Future Reserves 2020

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed, to a man and a woman, they want to see the reserve forces able not only to continue supplying first-class augmentees, but to deploy where appropriate as formed sub-units and units.

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

I very much welcome the creative and supportive way in which my right hon. Friend set out the Government’s approach to the reserves. Will any legislative changes be required to guarantee that reservists can be used for the full range of military tasks? As part of the consultation, will the Government make available to the House the experiences of how other countries incentivise employers? Other countries, particularly the United States, have a much better record than most of being able to use reservists in a full range of tasks and ensuring that they have a full range of promotional opportunities.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I think what the hon. Gentleman meant was that it has been opined, not revealed, and his opinions are noted.

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

Mentoring is one of the most important ways in which we have increased the capability of Afghan forces, and the Secretary of State has made it clear today that the instruction from ISAF in Kabul will not alter the British relationship to partnering. Does he not recognise, however, that the nuances between tactics and strategy can be lost on insurgents, and that the timing of this is unfortunate, so we must redouble our efforts to make it clear to the forces of terror that they cannot push our strategy off course?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is the crucial message that needs to be sent to the insurgents. As I said yesterday, the stepping up of these insider attacks is, in fact, a reflection of the success of partnering and mentoring operations. The insurgents’ key fear is that as we withdraw from combat operations we leave behind competent and capable Afghan national security forces who will continue to contain their ambitions. That is what they fear, and that is what they seek to attack in mounting those types of attack, and that is what we will continue to resist.

Defence Budget and Transformation

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

They still don’t get it. Still they do not understand that a balanced budget is the essential underpinning to effective defence. Still they are in denial about the £38 billion black hole they left, even though we have the internal Labour party documents admitting that the £38 billion black hole is Labour’s biggest weakness in defence. Still they appear to believe, like children in a sweetshop, that it is better to have a big programme that cannot be delivered than a smaller one that our armed forces and defence industry can rely on. Where would we be if the right hon. Gentleman was in charge? We would be right back where we were in May 2010, because he will not make the difficult decisions that support effective defence and will get the MOD back on track.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the process from the SDSR and the three-month exercise. It has been a long and drawn-out process, with savings made at the SDSR, further savings made in the three-month exercise to get to the position announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—that the defence budget was broadly in balance—and, now, the work that we have done to go the final mile, which has enabled us to say that we have a fully balanced budget.

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on his point about pensions. Pensions are not frozen, as he very well knows, and using emotive language like that will not help him.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £500 million increase in the defence programme projects over the last year. What he forgot to tell the House was that in the last year of his party’s Government there was a £3.3 billion increase in the equipment programme. I can also tell him, in answer to his question, that there is no delay to the Trident programme. The timetable of the Trident programme allows us to include all the critical path items in the PR12 period, and we have done so in the figures that I have announced today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about regimental structures in Scotland. I can say this to him: I, too, have read in a newspaper that I am determined to introduce a continental-style Army, without a regimental structure. I can say this to the House: I understand absolutely the vital role that the regimental structure plays in the British Army, and as long as I am Secretary of State for Defence, the regimental structure will remain.

The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he asked how, when the equipment plan in all its detail cannot be published—as it never has been published in the past—I can substantiate the statement that I have made today. I can do two things. On the one hand, I can ask the armed forces committee and the chiefs of staff to confirm that they can deliver the Future Force 2020 capability within the budget that I have announced, and they have done that. On the other hand, I can ask the National Audit Office to review the statement that I have made—the plan that we have produced—and confirm that it is deliverable within the available budgets. As I said earlier, once the National Audit Office has completed its review, we will publish the equipment plan at the same level of detail as it has been published in the past.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I was confident that managing the Department’s budget prudently, with in-year unallocated provision and contingency provision in the equipment plan, would not lead to a Treasury raid, in an attempt to snatch back the headroom. May I guarantee that it will be retained for use in defence? He might have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He gets it—he understands that the only way in which we will be able to manage the defence budget effectively in future is to have an open and transparent relationship between the Treasury and the MOD, where we both understand the boundaries and drive the incentives that will change behaviour in that Department.

As we have taken the painful decisions in the best interests of our armed forces and of Britain’s defence, we have required no lectures from the party that shirked them. As we have tackled the £38 billion black hole, we have asked for no advice from the Labour party, which has yet to take any action to deal with that black hole.

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

First, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words and extend them to the rest of the ministerial team? The junior Ministers all had their share of the hard work and the difficult decisions that had to be taken to get us out of the mess that we inherited. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that we inherited from Labour not only a £38 billion black hole but a commitment to the replacement of the Trident programme that had no funding line whatever? Will he also tell us how far he has got in introducing professional procurement skills into the Ministry of Defence to enable us to deal with contracts on an equal basis with industry and thus give taxpayers better value and ensure that the kind of disasters that we faced in the past do not happen again?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to one part of Labour’s black hole—the unfunded Trident commitment. He might equally have referred to the 22 Chinook helicopters that the former Prime Minister famously announced but forgot to fund. He asks about professional skills in Defence Equipment and Support, which is a crucial part of the MOD’s operation. The new Chief of Defence Matériel is drawing up a defence matériel strategy that will involve a radical change to the structure of the Defence Equipment and Support organisation. I hope to be able to make an announcement to the House on that matter before the summer recess.

Carrier Strike Capability

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman says that I do not know. If he had ever been a Defence Minister, or inside the Ministry of Defence, he would understand why I do not know. These are complex contracts. I can give him an approximate idea. We think the cost of the design work that has been carried out and the appraisal work will be between £40 million and £50 million. There may also be some exit costs payable to the US contractors responsible for the EMAL system. We will be negotiating around those issues, and I give the right hon. Gentleman this commitment: once we have a definitive figure, I will make it available to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we will have no jets on our carriers for a decade. I do not think he was listening to the statement. We will take delivery of the first test aircraft this year. We will receive the first STOVL variant aircraft in 2016 for operation off land. The carrier will go into sea trials in 2017 and, as soon as she has completed them in 2018, flights will begin from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth. It will take us two years to work up full military operational capability, but it is important that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is shaking his head, understands what that means. It is the gap between getting from the point when we fly the jets off the carrier to the point when the military are satisfied that we have full operational capability.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of aircraft that we will be purchasing. The plans for deployment of aircraft have not changed as a result of this announcement. We will routinely embark 12 aircraft and we will be able to surge that number to 36. On the purchasing of aircraft in the joint strike fighter programme, I can tell him that there is no requirement for us to go firm with numbers at this early stage of the programme. Where we can retain optionality, we will do so, as part of prudent budget management.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about risks and costs in this project and in the carrier variant project. We are talking about a project with a total cost of around £10 billion. It is hugely complex, probably the second largest industrial project under way in this country today. There will always be risks, and there will always be risks of cost escalation in such a project. The challenge is not to eliminate risks, but to manage them. That is what proper management of the Ministry of Defence is all about.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the operation of two carriers. If at the next strategic defence and security review, the Government and the National Security Council take the decision to operate two carriers in order to give us continuous carrier availability, there will be an additional cost of about £60 million a year on average for additional crewing and maintenance to keep the two carriers in high readiness.

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

Will the Secretary of State accept that there were two optimal mixes for JSF and carrier? We could either have a 65,000 tonne carrier and use the carrier variant, with a longer range and bigger payload, or, as the American marine corps are doing, choose the jump jet variant and have smaller carriers. Is the position we are in today sub-optimal, and not the result of industrial policy leading military policy? Does he accept that the real difference, and the reason why he has come to this decision, is that the extra time required for the EMAL system to be put in actually breaches the risk that we were willing to take at the SDSR?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that at the SDSR, a view was taken about the amount of risk that was tolerable, about the horizon to which we could accept an absence of carrier capability and, as I have said, I am certainly not prepared to see us go beyond 2020 without the carrier strike capability.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the question for Opposition Members to answer: why did they order two 65,000 tonne carriers without cats and traps, which anyone involved in naval aviation operations knows is itself an absurdity? [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on Thursday. Only last night the Minister for Housing and Local Government was on television making the point that we are very keen that people returning from operations or from abroad and moving into their home area where they have not lived for some time should have priority in council housing. That is, of course, the responsibility of local authorities, but we are working hard with them to get them to take note that somebody who has been away for six years may be a resident of Islwyn, even if he has been living somewhere else for the past six years.

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

This is the first chance I have had to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his post, which I do with the greatest pleasure and the utmost confidence. Since the Atlanta games there has been an internationally accepted minimal level of protection for the Olympics. Will he confirm to the House that there will be a full range of multilayered defence and deterrence for the London games, including ground-to-air missiles in London?

Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

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

In June 2009 the previous Government announced that a feasibility study into the establishment of a defence and national rehabilitation centre (DNRC) would be undertaken. I am today announcing the outcome of that study and the next steps that will be taken. But I wish to do so in the wider context of what is being done for members of the armed forces in the field of both rehabilitation and recovery.

Rehabilitation is primarily clinical treatment for medical conditions arising from illness, wounding or injury. The Defence Medical Services (DMS) are responsible for the provision of rehabilitation. Defence relies upon the availability of medically fit and healthy personnel in order to generate forces for operations. A tiered structure of rehabilitation is provided for all personnel who need it, whatever the cause of their injury or illness. The DMS run local primary care rehabilitation facilities in barracks and stations in which minor cases can be treated. More significant conditions are referred to one of 13 regional rehabilitation units (RRU) in the UK and two in Germany.

In the operational theatre, a deployed rehabilitation capability is available to treat personnel with minor injuries, so avoiding the need to repatriate them. The most seriously wounded are treated first in the theatre of operations before aeromedical evacuation and admission to the military ward of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham. When their injuries are sufficiently healed, most such patients start a rehabilitation programme at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court in Surrey, which treats complex or persistent cases regardless of how they are caused.

Let me turn now to recovery. Recovery is primarily a non-clinical activity, which may involve individuals taking rest periods during their rehabilitation treatment programmes. Recovery activity ensures that wounded, injured and sick personnel have access to all the key services and resources needed to help them return to duty or make a smooth transition to an appropriately skilled civilian life. This care is delivered across the defence community by the combined efforts of the services and the service charities, responding to carefully tailored individual recovery plans setting out a recovery pathway.

Single service recovery provision is co-ordinated by the defence recovery steering group (DRSG) and collectively forms the defence recovery capability (DRC). The Army’s wounded, injured and sick are managed at brigade level by 13 regional personnel recovery units (PRUs). The naval services, including the royal marines, are supported at each Royal Navy base but have special facilities at Devonport with Hasler company. The Royal Air Force has a recovery flight as part of their recovery pathway which is followed by all RAF personnel who are unable to return to duty after sickness or injury.

A programme is under way to support the DRC by the creation of personnel recovery centres (PRCs). These centres are already being built in garrison towns in Colchester, Catterick, Tidworth and, in the case of the naval services, at Plymouth. The Pathfinder Centre, opened in Edinburgh in 2009, supported by Help For Heroes for the first two years, is now being run by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and supported by the Royal British Legion and Erskine homes.

The PRCs and other facilities are being built by Help For Heroes in Tidworth, Colchester and Catterick and by the Royal British Legion in Sennelager in Germany. This has been made possible by the generous initiatives of Help For Heroes and the Royal British Legion. Long-term funding will be the responsibility of the MOD. Additional support is being provided by many other charities and Government agencies to ensure that the DRC is able to deliver effective and co-ordinated support from regional support hubs.

The Battle Back programme provides adaptive sport and adventure training opportunities to wounded, sick and injured personnel at all stages of recovery. The programme will be further developed through a defence adaptive sport and adventurous training centre at the Sport England Centre of Excellence at Lilleshall. Funding for this Battle Back centre is being provided by the Royal British Legion and wider Battle Back activity is supported by Help For Heroes through the PRCs.

This partnership between the MOD and the service charities is a long-standing tradition. This multimillion pound programme, using funds raised by a generous and benevolent British public, is already supporting wounded and injured personnel. Once completed, the DRC will provide a comprehensive support network to both serving personnel and their families, and to those who leave the services through injury.

Rehabilitation medicine is advancing rapidly in terms of how technology can help people recover and the extent to which modern medical science might offer new possibilities in the rehabilitative field. While the existing defence rehabilitation facility at Headley Court, established in 1947, is widely admired for achieving remarkable results for those injured in conflict, it is important that defence is in a position to benefit to the maximum degree from advances in technology and science. Realising the full benefits of such advances will not be possible in the medium to long-term because of the physical constraints of the Headley Court site and will therefore require purpose-built accommodation and facilities. It was for this reason that the feasibility study into the concept of a DNRC was conducted, involving the possibility of establishing a new facility in the midlands and looking at how the whole issue of rehabilitation should be developed in 21^st-century terms.

The study involved the MOD, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It was conducted during 2010 and 2011 and is now complete. It took evidence from a wide variety of sources including many of the practitioners at Headley Court. It concluded that there is convincing evidence that a DNRC would build on the remarkable achievements of Headley Court by offering substantial “betterment” in virtually all areas, providing an assured level of future care that will surpass that which is offered by Headley Court’s current and planned capabilities. The MOD’s surgeon general considers that the degree of “betterment” is shown to be compelling and very significant in terms of scale, quality, design, patient flows and future-proofing. It presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop the nation’s rehabilitation capability in partnership with the MOD, which builds on defence’s acknowledged lead in this area. This defence “core” of a DNRC has been defined in considerable detail and will include specific provision for neurological and complex trauma patients as well as “back to life” facilities.

The study also revealed widespread support for the notion of civilian rehabilitation benefiting from close association with the defence equivalent. Although less developed at this stage, the study concluded that significant national benefits could come into play. The urgent need for improvement in the nation’s approach to getting injured people back to work is well known—the cost to the taxpayer of lost working days was estimated in 2006 to be over £60 billion. A combination of defence and civilian medicine, university-led research and development, and national disabled sporting facilities in one location could provide a combination unique in the world. The focus on work-related interventions, looking at what people can do, rather than what they cannot, has the potential to bring huge benefits to the nation through reducing the social and economic costs of ill-health in working-age adults. Professor Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and the NHS in England, and the surgeon general in the MOD strongly support the development of a DNRC, and the trustees of the Headley Court trust also support the project. The next steps will be to develop further the concept for the national elements and to embark upon acquiring the necessary capital through a fundraising campaign. During the study a test site in the midlands was identified as able to accommodate both the defence military establishment and allow space for national facilities to be developed over time. The test site allowed the development of robust costs on the basis of designs to fit the MOD’s clinical brief.

With his permission, modestly given, I am able to tell the House that the benefactor behind this project is the Duke of Westminster. The initiative was his from the outset. Since then, the Duke of Westminster has been working on the project quietly behind the scenes for two years, and it was he who generously funded the feasibility study. His generosity has now extended to the acquisition of the test site so that, as a first step, a dialogue with the planning authority can take place to explore the site’s DNRC potential. He will also fund the necessary work to process the planning application. If the decision is made to proceed with a DNRC, it is the Duke’s intention to donate the site to the project. He will now lead the major donor fundraising campaign and make a very substantial donation to it beyond that which he has already given.

