| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I must stress to Ministers that people in the reserve forces do it not for the money, but for the training and the love of it. My own modest career as a seaman in the Royal Naval Reserve would not have appealed to me if I had not had a ship to go to sea on at the weekends as part of my training. If such training is cut off from
people for six months, we may well find that, even if the tap is turned on again at the end of the process, such crews are no longer available.
Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of the number of Members who went in to bat today. I have been silent for a variety of reasons and I have been in and out of the Chamber, but I want to express my concern and, I think, that of many other Labour Members about the threat that has been posed. It is a narrow but important point. I accept that we can probably be reassured about the resources available for the training of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that, particularly in relation to the Army but also in relation to the Royal Naval Reserve.
Dr. Lewis: As always, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am only sorry that he was not present to contribute more fully to the debate. The preparation of reserves to go into the front line is a continuum. If a major segment of the training process is removed, that will work its way through the system so that when it is necessary to move on to the next section of the continuum, there will be nothing but a black hole. That is the threat to which the Government have exposed our reserves with this penny-pinching and unjustified measure.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: I am sorry: not for the moment.
Let me complete my quick survey of the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) spoke of the duty of European countries to work as individual countries through the institutions that are available, but not to try to offload their defence responsibilities on to those institutions in order to contribute to collective security. My hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and for Congleton (Ann Winterton) shared a rather gloomy outlook on the prospects of the campaign in Afghanistan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay reckons that the anti-opium campaign is failing, that women's rights are failing, that democracy is failing, and that corruption is rife. That is to suggest that the objectives of our presence in Afghanistan were to get rid of the opium trade, to assert the rights of women, to create a democracy, and to root out corruption. Those are all worthy and desirable aims, but they are not the reason we are there. We are there because an attack was made on cities, killing thousands of people, and because that attack was orchestrated and organised by an organisation whose headquarters were in Afghanistan. The question that we must ask ourselves is this: is our strategy, and are our tactics, adequate to deal with that threat and prevent it from arising again? I have to say that I have some doubts, but I am not prepared, and do not have time, to articulate them fully on this occasion.
Mr. Baron: My hon. Friend may have misheard what I said. I was suggesting that what we needed in Afghanistan at the end of the day was a political solution, and that the failures that I cited were all signs that we were not near to a political solution. I did not for a moment suggest that solving those problems was the main objective of our forces.
Dr. Lewis: I fully accept that. Unfortunately, however, if a political solution is to be found in a counter-insurgency campaign, there must be a means of dealing with the element of society that is determined that no political accommodation will be reached. That is a problem that has not yet been solved and cannot be solved by political means alone, just as it cannot be solved by military means alone.
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: No, I will not. I am sorry. Time is against me, and I wish to go a little wider than the question of the Afghanistan campaign, central though it is to our considerations. I wish to revert very briefly to another point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury: the unpredictability of future conflicts.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been involved in counter-insurgency campaigns in the past. We were involved in a long counter-insurgency campaign in Malaya which lasted from 1948 to 1960, but that did not lead us to believe that because we were involved in fighting a counter-insurgency then, we would always be involved in counter-insurgency campaigning in the future. We remained fully committed to NATO and fully engaged in the cold war. Important as the campaign in Afghanistan is, it would be a strategic mistake to say "We do not need aircraft carriers; we do not need Trident; we do not need conventional forces." We need a range of capabilities to deal with the range of threats that might rise up against us in 10, 20, 30 and 40 years' time. Some people say that we are making a mistake because we are reckoning to fight the wars of 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I say that we are planning to deter and protect against the wars of 10, 15 and 20 years in the future, and if we judge those just by what we are doing today we are making the same mistake as when we judge what we are doing today by what we were doing 15, 20 or 25 years ago. We must have the full range of military capability that we can afford. That is the issue the strategic defence review, which the Conservatives were the first party to demand, will decide. It will be a difficult and tough task, but it is an absolutely essential one.
5.46 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Bill Rammell): We have had a good and well-informed debate, which has demonstrated the strong degree of cross-party support in the House for the armed forces. In every contribution, there has been a palpable recognition of the heroic, professional and hugely competent job our armed forces do on behalf of us all. We are enormously in their debt.
In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to as many as possible of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by raising an issue that many other hon. Members have also raised: the position of the Territorial Army. Let me be very clear that the change was recommended by the service chiefs. It was accepted by Ministers because, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, Afghanistan is our main priority and it is crucial that we redeploy resources to that main priority, but that does not mean that any member of the reserves will be deployed without appropriate pre-deployment training. Let me make it clear that no reservist will have to pay for their pre-deployment training and there is no cut to that pre-deployment training. I say that clearly for the record because the Leader of the Opposition tried to paint a
very different picture at Prime Minister's questions yesterday. It is important that we debate the issues based on the facts.
Dr. Fox: The Minister says the purpose of the cuts is to make money available for the front line in Afghanistan, but we are repeatedly told that the Treasury is fully funding the campaign in Afghanistan from the Treasury reserve. If that is the case, why are we cutting core MOD functions?
Bill Rammell: We are actually supplementing that. That is crucial. The constant thrust of the comments we hear from the Opposition is that we are in a war situation and we should devote all our resources and efforts to that front-line campaign, and I think that that is the right thing to do.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Regional Command South and which nation would be replacing the regional battle group south. That is a question for NATO, but our current understanding is that the battle group will not be immediately replaced. I stand by our decision, however, because our decision to redeploy that battle group is about thickening our forces in Helmand, and particularly about helping us tackle the huge challenge of improvised explosive devices.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the make-up and sustainability of the 9,000 commitment and the 9,500. The 9,000, will be made up of the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards and elements of 30 Signal Regiment, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. The additional 500 will involve the deployment of 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh. There is a statement to that effect in the House of Commons Library.
The hon. Gentleman went on to labour a critique by saying that there was a failure to define our strategy in Afghanistan in terms of our national security. I must say that that is what we have been doing for months and years. This is fundamentally about our national security. It is about generating capacity in the Afghan nation and its forces so that it can defend itself and secure its own borders and country, and in the bargain make us and other countries safer from terrorism. That is why we want to generate that capacity; we do not want to be in Afghanistan for ever and a day. We want to reach the point where we can sensibly and safely withdraw. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we were to succeed, it would be a fundamental strategic failure for al-Qaeda and other insurgents. Importantly, and conversely, our failure in Afghanistan would be a huge boost for terrorists and violent extremists in every part of the world. That is why this is so fundamentally in our national interest.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about helicopters and the two Chinooks, and I can confirm that the funding will come from the Treasury reserve. He asked how long it will be before the last Vectors come out of service in Afghanistan, and I can tell him that a phased withdrawal will be complete by mid to late 2010. He went on to discuss the situation in Iraq. He said that it "beggars belief" that no agreement over the continuation of our naval presence in Iraq has been achieved. This is the reality of politics in a democracy, which is what Iraq is now. There has been a Government-to-Government agreement, but it is now going through its parliamentary procedures and we cannot dictate, from the outside, the time scale of that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the training mission would be funded from the Treasury reserve, and I can confirm that it will be. He gave a huge critique of the Government's performance and the situation in terms of equipment, training and everything else that we are doing. Every Member of this House needs to be clear about the fact that the Conservative party is not committing one penny extra of additional expenditure to the defence budget. Words come easily, but we face a hugely challenging situation in Afghanistan and we ought to be debating these issues on their merits and trying, where possible, to achieve a consensus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) described the letter that he had received from one of his constituents about the tragic loss of her fiancé Kyle Adams and his tragic death. Nothing I, or any of us, can say or do can compensate any individual for the loss of a loved one. I wish to pay tribute to the heroism of Kyle Adams-he was serving our national interest.
My hon. Friend asked a particular question about Ministers' attending repatriation ceremonies. That issue comes up repeatedly in the press, but I wish to make it clear that Ministers rightly take military advice from the service chiefs and they have consistently told us that repatriation ceremonies are military occasions for military personnel. In such circumstances, it would be wrong for Ministers to intervene.
Bill Rammell: I welcome the nods of assent that I am getting from those on the Conservative Benches.
