Trident Renewal

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Today’s debate is about the primary responsibility of any Government: the security of our nation, our freedoms and our way of life. It is not about short-term politics. Whatever the current threats to this country, we cannot gamble with tomorrow’s security. That is why this Government, and all previous Governments for the last six decades, have retained an operationally independent nuclear deterrent, and today this Government are committed to maintaining that credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent based on Trident and operating in a continuously at-sea posture for as long as we need it.

We also committed in the 2010 strategic defence and security review to renew our deterrent by proceeding with the programme that Parliament approved in March 2007 by a majority of 409 to 161 to build a fleet of new ballistic missile submarines. For 45 years, Britain has kept a ballistic missile submarine at sea, providing the ultimate guarantee of security against nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In December I saw that deterrent for myself at Faslane, and let me pay tribute to the crews of Vanguard, Vengeance, Victorious and Vigilant, their families and all those whose support has been essential to Operation Relentless, our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. It is Faslane that is truly Britain’s peace camp. Whether we like it or not, there remain approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons globally. We cannot uninvent those weapons.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Scottish referendum a number of people said that somehow, because there was a base in Scotland, the rest of England was getting away without having bases related to our nuclear deterrent? It is worth reminding people that from my bedroom window I can see the towers of Aldermaston, Greenham common and the royal ordnance factory at Burghfield. The defence footprint relating to the support of our nuclear deterrent is as important throughout the United Kingdom as it is in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From Aldermaston and Burghfield to Barrow and Scotland, the United Kingdom together has an interest in the nuclear industry.

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

Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that Devonport plays a significant part in this matter, because it has the licence for the refitting and refuelling of our nuclear submarines?

[Michael Fallon]

I certainly recognise the importance of Devonport and all our naval bases in sustaining our naval operations, including the submarine fleet.

In the context of 17,000 nuclear weapons globally, we cannot gamble with our country’s national security. We have to plan for a major direct nuclear threat to this country, or to our NATO allies, that might emerge over the 50 years during which the next generation of submarines will be in service. We already know that there are substantial nuclear arsenals and that the number of nuclear states has increased. Russia is modernising its nuclear forces, actively commissioning a new Dolgoruky class of eight SSBN vessels, preparing to deploy a variety of land-based ICBM classes, and planning to reintroduce rail-based intercontinental missiles. North Korea has carried out three nuclear tests, threatened a fourth, and carried out ballistic missile tests in defiance of the international community. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a real concern: we see a worrying lack of progress from Iran with the international agency on the military dimensions of its nuclear programme.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State is right to discuss some of the new, emerging external threats, but the major external threat faced by this country is from IS—from jihadists. Would they not be encouraged if we threatened them with nuclear weapons?

[Michael Fallon]

There are of course current threats to this country from ISIL and the jihadists, as, indeed, there are from Russia’s behaviour over the past year or so, but we must also plan for future threats to this country, including nuclear threats. Some may well argue, like the hon. Gentleman, that in the face of terrorism and the other immediate threats that we have seen over the past year, a nuclear deterrent is somehow less relevant. That is an argument, but we have never suggested that those other threats should or can be countered by the nuclear deterrent. We are clear that the nuclear deterrent is the only assured way to deter nuclear threats.

Others have suggested that we should move away from continuous patrols and have a part-time deterrent, as if our enemies did not work the full week, but there is simply no alternative to a continuous at-sea deterrent that can provide the same level of protection and the ability to deter an aggressor. We know that because successive Governments have looked at the different options for delivering a deterrent capability. Most recently, the Trident alternatives review in 2013 demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable or cost-effective as a Trident-based deterrent. It also found:

“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”

All the previous studies have also shown that four submarines are required to maintain the continuous posture.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I wanted to intervene earlier, at the end of my right hon. Friend’s arguments about the nature of the gamble that one would be taking with the future security of the United Kingdom by not having a nuclear weapons system. Is not the rather difficult truth that we are making a series of risk assessments and gambles about what we spend on defence and the particular type of defence we buy? While it is funded from the defence budget, Trident comes at the expense of a larger Army, Navy and Air Force, so it is all part of a wider risk assessment, not, as the Secretary of State has suggested, an absolute. If there was no money left for anything except Trident, is that really the decision that we would take?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is of course right to say that we must assess future risks and the capabilities that we will have to deal with them. All I can say to him is that every successive Government who have looked at the future threat have, in the end, decided to continue to renew our continuous at-sea deterrent. In a world that is becoming more dangerous, there are no alternatives that offer the level of protection and security that this country needs.

Let me be clear, particularly to the Scottish National party, about what we are planning to replace and when. Subject to a maingate decision in 2016, we are planning to replace the current Vanguard submarines—not the Trident missile or the warheads. We are planning to replace the submarines in the late 2020s, by which time our Vanguard submarines will be 35 years old.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State has spoken about the need to take defence and security seriously and the necessity of nuclear weapons to achieving that. Is he saying that nations that do not have nuclear weapons are not taking their defence and security seriously?

[Michael Fallon]

No, I am not. I am saying that countries such as ours that have nuclear weapons cannot simply uninvent them; a responsibility comes with those nuclear weapons, and I will come on to explain how we should discharge it.

Let me be clear about the decision that we are going to take in 2016. With the approval of Parliament, the previous Government began the design phase of that decision. In May 2011, we announced the assessment phase, and since then we have reported progress to Parliament annually—most recently, as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) pointed out, just before Christmas. We are now more than halfway through that five-year, £3.3 billion assessment phase, the main purpose of which is to refine the design and mature the costs ahead of the maingate decision. After all, this is the largest British submarine project in a generation and one of the most complex ever undertaken by British industry. Of that £3.3 billion of assessment costs, I can confirm that so far we have invested around £1.2 billion as part of the assessment phase. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), will be giving further details of those costs when he winds up the debate.

I want to be clear with the House: no submarines are being built before the maingate decision in 2016. However, as with any major programme of this complexity, it is essential and more cost-effective to order now certain items that would delay the programme if we were to wait until the maingate decision. Such items include propulsion components, generators, main engines, condensers and electrical distribution components.

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so generously. Given how much work has been done on this matter in the Ministry of Defence—he is well supported by a large team of civil servants—will he confirm at the Dispatch Box today the total cost of Trident replacement, including its through-life costs? Is it approaching £100 billion or not?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not recognise the £100 billion figure, and it is not possible to answer that question until the maingate decision is made which will be put before this House next year.

Let me turn directly to the issue that the hon. Member for Moray quite rightly and fairly put to me—the issue of affordability.

[Mr Jenkin]

If we are going to talk about through-life costs, is it not important to point out that the amortised costs of our nuclear deterrent will be only some 6% of the overall defence budget or 0.3% of gross domestic product? The idea that cancellation of this programme will pay for all the goodies outlined by the Scottish National party—one presumes that the SNP will want to carry on building different types of submarine at the these yards in any case—is just moonshine.

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend who, having served as shadow Defence Secretary, knows a great deal about this issue, is absolutely right. These are replacement submarines that are going to last us until 2060, so it is very important to look at the cost of the project over the next 45 years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Fallon]

I want to make some progress. Given the £38 billion hole in the defence budget that we inherited from the shower opposite, this Government have scrutinised the procurement programme to ensure value for money. We have identified savings and we will continue to submit the programme to rigorous scrutiny. Let me assure the House that no part of that programme will be exempt. As I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), we are talking about maintaining a capability in service until 2060—for the next 45 years.

We told the House in the 2011 parliamentary report that the cost of the four submarines was estimated to be around £25 billion at out-turn prices. Those costs, of course, will be spread over 25 years. Indeed, if the costs were spread evenly, it would represent an annual insurance premium of around 0.13% of total Government spending. Let me put it another way. Crossrail is costing us around £14.8 billion. Replacing four 16,000-tonne submarines will cost around £25 billion; Crossrail 2 will cost around £27 billion. I hope that provides some context.

Let me now turn to the position of the various parties. The SNP has set out very clearly its opposition to the renewal of Trident. I believe and suggest to the House that that is a highly irresponsible position. It would sacrifice the security of the United Kingdom on the wrong-headed notion that opposes nuclear in all its forms and on the basis of cost savings that would be minuscule compared with the impact on our national security and the damage to our economy, to jobs and to the submarine building industry.

HM Naval Base Clyde is, by the way, the largest single employment site in Scotland, and it is set to increase to 8,200 jobs by 2020 when all of the Royal Navy’s submarines will be based at Faslane. It is the SNP that would put all those jobs at risk. Indeed, the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Moray, who has regularly raised the issue of maritime patrol aircraft and foreign submarines, does not seem to see anything odd about wanting the capability to spot other countries’ submarines without making the case for retaining our deterrent in the first place. It is pretty hard to deter our enemies when we do not have the means to do so.

We should also note the nonsense of somehow promising a nuclear-free Scotland. In 2013, the percentage of electricity generated in Scotland from nuclear power increased to nearly 35%—nearly double that of England. Indeed, an independent Scotland would rank seventh in the nuclear league table of EU member states. I do not think, of course, that we should expect consistency from an SNP that wants to dispense with nuclear weapons, but wants also, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) pointed out, to join NATO—a nuclear alliance. Indeed, according to the document of November 2013, “Scotland’s Future”, the SNP would allow nuclear-armed vessels to use Scottish ports. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray could explain some of those inconsistencies.

[Angus Robertson]

The Secretary of State was unable to tell us earlier what the through-life costs of Trident replacement would be, so let me ask him a second question: when are the UK armed forces going to have a maritime patrol aircraft in service? When will that be?

[Michael Fallon]

On his first question—I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not addressed any of the inconsistencies I pointed out—I have already made it clear that we cannot be final about the full-length costs of the renewal until we come to take that maingate decision next year. That will be explained to Parliament. So far as maritime patrol aircraft are concerned, we inherited a situation in which some 21 Nimrod aircraft were supposed to be available by 2003, yet when we came to office seven years later, none was available. As part of the painful decisions we had to take to regularise the defence budget and sort out the £38 billion black hole, it was necessary to cancel a programme that had not in any case delivered. The hon. Gentleman asked me when we were going to examine this matter again, and the answer is very clear: we will, of course, look at that particular capability, along with other capabilities, as part of the strategic defence review, which will be initiated immediately after the general election.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

On the issue of security, I have been arguing for some two or three years that Iran had no intention of giving up its ability to make weapons-grade fissionable material and that it is intent on building a nuclear weapon, which is the only reason why it is pursuing its particular plan. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that that is now the case, and that Iran simply wanted to ease the sanctions for a short time? Should we not now be really frightened of that threat from the middle east?

[Michael Fallon]

Indeed, we should certainly be concerned about the lack of progress in the talks that have been dragging on for months now, and we should be particularly concerned about the military dimension to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Let me deal now with the position of the official Opposition. On 14 November, the shadow Defence Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary wrote to the Prime Minister declaring that Britain should maintain

“a minimum credible independent, nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent”.

However, on 5 January this year, the Leader of the Opposition told Andrew Marr that

“we have got to have the least-cost deterrent that we can have, and that’s my philosophy.”

How, then, can we explain this apparent shift away from the continuous at-sea deterrent? Perhaps it has something to do with the comments of the leader of the SNP who, in talking about coalition, said that Labour would

“have to think again about putting a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the River Clyde.”

The public and those whose jobs depend on this programme have a right to know whether the Labour party would be prepared to trade our security if that were the price of power, and I offer the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) the opportunity to make that clear.

[John Woodcock]

I think that the Defence Secretary used wise words when, at the beginning of his speech, he said that we should not use this issue to play short-term politics. Let me gently warn him. We—he and I, and his party and mine—have worked constructively on this issue during difficult times in recent years. I hope that when the shadow Defence Secretary speaks, the right hon. Gentleman will take it from him—if he will not take it from me—that we remain absolutely committed to the statement that he read out. We remain absolutely committed to an independent minimum credible strategic deterrent delivered by means of the submarine programme that we started in government and will finish. A least-cost deterrent is, to our mind, exactly the same as a minimum deterrent. If the Defence Secretary wants to spend more than least costs, he should say so now.

[Michael Fallon]

What I am seeking, and what I have still not heard, is a recommitment to a continuous at-sea deterrent, but those words seem to have slipped out of Labour’s position. I hope that, when we hear from the hon. Member for Gedling—

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Fallon]

Ah! We are going to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Vernon Coaker]

The Defence Secretary read out our policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) reiterated it. Our policy is quite clear: we want a minimum independent credible deterrent based on continuous at-sea deterrence, and of course we want to provide it in the most cost-effective way possible. Indeed, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, the Defence Secretary will find that that is exactly what he said a few moments ago.

[Michael Fallon]

I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that he is still committed to a continuous at-sea deterrent. I hope that he will send a copy of those words to the Leader of the Opposition, so that there can no longer be any lingering doubt in Scotland about whether or not this is a continuous at-sea deterrent.

[Mr Spellar]

The right hon. Gentleman is putting up a sterling smokescreen for the Government’s position, as many of his Back-Bench colleagues know. He talks of coalitions. He is not getting on with this because he is in an unholy coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are preventing him from taking action. He is making a good show of it, but, as he says that he is being clear, let him now be clear to the House.

[Michael Fallon]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because I now want to turn—indeed, I think we all now want to turn—to the position of the Liberal Democrats. On the one hand, the Liberal Democrats have said that they want to spend billions to

“replace some of the submarines”,

and to make our deterrent part time. They have also committed themselves—at their most recent conference—to allowing our submarines to go to sea with unarmed missiles. Those would be pointless patrols, and that is a pointless nuclear deterrent policy. There are no Liberal Democrats in the Ministry of Defence, and the fact that they have adopted such a reckless and, frankly, dangerous approach explains why.

This country faces the threat of nuclear blackmail from rogue states. It is therefore contemptible for the Scottish nationalists or the Liberal Democrats to suggest that they might use the ultimate guarantor of our freedom and independence as some kind of bargaining chip in some grubby coalition deal. To put it more simply, it is only the Conservative party that will not gamble with the security of the British people.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

While the Secretary of State is dealing with the Liberal Democrats—only two of whom I see in the Chamber today—will he confirm that a policy of sending unarmed submarines to sea and waiting for a crisis to arise, then sending them back to port to be rearmed while the enemy stands idly by, is actually more dangerous than a policy of keeping them in port all along? Will he also confirm that there will never again be a deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to delay the maingate decision, as there was in 2010? That is something with which he had nothing to do, but which should never have been allowed to happen.

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure my hon. Friend, in response to his first point, that we are not planning to make future deals of any kind with the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we hope to be returned in May with an absolute majority that will restore defence policy to the hands of a Conservative Government. As for my hon. Friend’s first point, he is entirely right to draw attention to the absurdity of an unarmed submarine, perhaps several hundred miles from its base, asking our enemies to hold off for a time while it returns to be kitted out with missiles before heading off on patrol again. That is an absurd policy, and we rather look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman trying to justify it.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State return to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and pursue the logic of his argument? If the Secretary of State believes that nuclear weapons are so essential to our security, will he tell us whether he agrees that it is legitimate and logical for every country in the world to seek to apply them? Yes or no?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that that logic follows at all, but I am about to turn to the issue of disarmament—which has been quite fairly raised—and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

Let me be clear: we hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to go on delivering a deterrent effect. However, we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament. Retaining a nuclear deterrent and seeking to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons are not mutually exclusive options. Indeed, I am happy to announce that the Government have now met their 2010 strategic defence review commitment to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and that the total number of operationally available warheads has therefore been reduced to 120. Unfortunately, those reductions have not encouraged other states seeking a nuclear weapons capability to forgo their attempts; nor have they encouraged some other states that already possess nuclear weapons to follow our example. It is our conclusion that it would be rash further to disarm unilaterally while the capability to threaten us remains.

We ascribe the utmost importance to avoiding any use of nuclear weapons, to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology, and to keeping nuclear weapons safe and secure. We are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which is the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of those weapons—is successful, and next month we will host a conference in London for the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty states.

As I have said from the outset, the first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of the nation, its people and our vital interests. Defending the nation has always been challenging, and never more so than in a nuclear age. It was complex in the first nuclear age of cold war certainties, and it has become even more complex in this second nuclear age, when the problems of proliferation have become sharper and the emergence of new nuclear states has become a reality. We are now in an age of uncertainty and confrontation. History teaches us that the defence of this country means being ready for the unexpected, and that means a full-time nuclear deterrent—not one that clocks off for weeks or months at a time, or one that patrols pointlessly. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less now than it has ever been, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

Nuclear Deterrent

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

As part of his statement on the strategic defence and security review (SDSR) on 19 October 2010, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we had reviewed our nuclear deterrence requirements. He concluded that we could deliver a credible nuclear deterrent with a smaller nuclear weapons capability and would incorporate these reductions into the current deployed capability and the future successor deterrent programme. The number of deployed warheads on each submarine would be reduced from 48 to 40; the number of operational missiles in the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) would be reduced to no more than eight; and we would reduce the number of operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120.