Nevertheless, I can assure the House that no final decision on the future of Headley Court has been made. I expect to be in a position to announce progress on these next steps towards the end of 2013. Should the decision be made to proceed with the project, the outcome would be a new defence establishment, opening in 2017, which would ensure that the spirit and achievements of Headley Court are carried forward into the 21st century on a new larger site, purpose-built to continue to do what Headley Court has always done so well.

Meanwhile, development of the defence recovery capability will proceed and by the end of 2012 the full capability is expected to be in place.

The Government are committed to providing the best possible care for our wounded and injured service personnel. A DNRC offers the clear and compelling opportunity to realise the full benefits of future advances and we should seize it for the medium to long-term. For now, I can assure the House that we shall continue to invest in Headley Court so that it continues to deliver to the best possible standard. A project to increase capacity and sustain infrastructure is planned to start at the end of this year.

Libya (Operation Ellamy)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Written Statements

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

In a written statement on 23 June 2011, Official Report, column 24WS, I informed the House that the costs of Operation Ellamy—the United Kingdom’s contribution to coalition operations in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973—for the six months from mid-March to mid-September were estimated to be £120 million. I can now update this estimate.

The revised figure for the whole operation, from mid-March to mid-December, is £160 million. Our estimate of the cost of replenishing munitions used in Libya remains £140 million. As previously announced, the additional costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence on Operation Ellamy will be borne by the reserve, and will be in addition to the core defence budget.

Records of Detention

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Tyrie]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the oral statement of 26 February 2009, Official Report, columns 3294-97W, on records of detention (review conclusions) and the answer of 6 July 2009, Official Report, column 549W, on Afghanistan: detainees, what steps UK authorities took to determine the status, under the Geneva conventions, of the two detainees concerned; whether the two individuals were classified by the UK authorities as (a) prisoners of war, (b) civilians, (c) protected persons or (d) under any other legal classification; in what detention centres in Iraq the two detainees were held by the US prior to their transfer to Afghanistan; and on what date the two transfers to Afghanistan took place.

[Official Report, 13 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 371-72W.]

Letter of correction from Dr Liam Fox:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) on 13 July 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Fox]

[holding answer 9 June 2011]: These individuals were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba and they were captured as they posed an imperative threat to security in Iraq. They had travelled to Iraq to target coalition forces and the operation launched against them was necessary in order to save lives. Our forces risked their lives to capture such individuals and to ensure the security of Iraq.

They were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad in February 2004, at the time that the UK was an occupying power in south eastern Iraq, and immediately transferred to US forces in Iraq in accordance with established processes. The reason for this transfer was that the UK did not have its own detention facility close to where the two individuals were captured. The individuals were then held in US detention at Balad and subsequently transferred to a US detention facility in Afghanistan by August 2004.

UK forces did not undertake an assessment of whether or not the individuals were prisoners of war because they were immediately transferred to US forces for detention. As part of the review of the case completed by officials between late 2008 and early 2009, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) considered the status of the detainees and determined that, as there was no information to suggest that they were members of the armed forces of Iraq, they would not have been prisoners of war. They may have been protected persons under the Geneva conventions, subject to certain criteria being satisfied. If they were protected persons, compliance with the Geneva conventions in respect of detainees held by US forces was primarily a matter for the US.

The MOD is co-operating fully with Sir Peter Gibson's Detainee inquiry, the purpose of which was described by the Prime Minister, in July 2010 as to

“examine whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its intelligence agencies were involved in improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in counter-terrorism operations overseas, or were aware of the improper treatment of detainees in operations in which the UK was involved”.

We understand that the Detainee inquiry will consider this case as part of their work.

The correct answer should have been:

[Dr Fox]

[holding answer 9 June 2011]: These individuals were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba and they were captured as they posed an imperative threat to security in Iraq. They had travelled to Iraq to target coalition forces and the operation launched against them was necessary in order to save lives. Our forces risked their lives to capture such individuals and to ensure the security of Iraq.

They were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad in February 2004, at the time that the UK was an occupying power in south eastern Iraq, and immediately transferred to US forces in Iraq in accordance with established processes. The reason for this transfer was that the UK did not have its own detention facility close to where the two individuals were captured. The individuals were then initially held in US detention in and around Baghdad, and subsequently transferred to a US detention facility in Afghanistan in March 2004.

UK forces did not undertake an assessment of whether or not the individuals were prisoners of war because they were immediately transferred to US forces for detention. As part of the review of the case completed by officials between late 2008 and early 2009, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) considered the status of the detainees and determined that, as there was no information to suggest that they were members of the armed forces of Iraq, they would not have been prisoners of war. They may have been protected persons under the Geneva conventions, subject to certain criteria being satisfied. If they were protected persons, compliance with the Geneva conventions in respect of detainees held by US forces was primarily a matter for the US.

The MOD is co-operating fully with Sir Peter Gibson's Detainee inquiry, the purpose of which was described by the Prime Minister, in July 2010 as to

“examine whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its intelligence agencies were involved in improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in counter-terrorism operations overseas, or were aware of the improper treatment of detainees in operations in which the UK was involved”.

We understand that the Detainee inquiry will consider this case as part of their work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to establish security relationships in South Asia.

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

First, I am sure the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Jonathan McKinlay of 1st Battalion the Rifles and Marine David Fairbrother of Kilo Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, who were killed in Afghanistan on 14 and 19 September respectively. Our thoughts, as ever, are with their families and friends, for whom this will be an immense personal tragedy.

The south Asia region is one of the United Kingdom’s highest engagement priorities, and the Ministry of Defence enjoys strong historic relationships with most countries in the region. We have developed a broad range of positive initiatives to enhance co-operation between Ministers, senior officials and military officers, and continue to work to broaden and deepen those links in support of the Government's strategic objectives.

[Greg Hands]

I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the dead. May I also tell him that he has our full support, not least in deepening our security ties with south Asia? Will he use this opportunity to explain to the House his involvement in Sri Lanka?

[Dr Fox]

I shall be delighted to do that, especially in front of so many Members with a new interest in defence.

In 1996, when I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I worked on what became known as the Fox agreement, which was part of the early peace talks in Sri Lanka. In recent years I have been attempting to work again for reconciliation in that country, and to encourage investment in it. As I said when I spoke there recently, there will be no future for Sri Lanka unless all citizens, whatever their gender, religion or ethnic origin, are treated in the same way and allowed to realise their full potential.

[Paul Uppal]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he has done in respect of Sri Lanka. Will he elaborate on the work that he has done in relation to the Sri Lanka Development Trust, and specifically on the work that Ministers have done in that regard?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, the point of involvement in Sri Lanka is to create greater stability which will contribute to stability in the region. I was particularly keen to see a mechanism for investment that could reduce some of the regulatory restrictions imposed by the Sri Lankan Government, on the basis that a proportion of the profits would go into social projects that would benefit ethnic minorities. I still hope that that project will succeed, and give it my full support.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Is not the general problem in south Asia as a whole the massive growth, modernisation and aggressive posturing of the Chinese military? As the Chinese launch a blue water aircraft carrier battle fleet, thanks to the Secretary of State’s handling of our affairs we will have no aircraft carriers from which planes can fly for the next 10 years.

[Dr Fox]

For some 17 of the last 20 centuries China has been the world’s biggest economy, but our thoughts tend to be forged in the period when it was not. China will emerge as a global superpower, and as an Asian superpower it has a right to a blue water capability. What we must try to keep in check is what China’s intent may be, as well as the capability. Looking at the two together will give us an idea of the sort of threat that we may have to counter in the future.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I know that the Defence Secretary has a long-standing interest in Sri Lanka. Can he tell us how many times he has visited that country since becoming Defence Secretary, and how many of those visits were on official Government business?

[Dr Fox]

I have been there twice; I am not sure whether it was three times. One of those visits was on official Government business, when I met a number of politicians. I also took the opportunity to deliver a lecture on behalf of my friend Mrs Kadirgamar—widow of the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, who was a Tamil Foreign Minister—in which I set out what I thought was a vision that should cut across Sri Lankan politics. I believe there is a widespread view in the House that Sri Lanka needs reconciliation and an understanding of what happened at the end of the war, and that there must be transparency about who was responsible so that the country can move on to a proper process of reconciliation.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I return my right hon. Friend to the subject of his current responsibilities? Given that Afghanistan is in south Asia, can he tell us whether he agrees or disagrees with General McChrystal’s assessment of how we are doing in that country?

[Dr Fox]

General McChrystal’s assessment was, in my view, a touch pessimistic; I think we have come a long way. He was referring to the period from 2001 onwards, and we did not make sufficient progress for a large proportion of that time. However, I would argue that since 2006, and particularly since the American surge, we have had the correct force densities to achieve what we wanted. We are now increasingly able to hold the military territory and are increasingly tactically successful, but there must be greater progress in the political and economic spaces.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

2. What progress he is making in implementing the recommendations of the Levene review of defence reform.

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

Since entering office, we have made significant progress in transforming defence. The new Defence Board and the Major Projects Review Board are up and running. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the Defence Business Services organisation have both been established. We have appointed the first commander of the new Joint Forces Command. In addition to the specific recommendations in Lord Levene’s report, we have completed the basing and reserves reviews, and, even more importantly, established a broadly affordable future defence programme. This ambitious, but achievable, programme of work is part of transformation across defence, the likes of which has not been seen in a generation.

[Matthew Hancock]

I commend the Secretary of State on the substantial work that he has done so far in implementing the Levene report and ask him to stick to his guns in dealing with the £38 billion hole in the budget. Has he had any word of apology from the Opposition?

[Dr Fox]

I think it is unreasonable for my hon. Friend to expect an apology from the Opposition as they do not yet understand what they did. They are still deficit deniers who not only fail to recognise what they did to the MOD budget, but do not yet understand what they did to the broader British economy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Levene recommended strengthening financial and performance management to ensure affordability and accountability. However, the National Audit Office rated the MOD’s response to the major projects report as weak, and criticised the Department for not submitting the multi-million pound costs for contract cancellations. When will Parliament receive the necessary details to be able to scrutinise these big ticket decisions?

[Dr Fox]

The Department will be fully audited on its equipment programme, and let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the big differences we have made. The Defence Board is the primary decision-making body of the MOD, and we inherited a board that had 24 members and was not chaired by the Secretary of State, which in my view was an utterly absurd position to be in. We now have a Defence Board of nine, chaired by the Secretary of State and with far more vertical management structures, accountability and responsibility.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to promote defence exports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department’s budget during the comprehensive spending review period; and if he will make a statement.

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

On 18 July 2011, I announced that the defence budget is now broadly in balance over the decade and adequate to enable the Department to fulfil its objectives, including success in Afghanistan and Libya, delivery of the Future Force 2020 and the major process of transformation that follows the strategic defence and security review.

[Ian Austin]

Men and women in the west midlands have always made a huge contribution to the armed forces, not least at MOD Donnington, which provides a first-class logistics service, ensuring that forces get the right kit in the right place at the right time. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will use those resources to ensure that the logistics commodity services site at Donnington is retained as the main logistics site for the MOD, safeguarding the 2,000 jobs that depend on it, and will he meet representatives of the work force to discuss this issue?

[Dr Fox]

I and any of my ministerial colleagues will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue. We are keen to retain as much of the defence infrastructure, naturally, as possible within the constraints we are set given the budgetary position in which the Department finds itself. First, may I pay tribute to the excellent logistics the hon. Gentleman has described? We will do what we can to retain what we can.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

One of the really excellent initiatives that my right hon. Friend has pressed for to make capacity in defence affordable is the decision to move various elements towards the reserves. May I ask when we can expect a full response to the reserves review? He has already given a very positive preliminary response.

[Dr Fox]

I would like to be able to do it before Christmas, but, as my hon. Friend will understand, there is a lot of very detailed work to be undertaken. Perhaps the biggest challenge is the fact that we are pouring £400 million into the reserves over this Parliament—an unprecedented amount to put into that organisation, which was very badly run down by the previous Government. There will be challenges in absorbing that amount of money and, of course, the rate at which we are able to build up the reserves will determine the rate at which we are able to change the ratio with the regulars.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have used the issue of cost as the main reason they are scrapping the office of the chief coroner. This is a Justice lead, but it affects fallen servicemen and women and their bereaved families. The Royal British Legion has submitted a compromise proposal in which it outlines reforms that could be made to the coronial system at a much lower cost than the Government estimate. Has the Secretary of State reviewed this proposal and does he support it?

[Dr Fox]

I have had conversations with ministerial colleagues over this and although I am broadly sympathetic to some of the changes outlined, the hon. Lady is right that this is a Justice lead. For her to say that the Government simply use cost as a means of having to make reductions is, again, not to understand what it is to inherit a budget with a £38 billion black hole. Of course we have to learn to live within our means, and we do not yet know from the Opposition what their budget would be and which parts of the SDSR they accept and do not accept. In fact, we hear very little from them except negative criticism. It seems they have nothing constructive at all to say on the matter.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on the medical care of wounded service personnel and veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by myself and other ministerial colleagues, meets regularly to discuss the ongoing operations in Libya, including stabilisation. In terms of recovering the costs of operations in Libya from the national transitional council, NATO’s intervention in Libya under a clear UN mandate has saved countless lives and is helping to bring new hope to a country that has suffered tyrannical rule for 42 years, but the UK did not play a leading role in this action for financial return.

[Simon Hughes]

Given the extended nature of the Libyan conflict, the tribal nature of the country and the experience in Iraq, will the Defence Secretary assure me that maximum attention will be given to conflict prevention and conflict resolution issues from now onwards, so that we do not have a recurrence of victory followed by great difficulties thereafter?

[Dr Fox]

That is a key question. I visited Libya at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Iraq, but Libya has three big advantages coming out of this conflict compared with Iraq. First, we were careful not to cause civilian deaths, which has given the impression that we value human life higher; secondly, we did not target civilian infrastructure, so it is likely that the country will be able to move much more quickly to economic recovery; and thirdly we encouraged the NTC not to engage in a process similar to de-Ba’athification. I therefore find Libya in a much better place than Iraq was.

[Mr Hollobone]

Given that the cost of our involvement in Libya is about £260 million and rising, at the same time as we have the biggest budget deficit in the G20, should we not be asking Libya and/or the Arab League to repay the cost, just as the Kuwaitis did after the first Gulf war?

[Dr Fox]

As I said, we went into Libya not on the basis of recovering the costs, but because we believed there to be an imminent humanitarian disaster. Mindful of such disasters in previous generations, we can be proud that we averted this one. How costs are apportioned and whether other countries can help with those wider costs can be discussed, but only after the conflict has been concluded, which it has not yet been.

[Mr Speaker]

On question 14, I call Mr John Spellar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

This is one of the issues that I discussed at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is an urgent matter. We have provided a small team of UK military specialists to work alongside the Libyans and the United States in preventing surface-to-air missile proliferation. We have already disarmed a number of these missiles and identified a large number of sites where further activity will take place.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in the military tasks and that we honour our armed forces covenant.

[John Robertson]

Does the Secretary of State agree with his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), that brave Gurkha veterans should be described as asylum seekers, or does he agree with the Gurkha justice campaign that these comments are shocking and unacceptable—or is the cat out of the bag on immigration and defence cuts?

[Dr Fox]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has done a grave disservice to my hon. Friend, who never used any such words and has the highest regard for all those sacrifices made in the past.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T2. Many small and medium enterprises in Pendle are keen to know when the yellow book review will be completed. Is the Minister in a position to update the House on progress?

[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.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

T4. Given the great pressure on MOD finances, has my right hon. Friend considered following the example of the shadow Defence team by accepting very substantial sponsorship from generous British defence companies, such as Cellcrypt?

[Dr Fox]

No.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T3. The Royal British Legion has said that the creation of the chief coroner“is essential to improving bereaved Armed Forces families’ experience of military inquests” and that Government proposals will“fail to meet the needs of bereaved Armed Forces families.” The Secretary of State’s rant about his budget shows that he has not read the Royal British Legion’s proposals, so will he, in the quiet moments that I am sure will follow later this afternoon, take the time to explain to the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice that failing to introduce a chief coroner will be a betrayal of our brave military personnel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the leadership that he has shown on Libya. What action is he taking with his Libyan counterparts to help prevent the risk of insurgent activity, in preparation for the national transitional council taking complete control?

[Dr Fox]

The first thing that we require is an end to hostilities; then we require disarmament and the militia’s incorporation into national forces; and then we require the formation of a Government as soon as possible—a Government who include all elements of Libya’s geography and ethnic make-up and are cross-generational.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), waxed lyrical in earlier answers about his support for small and medium-sized businesses and for SME exports, so why are his Government forcing them to bear more of the cost of showcasing their equipment throughout the world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The future of European security will be enhanced by military capability, interoperability and co-operation; it will not be enhanced by an unnecessary duplication of military headquarters. What more can we do to convince our European colleagues that that is not a sensible proposal, particularly at a time when defence budgets are falling across the continent?

[Dr Fox]

The Government oppose, and I have always very strongly opposed, any concept of an EU military headquarters—and we will continue to do so, whether any proposal is made up-front or attempted with permanent structured co-operation through the Lisbon treaty. NATO is the cornerstone of defence in Europe, and it shall continue to be so, because it brings the United States into the defence of Europe. Such a concept would be a diversion, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and a dilution of scarce resources; it would not produce one bullet, one battle tank or one aircraft; it would be pretentious; and it would be bureaucratic—none of which commends it to me.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Ministry of Defence has invested considerably in additional reserve forces, which are welcomed by many of us across the House. What steps might the Secretary of State be able to take to ensure that the jobs of our reservists, such as those serving in 6th Battalion The Rifles in my constituency, will be protected, especially given that 10 of them are returning from Afghanistan this week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the campaign by the Royal British Legion Scotland to get a Ministry of Defence hospital unit based in Scotland? I understand that the tendering process for that is due to commence in 2013. Will the Minister look into the issue and try to get a better geographical spread for such units?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is something that we will look at. As I said at the conclusion of the basing review, it is essential to remember that Her Majesty’s forces are for the whole Union, not for any one part of the Union. Having them more evenly spread is part of what the United Kingdom is all about.

Defence Responsibilities

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House about my defence responsibilities in the light of considerable media coverage and the interim report this morning by the permanent secretary. I would like to discuss the meeting in Dubai in June 2011, my relationship with Mr Werritty and my involvement in Sri Lanka. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will take these in turn.

As I said yesterday, I accept that it was a mistake to allow distinctions to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and my personal loyalties to a friend. Mr Speaker, I am sorry for this. I have apologised to the Prime Minister, to the public, and, at the first opportunity available, to the House.

Let me deal first with the Dubai meeting, which has been the subject of so much speculation. Mr Werritty first met Mr Boulter of Cellcrypt on 1 April 2011 in Dubai. This meeting was arranged by the lobbying firm Tetra. At this time, Mr Boulter asked for a meeting to discuss Cellcrypt. Nothing happened for the next three months, but during the week of 13 June, Mr Werritty was dining in Dubai at a nearby table and Mr Boulter again requested a meeting. Mr Werrity suggested that it might be possible the following day, as I was coming through on my return from visiting forces in Afghanistan. The meeting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say at this early stage that the Secretary of State is making a full statement. It is a matter of basic courtesy that that statement be heard. By now the House can trust me, I think, to ensure that there will be a full opportunity to question the Secretary of State, but he must first be heard.

[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.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I, as a former Defence Secretary, pay tribute to the robust and effective leadership that my right hon. Friend is giving, which I hope he will continue to give to a Ministry of Defence that has sadly drifted in recent years? With regard to what he said about links with Sri Lanka, may I, from my own personal knowledge going back to the time when he served with me in the Foreign Office, confirm that my right hon. Friend made sterling efforts to try to broker peace between the various factions in Sri Lanka? I think it is a tribute to his integrity and his qualities that he has continued to advance that cause in the years since.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that. A great deal of work is still to be done in Sri Lanka, and I am very pleased that I was able, eventually, to make an official visit as Secretary of State. I hope that the United Kingdom, with all its historical links to the country, will be able to use the levers at our disposal to try to bring peace to a region where, sadly, too little has been done in recent years to try to bring reconciliation.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Experience shows that over the last 40 years these decisions are very rarely decided by the raucous voices behind the Government Front Bench. What the right hon. Gentleman really has to consider is the fact that his friends in the right-wing press—not, now, The Guardian, but The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Telegraph today and probably Kavanagh of The Sun—are against him. It looks to me like Cameron is going to get his Fox.

[Dr Fox]

It is certainly possible to keep a good bottle just a little bit too long. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that these issues are not decided purely inside this House, as they reflect the judgments made not just by the media, but by the public in general. Serious issues have been raised here. I accept that, and I accept that they must be investigated fully, which is why I said I would co-operate with the Cabinet Secretary on all the issues raised. It is important not only to be clear that, as I believe, there was no wrongdoing, but to recognise that the perception of wrongdoing also has to be eliminated.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that he has made a mistake, and he has apologised to the House. Will he accept that many people believe that, compared with the important issues with which he has to deal, this is pretty small-scale stuff? Will he please concentrate on issues such as the conflict we are continuing to fight in Afghanistan, the shortage of money in the Defence budget and the implementation of the strategic defence and security review?

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who does not have to remind me of the list of serious projects with which we are currently dealing—not least with our armed forces in combat in Libya and Afghanistan. It is important for me to continue with that work. We will certainly not be diverted from the important issues. I nevertheless think it important for those in front-line politics to be big enough to say that they are sorry and have made a mistake if they have done so.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

As Mr Werritty joined the Secretary of State, attending defence meetings in various countries, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that at no stage during those meetings were security issues or security relationships raised? Will he also assure us that Mr Werritty had no pecuniary interests whatever in any of the items under discussion at any of the meetings?

[Dr Fox]

The right hon. Lady raises a key point with which I thought I had already dealt, but let me deal with it again for her. I have made it clear that at no point did Mr Werritty attend departmental meetings; that at no point did he have access to classified documents; that at no point did he have classified briefings; and, therefore, that at no point was any issue of security affecting the United Kingdom either discussed or put at risk. As for the pecuniary interests of Mr Werritty in those particular conferences, I am confident that he was not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on what he has achieved in the Ministry of Defence to date. Does he agree with one of the oldest maxims in politics? Advisers advise; it is Ministers who decide.

[Dr Fox]

It is Ministers who decide, and, as I have said, I am still awaiting any information or proof that any advice that I was given changed the way in which I made a decision. There has been a lot of speculation and a lot of innuendo, but if someone has an accusation to make—that there was wrongdoing, that there were financial transactions, or that advice was given that changed a ministerial decision—let that person come forward with it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

This afternoon the Secretary of State said, “with the benefit of hindsight… I should have taken great care to ensure a more transparent separation of Government…political and private business”. However, we know that he was warned by Sir Jock Stirrup and Bill Jeffrey, the then permanent secretary, about his relations with Mr Werritty. Will he tell us why he ignored their advice and shuffled them off quickly, and will he publish their advice?

[Dr Fox]

The two individuals that the hon. Lady mentioned were not shuffled off quickly; they retired after long and distinguished service to the armed forces and to the civil service. In any case, as I said earlier, I accept that there was a lack of transparency and clarity, and that, as the permanent secretary pointed out in her report this morning—which I suggest the hon. Lady read —there is a need for more mechanisms in the Department to ensure that the ministerial code is clearly implemented.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I believe that this may be the first time that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), has mentioned a registered interest. If that is the case, I wonder whether he could tell the House how long he has had that registered interest, and why it has not been mentioned before.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Secretary of State’s action in coming to the Dispatch Box. I do not recall that, in all my time in Parliament, a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box voluntarily to answer such questions. However, there is one group of people whom we have forgotten today: our armed forces, in Afghanistan and also in Libya, who will be amazed that the House could be packed with Members wishing to discuss a matter relating to a business card when they have a superb Secretary of State getting on with the job.

[Dr Fox]

I accept that tribute with particular humility, given that my hon. Friend has a son serving in our armed forces at present. I think it important for us to deal with issues such as this and for them to be fully and transparently addressed, but I also think it important for me to recognise that I have very important issues with which to deal. I have just come back from Libya, where I was over the weekend. Those were not, perhaps, the best two days on which to be incommunicado, but none the less a very important task is still in hand. I realise that a great deal of attention and time will have to be given to it, and I still fully intend to ensure that that is my primary objective.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the letter in which he apologised for misinforming the House on a matter earlier this year, but his judgment is what is in question today. He confessed his lack of judgment yesterday. Is he a fit person to take what can be life or death decisions affecting our troops in Afghanistan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

As soon as I had information from the civil service that there might have been a mistake in a parliamentary answer, I did what you would expect us to do, Mr Speaker, and corrected it immediately. It seems that if we correct mistakes of one kind or another, we are now regarded as lacking in judgment. I think it absolutely correct that, when we make a mistake, we apologise for it; but, as I said earlier, if the hon. Gentleman or anyone else has a substantial charge to make, let him or her bring it out into the open rather than whispering from the weeds.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Those of us who were in the House in 1996 will recall my right hon. Friend, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, devoting considerable efforts and energy to the peace process in Sri Lanka. I am sure that any reasonable Member would think it commendable that he has consistently supported the peace process and those involved in it, and I fail to understand why there should be a scintilla of criticism of him for wanting to maintain those contacts and help to bring peace to that benighted island.

[Dr Fox]

I agree that it would be surprising if anyone did not want that peace to occur, but we have to accept that there are forces in that country, and even more in the diaspora, who do not want anyone to deal with the current Sri Lankan Government. My point is this: however much people may regret what the current Government have done or dislike them, unless we deal with that Government and get proper reconciliation, we will not be able to get peace in that island. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) shouts “Foreign Office” from a sedentary position. The Foreign Office, through the Foreign Secretary, agreed that I should make that visit and, indeed, cleared the speech that I gave, as it believed that because of the contacts I had developed over time in Sri Lanka, I was in a good position to try to take the process forward. In respect of achieving peace, what matters is what works, rather than what is a departmentally strictly delineated process.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has twice failed to respond to a specific question, so may I ask him for a third time? When was he made aware that first the permanent secretary and then the Chief of the Defence Staff were concerned about this relationship, what was the advice given to him, and what he did he do as a result of that advice?

[Dr Fox]

As have I said, I was not aware of any direct approach from them. The first direct approach I can remember was when my current permanent secretary came to me in August and said that she had grave concerns about the use of a business card that had “adviser to the Secretary of State” printed on it. She asked what I was going to do about it, and I was able to reply to her that I had already, in June of that year, decided to stop those cards and demand that they not be used again.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

With the revelations today that the Labour Front Bench took money from Cellcrypt, is it not clear that we are witnessing a conspiracy between a desperate business man and a rotten Labour party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I think we should keep our discussion within the realms of reasonable debate, but I understand the reasons for my hon. Friend’s anxiety. Huge amounts of criticism have been emanating from Cellcrypt in recent times, and the Opposition have said that all they want is to get information. As it has come to light that, in fact, they took a lot of money from that company, we need to know when, and on what terms, that happened, because it raises a potential conflict of interests.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he had meetings with Mr Werritty on defence matters in which Mr Werritty had a pecuniary interest, and if so, why does he think he was asked to be there?

[Dr Fox]

As I have made clear, I am not aware of any specific interests in that sense at all, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks there was any particular pecuniary interest, I am sure the Cabinet Secretary would love to hear from him, as would I.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Is it not the case that taking a close interest in a dangerous and divided country with a civil war going on does, indeed, amount to an interest, but is it not also the case that the framers of the ministerial code took it for granted that people reading it would understand the difference between a public and a private interest?

[Dr Fox]

I am sure that is correct, but although we may understand that, it does not allow any of us to absolve ourselves of our responsibility to ensure that it is fully transparent and understandable. As I said in a previous answer, although the code is clearly set out, we must now ensure that we put in place processes that make it properly waterproof.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It would appear that if anyone wanted to breach the Secretary of State’s security arrangements all they had to do was check the travel plans of Mr Werritty. Can the Secretary of State take me through this: one day Mr Werritty just happened to be in a Dubai restaurant at the table next to that of somebody who had a pecuniary interest in defence procurement and defence expenditure—Mr Boulter—and that just happened to be the day before the Secretary of State was passing through Dubai? We are being asked to accept that, but can the Secretary of State say—I did not hear his answer earlier on—how Mr Werritty knew of the Secretary of State’s travel arrangements?

[Dr Fox]

Very simply, because I told Mr Werritty, who was in Dubai with his girlfriend at the time, that I would be passing through and that we should meet up. The hon. Gentleman will have to take my word for it that there was a chance meeting with Mr Boulter, and I think that that is perfectly reasonable. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying, “It is classified”, but we are allowed to tell our friends and family where we are going to be as Ministers, because all Ministers, in ministerial down time, will want to try to get their diaries to coincide. If the Opposition are saying that we can never, as Ministers, divulge to anybody—friend or family—what is in our diary, that is an utterly ridiculous position to take.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that this issue will not be resolved in this House. Nevertheless, in coming to the House and presenting his apology to it, he has acted both properly and honourably. Let us put this issue in context. He has been attacked and criticised today by members, or previous members, and supporters of the Blair and Brown Governments, for whom a single meeting without officials or a record was not an issue; they made it a whole system of sofa government. Furthermore, in some cases they took very large sums from the attendance of that and changed public policy. Can the Secretary of State confirm to this House that he neither gained financially, either personally or politically, nor changed public policy in any way as a result of these meetings?

[Dr Fox]

I know exactly what my right hon. Friend is referring to, but I want to get back to the point that where there are serious allegations we do have to treat them seriously. I go back to the point I made earlier, which was that my contacts with Mr Werritty were neither for his financial gain in any of the issues I have mentioned, nor for my financial gain. However, I do think that in terms of making sure that there is total transparency, we have to make every effort not only to behave properly, but to be seen to behave properly.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On the issue of the meeting with the President of Sri Lanka, can the Secretary of State give assurances to the House that the President of Sri Lanka was clear as to Mr Werritty’s status in that meeting?

[Dr Fox]

Yes, the meeting in London, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, was not an official visit to this country by the President. I was very keen to talk to him about some of the projects that I had been running in opposition but was not going to be able to run in government. That meeting included the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, a long-standing friend of mine, and the governor of the bank of Colombo, who is also a long-standing acquaintance. I simply wanted to try to make it clear that much as I would not be able, as the Secretary of State and a member of the Government, to continue with what I had done in opposition, there were those who were willing to continue to do that in politics and business. I hope that they will be successful.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Listening to my right hon. Friend’s statement one gets the impression that a company, Cellcrypt, spent hundreds of thousands on lobbyists to try to get a contract and failed to do so. Will he confirm that that understanding is correct? Having failed to get that contract, the company then tried to buy the politics of the Labour party, which is now throwing rocks. Does that not have profound implications for our politics, on both sides of the House?

[Dr Fox]

Following the meeting in Dubai, when I had been interested in what Cellcrypt could bring to the Ministry of Defence, I immediately called my private office and asked to be provided with a briefing that I could get on my return. The correct way to make decisions about procurement is through our regular procurement process. It is quite reasonable to talk to contractors, as we do on a regular basis. All Ministers talk to contractors on a regular basis about what they may or may not bring in terms of capability to the MOD. The question is whether, having been given that information, we make snap decisions or we put it through due process, and this—Cellcrypt—is being put through due process.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has told us today that on 18 separate occasions he met Mr Werritty on overseas trips. In my experience as a Minister, in the margins of visits the diary secretary records where the Minister intends to be. Was that the case on the 18 separate occasions on which the Secretary of State met his friend on official visits?

[Dr Fox]

As I said earlier, there were a wide range of visits, and they included overseas visits that were family holidays and so on. I included them all for the sake of completeness. A number would have been conferences, such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore or Bahrain, for example, that Mr Werritty was attending in any case. Many of the occasions would have been on the margins and would not have been political meetings. Of a very small number of the meetings I have had, which I set out today, three were about Sri Lanka, where I included him because of the experience we had in opposition, and one was with a member of the diplomatic staff whom we happened both to know personally. I know that the right hon. Lady is trying to get to genuine and legitimate concerns, but I can assure her that we have tried at all times to separate the professional work abroad, either party political or governmental, and the social.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party’s so-called independent report on defence procurement was supported by the same company, Cellcrypt, as is funding Front-Bench trips overseas?

[Dr Fox]

I was aware of that issue. The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) talked about his declared interest today, but I think that it would have been better to have been frank and upfront and to have said that the particular company concerned is the central company in many of the allegations about the meeting in Dubai on which the shadow Secretary of State has so focused. I am not saying that that would in any way diminish his case, but I think it would have been better for transparency all round.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I apologise for my voice, Mr Speaker—I was shouting at the television over the weekend. Several years ago, on my first day as a Minister in the Wales Office, the ministerial code was put in front of me and I was asked clearly and precisely whether there were any associations with individuals or organisations that I should declare. I declared them, including my long historical link with the Scout Association. I was advised at that point—and I listened to my private secretary—to break that link on a temporary basis and as far as I know that organisation was not involved in arms lobbying or trading, and neither is it now. Did the Secretary of State make clear his association to this individual and to this lobbying company at all points or did he hide it from his private secretary and the permanent secretary? If he did make it clear, was he ever given advice that this should not be done?

[Dr Fox]

Like all Ministers, on taking office I believed that I was fully within the ministerial code. As I have said to the House several times today, I accept that I have allowed the blurring of the distinctions on occasion and I fully accept my personal responsibility for that. I do not believe that there was a specific allegation for me to deal with at the time, nor a specific interest to deal with.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

May I say to my right hon. Friend that Combat Stress came to the House of Commons earlier today, to the Speaker’s apartment, to launch the next phase of its campaign, “The Enemy Within”, highlighting the plight of veterans who are suffering from mental illness due to the scars of war? As the Secretary of State made his statement on defence responsibilities, he will doubtless have those responsibilities in mind. It is the mood on the Government Benches that we hope that the matter will quickly be put behind him so that he can get on with the excellent job he has been doing as Secretary of State.

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is not the only one who would like this put behind us quickly, but I think that it is more important that it is put behind us thoroughly and comprehensively. I do not wish in any way to diminish the seriousness of some of the questions that have been raised and I hope that what I have set out today, and the process the Prime Minister has set out for the Cabinet Secretary to examine further questions, will ensure that such an inquiry is thorough rather than quick.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure that hon. Members will agree with everything I am about to say. The Secretary of State is right that it is perfectly understandable for a Minister, when travelling abroad, to bump into a friend. It is also perfectly understandable for a Minister, even in politics, to have a friend—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is one of mine, so he should be careful. However, the Secretary of State is stretching our credulity by suggesting that he could have done so on 18 separate occasions. Will he provide us with a list of the meetings when he went abroad when Mr Werritty was not present? Is the only reason that Mr Werritty was able to be there because he had access to the Secretary of State’s diary? From what we see he is going to continue to have access to it—surely, that is inappropriate.

[Dr Fox]

In general, it is inappropriate for the civil service or anyone else to release ministerial diaries, which could be a threat to the security of the Minister or to national security. Where Ministers choose to give information in advance about where they will be to family or friends, that is perfectly reasonable. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that Ministers—particularly Defence and Foreign Ministers—travel abroad with excessive regularity and I would be happy to provide him with a list of the times I have been abroad, excluding those 18 times, over the year and a half that I have been Secretary of State.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been very frank indeed in accepting that it was a bad mistake not to have an official present at the Dubai meeting and he has apologised for that. Does he also accept that the main victim of an official not being present was he himself? Had an official been present and had a proper note been taken, it would not have been possible for anyone else at the meeting to misrepresent what was said and then have to withdraw it afterwards.

[Dr Fox]

Yes, it does damage to me as the Minister to have failed to take the appropriate precautions of having a meeting minuted and having an official attend. It also, sadly, does damage to the Government in that it might give the appearance of something being wrong. However, I will say to my hon. Friend that it beggars belief that a particular individual at that meeting, Mr Boulter, has said that I discussed with him a knighthood and said that I was going to have the Cabinet discuss a knighthood being taken away. I was very clear that I was willing to give evidence in a US court if required, because I was very clear about what was said and what was not said. Mr Boulter has subsequently given a totally different version of events, which, sadly, leads me to believe that he is a very poor witness and lacking in credibility.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I should like to ask the Defence Secretary again today exactly how many unofficial visits he has made to Sri Lanka, who sponsored those visits, why they are not registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and what role Mr Werritty played in any meetings during those unofficial visits that the Secretary of State had with Government officials in Sri Lanka.