My hon. Friend also referred, completely erroneously, to a claim that 80 per cent. of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. That claim is simply and palpably untrue, and it serves the interests of nobody to try to pretend -[Interruption.] Eight of the 13 districts in Helmand are controlled by the Afghan authorities and the coalition. The situation is challenging, but we are making real progress.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, raised concern, as did and a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, about the fact that MPs did not have longer to read and digest Bernard Gray's report. The Secretary of State has apologised for that, and I apologise too. We received the final printed versions of the report only this morning, having spent the summer discussing with Mr. Gray both the content of his report and his conclusions. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for a further opportunity to discuss the report. The Secretary of State has considered that and we are more than open to having such a further opportunity, at the earliest convenience of the House-I am making our position very clear.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made a very interesting speech. He talked about the impact of the 24/7 media on our mission and on the enemy. A number of senior military figures have said to me that if we had had that kind of 24/7 media coverage during the second world war, they doubt that we would have got beyond the first 18 months. That is a chilling observation and I hope that everyone can reflect on that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) made a very effective speech. He rightly praised Glasgow Rangers for their excellent initiative of providing tickets for our forces. I congratulate him on supporting it. He also, interestingly, referred to the position of General Dannatt. Let me make it clear that during the time I have been at the Ministry of Defence I have worked well with General Dannatt, but I was intrigued that when my hon. Friend said that General Dannatt would be appointed a Minister in a Conservative Government, there were strenuous denials from those on the Opposition Benches. "No, he wouldn't be," they said. Well, that is not what General Dannatt says. He says that he has been told by the Leader of the Opposition that he will be appointed a Minister in a Conservative Government. His appointment and his handling says much more about the Leader of the Opposition's judgment than it does about General Dannatt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), who is a doughty defender of her constituency and its interests, asked in particular about the decision on the movement of Royal Marines and whether that would be delayed by the strategic defence review. Let me make it clear that the project time scales have not been delayed to wait for an SDR, although of course the SDR will have to consider all defence issues. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.
I respect the role played by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in the all-party group and the substantive work that he does on reserve issues. We met during the summer-as has happened with the Secretary of State on previous occasions-and my office, as he knows, is urgently trying to agree dates with him and his group. I understand the concern. We need to talk and I will hear his representations. I also very much agreed with his underlying point about the lack of predictability of 9/11, Iraq and the Falklands. One thing that I think we should learn from history is that we have not been very good at predicting the military future. I think that that was the point that he was trying to make. That lesson should be borne in mind for the future SDR.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) said that we constantly need to remind people why we are in Afghanistan, and I fundamentally agree with that. He said that we have to find a political solution, and I agree with that too. He also said that if members of the Taliban are prepared to renounce violence, we should reintegrate them. The evidence at the moment-I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on this point-suggests that there is no huge momentum in that direction. The hon. Member for Billericay also made an erroneous point about IEDs and the percentage of US casualties from IEDs being significantly lower than ours. There is a reason for that. A much larger percentage of our troops are in Helmand, which is the centre of the Taliban insurgency and the IED threat. I do not think that any purpose is served by putting forward spurious comparisons of that nature, which undermine the huge job that our forces are undertaking.
Mr. Baron: Will the Minister give way?
Bill Rammell: No, I cannot. Forgive me.
My hon. Friend the Member for-
Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), whose constituency I visited during the summer- [ Interruption. ] And it was raining, too. She made an exceedingly good point about the BBC documentary. Along with her, I want to pay tribute to Tom and Andy for their dignity, guts and determination. I watched that documentary, and the level of care and support they received belies the criticism that the Ministry of Defence gets for the support that it gives to injured service personnel.
I apologise for the fact that I have not been able to respond to every point. We have had a constructive and important debate, and we all need to recognise and remember that, in terms of this huge campaign that we are facing in Afghanistan, there is much more that unites us than divides us. We should be putting that to good effect to support the superb work of our armed forces.
That this House has considered the matter of defence policy.
Business without Debate
Access to Parliament (United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament)
That the Resolutions of the House of 30 January 1989 relating to House of Commons Services and 6 December 1991 relating to Access (Former members and United Kingdom members of the European Parliament) shall cease to have effect insofar as they relate to United Kingdom members of the European Parliament.-( Mr. Spellar)
Regional Select Committee (West Midlands)
That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.-( Mr. Spellar)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |