Trident

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

I will make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions and been very generous.

I have always argued that there is no military case for Trident because it is not a military weapon. Trident is a political weapon that can never, and will never, be used. Nevertheless, it is set to consume between 30% and 50% of the UK defence procurement budget.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that Trident is being used every day? Every moment that we have continuous at-sea deterrence, Trident is being used. The fact that it is never fired in anger is a symbol of its success.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with him at all, and I will come on to the point about deterrence.

Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill

Liam Fox Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

That is entirely possible, but I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be guilty of such double counting, for he is our right hon. Friend.

Some have said that my Bill has been rendered redundant because the Chancellor guaranteed in July that the Government would commit to the 2% target until 2020. Given my party’s reticence to make such a pledge during the general election campaign, I was naturally delighted by that somewhat surprising announcement. However, it soon became clear that to meet the 2% target, the Government had to engage in a certain amount of creative accounting by including several items in our NATO return for 2015 that had hitherto not been included in the defence budget.

Looking at the specific financial detail of our current defence expenditure is complex, as NATO does not have a clear set of parameters on what constitutes defence spending, unlike the OECD in its monitoring of aid spending. Furthermore, NATO’s definition of spending and the Government’s definition differ, in as much as NATO publishes its figures retrospectively and is thus able to include costs from military operations, whereas the British Government’s defence expenditure document is forward-looking and is unable to account for unforeseen operational requirements. The NATO figure is therefore higher than the Government’s. To simplify the debate, I am using the Government’s calculation of our defence expenditure.

The House of Commons Library, to which I pay tribute for the fantastic job that it does in serving us entirely impartially and incredibly professionally, advised me a few days ago that, according to figures published by NATO on 22 June, the United Kingdom is projected to spend just over £39 billion on defence in 2015-16. That is reckoned to be 2.08% of GDP.

However, when reporting to NATO, the United Kingdom included several items of expenditure that had not been included in previous years: provision for war pensions of about £820 million; assessed contributions to UK peacekeeping missions of £400 million; pensions for retired civilian MOD personnel, possibly amounting to £200 million; and much of the MOD’s income of about £1.4 billion, including £164 million received as a result of the sale of the Defence Support Group to Babcock, for which the Minister was entirely responsible and on which I congratulate him.

Although it is perfectly legitimate under NATO’s rules to include those items, their inclusion serves only one purpose: to assert that we are meeting the NATO target, albeit by the skin of our teeth. It adds no new money to meet the essential demands of defence. I understand that the Minister will tell us that the income of £1.4 billion is new money, and I am happy to accept that, but that still means that of the £39 billion, another £1.4 billion has been transferred in from other budgets. If that sum were stripped out, we would clearly fall below 2%.

In an excellent briefing paper from the Royal United Services Institute, Professor Malcolm Chalmers explains that if we had used the same parameters as in previous years, we would be on course to spend £36.82 billion on defence in the current year, including £500 million on operations. That amounts to 1.97% of GDP, meaning that we would have fallen below the NATO target for the first time. Thus, it is only by introducing the new accounting rules that we have pushed our defence expenditure over the 2% target.

Although NATO has accepted the changes, it is likely that further such changes will need to be made if the Government are to meet the 2% target for the next five years. As Professor Chalmers observes:

“While the MoD budget is set to grow by 0.5 per cent per annum over the next five years, national income (GDP) is projected to grow by an average of 2.4 per cent per annum over the same period. If these assumptions are correct, UK NATO-countable spending would fall from 2.08 per cent of GDP in 2015/16 to 1.85 per cent of GDP in 2020/21, assuming the recently introduced counting methods are still used. A further £2.7 billion per annum would be needed in 2019/20, and a further £3.5 billion in 2020/21, in order to bring NATO-countable defence spending up to 2.00 per cent of GDP.”

The Budget statement explained that the gap would be filled by including the single intelligence account, which is set to total £2.2 billion by 2020-21. That will close the gap until 2018-19. The further allocation of the £1.5 billion joint security fund by 2020-21 could be sufficient to cover the shortfall by the end of this Parliament, provided that NATO accepts all those additional accounts as being eligible.

Although funds such as the single intelligence account are committed to Britain’s security, the SIA will not equip conventional ground troops or build ships, and it is still unclear what will be included in the joint security fund and how it will be apportioned. I understand that the idea is that it will be up to the MOD, DFID, the agencies and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to bid for the funds, so there is no guarantee that they will plug the gap in the apparent shortfall later in the decade, as predicted by Professor Chalmers, unless the MOD gets the lion’s share.

I acknowledge that NATO has allowed the inclusion of the SIA budget in our annual defence return, and that according to 2013 figures it is estimated that more than 90% of US intelligence programme spending is reported to Congress through the Department of Defence budget. It can justifiably be argued that if our main ally, and the main contributor to defence spending in the alliance, includes secret intelligence funding in its budget, we should be entitled to do the same. Nevertheless, the point remains that the Government are introducing into the defence budget funds that were previously allocated elsewhere.

I know the Government believe that they have met their obligation, but I am concerned by how it has been done. It is hard to see how we are not making ourselves more vulnerable by bringing in other budgets to shore up our 2% commitment rather than spending the money on manpower, equipment and combat readiness, which the increase in our projected GDP would demand by the end of the decade if we were to maintain the 2% spending.

As a direct result of that major shift in the accounting arrangements, I have included in my Bill a clause that is not to be found in the 2015 Act. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State be required to

“make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which United Kingdom defence expenditure meets the criteria established by NATO for determining whether expenditure qualifies as defence expenditure.”

The intention is to hold the Secretary of State to account for what is included in our NATO return and not allow extraneous funds to be included in our defence expenditure.

Before I leave the issue of accounting, I acknowledge that the Chancellor has committed to a 0.5% real-terms increase in defence spending during this Parliament. Although of course I welcome that commitment, I am not sure whether it is a departure from earlier policy. As I recall, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset was Secretary of State, he secured an undertaking from the Prime Minister that in recognition of our taking a pretty substantial hit, the MOD would receive a 1% per annum real-terms increase in the equipment budget from next year. As equipment accounts for about half of the total MOD budget, is it not the case that the 0.5% is no more than the fulfilling of that undertaking given by the Prime Minister in 2010? I know not the answer and would welcome the Minister’s response.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

For the sake of clarity, the undertaking that was given was not just a defence budget rise. In fact, it was impossible to meet the commitments of Future Force 2020 without that increase.

Service Personnel (Ukraine)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

On the latter point, I announced in Defence questions on Monday that we were preparing such a package, and the Prime Minister gave details of the package to the Liaison Committee yesterday. One thing we cannot be accused of is not keeping Parliament informed: we are keeping Parliament informed. As for consultation with allies, of course we talk to them. I meet my fellow Defence Ministers in NATO all the time, and I shall meet another one later this afternoon. I saw High Representative Federica Mogherini yesterday. This is a decision for the UK Government; this is not a NATO deployment. It is a decision by the UK Government to respond to a request from the Ukrainian Government.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s initiative, particularly if it is alongside our allies in the United States. The Ukrainians need the ability to defend their homeland against a much more powerful aggressor and they require equipment such as unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance and targeting. They require anti-tank capability and encrypted communications. Is not the argument that we cannot give defensive equipment to a country under threat because it might provoke a further reaction from Russia simply a bully’s charter that is already discredited by history?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with my predecessor but one as Secretary of State. We are supplying defensive equipment. It might not be lethal, but it does help the Ukrainian armed forces better defend themselves. As I said in my initial statement, in addition to the secondment of 75 trainers we are considering a further request from the Ukrainian Government for additional equipment and support. That is non-lethal, but we reserve the right ultimately to keep it under review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

There are four drivers and constraints on the defence budget: the international security environment, including what is happening in Ukraine; commitments already entered into, including upgrading our nuclear deterrent; the overall fiscal position; and our international obligations and moral authority. Does the direction of travel of any of those four things justify our defence spending falling below 2% of GDP? Is this a case, if ever there was one, for a proper cross-party consensus in Britain?

[Michael Fallon]

Only because we sorted out the budget mess that we inherited have we been able to invest in and modernise our defence equipment. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend: we would be in a stronger place if there was more consensus. We have yet to hear whether Labour would match our £34 billion or cut it. Is it time we had an answer?