[Dr Fox]

There are no meetings that were unofficial that were not recorded and I made one official visit as Secretary of State. As I have said, the role of Mr Werritty in that was, first, in the official meeting, to organise the lecture for the Kadirgamar Institute, which he did, and, secondly, to ensure that we were able to try to get continuity in the efforts we were trying to bring to investment and subsequent diversion of profit into social projects. I think that is an enterprise that is still worth following.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for his apology to the House and for his answers to the questions that have been raised? Over the weekend, I met two servicemen who are shortly to be deployed to Afghanistan. Now that those answers have been provided, I am sure that they will want him, and indeed the whole House, to focus on that conflict and on sorting out the mess in the defence budget that we inherited from the previous Government rather than on this story.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very kind words. We will continue to focus on those issues because we cannot afford not to. They are literally a matter of life and death and they have to be what we give our greatest attention to. These political matters are matters of extreme discomfort for those of us in the firing line and for our families; however, we have to recognise that the trials and tribulations that we face in public life are nothing compared with the threats facing those in our armed forces.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has just told the House that Mr Werritty had no access to confidential material. The House knows that the Secretary of State’s diary is highly confidential. Has the Secretary of State ever shown Mr Werritty a copy of his diary, or discussed what was in his diary?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, it is entirely appropriate for Ministers to show anybody they like what is in their diary. What is not acceptable, under departmental rules, is for the Department to release a diary to any third party when that is not agreed by a Minister. However, because of the question that the hon. Gentleman raises, I have instructed the Department not to release any part of my diary, on paper, to any individual—friend or otherwise.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

First, I would like to thank my friend for being so up-front and honest. I have known him for many years, and he has always been an upstanding gentleman. Let us put this in the truest context: the Opposition are trying to accuse him of some kind of negligence, but 10 years of no spending reviews have been forgotten about; that is true negligence, and that should be put before the House today. That is what the troops are worried about.

[Dr Fox]

All those involved in the complex matters of defence and national security will want to ensure that we are able to put this issue to bed as quickly as possible and to deal with it, as I said, as thoroughly and transparently as possible, because there are great issues at stake for our country, our armed forces, and those countries that we are involved with. I hope that we, and the Cabinet Secretary, can deal with this as quickly as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that in the meantime I will not be deflected from what I understand are the great burdens and responsibilities of my office.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether any information has been passed to Adam Werritty concerning the legal case involving Porton Capital and 3M?

[Dr Fox]

As far as I am aware, the only information has come from Porton Capital’s lawyers, who sent a clarification following the meeting in Dubai to say that the account of the meeting given by Mr Boulter was incorrect. The lawyers accepted, on the legal case that Porton Capital faced with 3M, that none of the accusations made by Mr Boulter were correct, and no confidential information was given.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I want to place on record my support for the Secretary of State. There is no one I would rather have going in to bat for our armed forces and our country when it comes to the difficult issues in his in-tray. Can he assure me and the House that the issues in his statement will not detract from the way that he deals with the other issues in his in-tray, and particularly our immediate opportunities to get our allies to pull more weight?

[Dr Fox]

It would be disingenuous of me to say to the House that being confronted, as some of my other colleagues have been, by a non-stop bombardment from the media, day in, day out, and the effect that that has on our families, does not in some way make it more difficult to get on with our daily work. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and say to her that when we are confronted with these situations, we sometimes find unexpected resilience.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I clarify that the Secretary of State has told the House today that his officials were, on his instructions, routinely giving out details of his ministerial diary to Adam Werritty, who then passed on that information to the people sat next to him at a dinner table in Dubai? Is that, in essence, what he has told the House today?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman will see, when he looks at the official record, that that is not what I said. I was perfectly capable, without officials, of telling any of my friends where I would be, if I wanted to meet up with them. We have to be very clear—the permanent secretary is clear about this in her report today—that it has to be understood by the civil service that it does not give out to anybody details of ministerial diaries unless that is personally sanctioned by a Minister.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I strongly echo the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Committee and others: British servicemen and women are daily risking their lives in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan, and they will be looking in bewilderment at the priorities of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will not allow smear, innuendo, and lack of substance on the part of the Opposition to distract him from the important business of his job?

[Dr Fox]

When these stories began to appear in earnest last Wednesday during our party conference, I faced the option of trying to stay and deal with immediate issues or attending the NATO ministerial in Brussels and going on to the planned visit in Libya to Tripoli and Misrata. Had I decided to cancel any part of that official programme because of what was happening domestically and politically in the United Kingdom, it would have sent the wrong signal, not only in this country, but to our allies and to those who are fighting for us overseas.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Returning to the subject of the business cards that said that Mr Werritty was the adviser to the Secretary of State, and which the Sri Lankans believed were true, will the Secretary of State confirm that those business cards were known to him before he asked for them not to be used in June, and will he say whether they were funded from his parliamentary expenses or from Ministry of Defence expenditure?

[Dr Fox]

I was first aware of them in June, when I saw them for the first time. I commented that it was inappropriate for a portcullis to be used on a private business card and that it was not appropriate for anyone to say that they were an adviser to the Secretary of State. At that point, I made it very clear that they should be withdrawn and not used again. They were funded privately, and have nothing to do with public or, indeed, my money.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend on not changing his programme, and on going to visit our armed forces abroad, when it must have been tempting for him to come home immediately, given what was happening here? I have listened carefully to what he said today, and I personally am very satisfied. May I advise him to go back to his job, which is looking after our armed forces, who are in combat in two operational theatres? That is what he must concentrate on now.

[Dr Fox]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend to concentrate very much on those issues, which remain at the top of my in-tray. As I said, we in the House understand that those outside have legitimate concerns and that they have a right for them to be addressed, and I think that the correct way to do so is for the Cabinet Secretary to continue the investigation begun by the permanent secretary. I can only reiterate my willingness to co-operate in every way that I possibly can with that investigation.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

What was the perfectly innocent explanation offered up by Mr Werritty when the Secretary of State had to confront him about touting around false business cards?

[Dr Fox]

He—Mr Werritty—accepted that he should not have done so, and I think that with hindsight, he would think twice about doing so. Having made that clear, he told me that he would get new business cards, not use those ones again, and he accepted that what he had done was wrong.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

May I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State today and his apology? It is clear that some errors have been made, and it is quite right that the Cabinet Secretary should look into those matters. However, it is also clear that there was no breach of security, and I assure the Secretary of State that he retains not only my support but the support of these Government Benches?

[Dr Fox]

The permanent secretary makes it clear that at no time was Mr Werritty given access to confidential information or any security information to which he should not be given access; and that no documents or briefings were given. I am afraid that these accusations that national security was breached, which is probably the most serious accusation that could be thrown at any Government Minister, are utterly baseless. If anyone knows of a genuine case where they believe that to have happened, they have a duty to bring it to the Cabinet Secretary. If they do not do so, they should do what is appropriate and not say anything about it at all.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has told us today that Mr Werritty was present with him on 18 separate occasions on overseas visits, but he has told us that some of those were family holidays. I think we could all accept that. I have done a quick mental calculation. Since May 2010 I have had two family holidays. Could the Secretary of State clarify for us how many of those occasions were family holidays and how many were official visits?

[Dr Fox]

There were a number of different categories, as I said. Some of them were overseas visits where I was there purely on a defence basis. Some were conferences, for example, where I may have been speaking and Mr Werritty might have been a delegate. Some were long weekends when my wife and I were abroad. Some were longer family holidays. One was a skiing holiday. We need to understand that Ministers have downtime on visits. In particular, when we have long overseas visits, we try to manage our political time, our party political time often, and our personal time. It is unreasonable to think that we should not have any private time at all.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I would also like to put on the record my support for my right hon. Friend. The way that he has come to the House today, with honesty and courage, to make his statement without any pressure from elsewhere has been excellent. Given where we are, with our troops in action all over the world and with the challenges that we face, it is time that we move on from this and concentrate on the job in hand.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for much of the help that he has given me in recent days. I finally say this: where there are serious issues of probity to be dealt with, we need to deal with them in an open and transparent manner. I hope I have helped with that process today, but I shall continue to co-operate with the Cabinet Secretary in doing so. However, there is an equal duty on those who have genuine allegations of wrongdoing to make that they bring them into the public domain. When we get sniping from the sidelines and innuendo, it does nothing to improve the health of our political process. I hope that if those exist who have such accusations, they bring them forward. I will be very ready to give my explanation, but what I think is unacceptable is this constant sniping and undermining without, it appears, genuine substance.