Harvey on Defence

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): LIKE the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, I start by expressing condolences in respect of those who have died recently not only in Afghanistan, but, as we have heard, tragically and appallingly in Northern Ireland.

The Minister pointed out that that takes the count of those who have died in Afghanistan to 152. Each of those casualties is an individual tragedy not only personally, but collectively for our armed forces. In addition to those 152 deaths, we must remember those who have been seriously injured or wounded, some of whom have been wounded in life-changing ways. We do not discuss those people as often as we should. There is something rather British about that, and it is certainly conspicuous that the Americans and, I think, the Canadians often pay greater tribute to their wounded personnel than us.

It is not easy to make this point, but I shall make it nevertheless. Although the figure of 152 deaths is shocking, if one considers the length of time that we have been in Afghanistan, the huge number of our personnel who have served there and the extraordinarily dangerous work, it is worth pausing and counting our blessings that that number is not a great deal higher. I take the view that that figure might have been higher, which would certainly have been the case in the past. Among other things, we should pay tribute to the advances in medical expertise that have prevented the situation from being a great deal worse.

Both Front Benchers rightly referred to the disgraceful scenes when the Royal Anglian Regiment paraded in Luton, and I echo the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members. It occurs to me that those who mounted those ill-judged protests shot themselves in the foot in terms of the cause that they were trying to promote. The overall effect was to give far more public attention to the home-coming parade than might otherwise have been the case and to unite public opinion in appreciation of what those troops have done on our behalf and in abhorrence at the protestors and their message. The public are now showing a greater appreciation of our armed forces; that has increased a lot in a remarkably short period of time. The regular scenes in Wootton Bassett that we have heard about are a leading example of that. In previous debates in this House, many Members have made the point that our work in Afghanistan is sometimes misunderstood by the British public, but I draw some encouragement from the fact that there is now growing appreciation of what we are trying to achieve there.

Only five months have passed since we last had a debate entitled "Defence in the UK", but a great deal has happened in that time: there has been a grave worsening of the economic crisis; there has been the decision to issue a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq; and a new US Administration has arrived, with a very different approach from their predecessor. I particularly welcome the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and I recall with some amusement that when we Liberal Democrats argued previously for that, we were lampooned on the basis that we could not have a timetable for withdrawal and it was naive of us to think that such a thing could be done as we should never signal our intentions to the enemy. However, we said at the time that the day would inevitably come when the Government would announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and they have now done so, and so too have the Americans. It is my sincere belief-as it was when my right hon. and learned Friend Sir Menzies Campbell first suggested to this House that there ought to be a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq-that that is long overdue and could have been done a great deal earlier.

Julian Lewis (Shadow Minister, Defence; New Forest East, Conservative): I am pleased that a debate on defence in the UK can be interpreted as covering defence in the world, and I would just point out that the Liberal Democrats were proposing a timetable for withdrawal before the surge had happened and succeeded, and at a time when the outcome of the conflict in Iraq was very much in the balance.

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): I respect what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his argument, but the point that was made at the time was that one could not have such a thing as a timetable for withdrawal, and the fact of the matter is- [Interruption.] That was not the point that was made at the time; the point was made that we could not have a timetable for withdrawal, but of course we can have a timetable for withdrawal. Clearly, it has to be a timetable that takes account of the circumstances, but the fact of the matter is that we can have such a timetable and, ultimately, as was always going to be the case, that is precisely what we have ended up having.

The arrival of a new US Administration is a very welcome development. That is already giving rise to a remarkably swift reconsideration in the United States of its approaches to some of the significant issues with which we are ourselves tied up.

Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman also touch on the changes taking place in Europe, notably the decision by the Czechs no longer to participate in the futile missile defence programme, which the official Opposition, along with the Government, seem to be hellbent on pursuing, regardless of Obama coming into office?

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): That is certainly a very interesting development, as, of course, is the French decision to rejoin fully the NATO command. These are all factors that affect the circumstances in which we organise our defence in the UK.

