The Secretary of State was asked—
Housing (Service Personnel)
Before I reply, I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending sincere condolences to the family and friends of the soldier killed in Basra, Iraq, yesterday.
Much has been invested in both single-living and family accommodation for service personnel, but much still needs to be done to ensure that all our accommodation is of a standard fit for the 21st century. Despite a legacy of long-term under-investment—much of the housing stock dates from the 1950s and 1960s—59 per cent. of service family accommodation in the UK is of the highest standard for condition. We have spent, or are planning to spend, over £1.3 billion on modern en-suite single bed spaces for our service personnel. That is just part of the £5 billion that we plan to spend on service accommodation in the next decade. We ask our troops to do a lot for us, and it is only right that we look after both them and their families at home.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the soldier killed in Iraq yesterday, and I pay tribute to all members of the Royal Greenjackets battle group, as I served with that regiment many years ago.
The Government promised to bring all grade 3 and 4 accommodation up to grade 1 by 2012. When he had ministerial responsibility for such matters, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said that he intended to accelerate the process. In light of the fact that there are serious problems with recruitment and particularly retention—poor accommodation is stated to be a prime reason for that—does the Minister not agree that it is vital that we complete that upgrading much more quickly?
I agree that it is vital that we do all that we can to bring service accommodation up to standard as quickly as possible, which is why I said that we plan to spend £5 billion over the next 10 years. We spent £700 million last year, and we have upgraded 1,705 service families houses, thus exceeding our target of 600. In the current financial year, we plan to upgrade 1,200 houses. I agree that we have to do more, and that some accommodation is not up to the standard that our service personnel expect and that we should provide, but we have made it clear that we will put in extra resources to ensure that we bring that accommodation up to standard.
Is the Minister aware that I represent a number of young servicemen and women who have put their lives at risk in war zones, only to return exhausted to low-grade substandard accommodation? That has been condemned as damaging to morale by the Chief of the General Staff, Richard Dannatt, the Adjutant General, Sir Freddie Viggers, and the General Officer Commanding in Iraq, General Richard Shirreff. The Minister appears to be complacent, so whom should the public trust—those generals, who know a great deal about the military and about morale, or Ministers?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go back in history to see what happened when his party was in government. The Government and I accept that some accommodation is clearly not up to standard and is not good enough for our service personnel, but that is the result of decades of under-investment. As I told the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), we are committed to spending a significant amount to upgrade and improve accommodation. At RAF Marham, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), the vast majority of the 661 units of service families’ accommodation are of the highest standard for condition. There are not any properties at standard 4 condition, and only three at standard 3. In addition, under phase 1 of Project SLAM—single living accommodation modernisation—126 new single living accommodation units have been delivered at RAF Marham.
How much of the £1.6 billion received by the previous Government from the sale of married quarters to Annington Homes was reinvested to improve accommodation for our servicemen and women?
That is an interesting point because, even after 18 years in government, the Opposition did not bring all accommodation up to the standard that our service people expect. As I said, we accept that we have to do more, so I hope that the Opposition accept that they did not do enough either. I understand that £100 million of the £1.6 billion was allocated for housing.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed investment in a tri-service military academy in RAF St. Athan in my constituency marks a welcome step change in the provision of excellent accommodation for young servicemen and women?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He did a tremendous amount of hard work lobbying for the St. Athan site, and he is right that, as well as improving specialist training by providing a centre of excellence for our service people, it will lead to a significant improvement in housing.
Does the Minister agree that there should be an investigation into the privatisation under the previous Government that resulted in Annington Homes buying thousands of Army family houses, including homes in my constituency? If the money from the asset-stripping that Annington Homes undertook in my constituency were invested in family housing, every single married quarters in Colchester would be brought up to the decent homes standard.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at the deal with Annington Homes, but there is nothing that the Government can do about that now as it was signed and delivered under the previous Administration. It was clearly not part of a strategy to improve and continue to improve all service accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, significant investment is being made in living accommodation at the barracks in Colchester, and I was pleased to visit there recently to see the excellent accommodation being provided.
No doubt my hon. Friend would agree that we need homes fit for heroes, because they are who we see coming back to the United Kingdom from Afghanistan and Iraq, but have we not got to get smarter? As most of the recruitment takes place in the north, surely we should be building new accommodation and new camps where major recruitment takes place. We should also make it possible for families to buy property, through cheaper mortgages and incentives for deposits, rather than relying on the Army.
If I may take the latter comment first, my hon. Friend makes an important point. We are looking at what more we can do to encourage and support service families and personnel who wish to acquire equity in or own their property. There are schemes for that, but we recognise that more needs to be done. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into the matter. I understand his point about the north and the south. We are considering the possibility of super-garrisons in future. I can make no promises about where they might be, but I can give him an assurance that we will continue to invest significantly in improving service accommodation for our families and service people.
Over the next decade the Department will spend about £25,000 per soldier on refurbishing living quarters, but more than £75,000 per civil servant on the Department’s Whitehall refit. In the course of that refit, it will purchase Herman Miller Aeron luxury chairs at £1,000 each, and over £3 million will be spent on 3,000 European oak doors, with hand-crafted finish. Is such disparity and dysfunctional extravagance justified?
The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I am surprised at him, as he is usually better than that. We are planning to spend £5 billion over the next 10 years, and £700 million was spent last year. The properties are refurbished to a very high standard. If he wishes to see the improvements that have been made to the single living accommodation, he is welcome to visit some of it. I accept again that we still need to do more and that some of the accommodation is just not good enough for our service people, but the Government are committed to continuing to invest heavily in improving that accommodation.
I welcome the commitments that my hon. Friend has made today on accommodation, but there is a related issue which concerns service personnel who leave the Army and are sometimes left homeless. What discussions is he having with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that on discharge, none of our service personnel is left homeless?
It is interesting that my right hon. Friend makes that point. There is considerable support for personnel leaving the services, through the Veterans Agency and welfare and regimental associations, but he identifies an issue on which more could be done to improve the chances and support for our service personnel to get social housing and council accommodation when they leave. To be truthful, the provision is patchy. I have begun to look into it to see how we can improve it. Hon. Members could also help by asking questions of their local authorities about what they are doing to prioritise service personnel.
I am sure the Minister would accept that Members in all parts of the House believe that service accommodation, both family and single, for soldiers, sailors and airmen needs to be improved. When I participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited a number of barracks, not least in Catterick. Will the Minister accept that I found the single soldier accommodation to be grotesquely inadequate? Will he give me an assurance that emphasis will be placed on the urgency of improving the accommodation, which is so important not only for morale, but to reward those who put their lives on the line?
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. When I took on my present post a few months ago, my first visit to a barracks was to Catterick. I asked to see the worst accommodation, and also what was being done to improve the single living accommodation. I agree that some of the accommodation at Catterick, as in other parts of the country, is not good enough for our service people and needs to be improved. But I also saw significant investment at Catterick to provide new single living accommodation. Having spoken to the soldiers there and seen it for myself, it is clear to me that significant improvements have been made but that more still needs to be done.
One of my final actions before leaving the Ministry of Defence was selling the defence married quarters estate to Annington Homes. Since the money came in shortly after the Labour Government came to power, why did they not spend more of it on refurbishing homes?
The right hon. Gentleman knows from the operation of budgets and the Treasury how that money was committed. Let me be clear: we are considering what is happening now and what we can spend to improve the accommodation further. When the estate to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was sold, it did not leave a significant amount of money to invest in housing—£100 million was allocated to that. I ask again why, after 18 years, the Conservative Government could not solve all the accommodation problems.
Conservative Members would like to convey our condolences to the family of the soldier who was killed yesterday in Basra.
The Under-Secretary admitted that almost half the single living accommodation is of the worst standard. In a recent speech, the Prime Minister spoke of renewing the covenant between the armed forces and the Government. He said that that would mean
“increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces”.
What impact will that pledge make on the quality of accommodation for our armed forces?
I have just explained that we intend to spend £5 billion in the next 10 years and that we spent £700 million last year. We are continuing to invest in both family and single living accommodation. The Ministry of Defence is committed to investing more in accommodation for our service personnel.
Type 45 Destroyers
Six Type 45 destroyers are currently on order. Further orders will depend on the affordability of industry proposals, value for money and the wider implementation of the maritime industrial strategy by industry and the Ministry of Defence.
When the Government announced in July 2004 a reduction in the fleet of destroyers and frigates from 31 to 25, it was intended to order eight Type 45 destroyers compared with the original 12. Has anything subsequently changed in the strategic position to lower the requirement from eight to seven or six?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my answer. He should listen. We are considering ships seven and eight, and the point that he made will also be taken into account. The Ministry of Defence has never operated by simply ordering ships and boats on the basis of some previous strategic analysis. We are considering affordability and the wider strategic interests. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the Ministry for the fact that we have the largest warship building programme in 20 years. That is a great achievement, which was long overdue under the previous Administration.
We have not only the largest warship building programme for years, but superb defence training establishments. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is in place to ensure that the high skills needed for the Type 45 will be provided for the programme’s future? It is important for the Government.
Absolutely. My hon. Friend touches on an important aspect of the maritime industrial strategy, which is to examine the longer-term needs and requirements of the Ministry of Defence and what industry can provide across the whole skills base from design to manufacture. We are trying to do that with the Type 45s and the Astute build programme. We want to get ourselves into the best position for building the aircraft carriers and warships in the future. The issue is critical. Close co-operation and consultation are taking place between the Ministry of Defence and industry. Again, that is long overdue.
Will the Minister confirm that only one third of all surface ships are available for deployment at any one time due to the need to work up in advance and refit afterwards? With the Government’s mothballing programme and lack of orders for Type 45s, we are moving towards a position whereby eight frigates and destroyers will be needed as part of aircraft carrier task groups and no others will be available for deployment anywhere else in the world.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about these matters, and I suggest that he looks into the capabilities of the new Type 45s, which will be bigger and have a wider role expected of them in regard to their troop- carrying and air-defence capabilities. This is a massive and significant step forward. We have consistently said that the configuration of any embarked fleet will take into account the allies alongside whom we will be working, so the major initiatives that the carriers are most likely to be engaged in, alongside their fleet protection role, will be multinational. The hon. Gentleman should know, and if he does not, I will repeat that this is the largest warship building programme for 20 years, and credit should be paid where it is due. The programme also requires us to look at the existing ships in the fleet, and the older ones that do not meet the high standards now required by the Royal Navy will have to be considered with a view to laying them aside and eventually decommissioning them.
I would have more confidence in that answer if the First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, had not said repeatedly, both in and out of office, that we needed 30 frigates and destroyers to discharge our existing commitments. Is it the case that ships seven and eight are going to be cancelled? Will the Government accede to the Admiralty’s request for tactical Tomahawk missiles on those warships? Is it not the case that the admirals know better than Ministers when deciding whether we need 30 ships for our existing tasks or only 19, as appears to be the Government’s intention?
I think that I have said where we are going with ships seven and eight, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the responsible way forward. We need to look at this across the range of issues to which I have referred. He mentioned the strategic use of Tomahawk missiles on Type 45s. That is not currently planned—it would require a strategic examination of the launching of those particular missiles—but the ships will have the capacity to deliver it, if required.
Across the reach of what we are doing, this programme represents a significant upgrade in capability. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who know best are those who advise us. That is why we have responded positively to their requests for the carriers and the Type 45s, and to their advice on the future size and shape of the Royal Navy. All such advice is taken into account, as it is in relation to the Army, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force.
Malawi
Peace support training in Africa is a high priority for the Ministry of Defence, in support of the Department’s conflict prevention policy. In Malawi, our focus is on assessing the development of the peace support operation’s training wing at the armed forces college. We also fund the attendance of Malawian armed forces personnel on relevant courses in the United Kingdom and in Africa.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Having visited Malawi last year, I know that the Government of Malawi value the support that they are getting. Similar work is being done in other African countries, including Ghana and South Africa. Will my right hon. Friend explain how that effort is growing the capacity of the African Union’s peacekeeping forces, which are so badly needed in areas such as Darfur?
A commitment was made at the G8 summit at Gleneagles to seek to grow the capacity of the African Union peacekeeping support forces by 75,000. The United Kingdom pledged to meet something like 10,000 of that commitment. Over the training years 2004-05 and 2005-06, approximately 2,250 African personnel were trained at operational and staff level as a result of our training support, and approximately 3,000 African troops were given tactical pre-deployment training by UK training teams based in Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria. We expect the equivalent figures for the present training year to be 2,600 and 3,100 respectively. This is a significant measure of our contribution to growing the capacity of the African Union peacekeeping forces, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome it.
In acknowledging the exceptionally valuable work that is being done in Malawi and across Africa by British servicemen and women who are playing a vital role in ensuring that the armed forces there are properly run, does the Minister agree that, given the considerable overstretch in our armed forces because of the operational tempo, it is becoming harder to find the personnel to send on those important missions, which are likely to be an insurance policy for this country against future work that we might have to do in Africa? Will he assure the House that he will continue to provide the necessary men and women to fulfil those demanding obligations across Africa?
The answer to that would be yes. We consider each request on a case-by-case basis. The level of contribution is significant in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Sierra Leone and Malawi, and as part of a multinational effort. Our commitment also depends on the host countries and regions offering ideas and commitments. We are pursuing an extensive programme.
I do not accept the initial premise on which the hon. Gentleman’s question is based, but I understand the importance of his point. Such work is vital; it is an insurance policy, and it is paying dividends. We have some considerable way to go, because the African Union’s strategic transport capacity has significant shortfalls. The EU and other coalitions of interest must consider how best we can provide assistance in that regard. Ultimately, however, African problems must have African solutions, as African nations make clear. We are helping considerably, and we will continue to do so.
Army
The size of the Army reflects the current requirements, and the future Army structure as announced in December 2004 is designed to produce an agile, balanced and robust Army, capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Of course, we keep the size and shape of the Army, like the other two services, under review.
That was not much of an answer. We are fighting two dangerous and difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the Government, in their wisdom, have seen fit to reduce the size of the Army, most recently cutting four infantry battalions from the order of battle. At the same time, people have been leaving the Territorial Army in droves. I was delighted that the Secretary of State said in a recent article that he believed that the Army should be bigger. Can he tell us what he intends to do about it and how much bigger it should be?
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the article concerned, he will see that that phrase, which was never attributed to me, was actually the work of the sub-editor—[Interruption.] I just say to him that he should read the article. He will also notice that the newspaper that carried the article omitted that headline in later editions, when it was pointed out that I had never used those words. He is right that the size of the Army has been cut, but not by this Government. The size of the Army was cut by the Government whom he supported by about 50,000 between 1983 and 1997. Since 1997, the size of the Army has been broadly the same as that which we inherited, at about 101,000.
May I say to the Secretary of State that the figures given to me by MOD sources seem to indicate that those numbers have dropped by some 1,900 in total over the past 10 years? Can he explain why some Members of the House believe that they have dropped by some 10,000?
Frankly, that figure is in the public domain because the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) put it there in October last year. Immediately after he did so, I wrote to him and pointed out that it was inaccurate to suggest that the size of the Army had been cut by 10,000 since 1997. Thankfully, in his briefing to the press this month, he corrected that, and indicated to them, privately I have to say, that the figure is broadly the same as that which we inherited. He also had to admit that his Government had cut the size of the Army by too much.
If the cuts to the Army following the end of the cold war were so bad, the Secretary of State had better explain why the Government cut the budget in the strategic defence review by £500 million a year—a cut that would have been £1 billion had it not been for the personal intervention of the Chief of the Defence Staff. Given that the assumptions that underlay the defence review have been bucked for the past five years while we have been sustaining such an operational tempo, the Secretary of State’s statement that the size of the Army reflects the current requirements is astonishing. The simple fact is that the Army is not large enough for the current requirements. What will the Government do about it?
I am on record as saying, and I repeat, that we are asking the Army to do more than was planned. I accept that. [Interruption.] I accept that, but it does not mean that the Army is not capable of doing it. The advice that I receive from those who know best—the chiefs of staff—is that the Army is capable of carrying out the functions that it has been asked to do. In the very interview that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) raised, I explained that I have an understanding that if we continued at this tempo for a period of time, we would be in danger of damaging the core of the Army, but we do not intend to do that.
On the budget, perhaps the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will share with his hon. Friends the knowledge that he has that the real cuts to the defence budget took place under the Government whom he supported up until 1997 and that, in fact, there have been real cash increases in defence since we came to power in 1997.
May I draw to the Secretary of State’s attention that since the last Defence questions we have had the Prime Minister’s speech of last Friday week in which he reiterated his vision of us having a global reach, which for many of us seemed to bear no relation to the available resources—to our logistical capacity, equipment or service personnel? Will the Secretary of State use this occasion to explain how we can achieve the objectives set by the Prime Minister with those limited resources and, if there was a crisis in an overseas territory this afternoon, requiring the swift deployment of a significant number of armed forces personnel, will he explain where they would come from?
On advice, I remain confident that the Army is fully capable of meeting the current levels of commitment. Indeed, the Navy, which we discussed a few questions ago, is also capable of meeting the current levels of commitment. It has a global reach, as do the Army and the RAF, as we heard. We retain the ability to respond to additional urgent requirements, but we have to plan for the future.
Afghanistan
The security situation in Afghanistan remains stable. Overall levels of insurgent activity have decreased significantly since October. The UK forces have recently engaged in a number of missions to extend the authority of the Government across Helmand province and to inhibit the freedom of action of the Taliban.
I am told that the Government are preparing to deploy another full infantry battalion to Afghanistan, bringing the total up to three. The last two deployments have been plagued by scarce and faulty ammunition, dodgy radios and wholly inadequate air support. Extra troops means extra resources. Will the Secretary of State assure us that our brave men are not going to have to face their enemies without the firepower that they need?
Let me start by referring to a quotation from the commanding officer of our forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Thomas. I have not produced the quotation for this occasion, but it was reported in his local newspaper, the Western Morning News of 10 January 2007. When commenting after British troops had been involved in an operation on a Taliban training camp, he said:
“This success would not have been possible unless our forces were properly equipped and supplied. To be clear, I have not asked for additional helicopters and the supply system is working well, with no soldiers or marines running out of supplies.”
It does a distinct disservice to those troops who are carrying out this work bravely, competently and successfully in Afghanistan for the hon. Gentleman and others constantly to peddle dishonesties about what is happening out there. There was no—[Interruption.]
Order. I do not think that any Member of the House would be dishonest.
I withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker, and substitute it with “inaccuracies.” No substandard ammunition was supplied for our troops, for example. That has been made clear. The relevant information has been provided to the media on a number of occasions. The fact that they keep repeating that inaccuracy does not allow the hon. Gentleman, who should know better, to repeat it.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is reported in this morning’s press that General Richards, the NATO commander, has said that the west should think again about imposing western solutions on an Islamic society that is in the early stages of development. Given that statement, and given the influence that Iran has from Iraq to Afghanistan, does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to solve the problem in Afghanistan we need to start talking to the Iranians?
I do not agree that if we are to solve the problem in Afghanistan we need to start talking to the Iranians, but I do agree with what I understand General Richards to have said specifically in the extensive interview from which my hon. Friend gave us a very selective quotation. He said that solutions to local problems that had grown out of the community and respected the culture of the community were more likely to be successful than those imposed by a foreign culture. That is precisely why we do not seek to do that in Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand province, and that is why it is so important that the success we have enjoyed has been embedded in political relationships between the governature in Helmand province and the local communities.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the important role played by Nimrod aircraft and crews in Afghanistan, but he will also know of the tragic accident that cost the lives of so many personnel from RAF Kinloss. Will he update the House on the investigation of that accident, and on changes in procedure relating to the fuel system, pressurisation and air-to-air refuelling?
It would be entirely inappropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of the board of inquiry into that dreadful tragic accident in which so many brave men’s lives were lost. I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as Member of Parliament for the constituency in which RAF Kinloss is situated, is eager to reach the point at which some information can be given to his constituents—I am eager to reach that point as well—but as he knows, inquiries such as this are conducted independently of Ministers, and we must await the report.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to remind people time and again that one of the principal reasons why we are in Afghanistan is that 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of this country comes from its poppy fields?
It is important that we do not allow Afghanistan to become a state that is dependent on narcotics, as too much of its GDP currently is. Narcotics can fund the forces that undermine the Government of Afghanistan and allow it to become a failed state, and have allowed it in the past to become a training ground for terrorists. However, our fundamental objective is to support the democratic Government of Afghanistan and allow their writ to run across the country, so that never again will we, the developed world, be subject to the possibility of terrorist attacks emanating from the failed state of Afghanistan.
Were there security implications in yesterday’s announcement of significant changes in our diplomatic representation in Kabul? If not, why are those changes being made?
This is not Foreign Office Question Time, and I am not in a position to go into the detail of decisions that are properly the province of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it seems to me that if we are to be consistent with the priority that we have given to Afghanistan—and we are, in terms of our foreign policy and the military policy that supports it—it is appropriate for representation of the United Kingdom in Kabul to be pitched at a level that reflects that priority. I believe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made the changes in order to achieve that.
The Secretary of State did not answer the essential point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in his question. Can he confirm that two battalions in Afghanistan are to be replaced by three, and that the 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, and the Sherwood Foresters are preparing for deployment?
We have heard about problems with multi-purpose vehicles, a shortage of armoured vehicles and a lack of night-vision equipment. If we do not have enough equipment for two battalions, how will we have enough for three? Can the Secretary of State tell us how many urgent operational requirements have been made of the Ministry of Defence in the past year from Afghanistan, and how many have been turned down?
All urgent operational requirements that have been approved by the chain of command have been acceded to. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That is entirely as it should be, and the process of urgent operational requirements has been approved and commented upon favourably by independent investigations on a number of occasions. Contrary to media speculation over the weekend, no such requirements have been turned down on financial grounds. Indeed, over the past couple of years more than half a billion pounds have been invested in urgent operational requirements in relation to supporting our troops in both theatres. It is part of the nature of urgent operational requirements that they continually come forward and are approved. We continue to keep our force levels under review. No amount of speculation in the media is going to draw me into speculating with them about who will be deployed in Afghanistan. There is a process to be gone through, and when it is completed I will report to the House; that is the appropriate thing to do.
Time will tell whether the House feels that it was given a full and frank answer to that question.
As the Secretary of State knows, modern military helicopter operations require a layered approach: the Chinook, Merlin and Sea King to move troops and equipment; the future Lynx as a reconnaissance helicopter; and a smaller helicopter—that is what is missing. All Members will have been impressed by the pictures that we have seen of the mission carried out over the weekend by our Marines, but what we saw was Royal Marine commandos clinging to the side of an Apache helicopter because nothing more appropriate was available. How can that situation still not be properly sorted out after all the time that has passed and the warnings that the Government have been given? It is simply unacceptable, and the whole country wants to know when something will be done about it.
The hon. Gentlemen’s account of the very brave actions of our Marines on the Apache helicopter is fundamentally incorrect. An alternative helicopter was available and could have been made available, but a tactical decision was made by the commandos to deploy the Apache in this particular way. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what Brigadier Thomas said. The hon. Gentleman might want to contradict me, but why would he want to contradict Brigadier Thomas? He said:
“To be clear, I have not asked for additional helicopters and the supply system is working well, with no soldiers or marines running out of supplies.”
So why does the hon. Gentleman continually peddle the suggestion that there is a shortage? [Interruption.] I accept that there is, going forward, a challenge to meet our future requirements in relation to helicopters, and we in the Ministry of Defence are doing everything that we can to deal with that. However, the hon. Gentleman and I both know that we cannot get helicopters in the same way as we can buy other equipment. Let me also say to him that there is no truth in the suggestion that urgent operational requirements in relation to night-vision goggles were turned down for financial reasons, as was reported in the press.
Warships
Over the next 20 years we currently expect to contract or build more than 20 major warships, including nuclear attack submarines, new aircraft carriers and more air defence destroyers, and to begin a new class of fleet escorts. Numerous support ships will also come into service over this period.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he say what the increases in the budget will be over the next 10 years to meet the requirements of that programme?
When I answered earlier questions, I gave an indication of what the current build programme is, and it is worth while reflecting that since 1997 one submarine and 28 ships have entered the Royal Navy service. As I have said, we have the largest warship building programme for 20 years. The planned spend for the next 10 years is in the order of £14 billion.
Does the Minister understand the anxiety felt in Rosyth over the failure of the Government to award it the contract for the two new aircraft carriers? Will he also reassure me that that is not a cack-handed attempt to exploit some political capital for the Scottish parliamentary elections?
I have said before to the hon. Gentleman that he should perhaps talk to his defence spokesperson in the Lords, who claims to be a defence specialist and who said that, given the capacity of the United States to build these carriers, they should be built there. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman repudiate that. Is it still his party’s policy? We have made it clear that we are committed to these aircraft carriers. We have to get the programme and the relationship with the new integrated company right, and progress is being made in that regard. The decision will be taken on the basis of what the Royal Navy needs, not the needs of a particular shipyard.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we move to procure complete capability, through-life support and efficient support facilities such as those at DML and at the naval base in Devonport are of vital importance?
Yes they are, which is why we are looking at what could be defined as the present overcapacity in the naval bases. It is right that we conduct the current review, to make sure that we have the best fit for the Navy of the future and that we spend appropriately on that vital element of support for the Royal Navy. It will not be an easy task and it raises a number of fundamental questions, but again, we will do what is right to maintain the very powerful new Royal Navy that is being built.
After the last round of cuts was announced in July 2004, the First Sea Lord said:
“What people do need to be aware of is that there is a risk with these reductions…my concern overall is that we are taking risk on risk.”
Whatever the increased capability of our ships, they can only be in one place at one time. We cannot see the scrapping of ships on the water, to be replaced with ships on paper. I have a simple question for the Minister: can he make a simple pledge to the House today and tell us that there will be no further reduction in the size of the current surface fleet of 25 frigates and destroyers?
At least that is not based on some of the misinformation that the hon. Gentleman has been peddling up to now. The new Type 45 destroyers are a substantially new type of ship, and we are bringing the aircraft carriers into being. Our analysis of the size and shape of the Royal Navy will be dependent on the advice that we receive from the chiefs of staff, including the current First Sea Lord and the chiefs of staff who work alongside him. These are important issues and we have to make sure that we get the best size and shape for the Royal Navy to meet the contingent demands that we face, and those that can be predicted for the future. Again, these are not straightforward equations, and we must ensure that what we are building meets that need. Just for once, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the big catch-up is now taking place, that a massive warship building programme is under way, and that 28 ships and one submarine have been put into service since 1997. That is not turning our back on the Royal Navy, but recognising the important role that it has to play.
