Service Personnel (Rest and Recuperation)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House about the new arrangements we shall be setting in place for “rest and recuperation” for service personnel on operations.

This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those on operations in Afghanistan. This is reflected in the commitments within the coalition programme for Government, including that we would rebuild the military covenant. One step in doing so is to optimise the rest and recuperation periods for those deployed to Afghanistan. We recognise that rest and recuperation is a key part of the morale and welfare of our people and their families so it is important we get it right.

But this is not an easy issue. There are very real limits in terms of the airbridge in and out of Afghanistan. In making any adjustments to rest and recuperation policy we must remain mindful of these constraints because, above all, any changes must not compromise the operational effectiveness of our forces deployed in Afghanistan.

I am delighted to announce today, however, that we are making changes so that in future no service men and women serving tours in Afghanistan (and on other qualifying deployed operations) will lose out on their two weeks rest and recuperation. Where flights home are delayed or circumstances dictate they cannot take all that rest and recuperation during their tour, as occurred, for instance, when flights were suspended because of the volcanic ash cloud, personnel will in future receive additional post operational leave in compensation. So in future, no-one will lose out on rest and recuperation they would otherwise have received because of disruption to the airbridge.

We will also increase the resilience of the airbridge and prioritise the needs of those who serve the longest—six months or more—in Afghanistan. The chiefs of staff have recommended that the best way to achieve this improved resilience is to deploy those posted for short tours for less than four months so that they will no longer receive a week’s rest and recuperation in the middle of their tour. This will affect a minority of the force, primarily from the RAF, but improved airbridge resilience will significantly benefit the 85% of the force, drawn from all services, who are serving on longer tours. Our feedback from families and personnel themselves also suggests that one week of rest and recuperation in a short tour does not allow time to transit, adjust, rest, prepare and return. I have therefore agreed the chiefs of staffs’ recommendation which will come into effect for those deploying on or after 1 January 2011.

Together these two measures will strengthen our operational effectiveness in Afghanistan and ensure those serving the longest tours receive the rest and recuperation they so richly deserve.

Defence

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Ministerial Corrections

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

Given that Trident is costing us perhaps £1 billion or£2 billion every year, and an estimated £96 billion over its entire lifetime, does the Minister agree that we should listen to the military figures who are increasingly saying that it is not necessary and counting it as something to be considered in the comprehensive spending review?

[Dr Fox]

Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2015—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain’s defences.

[Official Report, 5 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 3.]

Letter of correction from Dr Liam Fox:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on 5 July 2010.

The correct answer should have been:

[Dr Fox]

Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2050—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain's defences.

Afghanistan Troop Levels

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

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

The next roulement of UK forces in Afghanistan is due to take place in October 2010. Headquarters, 6 (UK) Division will remain as Headquarters, Regional Command (South) until November 2010 but the UK’s current lead formation in Helmand, 4th Mechanized Brigade, will be replaced by 16 Air Assault Brigade. The forces deploying include:

Afghanistan

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on our operations in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister has said, we intend to make regular updates to the House.

As this is a complex subject, I have made maps available to assist hon. Members. I am grateful to you for your support, Mr Speaker. These are now available in the Vote Office, and the Whips on both sides of the House are distributing them. In addition, I will obviously be happy to arrange further briefings at the Ministry of Defence, should Members find them useful.

The Prime Minister reminded us today of the ongoing sacrifices made by our armed forces in Afghanistan. In the face of such losses, we should be in no doubt about the importance of the mission—particularly today, the fifth anniversary of the London bombings in 2005. It is vital to our national security that we have a stable Afghanistan that is able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning.

As I made clear in Washington last week, we are a committed member of the international coalition of 46 countries in Afghanistan. We have a clear political strategy, and a clear military counter-insurgency plan to support it. The focus now is on delivering, and we can be confident that General Petraeus will build on the considerable success of General McChrystal.

We face many challenges. Progress has been slower in some areas than others, particularly on the political side. We can expect success in counter-insurgency to be gradual, cumulative and hard won, but there has, nevertheless, been considerable progress. Through a UK lens, it would be easy to assume that all of Afghanistan is like Helmand. In fact, many parts of the country are largely secure, with low levels of violence. In Kabul, the Afghans themselves have assumed responsibility for security, and have proved themselves capable of dealing with the localised threats that have emerged.

We are also making good progress on building up the Afghan security forces, so that this pattern can be repeated elsewhere. The Afghan army has been growing steadily over the years—and by 20% in recent months—to about 130,000 troops now. We are playing our part, and the Government have recently approved the expenditure of up to £189 million on new surveillance, communications and logistics equipment for our bases, as part of Britain’s ongoing commitment to support the effective partnering of the Afghan security forces.

In southern Afghanistan, the story of this year has been one of the Afghans themselves increasingly coming to the fore in the fight against the insurgency. In Kandahar, and under the direct oversight of President Karzai, Afghan security forces are leading operations as part of a rising tide of security in order to set the conditions for improved Afghan governance. In Helmand, Afghan and international security assistance force units have together succeeded in expanding the authority of the Afghan Government to 11 out of the 14 districts, by driving insurgent fighters out of the population centres of Babaji and Nad-e-Ali, while consolidating previous gains in Lashkar Gah, Now Zad, Nawa and Gereshk. The situation in Marjah remains challenging, but counter-insurgencies are about progressively winning the confidence of the local people, and the US Marines are well placed to succeed.

Elsewhere in central Helmand, where our presence is more established, we have seen considerable success. In Nad-e-Ali, British troops have been operating alongside the Afghans to secure the district centre and allow unfettered access to local roads Improved security is allowing effective governance to flourish and trade to grow. In May, for example, around 3,000 Nad-e-Ali residents elected a more representative district community council. ISAF now intends to reinforce this success. For that reason, I have accepted an ISAF request for a temporary deployment of elements of our theatre reserve battalion, the 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. The theatre reserve battalion is a standing force based in Cyprus, which I have instructed should be used only for time-limited deployments to fulfil specific tasks. This deployment will meet those criteria. The additional forces will be used to give commanders additional flexibility to reinforce progress in central Helmand this summer.

In a counter-insurgency campaign, the people are the prize. It is hugely important that we strike the right balance between the numbers of the civilian population and the size of the security forces available to protect them. The Prime Minister and I regularly argued in opposition that British troops in Helmand were too thinly spread and that we had insufficient force densities for effective counter-insurgency. That is why we welcome the arrival of more than 18,000 US Marines, whose presence is allowing us to deliver a better and more realistic distribution of tasks within the international coalition.

As the House is aware, ISAF has already transferred security responsibility for Musa Qala and Kajaki to US forces, who are building on our achievements there. Lieutenant General Rodriguez, ISAF’s operational commander, will today announce the next phase of this process—I understand that he will do so within the next hour. ISAF intends to restructure its forces in the Farah and Nimroz provinces so that it can consolidate a US marine brigade in northern Helmand, which will assume responsibility for security in Sangin later this year. This will simplify current command arrangements and enable UK troops to be redeployed to reinforce progress in the key districts of central Helmand. The theatre reserve battalion will then withdraw. The result will be a coherent and equitable division of the main populated areas of Helmand between three brigade-sized forces, with the US in the north and south, and the UK-led Task Force Helmand, alongside our Danish and Estonian allies, in the central population belt.

We have been closely consulted by ISAF, and fully support this plan. In Sangin, UK forces have made huge progress in the face of great adversity. The district centre has been transformed. Helmand, as a whole, is a safer place as a result of our endeavours and sacrifices there. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those who have lost their lives in Sangin, and those who continue to serve there.

The operations in Afghanistan, though geographically distant, are of vital importance to our national security. On the ground, we continue to make progress. There will be hard days ahead, but the further changes that I have announced will mean more manpower and greater focus for the key terrain of central Helmand. We have the right strategy, and we are determined to succeed. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, for early sight of it and for the indications that he gave me yesterday about the broad outline of what he was going to say today. That is good news for our ability to continue to support, from all parts of the House, our forces’ operations in Helmand province.

I welcome what the Defence Secretary said about his commitment to regular updates to the House, and his offer of briefings in the Ministry of Defence, but will he consider continuing the direct military briefings that started last year for Members here at the House of Commons? They were appreciated by Members on both sides, and I know that the all-party Army group has written to him and asked him to continue them. If he could, that would be appreciated. I know that it is onerous in terms of his time, but I ask him to consider doing so.

I totally agree about the purpose of the mission. Our forces are in Afghanistan to protect our national security and to keep us safe. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have a clear counter-insurgency plan and the military tactics to support that plan, but he knows that there is some concern and confusion over whether there are deadlines. Will the Government do their level best to clear up that confusion, so that people know the exact commitments? Is our combat mission in Afghanistan to continue on a conditions-based footing until the Afghan forces can take over, as was the situation, or is there a very clear deadline from the new Government stating that our combat mission will end on a particular date, irrespective of the conditions in Afghanistan? It is enormously important to clear up that point.

The right hon. Gentleman felt the need to say that, in opposition, he and the current Prime Minister repeatedly said that there were issues of force density, but I ask him to accept that it was not only he in opposition who felt the need to concentrate on and deal with force densities, because we in government had exactly the same priorities. Before force densities could be addressed, however, we needed to have someone to hand those districts on to, so, before the arrival of the American uplift, we could not hand on Musa Qala, Kajaki or Sangin to anyone other than the Taliban. Thankfully, the American uplift now gives us an opportunity to rebalance our forces in Afghanistan, and we have been doing that for some time. I understand that his announcement today is simply a continuation of an ongoing process. Does that effectively end the need for force rebalancing? In the British area of operations, do we now have the same ratio of forces to population as the Americans have on their side of the line?

The right hon. Gentleman said that Marjah is very challenging. Does he intend to deploy elements, as he said, of the theatre reserve battalion to the American—Marjah—area of operations? If so, for how long, and in what numbers? He says “elements”. Does that mean the whole theatre reserve battalion? Do we now, effectively, have no reserve for the rest of the deployment, or are some elements of the theatre reserve battalion still available to cover other contingencies that might arise?

We had already agreed in principle to hand command in Sangin over to the American brigade. I understand that the Secretary of State is now saying that it is not only in terms of command—the Americans themselves will take over in Sangin. When will that happen? Has he any idea what forces will be deployed, and in what numbers, into the Sangin area?

Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be mixed emotions, and pretty deep emotions, among many elements of our armed forces who have served in Helmand—not only those who have experienced injury, but those who have lost loved ones, which includes families back here, and everybody who has served in the most dangerous part of our theatre of operations? Our forces went out there on a daily basis to patrol, fully knowing the risks that they faced, and the whole House must pay tribute to the immense bravery, courage and resilience that they have shown over a period of time. They have achieved some considerable improvements in Sangin, but I think that the Defence Secretary will accept that we are still handing on a challenge. We have not got as far as we ideally would have hoped to get in Helmand before this hand-on.

[Dr Fox]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the specific proposals that I have set out today and for his general support on the mission in Afghanistan. He was very generous with the briefings that he made available to the Opposition when he was in government, and we will continue the same courtesy. I also fully intend to continue the briefings for Members of Parliament begun under the previous Government; they are very valuable. In addition, as I said, if we are able to provide more detailed briefings in the Ministry of Defence, we are happy to do so. We should not, in any way, shape or form, be shy about providing any Member of this House with the information they require to make better sense of what is happening in this most important national security mission.

The shadow Secretary of State is entirely correct that it took until the American surge was fully under way for us to be better able to have sensible force densities. He asked me directly about comparisons between the British and Americans. Combat Team North has a population of 441,000, which is 37% of the population; Task Force Helmand has 388,000, or 32%; and Combat Team South has 370,000, or 31%. These are much better matches in terms of force density. He asks if this will effectively be it. Well, not necessarily, as there will be changes in the mission, but we will want to continue this pattern, or shape, in terms of force density. As he says, we have reached the end point, at least for now, of a process that began some time ago.

On the size of the theatre reserve, we will have some 300 personnel, and they will stay there until October. The size of the current UK force is about 1,000—I think that the exact number is 1,008. The exact number that the Americans put in will of course be for their commanders to determine in terms of the security situation that they find.

As regards 2015, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister has said—that British troops will not be there in a combat role, or in significant numbers, in five years’ time, but we can expect them to still be there in a training role. There will be a continued need for us to ensure that the quality of the Afghan national security forces is adequate. I echo the point that he made by saying that we are very fortunate in this country to have a volunteer Army—people who are willing to put their life and limb at risk on a voluntary basis for the security of this country, its people and its interests. We are deeply honoured and privileged to have such people in our armed forces.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and particularly what he said about the ratio of troops to local population.

General McChrystal instigated a change of policy so that our troops should fire only when they were absolutely sure that Afghan civilians would not be put at risk. Inevitably, that put our troops at a greater degree of risk, but with the longer-term aim of maintaining the support of the local population. Is any change to that policy being considered?

[Dr Fox]

As my right hon. Friend knows, we do not discuss rules of engagement specifically, but it is true that the protection of the population was given a higher priority as part of General McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy. That will continue.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Although I am not completely convinced about the reasons for the movements that the Secretary of State described today, in fairness, I do not have the facts and intelligence that he has. I am also concerned about the Prime Minister’s statement that we should be out of Afghanistan in five years, which has been repeated. Will that statement encourage or discourage the Taliban in their operations against our forces?

[Dr Fox]

We intend to follow the strategy through. We believe that it is the correct strategy, and that it is likely to produce success in the time scales outlined. I should reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that General McChrystal initially assessed that the Afghan national security forces would be able to take on the role themselves in 2013. We amended that as part of the strategy, to 2014, because we believe that that is a more realistic target. What the Prime Minister set out is entirely consistent with the strategy. The Afghan national security forces can be expected to take full control of their own security by 2014, as set out in the strategy by General McChrystal.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Five years ago to the day, we were attacked not by Afghans, but by Yorkshiremen. They were trained not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan and the Lake district. The previous Government insisted on telling us that conventional military operations would somehow impede that sort of attack in future, but that is clearly nonsense. Will the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and explain that we are involved in a regional war that stretches right the way from Iran to Russia, that that is as much about fighting for Pakistan’s stability as Afghanistan’s stability, and that the lives and blood of our servicemen and women are being shed in a crucial cause?

[Dr Fox]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he makes, which will resonate across the House. It is clear—as it always has been, to the credit of the previous Government—that this is not just about Afghanistan, but about Pakistan. Increasingly, on both sides of the Atlantic and throughout the international coalition, it is recognised that we are dealing with a regional problem, and that without success in Pakistan and the full co-operation of the Pakistani authorities in dealing with the Pakistan Taliban and the Afghan Taliban, we would find the mission in Afghanistan much more difficult.

I am happy to reiterate my hon. Friend’s points. This is a vital national security mission. We cannot simply wish it away. If I could make one wish, it would be that all countries in the international coalition show the same resolve displayed by our armed forces in burden sharing effectively, with the minimum of caveats, to ensure that we are absolutely able to deliver the maximum effect for the international coalition’s mission.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I disagree with the broad consensus on Afghanistan, and have done so for some time. Is the Secretary of State aware that the question every Member of the House should ask whenever they sit in the Chamber is this: how many more British soldiers—I pay tribute to their bravery—will die or be seriously injured before the talks begin with the enemy? General Richards, the most senior British general, says that such talks are more or less inevitable. I believe that the war is unwinnable, and that it does not help in the fight against terrorism; other hon. Members say that the war is essential in that.

[Dr Fox]

There are a number of points to make in response to the hon. Gentleman. I fully accept that he has long held the view that the war was not justified, but we must agree to disagree on that. I believe that it is a vital national security mission for this country. There has never been any doubt that ultimately there must be a political element. The international coalition, the previous Government and this Government have always held the view that we cannot win the wider regional conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan by military means alone.

There is difficulty in determining who is reconcilable to the Afghan constitution and Government and who is not—that is an ongoing process—but I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The measure of a conflict or war is not the number of those who, sadly, die, but whether we succeed in our mission and strategy. I believe that we should at all times see our armed forces not as victims, but as champions of the freedoms and security that they are trying to bring for our country. I am sure that that is how they would like to be seen: as victors, not victims.

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

My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly the right man in the right role, and he is loyally defending a strategy even though it might not be the right one. Does he accept that there is a fundamental tension between classic counter-insurgency warfare down among the people, which takes many years to bring to a conclusion, and the statement made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday? He said that

“there will not be British troops in a combat role or in significant numbers in Afghanistan in five years’ time”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 168.]

If we are not to sacrifice our strategic interests in the area, will the Defence Secretary hold himself open to the possibility that a plan B might be necessary if plan A does not work out on schedule?

[Dr Fox]

The Government believe, in alliance with the United States and the other members of the international coalition, that we have the correct strategy. We believe that the counter-insurgency aim of protecting the population, and of providing them with security so that there is a space for better governance, is the correct strategy.

There is a difference between our national security mission to ensure that Afghanistan can develop in a way that enables the Afghan forces to look after their own security, and the wider mission of reconstruction and development—that is complementary to, but not the same as, the national security mission—which will have to be undertaken for a very long time, given the social state of Afghanistan.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I support the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). On the question of dialogue with the Taliban, we need to be clear that it would be entirely unacceptable for us to discuss the future of Afghanistan with them at the same time as they are killing our soldiers in that country. Should not we draw on the lessons from Northern Ireland and other theatres of conflict? We should require a clear and unequivocal ceasefire by the Taliban and some degree of commitment to non-violent principles before there can be any question of dialogue with them.

[Dr Fox]

Although in principle I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, we must be clear what we are dealing with. The Taliban covers a broad range of different groupings—there is no single Taliban commander or a Taliban army with a Taliban uniform—and it is advantageous to find the groups among them who are reconcilable to the process, and to bring them on board to create a critical mass of support. That can only help us in our wider counter-insurgency aims. We should also reflect on the terms we use—not just “the Taliban”, but “the insurgency”—and ask whether there are a number of discrete insurgencies rather than just one, just as there are a number of discrete groups that we tend to call “the Taliban.” If the House accepts that we are dealing with greater complexity than is sometimes described, we might find it easier to understand the complexity of some of the solutions that we and the Afghan Government must find.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Afghan national army is now larger than the British Army. The Secretary of State referred to the international coalition of 46 countries in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to Denmark and Estonia, but the simple fact is that none of our major European allies have had troops on the ground in Helmand province. Bearing in mind that soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade will this September make their third deployment to Helmand, will he confirm that the new surveillance equipment will include additional unmanned aerial vehicles, because they must be a great way of identifying insurgents and those planting improvised explosive devices?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is correct. We have to make available the full range of ways in which we can deal with IEDs, including UAVs. The subject of our NATO allies has been raised by previous Defence Secretaries, and I raised it at the NATO ministerial meeting, where there was what I would have called when I was in the Foreign Office a full and frank exchange of views on burden sharing in NATO. I would flag up just one issue, however. As we move into the transition phase in Afghanistan, with districts being handed over to the Afghan Government, it would be very unwise for the alliance to believe that that was an excuse for it to leave Afghanistan, or for any members of the alliance to do so and thereby leave only a small number of countries in the most difficult areas. During the transition period, it is essential that we look to have a NATO strategy that ensures that burden-sharing continues to the end of the mission, and that there is not an easy bail-out for those who just happen to have been in some of the quieter areas.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This October will be the ninth anniversary of the deployment of British troops into Afghanistan, 300 of whom have died. Thousands of Afghan people have also died, and the war has spread over into Pakistan and is in danger of spreading into other countries as well. What on earth would the Secretary of State say constitutes victory in Afghanistan, before the withdrawal inevitably takes place?

[Dr Fox]

“Victory” is a word I do not use; I talk instead about success in Afghanistan. On the national security mission we have set ourselves, I would describe success as a stable enough Afghanistan that is able to manage its own internal and external security without the need for external intervention. There is of course the Pakistani problem to be dealt with as well, which will require us to give considerable help in a number of different areas to the Government of Pakistan. There is not going to be a moment when we can hoist up a flag say, “This is a victory.” There will be ways in which we measure success in terms of national security, but the regional problems are likely to continue for some time, and if we are serious about the national security of the United Kingdom we cannot simply turn a blind eye and wish them away.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that we went into Afghanistan on the wrong premise? We were told we were going there to protect Londoners going to work. We now know that al-Qaeda has moved most of its operations to Pakistan, and that most of the Taliban whom we kill die within 20 miles of where they were born, so why are we there? Is it to hold territory, which nobody has ever succeeded in doing in Afghanistan—not even the Soviets with 240,000 people? If it is to fight a dirty war and keep heads down, why do we not place more reliance on special forces, rather than let the British Army carry on bleeding to death?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend knows that we never comment whatsoever on special forces and what they do, but we are in Afghanistan to give the Afghan Government space to develop the skills in governance and security, so that when we do leave we do not leave behind an ungoverned space into which, as a security vacuum, elements of transnational terrorism are once again drawn.

I sometimes wonder whether the general public remember the chronology correctly. I was in the United States last week, where a woman said to me, “If we hadn’t been in Afghanistan, we would never have had 9/11.” We need to remember that we did not seek this confrontation; it was brought to our streets and cities against our will. We did not seek this conflict, but we will see it through to its conclusion.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

This morning some of us met Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations special representative in Afghanistan, who pointed out the importance of the mission to women in Afghanistan. They have returned to the professions and to the schools, and that should not be underestimated. Perhaps there are never enough women in the Ministry of Defence, because this point is never made in the Chamber.

[Dr Fox]

As I said, we are providing the security environment in which the Afghan Government can, over time, develop not only their own security structures but better governance, and part of that better governance has to be a full understanding of human rights, and that human rights apply irrespective of race or creed or gender.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Many years ago during the Gulf war, I accused the BBC of being the Baghdad broadcasting corporation. I am very concerned that there is now a similar situation with the Taliban, in that they are getting far too high a profile. The news this morning is that, apparently, it is a defeat that we are moving troops around in Sangin. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media must be very responsible when reporting propaganda from our enemies, and that they need to take a close look at this?

[Dr Fox]

I think it is good counsel for the BBC and the media generally, and for Members of the House, that we use reasonable language and are balanced in our views when discussing this issue. We have a large number of serving men and women in Afghanistan, and they will listen to what we say and to what the media say. That is also true of those who are our enemies in that part of the world. Clarity and honesty would be two very useful tools. I also think, however, that we need to use information. For that reason, I have asked a group of our national newspaper editors to come to the MOD in the near future for a detailed briefing, simply in order that they can understand the facts on the ground and get them first hand from the military, so that there is no excuse for misreporting the facts in future.

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

Can the Secretary of State update us on the progress that has been made in recruiting to the Afghan national police force, which is just as important as the army?

[Dr Fox]

Good progress has been made on the number of Afghan national police, but to be frank with the hon. Lady, that is not really my concern. My concern is the quality of the recruits to the Afghan national police, and what we need to do is not to have them recruited and then trained, but trained and then put in place. That is a vital mission for the whole of the international coalition. The issue was widely discussed at the NATO ministerial meeting at a number of different levels, and I think there is growing acceptance that providing policing and law and order, not at a Supreme Court level but in terms of dispute resolution and effective policing at the very lowest level, is one of the ways to deny the political and social space that the Taliban will otherwise occupy.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

From the British perspective, progress in Afghanistan is often measured through the lens of Helmand. Is that a fair reflection of the security situation across the whole country?

[Dr Fox]

All countries tend to see Afghanistan in different ways depending on the focus of their national media. There are countries that see Kandahar as being Afghanistan, and there are countries that see Kabul as being Afghanistan. We tend to see Helmand as being Afghanistan. It is useful if people understand that across the country as a whole, a lot of progress has been made on security. Those Members who have been travelling to Afghanistan over a period of time will have noticed that, for example, in Kabul there is a great difference in the security arrangements and how easy it is to move around the city. Clearly, that has not yet spread to enough parts of the country, but we are getting close to transition. While it is understandable that we and our media focus on our casualties and the fatalities that we, very sadly, have taken, we also need to show the other side of the ledger to the public—the successes being achieved in Afghanistan. That is vital if we are to maintain public support, which is a very important part of our resilience in a democracy.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Unusually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on these matters. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many of our 46 coalition partners have set a date for the end of combat operations, and if he were a Taliban commander in Helmand, would he be more encouraged or less encouraged to continue his insurgency knowing that such a date had been set?

[Dr Fox]

I think the best way to deal with the elements of the Taliban is to show our commitment to the strategy itself—to show that we are willing to put the forces on the ground and that we are in full support of the strategy as set out by General McChrystal and now being carried forward by General Petraeus. I hope the increase in US troop numbers and some of the movements I have set out today will leave our enemies in Afghanistan in no doubt as to our seriousness about taking and holding territory and improving security on behalf of the Afghan Government.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that the challenge in Afghanistan is to turn military success into “hearts and minds” success on the ground, so that the public there see some advantage from our military success? In doing that, we will achieve two things: we will make it less likely that it will be a training ground for terrorists, and more likely that we will get a political settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I said earlier, it is not possible to separate entirely the military elements from the wider political elements. Indeed, the whole point of the counter-insurgency strategy is people-centric: it is there to give greater security to the people of Afghanistan and to give them greater confidence in the ability of their Government to provide that security later. When we are making some of these arguments, we must also remember that as we win what he describes as the “hearts and minds” battle in the counter-insurgency strategy, that also provides us with better intelligence. The greater the proportion of the Afghan population who feel secure, the more likely we are to get information that will tell us who is planting IEDs and where. That is what ultimately happened in Iraq, and that counter-insurgency strategy and those same themes will apply in Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. One of my concerns, which has been voiced by other Members, is about media speculation. Some of the papers referred to retreat today, but there is no retreat: the fact is that some soldiers’ tour of duty is coming to an end. Will he state clearly to everyone, including those in the media who perhaps do not have the ears to listen but who need to listen, that what is being done is tactical and is not being done for any other reason? Earlier, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) spoke about his constituent who had lost two legs and an arm, and about his great courage. One could not fail to be touched by his comments. On behalf of the soldiers who have returned injured and the 99 who have died, we need a commitment from the media to support the troops in the way that we clearly have.

[Dr Fox]

What I have announced today makes complete military and strategic sense. It is what commanders in ISAF wanted to happen to make full use of the forces that we have. Our forces in Sangin have done a wonderful job, as will the US Marines after them. When our forces leave Sangin and move into central Helmand, they will do so with their heads held high, rightly proud of their achievements. Any attempt by anyone to describe that as a retreat is quite contemptible.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my old regiment, the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, who are currently serving in Helmand province and who will be not only delighted but encouraged by the fact that the redeployment will bring better focus. Working closely with the United States makes them remember that they are not alone. Is it only the US that is going into Sangin, or will other international partners be joining in that redeployment?

[Dr Fox]

It will be the United States that goes into Sangin, but to enable US forces to be fully deployable to Sangin, other nations will be taking up some of the territory currently occupied by the US. I hope my hon. Friend understands that, although I am aware of which forces they are, I have been asked by ISAF commanding forces not to say who they are yet.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I am reassured to hear the Secretary of State repeating the Government’s support for the comprehensive approach. We will not find security in Afghanistan and be able to leave until the Government of Afghanistan, nationally, regionally and locally, are respected and trusted by the Afghan people; it is they who have to win the hearts and minds of the people. What is the governor of Helmand province doing to reach out to all sections of the non-insurgent population and their political leaders to incorporate them in government? What is being done to start talks with those sections within the insurgency who can be talked into laying down their arms and joining constitutional government?

[Dr Fox]

I have met the governor in Helmand on several occasions, and he is one of the most impressive and bravest politicians in Afghanistan. Despite a number of attempts having been made on his life, he continues to get out among the population. A good example of the projects he has been spearheading includes the distribution of wheat seed and fertiliser, which I personally saw him being involved with.

The hon. Gentleman is correct that it is not only the governance of Kabul that will matter, but the governance at ground level. As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) earlier, simple issues such as dispute resolution at the very lowest level will be required if we are to deny the Taliban the space they will otherwise occupy. We need to be very clear that if we are not there, they will be, and we have to make some of those small details available. When I spoke to a farmer—I think I have mentioned this in the House before—he said, “When I sold poppy, I was given a farm price by the Taliban and I sold it at the farm gates. When I take wheat to market, I have to go through several checkpoints and it costs me money every time I go through a checkpoint.” It is the small things on the ground that we sometimes have to focus on and get right if we are to have wider success in the big strategic picture.

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

May I ask the Secretary of State how splitting Regional Command South assists with the ISAF mission in Afghanistan?

[Dr Fox]

This was simply a common-sense approach to have greater clarity in our command structures given the increased size of the force, and it has shown just how well the coalition is now working together. I remember criticisms being made in the House in the early part of the deployment in Afghanistan that there were too many command structures, and that no one was talking to anyone else. Anyone who has spoken to General Parker or General Carter recently will have discovered that we have very clear lines of communication and command. That has been a major improvement over the years in what is happening in Afghanistan.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving this update on what is going on in Afghanistan. I am a little encouraged by what he says will be the likely situation in 2015, but can he assure the House that every possible diplomatic avenue will now be pursued with the greatest possible vigour, so that we can come out of there as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

It is very important that our concentration, diplomatically, is on getting all the parts of the international coalition to do everything they can to support the success of the mission. It is also important, as I said earlier, that as we move to transition, we do not have a coalition in which some members think it is permissible for them to leave without making any further contribution. There will be a very important diplomatic effort in the months ahead to hold the international coalition together, so that we see through this strategy to a successful conclusion.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome today’s statement and the focus on central Helmand that it implies. If I have understood the Secretary of State correctly, the deployment of the theatre reserve battalion will effectively mean an increase in our forces on the ground in Afghanistan of about 10%, which will be of concern to some people. Will he confirm that that deployment will simply be until the Americans take over in Sangin, when the battalion will be withdrawn, so that effectively, the number of our troops will remain the same as the current number?

[Dr Fox]

It is likely that the uplift in the UK numbers from the reserve will be about 300, or possibly a little less, and they will remain there until October. That is when we intend to withdraw them.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Secretary of State further on the ongoing combat role of our troops? He will keep his options open, will he not? If in three, four or five years’ time there continues to be a need for a significant number of British troops in a combat role, he will be prepared to keep them there, will he not?

[Dr Fox]

I do not intend to give any comfort to the Taliban by talking about what might happen if we are not successful. We intend to see this mission through, to do what is required to put in the numbers needed to make the mission a success, to ensure that the equipment is there and to play our full part in the international coalition. We intend that the strategy as set out by General McChrystal will be met within the time scale he set out.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I join the rest of the House in paying tribute to the courage and commitment of our forces, the burden of which is reinforced by this redeployment, which shows what they have undertaken on their own so far. Will the Secretary of State outline what effect the new military reconfiguration will have on the provincial reconstruction team and on engagement with civilian communities in those areas?

[Dr Fox]

The provincial reconstruction team will continue as it is. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity, which I should perhaps have taken earlier, to praise the work of the PRT. Its success will be central to the long-term stability of, and thereby the governance support for, the security situation. It is a leading example of what is possible and is internationally admired.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. What efforts are being made to encourage the Pakistan armed forces to take greater responsibility for Taliban activity south of the border with Helmand?

[Dr Fox]

Every effort is made, including substantial talks undertaken by the Foreign Secretary in Pakistan recently. All contacts at a political, diplomatic and military level are used constantly to emphasise to the Government of Pakistan the importance of their role in dealing with this wider security issue. As has been mentioned already, this is not simply a problem that relates to Afghanistan within its own borders. There is a regional element and unless we have the full co-operation of Pakistan and success in Pakistan, any success we might achieve in security in Afghanistan would naturally be undermined. We take every opportunity to tell the Government of Pakistan that we stand ready to help them in their important contribution to this mission.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be fully aware that for there to be any sort of success in Afghanistan, we need to win the propaganda war, yet the latest report to Congress from the US Department of Defence clearly highlights that we are not succeeding on this front. What more can we do to turn this around? Success in a counter-insurgency war can soon become a pyrrhic victory if we do not carry the people with us.

[Dr Fox]

One of the elements of asymmetry so often talked about is the fact that, whereas we, in a democracy, must take our people with us, the Taliban do not have the problem of having to influence democratic opinion. It is vital, as my hon. Friend says, that we should do so. It is incumbent on us in this House, on the Government as a whole, on the media and on our armed forces to show the British public that there are two sides to the ledger. Yes, we have fatalities and casualties, but there is also success. We are beginning to see greater stability across much of Afghanistan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said earlier, if we stopped viewing things entirely through the prism of Helmand and started to view them across the country as a whole, perhaps the electorate in this country would get a better and more accurate picture.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the Taliban continue to draw their funding from the illegal drugs trade, we must tackle them successfully on all fronts—not only militarily, politically and diplomatically, but economically too—by getting to grips with the illegal drugs trade and cutting off their funding at source?

[Dr Fox]

I agree with my hon. Friend that dealing with the drugs trade has to be part of the long-term way in which we improve stability, security and governance in Afghanistan. If we are to do that, we must find alternative incomes for some of the poorest people on the planet. Until we can provide alternative incomes for those who are basically subsistence farmers, in many ways, we are unlikely to win hearts and minds—or, indeed, the economic case that my hon. Friend so correctly points out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

1. If he will discuss with his French counterpart joint UK-French procurement of medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles.

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

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the Royal Marine who died in Afghanistan last Thursday. His family and friends are in all our thoughts and prayers at this very difficult time for them. We are very fortunate to have such men in our armed forces.

I will be discussing a range of issues when I next meet my French counterpart. I would expect the subject of unmanned aerial systems to be among them.

[Mike Crockart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, but what assurances can he give me that the progress made by the UK recently in technological advances in UAV research, which have been particularly effective in the fight against improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan, will not be lost owing to budget cuts coming up in the Ministry of Defence?

[Dr Fox]

Both Britain and our key partners have defence aerospace skills and technologies that we wish to maintain as sovereign capabilities. As part of assessing any procurement system—we have made no decisions—the impact on critical UK aerospace skills and capabilities will be considered in the strategic defence and security review, as well as in the upcoming budgetary rounds.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

But is the Secretary of State aware that the French are thinking of buying in the Reaper drone from General Atomics because their EADS also is so far behind in producing this kind of essential new weapon? After reading your interesting interview in The Independent today, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you are aware of the report by two French Deputies exactly on drones, produced last December in the French National Assembly—a 90-page specialist report by a Socialist and a Conservative MP presented to the French Ministry of Defence? Do we not need such input from MPs to try to help the Secretary of State as he makes decisions?

[Dr Fox]

I am always open to the help offered by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps one day we will find a use for it. We are indeed in discussions with the French about joint procurement, but a decision by the French to join Predator would not necessarily preclude them from joint procurement in the future with the United Kingdom on long-term solutions.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

2. When he plans to publish the results of the Trident value-for-money study.

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

The Ministry of Defence’s work on the value-for-money study should be completed at the end of this month. The findings will go to the Cabinet Office, and will then be considered by the National Security Council. The council’s conclusions will inform the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review, which will be published in the autumn.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will the results of the value-for-money study include plans on the infrastructure that supports our deterrent?

[Dr Fox]

It might help the House if I tell my hon. Friend that the programme will cover the timetable itself, submarine numbers, the number of missiles, missile tubes and warheads, infrastructure and other support costs, and the industrial supply chain.

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

Given that Trident is costing us perhaps £1 billion or £2 billion every year, and an estimated £96 billion over its entire lifetime, does the Minister agree that we should listen to the military figures who are increasingly saying that it is not necessary and counting it as something to be considered in the comprehensive spending review?[Official Report, 19 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 1-2MC.]

[Dr Fox]

Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2015—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain’s defences.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

3. What recent progress has been made on the reform of NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on alternatives to the Trident nuclear deterrent.

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

The Government are committed to retaining a minimum nuclear deterrent based on Trident. We have commissioned a review to scrutinise existing plans to renew the deterrent, to ensure value for money.

[Diana R. Johnson]

Have the Liberal Democrats put forward their alternatives to Trident as set out in the coalition agreement, and if so, what are they? They kept very quiet during the general election about what they were.

[Dr Fox]

I am responsible for a lot of things, but the Liberal Democrats’ answers on specific points of policy are a matter for them, not for me. The coalition agreement is very clear that although the Government have set out their policy, the Liberal Democrats are very good at coming forward with their own particular solutions, as I can make clear to the hon. Lady.

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

In the inexplicable absence of any Liberal Democrat on his feet, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that as an alternative to Trident, the idea of putting nuclear-armed cruise missiles on Astute class submarines would be more expensive and less effective, would put the submarines at risk and, because one cannot know what sort of warhead is on a cruise missile until it has landed, could start world war three by accident? Does he agree that apart from that, it is a great Liberal Democrat idea?

[Dr Fox]

I am unlikely to be tempted down that route.

As the House will know, when we considered the entire issue in 2006 and 2007 we looked at options for other systems, including cruise missiles, silo-based missiles and air-launched weapons. Those other options were discounted due to effectiveness and cost. That analysis has not changed, and alternative systems will not be considered as part of the value-for-money review.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

8. What steps he plans to take to improve the standard of armed forces accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

13. Whether he has considered a timetable for the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan.

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

United Kingdom forces are in Afghanistan as part of an international coalition. We will take decisions on troop numbers in consultation with our partners.

[Derek Twigg]

Was the Secretary of State given advance notice of the Prime Minister’s statement in Canada recently that he wanted our armed forces home by 2015, and did No. 10 see a copy of the Secretary of State’s speech before he made it in Washington last week?

[Dr Fox]

The G8 in Canada in June sent a collective signal that we want Afghan national security forces to assume increasing responsibility for security within five years. 2015 is a full year beyond General McChrystal’s assessment of ANSF capability and it is entirely realistic that we will not have combat troops in Afghanistan at that time.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any timetable will depend not just on the numbers in the Afghan national army, but on its effectiveness? What discussions has he had about the emerging problems of recruitment and retention, infrastructure and logistics? Are not those matters critical to the effectiveness of the Afghan national army?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is correct on all those issues. In fact, the number of the Afghan national security forces has tended to be ahead of trend in recent times. The quality of the training is constantly kept under review and I had discussions in Washington on the subject last week.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the security issue in Afghanistan is really whether we have enough troops on the ground? Even by General Petraeus’s assessment, we have barely one third of those required. Unless and until we can increase that number—and there is no prospect of doing so from any side—the choice will be to expose our troops and the American troops to more danger or, conversely, to expose the Afghan people. In the light of that, will he make a statement about the prospects for the future? Without security we have no future.

[Dr Fox]

We are seeing an increase in the number of American troops at the moment. As for the UK troops, it is not just the number but the relative force density that is important. That has improved in recent times and there is now a better match between our footprint and the size of the force. That happened under the previous Government and will continue to happen under the current Government until we are satisfied that we have an appropriate ratio.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

14. What steps he plans to take to ensure that injured service personnel are treated in dedicated military wards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

16. What role he will play in the appointment of a new Chief of the Defence Staff; and if he will make a statement.

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

The outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff provides an assessment of his potential successors, together with his recommendation. I then discuss the recommendation with him and my Defence Ministers, before making a recommendation to the Prime Minister. Thereafter, the approval of Her Majesty the Queen will be sought.