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

As I said, I have already announced, including in this House, that we are considering what further contribution we can make to the training of Iraqi forces. There is nothing new about that. Yesterday, I made it very clear that the numbers are yet to be finalised. When they are finalised, they will, of course, be announced to the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked whether there will be a proper assessment of risk. Yes, I will take advice from my military advisers on the risk involved. On force protection, we must make sure that any training that we provide is properly protected, even though it is well away from the front line. The RAF strikes will continue. I will keep the House updated on the number of missions that are flown and the number of strikes.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the Iraqi Government. I make it clear to the House that everything that we are doing in Iraq and everything that we are considering doing in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi Government. I clarified that in my visit to Baghdad and Irbil last month. It is precisely because the Iraqi Government have asked us and our coalition partners for help that we are considering this action at the moment.

I cannot comment on specific details in respect of the National Security Council, but I repeat that the details of our final decisions will be reported to the House.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Surely the key question is whether ISIS poses a threat to us, directly or indirectly. If it does, it needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. Are not too many western Governments getting close to conflict by opinion poll? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of co-operation with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, which remains a key factor in whether we can win a ground war against ISIS?

[Michael Fallon]

The advance of ISIL is a direct threat to this country and other western countries, which is why some 40 countries are involved in the international coalition and why a number of them are considering putting personnel in to assist the training effort. On my predecessor’s second question, the support and enlistment of the tribes of the Anbar is critical in pushing ISIL back towards the western frontier of Iraq. There have been encouraging signs, but it is up to the Iraqi Government and the reformed Iraqi army to ensure that, in all their actions, they command the support of Sunnis, Shi’as and Kurds.

Afghanistan

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary both for what he said and for the tone in which he said it. As we learned this morning, there is no guarantee of an absolutely safe and stable future for Afghanistan, but I believe that we have given it the best possible chance of a stable future.

Let me try to pick up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. On this morning’s incident in Kabul, he will appreciate that it happened only a few hours ago. I can confirm that, sadly, two British embassy staff were killed. I believe a number of others were killed and injured, including passers-by. The incident occurred not at the embassy itself but within Kabul, some distance from the embassy. As soon as I have more details, I will of course ensure that he and the House have them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the London memorial. He will have seen the announcement a few days ago that the memorial appeal, which was launched in The Sun, will be headed by a former chief of the defence staff, Lord Stirrup, who will be in charge of raising private sector contributions. The memorial will be in London but it is worth reminding the House that the memorial wall at Camp Bastion is being returned to this country and will be erected in the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that the campaign was a success and worth while. It was certainly worth while. I believe that the decision to intervene with other countries in the light of the attack on the twin towers in 2001 was right. I do not think now there can be any question about that.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm our future commitment. It is a good time to emphasise to the new Afghan Government that, although we have withdrawn our combat troops, we are not walking away from Afghanistan. We will underline that at the London conference, but our commitment to the Resolute Support mission will be enduring for 2015 and for 2016.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the make-up of the ANSF. That is a mixture of army, police and other elements, including an air force, which will take some time to develop. However, having met the local Afghan army corps commanders in Helmand province, I have no doubt about their appetite for defending their country. I saw that at the graduation ceremony that I was privileged to attend on behalf of the UK. I saw the determination of all those young officer cadets to get out into the field and defend their country against the kind of violence that we have seen and that continues sporadically in some areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing UK presence. As I said, we will retain some 470 personnel in Afghanistan, largely in the Kabul area. They will continue to work at the national officer academy. They will provide advice on counter-terrorism and support to the security ministries. Our force will include an element of force protection, but it will be located mainly in and around Kabul. I cannot give him specific figures for the other Government Departments but, if he will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the London conference. The programme for the main event at the end of next week is still being developed with the Government of Afghanistan. However, ensuring that Afghan women’s and girls’ issues feature prominently is a top priority, and we are deliberately planning the conference in such a way that those are incorporated across all the main themes, including discussions on the overall reform agenda.

If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on any further questions that I might not have picked up.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

As someone who was looking at the scale of the draw-down at an early stage, I ask my right hon. Friend to do me the favour of passing on my thanks and congratulations to all those, both civilian and military, who have been involved in a magnificent logistical operation. The Ministry of Defence is often criticised—including, I have to say, on occasion, by me—but this time what it has achieved is nothing short of spectacular, and it deserves the thanks and congratulations of the whole House because it has done our country proud.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and he is right that there is occasional criticism of the Ministry, but I will be delighted to pass on his congratulations. This was a huge logistical exercise, and there were many who told us at the time that it simply could not be done and the matériel would not be brought out safely—that the convoys would be attacked and the lines interdicted and so on—but that did not happen. That is in very large part due to the skill, commitment and professionalism of the planners and logisticians, as well as to civil servants in my Ministry, who sometimes do not get the praise we rightly accord, of course, in the first place, to our combat troops.

Nuclear Submarines

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman might anticipate, those are questions that I have already asked of the programme managers throughout this process. There are technical factors in the design of the core that limit the scope to change aspects of the design, but now that we are aware that this microscopic breach has occurred in the test reactor, it will focus the examination of the as yet uninstalled cores that are being built for the Astute class of submarine.

The test reactor at Dounreay has been hammered. This is the nuclear equivalent of putting an engine on a test bed and running it flat out at maximum revs to see what happens. It does not mean that what happens to that engine will happen in a car that is being driven normally on the roads.

It will take approximately three years from the time of decommissioning the reactor to being able to examine it fully. We now have to make a decision about whether more will be learned by continuing to run the reactor at Dounreay until its intended decommissioning date in 2015 or by decommissioning it a year and a half early and thus being able to examine the core a year and a half earlier than we otherwise would. The balance needs to be struck on that and I will act on the best scientific advice that I receive.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his decision. What we are seeing is a vindication of the safety models that have been followed by successive Governments in relation to our nuclear submarine programme, and there is certainly no excuse for scaremongering or irresponsible language. In fact, we should be proud and reassured that safety is given such a high priority even at the financial cost that he has outlined.

In order to give the House an understanding of the scale of the problem, will my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the percentage core burn of the Vulcan test reactor, and how that percentage compares with the percentage burn on the Vanguard submarine?

[Mr Hammond]

As my right hon. Friend says, Governments of both persuasions over the years have adopted a prudent and precautionary approach to the safety of our nuclear submarine fleet, and have invested money, where it is necessary to do so, on the basis that safety always takes priority. As I have said, the decisions that I am announcing today are not driven by concerns about safety. There is no safety risk identified from this incident. They are driven primarily by concerns about future submarine availability.

The information on core burn is classified, but I can reassure the House that the percentage of core burn on the reactor at Dounreay exceeds by far the percentage of core burn on any of our operational reactors.

Defence Reform Bill

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has intervened and put me right. I was not drawing a parallel between the National Guard and the British TA. By the stage when things were starting to unravel, the TA deployment, which had been large at the beginning, was very small. It is true that the TA punched above its weight. I have heard General Abraham, who currently leads the transition process, pay tribute to a military police TA sub-unit which was briefly under his command, while also making the point that it was only briefly: the presence was all-regular most of the time. However, because at one stage just over half the American deployment consisted of reservists, and because, typically, the regulars would capture the ground—and provided the surge—but the National Guard would hold ground, it was possible to introduce a range of different skills across a much larger number of people. Given my hon. Friend’s constituency, I could refer to agriculture and the role that the farmers in the National Guard played, most of them in infantry combat units rather than specialist units.

Let me now say a little about new clause 2, which, I hasten to add, I shall not be pressing, as it could not possibly become law. It is merely an attempt to initiate a short debate about property.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I had hoped to speak in the debate, but those of us who are serving on a Committee will not be able to do so.

Before my hon. Friend moves on to new clause 2, may I make a point about new clause 1? The principle behind the change in the proportion of reserves to regulars was exactly right: it brought us into line with many more contemporary countries. The proviso, in practice, was that the reduction in the number of regulars would not take place until we saw the necessary improvements in training, equipping and numbers in the Reserves. The problem for the House of Commons was that we had very little information to go on when it came to assessing the decision. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling new clause 1, which will provide the transparency that will enable the House to make that assessment. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his wisdom in accepting a new clause that will give the House a good deal more pertinent information than it would have had otherwise.

[Mr Brazier]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his tribute. I understand how strongly he and a number of other Members feel about the timing of the decision. However, although he and I—and, I am sure, the Secretary of State in his private heart of hearts—would like more money to be spent on defence, it is a question of the cash envelope within which any Government are likely to operate. If we wound up the whole Territorial Army tomorrow, it would be possible to pay for only 6,000 or 7,000 regulars rather than 20,000, and that would mean losing most of our medical capability as well as a number of other benefits.

