Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the cost and credibility of a nuclear deterrent based on a cruise missile system.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

A range of cruise missile-based systems were examined as part of the recent Trident alternatives review. The evidence showed that any cruise missile option was more vulnerable and had significantly reduced reach compared with a Trident-based deterrent. Additionally, it would be more costly, requiring the design and development of a new warhead, as well as a new missile.

[Oliver Colvile]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he give me a commitment that in any future negotiations with our coalition partners after the next general election, if by some misfortune no single party should gain an outright majority, our party would retain a continuous-at-sea deterrent with four nuclear submarines?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government’s position is that we will maintain continuous-at-sea deterrence, and to do that we are preparing to go ahead at the main-gate decision in 2016 with the delivery of replacement submarines. I fear I would be straying beyond my remit if I were to speculate on negotiations that may or may not take place after the next election.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What is the Secretary of State’s latest estimate of the cost of replacing both the warheads and the submarine system, ahead of the main-gate decision in 2016? Has he given further consideration to the possibility of us not renewing Trident in order to help bring about a nuclear-free world more rapidly rather than re-arming ourselves and thus delaying the possibility of a nuclear-free world?

[Mr Hammond]

On the last point, I think that history teaches us that unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons is not the way to bring about a more rapid elimination of those weapons, much as we would all like to see that happen. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the estimates produced in the 2006 White Paper for the cost of replacing the existing submarines with a four-boat solution were between £15 billion and £20 billion—in terms of the 2006 economic conditions—and they remain unchanged.

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

In order that the Secretary of State does not keep having to tell us that he must not go above his pay grade, will he carry the message back to No. 10 that as Labour Front Benchers say they are willing to sign up to two of the four boats before the next election, and as the majority of people in this House would like to have that main-gate decision implemented at least in part, why should we not go ahead so that we cannot be blackmailed by the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung Parliament after the general election?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point of view. He has on other occasions raised the issue of entering into a contract for the submarines at an early stage. Our current way of managing our equipment programme is to enter into contracts with industry at the point at which projects are mature enough to enable us to secure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Entering into a contract at this stage, when the project is relatively immature, would not represent value for money.

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

3. What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

11. What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The review demonstrates that no alternative system is as capable as a Trident-based deterrent, or as cost-effective.

[Mr Wallace]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the alternatives to Trident is that of mistaken identity? An intercontinental ballistic missile leaves a very distinct signature on launch, whereas the alternatives could be confused with conventional weapons, and hence trigger an escalation rather than a de-escalation of conflict.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Trident alternatives review makes clear that that is just one of the many drawbacks of a cruise-based system. The other primary drawbacks are the risk, the time scale for development, the likely cost, the lack of range, and the vulnerability of the weapons system.

[James Morris]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when maintenance is taken into account, the cost differential between four boats and three boats is minimal, and that we should press ahead with a full replacement for Trident because it is in our national interest to do so?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has conflated two different questions. The Trident alternatives review states categorically that Trident provides the best value and the best capability for the United Kingdom. As for the separate question of how many boats are needed, the Government are determined to maintain continuous-at-sea deterrence, and the best advice at present is that that will require four boats. The cost differential between three and four boats is about £1.7 billion in net present value terms, or about £50 million to £60 million a year over the life of the project.

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend has already made a powerful case for Trident and for continuous-at-sea deterrence, but does he agree that other potential deterrents that have been mooted, such as an airborne deterrent, would also be expensive to implement? Moreover, an airborne deterrent would be prey to a pre-emptive strike—which means that it would be no deterrent at all—and would be considered objectionable by many people who do not want nuclear armed planes landing and taking off on their doorsteps.

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed. The nature of the United Kingdom, which is a relatively small and densely populated land mass, is one of the factors taken into account by the Trident alternatives review, and one of the reasons why the idea of land-based ballistic missiles was ruled out at an early stage. The review states clearly that all alternatives to Trident are less capable, higher-risk and more expensive. That strikes me as a pretty categorical conclusion.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on the Liberal Democrat vanity project that is the Trident alternatives review, given that, by and large, both the Conservative part of the coalition and the Labour Opposition support the outcome and knew what it would be?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the work on the review was conducted in-house, led by the Cabinet Office and supported by the Ministry of Defence, and that the principal cost involved will have been civil servants’ time. If he submits a written question to me, I will ask the Department to produce the best estimate that it can make of the time involved.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we opted for an alternative to Trident, we should probably have to be out of the submarine building business altogether, and that that would pose a real risk to the national security of the country?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. It seems often to be forgotten by those who advocate an alternative that we must make a choice about whether to sustain a submarine building industry in the United Kingdom. I, for one, believe that it is essential to the UK’s strategic interest for us to maintain a submarine-building capability, and that further points to the use of a submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Government’s Trident alternatives review covered a large number of options and was described in this House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as the “most comprehensive study” of our nuclear deterrent policy. Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to why the alternative being put forward now by the Liberal Democrats of two boats conducting irregular unarmed patrols was not considered as part of that comprehensive review?

[Mr Hammond]

The review considered a three-boat alternative and a four-boat alternative; it did not consider a two-boat position, as that was not considered a credible deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. Whether his Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of a Trident replacement; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

A cost-benefit analysis of possible nuclear deterrent systems was carried out for the 2006 White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent”. This demonstrated that a submarine-launched ballistic missile system based on Trident was the most cost-effective solution to the UK’s requirement. The recently published “Trident Alternatives Review” supports the judgments made in 2006 and demonstrates that the renewal of the current Trident-based system is the most cost-effective and capable nuclear deterrent for the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Just because Trident is obviously the best new nuclear deterrent, surely we should still worry about, and be aware of, costs. Given that submarine programmes have a history of vast cost overruns—50% in the case of the Astute class programme—will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is keeping a close eye on costs and that he is broadly confident that he can deliver Trident on time and on budget?

[Mr Hammond]

We have not yet contracted but, as I said in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we believe that the costs of replacing the Trident deterrent will fall within the estimates set out in the 2006 White Paper. I should say to my hon. Friend that we have made significant strides to reform the way in which the submarine enterprise is conducted, and we believe that the MOD has a much firmer control of the enterprise’s cost base than has previously been the case.

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

Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping an open mind about the timetable? If experts and the industry tell him that there could be a more cost-effective solution for the taxpayer if the main-gate decision were to come earlier than the scheduled date of 2016, will he be alive to that, rather than sticking to the current agreement within the coalition?

[Mr Hammond]

Tempting though it is to go down the route that the hon. Gentleman sets out, the reality is that the processes that must be undertaken to reach a mature main-gate decision that is properly informed by the evidence simply could not be shortened to the available time scale. We are aiming for 2016, by when we will have a robust basis on which to contract and to conduct the value-for-money assessment.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The conflict in Syria is of grave concern to the international community and the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is, I think, regarded as abhorrent by everyone. The UK will continue to press for a political solution to end the bloodshed and we are urging the Syrian regime to enter the Geneva process towards a negotiated transition.

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Clearly the security situation will have the greatest impact on Syria’s near neighbours, so what discussions have he and other members of the Cabinet had with those near neighbours and the Arab League, as well as NATO and the EU?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend might have seen that the Secretary-General of NATO made a statement only this morning about this matter. I assure her that we have the closest possible contact and dialogue with the regional players—the Arab League, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. We are acutely conscious of the risks and threats that the situation in Syria present to them. I should also mention that we are the second largest donor of humanitarian assistance to try to alleviate the shocking refugee crisis in Syria.

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

Is it not the case that, although the civil war in Syria started in early 2011, a UK firm was granted a licence to sell chemicals to the regime in 2012, and that was stopped only because of tougher EU sanctions? Is there any murderous regime anywhere with which we are not willing to do business? This illustrates what I have said about Syria. If that process had not been stopped owing to EU sanctions, chemicals would have been sent that could have made the gas that was used against civilians there.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes a case with a great deal of passion, but without much detailed understanding of what he is talking about. Export licences were granted for some industrial chemicals that could have been used in a process that might be involved in the production of poisonous gases. Those export licences were revoked—no such chemicals were exported. However, I should explain that the problem that we all face is that a significant number of industrial chemicals have perfectly legitimate industrial uses—in this case, I believe, in metal-finishing activities—and we have to maintain the right balance between ensuring that we are not providing materials that could be misused and allowing normal trade to be conducted.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Much has been made in the media about the potential impact of last week’s vote on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that whatever disagreements there might be on the particular issue of Syria, the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is absolutely essential, and it rests, much more importantly, on intelligence and a shared belief in a nuclear deterrent?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our relationship with the United States is central to our defence and security, and I am confident that, whatever happened last week, the depth, strength and history of that relationship mean that it is a resilient one. The Prime Minister has spoken to the President since last Thursday, and I am confident that as a result of that conversation the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will continue, and will remain strong and resilient.

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

Given that the security situation in Syria is likely to deteriorate or certainly change, will the Secretary of State tell the House why last Thursday’s vote, whereby in essence the House did not agree to two motions, should not be revisited in future?

[Mr Hammond]

As the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have already made clear, this is a democracy. Parliament has spoken, and we take it that Parliament has spoken very clearly. We cannot keep coming back to Parliament with the same question. I think that the circumstances would have to change very significantly before Parliament wanted to look again at this issue.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Government’s policy of not intervening militarily in Syria, but may I seek assurances from the Secretary of State that every action will be taken by the Government and by friendly Governments around the world to make sure that perpetrators of atrocities in Syria are outlawed, and that should they seek to leave their country they will stand trial and any wealth and money they have forfeited?

[Mr Hammond]

Our position remains that there needs to be a robust response to the illegal use of chemical weapons. The House of Commons has ruled out military participation in any such response, but we will pursue every diplomatic, political and other channel to continue to deliver the robust message that my right hon. Friend calls for.

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

I want to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). On Thursday, after the vote, the Prime Minister ruled out UK involvement in military action in Syria. The Government of course will remain engaged diplomatically and on aid policy, but will the Secretary of State spell out for the House in what, if any, circumstances, following changes in Syria or internationally, the Government would bring back to Parliament the issue of UK military involvement in Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

If I may say so, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who last week trooped into the Lobby behind the leader of his party, giving rise to the very situation in which we now find ourselves, to demand that I tell him precisely in which circumstances we might revisit this issue. I have already said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that we believe that Parliament has spoken clearly on this issue, and is unlikely to want to revisit it unless the circumstances change very significantly.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the military covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

My first priority remains the success of operations in Afghanistan. Beyond that, my priorities are to deliver the sustainable transformation of the Ministry of Defence, to build confidence within the armed forces in the Future Force 2020 model, to reinforce the armed forces covenant, to maintain budgets in balance, and to deliver equipment programmes on time and to budget so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained.

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful statement. Does he agree that the current crisis in Syria brings into very sharp relief the crucial importance of the strategic bases in Cyprus, particularly RAF Akrotiri? Does he agree that it is essential that the Government do not just retain those bases but invest in their facilities and infrastructure?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government reviewed the utility and position of the sovereign base areas in 2010-11 and concluded that they played an important part in Britain’s defensive arrangements. We intend to continue to invest in them and to maintain them on the current basis.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

T7. When will the Government make a decision on the number of F-35s that will be procured as part of the arrangement with Lockheed Martin, and is the Minister able to guarantee that the work-share allocation for the United Kingdom and BAE Systems will not be reduced in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

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

A leading commentator in Australia recently characterised the Syrian conflict as not “goodies versus baddies”, but rather “baddies versus baddies”. Does the Secretary of State share that simple assessment of our political and military dilemma?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Simple assessments of complex situations rarely paint the whole picture, but the hon. Gentleman has a point. The opposition is not a single, homogenous force. There are various elements within it, some of which are deeply unpleasant in their objectives and methods.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T3. Following the answer to the first topical question and in the light of last Thursday’s decision, what conflict-resolution role does the Secretary of State envisage for our troops based either in Cyprus or more widely in the middle east and north Africa region?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As I have made clear, we accept the will of Parliament that there will be no British military involvement in any action against Syria. That does not mean that we are not continuing to press for a diplomatic solution and for the convening of the Geneva peace conference to try to reach a negotiated transition in Syria. No one has yet suggested that any such transition would involve any military role for the UK. Until such a conference convenes and makes progress, any such question is purely hypothetical.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Why was the intelligence document published by President Obama on Friday so much more comprehensive, detailed and compelling than the one the Secretary of State published just the day before? If the Secretary of State was not in possession of the same information, which I find difficult to believe, why did he not wait until he could put all of the facts before this House, instead of forcing Members to make a decision when it was too soon and we were not in possession of the facts?

[Mr Hammond]

First of all, I did not publish a document. The chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee wrote to the Prime Minister summarising the judgment of the UK intelligence community. That was done in an atmosphere in which we were extremely conscious of the parallels with Iraq 2003 and extremely cautious about presenting any argument to Parliament that relied or depended on intelligence information that we could not publish or produce. I think we made the right judgment in presenting our argument cautiously, relying only on information that was available and could be examined by Members of the House of Commons.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T4. Ministers’ summer reading will have included the report of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, including its concerns about export licences for dual-use items to Syria. In responding to that report, will the Minister confirm that British exports will not have contributed to the military strength of the Assad regime?

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

The head of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir Nick Houghton, has admitted that he faces a “huge challenge” in maintaining morale and performance. Figures that were released just the other month show that the proportion of service personnel who feel that their morale is low has gone up to 30%. That is a shocking situation. What will the Government do about it?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

If the hon. Lady cares to read the original interview that General Sir Nick Houghton gave to the in-house magazine, she will see that there is a slightly different slant in that story to that in some national newspapers. The Chief of the Defence Staff was saying that we have perhaps not communicated our vision of Future Force 2020 and what it offers to the people in our armed forces as well as we could or should have done. That is why I included in the list of my priorities that I gave a few moments ago the communication of the challenges and opportunities of Future Force 2020 to our own people.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T5. Given that for four centuries, Scotland and the Scottish people have played such a glorious part in the defence of our United Kingdom, and that from the battles of Malplaquet and Blenheim to the sands of north Africa and the mud of Flanders we have shed blood together, would it not be a good idea if Armed Forces day 2014 was held in Scotland?

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is the strategy in Syria? Listening to the speeches in last Thursday’s debate, it became very clear that no one had spoken to the new leadership in Iran or to the new leadership in China about their position on the Security Council. What is the strategy or are the Government just giving up on defence and foreign affairs?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

We will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the last point. As I have said several times today, notwithstanding the vote last Thursday, which made it clear that we will not engage militarily in a response to the shocking use of chemical weapons, we will continue to explore every avenue to influence the outcome through diplomatic and political means. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he makes himself available here tomorrow, he will have the opportunity to ask the Foreign Secretary that question at Foreign Office questions and to receive a full answer about the level of engagement with the leaderships of Iran, Russia, China and the many other countries that are involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Have the Government taken the opportunity to thank the Americans for so thoroughly dumping on their oldest ally, the French, in favour of the long grass of the Congress when it comes to Syria?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I think we have to be clear in these matters. The British Government can speak for what Britain will or will not do; other allies have to make their own decisions, and just as we have asked them to respect our political processes and constitutional norms, so we have to respect theirs as well.

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

T8. Parliament as a whole owes a huge debt of gratitude over 25 years to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its founder, Sir Neil Thorne. Under your instructions, Mr Speaker, and those of the Lord Speaker and the Secretary of State, the scheme will be relaunched next Tuesday at 5 o’clock in Room 14 under new management, and I am glad that Sir Neil Thorne has agreed to become life president of the new scheme. Will the Minister recommit the assets and determination of the Ministry of Defence to the scheme, and ensure it takes forward this brilliant opportunity of educating parliamentarians about the ways of the armed forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

That is a very good question and, of course, a completely separate issue. If the large stocks of chemical weapons held by the Syrian Government were to fall into the hands of non-state actors, that would represent a very serious threat to the region and indeed to the wider international community. I confirm, as the House would expect, that we have had and will continue to have dialogue with international partners about what we might collectively do if such a situation were to arise.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T9. I understand that a Fleet Air Arm pilot recently landed an F-35 on an American aircraft carrier. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that, and also update the House on the implications of any effect last Thursday’s vote had on training with the Americans?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As my hon. Friend says, I am delighted to confirm that a British-piloted F-35B—the short take-off and vertical landing version of the F-35 aircraft—has completed a successful landing on USS Wasp, which was, I think, off the coast of Virginia. We have a programme of embedded UK pilots training with US navy marines on those aircraft. Progress is good on that programme, and we expect the first squadron of aircraft to come to the UK fully formed in 2018, with pilots who have been trained and prepared in the United States.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Post-conflict Commonwealth applicant Burundi desperately needs assistance in rehabilitating soldiers and ex-combatants from the civil war, including disabled and child soldiers. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to come up with a scheme with the Department for International Development gainfully to employ some of the great expertise that our ex-service personnel, who are about to increase in number, could use to assist them?

[Mr Hammond]

I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary and see whether DFID could look at that. I will also ask our own conflict prevention and reconstruction unit to consider whether there is anything that the UK military could do to help in that situation.