[Frank Dobson]

Once the appointment is announced, will the Government ensure that both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister make it clear that they support the new appointment, and do not indulge in the spectacle of competitive briefing, claiming that they were the individual who got rid of the predecessor?

[Dr Fox]

No, I can confirm that we will break the precedent set by the former Government, and that we will indeed give full support to whomever is chosen as the candidate.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

17. How many defence procurement contracts have been frozen since his appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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 their military tasks, and that we honour the military covenant.

[Dr Lewis]

Only last August, a top military adviser stated publicly that it would take between 30 and 40 years for us to nation-build in Afghanistan under the present strategy and that there was no question of NATO pulling out. Within the last few days, the same top military adviser has stated that the time has begun for talks with the Taliban and that we could indeed have resolved our mission within the next four years. What does this conflicting advice say about the quality, the coherence and the consistency of the strategy which our Government have inherited in Afghanistan?

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will probably remember a former Prime Minister saying that advisers advise and Ministers decide. For the benefit of newer Members, let me say that she was absolutely correct to do so. The Government decide the strategy in Afghanistan. We believe that we are there for reasons of national security, and we believe that we will have succeeded in our mission in Afghanistan when it is a stable enough state to manage its own internal and external security without reference to outside powers.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T6. On reflection, does the Secretary of State think that the best way to advise of the retirement of the Chief of the Defence Staff is through the pages of The Sunday Times even before the Prime Minister has been consulted or before the Queen has been provided with that information?

[Dr Fox]

If that were entirely true, the right hon. Gentleman would be correct.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T2. With defence exports being of critical importance to the economy in Fylde and jobs in the north-west, can the Secretary of State update me and the House on efforts made to drive the export potential of the Typhoon Eurofighter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will have observed that the Secretary of State declined an opportunity to state that he would publish the results of the Trident value for money review. May I urge him to publish the foreign policy baseline, which is the starting point of the defence review, so that the House can have the opportunity to debate the Government’s foreign policy objectives before we are presented with a fait accompli in the defence review itself?

[Dr Fox]

During the debate on the strategic defence and security review, I set out the foreign policy baseline, as I have on previous occasions, and as the Foreign Secretary also has. It will be considered as part of the debate inside the National Security Council as part of cross-departmental security reviews.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Veterans Minister just said that he was redoubling efforts to honour the military covenant and he praised the Prime Minister for doubling the operational allowance, yet he also admitted that he was cutting accommodation, freezing Army pay and making service personnel pay more for their pensions. Will he therefore explain what he means in practical terms by “redoubling” the effort?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Ministers will be aware that the Royal Irish Regiment is to deploy to Afghanistan later this year and that our armed forces personnel from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales make a major contribution to operational deployment on a continuous basis. Is it not therefore incumbent on the Secretary of State in his review to look again at the distribution of defence expenditure on a more equitable basis across the United Kingdom?

[Dr Fox]

The allocation of defence spending across the United Kingdom will be determined in the light of what we think are the best decisions for the defence of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, however, about the contributions made by our armed forces from different parts of the United Kingdom. They are United Kingdom armed forces. When I meet troops in Afghanistan, they do not ask one another whether they came from Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh or London. They are forces under the Crown and proud of it.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T4. On the eve of the Turkish Foreign Minister’s visit to London, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that Turkey is one of our foremost allies in a most volatile region. What steps can his military take to increase our strategic co-operation with Turkey?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct: Turkey is a very important strategic partner for the United Kingdom, not only because of its geographic location and the countries that border it, but because of other issues such as energy security. I had a long discussion with the Turkish Defence Minister at the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, and I intend to see him again in London next week. We intend to continue to discuss issues such as joint exercising, joint training and potentially joint procurement. It is enormously to this country’s advantage to have Turkey onside and looking westwards rather than in any other direction.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Will Ministers tell me how effective they consider Vector Aerospace, in Almondbank in my constituency, to be in keeping the UK’s armed forces’ front lines effective?

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

T5. In view of the constraints on military spending, both financially and in terms of personnel, what help has the Ministry of Defence been asked to give the Home Office in providing security for the Olympic games?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. In the National Security Council, we are committed to a cross-departmental defence of the United Kingdom and defence review. As part of our ongoing discussions, we will continue to discuss arrangements for the Olympics. The Security Minister and I have had a number of discussions on that subject.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

There is a growing public perception that the Trident replacement is being insulated from any kind of scrutiny—including the defence review—while the Government continue to tear conventional forces to bits. I am thinking particularly of the cuts in aircraft, which have already been mentioned. How long will the Secretary of State be happy with that situation?

[Dr Fox]

There will be no plans for any part of the defence of the United Kingdom until the defence review is completed in the autumn. We will, of course, face a very adverse financial position because of the utter financial incompetence of the outgoing Labour Government, who have left the country with record debts, and, sadly, we will have to make decisions about defence and other Government budgets in that light.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

What steps will the Secretary of State take to reduce homelessness among former members of the armed services? Will he promise to take steps to provide support in regard to mental health and tenancies, and to support those who turn to drugs and alcohol after their time in the armed services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be an extremely retrograde step for the cuts in Government spending to sacrifice the new coastguard search and rescue helicopters that are such an important part of front-line rescue services in our country? They would be 30% faster than the Sea Kings, they are fitted with forward-looking infra-red, and they are good at low-flying night-time search and rescue. Surely there cannot be any more front-line expenditure than that.

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the services to which he refers. They are currently under review, as part of the defence review and our ongoing discussions with the Treasury. However, it does not come well from any member of the former Government to lecture anyone about public finances when we are having to make decisions on public spending against a more adverse financial backdrop than any Government have faced at least since the second world war.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger in my constituency because the reverse bidding for the contract for the supply of socks did not work effectively? Does he understand that HJ Hall, which has supplied socks for three generations, lost the contract because it could not make its bids within the existing system, and will he please look into the issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that the previous Government shut down the Harlow Territorial Army centre? What plans has he to restore Territorial Army morale in Harlow and elsewhere in the country?

[Dr Fox]

The role of the Territorial Army has been greatly undervalued too often in the past. I pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to the role that it plays in the security of our country. The specific future role of the Territorial Army, along with the roles of all sections of our armed forces, will be considered as part of the ongoing defence review.

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

I am most concerned by what I read in the newspapers about the Taliban’s reaction to the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. What implications does that have in respect of the issue of the Taliban in Pakistan, and has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Pakistan Government, given the crossover and the sensitivity between the two?

[Dr Fox]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has recently been in Pakistan and has had discussions with the security services there about the importance of the Pakistani Government dealing not only with the Pakistani Taliban but the Afghan Taliban. Unless we see these as a continuum in terms of security, we will not be able to make the progress we want and to achieve the security on the Afghan-Pakistan border that is vital for the security of the people of both countries.

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

Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), what decisions, if any, have been made about putting money into home-grown defence projects, especially in the Lancashire region?

[Dr Fox]

The Government intend to look at the value of home-grown defence projects in further consultations about the role of small and medium-sized businesses in the defence industry and the issue of sovereign capability for the United Kingdom. I look forward to my hon. Friend making some very full contributions to that debate when it takes place.

Afghanistan: Implications for US Uplift

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Written Statements

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

On Friday 25 June, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) completed the transfer of security responsibility for Kajaki in northern Helmand from UK to US forces and the redeployment of the company of UK soldiers based there to Sangin, where they will reinforce our existing presence.

The transfer of Kajaki is part of the reorganisation of ISAF forces in Helmand province and across southern Afghanistan which has been made possible by the significant uplift in Afghan and international troops, particularly US troops. As part of this process, security responsibility for Musa Qala in Helmand transferred to US forces on 27 March 2010, the UK-led Task Force Helmand came under command of the US Marine Corps’ 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) on 1 June 2010 and, on the same date, command of the British battle group based in Sangin transferred from Task Force Helmand to the US-led Regimental Combat Team in the north of the province.

As has been the case with previous changes in Helmand, the UK has been consulted throughout ISAF’s decision-making process and we welcome the transfer of Kajaki to US forces as enabling ISAF to further optimise the use of its forces in the province.

Transfer of Detainees (Afghanistan)

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Written Statements

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

The House will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has been judicially reviewed in the High Court. The claimant in that case, Ms Maya Evans, sought to end the practice of transferring detainees to the appropriate Afghan authorities. The Court’s judgment was handed down on Friday 25 June, and I am pleased to say that it found UK practices are lawful.

Our operations in Afghanistan are conducted to protect the national security of the United Kingdom and its people, at home and abroad. It is vital that we address transnational terrorism at its core if we are to safeguard the British people from its effects. In doing so, the ability of our forces to detain those who represent a threat to them, or to the Afghan population, is a vital tool if we are to learn about the insurgency, protect against the improvised explosive device threat, and finally ensure that those responsible are held properly to account. In seeking justice from those who attack, maim and kill our troops, coalition forces and Afghan civilians it is absolutely right that we do so through the Afghan judicial system.

There is no place for the abuse of detainees. We must always act in a manner that is consistent with our values. We took this case very seriously. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided a vast range of material to assist the Court in what it described as a massive, costly and time-consuming disclosure exercise. I welcome the Court’s recognition of the efforts the MOD went to to provide the Court with a full and clear understanding of all the issues raised.

In its judgment, the Court acknowledged the body of material, produced by the international institutions, among others, which covered allegations of mistreatment within the general Afghan system. But it also recognised the specific safeguards and monitoring arrangements in place to provide reassurance about the treatment of transferees, safeguards which will be further reinforced in line with the Court’s recommendations. This led to the Court’s conclusion that the steps we have taken with the Afghan authorities are sufficient to provide reassurance about their treatment and that UK forces can therefore lawfully continue to transfer UK-captured insurgents to sovereign Afghan authorities.

The British Government, working with international partners under International Security Assistance Force, will also continue to support all efforts to improve further the Afghan judicial system and the rule of law.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the strategic defence and security review.

On this sad day when the House has heard the news of the 300th member of the armed forces losing his life in Afghanistan, our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends, as well as with all those other service families who are mourning their losses. It is also appropriate to remember the families of the victims of violence from 9/11 to the present day. We did not initiate this cycle of violence, but we will certainly confront it.

I am pleased to open this debate on the Ministry of Defence contribution to the strategic defence and security review. All parties in the House committed themselves at the election to holding this review. The Green Paper from the previous Government, with its all-party approach, produced broad agreement on the need for fundamental reform, and I am sure that all Members will agree and reiterate that the defence of the nation should be above the worst excesses of partisan party politics.

In this review, we will need to challenge many preconceptions and think clearly about what we as a country want and need from our armed forces, and what we can afford. I want to ensure that we benefit from the expertise in the wider defence community, including partners in industry, academia, non-governmental organisations and the charitable and voluntary sector.

It is also essential that members of the House of Commons have a proper opportunity to make their views known on behalf of themselves and those whom we represent. In that light, Members submissions on the defence review should be made directly to me at the Ministry of Defence. Those in the other place with specialist interests will also be especially welcome to make submissions. Most importantly, the Prime Minister and I are determined that members of the armed forces and their families have an opportunity to contribute, and the service chiefs will set out shortly how that will be achieved. There has already been a lively debate about the choices that we face, and the MOD will continue to engage. Today, I shall set out the coalition Government’s broad approach to the defence review, an assessment of the financial backdrop, a description of the strategic environment and, finally, the way ahead.

Conducting a defence review while fighting a war in Afghanistan is rather like trying to build a ship while still at sea. Afghanistan must remain our priority, and as part of the international coalition of 46 nations we must prevail. None the less, after 12 years without a defence review, when our armed forces have at times been overstretched, with some current equipment overused or out of date, with programmes from the cold war that are of less relevance today, and in our dreadful economic and financial circumstances, it is clear that change must come. The review will need to provide a step change, not salami-slicing. We will have to bring defence policy, plans, commitments and resources into balance, confront the harsh facts of the economic climate in which we operate and make a clean break from the military and political mindset of cold war politics.

Let me give the House just one example. In the past, military might has been measured by conventional capabilities, such as tanks, aircraft and ships that we can inspect and review; but technology is already moving on at such a rate that there are new domains of warfare, such as cyber and space, where we will require capabilities in which the Government will have to invest but which the public might not be able to see. We also see the development of asymmetrical capabilities that serve to deny us the effectiveness of our conventional capabilities. It makes sense for any adversary to develop what are commonly referred to as area-denial or anti-access strategies in order to deny us the use of our conventional military capabilities without matching us tank for tank, ship for ship or jet for jet. We should not hope that our adversaries do not do so; we should expect and plan that they will; and it is vital that the review consider that point.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position. Ministry of Defence statistics show that since the previous strategic defence review there have been more than 10,000 defence job losses in Scotland and an under-spend of more than £5.6 billion. What consideration will be given in this SDSR to ensure a fair and balanced defence footprint throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?

[Dr Fox]

The point of the review is to ensure that we have the proper defence for the United Kingdom. We will have further things to say about the defence industrial strategy and how we will take that forward, not least because it represents high levels of employment in some economically less well-off parts of the United Kingdom, and we will come to the House with those proposals in the near future.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I could make a similar point about St Athan with regard to Wales and, for that matter, more deprived areas of the country. However, that is not the point that I want to make about St Athan. Rather it is that, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the changing nature of warfare, technical training is far more important now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Is it not absolutely vital that one of our highest priorities be to ensure that such training is improved for all our troops? Does that not mean that we should support and he should support—this is my submission—the St Athan defence training college?

[Dr Fox]

Given my experience of the hon. Gentleman, I would be extremely surprised if that were the end of his submission, and I look forward to an undoubtedly weighty document landing on my desk. I understand his points, and training is absolutely vital, particularly given the increasing professionalism in the armed forces and the increasing complexity involved. None the less, he will understand that, while that project is being considered as part of the SDSR, it would be inappropriate for me to give him even a hint of our position on it, but if he makes a personal submission, I shall certainly ensure that I read it—undoubtedly at length.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I give way to the Labour party election godfather.

[Mr Watson]

I shall be polite to the Secretary of State even after that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State was always courteous to me during my short time as a junior Defence Minister, and I hope to return the courtesy over the next year or two.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the review will consider the international conventions used for the engagement of advanced technology? I am thinking particularly of drone planes. Does he believe that such planes are within international law when they are used for the targeted extra-judicial killings of suspected terrorists?

[Dr Fox]

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, that issue will not be part of our review, but it is part of the sort of discussions that we need to have with our allies about the wider issues in respect of the conduct of warfare. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues, as well as Ministers and officials inside the MOD, will want to take on those discussions.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said towards the beginning of his intervention. He was always extraordinarily courteous to the Opposition when he was in government. We shall endeavour to act in the same way, and I am sure that he will bring us up if we fail to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and, like others, I congratulate him on his appointment. In his opening remarks, he said something to the effect that he was going to do away with cold war thinking and look at problems of expenditure in that context. Britain’s development of nuclear weapons was entirely a product of the cold war. As I understand it, Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons and the Trident system will be ignored and not taken into account in the defence review. Has there been any change of thinking on that? Some of us would be astonished if defence policy could be reviewed without a review of nuclear weapons as well.

[Dr Fox]

A few years ago, we had an extensive debate in the House of Commons on what we thought, as a Parliament, was the best way to take forward Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The Conservative party, in opposition at the time, agreed with the Labour Government’s position then, and our position has not changed.

However, I say this to the hon. Gentleman. I said that we would have to get rid of some of the cold war mindset. It would be very nice if nuclear weapons had disappeared with the cold war, but when I look at what is happening in North Korea and Iran, I see that we will face the threat of nuclear proliferation in the future. Nuclear weapons are not simply a by-product of the cold war.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I have given way a number of times and I shall give way again later.

I believe that at the beginning of this debate it is vital and useful to go back to first principles and remind ourselves about the purpose of defence. It bears repeating that the first duty of a Government is to provide security for our citizens. Although many arms of government are directed towards or contribute to that aim, the armed forces are central to the effort. Of course, our armed forces can do many things for the promotion of our national interest and to support Government policy more widely. But we must not lose sight of their primary mission—to maintain the capability to apply military force, when needed, so that political decision makers have the widest possible range of choices when making strategic decisions.

That has two aspects. First, our armed forces protect our citizens and territory by deterring and containing threats, preventing possibilities from becoming actualities. The nuclear deterrent is, of course, fundamental to our ability to deter the most extreme threats to the United Kingdom. As I just said in response to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in 2007 the Conservative party in opposition supported the decision to renew the Trident system based on the analysis set out in the 2006 White Paper, and we remain committed to continuous at-sea deterrence.

As the coalition agreement has made clear, we are scrutinising the Trident renewal programme to ensure that we get value for money, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues will continue to make the case for alternatives. However, we underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine the concept to nuclear weapons. We know from historical experience that a declaration of peaceful intent is not sufficient to dissuade aggressors and that a weakening of national defences can encourage them. All our forces, including conventional forces, have a powerful deterrent effect, which we should seek to maximise. Recently, we have not recognised that as much as we should have. I want the SDSR to change that—to take a fresh look at what we are doing to dissuade aggression and at how we might do it better.

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

I happen to agree with the Secretary of State’s stance on nuclear weapons and Trident. Will he say a little more about the extent to which he regards Trident to be, as well as a deterrent, part of our obligations as a permanent member of the Security Council—as one of the P5, at the top table?

[Dr Fox]

It is not an obligation, but I certainly think that it adds credibility to our position as a member of P5. As I have said, our position on nuclear weapons is that in a dangerous world, when we are looking to 2050 or beyond, we cannot play fast and loose with Britain’s defences. We do not know what threats will emerge or what will happen in terms of future proliferation, and we are simply not willing to take a gamble.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Secretary of State began this passage of his speech by talking about returning to first principles. That allows me to take up an issue that he dealt with a moment or two ago, which is this: in determining the structure of our armed forces, in determining the location of bases, and in determining procurement decisions, must we not accept that the motivation has to be what is in the best interests of defence? If I may be excused for putting the matter pejoratively, we should not be using defence as some kind of job creation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I have a degree of sympathy with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but it is worth pointing out, at a time when the economy is going through a great deal of trouble, that the defence industry provides 300,000 manufacturing jobs—jobs that actually make and sell things to the benefit of this country’s balance of payments. The defence industry contributes a very high value to Britain’s exports, and it punches above its weight. It will be the aim of the Government to increase Britain’s defence exports, partly as a way of securing British defence jobs in the longer term, because the more markets we have, the less the British defence industry is dependent on the British domestic economic cycle.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Secretary of State about industrial capacity. Before he moves on from the deterrent, will he clarify whether the value-for-money Trident review is solely considering the ballistic missile submarine system, or are alternative systems being considered?

[Dr Fox]

There are a number of elements in the Trident renewal programme, and we are looking for value for money in each of them, and trying to see where we can, if possible, get that capability for lesser cost. However, there is no question but that we will move ahead with a continuous, minimum, credible at-sea nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Fox]

I will in a moment.

This brings me to the second aspect of the armed forces’ primary mission. Defence is also there for when everything goes wrong—when despite our best efforts, deterrence and containment have failed, diplomacy is exhausted, and, as a last resort, the use of lethal force is required. No other arm of government can deliver this or is designed for this purpose. So our armed forces must be structured, first, to deter; and secondly, to deliver the use of force in support of our national interest and to protect national security. We undertake this strategic defence and security review at a time when our armed forces are delivering on that primary mission in Afghanistan. We must have strategic patience and resource that mission fully, but it would be a mistake to base our future security on the assumption that future wars will be like the current ones. That is why we must maintain generic capability able to adapt to changing threats.

I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

[Dr Lewis]

My right hon. Friend must have read my mind; perhaps that is not difficult to do. I congratulate him on taking up his post; it is a pleasure to see him there.

My right hon. Friend says that we cannot assume that future wars will be like current counter-insurgency campaigns, yet some very senior figures in the Army are asking us to make that very assumption. It cannot be safe for this country to plan on the basis that just because we are engaged in irregular warfare now, we do not have to worry about state-against-state conflict in future. Will he say, once and for all, that there is a danger that we could one day find ourselves opposed by a modern, well-armed, industrialised state, and that we have to be prepared for that terrible eventuality?

[Dr Fox]

I would never be so presumptuous as to believe that I could read the complexities and high intellectual level of my hon. Friend’s mind, but let us just say that having spent four years in opposition together, I have a fair idea of what he is likely to raise and when. He is absolutely correct, and I reiterate that it would be wrong, and fly in the face of everything that we have learned from history, to believe that future wars will be predictable or like the ones in which we are currently engaged. We must maintain generic capability that is flexible, adaptable and able to deal with changing future threats of a sort that we cannot possibly predict with any certainty.

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

I am struggling to understand at the moment how the Secretary of State plans to deal with the issue of the deterrent. I know what the coalition agreement said and what the Liberal Democrats’ position is, and I have heard him say various things, but will the value-for-money study be part of the strategic defence review, has it started, and how and in what forum will his coalition partners be able to pursue their separate views on the shape of the deterrent?

[Dr Fox]

The value-for-money study on Trident has begun, as has the SDSR, and it will be concluded long before the SDSR. I hope that it will be concluded before the summer recess.

I want to be as open as I can about the backdrop to the SDSR. To take one aspect, the defence budget itself, the future programme is entirely unaffordable, especially if we try to do what we will need to do in future while simultaneously doing everything in the way that we do it today. The legacy that the new Government have inherited means that even if defence spending kept pace with inflation, we would face a deficit of many billions of pounds over the life of this Parliament and more over the next decade. To make things worse, there are additional systemic pressures on the defence budget that exacerbate the situation, including the trend of pay increases above inflation. The previous Government’s approach was too often characterised by delay-to-spend rather than invest-to-save. The decision to slow the rate of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers in 2009, for example, increased the overall costs by more than £600 million at a stroke.

The bottom line is this: no matter how hard we bear down on the costs of administration and drive up efficiency, we cannot expect to bridge the gap by those means alone. The problem is structural, so the response must be structural to put defence on a stable footing. The Ministry of Defence, as a Department of State, must itself face wide-ranging reform. We intend to reorganise the whole organisation into three pillars: first, strategy and policy; secondly, the armed forces; and thirdly, procurement and estates. We intend to create a more efficient and leaner centre, in which everyone knows what they are responsible for and to whom they are accountable, with clear deadlines and budgetary discipline. Major reform of our procurement practices will be accompanied by a number of industrial consultations that I will shortly outline to Parliament.

As much as structural reform is required, however, I am equally determined that the armed forces be reconfigured to meet the needs of the evolving security environment and satisfy the expectations of this country. Although the SDSR is necessarily financially aware, it is policy-based, and I wish to set that policy out to the House.

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting now, because what the Secretary of State has just said is hugely important, but may I go back to what he said about the review of the deterrent? May we be clear that the financial review of the nuclear deterrent is due to take place before the recess, that it is a one-off activity and that it will not be part of a continuing review at each of the various stages of the programme that has been outlined, including the main gate stage? Will the Secretary of State clarify that point?

[Dr Fox]

As part of the coalition agreement, we agreed that we would have a value-for-money study to examine the costs of the programme and see where we could achieve better value within it. That is the process that is now ongoing.

The Foreign Secretary has set out the new Government’s distinctive British foreign policy, which has at its heart the pursuit and defence of UK interests and a recognition that our prosperity and security is bound up with that of others. That will require the enhancement of diplomatic relations with key partners, using Britain’s unique network of friendships, bonds and alliances and working bilaterally as well as multilaterally. That does not mean that we must be able to do all things at all times. We will need to be smarter about when and how we deploy power, which tasks we can undertake in alliance with others, and what capabilities we will need as a result. That must be based on a hard-headed assessment of the current security environment and the growing threats to peace and stability.

We live in a period in which direct military threats to UK territory are low, but in which the wider risks to our interests and way of life are growing. Over the coming decades, we could face weak or failing states creating new focal points for exportable Islamist terrorism that threatens our citizens and our allies, as we have seen in Yemen and Somalia. We could also face a nuclear-capable or nuclear-armed Iran destabilising Shi’a-Sunni and Arab-Persian fault lines, as well as those with Israel and the rest of the world. That could create an uncontrollable cycle of nuclear proliferation and, at worst, the erosion of the post-Hiroshima taboo against nuclear use by both Governments and terrorists. Elsewhere, we could see the emergence of old or new regional powers and the return of state-versus-state competition and confrontation. More immediately, competition for energy and other resources, including fresh water, could take on a military nature.

It is conceivable that we will negotiate the next half century without confronting any of those risks—I certainly hope so—but it is equally possible that the UK could face security policy decisions relating to any or all such risks during the course of the next Parliament. That is the reality of the world in which we live, and we must break away from the recent habit of planning for the best-case scenario and then hoping the worst never happens. Unlike what happened during the cold war, we cannot be confident about how and how quickly such trends may evolve. I shall therefore conduct a thorough stocktake of our contingency plans in the months ahead.

Of course, responding to such events would not be for Britain alone. Britain’s relationship with the United States will remain critical for our national security; it is the UK’s most important and prized strategic relationship.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Given the contingencies that my right hon. Friend outlines, is it not important for us to have a strategic reserve? What lessons can be learned from last year’s debacle, when the previous Government had to do a humiliating U-turn over cuts to the Territorial Army, to ensure that we do not make such mistakes again in the coming defence review?

[Dr Fox]

It is very clear that we require civil contingency in the UK, and as part of the wider SDSR, we are looking at the protection of the UK homeland. We cannot simply direct our armed forces at external threats while ignoring internal threats. That must be a raised priority, as it will be as part of the wider security review.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their positions. When in opposition, he was always steadfast and unwavering in his calls for a larger Army. Does he share my concern and that of my constituents that the review ought not to be used as a way of delivering major cuts to Army manning levels, which would be quite unwise and, indeed, dangerous?

[Dr Fox]

The defence review is not about predetermining the size or shape of the armed forces. In fact, the size or shape of the armed forces will be determined by the review. I can comfort the hon. Gentleman by saying that the service chiefs will each thoroughly defend their service in the review, as one might expect. I would be surprised—Opposition Front Benchers would be even more surprised—if that were not the case.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

These are complex and difficult issues, and if they are to be approached thoroughly, they cannot be approached quickly. Does the Secretary of State intend to take any decisions that might pre-empt the results of the review? In particular, what are the implications for procurement contracts that are running? Does he intend to take any steps to halt, restrict or in any way constrain existing procurement contracts? He might be able to think of the one I have in mind.

[Dr Fox]

On this occasion it is rather easier to be a mind-reader. I am well aware of the project to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. We thought about making an interim statement to Parliament just before the summer recess about which programmes were likely to go ahead, but we decided that it might cause more instability than it was worth. We therefore intend to announce all the programmes that we believe give reality to the capabilities that we want when we reach the end of the review.

Having said that, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that we are acutely aware of the fact that it is unavoidable that there will be insecurity during the period of the review. He asked about the speed. The last defence review, in 1998, was an 18-month process. We have brought the process forward partly because, to be frank, most of us in the House who take an interest in such issues have a clear idea of the sort of choices that will need to be made, but also partly because we wanted to minimise that period of insecurity for the defence industry and those who work in it.

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

rose—

[Mr Watson]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I am going to make a little progress, as I know that a large number of Members wish to speak in this debate.

NATO will remain our first instrument of choice for responding to the collective security challenges that we face. In the past decade, NATO has moved outside its traditional geographic area, with European allies such as Germany deploying troops abroad in ways that would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Of course, NATO is not perfect, and we are keen to streamline command structures and decision-making processes. We began that process at the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels last week, making more progress than most of us expected. However, we must use every lever at our disposal—including the Commonwealth, the UN, the EU and other regional organisations—to protect our security in an uncertain, unstable and unpredictable world.

We will look to step up cross-Government overseas engagement. Defence co-operation is an important component of that, particularly with nations who share our interests and are prepared both to pay and to fight, such as France. We intend to ensure—and consequently fund—a defence diplomacy programme in the SDSR that can make an important contribution to our global influence. Clearly we need close consultation with our allies on the SDSR. I had a good opportunity to engage in early exchanges at the recent NATO ministerial meeting, and I will follow up with detailed discussions with our closest allies. In particular, I intend to visit Washington in the near future to take forward discussions already begun there.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I warmly welcome what the Secretary of State has said about defence diplomacy. Does he agree that, inevitably in an age of restraint, defence diplomacy is an extremely important and effective asset for this Government and something that this country has historically done well? Does he also agree that to pare back our work in defence diplomacy at this time would be to cut off our nose to spite our face?

[Dr Fox]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Not only is defence diplomacy effective; it is cost-effective. It provides this country with great overseas influence at relatively little cost, compared with other elements of the defence budget. We are very foolish as a country if we ever ignore the fact that joint exercising, training and defence exports can achieve a great deal for this country at a relatively low cost. In recent years there has been too much penny-pinching in certain areas, which has had a disproportionately negative effect on this country’s influence, and a good deal too much short-termism, when we need to be looking at what we do well and doing it more often.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I give way to my hon. Friend, and I apologise for keeping him waiting.

[Mr Brazier]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been making the most robust case possible for keeping a full range of military capabilities, despite the fact that we are engaged in an important operation. With his visit to Washington coming up, does he agree that it would be truly extraordinary if we alone continued to have 85% of our defence capability in expensive regular manpower, when the mightiest and richest country on earth has almost half its total defence capability in volunteer reserves?

[Dr Fox]

My mind-reading abilities seem to know no bounds today—no doubt like those of my colleagues. I pay a full tribute to the reserve forces of the United Kingdom. They make a tremendous contribution to our national security. If we ever fail to value them fully, we are making a profound mistake. I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to go further, given that the structure of our forces is an unavoidable part of the review itself. Suffice it to say, I think it is very clear just how wedded is most of this House, and not least the Conservative party, to the well-being and existence of our reserves.

Let me sum up the Ministry of Defence’s approach to the strategic defence and security review. First, relevance: our posture and capabilities must be relevant to the world we now live in. This is our opportunity to dispense with much of the legacy of the cold war. Secondly, realism: resources are tight for the country as a whole, and defence is no exception. We cannot insure against every imaginable risk, so we will need to decide which risks we are willing to meet and which risks we are willing to take.

Thirdly, responsibility: as a nation, we have a duty to give the brave and capable men and women of our armed forces our full support in return for the selfless service and sacrifice they are prepared to make in our name. We must ensure that they have what they need to do what we ask of them, and that they and their families are looked after properly during and after service. There has never been a formal document setting out precisely what this means, which is why, for the first time, this Government will create a tri-service military covenant. It will be the foundation of the new Government’s far-reaching strategy for, and obligations to, our servicemen and women, their families, and veterans.

The National Security Council and the SDSR will consider defence interests in the round, along with other security risks and interests, including terrorism, cyber-security and civil emergencies. I have stressed the need for the review to follow a logical sequence. We must begin with our foreign policy priorities, reflecting our interests. The establishment of the National Security Council has allowed us to have a full debate and to ensure that departmental priorities will be aligned with our conclusions. The first stage is the development of the new Government’s national security strategy, which will be wide-ranging and draw on the work of all Departments concerned, including the Ministry of Defence.

We must understand the environment in which we will protect and promote those interests, in particular the threats and risks. Under the auspices of the NSC, the MOD is playing a full role in work to establish a prioritised register of those risks that will be a key element to the national security strategy. Decisions on the capabilities required will be based on this overarching strategy, but these decisions will need careful preparation.

I am determined to understand fully the operational and resource implications of the options. I have therefore directed the Department to initiate a range of detailed studies on specific capabilities and force structures. We will begin to move to conclusions as our strategic posture becomes clearer, and we can test our work against the agreed policy baseline to produce a synthesised force structure and risk assessment. I would expect to see the emerging conclusions in August, and the House will understand why I will not speculate on them today. They will then be discussed in detail by the NSC. We expect that the defence section of the SDSR will report in the autumn, which will coincide with the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

I am also determined that we fully understand—and, where possible, mitigate—the risks we are taking and the assumptions we are making about future operations, from the partners we will work alongside to the tactics and adversaries we will confront. I have therefore directed the vice-chief of the defence staff to lead a detailed process of force testing, which will look at the effectiveness of possible future forces against a range of scenarios. I will receive updates in July and August to ensure that emerging findings can be reflected in our strategic choices; and a final report in September to ensure that I and the NSC can validate the decisions we are taking.

There will undoubtedly be difficult decisions ahead. We will have to confront some long-held assumptions. There will be competing priorities to assess, risks on which we will have to make judgments, and budgets to balance. It is inevitable that there will be the perception of winners and losers as we go through this process. I am determined, however, that defence as a whole will come out in a stronger position. The prize is a safer Britain, with secure interests and a sustainable defence programme able to address the needs of today and prepared for tomorrow. As I said earlier, providing security for our citizens is the primary and overriding duty of Government. The SDSR must become a national, not a party political, endeavour, and all in this House must have the political resilience, strength, will and resolve to see us through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

As the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government’s position on this, given his own experience will he enlighten colleagues as to why the previous Government came to the decision that Trident was the most effective and cheapest way of providing us with a continuous at-sea deterrent?

[Mr Jones]

Well, because it is, and we had the White Paper in 2006 that said that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness raised an interesting point—the idea that we can play stop-go with the building of nuclear submarines is wrong; instead, we need to keep the skills base together. People must recognise that key point. That policy is what led to the problems we are currently facing with Astute. The options were looked at in detail and it was found that, in terms of the procurement of warheads and of the boats themselves, Trident is the most cost-effective way to proceed.

However, I must ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether, in terms of the review, we are talking about basic principles or simple value for money? A yes or no answer will suffice. Alternatively, is this, as we all suspect, simply a bit of political posturing to keep the unilateralists in the Liberal Democrats on board while not scaring the cold war warriors in the Tory party such as the hon. Member for New Forest East?

Much was said in the debate about the covenant and the work on that—or lack of work, as the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said. She should look at what we actually achieved in government, and it would be nice if she could support and build upon that.

On value for money, the Treasury will of course look in detail at whatever review takes place, and it is clear that the Secretary of State is also looking at that requirement. In the article that I mentioned earlier, he said that there might not be so much “fat in the system” as was previously thought, but that although the overall defence budget would be protected, dramatic savings would still have to be made. Between 1997 and 2008, Labour added an average £1 billion a year to the defence budget and there was the longest-sustained growth in defence expenditure ever in this country. It is important to get some clarity tonight. If the defence review says there is a need for more defence expenditure, will the Secretary of State argue for that or will he simply take an inflation increase, which would effectively be a cut in the defence budget?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I was responsible for personnel issues within the Department. There has been much criticism in the past few weeks about bloated public sector pay and pensions. Armed forces personnel are public sector workers, although we do not see them as such, and it will be interesting to see whether he will exempt them from the pay restraint being suggested. Is he going to implement fully the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, as we did in the last Government? On pensions, will he exempt armed forces pensions from the review that is taking place? If he is looking for hopeful signs from the former Member for Barrow and Furness, Mr John Hutton, let me tell him that when I suggested that we should look into this, Mr Hutton was the one who scuppered it and then went against the permanent secretary who recommended that the issue should be looked at.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) said earlier, we welcome the responsible way in which we will make a contribution to this debate. However, there is still confusion around what programmes are included in all this and about the finance. For five years, the Secretary of State has been going around promising larger Armies, bigger Navies, better accommodation and higher pay. Some of his Front-Bench team have even called for higher defence expenditure, although I notice that he has never offered a penny more in relation to any of those commitments. Will he now, with his party and its new Liberal Democrat friends, be straight not only with the armed forces but with the country? We need an effective strategic defence and security review not just to meet our commitments at home and abroad, but to do the right thing by the men and women who daily put their lives at risk on our behalf.

Operational Allowance

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced recently during his visit to Afghanistan the doubling of the operational allowance which we pay to our armed forces engaged in the most demanding areas of conflict. In doing so, we are fulfilling a key commitment to our armed forces in our Programme for Government.

The tax-free operational allowance will increase from £14.51 per day to £29.02 with effect from 6 May 2010. This will mean a typical six-month tour payment increasing from £2,640 to £5,281. Payment is in the form of a single lump sum paid on completion of operational service.

Afghanistan

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Written Statements

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

The significant increase in the number of international troops in southern Afghanistan is enabling commanders to make improvements in the laydown and command arrangements of coalition forces in the region. The first of these was the handover of security responsibility for Musa Qala district in Helmand province from UK to US troops on 27 March. This transfer allowed UK troops in Musa Qala to be redeployed to the population centres of central Helmand where they have increased ISAF’s capacity to protect the Afghan civilian population from the threat posed by the insurgency, and to train and partner with the Afghan national security forces.

On 21 May, ISAF announced that Regional Command South, the ISAF command responsible for overseeing the operational activity of international forces in southern Afghanistan, will be divided into two separate commands: Regional Command South-West, headquartered in Helmand and consisting of Helmand and Nimroz provinces; and, Regional Command South, headquartered in Kandahar and consisting of Kandahar, Daikundi, Uruzgan and Zabul provinces. The division of responsibility for ISAF troops in southern Afghanistan into two regional commands will ensure that ISAF can continue to provide the optimal level of command and control over its forces as they increase in size from around 35,000 in October last year to over 50,000 troops this summer. Furthermore, the separation of the commands along regional boundaries will align the ISAF military structure in the south with the structure of the Afghan national army, enabling a greater partnering capacity between ISAF and Afghan forces.

ISAF intends for Regional Command South-West to become fully operational over the course of the summer. The first commander will be Major General Richard Mills of the US Marine Corps, and the US 1 Marine Expeditionary Force, (Forward) which is already based in Helmand, will provide the framework for Regional Command South-West’s headquarters component. The UK-led taskforce Helmand will come under Major General Mills’s command from 1 June. Subject to final confirmation in due course, the UK and US have agreed in principle that command of Regional Command South-West will be shared on a rotational basis.

As a further element of ISAF reorganisation in Helmand, and as announced by ISAF last week, the British battlegroup based in Sangin and Kajaki, which comprises in the order of 1,100 troops, will transfer from the UK-led taskforce Helmand to the US-led that is taking on responsibility for the north of the province. Under this arrangement, the battlegroup will not be relocated but for operational purposes it will come under the command of the US. In common with the other changes to ISAF’s command structures, the transfer of command in Sangin is intended to optimise the command support available to the troops on the ground in the light of the increase in the number of ISAF troops and other operational assets. The transfer will occur on 1 June.

The UK has been consulted throughout ISAF’s decision-making process and we welcome the changes to the command arrangements that will enable ISAF to make optimal use of the increased forces now deploying in southern Afghanistan.