Has my right hon. Friend calculated the number of jobs in Scotland that are directly and indirectly part of this massive shipbuilding scheme, and would they be lost if Scotland were independent?
Order. It is not for the Minister to answer that.
Iraq
We take the security of our armed forces—in all theatres—very seriously indeed, and we do everything possible to protect our personnel. We have considerable operational experience to draw on, which ensures that UK training, tactics and personal protection are among the best in the world.
In the light of the tragic incident at Basra palace camp last Thursday in which six soldiers were injured, one seriously, will the Secretary of State reconsider evaluation of the C-RAM anti-mortar system and counter-battery radar, in order to give our bases in Iraq considerably better protection and a retaliatory response, given that existing, so-called “layered” protection methods are clearly not working?
I give the hon. Lady my reassurance that we keep everything under review. I know that the commanding officer in Basra keeps the issue of force protection constantly under review, and I will specifically ask him to advise me again on the capability that she asks about. However, I do not want to leave the House with the impression that there is no capability to counteract the indirect fire threat. There is indeed a very specific capability, but I shall not go into detail at the Dispatch Box, because that would reduce—
Americans and Canadians.
That is not correct. We use our forces and our capability to do it—but it is much better not to stand at the Dispatch Box and go into the detail of what we do, because that would reduce the security of our forces. The hon. Lady asked a specific question and I will ensure that I am given a view on that in the light of the event that she mentioned, and I will write to her.
Most will be supportive of the recent risky operation to turn out the police who were alleged to be a death squad. Will my right hon. Friend tell us for how long that squad operated and what the trial arrangements will be? Will the UK forces hand over evidence for that trial, and what is being done to put a non-murderous police squad in place?
I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the clearing out and destruction of the al-Jameat police station, which was the home of the serious crime unit, on Christmas day. I am normally very careful about the assertions that I make at the Dispatch Box, but I have not yet heard anybody describe that particular unit as an “alleged” murder squad. I have never seen the adjective “alleged” used about that by anybody—and that includes many Iraqi politicians. Our forces are to be congratulated on the brave way in which they conducted that operation. The fact that they physically destroyed that police station was iconic to the people of Basra, many of whom celebrated the fact that that nest of vipers had been removed. As I understand it, the warrants have been issued for the members of the serious crime unit. They have not been enforced, because that is the responsibility of the Iraqis, but that will happen in due course, in my view, and the people will appear before the court and be prosecuted appropriately.
When the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary appeared before the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we gained the impression that the British Government were planning to reduce the British armed forces commitment in Basra and southern Iraq alongside the increase in the American commitment. However, when I met Deputy President al-Hashimi last week, he described it as a redeployment within Iraq, rather than a reduction in commitment. Could the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s policy for the benefit of the House?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify our position again. Our position is that we intend, as I have explained repeatedly, to redeploy our troops in Multi-National Division (South-East), but as a consequence of that redeployment we will be able to reduce their number significantly. As that process goes forward, we will be able to redeploy troops, and for the very reason that that redeployment will mean that we will not need to protect physically the number of bases that we do at present, we will be able to draw down the troops. That is why I told the Committee, and tell the House, that the redeployment will not reduce our capability in terms of being able to project force.
On the security of our forces, can my right hon. Friend share with the House any feedback that he has received about the new vehicles—the Bulldog in Iraq and the Viking in Afghanistan?
I am grateful for the opportunity to do that, because those who have been responsible for achieving what many said was impossible—the accelerated deployment of Bulldog and Mastiff capability and, in due course, Vector, and of Viking in Afghanistan—are to be congratulated. To the extent that I have any feedback, I am told that the troops think that the Bulldog has added significantly to their capability and are highly complimentary about it. It gives them both space and a feeling of safety. As for the Viking, I could paper the walls with the Marines’ eulogies about that vehicle. They talk about it in such terms as would be embarrassing for those who build the vehicle to hear.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact on the security of our troops in southern Iraq of the proposed American surge in Baghdad, especially if it succeeds in disturbing and displacing the militias? Also, what will be the impact on our troops in Afghanistan? The right hon. Gentleman will have seen suggestions that the American troop deployments in Baghdad may happen at the expense of proposed deployments in Afghanistan. Did he read General Richards this morning warning of the need for more NATO troops in that country? What assurance can he give that President Bush’s latest ploy will not undermine the security of our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan?
I did read what General Richards said, and I have been in communication with him over the months that he has been in post. I note his opinion, and share his view that some countries in NATO should respond more positively to requests to send more troops to Afghanistan. However, the most important part of the hon. Gentleman’s question has to do with whether our strategic planning takes enough account of the possible effect that changes by our allies may have on the areas for which we are responsible. The Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee asked me the same question, and my reply today is the same as it was then—that our planning has considered that effect continually and consistently. It would be a dereliction of duty on our part if we did not take account of the fact that we are in a coalition, and that the behaviour of our allies might have an effect on what we do. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not answer every question that asks for an assessment by describing exactly what we think might happen, as any worst-case scenario that I set out could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, I assure him that we do plan for every eventuality.
In some parts of Iraq, especially Baghdad, the security situation is serious, driven by death squads and bomb attacks by insurgent and terrorist groups. Today’s attacks are another tragic example of that, but we should not forget that part of the motive of those who carry out the attacks is precisely to derail progress—to provoke sectarian reaction and undermine the elected Iraqi Government, or to force the coalition out before the right time. So we should always strive to look beyond the attacks, however tragic they are, and see the situation overall. I make no apology for reminding the House, as I have done consistently, that 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces are relatively peaceful, and that 80 per cent. of the violence occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad.
We have had enough misleading and mischievous statements about Iraq—
Not from this Minister.
Or from any Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not referring to any Member of the House.
I was referring to the press. I have made no reference to the Government.
That is fine, then.
There have been misleading statements about the causes and course of the Iraq war, and that emphasises the need for plain speaking from the Government about intended British force levels for the remainder of the year. Is it the Secretary of State’s intention to maintain our present capability in Iraq, or to reduce British force levels later this year?
I have made no bones about my views in respect of the strategic direction of our policy in relation to MND(SE) and its likely consequences. I have gone to great lengths—both in this House and in the opportunities that I have had outside the House to speak for longer about this matter—to explain our intention to be in a position to draw down our troops from MND(SE), depending on the conditions as matters progress. At the moment, we are coming to the end of an operation in Basra that has had a very positive effect on the city. Our ability—and especially that of the Iraqi forces—to maintain that improvement will be the principal condition that determines whether we can proceed in the way that we have planned. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is our intention to draw down our troops, and I have made no bones about that. Although any withdrawal will depend on conditions, I have no reason to believe that those conditions are not being achieved.
Armed Forces (Overstretch)
We keep the demands placed on our armed forces under constant review. It is recognised that because of the continuing high operational tempo, our guidelines for the harmony of our personnel are being exceeded in a number of areas across the armed forces. Although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are largely within the harmony guidelines, they are being broken across 14 per cent. of the Army. Within those general figures there are some particular pinch points. We have developed a range of recruitment and retention measures to address the issues, as well as longer-term work to rebalance force structures.
I am grateful for the Minister’s detailed answer. Following the reminder given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) of what General Richards said this morning about the need for more troops, the finding of the National Audit Office in November that we are about 5,000 under full strength, and the Prime Minister’s Plymouth speech, in which he committed our defence expenditure for equipment, personnel and conditions to rise not just in the short term but in the long run, what comfort can Ministers give our troops, their families and the country, not for the time after the comprehensive spending review—that is, in 15 months—but for the coming financial year, that there will be troops and support for them, especially to do the job in Afghanistan that the commanding officer says we need to do?
We have given quite detailed answers about the commitments faced by our personnel in both Afghanistan and Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rebutted some of the allegations that are around in the media and among Opposition Front-Bench Members about equipment shortfalls—that is not what the brigadier said. The hon. Gentleman asked about immediate support. That is why Ministers and chiefs of staff visit both the major theatres regularly to find out about the mood of personnel. I made such a visit recently, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is also due to visit. When we identify anything that needs to be addressed, that is done as quickly as possible, assuming that if the need is industry-based, there is capacity to meet it and the industry can deliver.
The hon. Gentleman heard the response about urgent operational requirements and the rebuttal of all the allegations about them. I think that about £600 billion has been spent to date on meeting UORs. As the threat changes, and the requirement changes, we rapidly move to fill the gap. I am not saying that our armed forces personnel are without complaints—they are not—but as they express to me—
Order. I must stop the Minister. Perhaps he could write to the hon. Gentleman.