The then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Liam Fox), announced to the House on 29 June 2011, Official Report, columns 50-51WS, that the programme for implementing the 2010 SDSR warhead reductions had commenced.

I am pleased to inform the House that this Government have now met their commitment to implement these changes across the SSBN fleet. All Vanguard class SSBNs on continuous at-sea deterrent patrol now carry 40 nuclear warheads and no more than eight operational missiles. We have therefore achieved our commitment to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to no more than 120.

The nuclear deterrent remains to serve as the ultimate means to deter the most extreme threats. The Government continue to plan to renew the UK’s independent strategic nuclear deterrent, though the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives. A “Main Gate” investment decision will be required in 2016 to replace the four Vanguard class SSBNs currently in service. At the same time, as a responsible nuclear weapon state and party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) the UK remains committed to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.

The completion of these reductions is a key milestone, demonstrating the UK’s continued leadership within the NPT.

[HCWS210]

Gifting of Equipment (Pakistan)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing a package of surplus counter-improvised explosive device (CIED) equipment which the UK intends to gift to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, at their request.

Pakistan faces a severe threat from IED attacks perpetrated by terrorist groups, and has sought assistance from the UK in tackling this threat and developing the capabilities of its security forces. The UK is delivering a CIED programme to assist Pakistan in establishing a multi-agency capability for tackling IEDs. This package will complement that programme.

Pakistan has a rapidly expanding CIED capability with close to 5,000 practitioners already trained. IEDs are being defeated across the provinces and lives are being saved. Pakistani battalions who benefited from UK support are now operating in counter-terrorism operations in the North Waziristan agency and Pakistan’s Chief of General Staff has reported a noticeable reduction in casualties: UK help is saving lives.

Developing counter-terrorism capability in Pakistan supports UK objectives under the counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST), targets the problem at source and reduces the risk of a terrorist attack against that nation or another, including the UK.

Subject to completion of the departmental minute process, gifting is expected to be undertaken in the first quarter of 2015.

[HCWS185]

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to consider delivery of UK defence capability through conventional rather than nuclear weapons as part of the 2015 strategic defence and security review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The next strategic defence and security review is a matter for after the general election. My Department is preparing for the review, but our focus remains the delivery of the 2010 review.

[Graeme Morrice]

In a period of changing security threat, and as the national security strategy noted in 2010, is it not sensible to consider how ending the Trident replacement programme would release resources that could be spent more effectively on other security measures, as well as on a range of other public spending priorities, not least our national health service?

[Michael Fallon]

Successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have been committed to our continuous at-sea deterrent for more than 45 years, and I hope that the Labour party in Scotland will not waiver from that. It would be extremely dangerous to move to any kind of part-time or lesser deterrent, and the Conservative party will not gamble with Britain’s national security.

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

My right hon. Friend has just made that commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence and, as I understand, it is the position of both main parties that the successor submarines for Trident should go ahead. Will he therefore guarantee to me that there will be no question of any delay in signing the main-gate contracts if we end up with another hung Parliament and the Liberal Democrats or Scottish nationalists seek to exact that as a price for their participation and support?

[Michael Fallon]

I confirm to my hon. Friend and to the House that the main-gate decision is scheduled for 2016. I will not speculate on the possibility of a hung Parliament, except to note that I know the Liberal Democrats would favour some kind of part-time deterrent, although it is pretty obvious to me that our enemies are not part time.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

Given that RUSI is predicting that by the early 2020s the replacement of the nuclear deterrent will account for some 35% of the defence procurement budget, and given that this summer, whatever the outcome of the election, Ministers at the Ministry of Defence will be struggling to make limited resources pay for a long list of major procurements, could it possibly make sense to exclude from a comprehensive review the biggest single procurement?

[Michael Fallon]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend, who has some experience of these matters, does not attach the importance to continuing the deterrent that we do. Of course, the costs of the deterrent are spread over a number of years. As I have said, successive Governments in office have, every time they have re-examined the need for the deterrent, committed to continuing it.

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

6. What progress his Department has made on delivering the defence equipment plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to assist Iraqi forces in countering ISIL.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

We are making a major contribution to the coalition, having deployed sophisticated surveillance, strike and transport aircraft to the region. As of yesterday, we have carried out 99 air strikes in Iraq, second only to the United States. We have also provided training and equipment to Kurdish forces, including infantry, combat first aid, sharpshooting and counter-IED training.

[Stuart Andrew]

Given reports at the weekend that ISIL fighters killed another 24 people in the security forces in northern Iraq, will the Secretary of State provide more details of the equipment that his Department might be supplying to Iraqi forces to help them counter this threat?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. The National Security Council has asked us to do further work to scope the additional assistance we can offer to the Iraqi military. We plan to gift counter-IED equipment to the Iraqi security forces in the near future, subject to the approval of this House. All our support is part of the developing coalition and Iraqi plan to ensure that Iraqi forces are coherently supported.

[Mr Jones]

To what extent are British personnel in Iraq liaising with the Shi’a militias? Given the recent deaths in Iraq, apparently in action, of the Iranian General Taqavi, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the extent of the Iranian influence over those militias?

[Michael Fallon]

Our training has been focused in Kurdistan through the Ministry of Peshmerga, and our other embedded personnel work only with the security forces of the Government of Iraq, not with any of the Shi’a militia. Iranian influence over the Shi’a militia is well known, and Iran can certainly play a positive role in helping to bring about better government in Iraq.

[Richard Graham]

In combating ISIL jihadists, our armed forces might be at greater threat in the UK than in Iraq. After last week’s atrocities, France has, I understand, allocated 10,000 troops for sensitive sites. What steps is my right hon. Friend considering armed forces in the UK should take for their own and our constituents’ safety?

[Michael Fallon]

We take our personnel—both military and civilian—extremely seriously. We have reviewed our protective security measures and the advice to personnel in the light of the recent tragic events in France. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, for obvious reasons, I cannot discuss details of the security arrangements that are in place.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Given that the Kurds still face attacks by ISIS forces using sophisticated captured American arms, is the Secretary of State satisfied that our allies have enough heavy weapons, including tanks and helicopters, to counter those attacks?

[Michael Fallon]

We are looking at the gaps in the capability of the Kurdish and Iraqi forces, and if we can help with additional equipment, we are ready to do so, and we have already played a very active part in transporting to those forces equipment that has been gifted or sold from other nations.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

The House stands united with the people of France, and, indeed, with all who support the principles of freedom of speech, tolerance and democracy in the face of the barbarity that the world witnessed last week on the streets of Paris. This morning the Defence Secretary attended high-level meetings in Whitehall to discuss the United Kingdom’s response to those tragic events. Given that one of the terrorists said that he was acting on behalf of ISIL, will the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what further steps the Government are taking to combat this threat in Iraq and beyond?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for, in particular, the tone that he has struck in the light of the tragic events in France. We all have sympathy with those involved.

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are clear about the fact that if we are to reduce the threat from ISIL in France and the United Kingdom, ISIL must be defeated in both Iraq and Syria. This morning, under the Prime Minister’s direction, we again reviewed our standing preparations for a terrorist attack, including the number and readiness of troops available to assist the police, and we are keeping the security situation under continuous review.

[Vernon Coaker]

I think that the whole House will be grateful to the Defence Secretary for his response. Does he agree that following those recent events the need to tackle the threat is even more urgent, and that we must work ever more closely with our allies in Europe—such as France—and with our partners in the region, including Turkey? Will he update us on the progress that has been made by United Kingdom forces in their crucial work of training Iraqi and peshmerga troops in Iraq to combat the ISIL threat there, and also, importantly, preventing future acts of terrorism here in the United Kingdom?

[Michael Fallon]

We are already co-operating closely with France in particular, and we have reinforced our offer of assistance to France over the last few days. If ISIL is to be defeated and the threat to our own country and other European countries reduced, we will of course depend on the co-operation of the entire international community, but especially on the co-operation of partners in the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the role that Turkey and other regional partners can play.

We have been training Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and are doing so at the moment. Training courses in Kurdistan are being managed and led by British troops, and I hope that they will help the peshmerga, in particular, in their fight against ISIL.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Setting aside the fact that there will be no foreign combat troops on the ground, will the Secretary of State tell us what is the difference between the 2007 strategy in Iraq and the strategy today? In particular, have we a new counter-insurgency doctrine, is there a new Sunni outreach strategy, and have we adopted a new approach to building the capacity of the Iraqi Government and army, or are we fighting the same target with the same strategy and fewer resources?

[Michael Fallon]

I can tell my hon. Friend—who, I know, brings a great deal of experience from Iraq to the House—that the biggest difference between now and 2007 is that we now have a genuinely inclusive Government in Iraq, who represent both Shia and Sunni, and, indeed, Kurdish elements in Iraq. The new Defence Minister, Minister Obeidi, is himself a Sunni. It is important for that Government to concentrate on precisely the kind of Sunni outreach that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, so that their forces can enjoy the support of the tribes in the Anbar region, where ground must be recaptured from ISIS.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

11. What the strategic rationale is for the opening of a UK military base in Bahrain.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The Ministry of Defence has had a naval base in Bahrain since the 1950s, providing naval and logistics facilities in support of our operations in the Gulf. The agreement that was signed last month reaffirms the joint determination of the United Kingdom and Bahrain to maintain security and stability in the region.

[Andy McDonald]

How long does the Secretary of State expect the military personnel who have been sent to train the Kurds in Iraq to remain there? Can he give us a time frame?

[Michael Fallon]

Our training effort, our troops and our air contribution to the fight against ISIL will remain in Iraq for as long as is necessary, which may well be a very long time. As for our presence in the Gulf, I hope that the House will welcome the recommitment that we have made to security and stability through the new naval base agreement, which will enable us to deploy larger ships and to provide better facilities for those who are deployed in or are passing through the Gulf.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and salute the work carried out by Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall in re-establishing an east of Suez policy with our very close and reliable ally the Kingdom of Bahrain. Is this not a good example of the role defence diplomacy can play, and, in that context, may I invite the Secretary of State to reaffirm our commitment to the five power defence agreement in the far east, which reassures our allies and gives Britain an influence in the region?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend, one of my predecessors as a Minister in the Department, is right to pay proper tribute to Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall, who was responsible for negotiating this agreement, which will put our naval presence in the Gulf on a more permanent footing. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we should continue to examine our defence engagement policy in the far east as well as in the middle east.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It has been estimated that a three-day closure of the strait of Hormuz, perhaps by a terrorist attack, could lead to a four-year negative impact on the world economy. Has that influenced our decision to increase our capability in the Gulf?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the economic and strategic importance of the strait of Hormuz. Our mine counter-measure vessels are playing a major part in ensuring that the strait always remains open, and I was privileged to visit two of those vessels and meet their crews. I put on record our appreciation of them for the very difficult and challenging work they do, particularly their divers, in making sure the strait remains open.

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

13. What recent investment he has made in (a) cyber-security and (b) unmanned aerial vehicles for the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Our immediate priorities remain our current operations in Afghanistan and against ISIL and Ebola as well as the commitments reached at the NATO summit and the delivery of Future Force 2020. I want to build up our reserve forces and invest in the equipment that our armed forces need to keep Britain safe.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether there will be opportunities for reserve units, such as 4th Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, to serve as units in operations and major exercises?

[Michael Fallon]

Reserve service offers exciting opportunities to serve overseas in formed units. For example, a platoon from 3 Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment will be supporting 1 Royal Anglian in Kabul from February onwards, and 4 Mercian, based in Wolverhampton, recently deployed two platoons to Cyprus. This is exactly what Future Force 2020 was intended to do—making the most of reservists’ skills by integrating them with our regulars.

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

In the recent armed forces covenant report, the three service families federations state:

“We remain disappointed that a sizeable proportion of our people continue to say that they have little or no knowledge of the AF Covenant and the principles that underpin it.”

Three years after Conservative and Lib Dem MPs were initially whipped by the current Armed Forces Minister to vote against enshrining the principles of the armed forces covenant in law, this Government have failed to test their own policies against the covenant, failed to support local authorities to implement it and, we now know, even failed to ensure that forces families know about it. When are they going to get a grip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

At today’s high level meetings was any additional help offered to Yemeni defence forces, who are under sustained attack from extremist groups?

[Michael Fallon]

That has not specifically been discussed, but, obviously, we continue to see what further help we can give to countries in the region which are under pressure from ISIL. The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that this is not simply a challenge to Iraq.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

T6. Boko Haram slaughter the innocent, sell girls into slavery and impose mediaeval government and fear in wide areas of Nigeria. The local military are seen in many cases as being corrupt and perhaps to have involved themselves in human rights abuses. What role is the MOD carrying out to support Nigeria in tackling Boko Haram?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will the Government reassure me that they, apparently unlike some parties opposite, will not allow even the distant prospect of coalition negotiations to soften their commitment to continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrence?

[Michael Fallon]

Absolutely. Successive Governments have maintained that commitment to a continuous-at-sea deterrent and this Government are also determined to do so.

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

I am puzzled by the attempts of the Minister for the Armed Forces to goad the Opposition on the issue of the nuclear deterrent. Let us be clear: we are committed to a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent delivered by submarines that are continuously at sea. We continue to support the programme that we started in Government, which his Government have delayed. In what way is that different from his policy?

[Michael Fallon]

What is different is that the Leader of the Opposition, who was challenged on this just a week ago, spoke only about the need for the least-cost deterrent, without repeating—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the Secretary of State can generally look after himself, but Members must not seek to shout him down. I always facilitate full exchanges on all these important matters, but the Secretary of State must be heard.

[Michael Fallon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. The Leader of the Opposition did not repeat Labour’s previous commitment to what matters, which is a continuous-at-sea deterrent. What we cannot have is any kind of part-time deterrent, which would rely on our enemies being part-time as well.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I have the great pleasure of announcing to the House that I have just been made president of the (Mercian) Squadron Air Training Corps in Lichfield, which is one of the biggest Air Training Corps in the midlands. Will my right hon. Friend maintain his commitment to the Air Training Corps?

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

May I try to goad the Secretary of State so that he stops trying to bamboozle us all about the real deterrent we need, which is a properly armed, conventional group of 100,000 men and women to defend this country? Is it not about time that he took our mind off reservists and talked about how many men and women we have under arms in this country?

[Michael Fallon]

In stark contrast to the previous Government, our defence budget has been properly managed and has enabled us to keep this country safe. We are determined to support Future Force 2020. The hon. Gentleman’s question might be better directed to the shadow Defence Secretary, who last week told The Times:

“Army 2020 isn’t working and Labour will not take it forward”,

although last year he said that

“we support the rationale behind…Future Force 2020”.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Duncan Hames.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Allied warplanes cross the skies above Syria while Assad’s helicopters drop barrel bombs on the civilian population. How can this apparent indifference help us to prevent the civilian population of Syria from turning to the ISIL militia?

[Michael Fallon]

The Prime Minister has made it clear to the House that ISIL can only be defeated in both Iraq and Syria. We are making a major contribution to the campaign in Iraq, which itself of course allows others to contribute to the campaign against ISIL in Syria. ISIL has to be defeated in both countries.

Libya Training Report

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

On 11 June 2014, my predecessor informed the House, Official Report, column 49WS, that the UK had started training personnel from the Libyan General Purpose Force at Bassingbourn Camp as part of an international commitment with other G8 nations. I updated the House on 4 November 2014, Official Report, column 44WS, and confirmed that, in agreement with the Libyan Government, the training completion date was being brought forward and the recruits would return to Libya.

On 5 November 2014, the Prime Minister announced that, in response to allegations linking some of the Libyans undergoing training at Bassingbourn, he had asked for a report into the training programme by Christmas. I have today placed a copy of the report’s conclusions and recommendations in the Library of the House.

We accept all of the report’s conclusions and recommendations. The report highlights some of the significant challenges we faced delivering this training programme, and also highlights a number of areas in which my Department could have done better: we are looking at these very carefully.

The report raises the issue of communication with the local community. I regret the fact that my Department did not communicate effectively with the local MP and local authorities and community over the change to the walk out policy for the recruits. I have asked officials to implement the lessons we have learned from this so that we can apply them in future, while noting that no future GPF training will take place at Bassingbourn Camp.

The report also highlights the issue of maintaining discipline among the recruits. While it is clear that the breakdown in the political situation in Libya played a large role in the problems we encountered, there are things we could have done better. In particular, the report recommends that in future we consider “pre-training” the command element of any future cohort and carrying out basic training for the rest of the recruits in their own country, and I have instructed officials to take this forward, in the event we were to run further such training in the UK again.

Finally on discipline, the report asks whether, in the future, we could apply UK service discipline to training foreign troops in the UK: I have tasked officials to investigate this.

I also would like to commend the performance of the trainers from 3 SCOTS themselves who, despite the severe challenges they encountered, were able to deliver the training objectives for the majority of the trainees who remained in the programme until the end.

Finally, I would like to repeat that it is regrettable that there were disciplinary issues and how grateful we were for the support the Ministry of Defence received from the local community, the Cambridgeshire Constabulary and other Government Departments throughout the training programme.

[HCWS181]

Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Appointment)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Mr Brendan Connor as a member of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body until 28 February 2018. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

[HCWS177]

Infrastructure Review

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The US Department of Defence has today announced the outcome of a review of its requirement for bases for US forces in Europe. These decisions reflect the impact of force structure changes, the changing security environment, advances in technology and the fiscal climate.

I am delighted to inform the House that, following consultations between the two Governments, the US has decided that RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk will be the first location in Europe to host its F-35 aircraft, a decision that reflects the closeness of the UK/US defence relationship. Two squadrons of US F-35 aircraft will be based there, with the first aircraft scheduled to arrive in 2020. Their relative proximity to the RAF’s F-35 Lightning II aircraft—to be based at RAF Marham in Norfolk—paves the way for continued close collaboration between our respective forces. In particular, it offers further opportunities for the UK and US air forces to work and train together, including simulator training where the UK has made a significant investment.

Elsewhere, the US has decided to withdraw from its base at RAF Mildenhall—adjacent to RAF Lakenheath—and to consolidate at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire its activities at RAF Alconbury and RAF Molesworth. The precise timing is not yet determined; withdrawal from RAF Mildenhall is unlikely to begin until 2019. The US presence at RAF Fairford, Menwith Hill and other sites is not affected by this review.

The end of US basing at Mildenhall, Alconbury and Molesworth is disappointing, not least to the communities of which US forces have been a part for so long. However, the advance notice the US has given us, coupled with the investment it is making at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Croughton, will help mitigate the local impact. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will convene the Mildenhall, Alconbury and Molesworth (MAM) Working Group that brings together the local authorities, the local enterprise partnerships, BIS Local, the Ministry of Defence and other key stakeholders to agree how we manage this at local level.

When the US plans mature, we will start a period of formal trades union consultation and affected MOD civil servants will be provided with appropriate advice and support to make decisions about their future.

The US also employs other UK personnel directly, outside the civil service. My Department will work closely with the US and local partners to manage the impact of any job losses, via the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service, the Skills Funding Agency and where appropriate, the talent retention solution.

US Forces have been based in the UK for over 50 years. These decisions confirm their presence here until the 2050s. Basing their latest generation of aircraft in the UK underlines the US commitment to NATO and Europe and the strength of our bilateral defence relationship.

[HCWS178]

Future Reserves 2020 (External Scrutiny Team Report)

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a letter that I have sent to Lieutenant General (Retired) Robin Brims, the chair of the Future Reserves 2020 external scrutiny team to update him on the programme, and particularly on the recommendations that his team’s report made. I am grateful for the work of that team.

The House will recall that the Defence Reform Act 2014 includes a statutory obligation to commission an independent report into the state of the volunteer reserve force. The first review under the statutory arrangements is under way and will report next year.

Nuclear Deterrent Update

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

On 18 May 2011, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Liam Fox) made an oral statement to the House, Official Report, column 351, announcing the approval of the initial gate investment stage for the procurement of the successor submarines to the Vanguard-class SSBNs. He also placed in the Library of the House a report “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate Parliamentary Report”.

This Government committed to publishing an annual report on the programme and I am today publishing the third report, “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: 2014 Update to Parliament”. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Michael Fallon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the al-Sweady inquiry into allegations that British forces tortured and executed up to 20 Iraqi men on 14 and 15 May 2004, and mistreated nine others between 14 May and 23 September 2004.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir Thayne Forbes, the chairman of the public inquiry into these incidents. I am grateful to Sir Thayne and his team for their painstaking work, and for producing a report that puts to rest once and for all these shocking and, as we now know, completely baseless allegations. As I know Sir Thayne will acknowledge, the Ministry of Defence has provided unstinting support for his inquiry. During 169 days of hearings, Sir Thayne heard evidence from 55 Iraqi witnesses, 222 current and former service personnel and four expert witnesses. He also considered the written statements of a further 328 witnesses. His findings are incontrovertible.

It was alleged that, following a planned and co-ordinated ambush of British troops by heavily armed Iraqi insurgents around the Danny Boy permanent vehicle checkpoint on the main road between Basra and al-Amarah, British service personnel captured up to 20 Iraqi men alive, took them back to Camp Abu Naji, and then tortured and killed them in cold blood. These are allegations of the most serious nature and they are untrue.

The allegations have changed several times over the years. This is how Mr Phil Shiner, of the firm Public Interest Lawyers, presented them at a press conference in 2008:

“What you have heard is evidence that these 5 survivors have witnessed, seemingly in three separate venues at close hand:

The execution of up to 15 men

Between 4 and 5 of these executions involving shots at close range and the remainder some sort of strangulation or throat cutting

Some of these executions preceded by torture or mutilations that are so horrific that our clients could not describe the prolonged screaming without breaking down.”

Today it has been confirmed that British soldiers did not carry out the atrocities falsely attributed to them. Sir Thayne deals unequivocally with the soldiers’ actions and the falsity of the allegations. I quote:

“this Inquiry has established beyond doubt that all the most serious allegations, made against the British soldiers involved in the Battle of Danny Boy and its aftermath and which have been hanging over those soldiers for the last 10 years, have been found to be wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility.”

He indeed contrasts the falsity of the Iraqi accounts with the truthfulness of the military witnesses:

“the vast majority of the allegations made against the British military, which this Inquiry was required to investigate (including, without exception, all the most serious allegations), were wholly and entirely without merit or justification. Very many of those baseless allegations were the product of deliberate and calculated lies on the part of those who made them and who then gave evidence to this Inquiry in order to support and perpetuate them.”

The counsel for the nine former detainees and the relatives of the deceased conceded only as late as March this year that the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the fact that, as the Government maintained throughout the inquiry and preceding judicial review, all those whose bodies were handed over to the Iraqi authorities for burial on 15 May died on the battlefield. The delay in making this concession is both inexplicable and shameful. By 4 July last year, expert witnesses had already demonstrated unequivocally that the Iraqis had died as a result of wounds sustained in the fighting. Had the concession been made then, it would not have been necessary for so many soldiers to give evidence, Sir Thayne could have concluded his hearings more quickly, and there would have been a significantly smaller bill to the taxpayer.

I turn now to the issue of detention. Following the battle, the nine detainees were taken to Camp Abu Naji. Sir Thayne has rejected most of the allegations made in connection with their treatment at the camp, including a lack of adequate medical care, assaults, the withholding of drinking water in contravention of the Geneva conventions and the use of white noise. However, I accept Sir Thayne’s conclusion that some instances of ill treatment did occur: the detainees were not provided with adequate food, and such food as was given was not provided until they had been tactically questioned; they were prevented from sleeping until three to four hours after they arrived at the camp; their sight was restricted almost continuously; and the use of “harsh” tactical questioning techniques—since withdrawn—amounted to ill treatment. Importantly, Sir Thayne observes that as a result of changes made by the MOD over the past several years, such ill treatment should not occur in future.

Sir Thayne also concluded that the requirement for detainees to undress fully as part of their medical examination and concurrent search for prohibited items amounted to ill treatment, and he did criticise the attitude of the regimental medical officer towards the medical examination of the detainees on their arrival at Shaibah, but he also concluded that only one of the detainees, who suffered discomfort for longer than he might otherwise have done, suffered any adverse consequences as a result of deficiencies in the medical examination. I wish to express my regret to the House that these instances of ill treatment should have occurred.