It seems to me that in the UK defence is still the poor relation in the progressive agenda. We have seen new thinking in education and health and on the environment, but in defence we remain stuck with some outmoded habits and a lack of new thinking. As has been said, it is perfectly true that there has been substantial and significant reorganisation of our armed forces since the end of the cold war, but it is still possible to level the criticism that we remain too much configured along cold war lines and that there is a need for further reorganisation to get us configured for the modern-day realities. America has, I believe, woken up to this; President Obama is planning an overhaul of US defence procurement and strategy, bringing it out of the cold war era. When, I wonder, will we? In every debate Ministers are urged to set up a new strategic defence review so that we can reassess and realign defence, where necessary, and make new decisions about how to face future threats and challenges, yet still they resist any suggestion that that should happen. I am confident that after the next election, whatever its outcome, a strategic defence review will be set up, but it could be doing its work a great deal sooner if some of the scoping of it were to be set in train now and were to be subject to some debate before the election.

Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat): Is there not a danger that if we are still fighting the last war to happen-or the last that did not happen-and still have a cold war mentality, there will be some, particularly in Russia, who interpret that as being a threat to them and that will end up distorting their foreign and military policy? That may make our maintaining a cold war strategy, in part, a reality, rather than the reverse; the deployment of missile defence may be making the situation a lot worse.

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not think it takes very much for the Russians to interpret anything they choose as some sort of provocation, but one certainly does not want to give them any additional grounds for doing so, if one can help it.

One can only hope that by the time we next have this debate, most of our involvement in Iraq will be over. I echo the points made in yesterday's debate about the fact that we should be getting on with the process of setting up an inquiry into exactly what we achieved there, what went well, what went wrong, why we got involved in the first place and what lessons we might draw from that for future engagements, particularly if we maintain, as the outcome of the strategic defence review, as I hope we will, a commitment to an interventionist policy and to expeditionary warfare. I hope that lessons will also be learned for operations in Afghanistan, where there are still many challenges ahead, most notably the real problem of overspill into Pakistan, which is, itself, very unstable at the moment. We will have an ongoing task preparing the British public for what will be a protracted conflict.

The economic crisis poses a new threat to our national defence. We have been aware for some time that there is a black hole in the Ministry of Defence finances. A year or so ago, it was estimated at £2 billion, and it is in no danger of shrinking-indeed, there is every likelihood that it will get bigger and bigger. Estimates of true defence inflation vary; some say that it is at least 3 per cent., whereas other figures that are cited are higher. It is clear that the defence industry is not going to remain untouched by the current economic difficulties, and this will bring uncertain consequences for the skills bases, contracts and projects involved.

In these uncertain times, the defence industry is partly immune from the wider malaise, but we must be careful to ensure that the economic difficulties do not impede further our activities overseas or the delivery of vital resources to the front line. The recent Defence Committee report highlighted that, even now, there are problems with equipment. Our track record on procurement is like a broken record: delayed, over budget and below requirement. The Government have yet to face up to the reality of how on earth they will be able to afford all the programmes that are still in place in principle on the budget that is available at the moment and what they will do to get industry on board, to try to make the delivery of existing projects more efficient.

As part of the present crisis, we should look at current procurements, but problems from the past are also catching up with us. We have heard that Nimrod is to be grounded, which is an admission that the fleet is not fit to fly. It seems to have taken Ministers a long time to arrive at that conclusion, whereas aircrew, coroners and others have been saying for some time that the aircraft are not airworthy. It does not surprise me, in the light of the current economic storm, that Trident and the proposal to renew it has been mentioned. We heard from Mr. Kilfoyle that some distinguished retired military figures have been debating it. We heard from the Minister that people have been debating it on the ConservativeHome website. There is renewed interest in the subject in the light of the economic crisis.

Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton, Labour): It is not only distinguished ex-military personnel, but they have been fairly outspoken. I would far sooner listen to people who have been on the front line than the armchair generals of the television studios or newspaper columns. Ted Postol, the man who designed the Trident system, has pointed out that it could be adapted for the needs of our country, if that is what we wish, instead of spending an as yet indeterminate sum replacing it.

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is right to ask questions about this issue. We believe that the House was premature in seeking to make a decision two years ago. A final decision does not have to be made, and in truth will not be made, until main gate, which is the point at which the Thatcher Government made the political decision about Trident. The significant costs of Trident replacement will begin to rack up only midway through the next decade. I do not suggest that the questions need to be answered today, any more than they had to be two years ago, but it is right that the questions are being asked. They will continue to be asked from now right through to the time at which any decision is made. It is especially apt that the questions arise at the moment, as we progress towards the 2010 non-proliferation treaty conference talks.

I listened with interest to Dr. Fox, who expressed his sincerely held view, which can be fairly characterised as being that there were no circumstances in which he thought it would ever be possible for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. That is a point of view, and he is entitled to hold it, but if he, as a Minister, were to articulate that position on behalf of the UK, it would undoubtedly put us in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have binding and solemn commitments under that treaty that it is our duty to try to fulfil at all times.

Personnel must be our priority. Withdrawing from Iraq will alleviate some of the burden, but Afghanistan will continue to take its toll. The mental health casualties will start to become more apparent in the coming years, and we surely all agree that more needs to be done to tackle this issue head on. However, I welcome the progress that has been made recently. We still have a huge problem of alcohol and substance abuse among former personnel, and a high proportion of prisoners-one in 11, or some 8,000-are ex-services.

Preparing our service personnel for life after the armed forces, whether that be rehabilitation, medical care and support or further skills and education, still needs to become more central to our thinking. For service personnel and their families we must do more to honour our commitments. In particular, a recent National Audit Office report revealed that housing was still in a sorry state. As I have said before in these debates, at the current rate of progress, it will take 20 years to bring all the housing up to scratch. That was widely pooh-poohed at the time, but I was intrigued to note that the NAO report arrived at the same figure.

Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat): Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a legacy of the privatisation by the previous Government of the MOD housing stock to Annington Homes? It also represents the failure of this Government to address the problem, because 12 years down the line the public purse is still spending a small fortune for property that it does not, and will never, own unless legislation is introduced to bring MOD housing back under MOD ownership.

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): There is no doubt in my mind that the Annington deal was a bad deal for the taxpayer and that we have, in a sense, been paying a price for that ever since. I must say that the Government have a nasty habit of aggregating routine maintenance, rent and improvements and of presenting the sum of those costs as though the total was all being spent on improvements. That, I am afraid, is misleading. It will take a long time-

Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a couple of times, and I think that it would be better if he made a speech himself, if he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The fact is that nearly a third of service personnel and their families are unhappy with the standard of accommodation.

We have mentioned already that there are interesting developments in Europe. The US, for example, has made it clear that it wants to deal less with the UK as a bridge to the European Union and more with the European Union as a whole. Although we must continue to have a strong bilateral partnership with the United States, it is in its interest as well as ours to have a stronger European partner this side of the Atlantic. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are exploring avenues for greater defence co-operation, particularly now that the French have changed their stance in such a significant way. I hope that in the fullness of time, such co-operation will come to enjoy the support of all parties.

UK defence, in my view, is in drastic need of an overhaul. We need a new strategic defence review and a good hard look at the configuration of our defence and the infrastructure behind it. The economic crisis only adds to the imperative to deliver cost-effective and vital projects efficiently and to tight deadlines. As John F. Kennedy once said:

"When written in Chinese, the word 'crisis' is composed of two characters-one represents danger and one represents opportunity."

Let us not get entrenched in the economic crisis to the detriment of our defence capabilities, but seize this opportunity to come out the other side with a more effective, efficient and decisive armed force.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament