Defence Responsibilities

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The meeting took place on the morning of 17 June, where there was a general discussion about Cellcrypt and what it might be able to do to support the MOD. At the end of the meeting, in the interests of probity, Mr Boulter mentioned that he was in a dispute with 3M alongside the MOD, and I acknowledged this. Beyond this, there was no discussion of the case or any individuals involved, nor was any classified information discussed.

That night, Mr Boulter sent e-mails claiming that he had had discussions on the issue of George Buckley’s knighthood. This correspondence later became the basis of a blackmail case in the United States. I made it clear that I was willing to testify that I had never had any such discussions. Subsequently, Porton Group has since clarified that Harvey Boulter did not in fact discuss the matter of the knighthood.

I accept that I should not have had a meeting with a potential commercial supplier without an official being present. This was entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for it. After the meeting, however, I notified my private office and asked them to prepare a brief on the subject of Cellcrypt.

Let me turn now to Mr Werritty, whom I first met in 1998. While I was in opposition, he worked as a paid intern in my House of Commons office and at this time had a parliamentary pass. He also received payments for research work undertaken during my time in opposition. Records currently show total payment of some £5,800 over the total period. He has not received any payment from me while in government. He has a very wide range of long-standing business, international relations and political links of his own. He did not receive any payment as a result of the meeting in Dubai, nor has he been involved in any defence procurement issues.

As a matter of transparency, I would like to inform the House that I have met Mr Werritty in the margins of trips of various sorts overseas, including annual leave and holidays with family and friends, on a total of 18 occasions.

As the permanent secretary points out today in her report, Mr Werritty visited me at the Ministry of Defence over 16 months, either in my office or in the refreshment facilities, on 22 occasions. The majority of these were short social meetings. In only four instances were others present. Three related to Sri Lanka and one was with Matthew Gould, known socially to both of us. It was also during one of these meetings in June that I first learned about, and told him to stop, using his business card stating that he was my adviser. Mr Werritty was never present at regular departmental meetings. During private meetings we did not discuss either commercial or defence matters. He had no access to classified documents, nor was he briefed on classified matters.

As I said yesterday, I accept, with the benefit of hindsight, that I should have taken great care to ensure a more transparent separation of Government, party political and private business and that meetings were properly recorded to protect myself and the Government from any suggestion of wrongdoing. Again, I accept my personal responsibility for this. The permanent secretary is making arrangements to ensure that such a separation of powers will exist in the future. In addition, because I do not believe that to be enough, Mr Werritty will not make private visits to the MOD in future, will not attend international conferences where I am present, and we will not meet socially abroad where I am on official business. This should ensure that no appearance of potential wrongdoing will occur in the future.

Since 1996, when I was a Foreign Office Minister, I have been involved in attempts to help resolve the conflict in Sri Lanka. As the war with the Tamil Tigers drew to a close, I worked with a number of others in business, banking and politics. It was my aim to create a mechanism that would allow reconstruction funding to occur through the private sector. This was called the Sri Lanka Development Trust, which seeks to promote post-conflict reconciliation and development in Sri Lanka. The aim was to use a proportion of profits made to fund development projects in Tamil communities. Neither myself, Mr Werritty nor others sought to receive any share of the profits for assisting the trust.

During the Shangri-La dialogue of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2010, I attended a bilateral meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister. This was attended by Mr Werritty and MOD officials and was minuted. The purpose of the meeting was to make it clear that although I would no longer be able to participate in the project, the others involved would continue to do so.

In December 2010, Mr Werritty and I met with the Sri Lankan President in London. This was not an official visit, hence why it was held in the Dorchester hotel. In July 2011, I gave a lecture hosted by Mrs Kadirgamar, the widow of my friend and Tamil former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, who was assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2005, as the House will know. Mr Werritty is a personal friend of Mrs Kadirgamar and helped with the arrangements, as it was a personal not a ministerial commitment. I know that there are some in the Sri Lankan diaspora who do not want any contact with the current Sri Lankan Government, but as I said in my lecture, unless we have reconciliation based on mutual tolerance and respect for all citizens regardless of ethnic origin, we will not find peace in that island.

I have made it clear throughout this process that my desire is to be as transparent as possible, and I accept where I have been at fault, as Ministers must. Following the interim findings, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to work with the permanent secretary to complete the report, addressing all the remaining questions that have been raised publicly and privately by this issue, and I shall fully and willingly co-operate with this.

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

I remind the House of my properly declared interest and thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I have enjoyed shadowing him in the House of Commons, and until now we have had a good working relationship. Indeed, he will know that I defended him for the first month of this case, until he started to defend himself and his answers unravelled, but this whole crisis is self-inflicted. There have been daily revelations which barely 36 hours ago he described as “baseless”, but yesterday he was forced into a partial and belated apology. It is not a partial apology we want; it is full and complete disclosure of all the issues, so today we will listen with great care to any questions that he does not fully answer.

Some will question the loyalty of a friend who abuses his contacts in that way, and many will doubt the judgment of a Secretary of State who willingly allows himself to be professionally compromised in that manner. But this is not just about the Secretary of State’s judgment; it is also about his conduct and breaches of the ministerial code. The code is clear. Paragraph 7.1 says:

“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.

Yesterday the Defence Secretary apologised for the “misleading impression” that his actions may have given. His apology in itself is an admission of a breach of the code. So it is beyond doubt that he has breached the ministerial code; the only issue is on how many grounds and on how many occasions?

Paragraph 5.2 of the code says:

“Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants”.

The Secretary of State claims that the infamous meeting in Dubai happened by chance. Today we have another version of events: he has told the House that he did not discuss defence or classified matters with Mr Werritty. How then did Mr Werritty know his diary and how he was travelling back from Afghanistan? Why did the Secretary of State exclude civil servants from that meeting? Did he ask for advice and briefing before the Dubai meeting? Did he seek civil service advice in advance of any of the 22 meetings with Mr Werritty? If so, will the Secretary of State publish all such advice, together with a full list of topics discussed and those who attended, and any actions taken by his private office or his special advisers following those meetings?

The Secretary of State has admitted that distinctions between his professional responsibilities and personal loyalties have been blurred. Again, the ministerial code is clear on this. Paragraph 7.3 says:

“On appointment to each new office, Ministers must provide their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.”

Paragraph 7.4 continues:

“Where appropriate, the Minister will meet the Permanent Secretary and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to agree action on the handling of interests.”

So on their first day in a new job every Minister has to make a declaration. Under paragraph 7.5 of the code, statements of ministerial interests are published every six months, and the Secretary of State’s entry makes interesting reading. There are mentions of good organisations such as the Strawberry Line project in his constituency, but there is no mention of his adviser who ran a defence consultancy, arranged his meetings and handed out his business cards across the world.

Did the Secretary of State provide full and complete disclosure to his permanent secretary about his links to Adam Werritty and his defence consultancy, Security Futures? What advice did the permanent secretary give him and what was agreed on the handling of this interest? Will the Secretary of State now publish the record of the information that he supplied to his permanent secretary when he took up this job? In the media this morning, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, is reported as saying that he raised his concerns with the Secretary of State for Defence’s office. Is this true, and has the current or any previous permanent secretary ever raised their concerns about his professional proximity to Mr Werritty with him or his office?

Looking at the ministerial code, it is clear that, on paragraphs 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5, the Secretary of State has driven a coach and horses through the rules. He cannot believe that today’s partial apology gives him a free pass round breaches of the ministerial code. Our forces look to him for leadership. When they step out of line, when they break the rules, they take responsibility and accept the consequences. They, and we, expect no less of the Defence Secretary. We all hope that he has done nothing wrong, but the only way to clear his name is total transparency, which is why this case should now be referred to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.

In conclusion, we might never know what got the Secretary of State into this crisis—whether it was arrogance, naivety or hubris. The British people

“expect the highest standards of conduct…We must be...transparent about what we do and how we do it. Determined to act in the national interest, above improper influence”.

[Interruption.] Government Members might shout about that, but those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister in the foreword to the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minster must now apply those standards to the Secretary of State, otherwise the ministerial code will not be worth the paper it is written on.

[Dr Fox]

I am not entirely sure what questions arise from that. The right hon. Gentleman asked why no civil service advice was sought before social and private meetings. The answer is that civil service advice is not sought before social and private meetings. He asked when the permanent secretary raised concerns. The permanent secretary raised the matter of the business cards with me in August. I told her that I had dealt with that in June when I first saw them. I demanded that they should not be used again and that any subsequent cards should not display either the portcullis or a reference to me as Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has spent most of his time over the last few days focusing on the meeting in Dubai with Cellcrypt. I have set out how the meeting came about, what the conversations were during the meeting, what conversations did not take place, what Mr Boulter said did take place and the action I took as a consequence, which was to ask my private office for a full briefing. No commercial contracts were made and no financial gain was made as a result of any of those discussions. When a man who was involved in a blackmail case is feeding information to the media, which is often taken without question, it is rather difficult to take the shadow Secretary of State beginning his statement without telling us the specifics of the declaration he was making, which is that his Front Bench team took £10,000 from Cellcrypt, the company at the centre of all this, to visit the United States. I hope that today I have answered as many questions as I can; perhaps the shadow Secretary of State might want to answer some that arise for him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

May I say how much I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that we cannot allow the unpopularity of the Iraq conflict in many quarters to prevent us from standing up for what we believe in in other countries around the world? That is why there remains consensus across parties about the action in Libya and Afghanistan. However, now that there is a timetable for the drawdown of our combat role in Afghanistan, can he update the House on how much longer he anticipates Her Majesty’s forces remaining engaged in Libya?

[Dr Fox]

We have set out, in accordance with the plans President Karzai himself has set out, that we do not plan to have a combat role in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014. The big question now is what we do beyond 2014 and what signals we send to Afghanistan and Pakistan about our determination to provide regional stability. We have already said that we will take charge of the officer training academy and are encouraging other countries to do the same. I anticipate that there will be a role for special forces and mentoring and training as well as what I have set out. That is one of the issues we discussed at the NATO summit last week, and we will set out further details at the Chicago summit in May.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. In any conflict, no matter what the reason for our country’s involvement and no matter how difficult the circumstances, what separates us from our adversaries are the values with which we prosecute it and the ethics that guide our actions. To represent Britain, in war as well as in peace, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life. When those values are transgressed, it is vital that we get to the bottom of what has happened, are open about the issues and their causes, ensure that what reparations we can make are made and do all that we can to prevent it from happening again. Only in that way can we ensure that those values hold firm in how we think of ourselves and in how others perceive us.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir William Gage as chairman of the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. I am grateful to Sir William and his team, who have produced a report that is sober, focused and detailed. Above all, I believe it to be both fair and balanced. It is, however, a painful and difficult read. As the report sets out:

“Baha Mousa was subject to violent and cowardly abuse and assaults by British Servicemen whose job it was to guard him and treat him humanely”.

That was the primary cause of his death. The inquiry was rightly set up in 2008 by the previous Government with the intent of shining a spotlight on the events surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and to provide the most definitive account possible in the circumstances. It does that comprehensively. What happened to Baha Mousa and his fellow detainees in September 2003 was deplorable, shocking and shameful. The Ministry of Defence and the Army have previously made a full apology to the family of Baha Mousa and to his fellow detainees and have paid compensation to them.

We can take some limited comfort that incidents like this are extremely rare, but we cannot be satisfied by that. Given the seriousness of this case, there is a series of questions that I have asked myself and that other Members will ask too. Among these are: who was responsible and what happened to them as a consequence? What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence? Do we have the right protection in place today in Afghanistan? And, of course, how will the Government respond to the recommendations made in the report? On responsibility, the report makes clear the extent of the failings of individuals, the MOD and the armed forces at the time and in earlier years. In addition to the shocking displays of brutality for which individuals were responsible, it is also clear that there were serious failings in command and discipline in 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for the prisoner-handling process, and sadly, too, there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse. However, it must be acknowledged that a small number behaved with both integrity and courage in reporting what they had witnessed. They are examples of how others should have behaved.

Wider than the battalion, there were also deficiencies in policies, orders and training relating to detention at that time. The chairman noted that there was inadequate doctrine on prisoner handling and a “systemic failure” that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abusive techniques put in place by the Heath Government to be lost over the years. The report also confirms that the Army was underprepared for the task of handling civilian detainees, having expected after the end of war-fighting to provide humanitarian aid rather than become involved in counter-insurgency activities.

Since this incident in 2003, six different Defence Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box. I am sure that they all regret that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of what happened and that even now the refusal of some involved to tell the whole truth means that it has not been possible to establish the full extent of the culpability of individuals. Their behaviour is a matter for their own consciences, but others must take responsibility for the wider failures and deficiencies, and this report does not mean that our investigations of mistreatment of detainees are over. The evidence from the inquiry will now be reviewed to see whether more can be done to bring those responsible to justice. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment in the House on specific individuals and their role in this appalling episode.

I have asked the Chief of the General Staff, where individuals are still serving, to consider what action is necessary to ensure that the Army’s ethical standards are upheld. That is occurring through the chain of command as we speak. The investigations of the Iraq historic allegations team, which started work last November, are now well under way and are revealing evidence of some concern. It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions, if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify that.

Since 2003, action taken by the MOD and the Army to address failings as they were identified has touched every aspect of the prisoner-handling system, from policy and doctrine to ground-level directives, as well as training and oversight. The changes wrought have been fundamental. The Army Inspector’s report in 2010, validated by an independent expert adviser, is one example of the detailed scrutiny applied to the training and doctrine for handling detainees. I assure the House that there is a commitment to continuous improvement at all levels inside and outside the armed forces.

As the report acknowledges, further positive changes have been made as a result of matters that emerged from evidence heard during this inquiry’s final module—module 4—which was a thorough scrutiny of our current detention policies, practices and training. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I take a close personal interest in detention matters in Afghanistan, and I am confident that our approach to detention there has improved markedly since the period rightly criticised in this report. However, we are in no way complacent about the issues identified by Sir William, and I can inform the House that I am accepting in principle all his recommendations with one reservation. It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly, in appropriate circumstances, the intelligence that can save lives. I am afraid that I cannot accept the recommendation that we institute a blanket ban, during tactical questioning, on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques. I share some of Sir William’s concerns, however, so I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to ensure that that approach is used only by defined people in defined circumstances.

Between 2003 and 2008, 179 British personnel were killed in Iraq serving their country, and many more returned injured. In autumn 2003, 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment faced an immensely difficult challenge as it attempted to bring law and order to a large area that had been subject to a brutally oppressive regime for many years. As Sir William acknowledges, the issues addressed in his report

“need to be understood in the operational context in which they occurred: the tempo of operations; the poor state of the local civilian infrastructure; a daily threat to life from both civilian unrest and an increasing insurgency; the deaths of fellow service personnel and incessant oppressive heat. In combination these factors made huge demands on soldiers serving in Iraq in 2003.”

There are few of us sitting in the comfort of the House of Commons who can claim to understand what that must have been like. However, the vast majority of armed forces personnel faced these same challenges and did not behave in the way outlined in this report. They represent the fine ethical values found day in and day out in our armed forces, and we must not allow the unspeakable actions of a very few to damage the reputation of the whole.

I want to make it clear that Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war. His death occurred while he was a detainee in British custody. It was avoidable and preventable, and there can be no excuses. There is no place in our armed forces for the mistreatment of detainees, and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up. If any serviceman or woman, no matter the colour of uniform that they wear, is found to have betrayed the values this country stands for and the standards that we hold dear, they will be held to account. Ultimately, whatever the circumstances, rules or regulations, people know the difference between right and wrong. We will not allow the behaviour of individuals who cross that line to taint the reputation of the armed forces, of which the British people are rightly proud. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for a strong statement. The whole House will welcome the way in which he is personally dealing with this difficult matter. I also welcome his courtesy in this morning allowing me early sight of the 1,400-page report into this horrific incident. It is a shocking episode, from which we must learn serious and lasting lessons. We all feel profound regret at the loss of Mr Baha Mousa’s life in British Army custody. His death in itself is tragic; that it appears that there was a cover-up afterwards compounds that tragedy. It is essential that our armed forces take responsibility for all actions committed during conflict. Our strength relies not only on our firepower, but on the standards and ethics that we uphold and on which we pride ourselves. This incident is a brutal violation of those standards.

Like the Secretary of State, I want to make it clear that although the report is damning about the actions of some in the Army in 2003, it is not a reflection of our armed forces in general. It is important that those in our forces hear that we remain proud of their bravery and professionalism, whether they are the 100,000 soldiers who previously served in Iraq in the recent past or those in Afghanistan or Libya operations today. All too many among their number have lost their lives or been injured to have their reputations attacked in that way. In Afghanistan, it is essential not only that our forces know that we are proud of their behaviour, but that Afghan civilians hear it loudly, too.

I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir William Gage and his inquiry team for their report, which is both forensic and frightening. It now seems clear that perhaps as many as two dozen members of the Army, including some in the chain of command, knew about the 93 injuries inflicted during those 36 hellish hours. The Secretary of State has outlined the details of the events, but it is deeply worrying that it now seems clear that there was a failure in the Army’s justice system, including in the court martial and the chain of command, and that incomplete assurances were given to Ministers.

It is right that politicians should avoid interfering in the criminal justice system in general and in military justice processes specifically, but that is sustainable only where the processes work and are demonstrated to be working. The report finds that multiple assaults took place in a confined space, including by senior NCOs, and that there was a

“loss of discipline and lack of moral courage”

to report the abuse. In accepting today’s recommendations, it is crucial that the Government take forward the proposal that those service personnel who reported abuse or who make complaints against their peers about the mistreatment of captured personnel should be afforded protection.

The report raises some serious questions; I wish to address just three, one of which the Secretary of State has already anticipated. He has stated that he accepts all but one of the 73 recommendations. He intends to retain the right to exercise the harsh approach in tactical questioning. There will be concerns in the House and elsewhere about that, so can he share further with the House the details as to why he wishes to retain the ability to enforce the harsh approach?

Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned this in passing, but back in 1972, Ted Heath banned the use of the five techniques used in Northern Ireland during internment. Those techniques returned, despite being prohibited, albeit not banned, in the way that Prime Minister Heath had anticipated. The report suggests that legislation is not needed to ban those five techniques. However, will the Secretary of State look further at whether there will be an early opportunity to change armed forces legislation through the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently in their lordships’ House, to implement any parts of the report that would require legislative change? I am sure that he agrees that if legislative change were needed, it would be wrong to wait five years for the next armed forces Bill.

Finally, although the Secretary of State is right that we should not name individuals on the Floor of the House today, the report finds that individuals did not give full and accurate evidence about what happened and that there was a refusal to reveal identities. Previously, soldiers were given exemption from prosecution during this process. However, in addition to fresh Army disciplinary procedures that are currently being undertaken, will fresh legal processes now be initiated in the light of today’s report? Those named in the report surely cannot hide from justice behind their silence or their evasion in the court martial process, or be protected by a calculated cover-up by their peers in the Army or a failure to act in the Army’s chain of command.

In conclusion, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is compulsory that UK forces should continue to behave in a way that is alien to our foes. When our forces have to detain someone, that detainee is both in our custody and in our care. There is strong support on this side of the House for the report and the recommendations, and for the Government’s reaction to it. However, the consequence of the report must be that never again should anyone be subject to such brutality and lose their life because they are in British custody.

[Dr Fox]

I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his response and for the way in which he phrased it. He is quite right that the report in no way reflects on the general behaviour of our armed forces; indeed, the whole reason why we are discussing this case is that it was a shocking deviation from the normal standards of behaviour that we have seen from our armed forces. He is correct that a number of individuals are still serving. We are looking at the evidence in detail—it is obviously a very large report—and as I have said, the chain of command is looking at how those individuals still in the armed forces might be treated, although I expect a number of suspensions today.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the harsh approach to questioning and why we should adopt it. First, I should say to the House that the so-called harsh approach involves a short burst of shouting—defined as a short, sharp shock—to bring a captured person back to the realisation of their situation. It is not a violent technique, but it has produced information that has led to both civilian and military lives being saved. To deprive our armed forces of techniques that can make them safer and protect the population both here and abroad would be wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we needed a change to the law in respect of the five techniques that were outlawed by the Heath Government back in 1972. My understanding is that we do not—they are absolutely banned, as is currently made clear in training—but I will look to see whether doing that would reinforce the position and whether our legal experts believe it to be necessary.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about exemptions from prosecution based on evidence, let me be clear that there was an exemption from prosecution based on an individual’s own evidence, not an exemption from prosecution based on the evidence of others that came out in the inquiry. Both military and civilian prosecuting authorities will be looking closely at the evidence to see whether it is possible to bring more of those involved to justice.

Defence Transformation

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

I wish to express my condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins of 9th/12th Royal Lancers, who was killed in Afghanistan on Saturday. My thoughts and prayers—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with them at this very sad and difficult time for them.

I wish to make a statement on the next steps in implementing the strategic defence and security review. This Government inherited both a national economic disaster that represented a strategic threat and a defence programme undermined by a £38 billion black hole. Without a fundamental review for 12 years, our armed forces were still largely configured for the 20th century, despite a decade of sustained operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The failure to set out a coherent long-term strategy for defence or to match commitments effectively to resources is one of Labour’s worst legacies. However, it is not enough to deal with the mess that we inherited; we also need to build something better for the future.

Right from the start, this Government have been determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and to make the difficult decisions that were ducked by the previous Government. We are determined to be bold and ambitious and to build formidable, well-managed armed forces structured for the rigours of future conflict and supported by an affordable defence programme. The SDSR has mapped out our long-term goal for Future Force 2020. The report of the defence reform unit that I announced to the House on 27 June was part of that process. Today, I want to set out the next phase of defence transformation, which involves bringing the Army back from Germany, creating a better future for our reserve forces, and delivering on our commitment to agree a 10-year defence equipment budget.

I have written to Members of both Houses and the devolved Administrations whose constituencies and interests are affected by the decisions that we have taken. Commitments must match resources in order to achieve a balanced budget. As part of the preparation for this year’s planning round, we have identified a number of adjustments to the defence programme. This includes rationalising vehicle acquisition to make the best use of those that we have already procured to support operations in Afghanistan, and continuing to bear down on non-front-line costs, where we will aim to deliver further substantial efficiencies in support, estate spending and IT provision.

Against this background, and as part of our overall approach to balancing the programme, I have agreed with the Treasury that the Ministry of Defence can now plan on the defence equipment and equipment support budget increasing by 1% a year in real terms between 2015-16 and 2020-21. I am grateful to colleagues, and particularly to the Prime Minister, for their support in this process. Such a long-term planning horizon will give greater stability and predictability, and stop the old practice of simply pushing programmes into future years. These and other changes will enable us to proceed with a range of the high-priority programmes set out in the SDSR.

I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of 14 additional Chinook helicopters, the upgrade of the Army’s Warrior vehicles, spending on the joint strike fighter, the procurement of the Rivet joint intelligence and surveillance aircraft, the cats and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and the development of the global combat ship. This equipment can now be bought with confidence, ending a decade of uncertainty for our armed forces and for industry. However, similar discipline will be applied in future: we will order only what we can afford to buy.

Today I am placing in the Library the report of the review into the reserve forces, “Future Reserves 2020”. I would like to thank General Sir Nick Houghton, Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for their excellent report. The report makes it clear, and I fully agree, that our reserve forces make an outstanding contribution to operations but have been shamefully neglected in recent years. For example, by some estimates, the Territorial Army has a trained and active strength as low as 14,000.

I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will proceed with a £1.5 billion investment package over the next 10 years to enhance the capability of the reserves and consequently increase their trained strength, £400 million of which will be spent during this Parliament. The Government will work with employers and legislate if necessary to ensure that the reserves are more readily useable on operations. This significant investment will also build up the capacity of the reserves to contribute to homeland security consistent with the adaptive posture set out in the SDSR.

As the capability of the Territorial Army improves, this will allow a progressive adjustment of the regular-reserve balance of the Army while maintaining the land forces capability set out in the SDSR. This will include the delivery of the multi-role brigade structure of Future Force 2020. By 2020, if the Territorial Army develops in the way we intend, we envisage a total force of around 120,000, with a regular to reserve ratio of around 70:30. This will be more in line with comparable countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia.

Let me turn to basing. The decisions that we have taken in the SDSR to reduce aircraft types, bring the Army back from Germany and form the Army into five multi-role brigades will enable us to rationalise the defence estate and dispose of high-value sites that are no longer needed. The security of the nation and the requirements of defence were paramount in our analysis, but we have also considered the impact of changes on local communities, the impact on service personnel and their families, and the current pattern of the armed forces in Britain.

Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up three of the five multi-role brigades. The other two MRBs will be based in the east of England, centred on Cottesmore, and in Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-west of Edinburgh. The MRB centred in Scotland will require a new training area, and positive discussions are being taken forward with the Scottish Government. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars, increasing the number of posts there from 1,200 to more than 1,300. Consequently, the Typhoon force due to be built up there will instead be built up at RAF Lossiemouth. Other MRB units will be moved into Glencorse, Caledonia, Albemarle barracks and eventually Arbroath, as we intend over time to bring the bulk of the Royal Marines together in the south-west. We are also planning to place Army units in Kinloss in around 2014-15, continuing its long-term relationship with defence.

Taken together, this represents a significant increase in the defence footprint in Scotland of well over 2,000 posts. This is in line with the Scottish tradition of supporting our armed forces and is a recognition that these are United Kingdom forces under the Crown, protecting the citizens and interests of this United Kingdom. With the move to five multi-role brigades, we have concluded that 19 Light Brigade in Northern Ireland will be disbanded. Other units returning from Germany will move into the vacated bases and we remain committed to maintaining a permanent military garrison in Northern Ireland; 160 Wales Brigade will remain in Brecon.

We will retain St Athan at its current size for now, but intend to increase its usage to take full advantage of the excellent facilities there. RAF Marham will remain as a base for Tornado GR4. The defence technical training programme will move to Lyneham, guaranteeing its future. More details of these and other estate-related decisions are in the written statement I have laid today. The planning work, including the investment required to adapt sites, will now get under way, based on this strategic direction. It will involve consultations with local communities as appropriate and other statutory obligations that we will need to fulfil.

I am very conscious of the uncertainties that these changes will cause for service personnel and their families. Let me reassure them that the majority of the moves I have announced today will take place after 2015. In both basing and reserves, we have sought wherever possible to strengthen the strong and natural links between local communities and the armed forces. I do not underestimate the importance of these ties in underpinning the military covenant.

The overall package I have announced today is good news for our armed forces and means that they can look forward to the future with renewed confidence because the defence programme I have announced is underpinned with real resources. This investment in people and equipment is not the wish list of the past, but certainty for the future. I commend these decisions to the House.

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

I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, who was tragically killed in Afghanistan over the weekend.

Last week, I offered wide and warm welcome to the Secretary of State for his thoughtful announcements on the Mull of Kintyre. Today, I am afraid, the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to take a different approach. The Government have been grappling with four big policy areas over the past few months: the RAF basing review, reserve forces, the financial settlement and proposed cuts to the Army. Each of those issues is of national importance and each is deserving of a statement in its own right, yet the Secretary of State comes here in what he thought was to be the last full day of Parliament to cram them into one 10-minute speech. This is a shabby way to treat our forces, and a shabby way to treat this Parliament.

The Government have chosen today, at the high point of one of the biggest political crises in decades, to bury this bad news of 10,000 cuts to the Army—a decision that will not take effect for many years to come. Why are the Government again blaming others? These announcements today are their cuts and their choices. The Secretary of State has announced cuts to the Army of 17,000—just under a sixth of the entire force in just 10 short months.

When in opposition, the Secretary of State said:

“In the real world the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the army is already too small”—

and he went on to demand

“A bigger Army for a safer Britain”.

Today, however, he has announced a smaller Army for a country that we can assume he sees as having only smaller ambitions—from a party that promised thousands of extra troops. It is hard to conclude other than this is strategic shrinkage by stealth. Today’s cut in the Army is bigger than the entire current deployment of all UK forces in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State explain why he believes it is in Britain’s strategic national security interest to have an Army so dramatically reduced in size? Will he also say whether this announcement is a result of planning round 11 having been completed?

We welcome any additional investment in our armed forces, and the £1.5 billion from the Treasury is good news, as is the announcement about St Athan. Many of the new capabilities were frozen in the Government’s defence review. We will look at the small print with renewed care, which we have learnt to do in recent months. Notwithstanding last week’s trumpeted announcement on the extension of the operational allowance to Operation Ellamy, hundreds of our forces in Libyan operations will not receive a single penny.

Reservists are great patriots, and provide a bridge to our communities at a time when many people have little understanding of or connection with a large number of our armed forces. They serve with enormous bravery, and we should pay permanent tribute to those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would, of course, be concern if bespoke standing units of reservists became the norm, as that could increase the commitment required from civilians. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of today’s announcement on retention and recruitment, and how does he address the fear that his approach will undermine the “one Army” concept?

Reform of the defence estate is important to ensuring that our armed forces are properly provided for, but there will be fury in Fife. The RAF has been based in Leuchars for more than 70 years, and it is a matter of deep regret that the Government have chosen to break an historic link that has served the nation so well in peace and in war. It is clear that they have not done their homework. They are closing an RAF base to make savings that they have not identified, and are redeploying the Army at costs that they have not quantified. Will the Secretary of State say how much it will cost to convert the RAF base into an Army garrison—because there will be substantial upfront expenditure—and will he guarantee that there will no period without a military presence at Leuchars, which would have a huge impact on the local communities? Will he also commit his Department to detailed research on the defence estates and the industrial footprint of United Kingdom defence in Scotland?

Following the defence review, it is clear that the country is engaged in events that Ministers did not foresee and reliant on equipment that Ministers planned to scrap. We now have a defence policy based on assumptions that are completely out of date. It seems that the Government are starting to face up to the inadequacy of their own defence review. Surely now is the moment for them to think again, and properly to reopen that flawed and rushed review.

[Dr Fox]

That was one of the poorest attacks on a Government that I have ever heard. It is pretty rich for the Opposition, after calling for the statement for so long, to complain when we make it. They also seem to be utterly incapable of understanding, even now, the appalling financial state in which they left not only defence but the United Kingdom in general. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that had we been given a choice—had we not faced a national economic emergency—we would be making spending reductions across the board? We are having to do that because of the mess that the Opposition left behind.

When it comes to numbers, yet again the Opposition seem not to have learned any lessons. They talk about total numbers all the time, but they do not talk about deployability. Yet again they have failed to learn the lessons of the mistakes that they made during their time in office. I want to see British forces that can be deployed better, and I want to see them better trained and properly equipped. When they talk about how much they value the TA, the Opposition would do well to remember that it was they who were cutting the reserves during their last months in office. It was they who were cutting reservists’ training and allowances to save small amounts of money. We do not need any lessons from them in that regard.

We are trying to augment the “one Army” concept by ensuring better interoperability between our reserves and our regular forces. We want our reserves, like those in other countries, to be properly used in a way that gives good value for the investment made in them, and gives them a greater say and more respect within the military family.

Investment had already been made in Leuchars, and I fully accept that some of that investment will be lost. However, we felt that—in the broader scheme of things, and if we were to achieve a better rationalisation of the estate—Lossiemouth was the better choice, given that we had an alternative for Leuchars in the form of investment in the Army in the south of Scotland.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the footprint in Scotland. I should be happy to look at our footprint across the United Kingdom. What we have done is return to Scotland a footprint that is much more akin to what was there when we left office than to what was there when we returned to it.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

I wish to announce the publication today of the Mull of Kintyre review, the report of the independent review of the evidence relating to the findings of the board of inquiry into the fatal accident of an RAF Chinook helicopter at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. It is right that I should begin this statement by paying tribute to the 29 people who died in that accident, one of the worst in the history of the Royal Air Force. As is well known, the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community who were travelling to a meeting in Inverness, and their deaths were a huge blow to the security of this country. They were also a human tragedy for each of the 29 families who were devastated by the loss of their loved ones.

I pledged while in opposition that I would set up a review, because I had worries that an injustice might have been done. The official conclusion that the accident was caused by the negligence to a gross degree of the two pilots on duty that day, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, had been criticised almost since the day it was reached. Doubt had been cast on the findings in different ways by the fatal accident review held in 1995, by the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee of the House in 1998 and 2000, and by the Select Committee appointed in another place in 2002.

A number of Members of the House have continued to voice their doubts over the findings of gross negligence, and I wish to acknowledge the unflagging interest in the case shown by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and others, and also by Sir John Major. I know that the Ministry of Defence considered those reports carefully, taking independent and specialist advice, but given the weight and breadth of the comments, I thought it only right to ask an independent figure to check whether justice had been done.

I announced the establishment of the review—the first independent review of the evidence relating to the accident set up by the Government themselves—to the House on 16 September last year. It was my intention that its report, whatever its findings might be, should draw a line under this matter. It has been carried out by the distinguished former Scottish judge, Lord Philip, with the advice and support of a panel of three fellow Privy Counsellors, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, Baroness Liddell and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I am extremely grateful to all four for their thorough and painstaking approach to the task and for the clarity with which they have presented their recommendations, which are unanimous. I held them all in high regard before, and hold them in higher regard now.

Lord Philip and his colleagues have concluded that the finding that the pilots were negligent to a gross degree should be set aside and that the Ministry of Defence should consider offering an apology to the families of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook. I can tell the House that I have accepted these recommendations. At a specially convened meeting of the Defence Council on Monday it was decided that

“the Reviewing Officers’ conclusions that Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook were negligent to a gross degree are no longer sustainable and must therefore be set aside. We therefore order that those findings shall be set aside”.

I have written to the widows of the two pilots, to the father of Jonathan Tapper and to the brother of Richard Cook to express the Ministry of Defence’s apology for the distress caused by the findings of negligence. I also wish to express that apology publicly in the House today.

Lord Philip’s analysis is very clear. To put it as briefly as I can, he identifies the central point as being that, according to the regulations in force at the time, a finding of negligence should have been made against air crew who had been killed in an accident only if there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” about the matter. Although the two air chief marshals who acted as reviewing officers for the board of inquiry and made the findings had no doubts on the matter, Lord Philip is clear that that is not enough. The question that should have been asked is whether there was any scope for doubt in anyone’s mind. In this case, other competent persons did have doubts, which is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the findings should not stand.

I would like briefly to make four further points. First, the report does not purport to tell us exactly why Chinook ZD576 crashed. It is central to Lord Philip’s report that the exact cause will never be established, and I am convinced that pursuing the matter further would serve only to increase the distress of the families and friends of those who died in the accident. But those who allege that there has been a long-running conspiracy to cover up technical shortcomings in the aircraft will find no support here. The Chinook has had an excellent safety record since the disaster on the Mull. It has been a mainstay of our operations in successive theatres of war and has the full confidence of those who fly it. However, the report reveals that on this occasion the pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft.

Secondly, I want to emphasise that the air chief marshals who made the decision, Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten, who are now retired, were and are highly respected and experienced airmen who acted at all times with full conviction on what was the right and proper course and in good faith. They did not reach their decision lightly and they asked for legal advice. Regrettably, that legal advice, although subsequently endorsed by independent Queen’s counsel, has now proved to be incorrect. I attach no personal blame to these distinguished officers and their advisers.

Thirdly, the procedures for investigating air and other military accidents were changed some years ago, with the result that it is no longer the practice for boards of inquiry, now called service inquiries, to ascribe blame to those involved, whether or not they survived the accident. This is because sometimes the business of ascribing blame can get in the way of finding out what actually happened and, more importantly, preventing any recurrence.

Fourthly, the report makes one further recommendation: that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its policy and procedures for the transport of personnel whose responsibilities are vital to national security. I accept that recommendation as well. It has implications for land and sea transport as well as air transport. I have directed my officials to ensure that the policy and procedures in place across all three services ensure that we do not unnecessarily risk so many individuals who are vital to national security in one vehicle. It is worth noting that Flight Lieutenant Tapper had asked for the passengers on the Chinook to be split between more than one helicopter.

This has been an unhappy affair that has caused much reflection within the RAF and anguish for the families of those who died, particularly the families of those who were wrongly found officially to have been negligent to a gross degree. I hope that this report and the action I have taken in response to it will bring to an end this sad chapter by removing the stain on the reputations of the two pilots.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, join him in his moving tribute to the 29 people who died in this terrible incident and add our continuing condolences to their families. I also join him in offering our support to this unanimous report and the work carried out by Lord Philip, Lord Forsyth, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my noble Friend Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke.

It is over such tragic and controversial events that the whole House should unite to ensure that the right outcome is found in the interests of service personnel, past and present, and their families. It is in our collective interest to establish as much as we can about what happened on 2 June 1994, to learn the right lessons for the Ministry of Defence and the RAF and to come to a settled view for the families of all of those who perished on the Mull of Kintyre. The Secretary of State has my full support in his work towards these objectives.

Successive Secretaries of State, initially Conservative and then Labour, decided to follow the findings of gross negligence produced by the two senior air marshals, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Vice-Marshal Sir John Day. Their view, as the Secretary of State has suggested, overturned the original opinion of the RAF board of inquiry, which had found no evidence to suggest that either pilot was negligent. For gross negligence to be proven, the Queen’s regulations for the RAF state that

“only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent”.

It is a remarkably clear definition, and the contents of today’s report reveal that that test has not been met at any point since 1994.

No one doubts that all those involved in the inquiry acted in good faith, but it is now clear that the two air marshals initially sought, and were given, inadequate legal assistance in their interpretation of the standard of proof. I do not enjoy saying this, but it now also appears that Secretaries of State of both Governments were kept in the dark on differences between the board and the reviewing officers and that Ministers were deprived of the ability to reach a properly informed view. Investigations by the Public Accounts Committee in November 2000 and by a House of Lords Select Committee in November 2001 found that the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry were not justified in attributing gross negligence to the Chinook pilots because the findings did not satisfy the burden of proof required. It is important that in 2001 the board of inquiry rules were changed to ensure that no deceased pilot could ever be found negligent in this way again.

Let me turn to the wider lessons and ask the Secretary of State five specific questions arising from his welcome statement. First, he said that

“the report reveals that…the pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft”.

Will he tell the House how this matter was dealt with at the time by officers involved? Secondly, what issues surrounding compensation for the families of the deceased arise from the report? Thirdly, and I put this gently, the content of today’s announcement was trailed in the media at the weekend, days before Parliament had a chance to see it. Does the Secretary of State intend to carry out any inquiry on the possible leak of some of the contents of today’s report? Fourthly, and more substantially, did Lord Philip’s review find fault with the board of inquiry’s process, and should the make-up of boards of inquiry be changed to remove the perceived conflict of interest identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its previous report? Fifthly, the Secretary of State rightly said that he had written to the relatives of the two pilots, but have the contents of the report been shared with the families of the others who perished on the Mull of Kintyre?

In conclusion, I have said before at the Dispatch Box, and will continue to do so, that when the Government do the right thing they will rightly enjoy our support. Today, in the interests of all the families involved, the right thing is being done and lessons have to be learnt. We fully support what the Secretary of State has said today.

[Dr Fox]

I am extremely grateful for what the shadow Secretary of State has said and the tone in which he presented it to the House.

When we look at the experience under previous Secretaries of State, we see that the inquiries that took place were perhaps not quite focusing on the correct point. In Lord Philip’s inquiry, he very quickly, with his team, went to the point of the matter on a legal basis—that is, as the shadow Secretary of State has said, they grasped that attributing gross negligence could be done only if there was no doubt. This was not about establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the test that most of us would expect normally to be applied—it was an absolutely objective test. Perhaps in previous inquiries we were looking into the details and missing the main point.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of very reasonable questions. In answer to his specific question about how the matter was handled at the time, I refer him to paragraph 7.2.2 of the report, which says:

“We were told that Flt Lt Tapper telephoned his Deputy Flight Commander on the evening before the delivery of ZD576 to Northern Ireland expressing concern that some time had passed since his conversion training. He felt unprepared to fly the aircraft. He had attempted to persuade the tasking authority to spread the load between more than one aircraft, but his request had been refused.”

Yes, there will be questions of compensation arising. I spoke today to some of the families involved, but I did not feel that today was the appropriate time to be talking about money when there are very serious points of principle and we are opening up a very difficult emotional period for the families. However, we will undoubtedly take this forward in the usual way with those families.

As regards details appearing in the media, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that very many of those were completely wrong. I suspect that people were making educated guesses that turned out to be not so educated.

Finally, neither Lord Philip nor his team criticised the initial board of inquiry. The problem came with the reviewing officers who attributed gross negligence when the board of inquiry had not come to a specific conclusion about who or what was to blame for the crash.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

That is the natural way in which defence is developing in this country, as in others. We wanted to set up the joint force command to carry that process forward in a constructive and transparent way. It will also, as I said in my statement to the House, allow career progression right up to four-star level for those who might not get preferment through the traditional single-service structure. It is therefore not only good for defence but a thoroughly meritocratic reform.

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

I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments about our missing soldier in Afghanistan, and I appreciate the fact that he took the time to brief me personally earlier this afternoon. We all know that our forces are both brave and brilliant, and this is a reminder of the daily danger they face. The Opposition, the entire House and, more importantly, everyone in the country, regardless of their view on the conflict in Afghanistan, will wish the Government and our forces well in rescuing this individual soldier.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that not a penny piece that is currently planned for supporting the operation in Afghanistan will be affected by the implementation of the recommendations of the Levene report?

[Dr Fox]

Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have ensured that nothing in our military planning, nothing that we are doing in Libya and nothing that is happening financially will in any way undermine our operations in Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

It is difficult to give an accurate figure, but I will try to obtain one from the provincial reconstruction team and write to the hon. Gentleman. What is clear is that, while we have taken a large amount of military equipment and money to Afghanistan, perhaps the most important thing that we have taken there is hope: hope for a generation who may be able to be educated and to have some economic capabilities of their own in the future, which events have denied to recent generations in Afghanistan.

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

We read in the newspapers this week that the Prime Minister plans to announce a further troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. The whole country will feel disappointed that our forces have again had to learn of news through media leaks. As we head towards the 2014 deadline, can the Secretary of State repeat his guarantee that decisions about troop numbers will be based on conditions on the ground and on best available military advice, not on politics or other arbitrary factors?

[Dr Fox]

Given the last Government’s record, for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan being leaked to the newspapers is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. We said very clearly that there would be a reduction of 426. Some 200 troops have already been withdrawn, largely because they were involved in logistic tasks above and beyond our core number. Any reduction in the core number, particularly in our force in Helmand, will be announced after discussions in the National Security Council between the relevant politicians and Departments and the military.

Defence Reform

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

Last August I asked Lord Levene to undertake a fundamental review of the way in which the Ministry of Defence is structured and managed. Today I am publishing the independent report led by him. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank him and all the members of his steering group both for that excellent report and for setting us all an example by delivering it early.

Lord Levene’s group has recommended a radical new approach to the management of defence, and I am pleased to say that I agree with him, as do my ministerial colleagues, all the chiefs of staff and my permanent secretary. We have already taken forward some of the recommendations.

No one in this Government was under any illusions about the scale of the challenge that we inherited in defence, which Lord Levene’s report confirms. We have already introduced changes to budgetary control, the reform of procurement, export promotion, small and medium-sized enterprise development and changes to our armed forces. The strategic defence and security review set a clear direction for policy and will deliver coherent, efficient and cutting-edge armed forces fit for the challenges of the future. As a result, Britain will remain in the premier league of military powers.

However, the vision of the SDSR cannot be achieved without tackling the drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability in how defence is managed, and Lord Levene’s report provides the blueprint for the necessary transformation. Before I set out his recommendations in more detail, let me first acknowledge the great strength that resides within our people in defence. They are professional, committed and often frustrated by a system that all too frequently lets them down. Among other things, the report describes a Department bedevilled with weak decision making and poor accountability, in which there is insufficient focus on affordability and proper financial management. Lord Levene’s steering group proposes a new, simpler and more cost-effective model for departmental management, with a clear allocation of responsibility, authority and accountability. That will build on the strengths of the individual services within a single defence framework that ensures that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It will be underpinned by a number of core themes.

First, to date individuals in defence have been asked to deliver defence outputs, but not given the means with which to do so effectively and efficiently. Authority must be aligned with responsibility, and budget holders should have the levers that they need in order to deliver. They should then be held robustly to account. In the past, the decisions that should have been made centrally have been ducked, and head office and Ministers have delved into tactical-level detail.

The defence reform unit recommends a strengthened decision-making framework for defence, centred on a new, leaner defence board based around the Defence Secretary, who will chair it and make the decisions. He will be supported by the permanent secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff, who will bring to the meeting the views of the single service chiefs. I have already established that new board, and I chaired the first meeting last week. The new group will offer the type of decisive and focused strategic direction that has been so lacking in recent years.

Secondly, financial management must be tightened and a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level of the MOD. The review recommends a new planning and financial model. Within that framework, we will empower the chiefs to run their individual services. Our single service chiefs are the custodians of their services, the fundamental building blocks of defence. Sadly, they are currently forced to devote far too much of their time to trying to influence policy and haggle over funding in London, which is a pointless waste of time and talent.

In the new model, the service chiefs will get clearer direction from the defence board, carry out the detailed military capability planning needed across equipment, manpower and training, and then propose how best to deliver that strategic direction. Once that is agreed, they will be given greater freedom to veer and haul between priorities within their own service to deliver what is needed in defence. They will enjoy long-denied freedoms, and they will be held robustly to account for doing so.

Allowing the chiefs to spend more time with their service reduces the requirement for commander-in-chief appointments, which will be phased out as part of a general reduction in senior posts. We will work closely with the Treasury on how to deliver that major change, but I am confident that when they are properly supported, trained and directed, our people at the point of delivery are best placed to run their business, not those at the centre. Micro-management must be consigned to the past.

Thirdly, the service chiefs have an established role as advocates for their service, but powerful single-service advocacy can sometimes be at the cost of joint or cross-cutting capability. The report has recommended that we create a new Joint Forces Command. It will manage and deliver specific joint enabling capabilities and set the framework for other joint enablers within the single services. It would include the permanent joint headquarters and be led by a new four-star commander. Joint Force Command will therefore be an important organisation in its own right but also have a symbolic purpose, reflecting our view of how conflict will develop, and providing a natural home for some of the capabilities of the future, such as cyber, as well as reinforcing joint thinking, joint behaviours, and the new generation of officers in defence. It offers a new opportunity for career progression right to the top and a challenging and intellectual career for those who otherwise may not have been attracted to defence. It is a fundamentally meritocratic reform. It may also be a path for service personnel who are injured on operations and unable to serve on the front line, but who are still determined to serve their country.

Fourthly, the report rightly challenges us to consider whether we maximise talent across defence. Be it in promotion, the development of key skills, or helping our people choose the right career path, more can and should be done. The report has concluded that we must pursue more vigorously the principle that posts be filled by the right person, with the right skills, for the right length of time. Buggins’s turn must not interfere with the promotion of the right person for the job. Nor can we have the sort of musical chairs that occurred in the past.

Lord Levene has therefore recommended that we move to a system whereby most senior civilian and military individuals stay in post for longer than at present, as a rule for up to five years. That will allow our people to establish themselves in their roles, and invest the time they need to make a real difference to defence and be held to account for their performance.

To ensure that we maximise delivery on the front line, Lord Levene has recommended that we review all non-front-line posts across defence, beginning at the senior and management levels, including an assessment of the most cost-effective balance of regular military, reservists, civil servants and contractors. We are top heavy and that must end.

Most significantly, Lord Levene recommends that we adopt a new, more “joint” model for the management of senior military personnel to make the promotion and appointment processes more transparent and standardised, and to encourage the development of officers with strong joint credentials.

Lord Levene’s report covers far more than I have been able to address here. It is a thorough and compelling analysis that deserves close attention. I am confident that when the people in defence review the recommendations, they will recognise this work not as a criticism, but as a constructive critique of a Department in need of reform, and that they will relish, as I do, the challenges that it represents.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and Lord Levene and his team for their work in recent months.

It is right to start by paying tribute again to our armed forces. They defend our values and secure our interests. Today, in Afghanistan, Libya and around the world brave men and women are doing just that: protecting our national security and that of others. With armed forces day still in mind, we must all reflect on and give thanks for their patriotism and sacrifice. We all have a responsibility to ensure that they have the support and equipment they need to do their job.

Reform of the Ministry of Defence is a vital element of that. Successful reform should strengthen the bottom line and bolster the front line, enhancing Britain’s ability to project force and tackle new threats, and to do so cost-effectively. It is important that efficiencies are sought for that purpose and not for reasons of strategic shrinkage by stealth.

Based on the limited details in the Secretary of State’s statement—we look forward to debating them at a later date—we welcome the focus on cyber, widening the pool of promotion, making chiefs more accountable for spending and, in principle, some of the changes in MOD structure.

On streamlining in the senior ranks, Labour Members agree with measures to balance the higher levels of the military. Of course, no two situations are the same, but as our force numbers continue to fall, it cannot be right that the US Marine corps, which is 15% larger than all our armed forces put together, has five times fewer senior officers. Efficiency must run from top to bottom. The difficulty will be in the implementation, but we support the introduction of a Joint Forces Command. A joint approach to structures is welcome as that reflects how operations are now routinely conducted.

Let me consider the changes to the defence board. Single service orientation must not be an impediment to decisions about equipment and acquisition programmes, which must be tied solely to defence policy objectives. However, does not the fact that the Secretary of State has chosen to act on inter-service rivalry after the strategic defence and security review demonstrate, at least in part, the problem of that inter-service rivalry?

Of course, there are strong arguments in favour of the reform of the defence board, but last week, unfortunately, the Prime Minister told service chiefs:

“I’ll do the talking…you do the fighting”.

Unfortunately, today’s announcement of the removal of the three service chiefs from the defence board will be seen by some as a structural confirmation of that strident sentiment. It is beyond doubt that there is now at least a partial fracture in the relationship between Ministers and service chiefs, and the Secretary of State must make the case more carefully in the next few months than his boss has done in the past few days. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that service chiefs were wrong when they said that services are running hot and will be unable to sustain the current tempo of operations in Libya beyond September? Will he tell us how he will better incorporate military advice into those new decision-making procedures?

On MOD finances, I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that successful MOD operations are dependent on the defence budget being on a stable footing. However, today in the media, for hours on end, the Secretary of State blamed the previous Administration for the cuts that he has chosen to make. Let me remind the House that he agreed with each of our spending decisions on defence, and called for even greater spending on a bigger Army, Navy and Air Force, and more equipment for all three services. Is not the truth that, owing to the rushed and arbitrary decisions taken in the defence review, the Government have created their own black hole? They saw efficiency savings where they could not find them, and are engaged in events that they did not foresee.

The Secretary of State has his own financial legacy to deal with. In opposition, he spent just as much time demanding more as he has spent in government providing less. Will he therefore answer the following questions? First, will he tell the House whether there is any truth to reports that the mismatch between the MOD’s assumptions and the spending settlement is up to £10 billion, which would be a greater overall cut than was made in the SDSR? Secondly, will he confirm that there are to be further cuts to the size of the Army in this Parliament? Thirdly, will he say what work will cease within the MOD in order to cut the number of civil servants by 25,000?

On procurement, the positions that the Government currently hold of using open competition on the open market, buying off the shelf and promoting exports, are inconsistent. Will the major projects board have as its remit the maintenance of a competitive, highly skilled UK defence industry? In that spirit, what sovereign capabilities does he believe the UK should maintain and promote over the longer term?

In conclusion, the Opposition welcome much of today’s statement, and we look forward to scrutinising it in detail and discussing it in the House. However, the Secretary of State must know that there is real disappointment not about what is in the statement, but about something that is not in it. On this, the 100th day of operations in Libya, in which forces are using equipment that the Government had previously planned to scrap, it is surely now time once and for all to have a new, post-Arab spring chapter of the defence review. Such an announcement would be welcomed on both sides of the House and throughout the country.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome of the report and its contents. It is an important report and it is very detailed, and there will be opportunities for the House to debate it more fully, not least because the Government will want to look at some of the report’s more detailed recommendations and tell the House how we intend to implement them.

I was particularly keen that the shadow Defence Secretary accept the proposal for the Joint Force Command, which he has done. The command is a good way forward for our armed forces, and represents a strong consensual basis for moving forward on defence policy in the UK. Of course, we are all aware of the contribution of our armed forces—today, many of us would like in particular to pay tribute to the RAF Regiment and its contribution.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, the defence board proposal is not a reaction to anything that has happened in the short term. This has been 10 months in gestation. Lord Levene and his team, including the vice-chief of the defence staff and the second permanent under-secretary, were very clear that we needed a simpler, more manageable defence board. It is of course fed by both the ministerial committee and the chief of staff committee, through the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Minister for the Armed Forces, into the committee representing other ministerial and the chiefs’ views.

When it comes to plans for the Army, we have no plans to reduce its size in this Parliament. On the 25,000 cut in the civil service, I regret that we are having to make reductions of that size, but we recognise that we have to do it to deal with the financial legacy that we inherited from the previous Government. However, we believe that we can make the cut while maintaining our full function. We believe that the best way to help the British defence industry is to support British defence exports.

Finally, on the question of Libya, when we make statements about Libya we must be careful about the messages. Colonel Gaddafi and his cronies will be listening to the messages we send, and the only message that we should send is that we have the military capability and the political and moral resolve to see through the task that the international community has begun. Anything else would risk civilian lives in Libya.

Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our nuclear deterrent programme.

The House will be aware that we have been considering the next stage of investment—called initial gate—in the programme to deliver a successor to our current nuclear deterrent. This is the point in the Ministry of Defence’s procurement cycle at which we decide on broad design parameters, set out our plans for detailed system assessment and order any long lead items that might be required. Taking this action enables us to be sure that we will make the right decisions at the key investment stage, at the main gate, which for this submarine programme will be in 2016. I am announcing today that we have approved the initial gate investment and selected a submarine design that will be powered by a new generation of nuclear propulsion system—the pressurised water reactor 3—that will allow our submarines to deliver our nuclear deterrent capability well into the 2060s if required.

At this milestone in the project, I think it is useful for me to remind the House of this Government’s policy on the nuclear deterrent. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people. The nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and for the past 42 years the Royal Navy has successfully operated continuous deterrent patrols to ensure just that. I pay tribute to the crews and support staff who ensure the continued success of deterrent operations, and I extend that tribute to the families of all those personnel, many of whom are regularly away from home for long periods.

We assess that no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the United Kingdom, but we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge. We simply do not know how the international environment will change in the next few years, let alone the next 50 years; and as this House concluded in 2007 when it voted on whether the UK should start a programme to renew the deterrent, the time is simply not right to do away with it unilaterally. That is not to say that if the time is right we will not move away from nuclear weapons at some time in the future. Our long-term goal remains a world without them, and we are doing all we can to counter proliferation, to make progress on multilateral disarmament, and to build trust and confidence with nations across the globe.

In this spirit, as part of the value-for-money study we reviewed carefully how we manage our deterrent programme, and concluded that we could take significant steps to demonstrate our commitment to disarmament: by reducing the number of warheads carried on each deterrent submarine from no more than 48 to no more than 40; by consequently reducing our overall stockpile of nuclear weapons from no more than 225 to no more than 180 in due course; and by giving a stronger assurance to non-nuclear weapon states in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The value-for-money study delivered £3 billion of savings and deferrals over the next 10 years.

The coalition agreement reflected both coalition parties’ commitment to a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, but also the desire of the Liberal Democrats to make the case for alternatives. As Secretary of State for Defence, I am absolutely clear that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the United Kingdom and that it should be maintained, and that remains Government policy; but to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives, I am also announcing today the initiation of a study to review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures. The study will be led by Cabinet Office officials overseen by the Minister for the Armed Forces. A copy of the terms of reference of the study will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

As I have said, the Government have approved the initial gate for the nuclear deterrent successor programme. We have now agreed the broad outline design of the submarine, made some of the design choices—including the propulsion system and the common US-UK missile compartment—and the programme of work we need to start building the first submarine after 2016. We have also agreed the amount of material and parts we will need to buy in advance of the main investment decision.

We expect the next phase of work to cost in the region of £3 billion. That is a significant sum, but I am confident that it represents value for money for the taxpayer, as every aspect of the programme has been carefully reviewed by MOD, Treasury and Cabinet Office officials. It will fund the programme that we need to conduct to make sure that we can bring the submarines into service on time. Overall, we assess that the submarine element of the programme will still cost within the £11 billion to £14 billion estimate set out in the 2006 White Paper, but these costs were estimated at 2006 prices, of course, and did not account for inflation. The equivalent sum today is £20 billion to £25 billion at out-turn, but it is important to recognise that there has been no cost growth in the programme since the House first considered the findings of the White Paper.

Between now and main gate we expect to spend about 15% of the total value of the programme. That is entirely consistent with defence procurement guidance. The cost of long lead items is expected to amount to about £500 million, but it is not true to say that large parts of the build programme will have been completed by main gate. Although we are ordering some of the specialist components, that does not mean that we are locked into any particular strategy before main gate in 2016.

I would like to focus for a moment on the matter of nuclear safety. There has been some ill-informed comment suggesting that our nuclear propulsion systems are not safe. That is simply not true. All our nuclear propulsion plants meet the stringent safety standards set out by the defence nuclear safety regulator and the Health and Safety Executive. However, we are developing a new design of submarine, and it is right that we take advantage of the opportunity that that affords to advance our policy of seeking continual improvement of nuclear safety. A new propulsion plant allows us to do that while also giving us the opportunity to improve the availability of propulsion systems and lower through-life support costs.

I have announced a major step forward in this programme. We have some of the finest submarine builders in the world, and the approval of the next phase of work in the programme will secure the jobs of the highly skilled and professional work force already involved in it, as well as providing further opportunities for the engineers and apprentices of the future. However, both my Department and industry will have much to do to deliver this programme and to ensure both that we continue to maintain the sustainability of the submarine industry and that we improve performance and drive costs down through more efficient and inclusive working. I am confident that all sides will respond to this challenge.

This is a programme of great national importance, so today I am placing in the Library of the House a report that sets out in detail the work that has been completed so far, the key decisions that I have presented to the House today, and the work that is required over the coming months and years. I believe that the decisions we have taken on our nuclear deterrent programme at initial gate are the right decisions for the country and that, as a result, future generations will continue to benefit from the security we have been so fortunate to enjoy.