Army Basing Plan

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have just told the House that we are investing £1 billion in Army housing. That will be alongside the existing programme of refurbishment of Army housing, which will continue.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asked me about the pattern of investment in RAF bases. There will be very substantial investment in both Leuchars and Cottesmore. I am happy to write to him with the precise estimated figures for both bases, but he will understand that this is subject to contractual negotiations as we develop the detailed plans for those individual bases.

The right hon. Gentleman asked when the £240 million annual savings start to accrue. They reach that full level by 2019 but they start to accrue immediately, within the next year, and they build up steadily to the 2019 figure. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) says they cannot. The savings start to accrue as soon as we start to close down infrastructure in Germany—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been in government. One would think he would understand the difference between a capital expenditure programme and the accrual of resource savings, which will begin as soon as we start drawing down infrastructure in Germany.

The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire asked me quite legitimately about the phasing of the development of accommodation, the supporting local infrastructure and the timing of relocation. This, of course, has been a major driver of the programme that is set out in the document circulated. In most cases new accommodation will be provided before units relocate. In some cases, as he will see from the document, it will be necessary for a returning unit to locate temporarily in another facility while the ultimate destination is fully completed, with the infrastructure and the accommodation that it requires. He will notice as well that the most substantial move to the Salisbury plain—20th Armoured Brigade—is the last move to take place, in 2018-19. That reflects the fact that substantial infrastructure investment will be required—£800 million of MOD investment, together with investment by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and the Department for Education to provide the supporting local infrastructure.

The German authorities have been fully informed throughout the process. I spoke to my German counterpart yesterday. He expressed his regret at the decision but he is understanding of it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces spoke this morning to the Minister-Presidents of the German Länder affected. The right hon. Gentleman asked about training in Germany. As I think I said, we are pursuing the option of taking up a very generous invitation by the German Government to continue using training estate in Germany to train with the Bundeswehr and other NATO allies. The current plan envisages about 100 personnel remaining in Germany as the core of a residual training presence.

Of course I accept that there will be disappointment in the towns and communities where there are to be base closures, but if we are to deliver the armed forces that this country needs within the budgets that are available to support them, we have to deliver that military capability efficiently, and isolated single bases do not allow us to do that. The lay-down that I have set out in these documents is the optimum value-for-money strategy that will allow the military to deliver the capability that we require.

In Scotland, it is indeed good news that the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will go to Leuchars and that 45 Commando Royal Marines will remain at Arbroath. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the reference to thousands of additional troops going to Scotland. That was when we were still talking of a 94,000-strong Army. The end result in dealing with the legacy that we inherited from the Labour party was an 82,000-strong Army, which is affordable and sustainable, and can be properly equipped and supported, unlike the forces that the previous Government fielded.

Finally, on the question of reserves, we will be publishing a White Paper shortly, and following that I will make a further statement to the House about the reserve estate.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on completing a difficult jigsaw puzzle that Labour was never able to manage, and ensuring that the Ministry of Defence spending is boosting economic activity in this country, not on the continent. Does he agree that the ability to spread this force footprint across the United Kingdom and the large sums involved, fatally undermines the case of the Scottish nationalists that Scotland would ever be better off trying to fund its own armed forces?

[Mr Hammond]

I do agree with my right hon. Friend, and we will no doubt hear in a moment from the representatives of the Scottish National party. I find their posturing on this slightly incredible when their agenda is about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom, removing our Army, our Air Force, our Navy and our marines completely from Scottish soil.

Afghanistan

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Dr Fox]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department on cases brought by public interest lawyers against the Government on behalf of Afghan nationals.

[Official Report, 14 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 591W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on 14 January 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

The total cost to date of cases brought by Public Interest Lawyers Ltd on behalf of Afghan nationals (including cases brought on behalf of UK nationals relating to the interests of Afghan nationals) is approximately £1,451,000, excluding the cost of Ministry of Defence (MOD) staff time.

In addition, the MOD has incurred costs of around £683,000 on cases brought on behalf of Afghan nationals by other firms including Leigh Day and Co.

The correct answer should have been: