House of Commons
Thursday 22 June 2006
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Food Production and Retail
The food industry has a major impact on the environment. The Government have implemented several measures to reduce negative impacts.
Given the power of the large supermarkets, which are driving down prices at the farm gate, what is the Minister doing to ensure that we get fair trade for farmers and producers at home as well as abroad?
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Competition Commission recently announced an inquiry into supermarkets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the commission suggesting that it look into the issues that she raises as part of its inquiry—a move that has been welcomed by the Liberal Democrats.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the National Federation of Women’s Institutes on this week’s national day of action against packaging? It is right to highlight the fact that we must get rid of excess packaging on food products and use recyclable or compostable materials where packaging is required. What actions are the Government taking to require food producers and retailers to minimise packaging?
I warmly welcome the campaign by the women’s institute, and I have written to congratulate it. As the hon. Lady is probably aware, the Government have set statutory targets to reduce and recycle a certain amount of packaging by 2008. We have also entered into an agreement with all the major supermarkets to reduce the growth in packaging and to achieve an absolute reduction in packaging within the same time frame.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sustainable Communities Bill is the best way to signal the importance of local food chains and trying to restore local communities? It is currently a private Member’s Bill, but I hope that the Government will take it up. This issue is going round the country like wildfire, and people are attending meetings in their hundreds. I am addressing a meeting in Stroud tonight. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government support this wholeheartedly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the numbers of people he can attract to public meetings; I wish that we could all have the same success. I have listened carefully to his comments about the Sustainable Communities Bill, as have my colleagues, and I am sure that we will take them very seriously.
Surely more can be done to assist local suppliers, as happens with a lot of farm shops, of which we have a large number in my constituency. Should not the larger supermarkets follow the lead of supermarkets such as Booth’s, which got involved very early on with the Bowland milk initiative, whereby they sourced a lot of their milk from local farm producers? It has now been extended to cheeses. That is something that supermarkets could be doing to help the environment and to help local suppliers by sourcing locally.
I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that in the past few weeks the major supermarkets have been almost falling over themselves to compete with each other to introduce more and better sourcing of local food. It is gratifying that there is consensus across the House that seems finally to be sinking into the supermarket chain.
Does the Minister think that it is more environmentally friendly to buy English strawberries or foreign strawberries?
There can be no doubt that it is far better for the environment and for local economies to eat British strawberries, as it reduces food miles and boosts incomes in rural areas. Polytunnels have been vital to the success of our strawberry growers in extending the growing season. It is extraordinary that the Conservatives have called for a boycott of British strawberries.
rose—
Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) shouted, “A deliberate falsehood”. Perhaps he will withdraw the remark.
I withdraw the remark and apologise.
House Building
The Department is already working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government on the environmental impacts of house building. I recently met the Minister for Housing and Planning, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to discuss water supply and plans for new housing.
Water companies’ 25-year water resources plans identify the need for five new and three extended reservoirs. The need for additional capacity in sewerage infrastructure is one of the main issues that is considered in the growth point bids.
I thank the Minister for his reply. When he next holds discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government on water supplies, will he support its view that 200,000 extra homes will lead to only a one in 1,000 increase in total water use, or that of Professor McDonald, as expressed in the eighth report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, that the prediction of a minor increase in water demand is at odds with every other forecast?
The Government want to see new housing development and to give people the right to affordable housing in the south-east. However, that housing must be sustainable. That is why DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Natural England are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government on its new growth point scheme. As part of that, we are closely considering water supplies, sewerage infrastructure, flood risk and biodiversity. It is right that any proposals must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability. We will not accept proposals that we believe would damage the environment or that did not provide for adequate water supplies.
The Minister will recall that, during the statement in the House a couple of weeks ago, he bizarrely told me that my constituents and I were wrong and that the large number of houses being built in the south-east would have almost no impact on the current water crisis. He now knows that the Lords Science and Technology Committee—a Committee of experts—has reported and backed us up. Will he accept that he is wrong and they are right?
No, I do not accept that. We will respond to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report in due course. The key matter to stress is that work can be done to improve water efficiency. For example, Anglian Water has maintained water supplies of 1.2 billion litres a day—the same amount as in 1989—but it is supplying 20 per cent. more households today. That shows what can be done about water efficiency.
It is important that we ensure that water sustainability is built into the new growth point scheme. Any proposals must also go through the planning process. The Conservatives need to be clear about whether they want new homes to be built for young couples. Your leader says—
Order. I do not have a leader.
Is not it time that we required the construction industry to design all new buildings, domestic or otherwise, to operate using only non-mains water, either recycled or collected on site, to flush toilets?
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are working on a new code for sustainable homes, and the Department for Communities and Local Government is leading that work. We believe that new homes should be built to the highest standards of water and energy efficiency. Grey water systems and sustainable housing are very much part of our thinking as a Government—we want to encourage that.
I am interested in my hon. Friend’s comments about Anglian Water. Given Thames Water’s appalling water leakage rates, does he believe that there will be enough water to serve the new housing developments in London?
My hon. Friend is right to point out that Thames Water’s leakage levels are unacceptably high. It recently reported that it had failed again to meet its target. That is a matter for the regulator in the first instance. Ofwat has already said that it views the issue as serious and that it will scrutinise the company’s return before deciding on regulatory action. As my hon. Friend knows, Ofwat is responsible for setting leakage targets and has powers to deal with poor performance under the Water Act 2003, which Conservative Members voted against.
I am grateful to the Minister for identifying the failure of Thames Water, the scale of which is staggering. Ofwat’s latest figures show that it is leaking 200 million litres of water a day more than it was at the beginning of the last five-year period. Ofwat described this significant failure yesterday as very serious and unacceptable. As the Minister pointed out, Ofwat has not said what it is going to do about it. What is he going to do about it?
It is Ofwat’s responsibility as the economic regulator to take action, and it has powers under law to do so. Those powers are contained in the Water Act 2003, which the Conservatives inexplicably voted against. We will not pre-empt Ofwat’s response, but we expect it thoroughly to examine the company’s return and to take the appropriate action.
Will the Minister assist my constituency, which has to have thousands of extra houses and their attendant cars and pollution, and which already has air quality management areas? Will he send a message to councils about how to deal with these air quality management issues? Will any extra funding or help be given to councils to deal with the existing issues?
Air quality has certainly been better than it has been for decades. It is the responsibility of local authorities in the first instance to take these matters forward. Let us be clear that new houses are required in the south-east. If we are going to do the right thing by thousands upon thousands of young couples who want affordable homes in the south-east, we have to take action, and that is what the Government are doing. But we are taking action and taking care of the environment at the same time, which is why my Department, the Environment Agency and Natural England are all involved in the new proposals.
The Minister talked about increasing water capacity, but is he aware that Northumbria Water, which owns a water company in Essex, has been trying to increase capacity by raising the banks of an existing reservoir by 10 ft? The company reckons that if it finally gets planning permission for this, it will have taken 18 years from the moment the scheme was first put into play to the time when the water is actually in the reservoir. Surely it is time for the planning processes relating to such schemes to be simplified.
I am not responsible for the planning processes. Water companies’ 25-year water resources plans often include schemes for building new reservoirs and for extending existing ones, and it is right that such schemes should go through a robust planning process, because people have to be consulted on these matters. However, the whole House will agree that planning processes should be as efficient as possible. The Government have done quite a lot to speed up such processes, but they should not be speeded up at the expense of individual rights.
We all want affordable housing in the south-east—there is no question about that—but we also want the people who live in them to have access to water. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on achieving Royal Assent for his Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill? That will have a significant and positive impact on improving energy efficiency in new homes, and on promoting renewable energy. Is it not ironic, however, that the Bill fell under the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry? Is not this another example of how impotent DEFRA has become? The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has just made a very sensible suggestion. What plans does DEFRA have to introduce its own legislation to ensure that house building is compatible with the natural resources of the country and the planet, and, in particular, that there are adequate water supplies to ensure that the new homes are worth living in?
I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on his Bill receiving Royal Assent. However, there is a difference between us and the Conservatives on these issues. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is on record as saying that the present level of house building is excessive, but the Government do not believe that to be the case. We believe that thousands of young couples should have the opportunity to have new houses, but that has to be achieved in a sustainable way. That is why we are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government on its growth point plans, so that, when the schemes come forward, those growth point areas will have been subjected to a rigorous analysis of the environmental impacts and benefits. That is the right way to do it. The Conservatives say that they want to see house building, yet they support early-day motions that oppose new house building. That strikes me as the activity of a party that is neither responsible nor in control.
Climate Change
In March the Government announced a climate change programme setting out measures that will affect all major sectors and sources of UK emissions. The review predicts that the measures will reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions to 15 to18 per cent. below 1990 levels and the emission of greenhouse gases to 23 to 25 per cent. below 1990 levels, which is double the Kyoto target. Progress will be monitored and assessed regularly and frequently by an inter-departmental board, and there will be an annual report to Parliament every year, starting next year.
I hope that the Minister agrees that if any target is to be meaningful, it must include aviation, which, as he will know, presents a major threat. If that continues at the same rate, it will cancel out all the gains made in other sectors. Does the Minister accept that while emissions trading is a useful tool which represents a step forward, it is not enough in itself to halt the inexorable growth of aviation? Does he accept that when one of my constituents goes to Spain and back by air solely to buy fags and beer cheaply, the price of aviation must increase?
The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the question of whether we have an emissions trading scheme with the question of what the scheme includes. At present aviation is not included, but the Government are committed to ensuring that it is. If there are rising levels of air travel, they must be offset elsewhere. That strikes me as a more sensible way of putting a cap on emissions and tackling the problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell his constituents that they are not allowed to fly he can do so, but I think it is better to say that if more people are flying, emissions must be offset and reduced elsewhere.
According to 2004 figures, 30 per cent. of total UK energy use comes from the domestic sector, as do 27 per cent. of total carbon emissions. What more can the Government do to convince people that individual action in aggregate accounts for a massive percentage of the overall problem?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me say two things to him. First, by 2050 30 per cent. of houses will have been built since the introduction of the new building regulations, which represents a 40 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in new housing. Secondly, I believe that there should be cross-party support for the home information packs that will be introduced next year. They will include an energy rating of every household, which has never been available before. They will also tell householders how they can cut energy emissions, and how they can save themselves money. [Interruption.] If the Conservative party opposes a measure that is both green and economic, it needs to re-examine its policies.
Given that the Government have now admitted that they are missing their own targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and given that transport is one of the largest sources—and an increasing source—of carbon dioxide, why are the incentives for motorists to drive low-emission cars so utterly feeble? Will the Secretary of State undertake, as one of his first acts, to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to widen substantially the differentials relating to vehicle excise duty, so that those who choose to drive low-emission cars receive a proper financial reward for doing so?
The hon. Gentleman spent three productive hours debating these issues in Committee with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
I feel that, as a relatively new Secretary of State, I should congratulate the Chancellor on introducing different levels of car tax for different fuels. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, however, and I am sure that, along with other representations, it will be taken into account when the Chancellor considers how to implement his proposals.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the reduction in carbon emissions and control of the carbon footprint in Government offices, but will he now go further? Will he launch a campaign for every child in every school to know its carbon footprint on our planet, and for every institution in the country—every school and every business, small and large—to know its carbon footprint and have a target to reduce it?
That, too, is an important point. I think that I am right in saying that more or less every citizen is responsible for an average emission of about 3 tonnes of carbon a year. If we are to meet our 2050 targets, we will have to reduce that to 1 tonne, which means thinking about our own footprint. I have the impression, from my constituency and elsewhere, that the younger generation—those at school—are ahead of the game when it comes to thinking about their carbon footprint, but we must do as much as we can nevertheless, and I will certainly explore my hon. Friend’s ideas.
Six months ago, the Government launched a climate change communication fund with about £12 million of funding. Having heard what Al Gore said yesterday afternoon, does the Secretary of State think that that funding is adequate? How much of the money has been spent?
I am pleased to confirm to the House that that programme of £12 million is being allocated to organisations such as the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which was mentioned earlier, and the Scout Association. We think that it is better for organisations such as that to spread the message about climate change than it is for the Government to spend money on Government advertising showing the Government wagging their fingers at people. What I took away from the vice-president’s speech and presentation—
Former vice-president.
In fact, he retains his title, but let us not get into that. Vice-President Gore’s argument is that there are major challenges, for all industrialised countries and for the developing world, in meeting the problems of climate change. As he said, this country should be proud of the progress that has been made and of the fact that we are one of only three countries meeting our Kyoto commitments. However, we must go further, and I am committed to doing so.
I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for attending yesterday’s presentation by Vice-President Gore. I am sure that he will recall that the vice-president made it clear that we must persuade his own Government to do much more on climate change. What is my right hon. Friend doing to answer that call? Achieving more American effort in this regard would reflect great credit on him as Secretary of State.
In fact, the vice-president painted quite an optimistic picture of the changes in American politics—or at least of the ones that may take place after 2008. My hon. Friend raises an important point. A year and a half ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the drive for the presidencies of the G8 and the EU that the UK held. I think that the debate about the scientific evidence is now conclusively over. Vice-President Gore referred to 928 articles that showed absolute consensus about climate change and its causes. We need to move on to a debate about the level at which we should stabilise emissions, and how we can do so. I believe that the continuing G8 commitment and the UN process for after 2012 mean that we can get the Americans involved for the first time.
The latest environmental accounts from the Office for National Statistics show that there has been an increase in carbon emissions since the Government came to power in 1997, and a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel and other green taxes. Overall, green taxes fell again last year to 2.9 per cent. of GDP—the lowest level since 1990. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that green taxes are the only area in which the Labour Government should follow the Conservative policy of reducing taxation as a share of GDP. Does the Secretary of State agree?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Like me, he fought last year’s election on a manifesto that promised to ensure that taxation is based on the needs of the economy, the environment and families. That is what we are committed to doing.
There are two sides to the climate change equation—causes and effects. In today’s answers to questions, all sorts of positive statements have been made about the causes, and the Government have an excellent record in respect of emissions controls. Yet again, however, nothing has been said about the effects of climate change or about what the Government are doing, by means of sea defences or new building designs, for example, to deal with rising sea levels or to control river flooding. Will my right hon. Friend say what on earth the Government are doing to deal with the inevitable effects of climate change?
I should be very happy to do that, and could give my hon. Friend a voluminous list of Government actions in that regard. However, he mentioned flooding, and it is important that I pick up on that. The Environment Agency now has a budget of £500 million a year for flood defences. That is a significant improvement: I stand to be corrected, but I think that it represents a tripling of the investment in flood defences. I am happy to engage with him and the rest of the House at great length on many other things that the Government are doing, but I fear that I may trespass on Mr. Speaker’s patience if I go too far.
Does the Secretary of State consider it acceptable that bickering between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry has left the Government unable to make up their mind about the amount of carbon that we need to cut under phase two of the EU emissions trading scheme? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such dithering helps the UK to be a credible provider of leadership in the international fight against climate change, or that it helps responsible industry to make the necessary investment to ensure a clean, green future?
One thing that certainly would undermine our leadership is opposition to the climate change levy, which has cut 7 million tonnes of carbon every year. In respect of the emissions trading scheme, I look forward to debating the Government’s conclusions with the hon. Gentleman and I can assure him that there will be one Government conclusion about the level of the phase 2 cap under the scheme. I can also assure him that it will make a significant contribution to the progress that we, along with the rest of Europe, need to make. Our Government was one of only three in Europe that set the emissions trading cap below the level of emissions. I am working very hard with my European partners and also with the European Commission to ensure that every country in Europe sets a cap at the right level so that we drive down the level of emissions right across Europe.
In the foreword to the energy White Paper 2003, the Government set out the four pillars: the environment, energy security, affordable energy for the poorest and competitive markets for industry, business and households. In pursuing the nuclear energy route in such a pell-mell fashion, do we not risk abandoning all four pillars and having the whole structure crumbling in on us?
I can say that there is nothing pell-mell about the way in which the energy review has been conducted and that we are absolutely committed to the four pillars of our energy policy, which my hon. Friend has rightly mentioned. The test for any policies considered under the review—whether it be for nuclear, renewables, micro-generation or energy efficiency and energy reduction—will be how they contribute to the strengthening of those four policy pillars. I look forward to seeing what I believe will be a strong package that meets all four tests when the energy review is published.
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
All of the centre’s six current areas of research activity will continue after the restructuring, and the centre will continue to deliver its contractual commitments to DEFRA and other Government Departments and agencies.
The Minister will be aware that four laboratories and 200 scientists will be lost in freshwater research and monitoring. The Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, among others, has raised concerns about the lack of commitment to the conservation of the freshwater environment. How will the Minister ensure that we fund adequate research into the potential impact of global warming on vulnerable aquatic ecosystems, particularly on Atlantic salmon, which is an endangered species?
The hon. Lady will understand that the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is wholly owned by the Natural Environment Research Council and that it is its job to decide on the appropriate allocation of resources to ensure that the very best research programmes are carried out. Indeed, as part of the whole rationale driving the process forward, an additional £5 million a year will be made available for front-line quality scientific research—the result of savings made from the amalgamation.
It is hard to understand how £5 million a year will be saved when the total cost of the reorganisation is about £45 million and the centre’s total budget is £30 million a year. How on earth the Minister has come up with £5 million worth of savings, I do not know. To set our minds at rest, rather than simply saying, “It is not our problem”—the Government’s response on most things—will the Government give us an absolute assurance that all the scientific research currently undertaken in these vital biodiversity centres will continue after the reorganisation?
First, let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the mathematics. It is very simple. The restructuring will take £43 million—not £45 million—and over a period of six years, the £7 million a year saving from that restructuring will by year six achieve an additional £5 million going into front-line research. That deals with the mathematics. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting in the latter part of his question that, in deciding what are the best programmes of research, he and I should substitute our scientific expertise for that of the Natural Environment Research Council, which has far greater expertise in this area than we do. It is not a matter of shuffling off the problem, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but of making sure that we continue to have, as we do now, the best qualified people to judge the quality of research undertaken and to decide which research is most vital for British interests.
Climate Change Talks
The talks held in Bonn in May provided a successful start to the two-track process launched at the UN climate conference in Montreal on future international action to tackle climate change. Parties agreed that those discussions would continue at the November conference in Nairobi. Work also continued on developing a plan of action to further the understanding of how to adapt to the effects of climate change.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the answer. There is a climate change framework, which has widespread support on both sides of the House, which has been praised by the Prime Minister and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has described as a beautiful model. It is supported by the Kenyan Government, who will be chairing the talks in Nairobi. It is called “Contraction and Convergence”. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our negotiating team gives that model all the support that it requires and what, I hope, the Kenyans will require in pushing it forward?
As a Government, we are certainly aware that a number of different models are being discussed—the Kenyans’ proposal on contraction and convergence is one and there are proposals from Brazil and others—and we need to have a full debate to explore the advantages and disadvantages of all the options. However, the contraction and convergence model is certainly favoured by a number of African countries, and we certainly want to look at it, as part of the process of building the international consensus on climate change that we need if we are to agree a stabilisation target and an effective package of measures to tackle climate change in the future.
When Ministers were in Bonn in May, did they take the opportunity to talk to their German counterparts about why efforts in Germany with the Renewable Energy Sources Act have been so much more successful than Labour’s efforts in the United Kingdom in promoting a range of renewable technologies? What do they learn from that? How do they plan to address the failure of our framework to give the lead in promoting renewables that we need if we are to meet our climate change targets?
As a new Minister, I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss issues with my German counterpart, but I reject the suggestion that we are not taking action on renewables. Under the renewables obligation—the targets that we have set for renewable energy—we want to generate 15 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2015, and with the renewable transport fuel obligation, we want 5 per cent. of our fuels to come from renewable sources by 2010. That clearly demonstrates that the Government are taking action on renewables, and we will continue to do so in the future. Indeed, that is a significant part of the work that has been undertaken by the energy review.
Carbon Capture
As a key element of the EU-China partnership, the UK is leading the first phase of a three-year feasibility study for a near-zero emissions coal with carbon capture and storage demonstration plant in China, and supporting it with £3.5 million of funding. We are also working closely under the EU climate change programme to establish a regulatory framework on carbon capture and storage within the EU, including a recognition of CCS projects in the EU emissions trading scheme.
I thank my hon. Friend for his extensive answer, and I am sure that he will agree that there is no better example of the UK Government’s efforts than the agreement on carbon capture that was signed by Sir David King with the Chinese in Beijing. However, will my hon. Friend look further afield and take a look at the American systems of dealing with carbon capture and come to an agreement with the Americans, so that we can start to reduce in greater volumes the carbon emissions that come particularly from that country? Will he also look at the benefits that that will create for the workers and business in the United Kingdom?
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of carbon capture and storage technology. I am pleased that it is recognised as such by the European Commission, and he will be aware of what Commissioner Dimas said recently about carbon capture and storage. We are very interested in talking to the Americans about CCS technology. Along with a number of colleagues, I visited Canada recently and was very interested to hear about the Canadians’ plans and proposals for CCS technology. It is an important technology for the future, and it is right that the UK is involved at its leading edge.
How much confidence does the Minister have that the European Union can carry through this project, given that it could not even open up the gas market in continental Europe? That led to people in this country having to pay £186 extra last year, because of the failure of the Government and the EU.
Across Europe, there is a wide interest in carbon capture and storage technology, not least because of the coal reserves that exist in Europe and issues to do with security of energy supply. I am optimistic about progress over the coming months and years in respect of CCS technology, and about ensuring its inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme. That will be an important benefit: it is the kind of advantage that we need to provide to incentivise CCS technologies to come on stream.
As well as pressing for carbon capture and storage in China, should we not be working to demonstrate it here, so that, with clean-coal technology, our indigenous British coal industry can have a future? Will the Minister press for that during the energy review?
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that matter is indeed being looked at as part of the energy review. Carbon capture and storage is an important technology, and it will be essential for our future internationally. CCS is part of a package of measures that we will need if we are to achieve our target of a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 by 2050.
Energy Recovery (Waste Incineration)
Our recent consultation paper on waste policy envisaged that energy from waste would deal with up to 27 per cent. of municipal waste by 2020. The extent to which energy from waste can contribute to our renewable energy targets is being considered as part of the Government’s current energy review.
I am grateful for that reply. My constituents are concerned about the proposals for expansion in respect of incinerators—they are particularly conscious of the neighbouring Edmonton incinerator. Given the proposals for a threefold increase in their number over 15 years, what are the Government’s proposals in terms of harnessing and utilising energy from incineration plants?
They are not proposals yet; they are merely suggestions in a consultation document. If proposals come, they will do so when we publish the new strategy in the autumn.
I acknowledge that in the past there was public concern about incineration—although, to be frank, I think that some of it was based on outdated fears about potential dangers from incineration. We have climate change concerns, and there is no doubt that good waste-to-energy technology is better for the environment and our climate change targets than sending waste to landfill. The fact is that we will need a lot more waste-to-energy and recycling—those steps go together in every other European country, and there is no reason why they should not do so here, too.
Are there lessons to be learned from Scandinavian countries that are moving away from recycling towards combined heat and power, thereby providing domestic houses and local businesses with cheaper forms of heating from distance warming? Those countries care deeply about the environment, and they assure their public that there are minimum—perhaps zero—particles. Why can we not adopt the same system in this country?
The hon. Lady is right that there is huge potential for combined heat and power—and also for energy from waste, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) suggested. However, she is wrong to suggest that countries on the continent are moving away from recycling. In percentage terms, there may be a slight downward trend in their domestic recycling, but they are still far ahead of us in terms of how much they recycle. I can give the hon. Lady the figures: in Sweden, for example, the recycling rate is 38 per cent. and 45 per cent. for waste-to-energy. Although our recycling levels have trebled under this Labour Government, they are still down at only about 25 per cent.
As part of my hon. Friend’s consultation exercise on waste reduction, will he have a look at the unit in Coventry, which serves the major part of the west midlands?
I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I will have the opportunity to visit the unit to which he refers, but I will certainly make sure that my officials provide me with a full report on the contribution that it is making.
Surely one way to overcome the difficulties associated with the public’s buying into incineration is for Government to insist that companies use more recycled material, so that we do not have to pursue a future involving incineration.
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. A week ago, a report was published—he may have missed it, as a lot is going on in this House and in government in general—by the Sustainable Procurement Task Force, which is chaired by Sir Neville Simms. In its action plan, the taskforce will look at increasing significantly the proportion of recycled materials sourced by companies.
Air Quality
The Greater London Authority Act 1999 gave the Mayor responsibility for improving air quality in London. He published his air quality strategy in September 2002, setting out proposals for implementing policies in the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is currently under review. Local action under the Mayor’s strategy is supported by a range of actions at national and international levels.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. It is all very well saying that this issue is the responsibility of the London Mayor, but the European Commission is threatening to impose huge fines on this country for the very poor air quality in London, and it is the Government, not the Mayor, who will pay the fines. One measure that the Secretary of State might consider is doing something about the traffic flow in London to get it moving again. The Government’s statistics show that in the past decade, traffic volumes have been static, whereas traffic speeds have actually gone down—from 13.7 mph to 12 mph. Why does he not do something about it?
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s brass neck. The party that opposed the congestion charge root and branch is now complaining about the speed of London traffic. The party, I hasten to add, whose policy it is to force cyclists on to the pavements is now—
Order. It is not for the Secretary of State to talk about the policy of the party concerned. I call Mr. Edward Garnier.
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that one influence on air quality in London is air traffic and aviation pollution? Will he apply his mind to discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Transport, to ensure that efforts to deal with aviation pollution lead to an improvement in air quality not just within London but, for example, in the region of Nottingham East Midlands airport?
As we discussed earlier, it is the Government’s policy to ensure that airline emissions are included in the European emissions trading scheme. I can also reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are working hard in Europe on the ambient air quality directive, which I will discuss in Luxembourg on Tuesday. I can further reassure him that I will discuss it with mainstream Christian democratic and socialist parties, not with the Latvian peasants’ party.
Water Resources
In England and Wales, the Environment Agency has a statutory duty to manage water resources, and it has a 25-year forward-looking strategy, entitled “Water Resources for the Future”. Water companies also produce 25-year water resources plans to reconcile supply and demand. In April 2007, the production and maintenance of these plans by companies will become a statutory requirement under the Water Act 2003.
I am grateful for that answer. The Minister will be aware that just yesterday, Thames Water admitted that, for the third year on the trot, it has missed its leakage reduction target. At the same time, it announced a 31 per cent. increase in its profits. Will the Minister tell the House today what is being done to make sure that the regulator is taking the necessary steps to ensure that increased water charges to consumers are not just put into increased dividends, but used to increase spending on dealing with leakages?
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was not listening a moment ago when I clearly said that Thames Water’s leakage rates are unacceptably high. As I also said, that is, in the first instance, a matter for the regulator, and we expect the regulator to want to assess Thames’s returns and decide on appropriate action. The regulator has powers under the Water Act 2003 to fine a company up to 10 per cent. of turnover. I have to point out, again, that the Conservative party voted against that Act, which would have meant those powers not being available.
Given that we understand that water metering would reduce water consumption by 15 per cent., and given that the average consumption per household is between 140 and 170 litres per week, what can we do, aside from taking personal responsibility by reducing our own consumption, to ensure that the Government give a lead nationally to the water companies, businesses and households? What is the target? What is the objective? Where will we get to if Government policy is followed?
As a Government, we believe that water metering has the ability to reduce water demand. Research suggests that water savings of something like 10 per cent. can result from metering, which is why the water savings group that I chair and which includes representatives from the industry, the Environment Agency, Ofwat and consumer groups is looking closely at what more can be done on metering. We do not think that universal compulsory metering is the right way to go, but in areas of water stress there is a strong case for looking at metering, and that is what the Government are considering.
The Minister will be aware that the whole of East Anglia is an area of water stress. Does he agree that the time has come for the Environment Agency and water utilities to have a bigger say in planning applications?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Anglian Water has a good record on leakage rates. It is supplying the same amount of water as it supplied in 1989 to 20 per cent. more customers, so it has done a lot about water efficiency.
Of course, water companies need to be involved in the planning process. The Water Act 2003 enables them to be statutory consultees on regional spatial strategies and local planning applications. It is important that the voices of water companies and of the Environment Agency are heard in planning applications, and that is taken into account in the process at the moment.
Bovine Tuberculosis
The Krebs report concluded that badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. That was nine years ago, since when all we have had is endless consultation by the Department, and no action. Is the Minister happy that hundreds of thousands of cattle have been slaughtered and countless badgers have suffered this form of TB? All we get is endless drift and inertia from a Department whose very hallmark is inaction. What we need is to grip this long-running, tragic situation.
Of course we are not happy about the situation, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say nothing has happened since the Krebs trials. He may have missed it, but we have been conducting the first—the only; no trials were conducted by previous Governments—scientific trials into badger culling. We are culling more badgers than were culled when the Conservative party was last in office. We are considering the results of our consultation on that and shall make an announcement in due course.
I may also say that, in the past six months, there has been a fairly significant reduction in bovine TB, and it is very important that we should understand the reasons for that before we reach any decisions.
The Conservatives, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, have been calling for a very long time for action on bovine tuberculosis. Yesterday, on the news, we were informed that major trials were taking place on the immunisation of badgers. Why did we have to find out about the new trials from the BBC? Why did the Minister not inform the House first?
The hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of the House for all that long; in fact, we announced that we would be trialling vaccines on badgers a long time ago, before he was a Member.
What did the Minister mean when he said “due course”? When will we find out what he is doing about the consultation? I believe there are 47,000 respondents—he must be reading each response individually. When did the Minister decide to abandon the concept of replacement value for cattle? I have a copy of the June compensation tables. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a big difference between a four-year-old cow and one of 14 years old, yet the Government have made no attempt to allow proper compensation for the culling of those poor beasts.
That is rather a lot of questions. I have nothing further to add to what I said about timing. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his question that there had been 47,000 responses to the consultation, which may be a record for any Government consultation. Of course, it is important that the Government take those representations seriously, and that we study the science. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about compensation, he is aware that a number of independent reports have criticised the Government and the Welsh Assembly for seriously over-compensating farmers for TB reactors and that we have a new system based on table valuations, with 47 categories. That was consulted on twice. We are always looking at ways to improve the system, but it is already proving extremely effective in addressing the serious issue of over-compensation that occurred previously.
Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia
Due to the serious nature of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia, controls have to be placed on entire river catchments following confirmation of the disease. Sampling of fish in the River Ouse catchment has been undertaken, as have preparations to disinfect the single affected fish farm. We are working closely with fish farms in the area to ease restrictions as quickly as possible.
I thank the Minister for his helpful and sympathetic letter yesterday in response to the representations I have made on behalf of a number of my constituents. He acknowledges the adverse impact on businesses, especially those engaged in rearing fish for restocking farms and fisheries. There is a major welfare problem so we need an urgent decision from him about whether, following further testing, those fish can be moved. What time scale does he envisage for that? Secondly, he suggests that he has asked his officials to look at the assistance that may be available to alleviate the economic impact of the disease. Has he been in touch with the European Commission about the matter, as some of our MEPs are making representations, too? They could support and agree with the aid that he has in mind.
I sympathise greatly with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents; fish farms in his area and in the constituencies of a number of other colleagues are suffering real hardship. My officials are working flat-out to try to resolve the issue as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are under legal rules—both UK and European—about how we deal with such diseases. It is very important that our priority remains to contain and eradicate the disease so that it does not spread and make the problem worse elsewhere. We are looking at ways of reducing the size of the area under restriction and that is under active consideration. I cannot give him an exact time scale, but I can assure him that we are doing everything that we possibly can. If he and other Members would like to bring a delegation from their constituencies to meet me, I would be happy to discuss the issue with them.
I associate myself with all the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Does the Minister accept that VHS could destroy a number of commercial fisheries, such as Danebridge Fisheries Ltd in my constituency, which has been in business for 28 successful years? Will he give an assurance that if there is compulsory slaughter of fish, due to the disease, the Government will pay compensation; otherwise, such companies will disappear, to the disadvantage of the consumer?
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The policy under successive Governments has been not to compensate for fish diseases. If anything, the way in which we pay for the cost of animal diseases is moving more and more in the direction of cost-sharing between industry and the taxpayer. However, I will look into other ways in which we can help to support the industry; for example, it would be sensible for the industry to set up its own hardship fund, from which a business could seek help if it got into serious trouble. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join the delegation of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and meet me to talk about the matter in greater length.
What economic assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the disease? It is all very well—and probably very helpful—to call for a hardship fund, but what will the cost be, looking at the big picture? We want to know, because the track record of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not that great when it comes to handling these diseases. We have heard all the right words, but we have not seen the right actions in the past. We would also like to know how the disease got here in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, if he does not already, that the UK has an extremely good record on fish health—probably among the best of any member of the European Union. We want to keep these diseases out. I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer to his last point about where the disease came from. We simply do not know at the moment, but there is an intensive epidemiological investigation under way. If we get a better idea, we will keep the House informed. The cost depends on how many businesses are ultimately affected. My understanding is that the businesses that are worst affected at the moment—as raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale and one or two others—are those that move fish out to other fish farms for breeding or catching. The majority of the fish farms in the area that are producing trout and other fish for consumption should not be affected, because once those fish have been killed and gutted, there is nothing to restrict them from being exported to shops and sold in the normal way.
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give the business for the coming weeks?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 26 June—Second Reading of the Charities Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 27 June—A debate on pensions reform on a Government motion.
Wednesday 28 June—A motion to approve the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006, which is the order relating to the extension of the detention period to 28 days, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Lottery Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Childcare Bill.
Thursday 29 June—Remaining stages of the Commons Bill [Lords].
Friday 30 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
Monday 3 July—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the work of the Electoral Commission, followed by a debate on human reproductive technologies and the law. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Tuesday 4 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 3) Bill, followed by the Ways and Means resolution on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 5 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 6 July—A debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 7 July—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 6 and 13 July will be as follows:
Thursday 6 July—A debate on the report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the analogue switch-off.
Thursday 13 July—A debate on the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on the efficiency savings programme in Jobcentre Plus.
Following is the information: In so far as they relate to human reproductive technologies and the law (Fifth report of the Science and Technology Committee, session 2004-05 (HC 7-1) and the Government response (CM 6641) and the Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, A Public Consultation, Department of Health, 2005)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the coming two weeks. I am sure that he will have seen the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, which stated that the West Lothian question was now
“a time bomb that urgently needs to be defused”.
As he will also know, my right hon. Friend Lord Baker introduced a Bill in another place to resolve that problem. Will the Government bring forward proposals to address the issue and will there be a debate on the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee?
Did the Leader of the House see the report today of head teacher Peter Brackley, who has been praised by Ofsted for his outstanding educational vision, but is quitting teaching because of too much Government interference? Mr. Brackley is reported as saying:
“I have grown increasingly frustrated by the constant avalanche of central government policies many of which are ill-conceived and inadequately resourced. Sadly education suffers from too much interference and not enough trust”.
Can we have a statement from the Education Secretary on how he intends to reduce Government interference and restore trust in our teachers?
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asked the Prime Minister:
“A year ago, my friend told us that a decision to replace Trident would have to be made in this Parliament. Would not it be an absolute outrage if billions were squandered on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote in the House?”
The Prime Minister’s response was:
“As I think I said before, there should be the fullest possible debate on the issue. I am sure that there will be and that, yes, the decision will have to be taken in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 1315.]
He did not comment on whether there would be a vote in the House, so will the Leader of the House tell us whether the debate on Trident and the future of the nuclear deterrent will take place on a substantive motion, thus enabling hon. Members to vote on the issue? When will that debate be held?
Of course, that question of timing is more relevant given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Mansion House speech last night that he believed in retaining the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent in the long term. Of course, what the Chancellor said and what his aides briefed out were different. He talked about retaining the nuclear deterrent, yet the briefing referred to the replacement of Trident. The Financial Times reported:
“‘Gordon is in no doubt that if the military chiefs recommend a full replacement for Trident then that is what we must deliver,’ said a close ally of Mr Brown.”
I know that a defence debate is about to take place, but will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement on Trident so that he may answer questions from hon. Members about his speech and Government policy in the area?
Of course, it is not unusual for the Chancellor to deal with matters that are not in his direct remit. In the past six months, he has spoken about liberty and the role of the state, Britishness, security and anti-terrorism, and the environment. Given that the Chancellor now has such a wide-ranging role, will the Leader of the House arrange for time in the parliamentary programme for questions to the Prime Minister-designate?
Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the influence of popular culture on political life? I am sure that many hon. Members will be saddened to hear about the demise of “Top of the Pops”, which has played such a role in the cultural life of the nation. Of course, pop songs can be very relevant to politics. For example, given the Home Secretary’s recent problems, I wonder whether he should listen to the U2 track “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”. Perhaps we could have a touch of Dire Straits for the Deputy Prime Minister with the track “Money for Nothing”. I suppose that the Chancellor might look to Diana Ross with “You Keep Me Hangin’ On”. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like the Clash’s “Should I Stay or Should I Go”. Talking of clashes, perhaps the Chancellor would describe his relationship with the Prime Minister with the White Stripes track “Every Day I Love You Less and Less”. Or, given the Chancellor’s commitment to new Labour, maybe his track for him and the Prime Minister should be Elton John’s “Friends Never Say Goodbye”:
“There isn’t much I haven’t shared
With you along the road…
Who’s to say who’s right or wrong
Whose course is braver run
Still we are, have always been
Will ever be as one”.
The first question that the right hon. Lady asked me was about the West Lothian question and the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I have indeed read with interest. We have no plans for an immediate debate on the issue. It has been debated at great length. What the Conservatives—who used to be called the Conservative and Unionist party and were concerned about the break-up of the Union—need to think about is that however superficially sedulous the West Lothian question may be, it is a very dangerous idea to argue that Members of this House should not be able to vote on issues that affect the whole of the United Kingdom. We determine in this House, with a vast majority of English MPs, total spending in the Scottish Parliament, because we decide the block grant. We decide many other issues for Scotland. It was we who decided to vote, again with a majority of English MPs, in favour of the Scotland Act 1998 and of the Government of Wales Act 1998. We are a unitary country and we remain so. I am proud to have been a member of an Administration which, with support from the Liberal Democrat party and others, ensured a good measure of devolution to Scotland and Wales, while preserving the Union.
The right hon. Lady’s second question was about the head teacher who is mentioned in one of the newspapers. Of course I am very sorry, as I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is, about that particular head teacher and his concerns about education. However, we should not generalise from the concerns of one individual. Anybody who goes into schools across the country can see the dramatic improvement that is shown by many indicators. It is shown in the salaries of head teachers and in the professional support now given to head teachers. Above all, it is shown in the fantastic increase in standards being delivered by those head teachers to our schoolchildren. It is reprehensible of the Opposition to seek to denigrate the fantastic performance of teachers across the country in raising standards for all our children.
The right hon. Lady then asked me about Trident. Our manifesto at the 2005 general election stated that we—the Labour Government—are
“committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent”.
In speaking about the longer term, as well as this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully consistent with that manifesto commitment put before the British people at the last election. Decisions on Trident’s replacement have yet to be taken. When they have been taken, they will be put to Parliament in a White Paper. I cannot anticipate at this stage the most appropriate form of debate, but it will be in a form that shows proper respect for the House. I hope that by the time of our White Paper and the debate, the Conservative party will have determined not just what its policy is on Trident, but whether it has a policy.
Of course we have a policy: retain and replace.
If that is the policy, why was it not mentioned in the Conservatives’ 2005 manifesto? The 2005 Conservative manifesto was completely silent on the issue of Trident’s replacement.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister-designate. I am glad to know that she believes that the Prime Minister-designate is the Chancellor, not the Leader of the Opposition. Finally—I congratulate her researchers on their efforts—she came up with some laboured quotations from titles of various pop songs. I will not try and compete with her—I apologise for that—except to say that, like her, I deeply regret the passing of “Top of the Pops”, which connected me, and no doubt her, to our youth.
My right hon. Friend will aware of the Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask campaign, which is about trying to get a Bill on climate change into the Queen’s Speech. It is a big issue—I had a huge meeting at Lambeth Friends of the Earth last week—and we want to set targets year by year. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on climate change before the end of the Session so that Members who have been involved with the campaign might influence what goes into the Queen’s Speech?
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the issue, as I know of her constituents’ great concern and of the work that she has done. She, in turn, will know that it has become a major priority not only for the Government but, through our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for the G8, and it will be followed up at the forthcoming G8 summit in St. Petersburg. I cannot promise a debate before we rise for the summer recess, but I promise that I will do my very best to see whether we can have a debate this Session before the Queen’s Speech.
What are the right hon. Gentleman’s intentions regarding a welfare reform Bill? The consultation paper from the Department for Work and Pensions makes the process clear:
“The timescale is now pressing (given that we intend to have the new Employment and Support Allowance in place from 2008). We therefore hope to introduce a Welfare Reform Bill in this Parliamentary session and to seek Royal Assent by Easter 2007.”
Is it the intention to introduce a Bill before the summer recess, and is it the right hon. Gentleman’s intention that it should be carried over to the next parliamentary Session, which is the only conclusion that we can draw from the statement in the White Paper?
Once again, can I ask for a debate on post offices? I accept that this is a well-worn track, as the issue has been raised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it remains a pressing need. I will receive two petitions this weekend from constituents who are concerned about the future of their local post offices. I did not organise those petitions—they were organised by my constituents, who are worried about the future of their local post office. There is a pressing need to hold a debate, because the termination of the Post Office card account has been announced, and sub-post offices have lost the right to issue the BBC television licence. I understand that, next year, the contract with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for the issuing of the road fund licence is to end. Before a decision is made to give that contract to someone else, can we have a debate in the House on the future of the Post Office?
Finally, as the nights are now drawing in, may I set the scene for our consideration late in the evening and ask for a debate on the conundrum of ministerial responsibility, which puzzles all of us? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked a question about the new post of liveability Minister. The Prime Minister did not deny that he was going to make such an appointment, but he did not confirm it, nor did he give any indication of who would be the liveability Minister. However, he said:
“Liveability is the ability of local communities to be free from crime and fear”.—[Official Report, 21 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 1315.]
I take the old-fashioned view that making sure that communities are free from crime and fear is the job of the Home Secretary, so is that a responsibility of which he has now officially divested himself?
On a welfare reform Bill, we hope to introduce such a measure. It is a candidate for carry-over, on which there will be consultations with the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on post offices, implying that there had not been any debates on the financing of rural post offices. However, there have been a great many, not least on the Adjournment and in Westminster Hall. He will know that because of changes to the way in which people communicate with one another and in banking practice, the Post Office operates in a more commercial environment. No, I cannot promise a debate before a decision is made by the Post Office—and not by Ministers—on whether it can win a contract with, for example, the DVLA, because that is a matter between the DVLA and the Post Office. Of course, issues of public service will be taken fully into account. Notwithstanding the closure of some post offices, 99 per cent. of people in urban areas—I accept that the figure is lower in rural areas—live within a mile of their local post office, and the network of post offices is still substantial. In addition, the level of subsidy from the public purse to support the network in rural areas is still very high.
On the interesting issue of ministerial responsibilities and liveability, we are all responsible for making sure that our communities are liveable, but I wish that a different word had been chosen—
Out of respect for the English language.
The English language is always developing, but sometimes developments take place that we may not appreciate.
The Home Secretary remains fully responsible for our law and order policy. Government policies on health, housing, the built environment and education all contribute to whether an area is congenial, peaceful, quiet and enjoyable—in other words, liveable.
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the present debate about Thames Water, which has decreased its capital spending while increasing prices enormously? May we have a debate on the whole saga since privatisation of the water companies by the Conservative party? The public not only in the Thames region, but across the country, feel that they are being ripped off by companies that shove up the salaries of their senior operatives—the chief executive and so on—and shove up prices for the consumer, but do not invest in order to provide the water supply that we need.
I will do my best. My hon. Friend is reflecting widespread concern, particularly on this side of the House, about the original water privatisation conducted by the Conservative party. Something has gone wrong with the balance between investment and profit. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has witnessed the huge waste of water that pours from an unending series of leaks which, after years and years of claiming to have put them right, Thames Water still allows to happen.
The Leader of the House will be aware that the United States Senate is this week considering American policy in Iraq and that the House of Representatives had a similar opportunity quite recently. Does it not remain a disgrace that, in more than a year since the previous general election, the Government have not provided any time in this House for British Government policy on Iraq to be fully debated? Will the Leader of the House give us a categorical assurance today that such an opportunity will be provided before the House rises for the summer recess?
With respect, that is simply incorrect. Today’s main debate is on defence. [Interruption.] The most important priority for our defence forces—[Interruption.]
Order. We must be temperate in our language. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a question, he must remain silent when the answer is given.
There is an Adjournment debate today on defence, when those issues not only can be raised, but will be raised and have been raised in the past. Our policy on Iraq is of fundamental importance to our defence forces, because they are implementing it. Furthermore, there will be a debate on armed forces personnel, which is another opportunity to raise the issue. I do not accept the premise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question.
Before I ask my question, I should point out to the House that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was incorrect, because “Every Day I Love You Less and Less” is sung by the Kaiser Chiefs, not the White Stripes, which demonstrates that in popular culture, as in other things, the Conservative party has got it completely wrong. With reference to the right hon. Lady, I am tempted to refer to the Artic Monkeys’ song, “Mardy bum”, but I shall be more gracious, and say, “I bet you look good on the dance floor”.
Following the Israeli Prime Minister’s visit to this House last week, and given the hugely significant events in the middle east, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on the peace process in the middle east? Recent Adjournment debates on that subject have been absolutely packed—
Thank you. Given the UK Government’s vital role in the peace process, such a debate would allow hon. Members to discuss the issue, Government policy and future prospects for peace in the middle east.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his corrections in respect of the poor research by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I say to her affectionately that that shows the danger for those of us of a certain age—[Interruption]—I am speaking for myself—in trying to pretend that we have knowledge of the younger generation.
I understand the concerns about the need for a wide debate on middle east foreign policy. The programme until the summer recess is under considerable pressure, but we will do our best.
The House has a genuine problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly makes speeches on issues beyond his Department, such as Trident, Northern Ireland and sub-Saharan Africa. You, Mr. Speaker, would rule us out of order if we were to ask the Chancellor about those subjects at Treasury questions, so we need a mechanism for the Prime Minister-elect, as I think that he would like to be known, to come to the Dispatch Box. Will the Leader of the House relieve the Deputy Prime Minister of his Question Time—which the Deputy Prime Minister, who no longer has any responsibilities anyway, clearly dislikes—to allow the Chancellor to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions beyond his Department, which we would find very interesting?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. We all make speeches that range more widely than our immediate responsibilities, and we have always done so.
We do not all get the front page.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to come to Blackburn town centre on a Saturday when I am doing my soapbox sessions, he would see that I range across Government policy, which I hope that I remember correctly.
Will the Leader of the House bring forward the date for the next energy debate? Energy security should be at the core of the debate because it is the most important issue. Incidentally, “Keep on running” by Spencer Davis would have been a better response to the shadow Leader of the House.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead has started something. Perhaps we will keep it going next time.
Energy security is of fundamental importance, and it is one of the reasons why we are currently conducting a full review of energy policy. A White Paper will be presented to the House in due course, and once it is before the House, it will be debated.
The Leader of the House knows that yesterday Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor called for a review of abortion law in the light of the fact that most babies born at 24 weeks now survive and that last year there were more than 3,000 abortions at or after 20 weeks. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a Committee of both Houses to examine the matter in measured and considered terms and then make time for a debate on that Committee’s conclusions?
I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman, His Grace Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and many others have about this, but he will appreciate that equally strong views are held on the other side of the argument. The hon. Gentleman requests the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses. Joint Committees are sometimes established, but usually for specific purposes. I have not yet heard a good case made for establishing a Joint Committee for this purpose. We have a very adequate arrangement in this House called the Select Committee on Health, which, if it wishes, can establish its own inquiry into the matter. Then, depending on the weight of its recommendations, we would consider whether to provide time on the Floor of the House. I think that that is the appropriate way to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) and I have different perspectives on the middle east situation, but I fully endorse his request for a debate in Government time on the Israel-Palestine situation. His Westminster Hall debate was very well attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House with widely differing opinions, and it was exactly the same story a few months ago in a debate called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), when more Members wanted to speak than there was time available. If my right hon. Friend looks at the Order Paper, he will see an early-day motion that already has 93 signatures, calling for both sides in that conflict—not one side, but both sides—to renounce violence, and for a return to a negotiated settlement, not unilateral actions. This is a matter of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and I endorse the call for an early debate to give everyone a chance to express a view on this key matter for world security.
I note what my hon. Friend says. I understand his deep commitment to the issue, which is widely shared, from different perspectives, across the House. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Chief Whip. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but in turn I ask him, and the House generally, to understand the pressures on the parliamentary programme.
Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday the Northern Ireland Grand Committee had one of its shortest meetings, following a protest by several Members about the Government’s failure to resolve the issue of permitting the Grand Committee to meet in Northern Ireland, which left only three of Northern Ireland’s 18 Members of Parliament present in the Committee? On 8 June the Leader of the House wrote to me indicating that he would not be surprised that there remains an absence of consensus on this issue. The Conservatives have said that they would like the Committee to meet in Northern Ireland, and the Liberal Democrats have done the same. The Government have said that they are content that it should meet in Northern Ireland, and the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists have said that they want it to meet in Northern Ireland. That leaves only the Social Democratic and Labour party. Why should three Members of this House be able to veto what more than 640 others might wish to happen? On the BBC website this week, the SDLP’s leader is quoted as saying that his party was not opposed to the Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. If there is now a consensus, will the Leader of the House give us a firm undertaking that the next meeting of that Committee will be in Northern Ireland?
The big question is whether there is a consensus. The hon. Gentleman spelled out why that is not the case at the moment. Of course I would like there to be a consensus—but what he describes is not a consensus but a disagreement. I will pursue the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see whether further steps, to which he is very committed, can be taken to reach the consensus that so far has proved elusive.
In 2007, it will be the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, led by the Hull MP, William Wilberforce. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture is visiting Hull next week to see what celebrations we are planning. Will my right hon. Friend say what plans there are for the House to mark this important anniversary?
I accept that the anniversary is extremely important. During the visit by the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, we went to the slavery museum in Liverpool, which was a poignant time for her, just as I had visited the civil rights museum in her birthplace of Birmingham, Alabama, which for me raised the issue of slavery very powerfully. I cannot make an announcement at this stage about plans by the Government or for this House, but I promise to talk to my hon. Friend. I accept the importance of ensuring that this 200th anniversary is appropriately marked.
The Leader of the House may be aware that I have served as chairman of the campaign for defence and multilateral disarmament, the object of which is to promote an informed dialogue about the nuclear deterrent. Does he agree that that subject is not only of profound importance to this country, and indeed to mankind, but complicated? May we have an early debate in Government time on the nuclear deterrent and its replacement? It is far too important a subject to leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw away in a reference—or career move—in a speech at Mansion house, which was subsequently denied by his staff.
I have already said that there will be a debate, and there will be a White Paper. Our manifesto was clear on this issue, while the hon. Gentleman’s party’s manifesto, despite having been drafted by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is now Leader of the Opposition, was completely silent on whether the Conservatives would continue with the nuclear deterrent if they were to be returned. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in talking about the long term was entirely consistent with our manifesto commitment, which states:
“We are…committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent”.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s interest and expertise in this field. As he said, it is not only an issue that generates a lot of emotion but a complicated matter, and the more debate there is, the better.
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 2391, on the International Whaling Commission’s decision to lift the 20-year moratorium on the killing and slaughter of those beautiful mammals?
[That this House notes with concern the fact that for the first time the pro-whaling alliance won a majority of support at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) voting to end the 20 year old whaling moratorium; recognises that to end the moratorium a majority of 75 per cent, is required and that the 51 per cent, majority secured is a major shift in the IWC stance; condemns the actions of Japan and other whaling nations such as Norway and Iceland who have campaigned to secure the votes of small African and Caribbean countries in exchange for multi-million dollar foreign aid packages; and calls on members of the IWC to put the interests of many and often rare species of whale ahead of narrow self-interest.]
May I ask my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to work with the appropriate Department and Minister to get that decision changed, or to explore ways in which we can ban the sale of products derived from the killing and slaughter of those poor mammals?
As the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), is the only female representative on the Conservative Benches, perhaps “Only the Lonely” would be an appropriate song for her—[Interruption.]
The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “Man, I Feel Like a Woman”. [Interruption.]
What was the question again?
The question was about the International Whaling Commission and what was described as the disgraceful position taken by it. I have a helpful note here headed “Government position”, which is completely blank, and another headed “Lines to take”, which is also completely blank, so I will make it up myself—as I usually do.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan). He will know that the British Government’s position has been consistent in trying to preserve and maintain those beautiful mammals.
May I support the call for an early debate on the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility, which seems to have taken some punishment recently? Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to take part in that debate and explain what he meant by what he is reported to have said in today’s edition of The Times, when asked what would happen if he failed to improve the Home Office:
“What happens when any Cabinet minister fails at the Home Office? I think we’ve lost four.”
Does the Leader of the House regard that as a comradely remark?
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was not referring only to Cabinet Ministers when he mentioned losing four Home Office Ministers—it was four in aggregate. I am happy to say that that excludes me. I was at the Home Office as Home Secretary for four very happy and successful years—some say. There was the most intensive engagement in respect of Home Office issues—law and order, asylum and immigration, passports and much else. During the 2001 general election, I was pursued—almost literally—by the ever-vigorous right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who was then shadow Home Secretary. Despite the Opposition’s campaign, or perhaps because of it, and perhaps because of my record too, I am pleased to say that we won the election, not least on Home Office issues.
Last Friday, I received a welcome letter from the prisons Minister confirming that child sex offenders will not be placed in the bail hostel in my constituency, in response to a request that I made to the Home Office more than two years ago. This week there have been interviews with a chief constable who is not, and has never been, connected with my constituency, but is trying to put a different spin on the subject. May we have a debate on whether chief constables should stand for election if they are to be allowed to comment on things outwith their immediate purview?
Chief constables are entitled to their opinions, but they must accept that if they go into matters of great controversy, others will criticise them. It is the Conservative party that is currently considering whether to have elected police chiefs.
As a result of provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, police and probation services have the right to disclose information about sex offenders to the public or other bodies on a selective basis when they consider it appropriate. My hon. Friend’s experience of knowing about offenders and making representations, and the subsequent decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, all suggest that that policy is working. However, my right hon. Friend has announced that a Home Office Minister will go to America to consider the current application of what has been called Megan’s law. As I have said publicly, six years after the murder of Sarah Payne and the measures that we originally introduced, it is appropriate to consider whether we can draw on experience from overseas.
May we please have a debate in Government time on the loathsome scourge of human trafficking? Given that the Council of Europe convention on the subject was tabled in May 2005 and that so far no fewer than 24 of the 46 Council members have signed up to it, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a debate would allow the Home Secretary to explain why the Government still feel unable to sign it? After all, it would guarantee minimum standards of protection and treatment for all trafficked people.
The Government are not only committed to dealing with what the hon. Gentleman rightly describes as the scourge of human trafficking, but have taken many practical steps to tackle it. I am not immediately familiar with the reasons why we have not signed up to the convention so far. I promise to write to him as well as taking up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If there is a case for a debate, of course we will arrange one.
My right hon. Friend, more than anyone, knows about the continuing tragedy in Darfur. There was some optimism a few weeks ago, and I give due credit to the Secretary of State for International Development for managing to put together a peace agreement. However, since then there has been nothing but obstruction in Khartoum of the attempt to move from African Union to United Nations troops coming in to enforce the peace. Sadly, there is much evidence of small arms flooding into Darfur, especially from China, as the rebel groups splinter. Is not it time that hon. Members had a genuine opportunity to discuss in the Chamber what is happening in Darfur? It is a huge problem, and the eyes of the world are on it, but progress remains slow.
I accept my hon. Friend’s case. I am familiar with the continuing tragedy and outrage that is Darfur. I was more optimistic when, in January, I spoke firmly to all parties involved in the peace process in Abuja. Not least because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, we have got the agreement, but as my hon. Friend says, too many in Khartoum still resist implementing it.
I accept that we should have a debate if we have time. On arms flooding into Sudan, one of the reasons for the Government’s commitment to obtaining and implementing an international arms trade treaty is that once it exists, we can take genuine measures against not only the ballistic and nuclear weapons that are there but small arms and light weapons, which are all too readily available and fuel all conflicts, especially in Africa.
I wonder whether time could be found for a debate on the so-called private finance initiative to fund public buildings, services and facilities, which often ends up with the public paying considerably more for less. The scheme for the expansion of Colchester general hospital through PFI collapsed last week, leaving the NHS with a bill of £3 million wasted and the private sector with a bill of £7 million wasted, which it is trying to claim back from the NHS. The result is £10 million lost, no new facility and the voluntary sector in the town, which provides so much support for the health service, being denied its revenue because the NHS says that it cannot afford it.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply for an Adjournment debate on that issue; it is obviously a good subject for one. I do not know the details of what has happened in Colchester, but I stress that the PFI has generally been successful in ensuring much earlier investment in hospital services than would otherwise be the case. I waited 25 years for promises that the previous Government made to build a new hospital in my constituency to be fulfilled. It never happened, but as a result of a PFI decision in 1998, we now have a brand new district general hospital almost completed, up and running.
Rural Payments Agency
With permission Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Rural Payments Agency. In my written statement on 9 May, I promised to keep the House informed of progress made by the RPA on the single payments scheme. At oral questions today, no questions on the SPS were on the Order Paper. I therefore thought it right to give hon. Members the chance to raise the issue.
In summary, there has been some progress, but the situation is far from satisfactory. As of Tuesday 20 June, some £1.38 billion, representing more than 90 per cent. of the total fund, has now been paid to more than 100,000 applicants; 82,571 claims have been settled in full, and 18,785 applicants have received a partial payment and are awaiting their “top-up”.
On 9 May, I said that the priority for the RPA would be claims of more than €1,000 Euro where no payment had been made. The number of claimants in that category is now approximately 2,300. I recognise the hardship involved for them and deeply regret the distress caused. The RPA is taking further steps to pay those complex claims, including discussing issues direct with claimants and, when feasible, bringing parties together in cases of continuing disagreement—for example, when two or more parties have made a claim for the same piece of land. The RPA has written twice to all the individuals concerned.
I also recognise the importance of the unresolved hill farm allowance payments. Of the approximately 10,500 eligible HFA claims, 5,000 have been paid in full and a further 900 authorised for partial payments. Full and partial payments are continuing to be made.
The EU defined payment window for making 2005 SPS payments runs from 1 December 2005 until 30 June this year. Work is continuing to pay as many claims as possible by 30 June. However, farming leaders have made representations to me on behalf of the farmers who do not receive the full sum due to them during the legal payment window. I have therefore authorised the RPA to make interest payments at the London Interbank offered rate plus 1 per cent. calculated from 1 July, in respect of any payments where responsibility for the delay rests with the RPA. That will be subject to a minimum interest payment level of £50. Further details will be given on the timing of those payments once the RPA has assessed how they can be integrated most effectively into the existing payment schedule.
Work on delivery of the 2006 scheme to be paid between 1 December this year and 30 June next year is under way. As I said on 9 May and want to repeat today, the 2006 scheme year will be challenging. The RPA’s interim chief executive, Tony Cooper, has made an initial assessment of the task ahead. He has confirmed that, in respect of customer service and management information, there is no quick fix. Possible options for the 2007 scheme—for example, the use of a minimum payment level—are not available for 2006.
Against this background, farming leaders have understandably called for partial payments to be made in 2006, as they were in 2005. I have discussed the need for the necessary EU legislation to make partial payments with the Commissioner, Mrs. Fisher-Boel, and authorised the RPA to start work on the necessary systems. However, until the RPA chief executive has had an opportunity to make a realistic assessment of the prospects for full payments, I do not want to commit to a particular timetable or specify whether or when partial payments might be necessary. Initial validation of the 2006 claims is under way, and detailed validation should start next month. By the time the House returns after the summer recess, therefore, we should have a better understanding of the prospects for the 2006 scheme, and I will make a further statement then.
Given the position on the 2006 scheme, I have decided to simplify to the maximum extent possible the arrangements for the incorporation into the single payment scheme of additional support arising from last November’s landmark EU sugar reform. In practice, that means that the £52 million concerned will be added entirely to the entitlements held by sugar beet producers who meet the defined criteria, rather than some of the funds being used to increase the flat rate value of all entitlements. Further details, including on arrangements for 2007, will be announced in due course.
I can also report that an EU regulation has been adopted which provides for all 2006 claims to be accepted without penalty until 15 June. Under the original timetable, the limit would have been 15 May. This extra time above and beyond the extension to 31 May—to which I referred in my statement on 9 May—will mean that around 4,000 farmers will not now be penalised. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my gratitude to the European Commission for its understanding on this issue.
The fundamental review of the RPA that the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, set in train earlier this year will be important for the future of the RPA when it reports at the end of this year. In the meantime, I know that this year’s problems have caused real distress and I repeat the apology to farmers that I have made before, both in the House and elsewhere. I can assure the House that the new RPA chief executive, with the support of the Department, will be looking to take interim steps to aid the recovery process and to improve the experience of farmers dealing with the agency to the maximum possible extent. I will keep the House informed as matters progress.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for keeping the House informed of the modest progress that is being made to deal with this problem. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the BBC’s “Farming Today” programme probably heard about this statement before you did—but that is life these days, under new Labour. As I said, it is good to hear that modest progress is being made to address this appalling fiasco, which has brought added hardship to many in the farming community and related industries at a time of profound change, uncertainty and stress.
Many questions remain to be answered, however. How did the problems arise in the first place? What happens next? The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into what went wrong. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Committee will be given access to all the information that it needs to form a balanced, accurate and comprehensive view of the events that led to the failure to make payments on time? The Committee’s inquiry has already produced some interesting evidence, and we look forward to its findings with great interest. Meanwhile, the BBC’s “File on 4” programme has disclosed that the Office of Government Commerce gateway review was warning two years ago that there were severe problems with delivering the new system. Why were those warnings ignored?
I welcome the announcement that the Government will start paying interest on the money that they owe from 1 July. But what about the people who are entitled to payment but have received nothing for the six months before 30 June? Those people have been put at a huge competitive disadvantage by the Government’s incompetence, denial and mismanagement, and have been forced to take out commercial loans. The Secretary of State said that 90 per cent. of the total fund had now been paid, but he did not say—unless I missed something—how many claimants remained unpaid. I would be grateful if he could give us that information. Will he also tell us whether the hill livestock allowance claimants will benefit from the initiative on interest payments that he has announced today?
How many farmers will receive compensation equal to the salary of the sacked chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, who, as I understand it, is still on the payroll but doing nothing? What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the total bank interest paid to date by the farming sector in England as a result of his Department’s failure? What estimate has he made of the likely cost to British taxpayers of the Government’s failure to meet the 30 June deadline? Are we to assume that the Government’s humiliating plea to the European Union for an extension beyond that deadline has been refused? What discussions has he had with the EU Commission about the fines that Britain will have to pay for this failure? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about which budget the fines will be paid out of? If they will be paid out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget, what will the Secretary of State cut in order to pay them? Or will they come from some other source?
Does the Secretary of State realise that the RPA is still getting its field data wrong and making wildly inaccurate party payments? Will he tell us how many overpayments and underpayments have been recorded, and give us the value in each case? Can he give us the date on which he expects the 2005 payments to have been completed? Is he really unable to give us a date by which farmers can expect to receive their cheques for 2006? Can he guarantee that the UK will not face fines a second time?
Much has been made by Ministers of the hard work of the staff at the Rural Payments Agency, and I am sure that the majority of them have worked very hard to sort out the mess that their political masters have created. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to comment, however, on press reports about RPA staff who, even as calls to the rural stress network reached record levels, were cavorting naked in the office and hiding cups full of vomit in office cupboards?
We detected a bad smell about the handling of the single farm payment last year, but the Government denied that there was a problem. We called last year for the Government to introduce a partial payment scheme. Their refusal to open up that option at the time cost the farming community millions of pounds. We called on Ministers to return to farmers the interest that they had paid because of the Government’s failure, but again the door was closed. It has taken months for them to accept any financial liability at all. Every time we prise open the door on this wretched affair a little further, the smell gets worse.
The hon. Gentleman has asked some intelligent questions, which I shall address. However, he has also made some allegations that are completely unworthy of him, and should be rejected utterly. There is no question of the Department speaking to “Farming Today” about the interest payments that have been speculated about. We have made a point of being scrupulous in our engagement with stakeholders, and about coming to the House and not making “Farming Today” the first step.
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that there will be full co-operation with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I am not sure, however, whether he fully understands the purpose of the gateway reviews. Their role is to identify issues that need to be addressed, and at every stage the purpose of the different traffic lights is to show which those issues are. Officials and Ministers have tried to address those issues; they certainly have not ignored them.
I think that I made it clear in my statement that 2,300 claimants of more than €1,000 had not been—
How many in total?
If the hon. Gentleman will just contain himself, I can assure him that he will get the full picture. As I was saying, 2,300 claimants of more than €1,000 have not been paid, and about 12,000—it might be 12,200—claims of less than €1,000 have not been paid.
As for the taxpayers, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) will know that the European Commission requirement is not to pay 100 per cent. of the payments by the deadline. Obviously, some people die, and there are other reasons involved. The target is a 96.1 per cent. payment for the UK as a whole—this will be of interest to Members from outside England—and our commitment is to make as many payments as possible by 30 June. It would be wrong of me to make predictions, especially given the history of some previous predictions, but we have now reached over 90 per cent. for England, and we are trying to make as many payments as we can as soon as possible.
As for the completion of the 2005 scheme, which relates to the 30 June question, I have said that I want to meet as many claims as possible as fast as possible. The RPA is dealing with that, but I see no value in making predictions about when the process will be completed.
Finally, in respect of 2006, I think it right for me to say that our first commitment should be to seek every opportunity to make full payments, but if full payments are not possible, we have the backstop of partial payments. We shall ensure that the decision on partial payments is made at an early rather than a late stage.
As one of the co-rapporteurs on the EFRA Select Committee, whose members were selected as long ago as December last year to investigate the process, I welcome some of the progress that the Secretary of State has announced. However, 2,300 farmers have still received absolutely nothing.
The Secretary of State said that the Rural Payments Agency would be the subject of a root-and-branch review at some point during the next few months. Will he incorporate in that review an assessment of the success or otherwise of the specification, design, development, implementation and operation of the information and communications technology system? Will the review also consider the role of Accenture—a company whose performance has been patchy, to put it kindly—and that of the Office of Government Commerce, whose purpose is supposed to be to advise Government on these matters?
My hon. Friend raised an important point about the Hunter review, which was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett). Those conducting it will seek to learn all possible lessons from this year’s difficulties.
I cannot comment on “Farming Today”, but I note that the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was available on the Department’s website long before it was made available to the House. As a former journalist, I am delighted that at least one part of the Department is operating beyond its productivity quotas, namely the press and communications office. I hope that that does not reflect the Secretary of State’s priorities, because this continues to be a grave issue for a number of farmers. I was informed today that, in the last three days alone, five farmers who have received no payment have approached my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We now know from the Secretary of State’s own figures that a substantial number of claimants—nearly 15,000—have received no payment. That is obviously devastating for some of the farmers involved.
We are pleased that further progress is being made on payments. We are also pleased that the Secretary of State has seen fit to authorise interest payments, which we have requested for some time, and party payments for the 2006 single payment scheme, which we have also requested. However, it is worth noting that it is reported that the parliamentary ombudsman has received several complaints about the maladministration of single farm payments. If that is indeed the case, is it not clear that the interest payments have been granted at a time when the Government have a gun to their head?
Moreover, the Department’s proposed interest rate of 1 percentage point above the London interbank offered rate strikes me as surprisingly niggardly. There may be a farmer or two in the country who can borrow at 1 per cent. above LIBOR, possibly including the Duke of Westminster, but a more typical rate for small farmers would be between 3 and 4 per cent. above LIBOR. Although DEFRA has made that commitment, I should be grateful if it took account of what farmers have had to pay to relieve the liquidity crisis caused by its incompetence and reflected that more adequately in the proposed interest payments.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, by giving firm assurances that 96 per cent. of payments would be made by March 2006—assurances given as late as 2005—his Department raised farmers’ expectations about the timing of their payments above the legal minimum, and that that has seriously disadvantaged many farmers? How will he compensate them? Will he also undertake to assess the impact of mapping disputes causing farmers to miss the deadline for entry to agri-environment scheme?
In response to a question from a Liberal Democrat, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), said:
“Feed merchants are, to varying effects, likely to be affected by the cash-flow issues faced by farming business waiting for receipt of payments under the 2005 Single Payment Scheme”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 1209W.]
What plans has the Department to assess that impact accurately, and how will the Secretary of State ensure that feed merchants and other businesses that depend on farm revenues do not suffer?
As the Secretary of State knows—because he was asked about it by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)—the late payments will have an impact not just on the finances of rural communities, but on Government finances. However, I did not hear him specify a figure that he has told the Treasury to expect for the overrun that will be caused by the fact that the European Union will not meet any payments made by DEFRA after 30 June. What is that figure, and will it be met from the departmental budget? If so, what other budget lines will be cut to defray the extra cost? If not, will the Secretary of State assure us that the amount will be met from the contingency reserve? That would obviously be preferable for all concerned.
The Secretary of State said that a minimum payment level was not available for 2006. Given that the RPA has made a payment of just 1p, and that the costs of the £54 million IT system, if divided equally among claimants, would be about £450 per head, will he give urgent consideration to imposing a minimum threshold on payments for 2007 to prevent a repetition of this costly bureaucratic nonsense? I should be grateful if he also gave us an update on the trading of entitlements.
At least two of the hon. Gentleman’s questions were answered in my statement. I explained about the minimum threshold, which we are exploring seriously. I cannot believe that he disagrees that complicating the 2006 payments further at this stage would be dangerous, but we are considering the 2007 payments carefully. I referred to the mapping disputes that occur between different farmers. The RPA has told me that it will examine that issue with due speed.
The hon. Gentleman’s allegation about the website was a serious point. I am assured that, under departmental procedure, no copy of my statement would appear on the website until its conclusion in the House, but I will check as soon as this is over and write to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) if a breach has occurred.
As for the European Union and possible implications for the United Kingdom’s finances, issues of disallowance or fines are serious, but they are subject to negotiation and dependent on final figures for payments. The hon. Gentleman asked about the 96 per cent.; it would be unwise to start bandying figures until we know whether we have reached that amount.
I have discussed the particular circumstances surrounding the single payment scheme this year with Mrs. Fisher-Boel. My officials will work with her officials, and I will keep the House informed. I hope that there will be a reasonable outcome.
The Secretary of State again rightly acknowledged the difficulties that farmers have faced because of late payments. I hope he will accept that what is essential now is for no false promises to be made about 2006 payments. What farm businesses want is certainty. Will he make that his policy aim, and, more particularly, will he acknowledge that the difficulties have arisen partly because of changes in the common agricultural policy? Despite the difficulties at the RPA, further reform of the CAP is inevitable and necessary. Will the Secretary of State make that a major objective?
Continuing reform of the CAP is essential. The decoupling of payments from production achieved by my predecessor was a landmark change and the increasing emphasis on the second, rural development, pillar of the CAP is critical. On my hon. Friend’s first point, I hope that he recognises that, far from seeking to hide the difficulties ahead, in my statements of 9 May and today I have tried to be as clear as possible about them. I have said repeatedly that my assessment is that 2006 will be a very challenging year, but I am determined that we will keep farmers’ representatives and the House informed as the RPA grapples with these difficult issues. As to whether partial or full payments will be made for the 2006 scheme, I shall come back to the House in the autumn with the recommendation from the chief executive of the RPA.
In thanking the Secretary of State for his personal candour and contrition, may I ask whether he is truly aware of the depth of depression and concern in rural areas? Will he spend a goodly portion of the forthcoming recess touring the rural areas, talking to farmers and those who depend on them for their living? Will he seek to give them a sense of hope and tell them how he is going to deliver on it?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is part of my job to visit rural areas and farms in my working time as well as during holidays and at weekends. Certainly, that has been my practice for the past six weeks, and I intend to continue it—including this Saturday, when I shall visit a farm in Northumberland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the depth of depression and despair in rural areas. I do not underestimate that at all, nor the damage that has been done to the Department’s reputation among farmers. We are pursuing an ambitious and shared programme with farmers and farming communities to develop British agriculture, with strong supplier networks and so on. I am as keen as he is—if not more so—to ensure that that relationship is strengthened rather than weakened. That can happen only when the difficulties at the RPA are overcome.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and further apology. I also welcome the flexibility that he is displaying in trying to clean up the mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is right to say that we must not be derailed from securing further changes in the CAP. If the French and their allies see that the reforms are failing in this respect, it would play into their hands and we would return to the production subsidies regime. That would be unacceptable, as it is entirely the wrong way to help agriculture.
I do not want to prejudge the Select Committee’s approach to the matter, but no one has satisfactorily explained why there were so many more claimants. Is it not time to define much more carefully which people really are farmers and who needs the help? In the past, money seems to have gone to entirely the wrong people.
My hon. Friend makes some wide-ranging points. I can assure him that we will continue the drive to reform the CAP and it is important to make the link with the World Trade Organisation negotiations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the usual practice is that the House should be informed as soon as possible when information comes to hand about issues that have been raised. I have just been passed a note about the statement’s appearance on the website, about which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was so concerned. The instructions were that the statement should appear on the website as I gave it, and I asked my officials to check that that happened. I gather that the statement was released to the House, to Government and Opposition Whips and to Mr. Speaker at 10 am, in accordance with the usual procedure. However, I shall certainly check that further.
Does the Secretary of State accept that this country’s food producers and farmers operate in a very competitive environment? Many make scarcely any profit on what they produce. I genuinely thank him for the modest gestures that he has announced today, with additional interest to be paid to farmers on money owed to them, but can he give a firmer assurance that farmers will receive their payments on time next year? Otherwise, we will be putting them at a serious disadvantage in the European context. Is it not a pity that we cannot decide these matters for ourselves, without reference to Europe?
The hon. Gentleman asks for certainty about next year’s payments and it is right that we prepare for all eventualities. We must make sure that the legal and other infrastructure is ready to make party payments, if necessary, but I hope that he will agree that it would be premature to commit to party payments now. Equally, it is right that I come back to the House in October with a written or oral statement to report on what the RPA chief executive has said about the prospects for full payments. If full payments for the 2006 scheme cannot be made at an appropriate time in 2007, it is clear that party payments will have to be the answer.
I genuinely welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State made today’s statement, and I am especially grateful for the apology that he made. Does he accept that farm incomes have fallen dramatically in the past five years and that farmers make payment claims in good faith? Although they may not wish to receive the subsidies, they come to rely on them.
The Secretary of State did not respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said about the alleged appalling and deplorable behaviour of RPA staff in Newcastle. Although I gather that most farmers in Vale of York have now received their money, they were at their wits’ end because, even as late as March, they had received none at all. Does he agree that RPA staff showed an utter lack of respect for their clients in partying and calling farmers names in the way that has been alleged? I hope that disciplinary action will be taken and that, if necessary, staff will be dismissed.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks and for reminding me about the question raised by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I apologise for not responding earlier and am glad to have another opportunity to do so.
The allegations are very serious, but there is an important distinction to be drawn. The hon. Lady implied that the whole office in Newcastle was at fault, whereas the hon. Member for East Surrey made it clear that most of the staff are hard-working and that only a minority indulged in antics that bring the RPA and the whole of public service into disrepute. Of course the behaviour is appalling and must be taken in the most serious possible way. I can tell the House that one member of staff has been dismissed, and that a number of others face severe disciplinary action. The behaviour—some of it alleged, but much of it substantiated—is completely unacceptable and needs to be dealt with in the most serious way.
The hon. Lady is right that many farm incomes are under pressure and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made the same point. However, I think that she will accept that the farming industry has different sectors, some of which are doing better than others. In addition, some sectors—such as the poultry sector, most obviously—are not involved in payments at all. It is important to recognise that we are not dealing with a single picture, but the message that I want to give is that British farming is important, for the countryside and for the whole country. We all benefit from a strong farming sector and it is incumbent on the Government to do all that we can in that respect. She is right that farmers want to be able to compete and win in world and domestic markets. If necessary, they should be paid for the public goods that they deliver, but their pride lies in producing products that people want to buy.
I apologise to the Secretary of State for my late arrival, but I was still chairing the Select Committee when he began his statement. Farm workers in my constituency are being paid off and farmers threatened with legal action for debt. I have referred many cases in which no payment has yet been made to Ministers in his Department, and to the Minister of State in particular. May I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to make it his business to ensure that the RPA makes payments to the people involved within days?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification and give him an absolute assurance that the 2,300 larger payments of more than €1,000 are our priority. However, the picture that he has painted previously of the relationship between some of his constituents and the banks is not repeated all across the country. We have been in touch with the banks, as have farmers’ leaders, making the very strong case that viable businesses should not be penalised for their difficulties with the RPA.
Dozens of farmers on Dartmoor in my constituency have yet to be paid their hill farm allowance. When will the payment of the HFA be complete?
Secondly, I was told recently by the chairman of the Devon county National Farmers Union that hundreds of forms for 2006 are being returned on the grounds that they are inaccurate or otherwise deficient. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the triviality of the grounds for returning these forms and particularly concerned about the fact that the condition placed on the grant of interest for payments made after 30 June is the weasel expression,
“where it is the fault of the Rural Payments Agency”.
Many hon. Members will know from their surgeries that delays in payment are often the result of inquiries that turn out, on examination, to be very trivial, easily resolvable and providing no proper basis for returning the form in the first place. Will the Secretary of State give a clear instruction to the RPA that it should take a robust view of the basis on which forms should be returned and of the whole question of fault when it comes to the payment of interest?
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some forms are returned for what may seem like a small matter—if a form is not signed, for example. At one level, that is incredibly annoying, but at another level, it is obvious that a form has to be signed. If a signature is missed out at the end of a form, it can cause problems, and a surprising amount of the traffic is about unsigned forms, though there may be other reasons.
In respect of interest, we have responsibilities to the Exchequer, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that the spirit as well as the letter of my commitment today is acknowledgment that the payments should have been made in the 1 December to 30 June window. It would be wrong of me to give a blanket commitment and it is important to include the point that it must have been the RPA’s fault. We start from the position that the non-payments were the fault of the RPA for the system as a whole, and I will ensure that we adopt a judicious approach to the problem.
I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he will look carefully into cases where mistakes were made not by farmers, but because of the RPA. One farmer in my area had to take out a loan of £30,000. Will he receive the interest payments on the loan that he had to take out, as he has been paid 90 per cent. of his claim only recently? Can we imagine what the House would hear if the Secretary of State’s salary and expenses were not paid for several months? If that happened, he would know exactly how much an arrangement fee for loan costs or how much interest has to be paid on borrowings that were taken up. Can the Secretary of State understand the anger of farmers who missed out as a result of a shambles that was made by people other than themselves? Nor is it only a matter of farmers feeling frustrated; some of them have become ill because of the stress that they suffered because of the fault of the RPA. Will he give an assurance that, if farmers can prove how much they have paid in interest and arrangement fees as a result of this shambles, they will be reimbursed that money as well?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion and the even greater passion of his constituents over this matter. It is part of the deal for farmers that they should expect efficient service from a public service organisation that is working for them. I appreciate that, but it is right for me to stick to what I said earlier today—that the interest will be calculated on the basis of payments outside the payment window of 1 December to 30 June. We intend to ensure that that is done in the appropriate way.
I am grateful for the circulation of the statement, which has enabled me to catch up with the two paragraphs that I missed at the beginning. Many farmers in my area who have undergone intense stress as a result of these problems will be disappointed at the fact that the Foreign Secretary is not in her place alongside the Secretary of State, as they regard her as primarily culpable. The stress is compounded because, in addition to the welcome partial interest payments just announced, the Secretary of State has made a fair admission of liability on the part of the Government. I hope that he will now look seriously into examining claims for the full consequential losses that flow from the incompetence of the Government and their agency. Certainty is, as repeatedly mentioned, a key matter for farmers in an increasingly uncertain and harsh competitive world. Many farmers are finding that the uncertainty surrounding their 2005 payments has undermined any certainty about the basis of their next payments, so they cannot plan, they cannot have the right discussions with their bank managers and they cannot move forward with any confidence. That is what farmers need and I hope that the Secretary of State will now give us a decent assurance.
The hon. Gentleman makes the case for getting on with paying the 2,300 outstanding claims for more than €1,000 as quickly as possible. That is my commitment.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, in dealing with questions of fair compensation on normal principles, the redress should be for actual loss? As was made clear by several of my hon. Friends, that is not the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding. He is trying to mitigate the loss. I do not want to be churlish, but I am not impressed by his apology. The fact is that people who have suffered losses should be paid full compensation, not only for interest payments but for the dislocation to their business. I have to tell the Secretary of State that I do not think that his statement and answers today are at all adequate for the purpose.
The Government have legal commitments in respect of payments under the single payment scheme, which apply between 1 December and 30 June. Where we failed to meet those legal commitments, it is right for us to pay the interest. That is the right basis for proceeding in this matter and it has been the basis for doing so in the House for many years.
This is a most unfortunate episode, as the Secretary of State and all the farmers in my constituency know. I welcome his decision to pay interest on outstanding costs to farmers, but when he looks ahead to reforming the Rural Payments Agency, will he consider giving it a positive duty to ensure that farmers receive all that they are entitled to? We have already heard about some of the rather trivial reasons given for not paying, so placing a positive duty on the RPA to do more than simply administer the system would be very helpful.
We will certainly look into that matter and any other ideas. It is the duty of the RPA to make payments accurately, efficiently and on time. That is certainly what we have to deliver.
As chairman of the all-party dairy farmers group, I would like to inform the Secretary of State that 72 Members have signed up to it, which shows the level of feeling on both sides of the House about protecting our dairy farmers. I want to ask him two questions. First, will he apologise to my Shrewsbury dairy farmers for the lateness of their payments and consequent stress caused? Secondly, will he give an assurance that similar delays will not occur next year?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, given that we discussed it three days ago, I am aware of the number of MPs in his dairy group—
A cross-party group.
Indeed, a cross-party group. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would be more than happy to meet his group. As to the apology and next year’s commitments, I think that he was in his place to hear my statement earlier, in which I openly and clearly dealt with both points.
I was asking about Shrewsbury farmers.
Shrewsbury’s farmers certainly have my apology. I can feel a press release coming out already about how the hon. Gentleman has winkled or even dragged a specific apology to Shrewsbury farmers out of a recalcitrant Secretary of State. Shrewsbury farmers have my apology, but it would be wrong for me to say that they have a greater apology than farmers anywhere else. Nevertheless, they have my apology and my commitment to pay them as efficiently and quickly as possible next year and for subsequent years.
Point of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with some regret that I have to make this point of order about what was said during questions this morning. It started when a journalist at The Times reported me as calling for a boycott of British strawberries, which is something that I never did, and that journalist was kind enough to write a note confirming that I never called for such a ban. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I should like to draw your attention to the fact that, when I was standing in the queue for the Table Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), whom I have told that I would make this point of order today, was standing in front of me. He tabled an early-day motion that suggested that those words were true, although I was able to show him the note from the journalist to prove that they were not true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) was unhappy with the truth of the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and was rightly brought to order. What I should like you to do if possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to insist that those very high standards of truthfulness and honesty on which we insist in the Chamber are also applied outside it, with particularly reference to early-day motions.
I cannot get involved in the individual point that the hon. Gentleman makes—I am sure that he will resolve it in his own way—but I certainly confirm that Mr. Speaker and, indeed, any occupant of the Chair expects the highest possible standards of behaviour in every aspect of our parliamentary life.
Defence Policy
[Relevant documents: the Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 558, on the UK deployment to Afghanistan, and the Government’s Response thereto, and the Sixth Special Report from the Committee, HC 1211.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Liz Blackman.]
Any debate on defence policy should be grounded in key current operations. I should therefore like to start by laying out the policy context for our major existing deployments, before setting out our future thinking.
Ministers have a responsibility to develop a clear policy framework that allows front-line service people to understand what they are being asked to do, and why, and ensures that they have the resources to succeed. It is then for our military commanders to ensure that that policy is implemented on the ground. Without motivated, informed and properly supported people, policy is just empty words.
I have made it a key part of my role over the past five years to see for myself our military contribution to overall UK and international efforts, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. I pay tribute to the achievements of our troops. They carry out their role with the highest degree of professionalism, commitment and dedication to duty. Those are the attributes that they are delivering in the highest measure in our two main operational theatres—Iraq and Afghanistan—and I want to touch on both of those areas.
On Iraq, to withdraw prematurely would represent a huge disservice to the Iraqi people, undermining their hopes for a better future after Saddam’s tyranny and the recent and current sectarian insurgency. What is needed is a measured and agreed process of transition. This week, we have seen two good examples of that approach: first, the announcement of the Iraqi security forces taking responsibility for Al Muthanna, and secondly, the new Basra security plan, announced yesterday, that will increase the number of Iraqi security forces patrolling the streets to make the city a safer place.
The plan also has a public services element, supported by the coalition provincial reconstruction team, to provide local people with the know-how to ensure the provision of vital services—things that we all take for granted in our own communities, such as clean water, reliable electricity supplies and refuse collection. As in Al Muthanna, our objective is progressively to transfer responsibility to the Iraqi security forces in the other provinces in Multi-National Division (South-East): Maysan and Di Qhar and Basra.
In Afghanistan, forces from 36 countries are now assisting the Afghan National Government through the NATO-led, international security assistance force, working within and under a full UN mandate. In Afghanistan, too, we have a duty to play our part in helping a fledgling democratic state to overcome fanatical and undemocratic antagonists. As in Iraq, and previously in the Balkans, transition is a key feature of our strategy. With our allies, we are training and equipping local police officers and soldiers to take back responsibility for the control of their country in the face of intimidation and terror.
Over time, a process of transition from ISAF to the Afghan security forces will take place. Completing that process is not simply a moral obligation to the Afghan people; success is also essential for future British security interests. If the Karzai Government were to fail and Afghanistan were to be an unpoliced and impoverished black hole, there could be no greater boost for worldwide Islamist extremism and no more certain way to ensure abundant and uninterrupted supplies of heroin on our streets. That is why we the United Kingdom, along with others, have made a long-term support commitment to Afghanistan.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the number of countries that are assisting in Afghanistan. How many of them are also represented in Helmand province?
There are a number of countries in the south, which is part of phase 3 of the process. Canadian, Australian, Dutch and forces from other nations are assisting as well. Clearly, the United States is still there as well. We have deployed a significant force to Helmand, but the south is, of course, bigger than Helmand, and it is going to the north of that area as well. Our military deployment in Helmand is part of the planned NATO move into the south to support the Afghan National Government. There is a tendency to focus on military developments, but it is important to place them in context. The real measure of success, of which the military effort is but a part, is effective civil policing, economic development, reconstruction and social cohesion.
Will the Minister give way?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but we had a useful debate yesterday, and he made a very good contribution. I did not agree with everything; I did not get the chance to address every point that he made, but he has a lot of knowledge on the subject. I hope that his intervention will be about Afghanistan.
I wish to raise that very issue. The subject of today’s debate is the Defence Committee’s fifth report, “The UK deployment to Afghanistan”. I appreciate that the Minister takes a huge interest and has an obligation to speak, but he is just about to touch on other areas that go far beyond the military interest. Therefore, why do we not see members of the Foreign Office team here and, importantly, the Department for International Development team, given the huge sums of money that are coming from those Departments as well?
I do not see any representative of the Conservative Foreign Office team in opposition to me. The debate is one of the four planned debates on defence. This one is on policy. It so happens that the Defence Committee has tabled its report on Afghanistan, and those members of the Select Committee who are present can clearly make their contribution in the light of their report and the Government’s response to it. I take the point—as I recollect, it was made yesterday—that there should be greater engagement and debate across the Government, either from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or from DFID. I understand that that was raised earlier during businesses questions. That will be taken on board, and we must consider how best we ensure that there is an understanding that such things are co-ordinated across the Government and not solely defence-led.
rose—
I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I hope that he will not suggest, as he did on Iraq, that we should pull out of Afghanistan.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would not presume that he can give me instructions on what my intervention should be about. In fact, I was not going to ask him a question about that.
On the general policy, since the strategic defence review in 1998, have not the envisaged levels of commitment gone up and the envisaged levels of resources, both human and financial, gone down? Are not our armed forces more undermanned, more ill-equipped and more under-trained than at any time in the past 60 years?
I agree in part with some of that, but not with the latter part. If anything, there is a greater intensity in ensuring proper training. In many ways, the nature of the deployments that our troops have undergone has given them greater awareness, greater knowledge and greater capacity to keep up their skills. There was a long time—it was certainly before my time—when that must have proved difficult, because we had a static position in Germany. Sadly, we had the experience of Northern Ireland. Much of that experience has helped us elsewhere.
In terms of training and knowledge, that is not the picture that I have of Her Majesty’s armed forces at present. In terms of equipment, I would accept that that was the picture in the early stages of our deployment—but, of course, needs must. What happened in Afghanistan happened, as did the attacks on the twin towers. They happened, and not by design or with predictability. We had to react, and we did so—I believe correctly.
At the same time as we were having to react to that, we had a major exercise under way in Oman, which had been planned five years before. Its purpose was to ensure that we had the necessary logistic support and the right kit—that the kit being used was capable of working in hostile environments such as those in Oman. We could have cancelled that exercise.
We did not try to. We decided to continue with it because it was teaching us invaluable lessons, as is clear if one looks at what is happening now in terms of logistic support, the way in which urgent operational requirements have been triggered in, and how our personnel are currently kitted out. Complaints about equipment by our personnel to people who visit them are now very rare. I am not saying that there are no complaints, but they are very rare, and they are certainly at nothing like the level they were at five years ago.
On reshaping and restructuring the armed forces overall, we could have a debate about future army structure, and the projected size of the new navy, while remembering the ships we are purchasing—I will address that later in my speech—which require fewer personnel to serve on board. That is the case even for the new larger aircraft carriers, for which I think about 200 fewer personnel are needed. That meant there would be a reshaping. We have also reshaped the RAF; about 7,500 posts have gone. The RAF has never been busier, and, actually, it is delivering to tremendous effect. So we should get this issue into the proper context. If the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is prepared to say, drawing on his parliamentary experience, that the armed forces were always fully manned and always equipped beyond need, he is not living in the real world.
I have been talking about the tendency to focus on military developments and the importance of putting that in context. I said that that has to be part of an overall package of delivery of civil policing, economic development, reconstruction and social cohesion. As the House will be aware, the means by which we hope to achieve that is through the proven route of a provincial reconstruction team to be based in Helmand. It will combine the various agencies of UK Government delivery—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. That mechanism has already delivered in the north and west of Afghanistan. I recognise that the south is a more difficult environment, but we are determined to succeed.
Will the Minister state whether he believes that there are sufficient forces in Afghanistan to deliver all the things that he has said they wish to achieve in that very large country?
The Minister also mentioned heroin and the drug supplies that come from Afghanistan. What support is he getting from within Afghanistan to help to eradicate those supplies?
On the latter point, we have been able to equip, train and assist a standing Afghan force that deals with eradication, and it is very successful. The problem is huge, and it will not be solved overnight. [Interruption.] I hear the points that are made, but I do not hear any solutions, other than those that we are seeking to deliver. If anyone has a better solution for dealing with the increase in the opium crop, I will be interested to hear it, because we will certainly take on board any good ideas.
On the hon. Gentleman’s other point, we have always said that we will keep the size of the deployment under review. We recently made an announcement in respect of sending a company of the RAF regiment to lay down better force protection at Kandahar airfield. We will always examine what we are doing and listen to what the field commanders are saying—about whether they need particular expertise, or strengthening in one area or another. All that is judged on a military basis—although, of course, it must ultimately have ministerial approval—so if there is such a requirement and it can be met, it will be met.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will be aware of the deaths of four more American soldiers last night and of subsequent comments by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. President Karzai, commenting on the security situation in Afghanistan, said last night:
“I have systematically, consistently and on a daily basis warned the international community of what was developing in Afghanistan…and of a change of approach by the international community in this regard.”
How does the Minister interpret those comments, in terms of both how we are carrying out Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF deployment?
First of all, we have to discuss that with President Karzai. The incident referred to is recent, and he clearly has specific views on what should be happening. We have an international capability, which is seeking to deliver. If more needs to be done, let us see if more can be done.
What we are seeking to do in Afghanistan has been well planned, well structured and has a very clear focus. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks we should be doing more, he should tell us how, and we should also set that against his view that we are overstretched and we cannot run campaigns in two theatres. If he wants us to do more, where does he think that will come from?
Will the Minister give way?
Hold on a moment.
When demands are made, they have to be set against available resources. That is what we seek to do. We are also constantly seeking to engage greater international buy-in to this. That process will continue; that is part of what NATO force generation is all about. We cannot commit other countries; we cannot force them to do things. We can only consult our allies and seek to get the best possible lay-down of military presence. Also, we keep closely in touch with President Karzai; we listen to his concerns, and if we can react, we will do so.
The Minister asked what could be done to make better use of existing resources. Does he not agree that the time has now come to fully integrate ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom, because western, NATO military forces in Afghanistan cannot make the best use of resources if there are two command structures, even given the current attempts to co-ordinate them?
That will come, but the point is that they are under two separate command structures because they are carrying out two distinctly separate roles.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has sophisticated knowledge of these matters. He knows what we are doing. We have worked successfully in the north and the west, and we have proved that we can deliver in a particular way. We then said, “Let’s look at what can now be delivered in the south”—which is stage three of the development. It took a good number of months to build up force capability and to see what to do. We are almost fully deployed—but we are not there yet. However, we are already taking action against whatever force comes up against us—such as insurgencies inspired by the Taliban or tribal warlords. When that has proved successful, the intention is to move into the east.
This has been a progressive process, which has “approvability”. We are now in the most difficult environment: the south. This stage will take time, but difficult time scales will be set down for the military commanders to make judgments as to when we can make the next move in the process. I agree that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommends is required, but we are not yet at the stage to do that.
Let me now turn to broader issues.
Will the Minister give way?
No. The comprehensive approach that we have adopted in both Iraq and Afghanistan guides much of the work of the MOD. We work increasingly closely with other Departments on a range of security issues. The conflict prevention pools and the post-conflict reconstruction unit are major innovations in joined-up Government. They bring together MOD, FCO and DFID resources for a more strategic approach to conflict reduction. They integrate the Government’s conflict prevention work in a wide range of countries. Countering the proliferation of non-conventional arms is a good example of that and is a cross-government priority. Our work on instruments such as the non-proliferation treaty and the chemical weapons convention aims to eliminate certain types of weapons of mass destruction.
In particular, we are actively pursuing global partnership activities in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. For example, I recently visited Shchuch’ye, in the Russian Urals. In Shchuch’ye, the MOD, on behalf of the UK and other international donors, has implemented projects to enable the construction of a key chemical weapons destruction facility. The UK’s role has been to bring together some 10 international donors, with a funding commitment of £55 million, as part of a major Russian/US-led project designed to destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union.
The MOD is also actively working with other Government Departments to further the UK’s commitment to gaining international support for an arms trade treaty, which will improve international mechanisms and reduce the flow of irresponsibly traded conventional arms, particularly in areas of conflict. There are too many parts of the globe from which this illegal and evil trade emanates, which is why we need renewed and better-focused international mechanisms to deal with the problem.
Running alongside that is the important role played by the MOD’s defence diplomacy initiatives, which are aimed at changing attitudes and perceptions among emerging states and at helping the development of democratically accountable armed forces. Our financial contribution is in the region of £50 million and covers conflict prevention and management, as well as post-conflict reconstruction. That contribution is made within the financial and policy framework of the global conflict prevention pool and the defence assistance fund, and brings together defence diplomacy and defence development work. All that is conducted within a common strategy, and in the light of shared conflict analysis agreed between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MOD and the Department for International Development. The programmes delivered through this mechanism can make a real difference, whether in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere.
There is only so much that the United Kingdom can do in isolation, however. We contribute strongly to the wider work of international agencies to deliver change. This is why we are keen to see the UN being properly transformed to deal with the new global challenges and threats. NATO is also undergoing a dramatic transformation so that it, too, can respond to the full range of global security challenges; the most prominent example is the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. NATO continues to make a vital contribution to ensuring stability in Kosovo.
On the European front, the European security and defence policy is progressing. It is proving to be both an effective partner to NATO, and is able to act in its own right when NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged. It is contributing a peace support mission in Bosnia, after taking on that role from NATO. Of course, NATO will remain the natural choice for operations involving both European and north American allies, and it remains the essential basis of our collective defence.
The European Union also has the potential to bring together its diplomatic, judicial and economic strengths, alongside its ability to conduct a range of military operations. Both the EU and NATO have the potential to play a role in partnership, or individually, to promote world security. They are co-operating in the Balkans—in both Bosnia and Kosovo—and they are working together to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. NATO is playing a vital role in Afghanistan, and the EU has helped to end the civil war in Aceh.
I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and whether he believes that the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons by any signatory to the non-proliferation treaty that currently holds weapons would indeed be illegal—not to mention very costly—and probably immoral.
If my hon. Friend cares to hold on, I will deal with that issue in some detail.
I turn now to another key part of our defence policy: the defence industrial strategy. The strategy is more than just a policy document: it is a framework for action, so that both the MOD and the UK defence industry can develop and implement the changes that both need to make. The Government’s commitment to defence should not be in doubt. We are working on some massive programmes: future aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, new armoured fighting vehicles, Typhoon and the new joint strike fighter, to name but a few. These and other platforms will have long lives. In the unpredictable future that we face—of uncertain threats and new requirements—we are looking at new ways of delivering support to the front line, and at doing so in partnership with industry.
The defence industrial strategy is designed to match this new environment. It provides greater transparency in respect of our defence requirements, and sets out the industrial capacity that we need in the United Kingdom to meet them. Its overall aim is to ensure that, in future, we can provide our armed forces with the equipment that they require. We are delivering the DIS. We announced today in a written ministerial statement the signature of a strategic partnering arrangement and a business transformation incentivisation agreement with AgustaWestland—an arrangement that balances opportunity and challenge to create precisely the demanding partner relationship envisaged by the DIS. I am also delighted to say that we have placed an order for 70 Future Lynx helicopters with AugustaWestland. That fulfils another DIS commitment, and will help to sustain critical skills onshore and provide vital major equipment for our armed forces.
I am interested in what the Minister is saying, not least because I know of his commitment to the armed forces. But there was a report in the Evening Standard—of course, it is only a newspaper and I do not always believe newspapers—on 12 June entitled, “Huge cuts to the defence industry”. It alleges that the Chancellor wishes to take £1 billion out of the defence budget per year and to devote it to homeland security. It then suggests that one major procurement project—the Minister has just been discussing those projects—could be scrapped, such as the aircraft carriers. Can the Minister please categorically deny that?
I learned a long time ago never to believe what I read in the newspapers, when it is under a glaring headline and the context in which it is written is not based on any identifiable or authoritative source. I have just mentioned the aircraft carriers, our procurement programme and the major development of the rotary wing fleet, and more will follow on the back of that. Today’s announcement is worth 1 billion, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would thank us for that, rather than trying to find some windmill to tilt at.
The question of the way in which the overall budget will be developed is part of current discussions. Let us look at what we are doing and delivering, which is very substantial.
Will the Minister give way?
If it is on AugustaWestland.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He referred to the written statement that he made today, which is indeed largely welcome. Can he explain why the new Lynx helicopters will not be available until 2014 and 2015, given that the Lynx currently operated by the Royal Navy are absolutely knackered—for want of a better word—and say what the division is between the number of helicopters for the Royal Navy and for the Army?
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman specifics on the latter point. He should have read the written statement in the round, because it does mention the new partnering arrangement. A dismissive reference has been made to that arrangement, but it is a new arrangement not just with AugustaWestland but across industry, the purpose of which is to incentivise the industry and ensure that it delivers on its commitments to the existing fleet. We are looking at new ways of ensuring greater availability of existing platforms, and of perhaps extending their life, to ensure that the spares required to sustain those fleets are provided at the right time and in the right volume. Of course, part of the overall package that we have delivered for AugustaWestland is a future procurement stream, but it must also deliver on the existing stream. Industry understands this—we are adopting this approach with Boeing, Rolls-Royce and BA Systems. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has detailed knowledge of these issues, would do well to spend some time studying our efforts in this regard. If he does, he will find that there is full, not just partial, support for what we are doing.
I need hardly remind the House that we face decisions on the future of our Trident nuclear deterrent. It is worth reminding the House—
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Although I want to make progress, I appreciate the importance of the opinion of my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, so I will give way.
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. The defence industrial strategy is long overdue and very welcome, but can he assure me that it will not lead to a level of protectionism? Do we recognise that we still have to access the best equipment anywhere in the world for our forces, and to look for value for money? We must work with our European partners to provide Europe, as well as Britain, with resources.
My hon. Friend has good knowledge of the subject and raises an issue of concern over whether we have monopolistic suppliers and what the implications would be. The DIS is very much designed to ensure that we keep in this country what core competences we can. We have to recognise that increasingly there will be joint ventures; indeed, the joint strike fighter is a joint venture with the United States. The purpose of the European Defence Agency is to begin to look at where the shortfalls are in European capabilities and to grow from that a greater willingness within Europe to supply to meet the shortfalls.
We have a comprehensive approach, but it is early days and it has not been fully tested. We have to be careful not to find ourselves becoming reliant, as has happened in the past, on a procurement stream that neither delivers on time or on cost, or to the quality that we require.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The hon. Lady keeps wanting to intervene and will get very angry if I do not give way. I will, but I do so reluctantly because I have a lot of issues to cover.
I could never be angry with the Secretary of State and am grateful to him for giving way. Before he moves on, I have a question about equipment connected with Afghanistan. As our forces appear to be winning the firefights in Afghanistan, does he expect those who oppose our troops there and in other theatres to revert to the use of improvised explosive devices? If so, what vehicles are our forces to be equipped with to counter the threat?
I am glad I gave way to the hon. Lady, because she promoted me to Secretary of State. I will keep giving way if that is how she opens her interventions.
The right hon. Gentleman will be Home Secretary next.
I am not bidding for that.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) raises an important issue. We have been very effective in Afghanistan. We have a potent force in the Apache attack helicopters. We are up against intelligent and capable enemies, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we know that they will continue to look for ways to attack land-based vehicles or air-based platforms. We have a lot of measures in place. The hon. Lady will understand that it is not appropriate to discuss all the detail, but where we identify a threat—be it a new or technological threat—we identify a quick way to deal with it. Sometimes that takes time as we come to understand the threat before developing the technical response. Our focus at all times is the protection of our personnel, whether it involves fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, land-based systems or maritime systems.
I want to deal with the future of our Trident nuclear deterrent. It is worth reminding the House that when the Government came to power we initiated a range of changes to our nuclear weapons profile. The UK has an excellent record in meeting our international legal obligations. We have withdrawn and dismantled the RAF's air-launched WE177 nuclear bomb without replacement, so that Trident is our only nuclear weapons system. We have dismantled all our remaining Chevaline Polaris warheads, demonstrating our commitment to irreversible reductions in the UK's nuclear weapons. We have reduced our operationally available stockpile of nuclear weapons to fewer than 200 warheads—a 70 per cent. reduction in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the cold war. We have reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces: only one Trident submarine at a time is on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads, compared with a previously planned total of 96, on several days' "notice to fire", and its missiles are de-targeted. We have signed and ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We have also continued to press for negotiations without preconditions, to begin at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, of a fissile material cut-off treaty.
At the last election, we stood on a manifesto commitment clearly stating that we intended to retain this country's current independent nuclear deterrent. That commitment remains. We sent an initial memorandum to the Defence Committee on these issues, which was published in January.
Will the Minister give way?
No. I shall set out the whole of our policy and take it from there.
We currently have no requirement for a new nuclear warhead, nor do we have a programme in place to develop a new nuclear warhead. We did, however, announce last July additional funding for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, the purpose of which was to put in place a programme to ensure that our current Trident warhead remains both safe and reliable.
We have made it clear that decisions on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent are necessary in the current Parliament. As a consequence, work is under way by officials on risks, threats, options and costs in order to prepare the ground for eventual decisions to be taken by Ministers. It remains the case that no decisions have yet been taken in principle or detail on any replacement for Trident. I stress that any decisions that may be taken on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent will be fully consistent with our international legal obligations, including those under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
On the role of Parliament in this process, the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised—most recently yesterday at Prime Minister’s Question Time—that there will be the fullest possible parliamentary debate on the issue. He has also indicated that the timetable on the way forward should be clearer around the end of the year.
The Minister made much of the commitment in Labour’s manifesto to retain our independent nuclear deterrent. I do not think that there has ever been any question of a Government policy to abandon the existing Trident system. The question is not whether they intend to retain it, but whether they intend to replace it. Last night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would support the retention of our independent deterrent in the long-term. That has been interpreted as meaning replacement, which is why it is on the front pages of the press. Have the Government decided to replace the nuclear deterrent? If they have not, does he think that the Chancellor was talking about retention or replacement?
I do not think that my statement could be any clearer, which is why I wanted to set out the policy in detail. The Chancellor said that he pledged to demonstrate the strength of national purpose in protecting our security in this parliament and in the long-term. He said that we would be
“strong in defence, in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.”
Let me also quote the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). He said that last night’s speech was just more spin designed to cast the Chancellor as a statesman. Well, the Chancellor is a statesman. He represents this country at the very highest levels of international negotiations, and he does it exceptionally well. He is not the political pygmy; he is a world statesman. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Chancellor was “reheating” an old pledge to retain the current deterrent, but not committing to replacing the independent nuclear deterrent when it reaches the end of its current life.
indicated dissent.
Well, it seems to me that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is asking me something he should ask of his hon. Friend, who has clearly made his mind up on the interpretation of what the Chancellor said.
I am disappointed that instead of answering the perfectly reasonable question about the Government’s intentions put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Minister chose to hand responsibility back, implying somehow that the Conservative party’s views on these matters are more important than those of the Labour Government.
Leaving that aside, however, will the Minister tell us one thing? I thought that I heard him say that the Government had not yet decided on the principle of replacing the nuclear deterrent. Will he confirm that they have not decided on that principle? He also said that he would consult the House as widely as possible. Will he confirm whether the Government intend to give a vote to Members of the House of Commons on whether that principle should be endorsed?
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is not in my gift to offer the House a vote; there are procedures that apply.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
I realise that my hon. Friend wants to be helpful—at least I hope that he does—but he must let me reply—[Interruption.] I assume that Members on the Labour Benches are rising to be helpful because we made a manifesto commitment to retain the independent nuclear deterrent, so I can only assume that they want to say why they support that commitment and why they were proud to be elected Labour MPs on that platform at the last election.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Let me first answer the question put by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I have set out the process and I cannot do so in any other way. Officials are looking at the range of things that have to be done so that they can report to Ministers. Ministers at a senior level in Cabinet will then make the decision. Once a Cabinet decision has been taken it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was asking for any other process and the one that we have established is clear.
As my right hon. Friend has recalled our manifesto commitment, perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House of what it said, to contrast it with what the Opposition’s manifesto said on that point.
I knew that my hon. Friend would be an honourable friend because, like me, he was pleased to be elected a Labour Member at the last election on that manifesto commitment about the retention of our independent nuclear deterrent. The programme has an extensive life span, which is why we have invested to ensure its long-term safety and reliability.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the Minister give way?
I can answer only one question at a time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) asked whether I had a view about what was in the Conservative manifesto. It is not really for me to say, but I do not think that they even mentioned the matter. We took a brave political decision—they just seem to disappear when things get tough.
I thank the Minister for giving way. In his remarks about a possible replacement for Trident, or a new generation of weapons, he said that everything would be done consistent with international treaty obligations, including the non-proliferation treaty. That treaty, signed in 1970, includes a commitment by the five declared powers to long-term disarmament. Can he explain which part of the treaty would be broken if we developed a new generation of nuclear weapons in contravention of it?
I was hoping that my hon. Friend would say that he, like me, was proud to stand as a Labour candidate at the last election on our manifesto commitment—I do not think that he resiled from it then. On our international treaty obligations, I have set out what we have done since coming to power in 1997, and made it clear that at all times we take the lead in trying to push forward multilateral discussions on the NPT and elsewhere. I wish that my hon. Friend could take some pride in what the Government have achieved, instead of constantly trying to undermine us and giving us the benefit of his—although I hesitate to say it—wisdom by explaining the meaning of the treaty. The Government know what the treaty means and we are standing by it.
The Minister spoke about retaining the current nuclear deterrent. The Chancellor’s comments about the long-term tend to indicate that there will be a replacement. The Minister said that officials would carry out the necessary risk assessment to make a decision about the future and that there would be parliamentary scrutiny. If I recall the Prime Minister’s answer correctly, he said that the decision would come back to Parliament, but will the Minister confirm that there will be parliamentary approval rather than merely a report and parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way?
I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to get out of NATO, never mind its non-nuclear stand, although it may be revising that. Of course, if members of the Scottish National party decide to change their policy—as they should—they will come under the nuclear umbrella, so they will have a problem in squaring those views. Perhaps that explains their approach to NATO and to the way in which it tries to deal with problems in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
I have made clear what we said. Our manifesto commitment was clear and the way in which I set out the process for the development of the policy was abundantly clear. It is not inconsistent with anything that anyone has said recently.
I want to move on. Members know that I do not run away from debate but I have already been speaking for 45 minutes and I have several other important policy matters to set out. I want to talk about our personnel.
We recognise that our people remain our greatest asset, and we are doing our utmost to implement policy that will provide our service personnel with conditions and services that help to generate and maintain battle-winning defence capability. Among the wide range of projects and initiatives under way, I shall mention two in the context of the debate: improvements in training and accommodation for our people.
The defence training review rationalisation programme aims to provide modern, cost-effective specialist training, improved facilities and accommodation and significant savings through the more efficient utilisation of a reduced training estate. That will give our servicemen and women the best living and learning environment that we can provide, and we expect to announce preferred bidders later this year.
The importance we attach to our personnel is also reflected in the investment we are making in modernising the defence estate across the country. In Colchester, the modernisation programme will enable us to move more than 2,000 service personnel from their current cramped and inadequate living accommodation to state-of-the-art, single occupancy, en-suite accommodation fit for the 21st century. It will also provide exemplary social and working conditions for personnel across the garrison.
The Minister is describing a private finance initiative project. Will there be accommodation in the new garrison for every serving soldier?
Not in the whole British Army. The figure I mentioned was 2,000. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of the project, but as I do not know the basis for his question I cannot give him a specific answer. If I can find out the answer before the wind-ups, I will let him know. It is a major project and he has taken a close interest in it. I was proud to cut the first sod—
That was me.
I will not even go there. It was great to see the project and the enthusiasm of everyone associated with it. The private contractors and our own people—both civilian and military—are keen for it to succeed.
I want now to touch on future policy and to address our long-term strategic defence posture. Our investment decisions are measured in decades ahead, rather than individual years, and we need to get them right. The debate is an opportunity for the House to consider the challenges of the longer term, and to understand how the Ministry of Defence is looking at them. The primary responsibility of any Government must be to provide security for its citizens, but we also have a global responsibility to defend international stability. It is in the UK’s interest to act internationally to bring about a peaceful and prosperous world.
Our prosperity rests upon globalisation and we need, as a nation, to remain engaged in its development to ensure both our security and success. Our armed forces are a key asset for achieving that. Their quality and reputation are second to none. Their capabilities allow us and, often, international organisations, such as the UN, the EU and NATO, to respond to threats and to support an international system based on human rights, good governance, democracy, civil and political liberties and free trade.
As the House will agree, no nation can be the world’s policeman, and that applies equally to the UK. However, we will continue to act where it is right to do so. The British people expect nothing less. That is why we have to adapt in good time to the trends that we identify both at home and around the world. We do not expect that purely national and military solutions will be adequate. Armed forces cannot act alone to maintain international stability. As I have indicated, we recognise that the major security challenges of this century will require joint, integrated and multinational solutions. UK policy needs to be based upon putting to good use the resources and expertise of different Departments in the UK, and different nations across the world. We will continue to build on our alliances, working together with the international community in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Africa. It seems to me that public debate tends to focus on the British and American roles only, but we must not ignore the vital contributions of our allies and partners.
The success of our British military contributions has derived from expeditionary forces whose structure and capabilities provide speed, agility, deployability and the ability to conduct a range of tasks. Those capabilities, which make the UK armed forces almost unique, are possible only because of commitment to professional excellence and sustained investment to deliver what is required in today’s—and tomorrow’s—security environment.
All that brings me to the longer-term policy question of the future strategic context. Globalisation is driving unprecedented growth and prosperity across the world. Increasing cross-border flows of resources, goods, services and people will spread values and ideas. We can expect greater wealth, lowered cultural and ideological barriers and widening freedoms. All that could be suggestive of a 21st century world where conflict between nation states would be a rarity, unlike the terrible wars and traumas of the 20th century. However, as we move into the 21st century, we see the beginning of profound changes to the strategic environment. There is the speed with which powerful forces are developing, the range of unpredictable ways in which they could interact, and the vulnerability of an increasingly interdependent international system to physical, economic or political shocks—all those things breed uncertainty.
Key security challenges for the future will include the familiar—weak and failing states, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism—but we also need to consider the potential security consequences of climate change, rapidly growing pressures on natural resources, accelerating technological change, and the social, cultural and geopolitical challenges that will accompany the rise of Asia and other emerging powers. It is not possible to predict how those and many other factors will interact, but it is right to acknowledge that not all of the potential futures are benign and that conflict within and between states will not disappear. Weak states will continue to face severe pressures. Extremist ideologies will still find breeding grounds among those who believe that they are not gaining from rapid change. Even a return to confrontation between major states or blocs cannot be ruled out.
British Governments, like the entire international community, will continue to have to work hard to promote security and success in that challenging future environment. We need to consider systematically how our armed forces can strengthen the UK’s ability to act, to influence the international management of crises and to respond to unforeseen events. Later this year, the Ministry of Defence will publish a paper on the future strategic context for defence. It will offer an analysis of the future strategic environment and its implications and, I hope, improve understanding of the issues and the key questions to be decided.
Painstaking analysis of security challenges helps to maintain the vital continuous understanding among service people of how they fit into overall policy, which I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution. It also helps us to continue to give our people the right tools, by investing in the highest priority programmes. Beyond the services, in a democracy such as ours, major decisions require an informed public discussion. I hope that today’s debate will contribute substantially to that process and I look forward to hearing the contributions from both sides of the House.
Let me start with a quote from 1997:
“A strong defence capability is an essential part of Britain’s foreign policy…By 1999 defence spending will have fallen to 2.6 per cent. of GDP…The people who have had to bear the burden of these cuts are our servicemen and women, overstretched and under strength as never before. The strain on our Armed Forces is huge. We have a continuing commitment in Northern Ireland. Our forces operate in the Gulf, the Balkans, Africa, the Falklands, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Germany and other parts of the world all at once.”
That was our Prime Minister in full pre-election flow. What have we seen from the Government he brought to office? The answer is further commitments in Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuts in our armed forces of almost 40,000. The Army is down 9,000, the Navy is down 10,000 and the RAF is down 16,000 since the Government came to office. This year we will spend only 2.2 per cent. of our GDP on defence—the smallest proportion of our national wealth that we have spent on defending our country in any year since 1930. So much for the overstretch that the Prime Minister described when he was in opposition.
That level of defence expenditure is supposed to provide for, at most, no more than one small-scale operation and two medium-scale operations at any time. However, since 1999, British armed forces have been operating over and above the Government’s own planning assumptions in every year but one. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have trimmed the available resources time and time again—at the same time as the Government have been asking our soldiers to do more and more. For example, the gap between deployments for infantry units had dropped to 15 months, when it is supposed to be a minimum of 24 months, increasing the stress placed not only on our servicemen and women, but on their families—something that is not sufficiently taken into account. As a consequence, there is a rising divorce rate among service personnel.
There are serious capability gaps now, and more looming in the immediate future. Only 40 per cent. of the Lynx and Gazelle helicopter fleet is fit for purpose—as is only 40 per cent. of the C-130K Hercules fleet. At times, we have had so few aircraft that soldiers have been left sitting on the tarmac in Basra because there have been no planes to fly them back home. This March saw the withdrawal of the F/A2 Sea Harriers, leaving the maritime fleet without air defence. As Ministers openly acknowledge, we shall be reliant on the United States for air defence of the fleet until the Type 45s, with their air defence role, enter service around 2009. These will be followed by the new carriers, with their joint strike fighters, which are due to enter service—well, we do not know exactly when they will be entering service. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.
The hon. Gentleman has missed the full explanation on the Sea Harriers. This keeps being raised. The background is that to have upgraded the Sea Harriers would have cost in the region of £500 million. The process would have been technically difficult and there was no guarantee of success; in fact, it was so technically difficult that it could have meant a delay in the aircraft flying. Against those criteria, the judgment was made not to proceed. That was done on the basis of military advice: “Don’t spend the money on something you can’t get a guaranteed return for.” Clearly, however, the old spendthrift ways of the Tories are still there. That is why we have such a big headache in defence in relation to some of the legacy programmes.
As ever, the Government, having been in office for nine years, can find nothing better to do than blame their predecessors for the problems that they themselves have brought in. Many in the military believe that the Sea Harriers could have been kept flying without a change in engine for some time yet, but the Government have chosen instead to leave that gap in our services and to leave us dependent on the United States. I am keen on our partnership with the United States, but we are talking about a Government whose members kept telling us when they were in opposition that there was overstretch and underfunding and that gaps were being left. Since they came to office, we have had greater commitments, insufficient funding and greater gaps.
However the Minister dresses it up, there remains a fundamental gap in our air defences. Even when the T45 is rolled out, it will still have only a limited radar capability to the horizon. The only way in which we are going to protect our fleet is by having either Sea Harriers or the F-35, which has the radar capability. However the Minister dresses it up, our sea fleet will be vulnerable until the aeroplanes are replaced.
My hon. Friend is not only knowledgeable, but has a regular discourse with the Minister in Westminster Hall. That sounds like a good attempt to make sure that we keep that discourse going. Since my hon. Friend has been getting by far the best of the debate, I am sure that he can look forward to that.
The Public Accounts Committee reported recently that on average, 30 per cent. of the UK armed forces had serious weaknesses in their peacetime readiness levels between January and September 2005. Our armed forces are already experiencing serious gaps in their capabilities, and as major projects such as the carriers and the future rapid effect system continue to fall back, the effect of those gaps will become more acute.
That brings me on to a second type of capability gap, which occurs when a capability is cut back to such an extent that it is no longer able to fulfil the role that is required of it. For example, there were originally meant to be 12 Type 45s. The number was cut down to eight, and the Government have failed to give a commitment on the final two ships, which would leave the Navy with six. That is the case before we get on to the ludicrous prospect of reducing our purchase of aircraft carriers, as has been rumoured, from two to one, to address budgetary shortfalls—[Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to confirm that we will be having two not one, I will happily give way to him.
I think that I set out our future programme: future carriers—plural—the Type 45s, land systems and air systems. The programme is substantial. There was the biggest increase in defence spending for 20 years in the last spending round, so let us get back to the facts.
And let us get back to the spin from the Treasury. Not content with confusing the Government over their nuclear programme, the Treasury has been happily briefing that it wants the proportion that we spend on defence to be brought down from 2.2 per cent. of GDP and that major cuts might have to be introduced. Perhaps it would be worth while for the Cabinet to meet now and again to discuss some of these issues, so that we could get less confusion from two different wings of the Government.
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind what the Minister just said about the increase in defence expenditure? If a Government reduce spending on defence dramatically on coming to office, they can of course introduce the largest percentage increase in defence expenditure on the bit that they previously cut; that is not a difficult thing to do.
Obviously, my right hon. Friend has studiously worked out how Labour’s arithmetic is calculated and how the process of spin, which the Government have improved as a black art, can make something turn out to mean anything that anyone wants. The truth of the matter is that it is impossible for any Government to increase the number of commitments for our armed forces without equally increasing the resources that enable them to do their job properly. Without such resources, we get unacceptable cuts and a lack of capacity.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Let me turn to the situation in Iraq. Many people see the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and claim that that in itself is an argument that the war in Iraq was wrong. I do not believe that. I still believe that it was right to want people to determine for themselves who would govern them. It was right to help people to enjoy free speech and a legal framework that they could design, which we take for granted in this country. It was right to free those people from a vicious and bloody tyrant who used chemical weapons against his own people. It has to be a good thing that we saw the end of a regime that had started two wars and was almost certainly sanctions busting and attempting to gain nuclear technology. Frankly, those who take a contrary view need to explain why Iraq, the middle east and the rest of the world would be better off with Saddam still in control.
Like everyone else in the Chamber, I believe, I want our troops to come home as soon as possible—but that can happen only when we are confident that the Iraq that we leave behind is a functioning stable nation. I purposely do not use simply the words “a functioning democracy”. Far too many people take the simplistic view that democracy simply means an exercise in electoral mechanics. It took us in this country 200 years to get from Adam Smith to universal suffrage. We are a liberal democracy, but we were liberal before we were democratic. We had a set of liberal values, a judicial system that applied equally to the governing and the governed, a respect for human rights, and the ability to own property and to exercise our individual liberty in a market system. All those things are necessary for a functional stable state. Being a democracy is not enough, as Gaza has all too clearly demonstrated. We need to take that into account when people consider the expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq and when they are likely to be achieved.
The hon. Gentleman has blown his own argument out of the water in a few sentences. First he says that what happened was about democracy—not about weapons of mass destruction, incidentally, which was what the Tories and the Government were saying at the time—but then he says that it was not about democracy. His argument is a bit inconsistent.
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that in a whole number of ways—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will put them on record—it is worse for the population of Iraq now, under the occupation, than it was under Saddam Hussein? I am no supporter of Saddam Hussein; I am pleased that he has gone. However, the hon. Gentleman should see that his argument would lead to occupations all round the world, because there are plenty of Saddam Husseins in other places.
Dr. Fox: I was making the point—although not sufficiently clearly for the hon. Gentleman—that a stable and sustainable state is made up not simply of democracy, but of other elements. I can only explain the argument to the hon. Gentleman; I cannot understand it for him.
Post-war mistakes have clearly had several consequences, so we should accept what they were. Both the British and American Governments failed to plan successfully for the aftermath of the war. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said time and time again in the Chamber that although winning the war would be the easy part, given the overwhelming firepower, the difficult part would be the reconstruction. The Iraqi police and army were disbanded far too soon, and I am afraid that the insufficient deployment of troops at the outset has led to a situation in Iraq that means we are likely to be there longer, and in more difficult circumstances, than might otherwise have been the case.
In recent days, both Japanese and Italian troops have withdrawn from the theatre of operations. The handover of al-Muthanna province to the Iraqi authorities is a development to be welcomed, but that does not mean that there is not still much to be done. Only this week the chief of joint operations made it clear that it would be some time before an area such as Basra could be handed over, although many of us already took that for granted. The Minister himself admitted that things had become worse, in that soldiers were in body armour rather than soft hats when he last visited. Intra-factional fighting in Basra is on the increase, and the Iraqi Prime Minister’s declaration of a state of emergency is a testament to that.
I hope that we will hear the answers to several unanswered questions at the end of the debate. How prevalent are the militias on the streets of Basra? Given the extent of the overstretch, how do the Government intend to deal with any upsurge of violence in Basra, alongside the increased involvement of Afghan forces that has been announced today? How are the Government dealing with the shortfall in the availability of Lynx helicopters? What are we doing to ensure that the basic rights of Iraqis are protected in the areas that we control and for which we are responsible? In particular, what guarantees can we give that Sunnis will not be systematically intimidated and that women will not be oppressed by fundamentalist groups, reports of which are increasingly appearing in our press on an almost daily basis?
When the Conservatives supported the Iraq invasion, did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues also put forward the challenging questions about the post-war reconstruction that he is now asking?
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, or if he took an interest in what is recorded in Hansard, he would know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes laid out our reservations on several occasions during that time. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, I was chairman of the party at the time, not the shadow Foreign Secretary—these things matter when one is in the official Opposition. It is clearly on record that we laid out our reservations and what we thought that the consequences of several mistakes that we outlined would be. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend had been wrong, but he was right about many of the things of which he warned. When we took the decision to back the Government, we set out plenty of caveats, which are there for the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to read whenever he wants.
One aspect of our deployment to Iraq is not mentioned very often. What we are doing there is not simply a matter of grand geopolitical and military strategy. There is a human cost, not merely to Iraqi citizens, but among our serving British soldiers. According to parliamentary written answers obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), 732 service personnel have been aero-evacuated from Iraq. Almost one in 10 of those were diagnosed with some sort of mental health problem. That is a fairly shocking figure, but after returning from deployment a further 727 soldiers have sought treatment from the MOD’s community mental health departments, which raises the question of how many soldiers there are out there who do not know where to turn for help.
It is a matter of the utmost importance that those who risk life and limb in our name be given the health facilities that they require. I hope the Minister will give a commitment to find out whether sufficient information is available, so that those returning know where to go for help, the help they get is appropriate to their service background, and they are not simply treated in a civilian mental health institution, which may not understand the effects of trauma in a military setting.
I turn to the other great deployment—that in Afghanistan, which also remains essential in the wider regional strategic context. As I have said before, while we could not have failed to act, we must not act and fail. The consequences of failure would be calamitous. A failed state would re-emerge, our enemies would be emboldened, and the hills and valleys of Afghanistan would once more become incubators of global terror.
As a knock-on effect, Pakistan, already a nuclear state, could become destabilised. NATO’s reputation would be sullied by one of its first out-of-area operations, with the consequent dangers that the wider NATO membership could restrict operations to the Euro-Atlantic zone in the future. A loss of nerve within NATO, the emboldening of our enemies and the denial to the people of Afghanistan of a better way of life is not a legacy that Britain could or should contemplate.
It is a source of great worry to many within and outside the military that our deployment may be under strength for the many and varied tasks assigned to it. Despite there being some 10,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan under ISAF command, we still do not have enough support or troops to cover the entirety of the areas of responsibility in the three regions that NATO is supposed to be covering. There is excessive duplication of logistics provision in particular, especially with regard to troop movement. NATO needs to co-ordinate this aspect far more than it is currently doing. With 71 separate caveats among more than 30 contributing nations, the effectiveness of ISAF is bound to be compromised.
We are asking our troops to patrol one of the most dangerous provinces in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, yet we often lack the manpower and lift capacity to guarantee success. In particular, ISAF still lacks a reserve quick response force to deal with sudden incidents, such as when the Norwegians came under attack last February.
We must acknowledge success when it occurs. Although there has been good progress in the training of the Afghan army, training for the Afghan police, the prime responsibility of the Germans, is at least two years behind schedule, yet the police are crucial stakeholders in the efforts of the peace and reconstruction teams and those helping to rebuild Afghan civil society.
It is worth pointing out that there are still major incompatibility issues regarding the equipment of the major participating countries, particularly radios and frequencies. Most disturbing is the failure to agree to universal use of Blue Force Tracker, a system to allow HQs to follow all NATO forces via SatNav, down to an individual vehicle. The system is being used in Helmand, but the French and other countries refuse to use it, preferring to wait for a rival system built by Thales, which has yet to come off the shelf. That is not an acceptable position for the NATO operation to be in.
The role of the police has also become enmeshed in the wider strategic mismatch and confusion of roles, of which many have spoken. The Afghan police are not so much a national force, in the way that we would understand it, as a large number of independent semi-militias. The border goes unpatrolled, drug trafficking continues, and it is an open question to what extent the police militias overlap with the forces of the warlords and/or Taliban. The UN and other NGOs have withdrawn from Helmand, claiming it is too dangerous. I raise these points, and they all matter, because we are in danger of losing the hearts and minds war among the local population, which is so crucial to the success of the overall mission.
At the same time as we face these logistical problems, the poppy eradication projects have brought warlords and Taliban into coalescence on many occasions. To varying degrees we are seeing what NATO calls Talibanisation, where the Taliban pay local people for one-off strikes against NATO forces. Given the amount of money involved, funded by the drug trade, these incidents are, sadly, on the increase, as President Karzai noted today.
I raise all these matters because there is still time to do something about them. Our troops are committed, they are brave and intuitive, and they will do almost whatever we ask of them, with whatever we give them. But we need to ensure that they are given all that they need to carry out the task demanded of them—no shortcuts, no shortages. The Government have a twin duty—to maximise the success of the mission, and at the same time to minimise the risk to our troops. We strongly support British participation in the war on terror in Afghanistan, as it is strategically in our national interest and our membership of NATO commits us to it. However, it is questionable whether our security footprint is large enough to achieve the goals identified, in anything like the time scale envisaged. Having acted, we absolutely cannot afford to fail.
Let me deal with the issue that has dominated the newspapers and media coverage today—our nuclear deterrent. While North Korea threatens missile tests and there is the continuing stand-off with Iran, and when we cannot predict what new threats we may face by 2025, we cannot afford to leave ourselves exposed and vulnerable. Given such uncertainty, it is a strategic imperative that we replace our nuclear deterrent when the time comes. I remain to be convinced that any alternative to a submarine-based system is a credible option, but it is still an issue that we will consider in our policy review.
All history tells us that the outbreak of conflicts is seldom accurately anticipated. The onus must therefore be on the nuclear abolitionist, not on the believer in deterrence, to explain why one can be confident that no nuclear or major chemical or biological threat will be posed to the United Kingdom during the long period so far ahead. I doubt if any such explanation will carry much conviction.
The identification of a potential enemy once shaped the nature of our armed forces—the two power standard for the Navy, for example. With our nuclear deterrent, we enjoy a much greater degree of versatility. Intercontinental ballistic missiles such as Trident are sufficiently flexible, given their range and invulnerability, to deter any state that may seek to use, or threaten the United Kingdom with, weapons of mass destruction at any time in the future. In short, it would not matter which potential enemy posed a real threat. Each would face unacceptable retaliation from a modern strategic missile system such as Trident.
When we have deliberations in the House about the replacement for Trident, does my hon. Friend agree that Members of Parliament should be allowed to debate the various options—whether it should be an American purchased replacement or one predominantly made in the United Kingdom?
If my hon. Friend will have a little patience, I will shortly come to the process by which that should occur. Let me say one final thing about the policy of deterrence. The versatility of a policy of minimum strategic nuclear deterrence makes up for our inability to anticipate future enemies or predict future threats. Conversely, any decision to deprive ourselves of the deterrent would leave the country open to future aggressors whom we would be able to identify only when it was too late to try and rebuild our nuclear forces that had been so recklessly discarded.
Needless to say, any attempt to reacquire a nuclear deterrent once a threat began to emerge would immediately generate a storm of political protest, on the basis that it would constitute a new arms race and make a tense situation even more febrile. We must act now on principle, because those are powerful and substantive arguments, but the way in which they have been handled in the past few days by the Government is nothing short of disgraceful. Instead of an announcement to Parliament about the Government’s intention, there was a one-line mention in an after-dinner speech, not by the Prime Minister or the Defence Secretary but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The commitment itself is not clear—is it a commitment in principle or in practice? Will it retain or replace the existing deterrent?
The Minister said that a decision to replace Trident has not been made “in principle”, yet the newspapers are full of stories saying that the Chancellor’s people have briefed that a decision has been made and that the Treasury will spend the money. The Chancellor, as the Prime Minister in waiting, will oversee a new generation of nuclear deterrence for the United Kingdom. If those newspaper reports are wrong, if all those Treasury briefings did not take place, and if a decision has not been made about the principle of replacing Trident, when will the Chancellor publicly disown everything that has been said in his name in the past 24 hours? This is a vital issue, so it is utterly unacceptable that power politics should be at play in the Cabinet, as the national interest must be put first.
The place to debate major issues is the House of Commons, and we must debate the principle and practicalities of action on our nuclear deterrent. However, we must do more than debate, as the House deserves a vote on those important issues. If the Government do not allow the House the opportunity to vote, the Conservative party will certainly ensure that all hon. Members are given a vote on an issue of enormous importance to the country.
We will back the Government when they act in the national interest, but the professionalism of our servicemen and women stands in sharp contrast to the Government’s increasingly shambolic amateurism. What sort of Government, for example, arrange a defence debate, in their own time, knowing that the Secretary of State cannot attend? Those who serve our country deserve so much better; before long, they will get it.
Before I call the next speaker to address the House, may I remind hon. Members that there is a 15-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers?
I want to speak about Afghanistan and Somalia, but principally about Iraq.
In Afghanistan, not enough aid was provided to lift and stabilise that war-torn country after the initial takeover from the Taliban. We took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq, so vital time and good will were lost. Other forces are at work. Drugs are a driving force for lawlessness and the resurgence of the Taliban, which is backed by shadowy forces, probably from Pakistan or Iran and perhaps the countries of the former Soviet Union that have an interest in destabilising the foreign occupation of Afghanistan. That demonstrates the limit of defence operations. We cannot occupy north-west Pakistan, or go to war with Iran in support of our activity in Afghanistan, so we must find other routes to achieve our goals, for example, by working constructively with the United Nations and neighbouring countries. Our aim should be to stabilise democratic governance, with an ensuing reduction in drug production, which cannot be achieved peaceably without tackling the security situation. Killing every member of the Taliban is not possible, and trying to do so causes civilian casualties and acts as a recruiting sergeant. I do not want the Taliban to return, but we must be more politically proactive to incorporate moderate Taliban sympathisers in the political process. If we are to do our job in Afghanistan, the American troops should go, as their roaming, killing role is not helpful and creates a climate of danger for our troops. The exit of the American troops would be a sign that the fighting should be brought to an end. There should be another push to boost aid and the institutions of civil society, as Hamid Karzai suggested today.
In Somalia, the Americans backed the wrong group when it chose to support unpopular warlords. The popular Islamic Court Union is in the process of coming to power and can unify the Somali people for the time being, while the warlords cannot. America has encouraged the UN and the UK to back the wrong horse and the position has been made worse by President Bush’s crude strategy of “for or against us”, which means that Muslim groups that attain power are automatically assumed to be supporters of al-Qaeda. We have worked constructively with Muslim Governments all over the world—for example, in Saudi Arabia and Turkey—so we can do so in Somalia, too.
We must acknowledge that we backed the wrong horse and start to engage properly and effectively with Somalia to achieve stability. We should not back Ethiopia’s efforts to spread the conflict throughout the region, as that would be detrimental for the people of both countries, leading to more poverty and death, and an increase in the number of asylum seekers. We should not become embroiled in such a conflict, because the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right that failed states and ongoing conflict offer the best opportunities for al-Qaeda to operate and recruit. We should therefore encourage stability in countries such as Somalia.
Turning to Iraq, on which I wish to concentrate, the weekly magazine, Tribune, published a “world cup” of the worst human rights abusers. It was a very good article and the final was a high-scoring draw between Iran and the United States, which keeps thousands of individuals in custody without charge in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. It conducts rendition to undisclosed locations and is guilty of torture at Abu Ghraib, as well as atrocities and abuses, including the mass killing of civilians. The US is our coalition partner and our Government offer apologia and gentle rebukes for such activity—for example, they refer to atrocities as “unfortunate incidents” or say that such matters are “their responsibility, not ours.” I strongly believe that joint and several liability applies, because we are part of a multinational force. The Government claimed credit for Saddam Hussein’s fall, even though it was mainly achieved by US troops, so we should share the blame for US wrongdoing. A UK general is second-in-command of the coalition forces in Baghdad, and we share overall responsibility, whether or not we make representations, which are often ignored. In my opinion, the UK should have been in the semi-final of Tribune’s world cup human rights abusers, given its role in Iraq.
I intervened on the hon. Gentleman in an earlier defence debate to ask him to pay tribute to the British soldiers who have served, and continue to serve, in Iraq. May I ask him to do so today?
I did so in that debate and I am happy to echo what I said. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should choose to intervene on me, as he should intervene on Members who supported the war and put the lives of our troops at jeopardy, not to mention risk of mental illness and so on. I am happy, however, to give that assurance and acknowledge that our troops do a splendid job given the terms under which they operate. It is the political decision making that sent them to Iraq of which I am fiercely critical.