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

I thank the Secretary of State both for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in paying tribute to all our forces operating our deterrent and their families, and to our skilled civilian work force who help to build and maintain our defence capabilities. Let me also stress once again that where the Government do the right thing on defence policy, we will, in the national interest, support them.

Britain’s independent deterrent has been the cornerstone of our peace and security for over half a century, and our view is that, in today’s world, as long as there are other countries with such capability it is right that the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent. In what will be a detailed debate on the military, technical and financial aspects of today’s announcement, there is a careful judgment to be made: whether we believe the threats posed to our nation and our interests to be such that we are more secure with the UK having our own independent deterrent. Most of us believe in a world free of nuclear weapons and a multilateral process to achieve that, whereas others take a different and unilateralist view, born of a myriad of traditions such as faith, passivism, political commitment or concerns about costs. I respect all those views but take a different approach.

The previous Government met their commitment in the December 2006 White Paper to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160, meaning that the UK has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 75% since the end of the cold war. We welcome this Government’s announcements in the strategic defence and security review to reduce the number of operationally available warheads and the overall weapons stockpile. We will continue strongly to advocate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Its three pillars—non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to use civil nuclear power peacefully—provide the framework around which we should base our policy.

The greatest nuclear threats we face today come from proliferation and unilateral armament, specifically from North Korea, which we know has a nuclear capability, and Iran, which we know has nuclear ambitions. The most robust response to those threats is for the UK to remain committed to the NPT and to be an active disarmer, alongside our allies and other nuclear weapons states. Maintaining our independent deterrent as part of international non-proliferation efforts is therefore vital in enabling us to combat the threats we face at home, and to sustain regional and global security.

I now wish to deal with some specific questions about the review announced today. In 2007, Parliament took the view that it would support the position set out by the previous Government in the 2006 White Paper of replacing the current Vanguard class submarines and maintaining an independent, continuous at-sea submarine-based nuclear deterrent. The decision then was based on evidence and military advice. The Government have announced today that as we move towards main gate there is logic in looking again at some of the defence capability and financial issues relating to how best to maintain a credible, minimum, independent nuclear deterrent. It is important that this is an open process. What is crucial is that the process is evidence-based and in the interests of national security, and that it is not, on occasion, driven by the dynamic within the coalition parties.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. Will the review look at the Government’s procurement policy in this Parliament for materials for successor submarines? Will the review look at international co-operation over nuclear policy, including deeper co-operation with France above and beyond the agreements made in the UK-France defence co-operation treaty, which we welcomed? Finally, on the review, can he confirm that the Minister for the Armed Forces is a one-man ministerial review team?

It was announced in the SDSR that initial gate was due to take place by the end of 2010. Can the Secretary of State tell us the reason for the delay and how much it will add to the cost of the programme over its lifetime? He said there were £500 million of costs for long lead items. Can he say what these items are? Can he say what the total cost of the replacement programme will be, and over what period? He made some comments about that, but can he also say from which budgets the overall costs will be met? Can he say whether both the running and construction costs will come from the core defence budget, and whether he has any estimate on the impact that may have on other equipment programmes?

The SDSR stated that the Government would reduce the costs of the successor programme by a total of £3.2 billion over the next 10 years. Can the Secretary of State say whether that takes into account the £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion additional costs of extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines in service until 2028? What reassurances has he been given that extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines is indeed safe? Can he make it clear how much is being spent on the new PWR3 reactors, and over what period?

In conclusion, Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, and we welcome the announcements made today by the Government. This decision will have an impact on our nation and beyond for decades to come, and it is crucial that government find additional ways to involve Parliament in the decision-making process. Labour will always do what is right for the UK’s defence and national interests, and the country would expect the Government to continue to do the same.

Armed Forces Covenant

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the armed forces covenant. The Government have no higher duty than the defence of the realm, and the nation has no greater obligation than to look after those who have served it. The men and women of the three services, regulars and reservists, whether they are serving today or have done so in the past, their families and those who have lost a loved one in service, all deserve our support and respect. That obligation is encapsulated in the armed forces covenant.

The ties between the nation, its Government, and its armed forces are not the product of rules and regulations, nor of political fashion. They are much deeper than that. They have endured for generations and they go to the heart of our national life. The armed forces covenant therefore does not need to be a long and detailed charter. It should be a simple and timeless statement of the moral obligation that we owe. We are therefore publishing today a new version of the covenant, written for the first time on a tri-service basis.

The covenant is enduring, but it will mean different things at different times. The expectations of today’s servicemen and women are, rightly, different from those of their predecessors. Alongside the covenant we have published guidance on what we believe it means in today’s circumstances. It sets out a framework for how the members of the armed forces community can expect to be treated, and the aspirations and expectations that we believe are implicit in the covenant.

The covenant and the guidance do not, however, describe what the Government are doing to put that into effect. That is why I am also publishing a paper, entitled “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, that sets out the practical measures we are taking to support the covenant. The paper brings together the commitments we have already made with the new measures that I am announcing today.

A number of those measures take forward the ideas of Professor Hew Strachan, who led an independent taskforce on the covenant last year. I should like to record the Government’s thanks—and, I imagine, the Opposition’s thanks—for his extremely valuable work. Today, we are also publishing the Government’s full response to his report.

One of Professor Strachan’s most important recommendations was the introduction of a community covenant. That will strengthen communities and build new links between them, local government and the armed forces. I can today announce that we are allocating up to £30 million over the next four years to support joint projects, at a local level, between the services or veterans groups and the wider community.

The Armed Forces Bill, which the House will shortly have a further opportunity to consider, contains provision for an annual report on the armed forces covenant, which is designed to strengthen this House’s ability to scrutinise how we are fulfilling our obligations. In that way, the existence of the covenant is being recognised in statute for the first time, as promised by the Prime Minister last year.

In deciding how best to recognise the covenant in law, the Government have had to maintain a careful balance. On the one hand, we do not want to see the chain of command undermined or the military permanently involved in human rights cases in the European Courts. On the other, we must ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the wider service community, the armed forces charities and the British public for our armed forces are met.

We believe that a sensible way forward—one that will give the right kind of legal basis to the armed forces covenant for the first time in our history—is to enshrine the principles in law, provide a regular review of the policies that will make them a reality, ensure that Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that review through the annual report, and ensure that the report itself is widely informed, consultative and transparent. I believe that it is right for the Government to be held to account on delivering the principles underpinning the covenant by this House, and not by the European Courts. That is what our approach will ensure.

I want to highlight two important aspects. First, the Government will set out on the face of the Armed Forces Bill the key principles that we believe underpin both the covenant and any report on its implementation. Ensuring that members of the armed forces community do not suffer disadvantage as a result of their service, and that where appropriate they receive special treatment, are at the heart of the armed forces covenant. I can tell the House this afternoon that the Government will bring forward amendments before Third Reading to require the Secretary of State to address those principles in preparing his report to Parliament, and to recognise the unique nature of service life.

Secondly, I made clear to the House on 10 January our commitment to consult stakeholders on the annual report. We intend to consult widely in its preparation, and prior to laying it before the House will give external reference group members from outside Government the opportunity to comment on it. We will also publish any observations alongside it.

We are working with the external reference group to update its terms of reference in line with its significant new role. The Government place great importance on maintaining our dialogue with bodies such as the service families federations and the major service and ex-service charities, which tell us what is happening on the ground, and I pay tribute to the invaluable contribution they make to the welfare of the armed forces community. In particular, I pay tribute to the contribution to this debate of the Royal British Legion, which continues to do such outstanding work in support of our armed forces.

The armed forces covenant is not just about words; it is about actions. The men and women of our armed forces judge us by what we do to improve their lives and those of their families. Since taking office, the coalition Government have taken a series of important measures to rebuild the covenant. I shall mention just some of them: we have doubled the operational allowance; we have included service children in the pupil premium; we have introduced scholarships for the children of bereaved service families; and we have taken action to improve mental health care. These measures are especially impressive when set against the background of the dire economic situation in which the Government must operate as a result of the previous Government’s legacy.

There is much still to do, however. I have always been clear that our commitment to rebuild the covenant is a journey that we are beginning, not something we can do overnight, and I believe that the British people understand that. We are continuing to take action, however, and I am today announcing additional measures that will tackle some of the problems experienced by serving personnel, their families and veterans. I have already mentioned the new community covenant grant scheme. However, we are also setting up a new fund of £3 million per year over and above the pupil premium arrangements to support state schools catering for significant numbers of service children. We will also launch a veterans card that will allow access to discounts and privileges.

Furthermore, in helping injured personnel, we will guarantee that veterans suffering serious genital injuries have access to three cycles of IVF, wherever they live. We will also increase the rate of council tax relief for military personnel serving on operations overseas from 25% to 50%. In addition, between now and the summer recess, I expect there to be further announcements that will again underline that this is a priority across the whole of Government, and not just for Defence. Today Ministers are chairing a meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree ways to improve access to housing for our service people. The Health Secretary and I are looking forward to the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on how to improve further the supply of prosthetics for injured personnel. Also, we will consider how to ensure that the guaranteed income payments made under the armed forces compensation scheme are not required to be used to pay for social care provided by the public sector.

The obligation we owe to our service men and women, set against the commitment and sacrifice that they make, is enormous. In the current financial climate we cannot do as much to honour that obligation, or do it as quickly, as we would like, but we can make clear the road on which we are embarked. Our understanding of the covenant will change over time, as will the way in which the Government and society meet it. The framework we have set out today provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that not only the Government but all of society can fully pay the enormous debt they owe to our armed forces, their families and our veterans. I commend it to the House.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for my advance sight of it. I would also like to place on record the Opposition’s appreciation of Professor Strachan and his sterling work.

Today we are reminded of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make in defence of our country. They and their families are in all our hearts. Their actions overseas make Britain’s streets safer, and we not only honour them, but celebrate their immeasurable professionalism and bravery. In that context we support the headline measures announced in today’s statement, which can improve the well-being of service communities.

However, in the military covenant it appears that the Government are doing the right thing for entirely the wrong reason. The Armed Forces Bill is currently going through Parliament, and was meant to be debated just last week. The Government faced concerted pressure in Parliament—along with enormous concern in the country—to amend the Bill and enshrine the military covenant in law. However, at short notice and in the face of almost certain defeat in Parliament, that was delayed so that Ministers could organise this retreat, which they are announcing today.

As someone who has been open in saying that we should have gone further in the past to take the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics and put its principles in law, I congratulate all who played a part in the campaign. However, the Secretary of State today finds himself in the peculiar position of announcing a policy that he recently voted against. In February my colleagues and I tabled an Opposition day motion that called for

“establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s pledge”.

The Secretary of State, his Front-Bench team and the entire Cabinet voted against the motion.

The Minister responsible for veterans has been the principal covenant-denier. In February he said in Committee that to “write down” the covenant and

“try to codify it by statute would be, frankly…surprising.”

He continued:

“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law.” ––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 10 February 2011; c.20-21.]

Those were the words of Ministers in February. Although today’s announcement is welcome, it is not an action of conviction by the Government, but an act of submission to the parliamentary arithmetic that was building against them.

In the few minutes that I have, let me turn to the other measures in today’s statement and strike a more bipartisan tone. Many of the announced measures appear to have their roots in the 2008 Command Paper on service personnel. We will want to look at the detail of today’s proposals. Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions and invite him to offer the House, and forces families, direct answers. Can he say what criteria will be used to identify those qualifying for council tax relief, and whether they will be the same as for those receiving the operational allowance? Will those currently serving in Libya or Afghanistan benefit from the policy?

The announcement on concessionary travel is welcome. The Secretary of State will know that the Command Paper announced that the bus concession in England would be extended to include service personnel and veterans under the age of 60 who were seriously injured. Can he share with the House whether his announcement today is the implementation of that policy, or whether it is an entirely new announcement?

On housing, can the Secretary of State say whether today’s announcement is in addition to or supersedes the introduction by the previous Government in January last year of the shared equity armed forces home ownership scheme? How many forces families will benefit from the scheme announced today? He has said that a new veteran’s card will be introduced. We strongly welcome that, but again, the Minister responsible for veterans said in February that

“the Government still have no intention of introducing a veterans card,”

adding:

“I do not think that a veterans ID card is necessary, even in relation to access to commercial discounts.”––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 17 February 2011; c. 102.]

What role will the veterans card have if it is not to be used for commercial discounts? Will the Secretary of State say who will pay for the card and how much it will cost?

My final specific question is to invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he would consider exempting the seriously injured and war widows from the impact of recent pensions and benefits indexation changes, which will lead to enormous financial loss on the part of those who have given so much to our country. I am sure that the House and the British people would like to know his thoughts on that matter.

I have asked a number of questions in response to direct announcements made today by the Secretary of State. We will support today’s announcement, but we will scrutinise it. We will want to know which of the announcements are genuinely new and involve new investment. However, the Government are entitled to widespread support on setting out to enshrine the military covenant properly in law. If they set out to achieve what they have announced today, the Opposition will strongly support them in that.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful for the welcome—the basic welcome—that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Yes, it is perfectly true that the Opposition raised some of the issues in a recent debate—except that they would not define what they meant, nor would they tell us what rights they might create or how they would pay for them, yet they expected us to take them seriously. The reason why we have taken time to produce these reports and responses to detailed work is that we want to get the policies right and do the right thing for our armed forces, their families and their personnel.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the doubling of council tax relief. As I said, this will be 50% for personnel on eligible operations overseas. It will go to all those who currently get the 25% discount, which is a wider definition than that used for the operational allowance, but not to all those serving overseas—for example, in Germany. He also asked about the launching of the veterans card. It will be used to access commercial discounts or privileges, and we will consider how to expand it to include service families. It is linked to the relaunch of the defence discount scheme next year. It is not an ID card, for the reasons that we consistently gave in Committee and in the House.

On indexation, when the change was made from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, none of us in the coalition Government wanted to see anyone in the public sector disadvantaged—but may I remind the Labour party that it left us with a £158 billion deficit, which has to be addressed? We will spend more on debt interest next year than on defence, the Foreign Office and aid put together. That is the scale of the problem, and it is the deficit deniers who are now on the Opposition Benches who put this country at risk. They had 13 years in office, yet they now have the audacity, after 12 months, to tell us that we are doing things at the eleventh hour. No credibility!

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I confirmed over the weekend that NATO is continually reassessing the target sets within the targeting directive, which itself follows from resolution 1973. We believe that at all times the target-setting has been well within the requirements of that resolution, and I take responsibility for the setting, observation and implementation of targets very seriously indeed.

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

The Secretary of State will know that we are committed to a bipartisan approach on Libya. I join the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), in his condolences and prayers for the family of one officer, Graham Bean, and the as yet unnamed Royal Marine.

