operations. Now, with a cut of 20,000, it is inconceivable that there will not be an impact on force projection, especially in the light of cuts to combat support and key enablers. I believe in the deterrent effect of the British Army and its ability to deploy, but for that to be effective, we need both flexibility and sustainability. The plans announced today may provide flexible forces, but it is far from certain that they will provide sustainable military utility.

Deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have rightly been controversial, and all of us, in all parts of the Chamber, are learning the lessons of those conflicts. However, it is one thing to take a decision never again in future to become involved in large-scale counter-insurgency operations, but when it is impossible to say that the next decade will be safer than the last, it is quite another to make a change to our defence posture that may mean that we could not make large long-term deployments even if we wished to.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the SDSR planning assumptions that applied to an Army of 95,000 can no longer be guaranteed with a regular Army of just 82,000? We all know that tough decisions are necessary. We support the changes in the non-deployable administrative structure and the equipment programme, and the moves to tackle top-heavy structures. However, all who believed the Prime Minister when he said in opposition,

“We want to see the British Army increase in size”,

will be dismayed by today’s news.

The Secretary of State had said previously that recruitment was a criterion for determining cuts. According to the honorary colonel of 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, his battalion is just nine short of full strength. He has said that this move

“cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option.”

Further, some battalions have today lost their historic identities: the Green Howards, the Staffords and the Duke of Wellington’s. In Wales, there is a pyrrhic victory in saving a cap badge, but losing 600 people. The Argylls are being reduced to guarding castles and being the backdrop to Japanese tourists’ photographs. Will the Secretary of State explain precisely the military grounds for the decisions on the Green Howards, the Staffords and the Duke of Wellington’s? How many of the 17 units being affected today are at full strength or within 5% of full complement? What specific additional measures can he announce today to help service leavers find work?

We support an increased role for our reservists, but 15,000 brilliant part-time reservists cannot fill the gap created by the loss of 20,000 full-time regulars. To many, that appears to be not a response to the threats, but a self-made capability gap. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that reservists will not form stand-alone units on operations, and say what proportion of the forces on enduring operations he envisages being made up of reservists? Some will see this as a military gamble, and it is undoubtedly an enormous employment challenge. Will he guarantee that the Government will consider new legislation to prevent more active reservists from being discriminated against in the workplace?

In conclusion, these decisions flow from a defence review that put savings before strategy. Our forces face a perfect storm. We are seeing the largest number of service leavers in a generation at a time of deep recession. Today, jobs and military capability have been lost, and tradition and history have been sacrificed. There will not only be a smaller Army; many believe that there will be a less powerful Army and that this will be a less influential nation. Our armed forces, their families and our country deserve better.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

We are discussing the matter. I am not sure that mandatory guidance will be given, but there will be guidance on giving preference to those leaving the armed forces. We are very concerned about the matter, and we are continuing to uprate kitchens, bathrooms and so on with the money that we are spending. I know that the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves.

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

I want to raise an issue about housing on which I am sure there will be all-party consensus. Recent research by Lord Ashcroft showed that a third of junior ranks in the Army and more than a quarter of those from the armed forces who have applied have been refused a mortgage, loan or credit card in the past five years. Although individual circumstances can always lead to a refusal, that number is far too high. Will the Minister agree to cross-party talks, involving service charities and the military, on how to deal with this and other issues of discrimination raised in the report?

[Mr Robathan]

Of course, I am very happy to indulge in cross-party talks on such matters. I talk to service charities the whole time about them. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman talks about mortgages being refused, but that is one thing that we have put right. Although I am not blaming the previous Government in particular, it is a fact that British Forces Post Office addresses were not accepted by mortgage companies. We have now said that they are to be accepted—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) saying from a sedentary position that that is not true, but that was what I was told by all the service charities and servicemen to whom I spoke.

[Mr Jim Murphy]

For the purpose of this question, I shall set aside the partisanship and ask the Minister about the issue again. When one in five members of our forces is shouted at in the street and almost as many are refused service in a pub, hotel or elsewhere, we must all go further. There are sensible examples of legal protections for other specific groups that go much further than the military covenant to protect against discrimination, harassment or abuse. In the light of the research, in the build-up to Armed Forces day and as part of these indulged in—or indulgent—all-party talks, will the Minister consider new legal protections for those who keep our country safe?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister should make particular reference to access to social housing.

Defence Budget and Transformation

Jim Murphy Excerpts

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

Jim Murphy Excerpts

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

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a balance to be struck, but the community support that results from the collocation of armed forces families is tangible. We must also concentrate on the ability of families to secure employment in local communities, and that is another consideration that we take into account.

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

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. Forces’ morale is closely linked with events in Afghanistan, and I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences: the thoughts of all of us, and the prayers of many of us, are with the families and friends of those who have been bereaved today. I do not want to go into the specifics of that attack, but attacks on NATO forces by Afghan forces have resulted in 75 fatalities since 2007, and most of the attacks have taken place in the last two years. In the light of previous incidents, what new procedures have been implemented to vet Afghan recruits, and will Afghan forces be responsible for the protection of UK trainers who remain in Afghanistan post-2014?

[Nick Harvey]

We keep force protection issues under continuous review, and we have changed our procedures in the light of events that have occurred both recently and over a longer period. The decision of the Government —the last Government, as it happens, but that is not relevant—to adopt a partnering strategy and put our troops in alongside those of Afghanistan undoubtedly carried a considerable degree of risk, and there are those who think that that is the wrong approach, but I do not agree. I believe that the last Government were right to compute that the risk was worth taking, and I believe that that is the only way in which we will engrain the necessary skills and culture in the Afghan forces and complete our mentoring task.

[Mr Murphy]

Forces’ morale often depends on success in Afghanistan. Last week 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 in Afghanistan. Such a vacuum would encourage neighbouring countries to seek influence, allow the Taliban to return, and allow other elements to exploit the ungoverned space. Does the Minister accept that while there can of course be significant military success in Afghanistan, stability in the country will ultimately rely on a political settlement?

[Nick Harvey]

I certainly agree that a political settlement will be required if there is to be enduring stability beyond the end of 2014, but I think that the hon. Gentleman conflates two issues. It is perfectly possible for us to complete the security challenge of handing the lead over to the Afghans district by district, area by area, which we are doing now, and doing successfully; but if that is to stand a chance of sustaining peace in Afghanistan in the long term, a political settlement will need to come behind it to return the country to the stability for which we have all been trying to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I note that my hon. Friend recently took part in a Westminster Hall debate on exactly this issue, which was replied to by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), with whom I recently visited Combat Stress because we have worked hand in hand on these issues. I mentioned the “Fighting Fit” report earlier. We are looking very closely at the long-term provision of support. This is a difficult and complex field, and we work very closely with the King’s Centre, under Professor Simon Wessely.

[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.

Hostage Rescue Operation (Nigeria)

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, a copy of which was handed to me as he started speaking, as he knows. Our thoughts are rightly with the families and friends of Mr McManus and Mr Lamolinara. Both were killed in cold blood, and those responsible for their abduction and murder, as well as those who provide support for them, must be pursued.

The Defence Secretary rightly paid tribute to the vital role that British special forces play around the world, and the entire country agrees with that sentiment. They are increasingly central to counter-terrorism operations. We rely on their expertise, discretion and courage. It is right, therefore, that we maintain the sovereign operational autonomy of our special forces in future. In that light, and in the light of everything we know about the operation, we believe that the Government took the right course of action in seeking to rescue two innocent captives.

It is, however, concerning that the Italian President—who is, by general agreement, a measured man—called Britain’s action “inexplicable”, while Prime Minister Monti has asked the UK Government for a “detailed reconstruction of the events”, and that the Italian Government have demanded the “utmost clarity”. Such discord suits no one other than our enemies. In the interests of that clarity, can the Secretary of State offer further details of the contacts with the Italian Government? The Prime Minister’s spokesman stated on 9 March:

“We contacted the Italians yesterday as the operation was getting under way,”

while the Foreign Secretary has said that the Government were

“constrained how much we were able to consult others”.

Downing street also stated that a possible rescue attempt had been raised with the Italian Government beforehand and no objections were raised. In what was a substantial statement, the Defence Secretary gave little detail of the interaction with the Italian Government. Will he detail his contacts with the Italian Government in advance of the operation? More widely, were assurances given to the Italian Government that they would have the right to sanction any rescue attempt of one of their citizens?

On the specifics of the rescue operation, the Ministry of Defence has said that this was a Nigerian-led operation with the UK Special Boat Service in support. Will the Secretary of State share with the House as much information as he can about the rules of engagement that were agreed with the Nigerian authorities, bearing in mind his earlier comments about the need to protect intelligence?

There have been various separate reports of ransoms being paid in full or in part to the hostage takers. The UK Government have a clear policy on ransom payments, as the Secretary of State has reminded us today. The reports claim that approximately £1 million was paid to the captors as a down payment on a potential £5 million ransom. I would like to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to confirm that no British official or Minister had prior knowledge of, or agreed to, any payment being made by a third party or foreign Government for the release of a British national.

Turning to the wider context, Nigeria is one of the countries not mentioned in the Government’s strategic defence and security review, but it is a nation that will require our collective attention. It is west Africa’s predominant power, Africa’s most populous country and the world’s 11th largest producer of oil. The UK has a positive diplomatic relationship with Nigeria, and a vibrant diaspora community that enriches our country. However, Nigeria is a country in which roughly two thirds of the people live on less than £1 a day, and in which one in five children die in infancy before the age of five, and 12 million are not in school. Those are the conditions in which radicalisation can fester.

The hostage takers, Boko Haram, have been referred to as the Nigerian Taliban and are accused by the head of Nigerian armed forces of having ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The group is particularly active in Saharan states and was responsible for the bombing of the UN headquarters. The US embassy recently warned staff about its activity, and the head of US military’s Africa command has said that Boko Haram might be expanding because of an alliance with al-Qaeda. What assessment have the UK Government made about the links between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda? It has been reported that the National Security Committee discussed the hostage crisis on 20 separate occasions. If that is the case, it is a welcome reflection of just how fiercely the UK Government focused on this crisis, but will the Secretary of State share with the House his assessment of the continuing threat to British nationals and interests in Nigeria and the wider region?

I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s response. This tragedy is another painful reminder that the UK must retain the ability to act across the globe. It is also a reflection of the vindictiveness of our opponents and the valour of our forces. My final request today is to ask the Defence Secretary to convey the appreciation of Parliament as a whole to the commanders of the Special Boat Service for their remarkable efforts and bravery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Murphy Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

We are not aware that there are any specific capacity problems. In fact, calls on the service over the past 12 months have been rather reduced from the level experienced in the previous 12 months. That reduction reflects both reduced kinetic activity in the area of operations and improved efficiency in the way in which the task is shared across Regional Command Southwest. I believe that the position has improved significantly, and that there are no specific capacity difficulties at the moment.

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

On Helmand, up until 2 February the UK Government had a clear position in Parliament, in NATO and with the country about a conditions-based withdrawal, and for the medical emergency teams and all our forces to return home and for the Afghan forces to take the lead on security by 2014. On that date the US Secretary of Defence announced a 2013 timetable for Afghan forces to take the lead and within hours the UK Government followed that timeline. What changed on the ground in Afghanistan in that week for the UK Government policy to change so dramatically?

[Nick Harvey]

There has been not been a dramatic shift of policy on the part of the US, ISAF or the UK Government. What the American Secretary made clear, as have the French, is that they will be accelerating the pace at which they hand to Afghanistan forces the lead responsibility, but there is no suggestion that the commitment of the ISAF countries is reducing or that the numbers are necessarily reducing. Simply, the speed at which the Afghan national security forces are developing is enabling them to take the lead more. The shift will therefore be more into a training, support and mentoring role, but that does not affect the overall strategy, and the Lisbon agreement among ISAF countries remains in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I do not have the numbers at my fingertips—

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

Why not?

[Mr Robathan]

In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, it is quite complicated. However, I can say that the immediate pension that people might have earned after 22 years is now available after 18 years, so anyone made redundant within four years of the immediate pension date will receive the immediate pension straight away.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

This is an important issue and the Government were concerned about what we read. However, it must be understood that the premium is given to schools, not to children, to compensate for the way in which armed forces children move around. We have instigated scholarships for the children of casualties in Afghanistan so that they can go into higher education. The pupil premium is a Department for Education responsibility, but Defence Ministers are concerned and we wish to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged. The Department for Education is looking at the matter. We certainly do not wash our hands of it and we are concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that once a child is settled in a school, the need for a premium is somewhat changed.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Jim Murphy Excerpts

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 Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this annual debate.

The debate was initiated by the Select Committee on Defence and facilitated by the Backbench Business Committee, but I hope that in future the time allocated will be additional to that allocated by the Government to such debates.

I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), on his very thoughtful speech. Even though parts of it criticised the Government of whom I was a member, his assessment was often fair. Parts of his speech, however, were in stark contrast with the opening passages of the Secretary of State’s partisan comments.

It is right that we remember the names of those serving in our name across the world and those, such as Ian Sartorius-Jones, who have lost their life serving our nation, particularly in Afghanistan, which must remain our country’s principal defence mission. The bravery of the UK’s servicemen and women is in all our thoughts and many of our prayers. Their actions overseas make our country safer and we thank them and their families.

We continue to support strongly the mission in Afghanistan because we are entering a difficult phase in that conflict. With 33,000 US troops and 500 UK troops departing this year, and with the pace of further withdrawal yet to be set, the capacity of Afghan forces is a crucial issue. There are worrying signs in terms of retention rates and recent high-profile infiltrations of those forces. Building the strength and the legitimacy of the Afghan national army and police force must be a priority for this year alongside the delivery of representative, stable local governance and the continued engagement of regional partners. Labour will continue to support and scrutinise the Government, as well as pressing for the pace of withdrawal to follow the conditions on the ground. It is vital that we have clarity as soon as possible on the size of any residual UK force in Afghanistan and on its responsibilities.

Afghanistan sits alongside many new and emerging threats faced by the UK and our allies. Events in north Africa and the middle east continue to prove this. The potential for conflict between states or among peoples is on the rise.

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

rose—

[Mr Murphy]

I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would seek to catch my eye and I will gladly give way.

[Rory Stewart]

Will the shadow Minister please explain what he proposes to do to achieve a stable, effective Government in Afghanistan that has not already been proposed by the Government?

[Mr Murphy]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I said right at the beginning that I am keen to have a bipartisan approach in Afghanistan, and that will continue. There is sometimes a temptation with these very difficult, often impractical, problems to give in to the temptation to seek and find synthetic differences, but as I have said before at the Dispatch Box it is important that this year there should be a genuine political process to match the military might of the past decade. That did not happen last year, and it should be compulsory this year. The Bonn conference was a failure in that regard, but I did not attack our Government for that from the Dispatch Box because it was an international failure to formulate the political strategy that that country so badly needs.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not in post during the relevant period, but does he regret not conducting a defence review in the past decade? A review might have helped to identify the fact that Snatch Land Rovers were not appropriate in Afghanistan. We went through a period of bizarre procurement in which the Ridgback, the Cougar, the Vector, the Jackal and the Mastiff were produced one after another and bought off the shelf to try to identify something that would work in Afghanistan. If we had held a defence review, perhaps we would have seen that the conduct and style of war was changing before our eyes and we could then have ensured that we sent our armed forces to Afghanistan with the right equipment.

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman has great and varied experience, but I think he will fairly accept that the urgent operational requirements worked well in Afghanistan, and after 9/11 we updated our defence review with a new chapter. In a debate that is intended to be relatively thoughtful rather than our traditional cut and thrust, it is fair to say that the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan changed and surprised many people, including those who were engaged in it day to day. As we reflect on what happened in Afghanistan, it is crucial that we learn deeply the lessons of the conflict, in the hope that we never have to deploy them, but in the fear that on occasion it might become necessary.

I was making the wider point that events in north Africa and the middle east continue to prove the uncertainty and unpredictability of the future shape of conflict. Coupled with the Arab spring, the growing global population, the threat of climate change, new information technology and biotechnologies, nuclear proliferation and cyber-attack, we live in what is, by consensus, an era of dramatic new global security challenges. All that means that it is sensible for the Government to invest the £650 million they have announced for cyber-security. The continuing emphasis on soft power and multilateralism to supplant the inevitable capability shortfalls resulting from spending constraint is vital. It was crucial in good times, but it is compulsory in these difficult times of budget cuts in a world of flux.

[Dr Murrison]

The shadow Chancellor is on record saying that he accepts all the Government’s spending cuts. However, the shadow Defence Secretary says that he thinks only £5 billion-worth of cuts in defence are necessary. Who is correct?

[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.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way so courteously. In his list of commitments, the one thing he has not mentioned is the strategic nuclear deterrent. In the light of the first contribution that was made from the Opposition Back Benches, would he care to reiterate his party’s commitment to the renewal of the strategic nuclear deterrent?

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is over my right shoulder, and I would not wish to steal his speech, because without anticipating its detail I expect it will be a detailed rebuttal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). Briefly, our view remains that we believe in the minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent. The timing of the Government’s process does surprise many, because it seems to be designed for internal political dynamics rather than the defence of our nation, but generally we do support the retention of the minimum independent nuclear deterrent, and we look forward to an informed debate about its renewal.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I have given way more often than I probably should have, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that I am sure you will encourage me to sit down in just a couple of minutes, but on the basis that he is not only a right hon. and learned Member but also a friend, I will give way briefly to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length and with some eloquence about the uncertainties that face the defence of the UK, but has he considered the uncertainties that would face the defence of the UK were there to be an independent Scotland—not least for Scotland, but for all the rest of the United Kingdom? Our reputation and our capability are well recognised; how far does he think these would be capable of being sustained in the event that there was an independent Scotland?

[Mr Murphy]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a compelling argument. I look forward to being part of the discussion during the referendum campaign. I have only two more points to make: the first is about finance but the other is about Scotland, which will allow me to respond to that intervention in more detail.

The Secretary of State mentioned the £38 billion figure, but that is Ministers’ response to every single issue. They use a catch-all Conservative assertion as a fact and so attempt to escape their responsibility, but in its report on the SDSR the Defence Committee stated:

“We were disappointed by the MoD’s response to our requests for a breakdown of the MoD’s financial commitments, including details of the components of its estimate of a £38 billion gap in the defence programme”.

When the previous Secretary of State gave evidence to the Committee, he was asked to provide that information, but it has still not received it. He said that he would provide it, but when challenged he said:

“Offhand, I couldn’t give an actual figure, but I will get it for the Committee.”

The Committee has not received it. In evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the MOD director of general finance said that

“Ministers have committed to making a public statement”

on the MOD’s spending gap. They have not made it. We look forward to the promised information being made available not only to the Defence Committee and the House, but to the forces, their families and the country. Until Ministers provide it, there will be an enormous gap in the Government’s explanation for their decisions.

Finally, let me respond to the point about Scotland made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who unintentionally but inelegantly described Scotland as “our back door”. For many of us it is home and we want never to see a Royal Navy battlegroup off the coast of Scotland, except perhaps as it sails from there to foreign shores; but while there are real worries about the Government’s defence policy on the Opposition Benches and across the country, those are dwarfed by the worries about the defence plans of another Government on these isles—the Scottish Government.

Although I criticise the rushed nature of the UK Government’s defence review, I make the opposite criticism of the Scottish National party Government’s approach. Their party has been around since 1943—

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

They’re not around today.

[Mr Murphy]

They are almost represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who is almost sitting in their usual place. An expat Scot, he looks as though last evening he spent a lot of time enjoying Burns night. [Laughter.]

[Thomas Docherty]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I know I am testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but out of good manners I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend is being most generous, as are you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is he aware of the sheer anger felt in Fife that after more than a year of SNP Ministers saying that they would save RAF Leuchars, they have betrayed the people of Fife with a cynical policy U-turn?

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on RAF Leuchars, as has the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife. It is remarkable that SNP Members have toured that part of Scotland promising to keep open three bases, but now describe the Government’s policy as a blueprint for the defence of an independent Scotland.

The SNP has been around since 1934 and has been in power in the Scottish Government for five years, but SNP Ministers have not even done the most remedial of thinking. Scotland currently sits at the heart of one of the most successful union of nations anywhere on earth. The UK has a seat at the United Nations Security Council, an invaluable transatlantic bond and a vital role in the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth. A collection of people from four different countries serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces have achieved great things together in the past and will, I am certain, do so in the future as well. The SNP wishes to turn the defence debate into a referendum about the location of Trident, as if moving it a few miles across the border would make Scotland inherently safer. SNP Members may be hiding today, but they cannot hide from the truth that their policies are incoherent and will take Scotland out of the RAF, the Royal Navy and the British Army, as well as having an irreversible impact on shipbuilding on the Clyde and Rosyth. Amid all the argument about the single question to be asked in the referendum, the debate must be about all of the answers that the SNP refuses to provide.

Where the Government are doing the right thing in the national interest, whether it is Afghanistan, Libya or defence reform, we will continue enthusiastically to support them. Therefore, today, I enthusiastically thank the Chair of the Select Committee and all its members for their forensic work in scrutinising the previous and the current Governments on their work on defence, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling today’s debate.