Sir Thayne Forbes has made just nine recommendations, and he acknowledges the progress that the Ministry has made since 2004 to improve all aspects of the prisoner-handling system—from policy and doctrine to unit-level instructions and procedures as well as training and oversight—and to ensure it complies with domestic and international law. I accept all nine recommendations in principle. I have commissioned urgent work on their practical implications—in particular, we will need to ensure that they will not prevent the armed forces from carrying out vital tasks—and I will announce to the House my detailed conclusions as soon as I can.

The Iraqi detainees, their accomplices and their lawyers must bear the brunt of the criticism for the protracted nature and £31 million cost of this unnecessary public inquiry. The falsity of the overwhelming majority of their allegations, the extraordinarily late disclosure of a document showing the nine detainees to have been insurgents and the delay by their lawyers in withdrawing the allegations of torture and murder have prompted the Solicitors Regulation Authority to investigate possible breaches of professional standards. The authority is expected to complete its investigation into the two firms responsible, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day and Co., early next year.

Had the Legal Services Commission been aware in 2008 of this document it would have refused legal aid for the judicial review that took place then. That would have spared the service personnel a further six years of uncertainty and anxiety. It would have spared the relatives of the deceased a further six years of false hope, and it would have saved the British taxpayer a very high bill.

Although procedural failures by the MOD led to the public inquiry being established, it is those who made these false allegations who bear the responsibility for saddling the taxpayer with what has turned out to be a £31 million bill. Although there is no provision in the Inquiries Act 2005 for recovering the costs of a public inquiry, my Ministry is exploring whether the claimants’ failure to disclose the militia document will allow us to recover some of the costs of the judicial review.

In conclusion, I regret that it was found necessary to hold a public inquiry to disprove these allegations. This is not another Baha Mousa or an Abu Ghraib. No one died in British custody and there was no deliberate ill treatment. The few instances of ill treatment that did occur were rather the result of failings in doctrine and training that have already been or are being corrected. This was a shameful attempt to use our legal system—our legal system—to attack and falsely impugn our armed forces. That it has failed reflects the diligence and skill with which Sir Thayne has uncovered the facts.

I quoted earlier the accusations made by Mr Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers in calling for this inquiry. At that time he said:

“Do not believe for one second that we make these allegations lightly or without the evidence available to substantiate every single word of what we say.”

It is now beyond doubt that those allegations were without foundation. I challenge Mr Shiner and the other lawyers involved, from both firms, to issue an unequivocal apology to the soldiers whose reputations they attempted to traduce and to the taxpayers who have had to pay the costs of exposing these lies.

I add only one final comment. Following the battle of Danny Boy, five soldiers were awarded the military cross and one the conspicuous gallantry cross for their conduct there and in other engagements in early 2004. Other acts of bravery emerge clearly in the accounts of the battle. This is who our servicemen and women are. The reputation of our armed forces has been hard won in the service of our nation. It will survive the baseless slurs of those who seek to undermine those on whom we all depend. I commend this statement to the House.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for providing a copy of the inquiry report this morning. I also join him in thanking Sir Thayne Forbes and his team for their diligent work and comprehensive and conclusive report.

As the Defence Secretary said, our armed forces are the best in the world. British servicemen and women carry out their duties with bravery and distinction, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude for their service to our country. They often face the most difficult and challenging conditions. The battle of Danny Boy in southern Iraq in 2004 was one such occasion when the battle was ferocious and our troops were in great danger.

As the Defence Secretary rightly pointed out, five soldiers were awarded the military cross and one the conspicuous gallantry cross. As well as their courage, British soldiers pride themselves on their conduct in battle and the high standards to which they are held and indeed hold themselves. Does he agree that they are and will remain accountable both to international law and to the Geneva convention?

Does the Defence Secretary also agree that this House and any UK Government are not afraid to be open and frank when those high standards are not met and our armed forces do not adhere to the conduct expected of the British military? There are many examples of that—most strikingly, the statement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in 2010 after the publication of the report of the Saville inquiry into the events known as Bloody Sunday, and the response to the Baha Mousa inquiry. It should be a source of pride that we are a country where that can happen.

Does the Defence Secretary agree that, likewise, we will not tolerate calculated, malicious and baseless untruths against our servicemen and women? This report states in those very terms that the serious allegations that precipitated the inquiry were just that. There were no unlawful killings on the battlefield, no mutilation of bodies and no executions in custody. I want to establish that very clearly before I ask him some questions about the report’s findings.

In dismissing the serious allegations made against British troops, the report nevertheless draws attention to some areas where we should learn lessons. Opposition Members support the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the implementation of its nine recommendations can be achieved with speed and efficiency? We will support him in achieving that.

The report says that the conduct of some individual soldiers did amount to actual or possible ill treatment. I of course join the Defence Secretary in expressing regret that that occurred. It is not acceptable. Have the soldiers been identified? Are they still in service and, if so, what steps are being taken to address those concerns? The report states that Ministry of Defence procedures in place at the time might have contributed to what happened. Can the Defence Secretary confirm that, if those procedures have not been updated already, they will be reviewed now?

The report identifies ways in which we might be able to avoid the need for such costly inquiries in future. I share with the Defence Secretary the concerns about the legal representatives and the legal process in this instance. In that sense, the recommendations in the report will ensure a better way of examining allegations against the armed forces, avoiding unnecessarily cumbersome processes and, as he pointed out, significant financial costs.

What progress has been made on the collection and storage of and ability to search documents and other records? Has the shooting incident policy been reviewed and updated? Are there plans to do so? What changes have been made to the recording of the circumstances of a prisoner’s detention? More generally, how does the Defence Secretary plan to review any shortcomings in existing practices and procedures, and ensure that they are updated and amended?

In its conclusion, the report compared, as did the Defence Secretary, the testimony of those alleging and those being accused. The report said that the Iraqi witnesses were

“unprincipled in the extreme and wholly without regard for the truth”

while the British military witnesses were, by contrast, “truthful and reliable”, despite the difficulty and distress caused by recalling traumatic events of battle. I think the House will join me in saying that that speaks for itself—and it speaks volumes.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary for what he has said and for the tone in which he said it. I agree with his comment about the baseless untruths. He started by saying that our armed forces must be accountable to the law, and it is important to emphasise that—that they are accountable under both domestic law and the law of armed conflict, and that where there are allegations they will always be investigated. We should be open and frank about that. Where instances of some ill treatment or harsh treatment occur, they should be fully and honestly investigated. I do think that there are very few countries and judicial systems that would put themselves through this kind of inquiry to get to the truth.

The hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions. On the recommendations, I am studying the report in detail and I will respond, as is customary, within the next few weeks on the detail of the recommendations. I hope it is clear that I accept the spirit of them all and the principle behind them all. I just have to look at some of the practicalities of implementing at least one or two of them.

I do not have any up-to-date information about where the personnel are currently serving. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to write to him on that specific point.

On the procedural changes, these were the procedures that applied 10 years ago, in 2004. Sir Thayne himself acknowledges that many of the procedural changes have already been introduced. On the public inquiry, it might have been easy for the incoming Government—the inquiry was set up under the previous Government—simply to halt the public inquiry, but I believe that it was the right decision to allow it to run its course. However, we now have the Iraq historic allegations team, which will be able to get at the truth of these allegations probably in a different format and a little more quickly than a public inquiry, inevitably. That is not a criticism of Sir Thayne—far from it.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in absolutely commending the report for reinforcing the honour and respect of the British soldiers. Having been based in Abu Naji and Maysan at the time, I encourage the Secretary of State to focus on the broader political context. It was completely tragic that not just a few Iraqis, but most of the Iraqi leadership in the province were convinced of these unimaginable atrocities. I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that in future we have the right role for political officers on the ground to ensure that bodies are treated in the correct fashion, that the survivors’ families are reached out to in the correct fashion and that trust is built between the British military and the local political leaders to ensure that our soldiers are protected from these baseless allegations.

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend makes the very important point that we need to reflect on the extent to which these lies and untruths were believed by the local community in the area. He makes the point all the more powerfully because of his personal experience and knowledge—not simply of Iraq, but of that particular province of Iraq. I will certainly reflect further on the point he makes about the role of political officers.

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

I commissioned this report only after the Department was very heavily criticised in the courts for having failed properly to investigate the allegations that were being made. I believed then, as I believe now, that the main reason for that failure was not a lack of will on our part, but a refusal to co-operate with an inquiry by the representatives of the Iraqis, public interest lawyers and Mr Phil Shiner. I have no way of knowing or proving what the motives were for that lack of co-operation, but I do know that public interest lawyers have a very lucrative business model.

We have to ensure that when serious allegations are made, they are properly investigated. That is the kind of nation we are and it is the way in which we manage to ensure that our armed forces maintain the very highest levels attainable. Equally, however, we have to protect the public purse from misuse. I urge the Secretary of State, his Government colleagues and the other parties in the House to think about how we can ensure that both those things happen. We need to continue to impose the rule of law in very difficult circumstances, but also to ensure that our systems are not being systematically abused.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining the circumstances in which the public inquiry came into being. He has much closer knowledge of it than others, because he was responsible for setting it up. He is right: the price that we pay for the reputation of our armed forces is that when such allegations are made—wherever they come from—they must be investigated, and they are investigated immediately in the field by the Royal Military Police and their special investigators. It is right that that happens.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about costs, and the fact that certain unscrupulous lawyers appear to be benefiting directly, at public expense, from their ability to trigger inquiries such as this. We need to look into how that might be curtailed, and I welcome his suggestion that the matter might be pursued on a genuinely bipartisan basis.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree—he appears to—that, while it is essential for a country with values such as ours to hold inquiries into the serious allegations against our armed forces or our intelligence services that are made from time to time, there is always the danger that a tiny minority of the legal profession will create something of an industry in pursuing them to the point of a long and difficult inquiry such as this? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to take the matter up with the leaders of the judiciary and the leaders of the profession, who I am sure will agree with him that there is a danger that needs to be tackled?

[Michael Fallon]

As I have already emphasised, when there are allegations they need to be investigated and when there are failings they need to be put right, but what has emerged very clearly from the report is that all those serious allegations had no foundation whatever. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the constructive suggestion that we should discuss not just with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary but with the leaders of the profession how we can curtail some of the abuse and cost involved. His point is all the more powerful given that he is a member of that profession; it is good to hear such a suggestion from the profession itself.

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

I fully accept the report’s conclusions, and I am delighted on behalf of the individual members of the armed forces who were accused of these vile atrocities. They have been completely exonerated, which is good for them and good for the armed forces generally. However—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—while I recognise that instances of ill treatment are few and far between and are relatively minor in comparison with the awful accusations that were levelled at the troops, I trust that they will be addressed by the Secretary of State.

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. As I said earlier, we have already made a series of changes in our procedures, and we will continue to do so. The report makes some important points about retrieval of information from the battlefield, archiving and the use of information systems to make it easier to get more quickly to the truth of what actually happened. Let me emphasise again, however, that when there are allegations they will be properly and fully investigated, and when there are failings we should own up to them and put the procedures right.

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

It is of course an absolute outrage that it has taken 10 stress-filled years to clear these young soldiers of the baseless slurs against them, but is there not a wider point to be made? Does the Secretary of State agree that allowing further claims and allegations of this kind—the baseless ones and even, perhaps, the slightly less baseless ones—to be pursued in the same way might interfere with the perfectly legitimate conduct of warfare, and that there is a real risk that legitimate warfare will be replaced with “lawfare”?

[Michael Fallon]

I am, of course, concerned that the operational efficiency of commanders in the field should not be inhibited by additional legal complications, such as fresh rulings by the European Court of Human Rights or attempts to extend a health and safety regime that would apply in civilian life to the battlefield. We must think carefully about the weight of law imposed on those whom we ask to do very dangerous things in our name and to react very quickly. This was a battlefield, and I think it important for the House to bear that in mind.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Obviously we should all support our armed forces, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his statement. We have very courageous, professional and decent armed forces who have to perform in some terrible and traumatic circumstances, and we have seen yet again that they are forces of whom we should all be proud. May I ask, however, whether the Secretary of State feels that improvements could be made in the chain of command to enable situations such as this to be dealt with properly in the first place, rather than developing to such an extent that an inquiry is necessary?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. He speaks with particular authority as a former defence Minister, and I will consider what he has said about the chain of command. As we heard from his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), a number of interlocking issues were involved. There was the judicial review and the public inquiry, and so on. However, I think that we would all want to avoid putting members of our armed forces through this process, given the time and cost that were involved in exposing an allegation—the major allegation—that turned out to be completely untrue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and the very clear outcome of an inquiry that was far more credible because it was judge-led. When he established the Gibson inquiry, the Prime Minister said:

“For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with that principle, and would he like it to be extended to other inquiries into allegations of British involvement in torture?

[Michael Fallon]

I think that my hon. Friend is tempting me to stray slightly from the subject of the statement. The inquiry clearly benefited from the professionalism and skill of Sir Thayne Forbes and his team, and I think we should leave it at that.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

In all my time in the House, I have seldom been more shocked than I was by the statement today. I cannot even imagine how those service people have coped for 10 years with such a cloud hanging over them. What support are the Government giving them and their families?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady’s question gives me an opportunity to update an earlier answer. One of the soldiers named in the report is still serving, but I understand that the rest have left the armed forces.

The hon. Lady has made a good point about the support available to soldiers who must either serve or, if they have left the forces, bear the brunt of allegations of this kind. If I may, I will look into the matter further and write to her.

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

I, too, welcome the statement. It is important that we should inquire into serious allegations when they are made, and that we should have the sort of judge-led inquiry that we have had in this case.

I agree with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I share the sense of shock that I think the whole House feels about the people who made up such shocking lies about our armed forces. It is good that the forces have been cleared, but is there any indication of what the motivation was? Was it hostility to our country? [Hon. Members: “Money!”] Was it money? Does anything in the report explain this outrageous behaviour?

[Michael Fallon]

I am not sure that I should comment on the motives involved—I think that the report speaks for itself in that regard—but I believe that the House would be with me in questioning the motives of some of the advisers involved. I do not think that they have helped the reputation of the British legal system in any respect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the statement. The untrue and false allegations affected the British Army and directly affected these soldiers and their families; for many, they led to both physical and emotional changes. What can be done even now, 10 years later, to undo the untold harm done to the British Army personnel and their families who have been affected?

[Michael Fallon]

As I have said, I will certainly look at what support was provided to the soldiers against whom the allegations were made and whether we can improve our procedures in that respect. They do now, as of today, have the knowledge that those allegations turned out to be completely untrue, but I think the House will agree that it should not have taken 10 years and all this money for the truth to emerge.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I remind the House of just how difficult it is for a soldier in combat to change within milliseconds from a duty to kill the enemy to a duty to protect the enemy under the Geneva conventions? I am extremely proud that our soldiers from both the two infantry battalions concerned have acted so professionally on this occasion and I am very pleased by the outcome of this report. I thank the judge and I am very happy for the British Army.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, of course, brings to this House very direct experience of the battlefield and the instant decisions that have to be taken on it. He has particular knowledge of the obligation on our soldiers—which they accept gladly—to do their very best, when the battle is over, for the wounded and for those detained.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was asking the Secretary of State to agree with him, and the Secretary of State did agree with him. The hon. Gentleman is therefore now, I am sure, doubly happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I speak as someone who served in Iraq in both 2003 and 2004. While any mistreatment of detainees is completely unacceptable —the Secretary of State has referred to procedural changes that have been made—is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen and women have served with distinction and honour, and that, regardless of people’s different views on the conflict, as a country we owe them a debt of gratitude? I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that any British soldier who has been materially affected by their service in Iraq will, whatever the point in their life when they have been affected, be properly looked after by our country.

[Michael Fallon]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that thousands of British troops served in Iraq. They did so with distinction and they did us proud, and only a very small handful had these allegations made against them. We should remember that.

On supporting our servicemen and ex-servicemen, I am delighted that the armed forces covenant is now enshrined in law; we must now make a reality of that covenant. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), has written to all colleagues in the House drawing attention to the role we can play in making sure that the covenant is properly implemented by our local authorities, GPs, jobcentres and the others involved in looking after our armed forces. Just yesterday, I think, we published the annual report on the covenant and its operation.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that we must hold our servicemen to the highest possible standards. He will remember that by April 2004 the detention of people in that region was already a point of controversy, but by then—when the Defence Committee visited Shaibah in April 2004—it was clear that any deficiencies had been seriously gripped by the chain of command. When we hold ourselves to such high standards, it is particularly outrageous that the consequences of what perhaps happened to Baha Mousa and the trials that then followed have been thoroughly and unscrupulously abused by extension by the representatives of these people. My right hon. Friend has made absolutely clear what actions he expects the Solicitors Regulation Authority to take, and may I tell him that I absolutely agree with that?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The events investigated by Sir Thayne were from 10 years ago, just at the beginning of some of the hardest fighting in Helmand, and it is noteworthy that right from the beginning the procedures were being examined and were improved. They have certainly improved significantly over the 10 years.

On the solicitors involved, as I have told the House, there is now an investigation into both firms by the SRA, but I think that before we see the result of that investigation the very least the lawyers involved in this case can do is apologise to the soldiers—and, indeed, to the taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will be aware of allegations of wrongdoing in relation to Northern Ireland back in the 1970s, where men were tortured and detained without charge. What actions will the UK Government now take to redress the imbalance in relation to that, which has been identified as involving hooded men being subjected to the five techniques of torture?

[Michael Fallon]

I understand the significance of this issue in Northern Ireland. It is not, of course, the subject of this report, but I know it is part of the discussions into the past that are now being conducted. I hope that will soon be resolved, but the hon. Lady is, quite reasonably, tempting me into areas outside my particular field.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, when the SRA concludes its investigation, the Lord Chancellor comes to the House to make a statement, so that the SRA knows that the eyes of Parliament are going to be on its conduct of this investigation, and not least the question of how the firms of solicitors got their clients? There are suggestions that they were paying agents to go around Iraq to drum up business, often not knowing who their clients were. This seems to me to be yet another issue that needs to be properly investigated by the SRA.

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend raising that, and I hope it will be.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

As a former special envoy on human rights to Iraq, I am particularly pleased that we put ourselves in the dock, we answered the allegations, and we were not guilty of most of them. The reputation of the British Government and British forces is very high indeed in Iraq, and this incident has not detracted in any way from the strong feelings and admiration people in Iraq have for Britain and its forces. The MOD has made changes because there were some instances of ill-treatment. What precisely are these changes and how can the Secretary of State assure us that they will result in such ill-treatment not happening again?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with the right hon. Lady about the reputation of our troops; I heard that for myself on my visits to Baghdad and Irbil. They did an impressively good job in Iraq.

I hope, Mr Speaker, you will also allow me to make a correction. I think I misspoke a moment ago: I referred to Helmand. I am afraid that was the pressure of making this statement. I of course meant to refer to the early years of fighting in Iraq.

Improvements have been made to the procedures, and there are important recommendations, particularly about the retrieval and archiving of information to make it easier to find out exactly what happened and for that information to be brought back to the United Kingdom, so that when these allegations are made, they can be quickly and properly investigated.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

On behalf of all Members, I thank the Secretary of State for the outstanding tone and substance of the statement. I hope the Solicitors Regulation Authority will restore some standing to the profession of which I am a member, as we are all ashamed of the actions of certain members of it in the background. Will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary whether there has been an examination of those organisations, including some charities, to which the Government continue to give funds, and which use that money to instruct solicitors or to front actions against the Government or our armed forces?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his earlier comment, and I will certainly take forward his suggestion that that aspect should be investigated too.

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

Will the Secretary of State expand on the answer that he just gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? What assurances can he give to the public that not only will the recommendations result in the protection and humane treatment of detainees, but that our armed forces will get protection when they need to be able to operate effectively in very difficult circumstances where lives are at risk?

[Michael Fallon]

On the first point, Sir Thayne Forbes himself has accepted that some of the procedures involved have already been improved. Corrections have been made and the procedures are now operating far better than in the very early years 10 years ago, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a balance to be struck between the obligations that we ask our soldiers to accept when they are involved in very dangerous tasks, particularly on the battlefield. That is why I am concerned about the encroachment of other kinds of law on what is already a satisfactory basis of law—the law of armed conflict and our own domestic law.

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

Further to the excellent question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), a truly dreadful abuse of the legal system has caused untold stress to our loyal troops. Is there an argument for a civil claim against the two lawyers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two law firms in question and the lawyers involved should have their practice certificates suspended, pending the SRA inquiry?

[Michael Fallon]

On the first question, I lack the legal expertise to comment on whether a civil claim would have a chance of success. On the practice certificates of the two firms, that is a matter for the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I was interested to hear Sir Thayne Forbes say that the reason for gathering the bodies of the combatants was

“to see if there was amongst them an individual, known by the codename Bravo 1, who was suspected of having been involved in the murder of the six Royal Military Policemen in Majar Al Kabir in June 2003.”

The Defence Secretary will know that my constituent, Corporal Simon Miller, was among the Red Caps murdered in that massacre. Does he therefore agree with me that the attempt to identify Bravo 1 was justified? Can he tell us whether the suspect in question was indeed identified that day?

[Michael Fallon]

As I understand it—I am open to correction—all the detainees were revealed to have been insurgents. One of the things that the inquiry has thrown up is the distinction between general interrogation and what is called tactical questioning, where people need very quickly to get as much information as they can in order to save lives or to prevent further bloodshed on the battlefield. It is that distinction that Sir Thayne discusses when he comes to the various procedures. As I understand it, in terms of the very specific identification on that day, it did not take place.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We are the only country in the world that pays legal aid to sue our own Army. We then pay millions to defend our Army in those cases. Public Interest Lawyers has made over £1 million a year from such cases in each of the past four years. Is there a realistic opportunity for us to get some of that money back? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if there is, he will go after it as best he can?

[Michael Fallon]

We all regret the amount of time and the cost of this inquiry, but I am still proud to live in a country where these things can be fully investigated. It has taken far too long and cost far too much money, but I would rather the truth came out, however painful it has been. On the recovery of costs, as I said, we are looking at whether some of the costs involved in the earlier judicial review claim can now be recouped.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

One question that has not yet been raised relates to the asymmetric nature of so much modern warfare. When our troops go into battle, more often than not it is not against another nation state that observes international law and the Geneva convention, but against irregulars who do not observe the rule of law. This must put our soldiers in the heat of battle under immense psychological pressure. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the lessons from this report will be fed into the way our soldiers are trained, which has enabled them to maintain very high standards when fighting against people who do not maintain the same standards against them?

[Michael Fallon]

That is already part of the training that our servicemen and women now undergo, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The House should wonder whether the Taliban or ISIL would rush to provide bottled water before they were asked to do so if they had British detainees in their custody, or indeed if those detainees had survived to be in their custody.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State said that the cost of the public inquiry was £31 million, but that of course is not the total cost. Can he give us a figure for the total cost, including the costs before the public inquiry? Does this come out of the MOD’s budget or the Ministry of Justice’s budget? How many ships, planes and service personnel have we lost as a result of those firms taking this money?

[Michael Fallon]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the earlier costs. The figure of £31 million is specifically for the public inquiry. As he said, that is a huge and unacceptable amount. It comes directly from the defence budget and he is right—it could otherwise have been spent on providing more equipment for our troops and on many other things that people might have regarded as having a higher priority.

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

The Secretary of State may recall that in 2004 a number of nationalist MPs gave £14,000 of taxpayers’ money to that law firm for an earlier case. Does he think there is merit in the MOD raising this with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ensure that nationalist MPs never again squander taxpayers’ money on those ambulance-chasers?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not recall that, but perhaps I could look into it and get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point.

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

I welcome the clarity and the robustness of the statement. On dealing with the aftermath of a battlefield situation and the handling of prisoners, the Secretary of State has mentioned on a couple of occasions that one of the lessons learned relates to data and intelligence gathering from the battlefield. Are there further lessons to be put in place in training or procedures?

[Michael Fallon]

There are a number of recommendations which we want to study in detail. I have made it clear to the House that I accept the principle and the intent that lie behind them. We have to work through some of the practicalities—for example, video recording and how that would work in a situation very close to the battlefield. I will, of course, come back to the House with my detailed conclusions within a few weeks, I hope.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Secretary of State on an extremely well-judged statement, in which I believe he spoke not just on behalf of his Department, but on behalf of the whole House. What more can be done to get the clear message out—particularly to communities and individuals, among whom I would count myself, who vehemently opposed the Iraq war in 2003—that British troops in Iraq did not torture or murder,?

[Michael Fallon]

That is indeed an important point. I will consider not only how we might disseminate the findings of this report across the United Kingdom but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, what more we can do to reassure the Iraqi communities that British troops do not behave in the way that was alleged.