The men and women of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air force have done remarkable work in and around Libya. However, may I ask the Secretary of State about the comment by the First Sea Lord that if operations around Libya were to last longer than six months, a significant “challenge” would be created? Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment, and what military advice has he received about maintaining the current UK tempo of military activity beyond those six months?

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support, but, as he is well aware, contingency planning goes on because we do not know how long Colonel Gaddafi will continue his resistance to international opinion and in the face of international law. We will continue to look at the range of contingencies, but we all hope that Colonel Gaddafi will recognise that the game is up either sooner or later—hopefully sooner—so that the cost, in terms not just of money but, more important, of lives, is minimised in the months ahead. We will look at all contingencies, but it is important to recognise that we are resolute and that the work of the international community, whose military leaders met at the weekend, will not cease until the task is properly carried out.

[Mr Murphy]

I welcome that response, but today’s newspapers report further MOD cuts and the fact that the MOD is undertaking a three-month internal spending review. The Secretary of State says ,“We will look at all contingencies”, but in the light of those reports, the events in Libya and the rest of north Africa, and the further events that are spreading across the middle east, should he not finally agree with Lord Ashdown, General Dannatt, the Army Families Federation and most members of the defence community that now is the time to reopen the rushed and increasingly discredited Government defence review?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I have just said, we always ensure that the assets are available. I asked the armed forces to look at whether we could have a temporary extension for the R1 until we were sure that we had sufficient alternative assets to be able to provide us with the same capability. That work is being undertaken at the moment.

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

We all pay tribute to the work that our forces are carrying out in and around Libya at the moment, and we support the Government’s work in attempting to achieve a no-fly zone. However, there remain serious issues about earlier decisions, not least on HMS Cumberland, which has done so much off Benghazi, but whose next journey will be to be decommissioned. Also, some Nimrod aircraft that were previously bound for scrap may have won a temporary reprieve. Given that the National Audit Office report says that the RAF currently has only

“eight pilots who are capable of undertaking ground attack missions on Typhoon”,

and that that will not be sufficient in future, why does the Secretary of State think it is right to sack almost 200 trainee pilots?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said repeatedly in the House, we have had to reduce the number of aircraft available for the future as part of the strategic defence and security review, not least because of the budgetary position that we inherited. It does no good whatsoever to the credibility of the Opposition to complain about reductions made as a result of their budgetary incompetence when they will not tell us what their budget would be or what cuts they would support or not support.

[Mr Murphy]

The Secretary of State should spare us the lecture. This from a Government who allow soldiers to be sacked by e-mail, whose actions mean that this week, for the first time in decades, we do not have the ability to put an aircraft carrier to sea, and who will not guarantee that anyone currently serving in Afghanistan will be exempt from being sacked. The defence review was rushed; it has not survived the first contact with world events. Three words missing from it were Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Many experts are worried about new gaps in capability. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no future cuts in military capability in the lifetime of this Parliament?

[Dr Fox]

The word missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s comments was “sorry”—sorry for the position in which he left our armed forces, with an MOD budget massively over-committed at £158 billion. What Labour Members still have not recognised is that their own economic incompetence is a liability for this country’s national security in the long term. We are taking the measures to put this country back on a firm footing in a way that they never could and never had the courage to do.

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on redundancies in the armed forces.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

On 19 October last year, in the strategic defence and security review, the Government announced reductions in the size of the armed forces, reducing the Army by 7,000, the RAF by 5,000 and the Navy by 5,000. This was to reshape the armed forces for Future Force 2020 and also to respond to the budgetary pressures resulting from the need to reduce the inherited deficit and deal with the black hole in the Ministry of Defence’s finances.

Following the announcement, normal procedure for proceeding with the redundancies was followed. Let me briefly describe this. The armed forces modelled the manpower that they needed for Future Force 2020 and consulted their own people on the best methods and time scales for achieving that. The families federations have been kept fully informed. Yesterday’s announcements were simply part of that process. Following yesterday’s announcement of the RAF programme, the Army and Navy will follow on 4 April with their programmes. The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September, followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided.

Afghanistan is the Government’s defence main effort. Decisions in the SDSR were therefore weighted towards the protection of capability for the mission in Afghanistan, which, as the Prime Minister has said, will see us transition to full Afghan lead in 2014.

Redundancy is never a painless process, whether in the armed forces or elsewhere, and it is sad to see committed and patriotic men and women lose their jobs. But in that process, it is essential that they are made fully aware of the options available and the time scales involved, which means that a timetable needs to be adhered to, for the sake of themselves and their families. It would simply be wrong to alter that timetable for the convenience of the Government. Personnel were expecting the announcement this week, and to delay it for political expediency would have been to betray their trust. Difficult though it may be, under this Government political convenience will not be the final arbiter of our decisions.

[Mr Murphy]

I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences regarding Private Dean Hutchinson and Private Robert Wood.

This is the second time in recent weeks that the Secretary of State has had to come to Parliament in this way. Surely it is not too much to ask that when he is making announcements about 11,000 armed forces redundancies he should volunteer to come here, and not have to be summoned to appear.

Yesterday there was a written ministerial statement, which contained a fraction of the information that was briefed to the media. Some will think that that was because, on the day when the Government were discussing a no-fly zone over Libya, they did not want to defend in the Commons the 2,700 redundancies in the RAF—but I think it is more serious than that. In November the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box:

“no one currently serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will face compulsory redundancy.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 13.]

I always try to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, as he knows, so I believed him. More importantly, the armed forces and their families believed him. In making that promise he gave his word, and in breaking his pledge he is playing with words.

Why did the Ministry of Defence brief the media yet keep Parliament in the dark? How many people who have served in Afghanistan will be made redundant, and will the Secretary of State repeat his guarantee that no one currently serving in Afghanistan will be sacked on their return? Unless he can answer those questions and give that guarantee, it is disgraceful that some of our forces taking on the Taliban today will be welcomed home as heroes by the public, and sacked by their Government.

[Dr Fox]

First, as I have just explained to the House, this is not a new announcement but simply procedure following on from the announcements made in the SDSR. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that this is the second time that we have had an urgent question on this subject, and I noticed that when the Opposition last had the opportunity to ask a question, they were not asking for details about these particular schemes but wanted to talk about e-mails and other peripheral issues. For them suddenly to come forward with a new-found interest in this particular issue strikes me as the most sad and cynical opportunism.

I have repeatedly made it clear that we have compulsory redundancy schemes in the armed forces because we need to maintain the rank structure and skills base required. When compulsory redundancies are announced, they will not affect those in receipt of the operational allowance, those within six months of deploying or those on post-operational tour leave, as I made clear in the House.

Military Covenant

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

I do not wish to reopen that debate, but my hon. Friend is free to make that point whenever he wishes to do so.

It is clear that to date, the Government’s policy on the covenant and their policy on the RPI-CPI switch are policies without a patron. No Government Minister has defended them, yet Ministers expect Back-Benchers to suspend their consciences and their sense of right and wrong to vote through a policy that they have not backed.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

If the change from RPI to CPI in relation to the armed forces is so iniquitous, will the right hon. Gentleman give an unequivocal guarantee that Labour will reverse it?

[Mr Murphy]

I remember being in the Government and playing that game of saying to the Opposition, “Name your next manifesto,” but it is a desperate tactic. It took me 10 years to use that tactic, but it has taken the Defence Secretary only a few months. Today, he is at the Dispatch Box but will not even stand up for his own policy. Let me give him another opportunity to do so. Does he think it fair that when the deficit is temporary, this cut should be permanent? I am giving him a chance to articulate his own policy.

[Dr Fox]

This merely proves the economic illiteracy of the Labour party. Even when the deficit is going down, the total debt is going up and the debt repayment is going up. It will take a very long time, even when we are into positive growth, to see the debt coming down. The Labour party knows no more about economics in opposition than it knew in government.

[Mr Murphy]

This comes from the right hon. Gentleman who, when in opposition, demanded more spending on absolutely everything; even in the midst of financial crisis, he was demanding more and more spending. If this move is driven by deficit reduction, the Government should come forward with a temporary measure rather than a permanent change.

Finally, the military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government. It should never be the exclusive property of one political party, but these permanent cuts undermine the Government’s claim to be honouring the military covenant. Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society has said:

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

That is a worrying position—one that we all hope to see reversed.

The truth is that this Government have lost the courage of the conviction and conscience they had in their manifesto. One day in June last year summarises this Government’s approach to the covenant. On 25 June 2010, the Prime Minister stood on the decks of the Ark Royal, surrounded by members of the Royal Navy, with Harrier jets as a backdrop, and promised a new military covenant that was written into the law of the land. Parliament did not get a vote on the decision to scrap the Ark Royal and Parliament did not get the chance to express its view on the grounding of the Harrier fleet. Today, however, Parliament has the chance to make its voice heard. We should say it loud and clear, fulfil the Conservative party manifesto pledge and define the military covenant in law.

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on redundancies in the Ministry of Defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

As a result of the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review, it has, sadly, been necessary to plan for redundancies in both the civil service and the armed forces. At all times this should be done with sensitivity to individuals concerned, and with an understanding of the impact that it will have on them and their families. There are two recent cases in which this has not happened. Let me deal with them both.

First, there are the 38 Army personnel who have received an e-mail, as reported in today’s press. This is a completely unacceptable way to treat anyone, not least our armed forces. The correct procedure was not followed. I regret this, and want to reiterate the unreserved apology already made by the Army and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Arrangements have already been put in place to ensure that it does not happen again, and the Army are already investigating the particular circumstances.

Secondly, there is the redundancy of trainee RAF pilots. It was always going to be the case that with fewer airframes we would need fewer pilots. The fact that people found out through the publication of inaccurate details in a national newspaper will, I am sure, be deprecated on both sides of the House, and can only cause the individuals concerned undue distress. I understand the concerns of those facing redundancy, and I understand the temptation of the Opposition to exploit issues for political advantage, but I hope that with issues as sensitive as individual redundancies, we can refrain from making a sad situation worse for the individuals and their families.

[Mr Murphy]

Yesterday I came to the House to support strongly the Government’s actions on Afghanistan, but today we are here for an entirely different reason: the revelation that dozens of soldiers with decades of service have been sacked by e-mail. It is a shame that Ministers had to be summoned to the Commons, when they should have immediately asked to come here voluntarily.

We all know that we cannot stop every redundancy in the armed forces, but this is no way to treat soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of State says that we should not play politics with such issues. Sacking anyone by e-mail is always wrong; sacking members of our armed forces in that way is utterly unforgiveable. But, unfortunately, as the Secretary of State says, a pattern is developing. One hundred RAF trainee pilots were sacked by media leak, some only hours away from getting their wings.

What is worse about this sordid affair is that the Government’s response has been to blame everyone else. In the morning it was the Army’s fault; by lunchtime it was a civil servant’s fault. But it was not the Army that decided to cut the deficit this far and this fast; it was not a civil servant who decided to go into a rushed defence review. It is the Government’s fault. They are locked into a logic of rapid deficit reduction, which means that mistakes are being made, some of them serious.

The country wants straight answers to direct questions. When will the Secretary of State announce who will be affected by the further reduction of 17,000 in the armed forces? On the sacking by e-mail, despite the Secretary of State’s previous promises, why did the Ministry of Defence agree that a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan should be sacked, and will the Secretary of State take personal responsibility for making sure that that never happens again? On RAF sackings, how many of the RAF trainees were within hours of fully qualifying as pilots? Have all those affected now been officially informed?

In all these matters there is a fine line between callousness and complacency. This was a callous event; the Government’s response this morning was complacent. They must act, act now, and make sure that it is never repeated.

[Dr Fox]

The right hon. Gentleman should stick to agreeing with the Government; he is much more impressive on such occasions. What is sad today is not just the opportunism but the utter lack of humility, because we would not have had to reduce the armed forces or the civil service to such a degree if we had not inherited from the Labour Government a black hole in the MOD budget of £38 billion and a national deficit of £158 billion—[Interruption.] So before Opposition Front Benchers go about pointing fingers, they should look—[Interruption]—and the right hon. Gentleman should look, to the Government of whom he was a part, who left us economically wrecked. We will set out—[Interruption.]

Afghanistan

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will report to the House the Government’s assessment of progress towards UK objectives in Afghanistan.

Before I begin my statement, I regret to have to inform the House that two British soldiers from the Royal Logistics Corps died early this morning at Camp Bastion. An investigation is under way into their deaths, but early indications suggest that they were caused by a fire. Their families have been informed, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this very difficult time.

International forces from 48 nations, including the United Kingdom, are in Afghanistan to prevent terrorists, including al-Qaeda, from again using Afghanistan to plot and launch terror attacks. The contributions of each nation to the international security assistance force are listed in the supplementary written information that I have provided for Members.

Meeting our objectives requires working with Afghanistan’s neighbours, and that includes helping Pakistan to tackle the problems on its side of the border. We are acting to provide the security space required for indigenous security and governance to grow, and we are supporting that growth through diplomatic, developmental and military means. The goal is for the Government of Afghanistan to provide, on a sustainable basis, the capability and governance required to manage their own security.

Although international military forces have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and significant gains have been made, it is only since August last year that we have had the number of troops and the right level of equipment to fulfil the strategy set for them. The challenge lies in having the patience and will to see the mission through.

The Foreign Secretary reported to the House in October. In this quarterly report, I will concentrate on the security progress being made in central Helmand, where the majority of UK forces operate. That is represented by the shaded area on the map of Helmand province that I have provided to Members.

Afghanistan has 401 districts, but 60% of the violence occurs in just nine of them, and eight of those nine are in Helmand and Kandahar. So we need to remember that Helmand is not representative of Afghanistan as a whole, and that there are many places where progressively a sense of normality and security is returning. Before I turn to general progress, in keeping with our undertaking to keep Parliament better informed as far as operational restrictions allow, I should like to update the House on current force levels.

The previous Government announced on 30 November 2009 that they had increased the endorsed UK force level to 9,500. It will not surprise the House to hear that that core number of 9,500 does not fully account for the actual force numbers we have deployed, given the complex and highly dynamic current situation on the ground. As the previous Government acknowledged, a sizeable contingent of our highly effective special forces operates in Afghanistan. In accordance with long-standing practice, we do not specify the scale or nature of their activities, but, if we take them into account with the enabling support that they need, we see that they take our numbers to more than 10,000.

For many years, UK forces have contributed to the protection of Kandahar airfield. In December 2009, it was expected that they would hand over that task to another ISAF partner within a matter of months. That did not happen, and we still have almost 200 extra troops protecting Kandahar airfield. That is constantly under review. Additionally, in September 2010, we announced the deployment of 200 personnel from the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to ISAF Joint Command for 12 months. They will return by February 2012.

To maintain operational flexibility, we also approve temporary deployments, or surges, of additional personnel to meet specific and time-limited tasks. These include personnel to provide key headquarters functions or to prepare infrastructure for the rigours of the Afghan winter. From time to time, we also deploy the Theatre Reserve Battalion. The number of UK military personnel on the ground in Afghanistan also fluctuates from day to day, reflecting the number of personnel on rest and recuperation breaks, as well the changes that occur as we hand over responsibility between units during the twice-yearly reliefs in place. So the actual number of military personnel currently in Afghanistan is regularly well over 10,000.

We keep our force levels under constant review, and some reductions this year may be possible, dependent on conditions on the ground and implementation of the security transition process. I want every member of our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan to get the credit for the incredible job that they do, and I know that all those in the House will want to join me in paying tribute to their selfless courage and hard work.

The efforts of our armed forces are supported by the work of many hundreds of civilians from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, including staff in our embassy in Kabul, in our taskforce headquarters and provincial reconstruction team in Lashkar Gah, in district stabilisation teams across Helmand, and in units and facilities outside Afghanistan. Again, I am sure that the House will want to join me in acknowledging the valuable work that they do and their devotion to duty.

In central Helmand, as General Petraeus has said, we have not yet seen success or victory, but we are seeing progress. It is fragile and not irreversible, but it is progress. The increase in Afghan and ISAF forces has enabled us to take the fight to the insurgency and, understandably, this has led to an overall increase in the number of violent incidents. But over the past three months, although the number is still higher than in previous years, we are seeing a trend of falling security incidents. For example, in the Marjah district of Helmand province, security incidents have fallen from a high of around 25 a day at the height of summer to just three or four a day at present. There is a seasonal pattern, as many insurgents, especially those fighting for financial rather than ideological reasons, return to their homes for the winter. This year, however, with the unusually mild weather and with winter arriving late, and the increased activity by ISAF and the Afghan national security forces, the fall in the number of incidents is more likely than in previous years to be an indicator of progress. However, I have to say to the House that casualty numbers are once again likely to rise in spring this year as insurgent activity increases.

This year will be just as difficult as 2010, but there will be distinct differences. The increased number of ANSF and ISAF forces allows us to arrest the momentum of the insurgency in more areas. Afghan forces will also begin to take the lead for security as the first districts and provinces begin the process of transition. There are now over 152,000 Afghan national army and 117,000 Afghan national police. This is on schedule to meet the October 2011 growth target to deliver 305,600 Afghan national security forces. But as the quantity increases, quality must not be neglected. One example is improving literacy to ensure that orders can be communicated in writing as well as orally, so that there is less scope for misinterpretation. Currently, around 85% of ANSF recruits are illiterate on entry. Literacy training is now mandatory for all recruits. The training is to be conducted by Afghan teachers, creating employment and boosting the economy, and significant progress is being made.

Progress has also been made in implementing the Afghan local police initiative. This is a temporary programme of village-owned security aimed at providing a security effect in areas with limited or no ANSF presence. The programme, established by presidential decree, comes under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. Fourteen sites have been established, and 2,800 ALP have been recruited. Once the necessary security and capacity are established, these local forces will be integrated into the regular ANSF.

In Helmand, our bilateral police mission has focused on training Afghan national police at the Helmand police training centre, from which the 2,000th officer graduated in December. The UK Government have funded the building of six new police stations in Helmand in the last six months, with 10 more in construction and 28 more in design.

Following the Lisbon NATO summit, the transition process is on track. The joint Afghan-NATO transition board is set to deliver recommendations this month on which provinces will enter the transition process. President Karzai has confirmed that he will announce the first phase of transition on 21 March.

The UK Government’s development programmes work with the Government of Afghanistan to build capacity to direct and deliver their own development. Real progress is being made at the local level across Afghanistan. UK-funded teams from the provincial administration in Lashkar Gah have begun to create a district community council in Marjah, which this time last year was an insurgent stronghold. In Musa Qala, the newly elected council is developing a district plan for the Afghan Government to deliver with support from the UK. At national level, action plans have been developed for the Afghan Government’s national priority programmes, and we have seen encouraging progress in some areas. For example, revenue collection has increased by 32% compared with the same period last year, albeit from a low base. That is 9% above the International Monetary Fund target and brings Afghanistan a step closer to self-sufficiency.

The newly elected Afghan Parliament was inaugurated last month, with frictions between the Executive and legislature resolved democratically. However, we remain very concerned about levels of corruption, and in particular about the disturbing allegations about the Kabul Bank. We will continue to press the Afghan Government to translate their anti-corruption commitments into action.

The Afghan Government are taking further steps towards peace and reconciliation for all Afghans. The High Peace Council has toured Afghanistan to publicise the Afghan peace and reintegration programme. It is early days, but in some areas of Afghanistan, particularly in the north, increasing numbers of insurgents are seeking a way out of the cycle of violence. The High Peace Council recently visited Pakistan to take forward dialogue on peace and reconciliation.

Three hundred and fifty-six British servicemen and women have died on operations in Afghanistan— 15 since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last reported progress to the House at the end of October. In the face of such sacrifice, we should be in no doubt about the importance to our national security of the mission and our support for it. We have seen progress over the past few months but the need for strategic patience remains. To paraphrase the US Defence Secretary, we need to stop pulling up the tree by its roots to see if it is growing. There is still a great deal to do, but I believe there is also cause for cautious optimism.

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

I welcome the chance to respond and I thank the Secretary of State for his update and for advance sight of it. This is the first opportunity I have had to put on record my thanks and those of the leader of my party and the shadow Foreign Secretary to all who facilitated our recent visit to Afghanistan.

The Secretary of State is right to say that as we go about our proceedings, more than 10,000 fellow Britons go about the business of making the UK more safe by making Afghanistan more stable. As I have reflected before, the courage of our forces is surpassed only by their modesty. I also put on record our appreciation of the efforts of our diplomatic and development staff in Kabul and throughout Afghanistan, many of whom we met. Theirs is a tough job and they combine professionalism with more than a little bravery. We remain committed to a cross-party approach to a cross-government strategy. The Secretary of State should know that our default position is to support the Government’s efforts in Afghanistan.

The Secretary of State is right to pay tribute to those who died earlier today and those who have died in recent times. No words said in this House can halt the suffering in the family homes of those who have been lost, but those families will know that across the country, there is immeasurable respect for them. They remain in all our thoughts and many of our personal prayers.

The House will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s update on the security situation and it will be glad to hear about the progress being made. I wish to ask him two sets of questions: the first about security and the second about diplomacy. On security, he rightly said that violence is concentrated in the south, but there are also concerning reports that violence is increasing in previously peaceful areas, most notably in the north of the country, where the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is said to be operating and strengthening the Taliban’s ability to attack. How is the coalition, and in particular nations other than the UK and the US, responding to those worrying developments?

The ability of Afghan forces to take ever greater responsibility for their own country will be an incremental process towards 2014, with the most significant recent development, alongside the US military surge, being an Afghan surge of locally recruited forces. In that context, I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about the Afghan national police being on track to meet its final recruitment targets this year.

We had the opportunity to visit the excellent police training centre in Helmand involving British police forces, which is so important to the literacy and numeracy that the Secretary of State spoke about. He will be as concerned as I am, however, about the assimilation of national police within local communities. A recent UN report showed that in the south, the popularity of the police has dropped over the past year. It strikes me as unsustainable to have a national police force that is only 3% southern Pashtun. How are recruitment practices being modified to ensure that the police force is more reflective of the areas that it is charged with securing? Will the Secretary of State undertake to keep the House informed on a regular basis of the Afghan national security forces’ ability to operate independently of ISAF?

Turning to the political process, it is increasingly acknowledged that there will not be a military-only solution in Afghanistan. Although there have been, and will continue to be, military successes, we also need a diplomatic surge to match the military surge. As we moved to the agreed withdrawal date of 2015, a political settlement is not a prerequisite for our withdrawal, but it is undoubtedly a condition for lasting peace.

Many people make comparisons with the peace process in Northern Ireland, including some of the Afghans whom we met in Kabul. Although I believe the similarities are limited, one thing that Northern Ireland teaches us is that the process can be painstaking, even though there were fewer domestic and international actors there and a clearer sense of central authority—conditions that we do not currently have in our favour in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State share with the House how he foresees diplomatic efforts within Afghanistan and with her neighbours progressing over the forthcoming year? What are the benchmarks by which the House will be able to judge short-term success?

There are many other major issues that it will be important for Afghanistan to overcome to enjoy lasting peace. There are innumerable financial challenges, with rising unemployment and high levels of poverty fuelling recruitment to the poppy trade and the Taliban. There are rising numbers of internally displaced people, and corruption remains a real problem. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to confirm to the House that he will raise those matters at the Bonn conference, particularly a plan for further support for the Afghan economy. Will he provide an update on negotiations between the Afghan Government and the International Monetary Fund on the Afghan support fund?

On returning from Afghanistan, it struck me that over the past year or so, there had been a shift from a collective feeling of reluctant international pessimism to a sense of cautious optimism. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s statement today led me to change my opinion. On behalf of Labour Members, I continue to look to work with him on a bipartisan basis on this most important of issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Clearly, there will be a role for the United Kingdom to play in that period, but it would be impossible to assess now what it will look like without knowing what the contribution from the international community will be. We very much hope that our international allies in ISAF will recognise that the concept of in-together, out-together is a sensible one and that countries do not simply transition from the safe areas that some might be in at present, right out of Afghanistan, but instead take part increasingly in the NATO training mission. By that means, we can have a proper share of responsibility after the transition away from combat forces. I think that would give us greater legitimacy and would give the mission greater acceptability in the UK.

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

I agree with so much of what the Defence Secretary said in response to those questions. I returned from Afghanistan yesterday with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary. We were all moved by both the bravery and the modesty of our armed forces in Afghanistan. I agree with the Defence Secretary that people are moving away from a sense of reluctant pessimism to cautious optimism about the effort in Afghanistan. With the international forces exiting combat roles by 2015, as he mentioned, and given the point that he made about training the army, which has to be strong, even though most recruits cannot read and write, and many recruits cannot even count the number of bullets to place in a rifle, what success has there been so far in trying to persuade some of those nations, which are leaving earlier than us, to commit to that training effort not just in their own areas, but across the whole of Afghanistan?

[Dr Fox]

May I say first how grateful we are to the Leader of the Opposition for reasserting the bipartisan approach to Afghanistan? It is very important for our national security and for the morale of our armed forces. I am grateful for that support, even if I know that it is not endorsed by all sections of his party. That makes the decision even braver and even more in the national interest, so I thank him for that.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) is right that it is important that we encourage those of our allies who may be moving out of a combat role into a training role. The decision taken by Canada in recent weeks is welcome. We wait to hear more details of the decision that may be taken by the Dutch. The National Security Council, on the Prime Minister’s instruction, has sought to find areas where Ministers have a particular personal engagement, where we might be able to maximise the pressures that we can bring to bear to get exactly that training mission outcome.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and like him I look forward to looking in detail at the outcome of the Government’s review into tour lengths and tours of duty. We will both take a keen interest in that.

[Dr Fox]

The shadow Secretary of State asks why, seven months into government, we have not made more progress, but the previous Government left behind debt equivalent to £16,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The interest on the deficit is greater than the defence budget for this year and the economic position is a strategic liability, so there is no point in the Opposition adopting a high moral tone—he was a member of the Cabinet who left us in this drastic economic position. He might consider his own culpability for our being in a position that makes it more difficult for us to achieve many of the things we want.

[Mr Murphy]

There we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker —the right hon. Gentleman advocates such a timid Bill because the cuts that he is determined to make in the Ministry of Defence will not allow him to achieve his ambition. I can do nothing more than quote again Sir Michael Moore, the chair of the Forces Pension Society, who said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Murphy]

The Secretary of State shakes his head. I invite him to correct the record if he wishes. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he has plenty of time to do so. I give him the time today. [Interruption.] He says, “Get on with it.” Even the Secretary of State will not rise to his feet to support his own policy.

The military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government, as the Secretary of State rightly said. It should and will never be the exclusive property of one political party. However, no Government can cut the support to Afghan war widows and claim to be honouring the military covenant. The truth is that this is a Government of convenience, who, in taking money from Afghan war widows, have lost the courage of their conscience.

The Government’s actions are particularly hard to comprehend when one considers that in July 2009 the previous Government published a Green Paper entitled “The Nation’s Commitment to the Armed Forces Community”, in which some truly innovative proposals were made. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at that Green Paper to see which aspects of it can be included in this Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take forward those ideas, which would not just give real help to the forces community but continue to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to serving the interests of those who put their lives on the line. I urge the Government to look again at the proposals.

This debate is also an opportunity for the Government to confirm that they will look again at another of their recent proposals, which in my view is one of their most regrettable decisions—the decision to scrap the chief coroner’s office. That office would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely complex circumstances, the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into the deaths. Last month’s decision by the Lords, by a significant majority, to save the chief coroner’s office gives the Government the opportunity to think again. They should listen not only to the House of Lords but to the Royal British Legion, and retain the chief coroner’s office.

Today’s debate is an opportunity to further the passage of a Bill that in general we support. It will make sensible and important changes to procedures that will ensure that our armed forces can perform to the highest standards and are effectively regulated. But it is also more than that. It is an opportunity for the Government to think again—not about Afghanistan, where they should and rightly will remain resolute, but about cuts to the independent scrutiny of the Government’s progress on the covenant, about matching their pre-election pledges to their post-election actions and about the introduction of permanent reductions in the support of those who serve our nation and their families. If they do think again, there will be a very warm welcome not only in this House but, much more importantly, in the houses of service families across our nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The capabilities speak for themselves. There have been enormous leaps in what the Afghan forces can do. The Afghan national army has conducted itself honourably and with great credit in terms of its technical ability, not least in Kandahar, and the Afghan national police are now moving ahead, for two reasons. First, the police were given equal pay status with the ANA, and secondly, along with that, literacy training led to a big increase in the quality of those joining. That is a major step forward from where we were in recent years.

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

No one doubts the bravery of many of those joining the Afghan security forces—it is beyond doubt—but the Secretary of State will be aware that there are still worries about the quality of current training, the levels of desertion from the Afghan forces, and the very few cases in which some in the Afghan forces have turned their weapons on those in the international security assistance force. This is a crucial issue, because success in Afghanistan depends on it, so will he support increased international effort to improve the training and resilience of Afghan forces on the ground?

[Dr Fox]

Indeed, I will. The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. The international community, if it wants to be truly successful, must recognise that this is about not just the numbers but the capability. Those who intend to transition away from a combat role would do well therefore to put the resources into increased training in Afghanistan to ensure that what the international community sets out to do is achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

It would have been highly desirable to make the changes that we envisage ahead of the elections next May. It is unlikely that we will be able to do so in that time frame, but it is clear that change is needed. It is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but we have had a number of ministerial discussions between the two Departments to try to clarify those plans and to ensure that we have a legislative slot to enable us to implement them as quickly as possible.

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

We have heard again today that our armed forces are helping to create new freedoms in Afghanistan. Here at home, the right to protest peacefully is crucial, but in recent days we have seen the appalling violation of the Cenotaph. Will the Secretary of State support an all-party cross-Government approach to see whether our war memorials, which are engraved with the names of many of our country’s heroes, are properly protected from the actions of the few of our country’s mindless hooligans?

[Dr Fox]

I fully associate myself with the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. There must be outrage across this country at some of the scenes that we witnessed last week. In particular, it might be worth emphasising in the House to those students who took part in some of those demonstrations and who seem to take the freedoms that they have so much for granted that those freedoms were won by the sacrifices of previous generations, the names of whom are commemorated on some of those monuments. They deserve to be treated with far greater respect than they were last week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

We need to maintain the Afghanistan rotation. It is therefore in the interests of common sense and fair play that no personnel serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will be given compulsory redundancy.

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

The Secretary of State will know that this weekend thousands of people marched in Lossiemouth against the proposed closure of the RAF base there. That base accounts for about 10% of jobs in the area. Some will argue that the proposed closure saves the MOD money, but in truth other parts of government will have to pick up the costs of increased unemployment and the failure of small businesses. May I therefore urge him to pause and think again about the devastating wider impacts that this proposed closure would have?

[Dr Fox]

First, may I welcome the shadow Secretary of State and his entire team to Question Time for the first time?

Let me say at the outset that neither party in the coalition wanted to see redundancies in the armed forces, and we would not be making such redundancies had we not been handed an utterly poisonous economic legacy by Labour and, indeed, a Ministry of Defence budget that was massively overheated and incompetently run. Having said that, we are very well aware of the various consequences—social, economic and regional—of the whole question of basing. I give the right hon. Gentleman my absolute assurance that we will consider all those elements when we look at the future of Lossiemouth.

[Mr Murphy]

Returning to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we are all rightly in awe of the men and women of our armed forces, and I welcome the commitment that the Government have given to continuing to protect the front line in Afghanistan. However, the Government have announced redundancies of 7,000 in the Army, 5,000 in the Navy and 5,000 in the RAF—17,000 in total. Will the Secretary of State therefore guarantee that no one who has served in Afghanistan will face compulsory redundancy?

[Dr Fox]

It would not be possible for the Government to say that no one who had ever served in Afghanistan in any way, shape or form since 2001 would not be made redundant. I reiterate what I have said: that because we need to maintain the Afghan rotation, no one currently serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will face compulsory redundancy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Regardless of what side of the House we are on, we are all very concerned about this weekend’s reports of the smuggling of highly enriched uranium in Georgia and other parts of the Soviet Union—[Interruption.] I mean the former Soviet Union. We know there is sometimes only one step between organised criminals and global terrorists. In the light of those reports, can the Secretary of State guarantee that any UK-funded projects to combat the proliferation of, or trade in, chemical, biological and nuclear material will have their funding protected through this spending review period?

[Dr Fox]

I could not be in greater agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. It is easy to forget that there has been a great deal of nuclear material out there. Not only does that still pose a threat to global security, but the development of new nuclear weapons by countries such as North Korea and, soon, Iran, which is attempting a programme, presents us with a massive threat. It is essential that programmes that give this country protection are themselves protected.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond in today’s debate and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. At the beginning at least, his was a rather breathless speech. He spoke of being 109 years of age when the new Queen Elizabeth type aircraft carriers go out of service, but I hope he leaves more time to get to the Chamber from the Ministry of Defence when he is 109. He certainly will not be able to get here at the speed he did today.

Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State had to be summoned to the House to explain in detail the treaties with France, and today the House was treated to a quite remarkable filibuster to accommodate his diary and those of his fellow Ministers. I was tempted to reflect that perhaps they were on French time, but that would have brought them here in time for business questions rather than making them late for this debate. I welcome the ministerial team, who took the approach of arriving in shifts for their boss’s speech this afternoon.

Despite that, it is with a sense of honour that today I am making my first speech at the Dispatch Box as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. My sense of pride is only slightly diminished by having the word “shadow” in my job title.

[Dr Fox]

You had better get used to it.

[Mr Murphy]

I hope it will not be for too long. Even in opposition, it is an honour to work to support our armed forces and their families, and the defence of our nation and all our interests. The most important responsibility of the Government is the safety and security of our country. All MPs of all parties also carry that responsibility. I want the House to know that this Opposition will always act in the interests of what we believe to be right for our country, and not any narrow party interest.

Although the Secretary of State and I may disagree across the Dispatch Box, I want to tell him that I will never question his personal commitment to the defence of our nation. All Conservatives are patriots, but the Secretary of State must be aware that all patriots are not Conservatives. Therefore, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that our forces, who are the best of Britain, operate with the right equipment. I also want to ensure that their service to their country is properly rewarded and valued, and where possible, that even more is done to value their dedication and patriotism. In addition, we should also recognise the crucial role played by so many MOD civilian staff, as the Secretary of State did. I should like to put on record the House’s gratitude for the unheralded work of our security services.

I thought that the Secretary of State, in what was in large part a thoughtful speech, struck a better tone on the issue of MOD redundancies than has been struck before. Hitherto, there was almost a sense of celebration at the reduction in head count. It will be reassuring for MOD officials, who are perhaps watching this debate or will read Hansard, that there was no waving of Order Papers today at the announcement of potential future redundancies.

As the Prime Minister has rightly said in recent times, our power and influence is enhanced by our integration with political, social and economic global networks. However, I sense that the unprecedented scale and pace of global change will, if anything, increase ever more sharply in future. Although our openness increases the threats that we face, conversely it assists us, in part, in overcoming those contemporary challenges. Today’s threats are more complex and difficult to map, and they are harder to repel. Terrorism, cyber-attack, natural resource shortages, large-scale disaster or unconventional attacks from chemical or biological weapons all threaten our shores, our interests and our values. Although we might face fewer conventional threats, our defences at home remain subject to frequent aerial and maritime probing and challenges.

The strategic defence and security review was an opportunity to reshape the UK’s military force in that changing global security landscape. Unfortunately, according to the Royal United Services Institute, 68% of the defence and security community felt that it was a

“lost opportunity for a more radical reassessment of the UK’s role in the world”.

It seems that the security review did not clearly define Britain’s place in the world, nor did it alter the balance of Britain’s armed forces to meet existing and emerging threats. The review leaves unanswered many questions about Britain’s place in this ever-changing world.

[Dr Fox]

In that case, can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on what he and his party believe is Britain’s proper role in the world, and say how it differs from that set out by the National Security Council and the Government in the White Paper?

[Mr Murphy]

I will come to that later in my comments, but it is clear that Britain must make a pragmatic assessment of our global ambition. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged—tersely in his letter and, I am sure, in private conversations with others in government—the review process has been driven largely by the cuts that the Government have been determined to make. Some people say that the 38-page document to which the Secretary of State referred looks like a decent executive summary, but no fewer than 10 pages in it are entirely blank. In parts, it lacks historical accuracy. On page 23, we read:

“For 800 years, the UK has been at the forefront of shaping the relationship between the rights of individuals and powers and obligations of the state”.

The document predicts future threats, which cannot be an exact science—we know that—but it lacks historical accuracy. The fact is that the UK did not exist in its current form 800 years ago. A document that aims to set out a process and to predict the nature of future threats does not even get its history right. Its assessment of our nation’s past lacks real intellectual vigour—[Interruption.] One of the Ministers who arrived a little late for the Secretary of State’s speech says that that is a pedantic point, but I do not think that it is. To say that they do not understand the nature or the history of this collection of nations of the United Kingdom when it comes to an assessment of our role in the world is not pedantic.

There are major challenges facing our national security, as the Secretary of State has said, and as was emphasised only last weekend, with the bomb plots to bring down cargo planes. The defence review rightly makes it clear that primary among the myriad defence and security issues we face is Afghanistan.

I, my shadow Defence team and the shadow Foreign Secretary appreciated the first of what I hope will be many regular briefings on Afghanistan held yesterday in the Ministry of Defence. I also look forward to the opportunity to visit Afghanistan, and of course I, along with others on the Opposition Front Bench, will liaise with the MOD about such visits. I want to make it clear that we will work with the Government in a spirit of co-operation to help to bring the conflict to an end, and to ensure peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Our forces—and, indeed, our enemies—should continually be reminded of that unity of purpose. Our military aim must be to ensure that never again can al-Qaeda use Afghanistan as an incubator for terrorism, and we must use our military forces to weaken the Taliban to such an extent that the Afghan people can determine their own future.

Defence Treaties (France)

Debate between Jim Murphy and Liam Fox

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement about the treaties today between the UK and France on defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

First, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper William Blanchard from 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), who died on operations in Afghanistan on Saturday. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this dreadful time for them.

The Prime Minister and President Sarkozy this afternoon signed two treaties that mark a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. The two treaties will next be laid before Parliament, allowing hon. Members the opportunity to consider them as part of the process towards ratification. For the added convenience of Members, I hope that the texts of both treaties will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

The UK-France relationship is a strategic partnership of sovereign nations, working together to tackle the biggest challenges facing our two countries, at a new level of co-operation. The treaties do not diminish in any way our ability to act independently when the national interest requires, but they do provide us with greater capability when we decide to act together. The UK welcomed the recent French decision to rejoin NATO’s integrated military structure. We believe it is good for NATO, good for the UK and good for France. It makes sense for us now to achieve maximum interoperability, greater commonality of doctrine and more efficient use of equipment. Closer co-operation with France will also provide better value for money for the British taxpayer.

Let me give the House a sense of the scope of both treaties. First, the defence and security co-operation treaty will develop closer co-operation between our armed forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation. The treaty provides the framework, and details will emerge over time as more detailed work is done.

The second treaty covers collaboration in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities in full compliance with our international obligations. The treaty provides for the joint construction and operation of a new hydrodynamics facility at Valduc in France and a technology development centre at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. These facilities will be operational from 2015. This programme, named Teutates, will assist both countries in maintaining the safety and reliability of their respective nuclear stockpiles and will improve expertise in countering nuclear terrorism. The facilities will enable each country to undertake hydrodynamic experiments in a secure environment. The hydrodynamic facilities use radiography to measure the performance of materials at extremes of temperature and pressure. This enables us to model the performance and safety of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile without undertaking nuclear explosive tests.

The UK will maintain its independent nuclear deterrent and will continue to work towards the long-term objective of a world without nuclear weapons. Today’s summit is only the start of a long-term deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. France is the UK’s natural partner in Europe for defence co-operation. France and the UK have some of the most capable and experienced armed forces and the largest defence industry. We are by a long way Europe’s two biggest defence spenders. Achieving the envisaged level of co-operation will take time and will require changes to long-established ways of working. We will put in place measures to deliver long-term commitment to joint projects and we expect to announce new areas of work at regular intervals.

A stronger defence relationship with France does not mean a weaker relationship with the United States, our main strategic partner, or with Germany or any other partner—quite the reverse. The increased capability and effectiveness that we will achieve through this co-operation will make us stronger partners. In the multilateral context also, our NATO allies and EU partners want UK and French forces, as well as those of other nations, to be as capable and interoperable as possible—exactly what the new Government programme of co-operation is intended to achieve.

[Mr Murphy]

The whole House joins the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family of Sapper William Blanchard who died while showing remarkable bravery in serving our country. All our thoughts and many of our prayers are with his family and friends.

Today is historically important for our nation’s defence: our country is entering into two defence treaties with France. The treaties, which we are told will last for 50 years, cover aircraft carrier capability, shared nuclear infrastructure and joint rapid reaction capability. The UK media, the French media, the French National Assembly, and our allies in the United States and across world capitals have been informed of the contents of the agreement; with the announcements about this strategic shift in defence, it is a very real pity that the House of Commons seems to be the only place kept in the dark. After the summoning of the world’s media to Downing street to witness the signing of the agreements, I am sure that the Secretary of State does not mind being invited to Parliament to explain the Government’s thinking.

For almost 700 years, for historical reasons of the old alliance between Scotland and France, the House of Commons has traditionally had a degree of reticence about a Scot arguing for a military arrangement with France, but on this occasion most of us on both sides of the House support and welcome in principle further steps to improve what is already a very strong relationship. That approach makes sense for two strategic reasons. First, the UK and France face many common threats across the world, including global terrorism, cyber-security and piracy on the high seas. Secondly, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, the UK and France have unique capacities. They are the two largest investors in defence capability in Europe and among the highest in the world, significant players in the EU and the only two EU member states with permanent seats at the UN, as well as our independent nuclear deterrent.

In supporting this general approach of closer co-operation, I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. I seek an absolute guarantee that the agreements that have been entered into today do not place any limitation whatever on the UK’s ability to act independently in all circumstances in the protection of our unique interests across the world, including the defence of our overseas territories and in respect of the deployment of our armed forces or our military assets.

Turning to the specific agreement on aircraft carriers, the Government’s intention is to share capacity when our respective carriers are in refit. The UK is currently building two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. As we understand it, one of our carriers will be placed in extended readiness. The question that many will be asking is what guarantees we have, when it is France’s responsibility to provide carrier capability, if we disagree.

We hope and expect that the UK and France will increasingly find common cause, but there is no guarantee that that will be the case in all circumstances over the next 50 years. Reflection on even the past few years shows that that was not the case on the Falklands, Desert Fox in 1998, Sierra Leone and of course the Iraq war. Can the Secretary of State give some assurances about guarantees of UK capability and support?

Are the treaties legally binding on both the United Kingdom and France? If they are, who adjudicates in the event of a dispute about legal purpose and meaning? The seven-sentence written ministerial statement that the Prime Minister tabled to the House today states:

“The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.”

May I invite the Secretary of State to say a little more, based on what he has already said, about how that will be handled?

In opposition, the Conservative party tabled motions to amend multilateral European treaties. In the light of that, is it the Government’s view that the treaty is amendable by Parliament now or in the future? In the light of the Government’s commitment to have five-yearly defence and security reviews, will it be necessary to update the treaties as the capabilities of the two nations are adjusted every five years?

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about nuclear co-operation. I welcome the commitment to bring greater efficiencies in infrastructure for our nuclear capabilities, but can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that that does not in any way jeopardise the bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the United States and the 1958 mutual defence agreement?

On employment, the Secretary of State spoke about access to markets. Will he say a few words about sovereign intellectual capability and employment as a consequence of today’s announcement? Will he guarantee, for example, that when the UK carrier goes in for a refit, that will take place in a UK shipyard? Has he been able to persuade the French that their carrier should go into a UK yard as well?

Finally—