We have also been hostile to Iran and Syria, which are neighbours of Afghanistan. In a private sitting of the Defence Committee, the Minister of State discussed Iran’s alleged role in Iraq and the death of British soldiers, although I suspect that he had very little evidence. Extending the war to Iran should not be an option, so we need to obtain better relations for mutual security. Threats, hostility and covert tit-for-tat killings are not the way forward.
I want to use this debate to raise some difficult human rights issues. Mr. Abdul Razzaq Ali al-Jedda is a joint British and Iraqi citizen on whose behalf Amnesty International has been making representations. Amnesty is concerned that, even after months of internment, the multinational force is continuing to hold internees without providing them or their legal counsel with substantive evidence to justify their detention. Mr. al-Jedda has been detained since his arrest on 10 October 2004 in Baghdad. He filed a case against the UK Secretary of State for Defence challenging his internment in Iraq, which was dismissed by the High Court of England and Wales on 12 August 2005. However, the court noted:
“Although detained for imperative reasons of security, the claimant has not been charged with any offence; and the Secretary of State acknowledges that, as matters stand, there is insufficient material available which could be used in court to support criminal charges against him. The claimant is therefore detained simply on a preventive basis.”
Mr. al-Jedda continues to be held without charge or trial by UK forces. When I tabled a written question on the matter, the reply stated:
“Mr. al-Jedda is being detained by the British contingent of the Multi-National Force in Iraq for imperative reasons of security under the authority conferred by United Nations Security Council”.—[Official Report, 25 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 1963W.]
He might be a dangerous man—I do not know—but there should be a proper process of law, including charges and evidence. That man is a British citizen who is being held by British forces under a secretive process, which is not satisfactory. The Government should deal with the case properly.
Then there is the shooting of innocent Iraqi civilian motorists by employees of the UK company Aegis Defence Services. Evidence of that happening was posted on a website and broadcast on TV for all to see. The company has immunity from Iraqi law under the decree of the then chief US occupier, Paul Bremer, which was enacted with the support of the UK, and it is seemingly above UK law. It has had the nerve to use British law to shut up the whistleblower, an ex-Army man, Mr. Rod Stoner. The situation is unsatisfactory and the Government should address it.
I want to discuss inquiries set up by UK forces and the MOD when innocent Iraqis are killed. For example, a helicopter went down in Basra recently and the subsequent disorder led to the deaths of several Iraqis, including two children. During the Secretary of State’s statement in this House, I asked whether the mothers of the children who were killed would be able attend or put any evidence to the inquiry, but no answer was provided. That raises a query in my mind about how such inquiries are carried out. The excluded Iraqis who have lost loved ones will see them as cover ups, which I suspect they are. We should hear a statement about how such inquiries are carried out and whether Iraqis who have lost loved ones can be involved.
We have been in control of Basra for three years, so why has it ended up in a state of emergency? The Stop the War organisation has e-mailed me to say that public order in Basra has virtually collapsed and that one person is being assassinated every hour. I have received an e-mail entitled, “Ethnic cleansing under the watchful eyes of the British Army”, from Mr. F. Sabri of the Iraqi Islamic party, which is based in London. It states:
“Three years of kidnapping, torture and assassinations by Shiite militias in Basrah caused tens of thousands of Sunnis to flee the city. A healthy Sunni population of 35 per cent. reduced to less than 15 per cent. under British rule. The British government is responsible for the protection of all Iraqis under its control in the south of Iraq yet it failed its obligation under international law to curb the influence and power of the Iranian backed gangs and militias. Last week leaflets were distributed in the city asking the Sunni population to leave by the 3rd of July otherwise they will be exterminated. We have asked the British Government repeatedly to act and protect the civilians in Basrah, but we never receive an answer. We hold the British government responsible for the safety of our people in Iraq. History will tell if a tragedy in Basrah will be added to the catalogue of catastrophes committed by Britain against the people of the middle east.”
We deserve an answer about what is going on in Basra.
Just to help me in the wind-ups, can my hon. Friend tell me where Stop the War collects its data from?
I am simply quoting Stop the War, which will have to give that information itself.
Presumably my hon. Friend thinks that the information is reliable.
I do not know, as we have had virtually a news cover-up about Basra. I do know, however, that there are many deaths and many people are being forced to flee. Stop the War has quoted the information to me and I have put it to the House. It may be true, but we do not know. I bet that if the figures on the number of people killed in Basra were disclosed, they would be high. I invite the Minister to give us those figures when he winds up.
My hon. Friend must know that I cannot possibly speak for Stop the War.
But the Government know the number of deaths that have occurred among civilians in Iraq and in Basra, and their policy of saying that they will not give those figures is a disgrace. We still need a proper answer about what has been happening in Basra.
Then there is the matter of the death squads. The UN’s human rights chief, John Pace, said that they were overwhelmingly linked to the Ministry of the Interior. The then Minister, Bayan Al Jabr, said that it was not down to him and that the death squads were from the facilities protection service set up by the coalition. When I asked a parliamentary question about the FPS, I was told that the UK trained it. Why have we been training and unleashing the death squads that have caused so much damage?
I could raise plenty of other issues, such as Saddam Hussein’s trial and the killing of his third defence lawyer. He is not going to get a fair trial in Iraq, and it should be moved to The Hague. If it is all right for that to happen to Liberia’s Charles Taylor, it should happen to Saddam Hussein. President Bush is hell-bent on delivering the death penalty to Saddam Hussein and a fair trial can go hang as far as he is concerned.
I could mention a host of atrocities, but time precludes me from doing so. Robert Fisk said in an article that, when the Americans bring a lot of bodies into the mortuaries, they say to the people there, “Don’t do any post-mortems.” In Haditha, 24 innocent civilians—women and children—were slaughtered in their own homes. Even the American ambassador has said that there is huge social discord among staff. There is a catalogue of problems.
We need an explicit exit strategy. Muthana is a start, but there needs to be a coherent and swift exit strategy overall. That is not consistent with the criteria set out by Ministers, which were completely subjective and not measurable. The situation is not improving; it is closer to civil war—
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.
It is welcome to have this chance in Government time to debate these important matters and to range across the whole realm of defence policy. I regret that it has not been possible to have the Secretary of State with us today, but it is still good that we are able to have these discussions.
These are important matters, because in recent months there have been many developments in our overseas operational activities. In the past five months, there have been announcements on major troop deployments to Afghanistan and decisions on the reconfiguration of British troops in Iraq. At the same time, the House has had to consider the Armed Forces Bill, the Blake review, and a series of critical manning, readiness and procurement reports. There are many other pressing issues that have not, until today, been subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny or debate, and I shall refer to some of those in a few minutes.
The defence White Paper proposed key changes to cope with new planning assumptions, reflecting the enhanced use of network-enabled capability, effects-based warfare and force restructuring. Those measures were said to create the circumstances for a reduction in future manpower requirements, but I wonder whether that can possibly be considered realistic now, when the demands on our forces in many different places have increased so much.
It must be of profound concern that, although the National Audit Office and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have found that the services have been operating beyond planning assumptions for at least seven years, the Government have successively reduced armed forces strength requirements, leaving what the Defence Committee describes as “little if any fat” in the armed forces. I am sure that the Committee is right. When outflow from the armed forces is at a high, recruitment is at a low and our overseas commitments appear likely to increase, there cannot be any justification in those reductions in numbers. What impact will that have on our reliance on harmony guidelines and the extent of our reliance on reservists?
The latest Defence Analytical Services Agency figures show an increase in the total annual outflow from the armed forces. The figure is now 24,290 compared with 23,430 in April 2005. Similarly, recruitment from civilian life into the UK regular forces has dropped substantially, to below 20,000 in the past two years. It was reported earlier this year that the Army expects a 12 per cent. recruitment shortfall compared with its target. Will the Under-Secretary confirm recent reports that the bounty offered to soldiers who persuade friends to join up is to be doubled, from £650 to £1,300? Does he acknowledge the serious recruitment problems?
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s annual report in February attributes the increase in voluntary outflow to “operational pressures” and
“the nature of service life”,
which it labels as “retention-negative”. The National Audit Office readiness report identified
“the continued use of personnel on operations”
as a potential cause of retention problems. It went further, saying that the problem
“could exacerbate the shortage of specialist skills within the services, or more extensive drawing down of reservists”.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body identified serious shortages in key trades and skills. The Government have declined to make public, on what they describe as “operational grounds”, the extent of the shortages in specific areas, but the existence of several operational pinch points is seriously worrying.
The report identifies specific shortages in trades in the Royal Engineers, the Royal Signals, the Intelligence Corps and the Army medical services and asks questions about the prevalence and extent of the problems. What progress has been made in filling those gaps?
Questions are being asked about the effect of operational strains on our armed forces, consequently calling into question the feasibility of the revised defence planning assumptions in the defence White Paper. The NAO readiness report warned that a third of British forces had serious weaknesses in their state of readiness, and of the cumulative effect of a series of minor risks. It has also been said that 8 per cent. of our armed forces are medically unfit for duty, which could get worse with strains on mental health from over-deployment. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made that point effectively. That is profoundly significant not only for the individuals—the hon. Gentleman was right to stress the importance of making facilities available to them—but it must have an impact on the calculations of the extent of deployment that we can sensibly undertake in future.
I want to consider some current operations. Understandably, there has been much discussion of Afghanistan. In a memorandum to the Select Committee in February, the Ministry of Defence stated that, despite manning shortages, deployment to Afghanistan is “manageable”. However, in its report today, the Defence Committee observes:
“Overall we judge that the impact on personnel of our deployment to Afghanistan is manageable, but will inevitably constrain our capacity to respond elsewhere.”
The Committee is quite right to make that very level judgment. I wonder what assessment the Ministry has made of the fighting capabilities of the Taliban and other illegally armed groups in the south of Afghanistan, and what assumptions underlie its calculation of the kind of help that we are going to get from the Afghans themselves.
We support the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. It is intrinsically the right thing to do, but we are less certain of the extent to which it is do-able. I was in Paris earlier this week for the meeting of the Western European Union, which had received a report from a group that had been to Afghanistan. The report concluded that there would be a need for overseas troops to be present there for 15 years. I do not think that political or public opinion in the many parts of the country that are supplying those troops is in any way ready for that.
It is in everyone’s interest to achieve the stabilisation and reconstruction of Afghanistan, not least because it supplies 90 per cent. of the world’s opium. This concerted international effort has come rather late in the day, however. For three years, not enough progress was made. I fear that energy was being devoted to Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan, and the task is now more difficult because of that neglect. The Government have yet to explain how they can reconcile the concurrent objectives of achieving security and making progress on counter-narcotics. It has already been pointed out that the prevalence of the connections of the drugs industry throughout Afghan society and within its political institutions means that the drugs trade is the foundation of the Afghan economy. Effective measures against the trade are going to make the security situation even more challenging.
I hope that our forces will find ways of overcoming that tension, but I am unclear as to what role they will play in the counter-narcotics strategy. Does NATO have sufficient numbers of combat troops in southern Afghanistan, where the level of violence has reached a new high? What provision is there to cope with any further escalation in hostilities? This is undoubtedly a highly challenging mission, and we must be clear that an enduring solution will not be achieved without comprehensive political reform and serious reconstruction. Success will also depend on the active and constructive engagement of Afghanistan’s neighbours, especially Pakistan.
There needs to be clarity on the co-ordination between the different national contingents serving in the international security assistance force—ISAF—as the hon. Member for Woodspring said. There have been examples of overlap, and the co-ordination does not seem to have been as strong as it might have been. With the forthcoming unification of ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom, there needs to be clarity on the counter-insurgency role undertaken by NATO forces, and a recognition of the dangers of mission creep. There is a real danger that Afghan society will see all foreign troops in the same light, and come to view all of them as unwelcome.
Italy has begun the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, with a view to complete withdrawal before the end of the year. As that involves the second largest contingent in multi-national sector south-east, I wonder what effect the withdrawal will have on our forces and commitments there. The Secretary of State told me when he made a statement just a day or two into his new post that the objective in Iraq was to reach a situation where we could hand over security responsibility to the new Government—I think that everyone would agree with that—and that the strategy was to achieve the objective. A full debate in the House on Iraq is overdue, and any such debate should be led or shared by the Foreign Office rather than being viewed simply as a defence matter.
A new strategy is needed in Iraq, central to which should be a peace process led by the United Nations to achieve national reconciliation and the internationalisation of support for Iraq. That process would need to build on the policies that have been set out by the Iraqi Prime Minister, and would work towards the agreement of an international compact setting out the commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and reconstruction strategy. It would need to build on the good work—to which I pay tribute—of coalition forces that are busily engaged in the training, equipping, professionalising and regularising of the Iraqi security services. But it would need to go a long way beyond that.
We need a regional contact group to strengthen the engagement of Iraq’s neighbours. We need a comprehensive disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy comparable with those that coalition forces have overseen elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) rightly said, we need an end to systematic and indefinite detentions by United States and, indeed, Iraqi forces, with safeguards against abuses. We need an enhanced national programme in Iraq to promote human rights and the rule of law. We need to expedite the reconstruction process, do what is possible to eliminate corruption, and increase the involvement of the United Nations and the World Bank.
As all those components begin to progress, it will become feasible to start talking about a programme for phased security transfer and the withdrawal of coalition troops. To get anywhere near such an approach, however, will require the United Kingdom to use its influence in Washington to press for US support, and it will have to be developed and implemented with the approval of, and in partnership with, the sovereign Government of Iraq.
Le me say something about procurement. The defence industrial strategy has rightly received a generally warm welcome, despite some concerns about its potential impact upon smaller companies. How will the Ministry of Defence monitor its impact over a period, and ensure that it is having a benign effect?
I will not attempt a tour d’horizon of procurement issues in one short speech, but a few brief points are worth making. What progress is being made on technology transfer in relation to the joint strike fighter? Last week, discussions between Bill Jeffrey and Gordon England failed yet again to achieve a statement of principles to facilitate the United States’ sharing of technologies with Britain in the context of the JSF programme. Does the Minister believe that a memorandum of understanding between our two nations will be produced by December, as previously planned? Does the recent publication of a report in the US saying that the costs of the JSF could be better controlled if there were competition to provide engines revive any hopes for Rolls-Royce?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great shame if the Farnborough air show came and went without clarification of the technology transfer?
That is a very good point. The Farnborough air show will soon be upon us. I hope that it will focus minds and produce some agreements. That would be a realistic and sensible time scale in which to try to conclude discussions that are vitally important. No one wants to see the JSF programme fail, but British Ministers and officials have—rightly, in my view—taken a robust line with the Americans, and it is essential for this thorny issue to be resolved as soon as possible.
Another procurement issue that urgently needs attention is heavy lift capability. My noble Friend Lord Garden has persistently raised the issue in another place. What resources has the MOD with which to address that urgent problem, and when does it plan to do so?
We must ensure that the drive to meet planning assumptions does not lead us towards reduced stock holdings and spares. There are obvious risks associated with purchasing to meet urgent operational requirements, as we saw in the case of Operation Telic. The readiness report from the National Audit Office states:
“The department relies extensively on cannibalising equipment”,
and that applies particularly in the fleet. What progress is being made to reduce that dependency, which is often inefficient and manpower-intensive and which restricts operational flexibility?
One issue that has not had parliamentary scrutiny but deserves it has to do with pre-emption and the Geneva conventions. In a speech in March, the then Defence Secretary called for a reappraisal of the Geneva conventions and an expansion of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Will the Minister say whether that is Government policy? If so, what revisions are proposed to those conventions, which form the bedrock of international humanitarian law? In light of the catastrophic consequences of the Iraq invasion, on what grounds should the pre-emptive strike doctrine be expanded? The UN High-Level Panel concluded last year that existing international rules on the use of force are sufficient, but that they need to be respected.
Finally, I turn to the matter that has been referred to already and which has dominated this morning’s newspapers—the replacement of our nuclear deterrent. In February, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee:
“I do not know that we need, specifically, to have a vote…but I am sure there will be the fullest possible Parliamentary debate and there will obviously be that…it will probably be done in a far more open way than these decisions have been taken before.”
That was a welcome sentiment, but I wonder about it. The number of scientists working on hydrodynamic testing at Aldermaston is being increased for the first time in 20 years, and additional investment of more than £1 billion is being made in that facility, with more than £10 million allocated to preliminary work on Trident renewal.
I have been rather surprised by some of the answers to parliamentary questions that I have received in the past few weeks. Will the Minister confirm that no work is currently under way at Aldermaston on designs for a new nuclear warhead? It seems inconceivable that that can be right. We need transparency from the Government about the process, and they should actively provide information to Parliament and the public so as to inform a full debate on the matter.
Last night, we learned that the Prime Minister-in- waiting believes that the decision must be taken next year—although he seems to have made a decision, despite the fact that key facts have not been made public. Successive Defence Ministers have said only that a decision may be required in this Parliament. Why the sudden urgency? Has the Ministry of Defence changed its position and, if so, on what basis? The former Defence Secretary said in a written answer in March that Ministers had not yet begun to consider the position “in any detail”, so what new analysis has taken place since then? Exactly when will the “fullest possible parliamentary debate” that the Prime Minister promised begin? The truth is that the timetable for replacement seems to have more to do with political considerations than technical ones.
The Americans are proposing to extend the lifecycle of their Trident systems into the 2040s. I do not pretend that we could do that with ease, but it would certainly be possible. In that case, why does the Chancellor suddenly believe that a decision about replacement has to be made in the next few months?
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, but I think that the problem is the life of the Trident missile submarines rather than the missiles themselves. The submarines’ lifespan will end between 2020 and 2025.
I agree that the problem lies with the submarines, which have a limited lifecycle, rather than with the warhead or the missile. However, the Americans are proposing to eke some extra life even out of their submarines. Although I do not see that we have a great deal of scope to do the same, I do not believe that final decisions need to be made by next spring. If we did everything that we could to extend Trident’s lifecycle, a number of years would certainly pass before it had absolutely had to be replaced.
A decision to replace Trident before all the options—as well as their costs, the strategic environment, proliferation implications and security requirements—are considered would be a dereliction of public duty. This is a matter of essential national debate, and all such factors need to be brought into the open. The decision should be taken only after an informed debate and a slow and careful consideration of the issues, not on a political whim.
In concluding, I welcome the announcement in the Minister’s statement that, before the end of the year, a future strategic context for defence policy will be published. That in itself may prove a useful step along the way in our discussions of the possible replacement of Trident. I did feel, however, that the Minister was at times in danger of painting a slightly rosy picture of the 21st century context. There are very great dangers; we live in a very uncertain world.
Climate change could prove a great threat to security, as many of the world’s cities are based on vulnerable coastlines. HIV/AIDS has been recognised by the UN Security Council as a security issue that threatens to destabilise parts of Africa. Competition for scarce resources is intensifying and the US, China and India should certainly rein in, sit down and participate in discussions about the problem. There is a growing poverty gap between wealthy parts of the world and the developing world, and trade barriers are being put in the way of the developing world as it tries to improve itself. In addition, there is the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the constant threat of terrorism. All of those are new challenges that require new policies. Talk of the peace dividend seems a long way behind us now.
It is welcome that we have a chance to debate the new security contexts later in the year, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to look into the more current issues now. I very much hope that the Government will shortly give the House more information about the replacement of Trident so that we can begin a rational debate about it as soon as possible.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know about the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was delighted to be accepted into and to take part in it. For the benefit of anyone observing our debate or reading Hansard later, it is worth restating that the scheme was established to enable Members here and in the other place to gain a feel for, and understanding of, what our armed forces do. I venture to suggest that some who have already participated in today’s debate or who intend to later would do well to think about signing up to the scheme to widen their knowledge.
One important aspect of the scheme is the sharing with the House of any lessons learned. I would certainly recommend last year’s armed forces parliamentary scheme booklet to anyone who wanted to get an idea of what the scheme does and to get involved with it. Over the next few minutes or so, I would like to give the House some of the information that I have learned through participating in the scheme so far. I make no apology for the fact that it is a personal view based on what has been said to me and what I have learned. I also make no apology for the fact that my speech is Army-centred, because that is the armed force with which I worked. I make no apology either for failing to mention any names—it would be unfair for me to do so and it would send out the wrong message to people who want the opportunity to talk to parliamentarians when they are out and about with different units. People should not feel inhibited in any way about speaking to us.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make one exception to that honourable self-denying ordinance and join me in congratulating Sir Neil Thorne, the founder of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its mentor for many years.
I would be delighted to do so. The scheme has been going for about 18 years and it has allowed something in the order of 170 or 180 Members to participate. In my relatively short period in the scheme, I have undertaken a few visits. I kick off with the Army presentation team. Again, I would recommend any interested Member to take the opportunity to get a flavour and overview from the team of what it does.
I also visited Headquarters Land Command and met the commander-in-chief of our land forces. The meeting was attended by three chiefs of staff, four assistant chiefs of staff, the Command secretary and his deputy and the director of Army infrastructure. Indeed, there were so many stars in the room that I thought I was in an episode of “The Sky at Night”. It was extremely informative. We talked about the organisation of the forces, the current operations, as have been mentioned in the debate, the major issues that the Army is addressing and the major challenges that it faces and, indeed, some of the issues that have been so eloquently spoken about already, such as the commitment of forces and the new equipment that is planned.
I also attended Pirbright, spoke to some of the new recruits on their phase 1 training and had an insightful briefing from the commander in charge of that facility. I saw at first hand the high-tech shooting range, where new recruits are taught how to use weapons in an extremely safe environment. They can get used to the equipment in a way that allows the trainers to correct any new recruit who needs some further guidance, in a way that would not be possible traditionally because of the accuracy of the training equipment that they have been given to use. Throughout my experience so far, the quality of the training comes through time and again. Perhaps other Departments could learn some lessons about the quality of the training that the Army is able to undertake. I stand in the House as a perhaps less-than-perfect example of someone at his peak physical fitness, but the effort that goes into, and the quality of, the physical training was also particularly notable.
I was fortunate to spend some time with 1 Royal Anglian on its training exercise. Give that yesterday was the longest day, the name of the exercise—Druids Dance—seemed somewhat appropriate on Salisbury plain. I also spent some time with a squadron of the King’s Royal Hussars. Again, that was insightful, and I hope in the next few minutes to develop some of the information that was provided to me during those three very informative days. Most recently, I visited the armoured centre at Bovington with the Royal Armoured Corps. Again, I gained first-hand experience of training and speaking to recruits and soldiers at various stages of their Army careers, as well as the leadership of those facilities.
Later in the year, I hope to visit Iraq to see it for myself. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) is not in his place, but if he got himself on to that visit, we could both see for ourselves what the reality of life is like for the troops in Iraq, by talking to serving soldiers about their experiences and perhaps not relying on—dare I say?—propaganda from possibly unreliable sources that cannot be corroborated.
I have had an opportunity to talk to soldiers at all levels, from a recruit who was only a few weeks into phase 1 training to the commander-in-chief of land forces. I spoke to soldiers all the way through: captains, majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels and all the ranks. I had a particularly interesting conversation over a cup of tea in a deckchair on Salisbury plain with a brigadier, who very kindly hosted me at the headquarters of 12 Mechanised Brigade.
I want to get to the meat of the major issues that were expressed to me, but this is just a snapshot of some of them. The Bowman radio system has not been mentioned specifically in the debate, but it has been alluded to. I got very mixed views from professional soldiers—the signalmen—to whom I spoke, but the vast majority of them were impressed with the system. They said that it was fantastic and that the secure communications, the robustness and the whole set up was very good. Where the problems still lie—they are being resolved—is in rolling out the additional functionality of the Bowman system.
A number of outsiders have expressed concerns to me about the loss of some knowledge and the encryption ability in relation to the use of unsecured communications. Yet when I was with the Royal Armoured Corps at Bovington recently, I saw with my own eyes recruits being trained to use encryption if the secure communications system falls down. There is a lot of hype and myth about the loss of trained skills and abilities, but on seeing the situation for myself, it was clear that the reality is completely different.
Many people outside the military have expressed to me their views about equipment levels and availability. Being a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme has allowed me to see the situation for myself and to talk to serving soldiers. On doing so, it became clear—I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will take note of this message, and the spirit in which it is intended; this was a learning experience—that the equipment provided on operational duty was excellent and of the highest quality. Soldiers had what they needed where and when they needed it, but time and again they expressed concerns about training. For example, although the sights provided on operation in Iraq were superb, they were not available in the UK training environment, so there was a delay in deployment and in getting up to speed in the use of that equipment. The thermal imaging sight for the Javelin 2 missile system is an extremely capable piece of kit, but it is not cheap. One sight was available for training use by a number of units, which was sufficient to meeting training needs; however, we could do better.
Some of the equipment used at the land warfare centre to train soldiers is incredible, and a lot of thought has gone into developing the training systems. One room there has desktop computers with training aids that soldiers can use as part of a lesson or in their own time, in order to get back up to speed. They can also take those aids back to their base units, so that they can continue to upgrade their knowledge. There are also gunners’ “cabinets”, which are used to train gunners, and a wide range of other training equipment. Yet again, the quality of training is absolutely superb.
Turning to the after-action review and my time spent with 12 Mechanised Brigade on Salisbury plain, the training facilities, tools and equipment provided there are absolutely superb. It is possible to identify whether individual soldiers are standing or lying down, and moving in the right or wrong direction. Such information can be gone through item by item in a replay after the training session, which is incredibly valuable.
On asset management of equipment, particularly the heavier equipment—the tanks—it would be remiss of me not to mention the robust session that I had with the King’s Royal Hussars in the major’s tent at the end of one Wednesday. They expressed their views in a forthright manner, pointing out that although central asset management of tanks such as Scimitars is in principle a good idea in practice, when on exercise troops have to spend a lot of time at the start bringing such equipment back up to standard. Because the unit that has used it previously does not own it and therefore has no personal pride in it, the various niggles are not sorted out before it is put back into storage. As a result, work often needs to be done to bring it back up to standard when it is taken out of storage. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will take note of that information.
The KRH pointed out to me that most of their vehicles have been switched over from petrol to diesel, but my understanding—I hope that the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is that the fuel used is virtually of the type to be found in the public garage down the road. It was duty-paid fuel, and it seemed odd to me to use that for those vehicles and that some arrangement has not been made. Perhaps more important, though, would be taking a lead in looking at biofuels and alternative fuels, to see whether there are ways for the services, and the Army in particular, to set an example on the environmental impact of having a Saxon armoured carrier sitting with its engine running so that tea can be boiled up in the brewing vessel. There is a need for alternative fuels.
A lot of comments have been made about soldiers having to buy their own kit, especially if they want anything decent. My experience is that that may have been the case a few years back, but the quality of kit is mighty fine now. It is good stuff. It is good kit. I was issued a pair of boots before going out to Salisbury plain, and only remembered them the day before. So, I had three days out in these brand new boots, but without a blister to speak of, and believe me that was not because I was sitting down, because I certainly had to do a lot of walking.
What came across to me was that soldiers do still buy some personal kit, but that is for personalisation reasons and not because there is anything wrong with the kit. One comment made to me was about a lightweight fleece jacket. Someone had bought one, but two months on they are being issued as standard, and he is looking for the receipt to try to take it back. The quality of food has also come a long way. Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach, and the only comment made to me was that an awful lot of soldiers carry their own bottles of Tabasco sauce to spice things up a little.
Safety was absolutely paramount on the exercise. Someone twisted an ankle and the whole exercise on the plain was closed down while that was attended to. The quality of the safety, like the training, was phenomenal. Loader training at the Royal Armoured centre involved teaching loaders to get away from the recoil of the Challenger 2 breech. Almost everything seemed to be done, too, in terms of risk assessment. I started slightly cynically, as a Member of Parliament, thinking that things might be being talked about and done for my benefit. But when I sat back in the middle of the exercise and could see things happening for real, I started to realise that risk assessment is well and truly embedded.
Pay is never too far from most people’s minds, and soldiers are no exception. One thing mentioned was that overseas troops tend to have tax-free pay. What was not mentioned was levels of pay and how well troops are paid now in comparison with some time ago.
I pay tribute to the soldiers I met. Finally, I ask that veterans day should be not just about ex-service personnel and that we should celebrate our current, serving personnel, who do a tremendous job.
I declare an interest in regard to what I wish to say later about Afghanistan.
I have some sympathy with the problems of the Minister of State and the Ministry of Defence. I know as well as anyone that although the Ministry has what appear to be vast resources—£32 billion a year or whatever it is—that does not enable it to do more than a proportion of what it would like to achieve. The Ministry of Defence is always treated with a lot of jealousy by other home Departments. I recall Margaret Thatcher once saying to me that the problem with the Ministry of Defence is that it has no friends. I suggested that the Foreign Office was perhaps a friend, and she said, “The Foreign Office? They’re not wet; they’re drenched!” And so was the conversation brought to a premature end.
I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me for saying that our discussion so far illustrates why the Leader of the House was quite wrong to suggest that a debate such as this one meets the Government’s responsibilities with regard to the House having an opportunity to debate Iraq or other fundamental issues of defence policy. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) and from others about many important topics, and we cannot go through dozens of relevant issues, which just happen to include Iraq and Afghanistan, and then say that the House of Commons has fulfilled its responsibilities and that Parliament has been able to agree or disagree with the Government’s policy. That is not acceptable. The United States Congress has had many opportunities to debate Iraq and Afghanistan, and I suggest to the Minister that his Department, and, I hope, the Foreign Office, will impress upon the Leader of the House, who ought to know better than most, why such a debate would be timely and necessary in the wider public interest if the Government wish to try to win back some support for their policy.
I shall not detain the House long, but I want to make two kinds of comment. First, I shall deal with the argument that the Government try to make, either intentionally or subliminally, that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan—the problems, opportunities and tasks—are broadly the same, and that they are pursuing a single strategy and should have the support of the House and the country. Secondly, I want to make specific comments about Afghanistan.
I support what the Government are doing in Afghanistan; it is absolutely right. The starting point was quite different. Al-Qaeda may be present in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is in Iraq as a result of the British and American invasion of that country. Before then, there was a secular despot who had no more time for al-Qaeda than do the British Government. Al-Qaeda has identified a big vacuum in Iraq and is there in a big way, but the situation in Afghanistan is fundamentally different. The British, American and other Governments were right to intervene in that country.
The second consideration is that the United States had genuine global support. A few years on, it is easy to forget how unanimous that support and sympathy was around the world; there was also recognition of the need to take swift action against the Taliban, because they were giving al-Qaeda practical support. Another consideration is that there is not the insurgency in Afghanistan that there is in Iraq. People express great pessimism about Afghanistan going the wrong way, and talk about mission creep and our being sucked into something insoluble. There are indeed major problems, but they are of a quite different order. For practical purposes, the whole of Iraq—certainly in the areas where the population is concentrated, in Baghdad, Basra and elsewhere—is convulsed by the insurgency. In Afghanistan the Government’s remit is relatively limited. However, that is not because there is general insurgency, but because warlords and others control individual provinces and deny respect for the central Government. The situation is not comparable.
Furthermore, 40,000 Iraqis and others have died since the insurgency began. There have been fatalities in Afghanistan, but they are of a different order.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right: there is as yet no general insurgency in Afghanistan. Is he not concerned, however, that the unpleasant coalition against us of poppy growers, the Taliban, local warlords and local people, together with al-Qaeda and others coming from Iraq and Iran, may lead to a more general insurgency in the country if we do not do something about it?
My hon. Friend is correct; the situation could deteriorate significantly, but at present there is no evidence of such an unholy alliance materialising. There have been no major military incidents of a comparable kind in Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, there is not the sectarian split that has so dominated the Iraqi issue. Afghanistan is overwhelmingly a Sunni country and no one suggests that that situation is likely to change in any meaningful way. There is no equivalent of the Kurdish dimension; no part of Afghanistan has aspirations to the total independence that would fragment the country. Nor does Afghanistan have what is in one respect the curse of oil, to create further division in that state. However, there are big problems and we must look frankly at why the coalition forces of NATO and others, including the Afghan Government, are finding it so difficult to cope.
Part of the problem is that the Taliban were never defeated in the conventional sense; they simply faded away. They realised the overwhelming strength of the United States, in particular, and its allies, and withdrew to their villages, to the hill areas and the frontier where they could regroup and continue, which creates a very different situation. In addition, there is the inability of the western forces to act in a coherent and united fashion.
Earlier, I raised the question of the integration of the international forces operating in Afghanistan. I appreciate and understand the difficulties. Even within NATO, there are countries with different views on whether they would wish to take part in the kind of work being carried out by Operation Enduring Freedom. However, it is manifestly absurd to have a situation in which many thousands of British, American and other NATO forces are all operating within the country, but with two separate command structures for all practical purposes, two different rules of engagement and with an attempt now being made to draw them closer together. That is a wasteful use of resources and a wasteful way of approaching these matters.
The Minister knows that perfectly well—although he is not in a position to say it in quite the blunt terms that I am using—and the United States knows it perfectly well. Most countries know it well—even if the only way in which we can get a single unified command in Afghanistan, in order to maximise operations against the Taliban and other elements in that country, is to say to the one or two countries in NATO that do not want to go in that direction that they should no longer take part in the operation. Most of NATO is willing to work in a unified way. The United States, which is NATO’s leading member state, can hardly be expected not to be part of a single, unified process.
There is a word of warning for the United States. It has seen the British and NATO involvement in Helmand province as the beginning of a process that will enable it to reduce its own troop complement in Afghanistan. Indeed, Donald Rumsfeld, in his usual sensitive fashion, has said as much, and has anticipated that the Americans will now be able to reduce their commitment. That would be an incredibly foolish mistake—comparable to the mistake that the United States, and indeed the rest of us, have been making since the beginning of the Afghan operation.
When the Taliban were overthrown—when Karzai’s Government came into effect—the best estimate at that time was that Afghanistan would need an international force of about 30,000 to provide real stabilisation. In fact, we ended up with about a third of that number. Against that background, it is not surprising that warlords in individual provinces have been able to continue in control, and it is not a matter for any particular astonishment that the central Government in Kabul have not been able to extend their authority, even in many of the areas where the Taliban are not remotely present, or not present in any significant numbers. The problem is not just the south and the east. It is the failure in Afghanistan—in this sense it is comparable to Iraq—to realise that once the war is over, we still need a major international military presence. I am afraid that Mr. Rumsfeld is the guilty party, as he is in Iraq, for having decreed that somehow the numbers needed were far more modest than has turned out to be the case.
The Government are entitled to the support of this House. The United States continues to have a considerable degree of international support for what it is seeking to do in Afghanistan. All the warnings that have been given by the Minister and others about what would happen if the west simply withdrew from Afghanistan are entirely correct and justified, but that should not be used as an excuse to maintain an inefficient military command structure that cannot deliver the best results and, most of all, it cannot be used to justify a reducing American military commitment over the next few years.
One of the lessons that we should all have learned from history, over 100 years, is that if one wants to make a profound change in countries of lower economic and social development, which have major internal problems of stability and cultural differences, one needs to be there for a long time. If one is not prepared to do that, one should not go there in the first place. That is particularly true in Afghanistan at the moment. If the Government are able to pursue such an approach—not only in their own policy, but in the recommendations that they make to other Governments, including the United States—they will deserve the support of the House.
I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces, who risk their lives every day to keep us safe and secure. My constituency is the home of the Royal Navy and Portsmouth ships have defended our country in many famous sea battles. Portsmouth itself suffered badly from bombing during the second world war and we who live there are aware that our city still remains a military target. My constituents and I owe a great debt to the men and women who have defended and continue to defend the city and our country.
Up until fairly recently, our defence policy was centred on keeping our borders and those of our allies safe from attack by potential enemy states by preparing our stand-by forces for traditional combat operations. However, things have shifted dramatically since 9/11, and our country now faces threats not so much from states, or even organisations with which we can negotiate, but shadowy individuals who are not allied to any one state. Such individuals can cross international borders and operate within our borders. They have unprecedented access to technology and weaponry that can cause destruction on a massive scale. They also operate without a thought for preserving their own lives. The accepted conventions under which defence policy was formulated for many years have thus changed.
We can no longer adopt a mentality of sitting on top of a hill and fending off the attackers, and sheer force of numbers does not help much against a chemical or biological attack. We must have a smarter and more agile position in which we use the best equipment that technological advances can give us. Such equipment must be able to move in quickly and perform a multi-functional role, and the men and women who operate that equipment need to be professionals who can exercise judgment. They must be treated with the respect that they deserve, given the danger in which we ask them to put themselves.
The Ministry of Defence must prepare for all eventualities when it makes policy. We owe it to the men and women of our armed forces to ensure that they are trained for all types of conflict. We do not want them to have to be put in a situation that has not been foreseen and for which they have not been properly prepared. Of course, we cannot foresee every eventuality, but we need to think outside the box and prepare for as many scenarios as we can possibly envisage, no matter how unlikely they might seem at the time.
We need to consider not just conflict. Often the work of the armed forces is not armed combat, but peacekeeping, peace enforcing and disaster relief. The role of peacekeeping and peace enforcing becomes intertwined with the international objective of sustainable economic development in unstable countries. The role of the troop deployment in Afghanistan is as much to curb the narcotics trade as it is to bring security and stability to the area. That is a delicate role for our troops to undertake. The more successful we are at curbing the traffic in narcotics, the more danger our troops are likely to be in. How do we win the hearts and minds of local people if we are viewed as removing their livelihood? That must be balanced against the fact that Afghanistan will not have security and stability in the long term while the narcotics trade flourishes. We need to ensure that our troops are fully trained for such a role and that we have troops who can exercise their judgment and act professionally in such delicate situations.
I spoke earlier about treating our troops with the respect they deserve. They need to be treated with respect by not just the MOD and their commanding officers, but politicians, the public and the media. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq. I spoke to the men and women who are doing a superb job helping the Iraqis to rebuild their lives and helping to train the Iraqi security forces so that they can take control of their own safety and security. They face danger every day, but they keep their cool and behave professionally against extreme provocation. However, one would not know that from the media coverage. The only stories that are widely reported in the British press are the negative ones, which are then relayed across the rest of the world. That gives the armed insurgents the ammunition with which to arm their followers, which thus puts our troops in even more danger.
I spoke to many serving soldiers who told me about circumstances in which they have faced insurgents who have known only too well the rules of engagement under which our troops operate and goaded them to a point at which they hoped that our troops would break. However, such is the professionalism of our troops that they invariably do not do that. Nevertheless, accusations are still made, and they are duly investigated by our service police, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said.
I heard of instances of the security services being hampered in their investigations by the unwillingness of alleged victims to give evidence because they had been approached by agents of predatory lawyers who told them not to co-operate with an inquiry, but to sue through the courts for compensation. The Army investigators then stand accused of failing to investigate properly, or covering up, when they are in fact doing their best to investigate properly, but being prevented from doing so. None of that gets properly reported by the British media. It obviously has not reached the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. Is it any wonder that some people ask why we are still in Iraq, when all they hear are the negative and unsubstantiated rumours?
The men and women on the ground whom I met felt that they were still part of the solution in Iraq, not part of the problem, but we all recognise that there is a fine line that needs to be kept continually under review. We have a job to do at the request of the elected Iraqi Government and we need to stay until the job is done or the Iraqi Government wish us to leave. There is an important task to do in training and helping the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. From my own observations, I believe that they have the training, experience and expertise to perform that task well.
It is not just the Army, the Marines or the RAF. The Navy, too, is doing its bit. Representing, as I do, the constituency that is the home of the Royal Navy, no one will be surprised that I am speaking up for it, as it was a bone of contention among sailors whom I met on HMS Bulwark in the Arabian Gulf that there was never any recognition in the media back home of the important work that the Navy was doing in Iraq, working with the Iraqi navy to protect the oil terminals that are the lifeblood of Iraq and the economic key to its reconstruction.
I saw the professionalism and diplomacy of our modus operandi when boarding unknown craft that had strayed into the exclusion zone. I was shown the basket of gifts that the captain of the patrol vessel carries with him, which are handed out to the crew while the marines search the craft. That is how we win hearts and minds and how we gain the valuable intelligence that we need in the fight against international terrorism, not by going in with all guns blazing, although of course there may be times when that is the appropriate response.
When we look at defence policy, we must make sure that we consider how our troops are viewed here at home and in other countries, because that has an impact not only on our ability to defend ourselves, but on our ability to recruit and retain high-quality professionals. We want to make the armed services attractive to young people, to ensure that we recruit people of the highest calibre. We also need to ensure that our armed services are representative of our population. That means encouraging recruitment of men and women from all ethnic backgrounds and reaching out to the gay and lesbian community and encouraging gays and lesbians to join up, rather than the shameful way in which they were treated by the MOD for many years.
I was encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he told the House last year that we had recruited our first Muslim, Hindu and Sikh chaplains, and I hope we can continue to work with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure greater diversity.
For too long, our armed services have been a closed world, hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, because of the fear that operational effectiveness could be compromised. But all too often we have seen that secrecy encouraging a culture of bullying. It goes without saying that junior ranks must obey orders from senior officers without question, because their own lives and those of their colleagues depend on it. However, one thing above all else that came out of my visits to Iraq, Cyprus and Oman is the tremendous team spirit among regiments, air crew and ships companies. They all had a joint commitment to a common goal and they were all fiercely protective of their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. Time and again, these young men and women told me that what they appreciated from their armed service was the training that enabled them to operate as a team.
Team work is much more likely to be generated by trust, transparency and openness than by operation as a secret closed group. We do not need to bully people into obeying orders and we do not need to break people’s spirit. We no longer operate trench warfare and we do not ask our troops to blindly go over the top in the knowledge that not all of them will survive, but in the hope that some of them will.
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, who is making a powerful speech. Of course the whole House would condemn bullying, but having served in the armed forces, as have many other hon. and gallant Members, I know that it is a different environment from the normal nine-to-five job. It is tough and we cannot expect our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women to go into combat unless they have gone through thorough, vigorous training. We cannot be nice to everyone on this side and expect them to stand up to the bullets on the other side.
I have no argument with the hon. Gentleman about the need for robust training and the need to make sure that our troops are aware of what they will face when they go into operation. But when one hears stories, as I heard from someone, of a young recruit having a machete held to his head, that is not robust training. That is bullying and that, to me, is not acceptable. In a recent debate on Armed Forces Bill, there was a great deal discussion of the possibility of establishing an independent commissioner as part of a grievance redress procedure. Indeed, the Blake review of the tragic deaths at Deepcut recommended the introduction of such a post. Not all senior officers in the services accept the need for an independent commissioner, as they believe that the internal grievance redress procedures are adequate, but junior ranks to whom I spoke—incidentally, they told me that there is still a culture of bullying in some parts of the services, although it has improved—did not have confidence that internal procedures would be fair. We will not have the professional, committed, agile armed forces we need to discharge either our responsibilities and duties in defence of our citizens or our international obligations if we do not tackle the issue. The Government agreed to defer consideration of an independent commissioner pending the Blake report. Now that they have had time to look at the recommendations, I hope there will be movement on the issue as the Armed Forces Bill continues its passage through the other place.
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech. I have responded to the Blake report and I clearly stated that the complaints commissioner—that is the title of the post—will be independent. In addition, there will be civilian representation on complaints panels. As she said, the Armed Forces Bill which has progressed to the House of Lords, would allow us to achieve that, and the mechanisms can be defined and debated in the other place. We have taken on board the main issues that she raised, and we have made progress. I believe that Nicholas Blake QC, the author of the report, is happy with the action we have taken.
I am grateful to the Minister. It is important that independent civilians on such a panel have experience of military matters because, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said, the military context is different.
Our professional, committed, agile fighting forces do not consist just of regular forces. To provide the flexibility required by modern warfare we increasingly rely on reservists—either former regular servicemen or volunteer reserves. In Umm Qasr, I met volunteer marine reservists who were helping to co-ordinate the Gulf protection strategy. They greatly welcomed the opportunity to play a responsible role in operations, as their everyday lives were vastly different. One reservist was a lifeguard, one a credit controller and another a quality inspector in a biscuit factory—a world away from the job they were doing in Iraq. A recent report by the National Audit Office shows that the desire to serve on operations is an increasingly important reason for joining the volunteer reserves. Surveys show people who take part in an operational deployment are more likely to want to be deployed again.
The marine reservists whom I met would certainly welcome another deployment. They were looking forward to serving in Afghanistan, but when I asked how their families felt, it was a different story. In theory, all reservists are subject to a compulsory call-up but, in practice, the MOD asks individuals if they wish to serve, and that informs call-up procedures. The NAO report, however, notes that reservists do not all admit to their families or employers that they have volunteered for an operation, which can cause problems.
We must be much more open about such problems and involve families at a much earlier stage in a volunteer reservist’s career, so that when the call-up comes they understand what is involved and what support is available. We should ensure that the support available to the families of regular forces is available to reserve forces. We must work with employers so that they recognise the valuable work that reservists do. That is not just an altruistic point of view—the training and experience that reservists acquire on an operation is invaluable to their employers when they return. Many members of 103 Battalion of the Territorial Army, which is based in my constituency, served in Operation Telic. The battalion is a Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers unit whose job is to repair vehicles and return them to action as quickly as possible. Like all TA units, it has experienced problems with recruitment, but it was allocated additional funding last year, which enabled it to adopt new methods to reach out into the community and sign up new recruits. However, on a recent visit to 103 Battalion, I learned of a particular problem to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention—the matter of qualifications. Young men in 103 Battalion get excellent training in vehicle maintenance, but it is not recognised by an NVQ, so when they try to get a job using those skills, they are not considered to be qualified. Surely it is possible to make that training NVQ accredited to allow those young people to get the recognition that they deserve. Such practical steps can help to build links between the local community and the armed services and to encourage more people to volunteer for the Territorial Army. I want to see greater integration between regular forces and reserve forces, because we need both in today’s modern armed services.
As I have said, I want all our servicemen and women to be treated with respect, and I want the armed services to be a career of choice, not a career of last resort. I believe that our armed forces are the best in the world and our biggest asset, and an integral part of our defence policy must always be to treat them as such.
It is a pleasure to follow another Hampshire Member, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), because defence is hugely important to the county. It was a pleasure to hear her speak in support of the armed forces.
I love these debates. Somehow, they always take place on Thursday afternoons, when the defence geeks turn out. We often say the same sort of things, but it gives us the opportunity to complain. I am no different, and I shall make my complaints.
We must remember the context in which we make our complaints. The background is that the men and women of our armed services do the most extraordinary things on behalf of this country. I met some of them in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and they were some of the finest men and women one could possibly hope to meet, risking everything on our behalves and on behalf of the ideals in which this country believes. We are lucky to be served by people such as those who are working in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
In order not to take up too much of the House’s time, I shall concentrate on three issues—the strategic nuclear deterrent, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I do not feel in the least annoyed that the Chancellor has discussed a matter on which the Defence Committee will issue a report next week. The report considers the strategic context and timetable for taking decisions about the strategic nuclear deterrent, and it is the first of a number of reports that the Committee intends to produce in this Parliament. Its purpose is to inform and encourage public debate on that important issue, so I have no doubt that members of the Committee were delighted when the Chancellor joined the debate last night.
My right hon. Friend has been in the House far longer than me, but I cannot recall a Chancellor of the Exchequer of any political party making such fundamental pronouncements on defence. I am surprised by how far the Chancellor has gone, because surely it is for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence to lead on such issues, rather than the Chancellor?
My hon. Friend has not read what the Chancellor said, because the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) have rightly pointed out that the Chancellor repeated the Labour manifesto. However, it is mildly irritating that the Chancellor’s people say one thing in private, while he says something else in public, and the problem is that we have grown used to such behaviour from the Labour Government.
I welcome the fact that in last night’s remarks the Chancellor appeared to be a genuine convert to the interests of defence. He discussed
“the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term—strong in defence, in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.”
I was delighted to hear that he is intent on supporting our armed forces at home and abroad. If that implies that the money for any replacement of the nuclear deterrent will come out of new money, not current Ministry of Defence programmes, we will be making some progress with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My Committee has produced a report on the deployment to Afghanistan, and we will undertake a second inquiry fairly soon. That deployment has two elements that are separate, but co-ordinated: the movement of the allied rapid reaction corps from Rheindahlen to take over the international security assistance force operation in Kabul; and the 16th Brigade doing a slightly different job in Helmand. In our report, we concluded that we fully supported the deployment to Afghanistan and considered it essential in the interests not only of the economic and social stability of Afghanistan but of the region and the world as a whole. The attack on the twin towers demonstrated the consequences of allowing states to fail, and we felt that it was right to take the action that we did. In that, I fully echo the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
Various issues arise out of the deployment. It is essential to the credibility of NATO that the mission should succeed. We are worried about the national caveats that many members of NATO placed on the use of their troops. When we visit Afghanistan as a Committee, as we will shortly, we will need to satisfy ourselves that the rules of engagement, which the Minister tells us are more robust than any that have operated before, are a cohesive feature of NATO’s operations. I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea that one can say to countries, “If you don’t want to play by our rules of engagement, then don’t come.” The method of collecting troops together to go to Afghanistan was difficult and time-consuming enough, and too many countries might simply say, “All right then, we won’t come.” We need a broad international coalition in a country such as Afghanistan, given the difficult things that we are doing there.
Will the Minister tell us whether the operational command and control between ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom has been fully worked out yet? That is not entirely clear from the Government’s response to our report. I am grateful to the Government for providing that response within two months, to the very day, of the report’s publication.
Our report refers to our worries about air assets and vehicles. We stated that we were concerned that the Harriers would leave Kandahar in June, and we were delighted to hear that the Government have decided now, perhaps because of what we said, perhaps through pressure from NATO, to extend the deployment of Harriers in Kandahar until at least March next year. I hope that, by that time, the runway in Kandahar will be upgraded and can take some of the F16 planes, which can then be brought in from other countries.
We were also pleased when the Ministry of Defence announced in April that, as a result of requests from commanders in the field, more than 60 Pinzgauer armoured wheeled vehicles were being ordered for deployment in Afghanistan. I was therefore a little surprised when the Minister, in responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) about what vehicles would be available, did not confirm that good news. I hope that he will confirm that the acquisition and deployment will happen.
We were unsurprisingly worried about overstretch. The number of troops in Afghanistan is low and the tasks that we ask them to perform are difficult. We need to be clear about their remit. We made the point that there is a fundamental tension between the aim of destroying the narcotics trade, on which a huge proportion of the Helmand province relies in order to live, and introducing security and stability to the area. The Government response to our report states there is no such tension. I simply cannot understand the logic of the Government’s position. The tension exists. That is not to say that the twin roles are wrong. They are right, because one cannot introduce long-term security in a drugs state. We have to get rid of narcotics from Afghanistan and introduce stability and security. However, there is tension between the two roles, which British troops, having worked in Northern Ireland and Iraq, will be well trained and equipped to tackle.
I said that I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago with the Defence Committee. We found greater ground for hope than the media in this country would have us believe. We were encouraged by the formation of the final building blocks, which were put in place while we were in Baghdad, of the Government of Iraq. We were pleased that the Minister for the Interior and the Minister for Defence were appointed. That will produce some hope for Iraq. We were encouraged by the fact that the Muthanna province was close to being ready to be handed over. We were encouraged by the extent of the training of the tenth division of the Iraqi security forces. We were told that, in spite of the attacks on people who tried to join the Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi army is fundamentally full. It is being trained effectively by British troops, among others.
No one would suggest that the whole picture is encouraging, however. There are serious worries in Basra and elsewhere. We were not convinced that the local government in Basra was working in the interests of local people or the security of Iraq, or that there was any proper control over the killings between the various power-seeking Shi’a groups. However, I do not believe that there is an insurgency in Basra. The insurgency is happening in the north and west of Iraq. In Basra, there is a power struggle between Shi’a groups who see it as a rich area that they can exploit for their own interests, and they are using the most violent and awful means to do so. So there are real worries about Iraq.
We felt, when we talked to our troops in Iraq, that their morale was high. They are doing the most incredible work in the harshest possible conditions. I remember travelling through the city of Basra in an un-airconditioned Warrior armoured personnel carrier, and, when we reached a place of comparative safety, the mortar cover being taken off. When 50º C air came flooding in, we thought, “Thank God, that’s cool!” The working conditions in those vehicles are extremely difficult, and the troops working in Basra are carrying 40 or 50 lb of body armour, kit and ammunition, which is very difficult for them.
It is not just that there is no fat in the operation. Our troops are not exactly penny pinching, but they have to juggle all the time with the available personnel, and with equipment that might be unavailable or going out of service. The number of helicopters there is tiny, and the number of vehicles is too small. To return to what the Chancellor has said, and to the support that he has given to the defence of this country, I hope, now that he has said those things, that he means them. I also hope that he will put our money where his mouth is.
It is a bold Back Bencher who follows two right hon. colleagues of such great distinction in these areas as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). They know what they are talking about. I shall therefore seek not to try to equal their distinction, but to talk about rather different matters.
I wholly agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea when he said that this debate should not be about Afghanistan, Iraq or the renewal of Trident. Those subjects are sufficiently large to warrant an entire day’s debate or more—perhaps several days debate over the years to come. To presume that those topics can be covered in this relatively short debate this afternoon would be a mistake.
I therefore intend to keep off the subjects of Iraq and Afghanistan, apart from mentioning in passing that my own strongly held opposition to what we did in Iraq in 2003 is one of the perfectly sensible reasons why I have ceased to be a Front-Bench spokesman on defence. I could not have continued to perform that role, given that I did not entirely approve of what my party was doing at the time. I also have some reservations about whether we shall be able to look back, in 10 or 20 years time, and say that what we have done in Afghanistan has been a success. I very much hope that it will be—it is a job that very much needs to be done—but whether we can be confident that that is the case is a matter of some debate. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are matters that we can debate at length on other occasions. Similarly, the whole question of the renewal of Trident is a huge matter for debate in the years to come. It is a matter for the nation, not just for party politics.
I felt slightly queasy about the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s intervention in the debate yesterday, not least because, if anyone takes the opportunity to Google the words “Gordon Brown” to check up on what the right hon. Gentleman has said on defence, they will find that, over the past 10 years or thereabouts, he has said nothing at all on the matter. So far as I am aware, he has never visited a defence establishment. He took no interest in defence until last night, when he reiterated what had been said in the Labour party manifesto, but made it appear that he was making a spectacular announcement on the £25 billion of defence spending on renewing Trident. I suspect that that has far more to do with his tactical position in the Labour party than with a strategic approach to the defence of the world.
I want to spend my time today commenting on something that I was greatly encouraged to learn that the Government are doing. The strategic defence review was, in its time, radical and far-thinking. Given the 17-year time span, most people thought that it represented a worthwhile approach, although we regretted the failure to release the foreign affairs baseline on which the SDR was said to have been based. A strategic defence review cannot be very good if the foreign policy baseline is not known. In any event, that relatively radical and forward-looking document was severely outdated following one event on 11 September 2001, which made all previous thinking about defence irrelevant. Defence thinking as a whole had to start again from scratch.
I do not think that the subsequent so-called new chapter of the SDR—or indeed the defence White Paper, which one of our defence chiefs described as being more about slogans than about policies—added much to the debate. I was pleased to hear from the Minister today that a new strategic context White Paper would be produced later this year. I hope that it will represent a fundamental piece of thinking, founded solidly on a foreign policy baseline. It is no good talking about defence in the abstract; we must talk about it purely in the context of foreign policy and, nowadays, the context of security at home. We must involve the Home Office—and the Department for International Development, in passing—in that consideration. We need to know what our defence forces are required to do before deciding how to enable them to do it.
There is a degree of confusion about that. Are our servicemen required to defend the homeland against an aggressive outside attacker? I suppose that that is theoretically the case, but it is probably very unlikely. It is hard to imagine any third party attacking the nation, although of course it is right for us to have the capability to put up a defence should that become necessary.
Is it our job to deter a potential aggressor? I suppose that the question arises of what we do if and when it becomes obvious that Iran is going to make use of its enriched uranium for military rather than any other purposes. If that becomes obvious, to what degree does international law allow us, alongside the Americans, to take an aggressive stance of one sort or another against Iran? At what stage do we believe that pre-emption becomes a reasonable cause for the use of force?
During the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, it was said that we must stop the Iraqis using their weapons against our soldiers in Cyprus. That was one of the excuses in the dodgy dossier. What was ignored for the moment was that Foreign Office travel advice for tourists was that it was perfectly acceptable to travel to Cyprus throughout the Iraq crisis, at the same time as the MOD was telling us that we had to invade Iraq to prevent that from happening.
Surely our armed services have a role to play in home defence. Perhaps the Territorial Army or the reserve forces could be involved. Surely we should be playing a significantly greater role in defending our nation on shore from asymmetric terrorist attack. Is there a bigger role for the TA than the role conferred on it in the new chapter of the SDR? Might that bigger role be sorting out huge emergencies? At present, it appears that we could do a pretty good job if a serious emergency occurred in London—probably—but what if there were simultaneous attacks on three of our cities? Would our forces be up to dealing with that? Might there not be a role for the TA?
Alternatively, is our role to take part—along with NATO and the United Nations, and possibly even the European Union, although I doubt it—in some form of coalition, going around the world and suppressing tyrants? That is often cited as the reason for what we did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq—and I am very glad that we did it; he is a bad man and I am glad that he has gone. But will our role in future be to enter willingly into coalitions, perhaps alongside the neocon element in the United States, galloping around the world sorting out bad men?
I remember Richard Perle saying in a notable speech that he believed that the US was a sort of sheriff, galloping around the world at the head of a posse sorting out the bad guys. One of the closest advisers to the US President, he made it clear that anyone not in the posse was one of the bad guys, and that he believed that we had to perform a type of neo-imperialist policing duty around the world. Although there may be some such role to play, we did not play it in Cambodia or Darfur, and international law provides scant justification for that approach.
The Pentagon has justified what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by saying that a war is being fought against terrorism, but our defence policy is different. We say that we do not want to engage in warfare against terrorists, and that we want to prevent asymmetric attacks being levelled against us. That difference between the UK and US approaches is very important. In that context, there is one significant gap in what this country otherwise does rather well, and that is that we are not entirely clear about why we do some things. In particular, there are discontinuities in the responsibilities undertaken by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. For example, is the Home Office or the MOD responsible for homeland defence, or does DFID have a role in that? I believe that we should consider introducing a sensible military stratagem planning mechanism, as has happened elsewhere around the world. Another option might be to establish a Government Department that deals with military planning, which would consider such matters in very fundamental terms.
Moreover, we need a fundamental discussion of the intelligence services. Should we retain the present structure of three separate services, or is it time for them to be amalgamated? My noble Friend Lord Hamilton asked that very question in the other place only this week. Again, is it right to retain our three services? Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins has said that he believes that we should abolish the RAF. I hasten to say that I do not agree with that at all, given that there is a substantial RAF base in my constituency, but I believe that we should look at the fundamentals of our defence policy. What are our people being asked to do, and why? What sort of mechanisms is needed to ensure that they are able to carry out what is asked of them? We need the sort of grand strategic policy for the UK that we have not had since 1956.
As many speakers have said, our armed forces are very professional, but they suffer from their own can-do approach. Almost regardless of what politicians ask them to do, they will salute, turn to the right and march off and do it. It is possible that they grumble about it, in the dark corners of their messes, but they never do so in public. They do what they are asked to do, and they are incredibly professional. However, how long can we rely on that can-do approach? I do not much like the word “overstretch”, but there are real signs that our armed forces are being asked to do more and more with less and less. Despite the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comforting words last night about the comprehensive spending review that is coming up shortly, there has been briefing going around to the effect that the Army could be cut to 80,000 men. That is smaller than the international definition of what constitutes an Army, and a British Army of that size would be the smallest since Waterloo.
I accept that all that may be the result of counter-briefing. The Chancellor may well make it clear during the comprehensive spending review that the 80,000 figure is nothing to worry about, that the reality is not nearly so bad and that the true figure will be a fantastic 85,000. That would be a classic example of the sort of thing that the right hon. Gentleman does.
We do not need an Army with 100,000 personnel—we need one that is significantly larger than that. Our Navy and Air Force also need to be larger, so that they and the Army can perform all the tasks that this Government, and all Governments in the foreseeable future, will require of them. In addition, personnel need to be better paid. What incentive is there to be an Army corporal, in charge of 10 people in situations of extreme danger, when the pay is only £14,000 or £15,000 a year? Police constables get much more. We must look at pay and conditions in the armed forces, as well as at the equipment—both personal and on the larger scale—that is provided. We must also consider every aspect of how our armed forces personnel are sent into war. We need a fundamental review of why we are doing things, how we can encourage our people to do them and how to be certain that whatever we do in the future is done well. One thing is for sure: the European Union is not worth the paper it is written on with regard to defence. The notion that we can have some sort of European Union defence force in the future is laughable. The only countries worth talking about in the defence world today, and the only people who can truly project power for good around the world, are the United States and the United Kingdom acting together in NATO. Without those two nations and NATO, I shudder to think about the future of our great globe.
It is right to have a fundamental look at what we are asking our armed services to do and Opposition Members will co-operate with the Government in doing so. Having done precisely that and published the results, they should look fundamentally at how best to achieve them. They should look into manpower and equipment, how our armed forces are structured and the rules of engagement. They should look at human rights and health and safety—I was astonished to hear someone say that they were glad that an exercise had been stopped because someone had twisted their ankle—the International Criminal Court and how people are asked to act on the battlefield. All those things are fundamental to doing a first-class job, which our people have always done, and to continue in a fully professional way for years to come. If we do not do so, we will not be able to play the role that we havetraditionally played—the role of doing significant good in securing the safe future of our globe.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), not least because, having been in the Territorial Army, he speaks with authority. I think I am right in saying that he is the only person to have done three stints in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and to have reached the dizzy heights of a brigadier, at least.
I would like to place our debate in context by asking what the Government think of their armed forces. I can see what new Labour thinks simply by looking in front of me. Apart from the Minister who is winding up the debate, the silent Whip and the silent Parliamentary Private Secretary, there are acres of empty green Benches. Not a single Back Bencher is in his place for a debate on defence policy in Government time. It is embarrassing—[Interruption]—so embarrassing that the Minister is about to intervene.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has attended throughout the afternoon, but we have already heard two contributions from the Government side. When I look around the Chamber, I see just four more Conservative Members than we have had this afternoon.
As the Minister has kindly pointed out, our smaller party has six Back Benchers in their places, which is six more than the Minister has on his side—and there is, of course, the token Liberal.
So what do the Government think of our armed forces? I shall give three examples. First, in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister—still hanging in there with his Office—in front of a number of witnesses, including some of our Doorkeepers, said, “All soldiers are boneheads.” That is what he thinks of our armed forces. Secondly, there is the disgraceful way in which the Government refused to take any action to assist soldiers and others on operations to register to vote before the last general election. I raised the matter time and again, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but the Government took no real action. One can only surmise why not.
The third indicator of the new Labour Government’s view of the armed forces is seen in a business news leader article, entitled “Huge cuts threat to defence industry” in the Evening Standard on 12 June this year. Written by Robert Fox, who is generally pretty well informed, it says:
“Chancellor Gordon Brown…wants £1 billion taken from defence and given to…homeland security…A recently retired chief of staff commented: ‘They’ll have to tear up Labour’s whole defence strategy and start all over again.’…defence chiefs have already been told that ‘at least one major procurement programme has to go’”—
probably the aircraft carriers. I have no idea whether that is true, but I do know, as hon. Members have already pointed out, that in this Chancellor’s time here, he has shown precious little interest in and very little support for defence. I speak today against that background.
The major point that I should like to make is about the politicisation and the responsibilities of senior officers in the armed forces, and then I shall touch on the situation in Afghanistan. First, on senior officers, last November I was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, lacked the courage to stand up for his soldiers. I first discovered that that had been quoted—I had had a conversation with the journalist—when I got a telephone call and was asked to ring General Jackson, who had rung the then leader of the Conservative party. I asked him why he had phoned the then leader of the Conservative party instead of me, and he did not really answer. He hectored me down the telephone for 30 minutes in a somewhat bullying way.
It is not my business to have an argument with the Chief of the General Staff, so I am glad to say that a mutual friend organised a meeting. We had a meeting for an hour and three quarters. It was a convivial meeting and we discussed things in a reasonable way. There was not much meeting of minds, but I accept—I promised him at the time that I would—that I have no knowledge that he lacks courage. It was quite wrong of me to have said that he lacks courage, and I withdraw that unreservedly and apologise to him. I said that I would do that at the first opportunity, and this is the first opportunity that I have had. However, I did tell him that I would not withdraw the bit about standing up for his soldiers, and that is part of what I intend to discuss today.
Incidentally, I have no personal problem with General Jackson, so I do not wish this to counted as a personal attack on him in any way. He is a public servant who has given good service to this country over a number of years. However, I want to look at what has happened to the armed forces over the past three years—I shall stick to the past three years.
We had an immensely successful Iraq war in March 2003, or whenever it was. We can all be proud of our soldiers, sailors and airmen for the work that they did then. Since then we have got immersed, as other hon. Members have said, in a very difficult situation in Iraq. We have now deployed to Afghanistan. We have had four battalions of infantry cut from the line of battle. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), the TA is haemorrhaging soldiers. Once they have been to Iraq, where they have an interesting experience, most of them do not much want to go again. The reorganisation of the infantry battalions is taking place, too. Although the arms plot was imperfect, I do not believe that that reorganisation will lead to a better system for the infantry.
Demands are now growing for a federation for armed forces personnel. We have to ask why those demands are growing. Why are grass-roots members of the armed forces demanding a federation? Soldiers are public servants. Politicians make the orders and soldiers must obey politicians—that goes for field marshals, generals and the like—but senior officers who demand loyalty from those below them are expected in return to give loyalty to those whom they command. That was certainly what I was taught, and hon. Members who have done any form of military service will know that.
Loyalty goes two ways, and the chiefs of staff who represent the armed forces in discussions with the Government should not be seen as the Prime Minister’s representatives; rather, they should be seen as representing the armed forces to the Government. I understand that the chiefs of staff have access to the Prime Minister whenever they want it, but I have not heard of that access being used during the draconian defence cuts going on in all three services. What senior officer has resigned recently? None that I have seen, and there is a growing feeling—it may not be fair—that some senior officers are apparently more interested in their careers, in knighthoods and in future cosy appointments than in the good of the armed forces and the personnel whom they command. I should like to turn to an example of that: the courts martial that have been taking place in respect of Iraq.
Tight discipline is essential in the armed forces, especially in war, as anyone who has been in battle knows, but discipline is being undermined by a growing human rights culture—fostered, I am afraid, by the Government—that is encouraging barrack-room lawyers. Anyone who is guilty of a crime in the armed forces must be prosecuted, but we have a very difficult and continuing war in Iraq. We expect our soldiers to make split-second life-and-death decisions, while someone is trying to kill them. That is not the same as being on parade outside Buckingham palace or, indeed, policing a riot in Trafalgar square.
I will use one case of court martial as an example, because it is completely out of the courts now—that of Trooper Williams. As hon. Members may remember, in July 2003 Trooper Williams was part of a patrol that stopped a handcart that was being pushed along, filled with mortar bombs. Understandably, the Iraqis pushing the hand-cart scattered. Trooper Williams and a corporal chased one Iraqi into a courtyard and then into a house, where he fought with the corporal accompanying Trooper Williams. Trooper Williams believed—and who are we to gainsay him, as we were not there?—that the Iraqi was trying to grab the pistol from the corporal, so he shot him, and he died.
Rightly, the case was taken up by the commanding officer of the regiment to which Trooper Williams was attached. He was arrested and investigated and brought before that commanding officer, who, having taken legal advice, dismissed the case, as was his right. He made a judgment that Trooper Williams was not guilty.
What happened next? Brigadier Vowles and Major-General Howell—both of whom, as I understand it, are primarily lawyers, rather than soldiers by first profession—queried the decision. A memo dated March 2004, from the then Adjutant-General—I believe it was Sir Alistair Irwin—was sent to the Chief of the General Staff. It states:
“With the current legal, political and ginger group interest in the deaths of Iraqi civilians…there is a significant possibility that this case, our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause célèbre for pressure groups and a significant threat to the maintenance of the military justice system. If the Attorney General became aware of it in the meantime, it is possible that would himself order a review of the case.”
So this prosecution was all about ginger groups and the possibility that the case could become a cause célèbre for pressure groups. I ask the senior officers involved: does that constitute standing up for Trooper Williams?
Following that, Trooper Williams was charged with murder under the civilian system and was to be taken to the Old Bailey. He was 18 years old when the incident took place, and for a year and a half he was under threat of trial at the Old Bailey. I suggest that that is a pretty serious matter for anybody.
On 7 April last year, at the Old Bailey, the Crown offered no evidence. I have been told by a senior officer that Williams should be grateful to the Army because, now that he has been tried at the Old Bailey, he cannot be tried again. I wonder what he thinks about that.
What was the role of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in all this? The trial judge, Mrs. Justice Hallett, believed that this was possibly a novel intervention by Her Majesty’s Attorney-General. One of her judgments says:
“No-one in the Army has apparently thought to advise Trooper Williams that although his commanding officer had found in his favour he might still face a civilian prosecution. That is apparently because this is the first time”—
the first time—
“to the knowledge of those appearing before me and called before me, that her Majesty’s Attorney General has sought to exercise the powers accorded to him.”
In a written answer to my noble Friend Lord Astor of 10 November 2005, the Attorney-General, speaking about the five members of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment whose case was dismissed last year, said:
“I considered the matter and…I decided that the case should be referred to the CPS because…while there is no suggestion that the court martial would not deal with it impartially, justice would be seen to be done by ventilating the issues in the civilian courts”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 111W.]
Are this Government and their senior officers standing up for soldiers, or ventilating issues in civilian courts?
I do not expect anything better from a commercial lawyer who happens to be a Minister of the Crown because of his friendship with the Prime Minister, but these people have no idea of the pressures on soldiers, who have to take life-and-death decisions in such situations. Their senior officers should stand up for them, and they should expect better from them. This Government have politicised senior officers in a way that has not happened before. Let me give two examples. I have in my hand an edition of The House Magazine—one cannot get much more political than the in-house magazine of this place—that contains a big interview with the Chief of the General Staff. He also did the Andrew Marr programme, which is the BBC’s major political programme on a Sunday morning.
Too often, senior officers are seen as apologists for Government policy, rather than as those who are obliged to carry out Government policy. If they disagree with me they are very welcome to say so, but I hope that they will consider my words, and whether there is some truth in what I am saying.
The hon. Gentleman is the Conservative party’s deputy Chief Whip. For clarification, is he speaking for his party when he says that the senior officers of our military are apologists for the Government?
Too often, they are seen as apologists.
Is that the hon. Gentleman’s view or is it his party’s?
The Minister has his glasses on and will notice that I am speaking from the Back Benches, not from the Front Bench.
What I have said is not my opinion alone, but the opinion of a great number of soldiers of junior, and not so junior, rank to whom I have spoken. Nor is it just retired soldiers who think so, but a large number of serving soldiers and officers. I ask that senior officers consider whether there is anything right in my words. If I am wrong, they will dismiss me and ignore me, I am sure, as the Minister surely will.
Let me turn to Afghanistan. A good debate was instigated yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway). I counsel caution. The situation is difficult, and although I supported the action to oppose the Taliban in 2001, and since—we cannot just run away—we should none the less consider the history of the Afghan wars. Yesterday, my hon. Friend said:
“In 1880 the Royal Regiment was virtually wiped out in the disastrous battle that it fought along the banks of the Helmand river at Maiwand. A British officer wrote, rather pessimistically, at the time that
‘making war and planning a campaign on the Helmand from the cool shades...is an experiment which will not, I hope, be repeated’.
Well, the experiment is being repeated and the Taliban tell people in their night letters that their grandfathers are scratching at the soil in their graves to get out and kill the grandsons of the British troops they massacred.”—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 434WH.]
In the 1930s, in his autobiography “Bugles and a Tiger”, John Masters describes British soldiers still being flayed alive within the lifetime of some Members still serving in this House. I do not want to dwell on that, but shall perhaps quote Kipling:
“When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your gawd like a soldier.”
There is no easy solution to Afghanistan, but I suggest we look at more recent campaigns, such as Dhofar, in which small numbers of soldiers supporting local troops did fantastic work. I view the campaign with great foreboding, and urge caution. I thought the points made by the shadow Secretary of State about how we need more helicopters and support if we are to expect our soldiers to work there were quite excellent.
Our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve our support, and they deserve reasoned decisions from the Government. They expect a Government to respect them and look after their interests in a way that I do not believe this one does. They also expect their senior officers to show loyalty to their subordinates. I hope that they will, notwithstanding the examples that I have given.
Finally, I am sure everyone knows that Julius Caesar said that soldiers are not as other men, and when they think they are, they cease to be our guardians. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are our guardians, and we should support them to the best of our ability.
It is a great, if daunting, pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) who has a great deal more knowledge on this issue than I have. I have rarely heard such an impassioned speech in the House of Commons. If only more people in the Labour Government had had such direct experience of the armed forces, we might not have so many foreign military interventions.
I shall hone in on Muthana, the Iraqi desert region on the borders of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from which it has been announced that British troops will pull out. That is very good news and I applaud the Government for having managed to secure that withdrawal.
There are many service personnel in Iraq from my constituency. I have been in the Chamber all afternoon in order to have the opportunity to pay a personal tribute to and to applaud service personnel from Shrewsbury and Shropshire who are serving their country in Iraq.
Recently, James Holt, a journalist on our local newspaper, the Shrewsbury Chronicle, was sent to Iraq and has been sending back photographs and stories about our servicemen and their experiences. Those reports in our local paper have really brought home to me and my constituents the fact that real people from our community are out there fighting for their country—our neighbours, brothers and sisters. I am always in awe at the sacrifices that they make.
I cannot call for a withdrawal from Iraq at this stage; it is not my party’s policy and I am a loyal Back Bencher. However, I want to say two things about which I feel passionately—I hope they do not get me into too much trouble with the Whips. Last week, Mr. Ken Tyrell led a large delegation of people from Shrewsbury to see me to discuss the war in Iraq. They passionately wanted to know when our troops would be withdrawn. They feel desperately sad when they tune into Prime Minister’s questions week after week to hear the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition expressing condolences to the families of British servicemen who have been killed. That is a very emotive issue for my constituents. They applaud the Government for withdrawing our troops from Muthana and hope that soon we will be able to leave further provinces in the capable hands of the Iraqis.
My second point will stay with me for as long as I am a Member of Parliament. It is the most emotional thing I have ever come across, certainly from a political perspective. In January and February 2003, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, I received more than 200 letters from Shrewsbury women—but not one man—to tell me that they were worried that our country was going against the wishes of the United Nations, the Secretary-General of the UN, Hans Blix and every other opinion. They said:
“We are worried and concerned that our country is going to war in these circumstances.”
Those 200 Shrewsbury women, and my wife, convinced me that I should be against the war in Iraq. Week after week, I wrote in my local newspaper that the war was wrong. At the time, I was merely a parliamentary candidate, so it was much easier to express those views, but now that I am an MP it will be interesting to see what happens in the future when I have to follow the party Whip. However, our experience in Iraq makes me cautious about our engaging in future wars in Iran and other countries.
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Regardless of his views before the Iraq war, does not he accept that, as he became a Member of Parliament afterwards, and given the situation that we face in Iraq, we need to make sure we leave only when the situation is stabilised and that we leave a stable country behind when the job is done? Despite the fact that he may have been against the war at the beginning, I am sure that he wants our troops to leave with honour a stable country with a functioning liberal democracy.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I entirely agree. That is why I am not calling for the withdrawal of our troops. As I said to Mr. Tyrell and my other constituents, it would be wrong for us to pull out prematurely; our international reputation would suffer even more if we did so.
I am concerned about the lack of assistance in these situations from other permanent members of the Security Council. China and Russia are two huge military powers with extraordinary military spending and military capability, but they are mute on international problems and situations such as Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are successfully to police the world, those important members of the Security Council have to become more involved, as do other NATO countries and other European Union countries that have not fulfilled their roles properly in sending enough peacekeepers to Iraq. We simply have too few troops ourselves to police the whole world in conjunction with the Americans.
At some stage, we may have to reorganise the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. They were drawn up immediately after the second world war. We now face a very different world. Perhaps countries such as Germany, although I have mixed views on Germany—[Interruption.] My grandfather was Polish. Perhaps countries such as Germany, which are increasingly economically and militarily powerful, should be included as permanent members to get them to participate in these issues.
Trident should be replaced and we should have a modern version of a nuclear defence capability. I am amazed by statements by certain Labour Members calling for us to scrap the replacement of our Trident system. In this dangerous world, a United Kingdom without Trident, or a replacement for Trident, would be held to ransom by countries such as Iran. Nuclear weapons have kept the peace in Europe for more than 60 years and we must retain a nuclear arms capability. I am pleased that Gordon Brown has supported replacement—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am sorry; the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bemused, however, to discover that the Chancellor sees it as his role to lead the debate on the issue.
As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny of the replacement of our nuclear capability. My vote will certainly be influenced by the options. If one option is simply to buy something from the Americans, to me that is nowhere near as attractive as having a nuclear capability primarily designed and primarily manufactured in our own country. When we have the debate, I hope that the Minister and the Government will give us the opportunity to decide between two or three options, rather than merely to vote yes or no to a new modern version of Trident.
Very little has been said about veterans, but, for me, veterans are of great importance. I draw the Minister’s attention to Polish veterans, in particular. One in six airmen in the battle of Britain was Polish. I am extremely proud of the role that my ancestors played in that. I know that people from many countries—countries that were occupied by the Germans—came and sought sanctuary in Britain in 1940 and we have to respect all of them. However, I argue—I put this point to the Minister as forcefully as I can—that the Poles have a unique and special role when it comes to foreign veterans in this country. I hope that, on future Remembrance days, those people will be acknowledged as unique, and quite apart from the French, Czechs, Dutch and others, because of the huge number who came and the courage and valour that they showed in the battle of Britain.
I was brought up just outside London near Northolt airfield. My hon. Friend will know that there is a unique and prominent war memorial there to the Polish airmen who fought with the RAF for Britain and Poland in the last world war. I acknowledge it every time that I go by.
I know the Polish nation and spoke to Polish Ministers a few weeks ago. The Polish people very much appreciate the monument that was built at Northolt to remember what they did in the second world war.
We must use our armed forces far closer to home. We have heard today about the interventions around the world in which our dedicated British armed forces are involved, but I delicately and gently suggest to the Minister that we have to use the expertise of the military to deal with some of the critical problems that we experience as an island nation in Europe. We need to try to deal with the things that matter to people.
I make no apology for raising this matter. I speak following one of the most difficult weeks that I have had as a Member of Parliament because one of my constituents—a young Shrewsbury girl—was raped by a failed asylum seeker from Africa. I am the chairman of the all-party group on Mauritania. I am appalled by the lack of financial assistance and expert training that we are giving to Mauritania and other west African countries to help them to deal with the thousands of illegal immigrants who pour from west Africa, via the port of Nouakchott in Mauritania, to the Canary Islands and ultimately the United Kingdom. Many people die on the perilous journey to the Canary Islands. There is an appalling and tragic situation right on our doorstep, but despite all the questions that I have tabled, all that has happened so far is that the European Union has sent a couple of dinky tug boats to help. Surely the Government should be doing more about such a grave matter and using the expertise of our armed forces to help the Mauritanians to train their navy to police their waters more efficiently and thus stop the terrible human tragedy of immigration from west Africa to Europe, which causes great suffering. I make that point strongly to the Minister.
The Territorial Army is in crisis. Many personnel are leaving due to the huge pressures that are imposed on them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) recently stated that recruitment to the TA is in crisis, and I totally agree with him. Other hon. Members have commented on the parlous state of the TA. During a debate on defence a few months ago, the then Minister rejected our concerns about the TA and assured us that numbers in the TA were rising, but that is not the case. Anyone who examines the figures will see that there is a tremendous outflow of members, so we need to do something about that.
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, because he is making a powerful speech. I went to a briefing at the Ministry of Defence about the TA and its numbers. Does he agree that it is upsetting to hear that members of the university officer training corps are now being included as part of the overall numbers for our TA, which is distorting the figures that show our true strength?
I agree with my hon. Friend. That practice shows how desperate the situation is. The Government will spin it in any way they can to make the situation look better, but I have spoken to loyal members of the TA in my constituency, who have been extremely forthright—more forthright than I would have imagined—about their concerns.
Lastly, there are huge dangers in European defence co-operation across the board. The European Union wants a common defence force that would act almost as one across the entire European Union. We are the strongest military nation in the EU and we should cherry-pick our closest collaborators and partners. The Europe of 25 nation states has widely varying levels of capability. If I may say so, rather controversially, we can rely on seven countries in the European Union far more than on others to support us in combat. One of those—I do not apologise for mentioning it—is Poland. We should cherry-pick our partners and not have a common European defence force.
I open my remarks by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. Their determination, courage and sheer professionalism ensure that the quality of Britain’s armed forces is second to none in the world. It should be remembered that large numbers of the personnel deployed are members of the Territorial Army. Their involvement is vital to the scale of the commitment of British forces overseas. Our military continue to do a tremendous job, serving their country both here in the United Kingdom and in many deployments overseas.
I am sure the House will join me in acknowledging the debt we owe to all our service personnel who have lost their lives in the most recent conflicts. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and our thoughts and prayers must go to their families and friends.
It is vital to remember the harsh fact that the UK spends just 2.2 per cent. of its gross domestic product on defence. That is the lowest figure committed to our armed forces since 1930. In addition, we must remember the high cost of modern high-tech weapons systems. A modern naval destroyer may be a formidable combat asset, but no amount of high-tech wizardry can get the vessel deployed to two separate locations at the same time.
Our spend of 2.2 per cent. of GDP on defence may be low by Britain’s historic benchmark, but it is higher than that of our European partners. For example, Germany spends 1.4 per cent. of its GDP on defence, Spain 1.3 per cent. and Austria only 0.7 per cent. on defence, although it must be remembered that those nations have very limited overseas deployments. The United States of America, however, spends more than 4 per cent. of its GDP to fund its military.
We all recollect the reports of equipment shortages suffered by our troops in Iraq in 2003. Those were caused by the decision to hold off any preparation until late November 2002, four months before the start of the conflict. Ammunition, body armour and radios were among the equipment in short supply. During the war, members of 7 Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery were forced to use captured AK47s because their own SA80 rifles jammed. That was a direct result of insufficient supplies of oil to keep them functioning.
The American soldiers and marines in Iraq have access to RG-31 Nyala mine-protected vehicles which enable the crew to survive the blast of an improvised explosive device. Canadian troops deployed in Afghanistan also use RG-31s. British soldiers and Royal Marines need to make do with lightly protected Land Rovers. That is not acceptable. Shortages of vital spare parts mean that tanks, armoured personnel carriers and other vehicles are being cannibalised to keep other vehicles operational. Similar practices are used to keep aircraft operational and ships seaworthy.
Military equipment wears out, it is damaged, or it becomes obsolete, so it must be replaced. In Portsmouth, for example, there are 19 redundant warships. In too many cases, their replacements—we have heard that equipment will be replaced—have not been built or, in the case of aircraft carriers, have not even been designed. Too often in recent years, new equipment has been delivered late or over budget. In a speech at the 2001 Labour party conference, the Prime Minister promised a “strong defence capability”. The reality, however, is that the Government have delivered cuts in service personnel, aircraft, tanks and ships. There are fewer trained personnel in the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force than in 1997, despite a significant increase in defence commitments.
According to Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 September 2004, the Army is “dangerously small”. Cuts have been made to the Territorial Army, which is at its lowest strength ever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said. Current operations rely on the men and women of the TA, but the frequency and length of deployments discourage people from signing up to the TA, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Government cuts in manpower and extra commitments mean that our armed forces are dangerously overstretched. In April this year, the Select Committee on Defence report on the MOD’s annual accounts identified the overstretch in our armed forces as a cause of concern. The rules for minimum gaps between tours are breached in the Army, Navy and Air Force, and critical shortfalls in manpower have had a severe impact on specialist units.
Our military forces are being asked to do more than at any time since the second world war, as major operations have taken place almost every year since 1997. There have been new peacekeeping deployments, including one to Kosovo, and lengthy, ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased our commitments. In addition, the armed forces have had to assist in civil operations, tackling the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 and providing services during the firemen’s strike of 2002-03. It is unfair and self-defeating to keep taking personnel away from their families, and to provide unreasonably short breaks between operational tours, as that imposes an intolerable strain on family relationships and results in a far higher failure to retain experienced recruits.
Finally, I should like to touch on some personal issues. In the first Gulf conflict, I was in Israel when Saddam Hussein launched his Scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv and other Israeli towns. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) was concerned that Saddam Hussein would not receive a fair trial. Did Saddam Hussein give a fair trial to the tens of thousands of people he massacred or to the people he gassed? He could not care less about any of his citizens. He is receiving a fairer trial than he gave anyone in his country. Iraq is a better place without Saddam Hussein, who was no great philanthropist.
I was not a Member of Parliament when the decision to go to war in Iraq was made. We must weigh up the situation. The loss of civilian life is terrible—I do not believe that anyone in any part of the House would say otherwise—but democracy allows the people to decide their own future. It is pointless to pretend that there will not be troubles along the way. Our involvement could have been better thought out, but that does not mean that it was wrong to remove a vile dictator who could not care less about his own people.
I do not pretend that my constituency is a military one, but many people have contacted me about Afghanistan and the vile trade in drugs that end up on the streets of my constituency. Charitable organisations try to stop our youngsters getting on to drugs, and if youngsters are unfortunate enough to get on to drugs, they help them with rehabilitation. The situation can only be helped by Afghanistan not exporting drugs to Europe, America and elsewhere.
Too often, we hear people condemn our troops for their actions. As has been said, however, we must recognise the tough job that our troops are doing. We are not talking about policing the streets of my constituency, although given the antisocial behaviour that sometimes takes place, perhaps that is what we need. Our troops are in an area in which they are being attacked daily. People are blowing themselves up to kill innocent civilians, and many of the deaths involve innocent civilians being killed by insurgents, who also attack our troops. I, for one, think that our troops are doing a wonderful job and that we should be proud of everything that they do rather than condemning them.
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech and pointing out some of the concerns, which many of us share, about Afghanistan. We have not covered the responsibility of Afghanistan’s neighbours to challenge the trade in narcotics. My hon. Friend has mentioned China, but does he agree that Pakistan has a role to play in preventing narcotics from being moved into the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, and he is correct. I watched this Chamber before I was a Member of Parliament, and I have watched it since I became a Member of Parliament. I have seen politicians of all parties score political points at the expense of our wonderful troops, who protect us and defend our lives. No one wants to see civilians, whether they are in Afghanistan or Iraq, being killed, but what is done is done, and we are duty bound to make sure that Iraq and, indeed, Afghanistan are better places when we leave than when we went in. I think that we will achieve that goal, and I pray that we will. Have wrongs been committed? It is alleged that they have, and if they have, they must be looked into and rectified, but that does not make everything wrong.
In a previous life, I worked for an international charity with which I visited Ramallah. When I went into houses there, the people wanted a roof over their heads, food on the table and a peaceful existence—it is never the majority who cause the problem; it is always the minority. We can all make a difference, whether or not we agreed with the war in Iraq, and whether or not we think that we should be in Afghanistan. The people expect us to make a difference, and if we let them down, perhaps we are betraying what we are here for.
In my year in Parliament, I have not made that many speeches in this House, because I believe that unless one has something relevant to say, one should not say anything—perhaps I am unique in thinking that. However, this matter is important, which is why I am proud to speak in this debate.
In conclusion, our troops are doing a marvellous job. I hope that they are home soon for them and their families, and I hope that there are no more announcements expressing condolences to the families of troops who have lost their lives doing our work. I am proud of our troops—I am sure that everyone else is, too—and I send them my good wishes and wish them a speedy return home.
It is a pleasure to be called towards the end of this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), who spoke thoughtfully and passionately about our debt of gratitude to our armed forces. I am sure that we all share those thoughts.
I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in saying that we have had an interesting, thoughtful and provocative debate, but I am afraid that it has been far too wide ranging. We have managed to cover subjects as diverse as Army barracks, the joint strike fighter, operations in Iraq and the nuclear deterrent, not to mention all the other issues that are so important to us as individual Members or to the nation as a whole. We cannot go into all those areas in sufficient depth in the course of one afternoon’s debate. I hope that the Minister and the usual channels will bear in mind that we need properly to analyse the decisions made by Government and scrutinised by Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged comments on this before. I take on board his general sentiments, but remind him that this is the third in a series of defence debates, with another one still to come. We try to separate out the various subject headings so that we can concentrate on one at a time. Personnel will be the next subject, while equipment was the previous one. Policy is a very wide-ranging subject. If we do not specify certain topics, Members will mention them anyway, because they talk about the things that they want to talk about.
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful comment. I have a huge amount of respect for him, as he knows, but he must be aware of my views given my intervention on him at the start of the debate. The proposed subject of today’s business is defence policy and the fifth report from the Defence Committee on the UK deployment to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not solely a military topic, so representatives from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be here as well.
The hon. Gentleman makes useful contributions, but I think that he has misunderstood the title of the debate, which is about defence policy. The Defence Committee has tabled its report on Afghanistan—it could have tabled any of its reports—so that becomes a subject for discussion, but the debate is about defence policy overall.
Either way, I think that the Minister understands my point. If we are to do justice to the important subject of Afghanistan, I should like to see not just him on the Front Bench, but his colleagues from DFID and the FCO.
One of the major topics that we have discussed this week is our nuclear deterrent capability. That came about because of the comments that the Chancellor made in his Mansion House speech last night. I found those comments very unhelpful. He sent a confusing message as to what the Government mean by long-term strategy, and a patronising message to the House of Commons about how and when debates on such subjects should occur. A decision has to be made on this important subject, and I am pleased that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that we will demand a vote on it. The nation expects us to debate and to vote on it. It is sad that the Government are putting out messages here and there to satisfy—or agonise—Labour Back Benchers, instead of promoting the debate on this country’s nuclear deterrent.
We have already heard confusing messages on the subject. As the Minister will be aware, we design and make our own nuclear deterrent. The bombs are British; the American component is the delivery vehicle—the D5 missile. Without that, we obviously do not have the ability to deliver. Without the nuclear submarines, we do not have the capacity to move the missiles. All those issues are up for debate because they have a shelf life and therefore need to be discussed in the next year or so. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give us some idea in his winding-up speech of the official timetable, bearing in mind the Chancellor’s comments last night.
The Minister said that the debate was wide ranging and I want to consider missiles and missile capability. We talk about the subject with passion, whether or not it involves our constituents. We speak about the Royal Air Force, the Navy and the Army, but the advent of new missile technology is changing the conduct of warfare. For example, the radar systems that we now use mean that an aircraft-borne rather than a ship-based radar is required to keep our battleships safe. That is a fundamental change from the time of the Falklands war.
The Storm Shadow missile can be fired from 350 km away. If a missile can be fired from such a position, that changes warfare. It perhaps calls into question the existence of the artillery. I realise that, with that sentence, I have upset a massive chunk of the British Army, but it is a major question that we need to answer. What is the role of the artillery, given that an AS90, which is the standard artillery weapon, can fire only 15 miles, yet requires a battery of troops to provide the facility? Storm Shadow—indeed, any of the weapons systems that now exist—has changed the operational nature of what we do.
We have not held a debate about where we are going in the next five to 10 years because of changes in technology. That is the sort of debate for which I am asking the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman should examine the debates on the consideration that we have given to future Army structure. That consideration is about restructuring the Army away from heavy into medium and light. Much re-roling is happening to deal with some of the issues that he mentioned and, importantly, to return to the Army some 3,000 posts in the specialist pinch points. Those key enablers will strengthen the Army’s capacity. That takes time, but we are investing in it.
I am grateful for that intervention, which provides some clarity. I hope that the debate will not be confined to the Army, but extend to the military as a whole.
A comment was made about disbanding the RAF. I hope that that does not happen but we must bear in mind that aircraft have been divided into two huge sections. A small or medium-sized helicopter is under the umbrella of the Army, whereas a large-scale helicopter or a fixed-wing plane is under that of the RAF. However, a commander wants to have the full array of assets under his command. He does not want to go through another operational level or a separate cell to call on those assets. We need to consider such command structures.
I want to consider the Typhoon—the Eurofighter. The first tranche is due now—I believe that there are 55 aircraft, but I stand to be corrected if that is not the case. However, they were procured during the cold war and they are air-to-air combat aircraft. I do not know with how many nations we shall have dogfights. Again, the technology has moved on, as has the enemy. We need to be ready for any scenario—for any development or future threat—but to devise an aircraft that has only air-to-air capability limits our ability to defend our nation.
The Typhoon has great missile capability: ASRAAM and AMRAAM are medium-range and short-range missiles but, again, they are air-to-air. We need them, especially to deal with threats such as 9/11, but we also need the capability to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is a ground threat. We therefore need to be able to take out ground targets.
The armoury of the missiles in our portfolio is not compatible with all our aircraft. Storm Shadow, Maverick, Brimstone and Paveway are our ground attack missiles, but none of them can be used on the Eurofighter. I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask what air-to-ground missile system the Eurofighter would employ. The reply was:
“Integration of air to ground missile systems onto RAF Typhoon, including the Storm Shadow cruise missile and the Brimstone air-launched anti-armour weapon, is being considered as part of the Typhoon Future Capability Programme.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 954W.]
That is not good enough. We simply cannot spend millions of pounds on 230 aircraft that are unable to share the array of missiles that we need because the technology and the way in which we conduct warfare have changed. Our Jaguars are disappearing, our Harriers are being sold off and our Tornadoes are coming to the end of their shelf life, but there is no sign of the joint strike fighter coming on line. Our ground attack capability is therefore questionable, yet that is the very capability that we need in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan has been the focus of many hon. Members’ contributions today. I had the honour to visit Afghanistan last week, and it was quite an eye-opening experience. The openness of the country was the first thing that struck me. Of course, there is a handful of major cities, but beyond them much of the mountain and desert terrain is inhospitable. Every so often, there is a river basin—such as that of the Helmand river—that is heavily concentrated with villages and towns. Such places are widely spread apart. A tiny village in Helmand province, for example, is extremely remote from what is happening in Kandahar or Kabul. That means that the people there do not hear the advice, the directions or the words of support that are coming from the Afghan Government. They are very much looking after themselves. These villages consist of tribal communities, and their loyalties are to the families and to the tribes of which they are part, rather than to the country of Afghanistan as a whole. Indeed, the word “country” should perhaps be used advisedly in that location. It is clear that, in that atmosphere, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are able to dominate and to work almost without feeling a threat from the NATO or ISAF forces.
While I was in Afghanistan, I had the opportunity to visit the ISAF headquarters and see the co-ordination between the Department for International Development and other international organisations. I am pleased to say that our operations are working very closely together. There is no doubt about that. However, we are now spending about £45 million a year from the DFID budget and about £50 million from the military budget. Where is the accountability? Where is the co-ordination? I called for more than just one Minister to come to the debate today to explain what is happening in that regard.
I also had the opportunity to meet General Jones, the NATO commander, and Sir David Richards, the general in charge of ISAF. Both expressed concern that mission creep was taking place in Afghanistan. On page 25 of its report, the Defence Committee states:
“We remain uncertain of the exact role which UK forces will be asked to play in support of the counter-narcotics strategy and call on MoD to provide clarification.”
That call has been echoed by other hon. Members today, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify where the line is to be drawn and what our involvement with that strategy will be. Will he explain how the division of labour is to be determined and who will take responsibility for these matters? If we do not solve these problems now, the move from stage 3, which involves taking over three quarters of NATO’s responsibilities, will be threatened when we move into the final stage to take over all responsibility for co-ordination in Afghanistan.
Caveats have been mentioned, in which the Governments of countries providing NATO troops say that their troops cannot go into combat, for example. Too many countries are doing that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, many countries are limiting themselves simply to providing troops in non-combat roles. That is not good enough if we want Afghanistan to work as a nation.
I was impressed by what ISAF is doing. Unfortunately, the footprint that it is creating is extremely limited. It cannot cover the entire country. We have spent a lot of time focusing on Helmand, but it is only one of 30 provinces. The neighbouring province of Nimroz does not contain one international soldier. Where does a member of the Taliban go if things start to get hot in one province? Obviously, he moves next door to the other. Unless there is a larger commitment on the part of other NATO countries, we shall not be able to fulfil our mission.
The mission is likely to come under more question—not because of what we are doing with NATO but because of what is being done under the umbrella of security that we are creating in the reconstruction and development programmes. As I told the Minister during our debate in Westminster Hall yesterday or the day before, there is clearly no co-ordination between the myriad international organisations—the United Nations, the European Union, the non-governmental organisations, and all the counter-narcotics agencies that have gone into Afghanistan. Their hearts are in the right place, but unfortunately the money is being spent as those agencies compete with their overlapping projects, and the lack of co-ordination means that a great deal of money is wasted. Although more than $400 million has been spent on challenging the narcotics trade, last year saw the biggest bumper crop ever: 400,000 tonnes of poppies were produced. That shows that our international effort is failing, and unless we do something about it our mission in Afghanistan will be brought into question.
Our debate has been far reaching and useful, but there are many questions that I should like the Minister to answer. We have not really talked about the Sea Harriers, and the gap that will be created in air cover. We have not talked about the F-35 and the limitations imposed by the United States Government—or, to be fair, a corner of Capitol Hill—on the repair and upgrade of that project, which threatens our purchase of the joint strike fighter in the long term. We have not really touched on what will happen to the aircraft carriers, although there seems to be delay after delay with the announcements. We have not discussed the future rapid effect system. We have not even discussed the A400M, which was once called the future large aircraft, but now that it is so far in the future that we are not going to see it, that name has been dropped. We have certainly not discussed the NATO deterrent to the extent that the nation would wish.
The Minister mentioned policy and I was pleased to hear about some of it, but we could do with an entire debate on the overlap of the EU mission, from a military perspective, with what is happening with NATO. A clash will come, if it has not come already. We need a debate on the procurement of equipment in general. There are also concerns about the future, on a wider and more serious note—
I begin with a question that is not entirely rhetorical. Which Labour politician has described the Trident programme as
“unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound.”—[Official Report, 19 June 1984 ; Vol. 62, c. 188.]?
Which Labour politician supported
“a Britain not aligned to any major power”
—and therefore presumably no longer a member of NATO? Was it the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who believes in such things, and has for many years? Was it the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), or perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? I have to say that it was none of those. It was, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Admittedly that was some years ago, at a time when we faced an extremely visible nuclear threat from the then Soviet Union. I am delighted to note that although the imminence of the threat has declined, appreciation of the issues—at least as far as the Chancellor is concerned—has clearly increased.
It is not every day of the week that defence features on the front pages of the newspapers. One would like to think that such an achievement would cause joy and rejoicing, and the ringing of bells in the Ministry of Defence.
A sinner repents!
A sinner has indeed repented. The only question is: what is the nature of the repentance? The headlines make that quite clear. The Daily Mail says “Brown pledges £25 billion to new Trident”. The Financial Times says “Brown in promise to replace Trident”. The Daily Telegraph headline is “Brown in favour of updating Trident”, while the headlines in The Times are “Brown ready to call the shots by replacing Trident missiles”, and “Britain to buy new nuclear deterrent”. The headline list would be incomplete without the trusty old Daily Mirror’s “Nukey Brown” and “Gordon: I will back £25bn A-bomb”.
The irrepressible Minister for the Armed Forces has claimed that the Chancellor said nothing new but was merely repeating what was in the Labour general election manifesto. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but nevertheless I detected a straw in the wind in the words that the Chancellor used last night. He talked about retaining our nuclear deterrent, but he also used the words
“in this Parliament, and the long term also”.
It is hard to see how the phrase “the long term also” could apply if he was talking only about retaining the present deterrent.
However, we do not have to rely on that exegesis, as The Guardian—which knows about these things—reports:
“Treasury sources made it clear that although Mr. Brown talked about retaining the nuclear deterrent rather than replacing it, the chancellor was giving his personal backing to a new generation of missiles.”
That is a clear answer to the question that my colleagues and I have asked Ministers on many occasions: are they talking only about retaining the existing deterrent, or about a decision to replace it?
If the Minister’s interpretation of the Chancellor’s comments is correct, why has the Chancellor not been rushing to the media today to say, “Chaps, sorry, you’ve got it all wrong. All those headlines are wrong, and I was merely saying what we’ve said all along—that we’re not going to scrap the weapons that we already have. I have no thought in my mind about replacement.”
The Prime Minister’s spokesman has been doing his best to clarify matters—not in respect of replacement, but on whether there will be a vote on the issue. Much to the satisfaction of people like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—
indicated assent.
I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding enthusiastically, because the Opposition have ensured—even if we have to use one of our days—that hon. Members of all parties will have an opportunity to vote on the matter, whether the Government want that or not.
The Lobby briefing document states that, on Trident, the spokesman
“was asked whether any vote in the House of Commons would be a ‘straight yes/no vote’ or would there be a series of options. The spokesman said, ‘What the Prime Minister said yesterday, echoing what he has said before, is that there will be a proper discussion. ‘But would there be a vote?’ he was asked again. ‘There will be a proper discussion,’ he replied.”
Defence Ministers have said today that no decision has been taken, either in detail or in principle, but I believe that they are trying to plug the hole in the dam that the Chancellor has opened up. There is no real excuse for a delay in making a decision in principle. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State outlined with his customary elegance and eloquence exactly why there is a need for a nuclear deterrent in the 21st century. It hinges on one simple concept: the unpredictability of any outbreak of war in the future—and I think that I detect the Minister nodding in some form of agreement with that proposition.
However, we are talking about having a nuclear deterrent between 2020 and 2050. Given that the real justification for that is that we cannot anticipate what threats might materialise from countries armed with weapons of mass destruction, why delay deciding the question of principle? The principle will be unaffected in a year, six months or three months from now. If we are going to decide then that we need to keep a nuclear deterrent because of the unpredictability of future threats, we might as well as do so now. It is interesting that the Chancellor has decided on it now, even though the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues who are at least here today are still trying to pretend that he has not.
If I had to summarise the themes that have primarily emerged in the debate, I would say that they are three: Trident and the principles behind it; Afghanistan and the tactics involved in dealing with that issue; and Iraq and what is best described as the political will to win. I have already addressed the first of those issues, and I want to say a word or two about Afghanistan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned in passing the practice of reading out at Prime Minister’s Question Time condolences for individual members of the armed forces who have lost their lives. That is honourably motivated, but it is worth remembering that it would have been quite impracticable in most of the wars that we have fought in the past, because there were many more casualties in those wars than are being incurred among British service personnel in the campaigns today.
In a strange way, therefore, the country has perhaps lost sight of the fact that when we engage in armed conflict, there are very heavy prices indeed to be paid. One of the reasons why the country has lost sight of that is that the longest war that we successfully fought and concluded in recent times was the 50 years of the cold war, and it ended without a shot being fired. All those countries that had been held under dictatorship and suppression were able to come out into the sunlight and pick up the reins of democratic practice. That was an exception to the rule of history, and we delude ourselves if we think that we can engage in conflicts, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, and expect that they will be as simple as that involved in substituting a democracy for a dictatorship.
We must look back to the successful counter-insurgency campaign—I have made this point from the Dispatch Box before—that was waged over 12 years in Malaya. That is how long it took. Whether that campaign, which has been widely taken as the model of winning hearts and minds, could be fought to a successful outcome today, with legalistic supervision and 24-hour media coverage, is open to question. As well as winning hearts and minds, the tactics involved were to send armed patrols out to find the enemy and eliminate them ruthlessly, while isolating them from the population at large.
I am relieved that the new Secretary of State for Defence seems to have consigned to the wastepaper bin the absolutely nonsensical description and distinction that his predecessor, whom I much admire—I make no secret of that, but I did not admire him for doing this—tried to draw between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. In any such campaign, if we wait for terrorists or insurgents to come to our armed forces before we react, we will lose. The only way in which such a campaign can succeed is to follow the aggressive strategy against the insurgents that is now being followed, and in which British forces are clearly engaged, whereby they are seeking out the enemy. As a commanding officer, Brigadier Nick Pope, has just said:
“We have put the terrorists on the back foot and seized the initiative.”
That is what must be done, and I welcome the fact that the politicians are catching up with the military—in so far as they are doing so.
I will come to Iraq in my final remarks, but I now wish to turn briefly to the contributions that hon. Members have made from the Back Benches. There were 10 of them—three from Government Back Benchers and seven from Opposition Back Benchers. All of the latter contributions were, for some reason, from Conservative Members, rather than from Members of the self-styled “real” Opposition: the Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, to whom I have already referred a couple of times, made a consistent speech in which he talked thoughtfully about the dangers of failed states. He also made a remark that should give all of us pause for thought when, in speaking about the situation in Somalia, he said that one must not react intrinsically against any new Muslim administration without being absolutely certain that they intend to ally themselves with militant Islamism that is hostile to freedom. Such a group might be a potential enemy of that sort, but we must be very careful before we decide that; otherwise, we are playing the game of the terrorists and creating allies for them.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) is a living example of the value of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am delighted to say that I am on my fourth incarnation in that scheme. I pay tribute to the patience and hospitality of the commandant at the Royal College of Defence Studies, Sir Ian Garnett, and his colleagues, in welcoming me and several other Members on to this year’s course. It is greatly to the credit of the hon. Gentleman that so soon in his parliamentary career, he decided to undertake the major commitment of doing the AFPS course. His contribution made clear the great benefit that he has derived from it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) touched once again on his concerns about the decision to invade Iraq, but he was absolutely resolute on the vital importance of not reducing our military commitment in Afghanistan. He said that once we decide to go somewhere we must stay, and that sending signals about withdrawals and timetables would be the worst possible thing that could be done for the welfare and safety of our forces.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) made a very strong speech. She made a robust defence of the armed forces in Iraq and touched on the role of the media—an issue to which, if I have time, I shall return at the end. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is Chairman of the Defence Committee, said that the Chancellor had repeated the Labour manifesto commitment on defence. He also raised the important issue of whether the Chancellor proposes to put his money where his mouth is, if he does indeed intend that the nuclear deterrent should be replaced, by funding it separately.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked a series of penetrating questions; I am glad that I do not have time to attempt to answer them all. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—I was sorry not to be present when he made his speech—stressed, typically robustly, the need for senior officers to stand up for their troops.
My hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) illustrated something that is very true about life in this Chamber: when Members put aside their prepared speeches and speak from the heart about a topic that really excites and inspires them, they can hold the House in the palm of their hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) is a persistent campaigner on defence issues and—be it votes on Trident, roles for Typhoon or narcotics in Afghanistan—today was no exception.
My final point relates to the situation in Iraq, where a process of competing political will is being undertaken. I return, as I said I would, to the reference that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North made to the media. Over the 50 years of the cold war, we saw that political will was as important as actual military capability. The attempts that are being made in Iraq to break the political will of coalition forces are indeed being fuelled by selective media reports. There is an answer. The Government need a media strategy to ensure that propaganda from those who sympathise with the insurgents and the terrorists is matched by hard facts from the coalition forces, ably disseminated. I am not yet convinced that the Government have fully got their act together. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can reassure me.
We have had a wide-ranging debate on defence policy. I point out to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) that we have indeed had a proper discussion, although I note that we shall not conclude it with a vote.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces introduced the debate by talking about aspects of our broader defence and security policy, including the defence industrial strategy, arms control and the role of international institutions. He set out future challenges and how we see our policy evolving to deal with them.
Many Members made great contributions to the debate and first out of the trap was the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who asked us to confirm which nations are currently posted in Helmand province. Denmark and Estonia are currently there.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about service accommodation in Colchester, but since he is not here, I will not give the House a detailed response. I am sure that he will catch me at some appropriate point so that I can fill him in on the detail.
My good and hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) distinguished himself, as ever, by standing out against the crowd. Nothing has really changed, in that he and I probably disagree on absolutely everything he said, except when he quoted President Karzai saying that we need to support the institutions of civic society in Afghanistan. President Karzai has also said we need to deal with narcotics and terrorism, which are the biggest threats to those civic institutions, a theme echoed in the considered contribution of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot).
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) has distinguished himself by making a big impact in the House in just 12 months. He talked about the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Like others, his experience on the scheme has clearly given him an idea of the front-line issues that our forces face. Tribute was paid to Sir Neil Thorne and we would all agree he does an excellent job in administering both the armed forces and the police schemes. When I completed the police scheme, I gained some understanding of the pressures gone through by people on the front line in the forces and the police. So much of what they do involves split-second decisions, and we can understand that mistakes are made. The schemes assist all Members, particularly those with civilian backgrounds, on the common problems faced by our three services.
My hon. Friend also talked about improvements in our service people’s kit. I was pleasantly surprised to visit Chilwell last week, where we prepare our reservists for mobilisation. The difference over even the last five years in the kit with which they are issued is remarkable. It would be a great fashion item in West Bromwich high street—the services need to keep an eye on where the stuff goes—because it is so well designed now, not just to be practical but to be quite fashionable.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made his usual wise contribution. Much of what he said about what we have to do in Afghanistan was endorsed by many Members. He made a point about the Ministry of Defence having no friends, but I am not quite sure that was the case in the debate, although the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) probably has no friends left at the MOD—
Not true.
I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. He certainly lost a few friends after part of his contribution.
I am not known for making personal comments in the Chamber, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the defence forces cannot have many friends among the Liberal Democrats as only one Lib Dem has been present during the debate?
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments have been heard.
The contributions of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea must always be observed. He has many protégées, one of whom is standing for election in Blaenau Gwent today. I know he would want me to remind him of her views on Trident. She has expressed great concern about the future of Trident and about the wisdom of our current campaign in Iraq. I guess those points have to be made on a Thursday.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked about the introduction of Lynx helicopters. I can tell him that 40 will be introduced for the Army in 2014 and 30 for the Navy in 2015.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House that information. Can he confirm the following point—if he cannot do so immediately, I am sure that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to assist him? Before the delivery of the new helicopters, will the current fleet of Royal Navy Lynxes be upgraded in the meantime, because they are seriously overworked? [Interruption.]
I think that I heard the word “knackered”. We need to deal with the situation as best we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) talked movingly about her recent visit to Iraq and stood up for the Navy in Portsmouth. I am sure that all serving personnel in Portsmouth will have been gratified by her words. Members of the Navy can turn their hand to anything. They are not only deployed on current operations but deal with hurricane relief and do important counter-narcotics work in the Caribbean, which I am told is a particularly attractive posting.
My hon. Friend also stood up for her mechanics. A key challenge of my defence brief is to make sure that our serving personnel, who have great skills and are trained to do remarkable things, almost day in, day out, can transfer those skills to civilian life. Sometimes, however, we cannot commoditise those skills into the certificates needed for particular jobs. She raised a good point about the mechanics and I invite her to talk to me about it to see if we can apply some clarity to the situation.
Our service personnel are extremely employable. I was amazed to read that 95 per cent. of them find jobs within six months of leaving the services. Our challenge is to make sure that the remaining 5 per cent. have as much support as possible.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) put a large number of questions, so I hope he will allow me to canter through just some of them. He talked about harmony and pinch points. Over the last year, the number of regular armed forces deployed on operations has fallen to about 18 per cent., but there are pinch points and we are trying to deal with them. We are trying to target recruitment in particular areas, and we are looking at financial retention and re-engagementincentives, flexibility in the rank employed for some posts and how we mobilise reservists, as well as some contractualisation.
The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire made a characteristically wise and assured contribution. He raised many wise points. I look forward to his report on strategic nuclear defence next Friday. If it has already gone to the printers, I wonder whether there will be any addendums. I was delighted that he is delighted with the Chancellor’s commitment reported in the press today. I shall be joining the Chancellor at a veterans event this evening and I will make forcefully the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for adequate resources to cover the demands. I am sure that, given the Chancellor’s recent pronouncements, he will want to listen to the Chairman of the Defence Committee with great interest. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Vector vehicle. It is not planned to be available until next March, but it is planned to be deployed with 12 Mechanised Brigade.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) fired off 30 or 40 points that the MOD should be considering over the next few years. It was a powerful contribution. He raised some serious questions that the UK will have to address in future years. In particular, there were his ideas for a department of military planning, the question of whether we are best served by three intelligence services and, perhaps most controversially in the Department, the question of whether we need three services. He commented that someone had suggested that we should abolish the RAF. There are no plans to do that—
indicated dissent.
I know that the hon. Gentleman did not say that we should abolish the RAF. He said that someone else had said it. There is a point about how we deal with some of the service issues on a tri-service basis. One of the key challenges that we will have to take on in the next few years is to how we train our personnel. The defence training review will look at how we can provide basic training and specialist training on a tri-service basis.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made an uncharacteristically unfair contribution, although a characteristically robust one. I expect nothing less of a revered Whip. The position that he holds in the Whips Office suggests that perhaps he should engage a little less with such allegations. The comment that he made about the Deputy Prime Minister when the Deputy Prime Minister was not in the Chamber was simply disgraceful, particularly given that he had to apologise to General Jackson for a previous allegation that he made.
What I said earlier was not an allegation; it was a statement of fact and I can back it up with witnesses. If the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to say—as he has—that all soldiers are boneheads, that is a substantial accusation that he should answer. That should not result in an accusation against me for stating a fact.
The hon. Gentleman has made that allegation twice and the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to defend himself—[Interruption.] He is not here to defend himself. Given that the hon. Gentleman is an Opposition deputy Chief Whip, I thought that the comments that he made on the Chiefs of the Defence Staff were frankly outrageous. I am sure that they do not reflect the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) spoke up for his constituents in his usual way. He spoke honestly and movingly about their views. He made a particular point about our Polish veterans and I was pleased that he did, because I come from Kidderminster, which is not too far away from his constituency and has a strong Polish community. Many members of that community served in the war and have a distinguished record. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to get my thanks to them on the record. I am going to come out with a world first and praise a Liberal councillor, Mike Oborski, who has been a powerful advocate for Polish veterans over many decades. I glad that we can recognise the work that he does in Kidderminster and in England.
He must be the only gentleman of Polish origin who is a Liberal Democrat.
He is not actually a Liberal Democrat. He is a Liberal—just to reassure those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—who was formerly a Liberal Democrat.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Territorial Army and said that it was in crisis. I do not want to spend too much time focusing on the TA. There is a debate in two weeks’ time on personnel issues and perhaps we can explore the matter in more detail then. The TA has undergone great change in recent years. The Duke of Westminster, whom I did not know before I was appointed to my post, is a really inspiring leader for the organisation. He is literally thinking some unthinkable thoughts about how we can take on some of the challenges that the TA faces in the years to come.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) reminded me of England’s first game in the World cup, albeit in reverse, in that the second half was inspirational. He made powerful points and held the attention of the House, especially when he spoke about Saddam Hussein and the way in which he treated his people and the people of Israel. The hon. Gentleman made the point that if Iraq is a better place when we leave than it was when we went in, our job will have been done. I think that we can all agree on that.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) made a wide-ranging contribution and I shall try to capture all his comments if I can. I take his point about the need for the Typhoon aircraft to have an air-to-ground capability. The redesign is taking place, although we have to work with our partners to get that done as quickly as possible.
Like several hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman talked about the need to win the propaganda war in Afghanistan. I absolutely agree with him. We need to ensure that our outreach programmes in Helmand province are right and that they have an Afghan front-facing approach.
I was not so much talking about the propaganda war—perhaps another hon. Member mentioned that—but trying to point out that there is no co-ordination on infrastructure, rebuilding and development. There is a call for an administrator to govern all that and oversee the money that comes in.
We need to build up ties with the leadership of the provincial government there, so I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about how the counter-narcotics operation will be conducted. Several hon. Members touched on the need to get that operation right, because if we get it wrong, the area will become more insecure than secure. If the operation is going to be right, it will need an Afghan lead. We must be careful about the way in which we implement the strategy, as many hon. Members said.
When I quoted Stop the War as saying that a death occurs every hour in Basra, the Minister intervened to ask where it got its figures—he was casting aspersions on Stop the War with that comment. I have looked it up. The information came from an article in The Independent of 17 May by Patrick Cockburn, who was in Arbil, which said:
“Majid al-Sari, an adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, describing the situation in Basra to the daily al-Zaman, said that on average one person was being assassinated every hour.”
Will my hon. Friend apologise to Stop the War?
When I intervened on my hon. Friend, I simply knew that he would leave the Chamber and spend night and day trying to find the source of the quote. However, he will know that it is almost impossible that I am going to apologise to Stop the War, given the campaign that it is running to undermine our British forces abroad. Its behaviour undermines confidence in our services, so I will not take up his offer to apologise on this occasion.
In closing the debate, I want to make two points, although I will have to cut them down. First, we need to ensure that our people, who do a magnificent job, are properly looked after. Secondly, we need to ensure that they have the equipment that they need to do the difficult and dangerous things that we ask of them. Our success depends above all else on our personnel. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in once again paying tribute to the courage and professionalism of the men and women of our armed forces—both regulars and reserves. Those extraordinary people are doing extraordinary things in the most challenging circumstances. They are making a unique and valuable contribution to help to bring peace and security to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world. I know that our debate will have reassured them that we have their best interests at heart and are all working to ensure that they have the finest support from the British Parliament.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
petitions
Health Services (Oxfordshire)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to present a petition signed by some 15,000 of my constituents, and also to present a petition on behalf of my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), concerning health services in Oxfordshire.
The Petition of residents of Oxfordshire
Declares that the Petitioners are extremely concerned about the scale of debt in the Oxfordshire NHS. The existing Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority receives one fifth less than the national average of NHS spending and if Oxfordshire was simply funded halfway towards the national average there would be no debt. This means the NHS in Oxfordshire has one fifth less to spend on acute hospitals beds, drugs provision and staff.
Further declares that of all Trusts in England, it is Oxfordshire which receives the lowest funding for treatment per patient. Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, will be benefiting by funding above the national average to the tune of sums by which Oxfordshire PCTs will be underfunded.
Further declares that the blatant discrimination in the funding system for the NHS is not fair, cannot be justified, and means that in Oxfordshire NHS jobs are under threat, community care is under threat, mental health care is under threat and operations and beds are under threat.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to urgently review the funding system for the NHS in England and Wales, to introduce fairer funding for the whole NHS, to stop staff, patients and families in Oxfordshire and other parts of the country being penalised.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents resident in south-west Northamptonshire, also in relation to funding and related matters connected with the Horton general hospital in Banbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). That hospital is of major interest to a large number of my constituents. Indeed, Miss Horton, its founder, was a resident in my constituency.
The petition is in very similar terms to the one presented to the House by my hon. Friend. I shall therefore repeat only its conclusion, which is in these terms:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to urgently review the funding system for the NHS in England and Wales, to introduce fairer funding for the whole NHS, to stop staff, patients and families in Oxfordshire and other parts of the country being penalised.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by many thousands of my constituents in Wantage. The petition is couched in very similar terms to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I therefore propose to read out only the conclusion of the petition, which states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to urgently review the funding system for the NHS in England and Wales, to introduce fairer funding for the whole NHS, to stop staff, patients and families in Oxfordshire and other parts of the country being penalised.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Occasional Sales
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Steve McCabe.]
I am grateful to have the opportunity to hold a short debate on the subject of occasional sales. At the beginning of the Session, I was fortunate enough to be drawn in the private Members’ ballot and although, like all who are successful in the ballot, I received a large number of approaches suggesting many worthy measures, I agreed to introduce a Bill to strengthen the law to help trading standards officers and the police tackle the problem of pirate and counterfeit goods being sold at occasional sales, which in the majority of cases are perhaps better described as car boot sales. Unfortunately, because I was relatively low in the ballot—I was 14th—and because of the controversial nature of the some of the Bills that precede mine, I have not had an opportunity to debate the Bill, and I accept that it is unlikely that I shall be able to do so. I should therefore like to use this opportunity to set out the case for such a measure and, more importantly, to obtain a response on behalf of the Government from the Minister for Trade.
I was keen to introduce the Bill for two reasons. First, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I am extremely conscious of the importance of the creative industries to the United Kingdom. They contribute an estimated 8 per cent. of our national income, but because they depend on the protection of intellectual property, rather than on a physical product, they are particularly susceptible to piracy and counterfeiting. The protection of intellectual property is the biggest and most important challenge that they face, and I welcome the fact that that has been recognised by the Government through the creation of the creative industries forum and the setting-up of the Gowers review of copyright.
Secondly, I represent an Essex constituency, and I suspect that I do not have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Essex hosts a large number of car boot sales. I do not wish to criticise or impede in any way the operation of car boot sales which, as a Conservative, I regard as an extremely good demonstration of the free market in operation, because they bring together buyers and sellers to mutual advantage. They are a source of pleasure and enjoyment, too, for many of my constituents, for whom a visit to a car boot sale is an essential part of the weekend. However, they are subject to abuse by a small number of operators, who take advantage of them to engage in illegal sales of counterfeit and pirate goods, including branded products such as watches, jewellery, handbags, trainers and polo shirts. The most common products on sale are CDs and DVDs, which can be produced extremely cheaply and are easy to transport and, indeed, to hide.
We are not talking about a small number of dodgy dealers who flog a few DVDs from the back of a van but about a vast industry run by international organised criminal gangs whose profits are huge and whose activities threaten the survival of our creative industries. It is estimated that the total cost to industry is more than £11 billion a year, and there is an additional cost to the Government of about £2 billion in lost VAT. Last year, an estimated 77 million pirate CDs were sold in the UK, representing a criminal gain at street prices of £278 million.
The trail often begins on the other side of the world, in countries such as Russia, Pakistan and particularly China. I recently visited Beijing with the Select Committee to discuss the problem of piracy. A report in the People’s Daily three years ago suggested that China’s legal production lines could produce 600 million discs, but there was a total of 5 billion disc sales in the country. The China Audio and Video Association recognises the problem of piracy in Hong Kong and Macau, and it is doing everything that it can to stop imports from those countries into China. Disappointingly, however, it does not appear to recognise that there is huge pirate DVD manufacturing capability in mainland China. Many of those DVDs are sold in China, but many more flood into western nations, where they are distributed by organised gangs. Evidence that the Triads, the Russian mafia and the IRA are all involved in the trade was highlighted in a recent threat assessment by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force.
Although the trail may begin a long way away, it ends with pirate DVDs and CDs being sold in pubs, on street corners and, in particular, at car boot sales. It has been estimated that more than a quarter of pirate goods are sold through car boot sales. I have first-hand experience of the problem as a result of having visited several car boat sales and bank holiday markets in and around my constituency, and I want to thank Essex trading standards and, in particular, its operations manager, Mr. Trevor Simpson, for their help in researching it.
Last year, I accompanied Mr. Simpson’s officers in an undercover visit to a car boot sale in Boreham, where we identified two stalls selling pirate CDs and DVDs. Among the DVDs on sale were films such as “War of the Worlds” and “Batman Begins”, which had just gone on general release in cinemas in the high street and which were certainly not legally available on DVD. Beyond that, there were also films which had not yet been released in the UK but which were somehow on sale as pirate copies. I was later told by the cinema industry that there were an estimated 2.25 million illegal copies of “War of the Worlds” circulating in the UK within a few days of the film going on general release.
A few weeks after my visit in September last year, I returned to the Boreham car boot sale with trading standards officers and the police in what they kindly labelled Operation Parliament. Although we expected to find two stalls selling illegal goods, we found four, and, as a result, around 750 DVDs were seized along with more than 200 CDs, 150 watches, 80 handbags and 33 pairs of trainers. The most worrying point was that as the officers were putting the goods into bags, members of the public criticised them and said that they should leave the sellers alone because they were not doing any harm. That illustrates the huge challenge in educating the public on why piracy is damaging and why they should not buy counterfeit goods.
Although trading standards officers are doing their best to tackle the problem, the powers available to them are limited, which is why I agreed to introduce the Occasional Sales Bill to strengthen their ability to counter that menace. The Bill is not intended to curtail legitimate sales, which comprise the vast majority of activity at car boot sales. However, there are examples of irresponsible organisers, and there is anecdotal evidence that some organisers are taking substantial payments from those selling illegal goods. In one case, an organiser even sounded a loud horn that echoed around the entirety of the sale at the first sight of the police and trading standards.
The Bill is designed to tackle rogue organisers. It is based on existing legislation that covers Kent and the Medway towns, and it contains three simple measures. First, it places a duty on organisers of occasional sales to give notice of an intention to hold a sale to trading standards at least 21 days ahead of the sale taking place, which will give the authorities a chance to reach a considered view on whether they want to attend and to plan accordingly. Secondly, organisers will be required to keep a record of the names and addresses of sellers, together with a general description of the goods and their car registration number, which will be available to the authorities on demand. Thirdly, where there is repeated evidence of illegal sales taking place, the organiser can be required to take action to prevent them and can be held liable if they fail to do so.
As I have said, those provisions are already in place in Kent, and they have proved very effective in reducing the amount of pirate goods sold at car boot sales. Indeed, one of the consequences of that legislation is that it has transferred the problem to the other side of the Thames to my county, Essex. My Bill is supported by organisations such as the British Video Association, the British Phonographic Institute, the British brands group and many other trade bodies. It is also backed by Front Benchers of both Opposition parties and by Government Members, such as the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson).
I recognise that it is unlikely that the Bill will become law. However, I was encouraged by the answer that I obtained from the Minister last week, in which he said that the Government is seeking further evidence from the police, local authorities and others on whether the regulatory aspects of the Kent legislation have a wider application. I would be grateful if the Minister were to say whether the Government are willing to consider introducing legislation in that area.
I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to one very promising development. In April, I participated in the launch by Essex trading standards of a voluntary code of practice for markets and boot fairs. It requires organisers to agree to a number of measures, including providing trading standards with details of events to be held and the contact with whom to liaise. They must also endeavour to prevent the sale of any illegal goods by excluding anybody suspected of doing so and reporting them to the authorities, display notices warning the public against pirate goods, and provide a guide to all sellers who are attending.
This afternoon, I spoke to Trevor Simpson at Essex trading standards, and he told me that so far 26 out of 31 organisers in Essex have signed the code of practice and only one has refused to do so. As a result, there has been a noticeable decline in illegal sales. Organisers are co-operating with recent examples in Clacton, Weeley and North Weald, where market organisers have banned some sellers whom they know to have been selling pirate goods. There is no doubt that most organisers are responsible and wish to work with the authorities. Indeed, one recently pointed out the difficulties that he had in spotting fake goods and asked for the brand owners to help him to do so. I hope that even if there is not legislative time to bring in the measures in my Bill, the Government will encourage all local authorities to establish codes of practice such as the one in Essex and to persuade all organisers to sign up to them.
There are new challenges facing the creative industries, with the explosion of high-tech piracy through illegal file sharing and home burning of CDs, to give two examples. However, physical piracy remains a serious threat to these industries, which are increasingly important to the economic future of the UK. I hope that the Minister will recognise that and set out the Government’s plans to tackle it.
I thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for introducing this debate. In his role as Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and vice-chairman of the all-party group on intellectual property, he has done valuable work in raising awareness of intellectual property issues, particularly intellectual property crime. Everything that he said was not only well researched but well founded. I hope that during this short debate I am able to reassure him that we are travelling in the same direction. We understand the effects on one of our major and growing industries in the global economy and the importance of our working to provide the appropriate tools to deal with organised crime at whatever level it seeks to intervene in the marketplace.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to Essex trading standards for introducing a voluntary code of practice in April. I am advised that it is working well at the moment. We will monitor its effectiveness and encourage other trading standards officers to use such codes. I hope that this debate helps to raise awareness and understanding and gives the subject wider coverage.
Today’s world is moving from an industrial age to a new age where creativity and innovation are the primary fuel of our economy. As a result, we are increasingly dependent on the development and distribution of creative, technical and intellectual products. The UK is undeniably a world leader in innovation, and it is clear that intellectual property is propelling our economy as never before. The intellectual property system must remain relevant and address the challenges of the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in December that the Government had commissioned Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the intellectual property framework. The Gowers review is due to report later this year. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy.
Our creative industries, which include publishing, software, design, advertising, electronic games and fashion, as well as music, films, television and radio and the performing arts, accounted for 8 per cent. of gross value added in 2003. The creative industries grew by an average of 6 per cent. per annum between 1997 and 2003. In the summer quarter of 2004, creative employment totalled 1.8 million jobs. Creative employment is a major element in our economy. The recent BBC announcement of the proposed move of some of their production departments to Salford, in my own region of north-west England, is a powerful way of stimulating the national and regional media industry.
Innovation is vital to the economy and our future. We therefore need to ensure the existence of a safe and robust environment, which not only helps our creators to thrive, but protects their inventiveness. A key part of that environment is a strong and fair intellectual property system with effective enforcement provisions.
Major progress is often accompanied by major challenges and, like any valuable product, intellectual property has become much sought after by those who are less honest. During recent years, the scope and scale of intellectual property crime, counterfeiting and piracy has grown at rates that were previously unknown. For example, it is widely estimated that 7 per cent. of all world trade is now in counterfeit goods—a total annual value of more than £250 billion. There is no doubt that that phenomenal growth is due to several key factors. Ironically, globalisation and new opportunities in technology have contributed strongly. However, a lack of general understanding and stretched enforcement resources have also played a part.
While crimes such as drug dealing and trafficking are viewed with great concern, the perception of the seriousness of intellectual property crime has been much lower. The hon. Gentleman said that when he described the public reaction to the crime that he witnessed. United Kingdom enforcers have been unfamiliar with the laws and, consequently, enforcement priorities have been absorbed elsewhere. As a result, that “high profit, low risk” factor has meant that intellectual property crime has become an attractive criminal enterprise. That is an important point. It is an enterprise—a business—with a board of managers and driven on the ground by thousand of key workers, from their perspective. We must deal with it effectively.
Our trading standards authorities have traditionally been at the front line of intellectual property crime enforcement in the UK. Working in the local authority system, trading standards officers play a key strategic role in providing UK local government services. However, enforcement against counterfeiting and piracy is only part of a trading standards officer’s work. Fair trading activities involving labelling food, licensing, weights and measures and safety are only a few of the other activities that are carried out regularly.
Depending on the authority, between 60 and 120 pieces of primary and secondary legislation are overseen by trading standards departments. It is widely recognised that the UK has one of the most robust intellectual property legislative structures in the world. However, the Government are acutely aware that legislation needs to change with shifting demands. That is why we have introduced changes to our intellectual property legislation to combat the growing threat of intellectual property crime.
Furthermore, the Government have already supported a number of legislative changes in recent years, such as stronger penalties for copyright crime in the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002. We updated copyright law to reflect the digital age by introducing the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, which implement the European Community copyright directive. Those regulations introduced new offences relevant to the most damaging online distribution of copyright material. In making those changes, we have sought both to promote better public protection and improve enforcement against counterfeiting and piracy. We are well aware of the threat that intellectual property crime poses and that it is a worldwide problem, as the hon. Gentleman said. In response, the Government have taken action in a number of key areas, which I shall set out.
First, in July 2004, with the full support of the Prime Minister, the Department of Trade and Industry, in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, established the creative industries forum on intellectual property. Several work streams have emerged from that group. Raising consumer awareness and enforcement are two on-going issues. Secondly, we have implemented the Patent Office’s national intellectual property crime strategy. A multi-agency intellectual property crime group was set up involving the Government, the police, trading standards, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which has now been subsumed by the Serious Organised Crime Agency—that came into being on 1 April this year—and key industry sectors.
The objective of the intellectual property crime group was to deliver better targeted enforcement action. Our achievements so far include: the creation of a new creative industries focus group under the intellectual property crime group to ensure that concerns can be fed directly into the intellectual property crime strategy; a new intellectual property crime intelligence database; better training for enforcers—trading standards officers already receive practical training with the help and support of the Patent Office; greater collaboration between national and international Government agencies; annually updated assessments of intellectual property crime; and progress reports overseen by Ministers, which will ensure accountability and continuing delivery on the matter.
Thirdly, I am pleased to say that, in June last year, we published our consumer strategy, “A Fair Deal for All”. One of our commitments is that, from 1 April this year, all asset recovery agencies including the trading standards service in England and Wales will be able to get back 50 per cent. of what they recover under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This will take time to dig in, but it represents a major advance not only in relation to the proceeds of crime, but to the damage that it will do to the heart of the capacity of criminal businesses to continue trading. It will also allow assets rightfully to be returned to the community and provide support for the activities of the enforcement agencies. The assets recovered could include monies related to the confiscation of pirated goods, and the scheme will be administered by the Home Office.
In addition, we highlighted the importance of intellectual property as part of our EU presidency programme by supporting the creative economy conference in London in October 2005. As part of our presidency of the G8, we agreed a specific tasking statement with our G8 colleagues on action to reduce intellectual property crime by improving enforcement. That statement is available from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, but I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman. I would welcome his comments on what more we could do in this regard.
Tackling counterfeiting and piracy is vital and I agree that an essential part of the solution will involve building respect for creators’ rights. Failure to respect creators’ rights is ultimately self-defeating for consumers. The Government recognise that there have been inconsistencies in the response to intellectual property crime across the country in the past. That was often due to competing priorities and the lack of a cohesive approach between all the enforcement agencies.
The national intellectual property crime strategy seeks to provide a co-ordinated approach to combating counterfeiting and piracy. We are piloting 11 regional teams whose priority will be to tackle the most urgent issues for their locality. They will be cracking down on the real criminals, and £3 million, which will be available over the next two years, will get the teams up and running and provide for the network of regional intelligence teams essential for the focus on intelligence-led enforcement. If the hon. Gentleman or his Committee wish to meet members of those teams, once they are operational, I will arrange that for him.
The aim is to encourage a more joined-up enforcement network and to spread best practice among the trading standards services around the country. The Government are committed to improving Britain’s consumer regime. To do that, we need to foster an environment that empowers and protects consumers while supporting open, competitive and innovative markets. I think that that is how the hon. Gentleman described car boot fairs. He might like to know that my wife goes to boot fairs regularly. She raises money for my election campaigns through them. I can assure him, however, that it is all “legit”.
We are also committed to reducing crime. In short, we want to remove the market for counterfeit and pirated goods and to make it harder, riskier and less appealing for thieves to steal other people’s creativity and deprive them of their due livelihoods. There is undoubtedly a need for better co-ordination and shared intelligence between local authorities, rights owners, enforcement agencies and the Government to help to fight the growing threat of counterfeiting and piracy. However, we feel that that can best be achieved through a structured intelligence-led approach and a co-ordinated response from within the national intellectual property crime group. Again, if the hon. Gentleman’s Committee wishes to discuss this matter with the Home Office or with the new criminal intelligence agency, such a request would be met with an enthusiastic response.
The first enforcement operation carried out by the national intellectual property crime group occurred over four weekends last December. Wembley market was raided and more than £1.5 million worth of illicit goods were seized. However, that was not the only significant outcome of the operation. Further intelligence about the method of supply of counterfeit goods was uncovered from seized trader documents. Other intelligence was also uncovered and passed on to the relevant Government agencies. As a result of this operation, it is estimated that 34 people will be prosecuted, and at least two cases will be the subject of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 investigations. There was support for this operation from the legitimate stall holders at Wembley market, who had been struggling to compete with the illegal traders. The operation demonstrates—as have the operations in Essex that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that shared intelligence and co-operation between enforcers gives excellent results using the existing legislation.
In conclusion, proposals to improve and provide consistent and workable enforcement regulations across the country are always welcome. However, all new recommendations on legislative change must be carefully considered, and not all of them can be introduced quickly. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kent County Council Act 2001 and the Medway Council Act 2001, and the Home Office consultation. A report was laid before the House in December 2004. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) has confirmed, in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman on 19 June, that he will consult on this issue. I will write to my ministerial colleague at the Home Office and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman about when the consultation will take place and to ensure his involvement in it.
I say that for two reasons. First, I think it pretty unlikely that the hon. Gentleman will be able to get his occasional sales Bill up and running and secure a proper debate on it. Secondly, the issues that he has raised are serious, and we must grapple with them. I hope that the consultation will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to put his case.
As for whether I, as consumer Minister, will consider further legislation, I shall view the matter in the light of the result of my hon. Friend’s consultation. I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at a later date if that will help. We have a common cause. We may sit in different parts of the House, but one thing is certain: we believe in legitimate business and the growth of the United Kingdom’s creative industry. We are also anti-criminal and anti-crime, and opposed to the ripping off of our intellectual property. We are opposed to the ripping off of our constituents by organised crime.
I hope that my response has been sufficient to give my hon. Friend an indication of my willingness to work with him to produce some effective results. I thank him again for raising the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o’clock.