Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study was commissioned to ensure that the Department has the right plans in place to meet the demands on helicopter capability in the future. I am pleased to say that the study is now complete and, given the interest taken in the study by Parliament, I wanted to take the opportunity to announce its key findings. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who has responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology, stated in his response on 30 April 2012, Official Report, column 1142W, I should reiterate that the findings include no major changes to our previously announced plans.

The study reviewed the full rotary wing requirement for the land, sea and air environments. This encompassed all helicopter roles: attack, lift, reconnaissance and search and rescue. The study was broken down into six work strands covering future force structure, training and simulation, support, specialist roles, basing, and search and rescue.

The aim was to look across all areas of the Department to ensure that we are working as efficiently as possible to deliver the plans for rotary wing capability outlined in the strategic defence and security review. The study confirmed the following plans:

to move the MOD’s rotary wing capability to four core fleets, the Chinook, Wildcat, Merlin and Apache helicopters;

to complete the Puma life extension programme, which extends the out of service date for Puma Mk2 to 2025; this offers resilience to the Department’s lift capability as it transitions to the four core fleets; and

to transfer the Merlin Mk 3/3a to the Royal Navy’s commando helicopter force.

As a result of this review, the Department has:

identified opportunities in training and support as the most promising areas to achieve rationalisation and efficiencies. Broadly this includes making better use of simulated training and adopting a simpler approach to procurement and alternative models for support;

considered alternative ways of organising our helicopters and concluded that Joint Helicopter Command should continue to command land-based (battlefield) helicopters and Navy Command should continue to command maritime helicopters;

confirmed the end of MOD provision of Rotary Wing Search and Rescue at the remaining eight military bases upon withdrawal of the Sea King in April 2016. This will then be performed by a contractor through the Department for Transport, as the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November 2011, Official Report, columns 52-53WS.

The MOD and other interested parties will now consider the recommendations and these findings will now be taken forward as part of routine departmental business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

2. What his policy is on providing life insurance for service personnel.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The Ministry of Defence provides pensions and compensation for personnel injured due to service, and benefits for the dependants of those whose death is due to service, through the armed forces pension schemes and armed forces compensation scheme. However, we also have a duty of care to ensure that personal accident and life insurance cover is available to those service personnel who consider they require it. This cover is voluntary and separate from the benefits provided by the Government. The Ministry of Defence arranges personal accident and life insurance cover through the PAX and service life insurance schemes provided through Aon Ltd and the Sterling Insurance Group respectively.

[Rosie Cooper]

I think most military families will not be entirely happy with the Minister’s answer. How much would it cost to provide fully funded—100%—state-funded insurance to all those on the front line, and will he and his Department consider doing that?

[Nick Harvey]

In a sense, we already provide cover for those on the front line in the matter I have described—through the armed forces compensation scheme and the armed forces pension schemes—so that anyone who suffers in consequence of their military service is compensated appropriately. The hon. Lady will be aware that, after the previous Government ordered an independent review of the armed forces compensation scheme, the amounts payable were substantially increased. If members of the armed services decide, for personal reasons, that they want to seek cover additional to that, we are determined to ensure that they are not disadvantaged or prevented from doing so on account of their service in the armed forces. That is why we intervened in the market to ensure that the schemes I mentioned are available, but it would not be right for us to go out and procure those policies on behalf of individuals: these are personal decisions that those individuals make. We provide death-in-service and injury-in-service benefits; it is up to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Minister of State, I think there is extensive scope for an Adjournment debate on the matter.

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

I will not start an Adjournment debate on the matter, Mr Speaker, but the armed forces compensation scheme, although first class, does not go quite far enough. It was recently reported that as many as 50 soldiers killed on the front line in Afghanistan had no private life insurance at all. Could not the MOD do more both to encourage and to facilitate the provision of private life insurance to everyone on active service in Afghanistan?

[Nick Harvey]

We do encourage individuals to take out additional cover, but people’s circumstances will vary enormously in terms of mortgage liabilities, the size of their family or anything else they wish to cover for. We heavily subsidise these schemes while people are on active service in Afghanistan, but it would not be right for the state to assume responsibility for this and take it over completely.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

3. What plans he has for maintaining aircraft carrier cover in co-operation with key allies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s maritime surveillance capability.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The wide range of assets capable of conducting maritime surveillance were reviewed during the strategic defence and security review and decisions were made in the light of our future requirements and the challenging circumstances facing the Government. Due to the financial legacy we inherited from the previous Government, including the woeful mismanagement of the Nimrod MRA4 project, we had little choice but to cancel that project and make a number of other adjustments to our force structure. I believe we have the capabilities we require in this area, but we keep our requirements under close review against operational circumstances. Should the threats change, we stand ready to respond.

[Ian Lucas]

The Government have made a commitment to additional maritime surveillance with respect to Somalia because of the serious maritime threat posed there. What additional steps are the Government taking to support the Prime Minister’s peace process initiative in Somalia and what steps are they taking on the threat to the peace process caused by piracy?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of the international efforts being made in Somalia, in which the UK is proud to play a part. Surveillance is certainly a part of the international effort, but the UK did not specifically engage to undertake it—it is done on an international basis, and other allies provide the surveillance capabilities.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he has balanced the budget, but the lack of maritime surveillance demonstrates that he can make such a claim only because he has cut the equipment budget so deeply that he has left our nation with a capability deficit. He cannot deny that we have a capability deficit in terms of maritime surveillance.

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. If one has had to balance the budget having inherited a £38 billion black hole, inevitably certain capabilities would have had to be deleted. I remind him that the previous Government were using alternative methods of providing maritime surveillance. They considered that such methods would be adequate for a two-year period, and we have concluded that they provide sufficient cover for a further period.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the armed forces contribution to implementation of security plans for the London 2012 Olympics; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of independence for Scotland on Royal Navy construction projects.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The defence industry in Scotland, particularly shipbuilding, plays a key role in equipping and supporting the UK armed forces. Defence contracts sustain thousands of skilled jobs and generate billions of pounds for the economy of Scotland. The Government greatly value the highly skilled work force in Scotland. Although the Government are not making plans for separation, as we are confident that the Scottish people will continue to support the Union in any referendum, it is worth noting that the UK has not had a complex warship built outside the UK since world war two. Were we to do so in the future, companies in a separate Scotland would, of course, be free to compete for those contracts, along with international bidders. However, any exemption from EU rules governing public procurement contracts would apply only to warships ordered from our own national yards.

[Mr McKenzie]

The Minister has made very clear the position of Scottish shipyards, should separation for Scotland take place. Can he clarify the position for suppliers of fixtures and fittings based in Scotland when applying for contracts, if those contracts are given to English shipyards?

[Nick Harvey]

The way the EU rules work is that if a Government declare something to be warlike, they can claim an exemption from the EU competition rules on the basis of national security. In the case that the hon. Gentleman describes, those contracts would be non-warlike and would be subject to normal competitive rules. Scottish companies would have to win against global competition.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Can the Minister confirm that in the allocation of naval contracts and defence expenditure in general in Scotland, he will give no credence whatsoever to the notion that such expenditure should be governed by something approaching the Barnett formula—an idea which is as naive as it is risible, not least because it ignores strategic objectives, fails to take account of differing geographical levels of threat, and of course, from Scotland’s point of view, ignores the location of industrial capacity?

[Nick Harvey]

I can confirm for my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government would be governed by no such notion. Scotland does well out of defence at the moment; it has one of the UK’s three naval bases, it will have one of the UK’s three RAF operating bases and it has an Army brigade. Those who would seek to change that situation should spell out what it would look like under a separate arrangement.

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

Scotland also has a disproportionate underspend. The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party are, of course, very much in favour of continuing defence procurement co-operation, regardless of the constitutional situation. We believe that it is good for jobs, for manufacturers and for the taxpayers of both Scotland and England. With so many defence sector jobs in England dependent on Scottish taxpayers’ contributions towards procurement, why do not the UK Government simply concede that it would make perfect sense to continue with procurement co-operation if the Scottish people decide that they want defence decisions to be made in Scotland itself?

[Nick Harvey]

Defence procurement co-operation of the sort the hon. Gentleman describes would completely contravene EU competition rules. We are allowed to procure non-warlike stores only on an open and competitive basis, so the defence industry in Scotland would have to compete with South Korea, or whichever other country it might be, for future defence contracts.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had on the structure of regiments in Wales.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has engaged in a number of discussions about the structure of regiments in Wales and, indeed, those elsewhere in the United Kingdom as part of the study into the Army’s future force structure.

[Mr Hanson]

In his speech last Thursday the Secretary of State said that regional identity and recruitment capability were important criteria. Does the Minister accept that 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards—the Welsh cavalry—fulfils both criteria and, therefore, every effort should be taken to ensure that the regiment is saved?

[Nick Harvey]

Any decisions made will respect regional and national identities, but they will have to be made on objective criteria, including geographical considerations that link closely to recruitment and the need to get the right balance of capabilities and the maximum operational output.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

We accept that there will be a reduction in the number of regiments, but given that any artificial increase or staying the same of Scottish regiments, some of which were recruited at only 78%, will have a knock-on effect throughout the United Kingdom, does the Minister think that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence consulted his Welsh and English colleagues on the likely effect of keeping an artificial number of Scottish regiments?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend is quite right; if we are to see a reduction in the regular Army from 102,000 to 82,000, it is inevitable that some units will be disbanded. The criteria by which those units are selected must be objective, as I have described. They must recognise the recruitment strength and the right balance of capabilities. It would not be right for favour to be shown to one part of the country at the expense of another.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Minister will be well aware that Wales provides an above-average number of Army recruits, compared with the UK average, and of the tremendous symbolic importance of having a distinctive Welsh identity when the regiments are redrawn, so will he take both factors into consideration when making his decision?

[Nick Harvey]

As I have said, the criteria that will be used will be objective, and certainly the contribution of Welsh members of the armed forces is hugely recognised and respected.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

15. How much his Department plans to spend on renewing the nuclear deterrent in the remainder of the spending period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lindsay Roy]

(Glenrothes) (Lab): How will the Minister protect the rich legacy of the Scottish regiments, particularly in respecting the historical identities and cap badges of proud battalions such as the Black Watch, in any military cutbacks?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and I have all made it clear that the traditions of the Scottish regiments will be respected. There is not, and never has been at any stage, a plan to do away with those identities, which will remain in the long term as part of the Army in Scotland.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T4. This afternoon we have heard the Minister speak of the objective criteria that will be used to determine how the infantry will be cut. For the avoidance of doubt, will he reassure the House that one of those criteria is not the upcoming Scottish referendum?

[Nick Harvey]

To recap, the criteria that will be used are the geographical footprint for recruitment, the right balance of capabilities, and the maximum operational output, not political considerations between different parts of the UK.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the relevant Minister tell me what will happen to Fijians and other Commonwealth citizens serving in Scottish regiments, and indeed to the Scottish regiments themselves, in the event of separation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

How is the review into the alternatives to Trident going?

[Nick Harvey]

The review is making good progress and is on target to report to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister at the end of the year, as was announced by the previous Defence Secretary.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

The cadet forces provide great opportunities for young people to train in teamwork, leadership and discipline. I very much enjoyed being a cadet when I was at school. What is the Department doing to ensure that more young people avail themselves of those wonderful opportunities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Next month, the UK will join other Governments at the United Nations to negotiate and agree an international arms trade treaty. We are often told that Britain’s arms controls are among the strictest that one will find anywhere. Does the Minister recognise the benefit to Britain and the world of reaching a strong agreement with as many countries as possible, even if certain countries opt not to become signatories at this time?

[Nick Harvey]

The UK is strongly committed to an arms trade treaty and is pushing for it to be as broad and effective as possible. We are encouraged by the fact that certain countries that we did not think would be supportive are showing more encouraging signs as we get near to the negotiations.

Scottish-recruited Units

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I completely understand the concern and interest that have led the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to seek this debate, and I commend him for doing so. Necessarily, the answers that I am able to give to some of his questions will be only tentative because decisions in respect of the future structure of the Army have not yet been taken. Let me set out the national security context in which those decisions will be taken.

All Members present will agree that it is the first duty of any Government to ensure the security of the country, and that requires decisions to be based on a realistic assessment of a number of factors in the short and long term. We live in an increasingly uncertain world with complex and unpredictable threats, so our armed forces, must of necessity, be flexible and adaptable into the future. We must also accept that the decisions about defence that have been made since the general election must start from the position of clearing up the economic legacy that we inherited. That is a strategic imperative, because it is the only way we will be able to afford to project power of any sort, to protect our national security and to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need. The strategic defence and security review addressed the balance between our national policy ambition, available resources and real-world commitments. It did so by making reference to the national security strategy, which set out the principal risks to our security, and to the national security tasks, which we need to fulfil.

Implementing the SDSR was always going to be an ongoing process and not a single event. We are now working through the programme to ensure that it is fit to support the capabilities required by Future Force 2020. We are going through a process of rapid change, but we have identified clearly to the public—throughout the UK, including in Scotland—our strategic aiming-point and what we believe our future force requirement will be in 2020.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate. Regarding the decisions to which he has just referred, the Minister will understand the great anxiety felt in Fife, around the Leuchars and Caledonia bases, about whether the British Army will be arriving and the Royal Air Force will be leaving. Although I appreciate that he is keen to get that decision correct, will he give serious consideration to updating the communities concerned on when the decision about the Army and the Air Force at the Leuchars and Caledonia bases will be taken?

[Nick Harvey]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Of course, there was a statement to the House last July, but some of the announcements made that day have been, in a sense, superseded by the current review of Army structures. To the extent that I am able to communicate with the communities that were named in last year’s statement and that are therefore working on that basis, I will give them an update as soon as I can, when the Army restructuring work nears a conclusion.

As I say, we are working towards Future Force 2020 as our defined end-point. That process includes the statement from last July and the more recent statements made by the current Defence Secretary. Specifically, we are planning to make a progressive adjustment during the remainder of this decade to the balance between regulars and reserves in the Army. By 2020, we envisage a total Army force of about 120,000 troops, made up of 82,000 regulars and 30,000 trained reservists, with a margin for 8,000 reservists in training. As we withdraw from combat operations in Afghanistan, that shift offers a major opportunity to reconfigure the Army in a way that will maximise adaptability and flexibility for the future. The Army has been undertaking a major study—Army 2020—to determine how we will achieve these changes, and we will announce to the House the outcome of that study as soon as decisions have been taken.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly paid a warm and full tribute to the achievements and historic heritage of the famous Scottish regiments. I am sure that many hon. Members in Westminster Hall today who represent areas with a serious military footprint know only too well the pride that local populations take in such glorious histories. I add my own tributes to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland in its current configuration, and indeed to the Highland Gunners and the Lowland Gunners, and to their personnel who have deployed on operations in recent years. We all owe a great deal to the members of our armed forces; we owe a great deal to those who hail from Scotland, just as we do to those who hail from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, from across the Commonwealth. I pay tribute to their courage, commitment and professionalism.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

In 2006, I visited America and met General David Petraeus. I believe that he was at that time the supreme commander of the allied forces in Iraq. He was certainly an authority on the history of the Black Watch and very much an admirer of the regiment. Does the Minister agree—I hope he does—that names such as the Black Watch and regalia such as the red hackle should remain within the British Army? As General Petraeus said to me, the American forces were very envious of the fact that British regiments and battalions had such names and regalia.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me say that I fully recognise—as do the Government—the power of that heritage, and the strength of the identity that derives from cap badges, and to think otherwise is to completely misunderstand the piece of work that is being carried out. I will come specifically to one of the questions that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire put to me. What we are looking at is the future structure of the Army. If it serves to give him any reassurance, I will say that there is no intention as part of that work on Army restructuring to remove from the battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland the historic names that form such an important part of their heritage.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that, because it is a very important statement. Is there anybody within the Royal Regiment of Scotland or within the British Army who is agitating to have such types of insignia—the names and the cap badges—removed? Is there anybody who is asking for that and, if so, who are they?

[Nick Harvey]

I am not aware of anybody agitating to that end. Removing such insignia does not form part of the restructuring work; it is not one of the things that we are considering. We have a great respect for these issues of historical heritage. In the Royal Regiment of Scotland in particular, the historic names bring with them a great tradition that is respected around the world, and not only in Scotland or the rest of the UK. I am very sympathetic to the points about heritage that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate.

[Mrs Moon]

As the Minister has given that assurance, can we be equally assured that any decision about Army restructuring will not be based on the politics of the rest of the UK’s relationship with Scotland and any future plans regarding devolution? The Sunday Times ran an article at the weekend suggesting that the Prime Minister had intervened to say that Scottish regiments must be protected and that perhaps the Welsh regiments could be looked at instead. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that no political interference is coming from No. 10 to protect Scottish regiments because of a fear of devolution?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Lady has been involved in politics too long to believe what she reads in Sunday newspapers. This restructuring is a piece of work that is being undertaken by the Army, and the Army will put its proposals forward when its review is complete. Reducing the size of the Regular Army from 102,000 to 82,000 will inevitably mean a reduction in the overall number of units that are available, and a number of critical criteria will inform the decisions about which units will be affected.

We must maintain the right balance across different capabilities—the Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry structure and the roles that different units will perform. We must also balance geographically because of the recruiting pattern; that has always been an important part of the British Army and it will continue to be in the future. We recognise that factor and it will inform the decisions that are taken. Indeed, we will also take account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions, so that we can ensure that there is a fair solution across the generations, as well as between the different branches and different geographical lay-down of the Army. Our aim is to sustain optimal capability. There are issues about basing. We cannot go to a final basing blueprint yet; that blueprint will follow hot on the heels of the current piece of restructuring work that I have described.

Although the focus of this debate has been on Scottish Army units, it is important that we take a holistic view. The Government are committed to the defence of the United Kingdom and each nation and region within it. In addition to its Army regiments, Scotland has one of our three naval bases, which in the future will be home to all our submarines. One of the three main RAF operating bases will be in Scotland. Scotland is also the home of Quick Reaction Alert North. As was made clear last summer, there will also be an Army brigade in Scotland, along with thousands of reserves and cadets. We have set out a clear vision for the armed forces across the United Kingdom, with a very significant footprint in Scotland, as part of a realistic and well thought-out national security strategy.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made the point that Scottish voters will be invited at some point in the future to take a decision about Scotland’s status. They have a clear understanding of where the UK Government are steering defence in Scotland. They have yet to gain any such understanding of where those who advocate independence for Scotland are trying to get Scottish defences to, and that will be an absolute necessity to inform a realistic and balanced debate.

The armed forces are at the core of the UK’s security. They make a unique and vital contribution, for which I hope all of us—whatever part of the UK we come from—are grateful. We will make the decisions that I have talked about—decisions to ensure that the armed forces are sustainable for the future—in the interests of everybody in Scotland and across the UK as a whole.

Chemical Weapons Convention - Declaration of Protective Programmes

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2011.

Nuclear Security Summit

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

Along with the US and France, the UK aims to raise the profile of nuclear security on the international agenda. In the interests of increasing transparency, we have decided to release more information about our own capabilities. This includes our ability to respond to terrorist incidents involving nuclear or radiological material, and to improve international standards for the security of nuclear material.

The following statement will be released today at the nuclear security summit in Seoul:



“The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Republic each understand the threat of nuclear terrorism and share the collective responsibility to inform and strengthen international measures designed to secure sensitive information, technology or nuclear material from access by terrorists and to encourage the development of appropriate emergency response measures. In recognition of these shared principles, consistent with our rights and obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, our three governments are taking the following initial steps:

[1] INFCIRC/225/Rev.5 recognises that nuclear security protection levels are critically dependent upon the attractiveness of nuclear materials to potential adversaries with intent to assemble a nuclear explosive device. We will actively engage in international workshops to address graded approaches for the characterisation of nuclear material attractiveness to further enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of physical protection measures.

[2] We have the specialised knowledge and capability to diagnose, render safe, characterise and dispose of a nuclear terrorist threat device. We each have a focused effort to continually enhance the technical capabilities of our emergency detection and response assets to any such threat. As such we will seek, wherever possible, to engage with the international community to further strengthen worldwide preparedness to contend with the threat of nuclear terrorism.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve service accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The Ministry of Defence is continuing to target efforts on the most pressing accommodation issues. For example, both this year and next, the MOD plans to spend around £75 million on upgrading single accommodation. Furthermore, some £44 million was allocated in financial year 2011-12, and £50.5 million in 2012-13, to upgrade service families’ accommodation to the top standard. In addition, the Government have just announced £100 million of further investment in financial year 2013-14. Around 650 service homes and 600 single accommodation units are expected to benefit from this substantial investment.

[Kate Green]

What steps are being taken to adapt service accommodation for servicemen or women who are injured or disabled in combat?

[Nick Harvey]

This is taken on a case-by-case basis. Accommodation will be adapted as necessary where a clear user is coming in and using a unit of accommodation. However, rather than trying to pre-empt or guess what will be required, we will continue to take an entirely pragmatic approach.

[Sandra Osborne]

The Minister will be aware that the Defence Committee recently visited the Falkland Islands. As part of an excellent programme, we looked at the accommodation provided to servicemen while they are in the Falklands. However, we came across personnel from the 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland who were being accommodated in camp beds in an old gym, having just returned from an exercise. Does he find that acceptable, and will he look into it to ensure that it does not happen again?

[Nick Harvey]

The accommodation to which the hon. Lady refers was an entirely temporary arrangement while the units of accommodation that those personnel would ordinarily have been living in were being refurbished—I think this was made clear to the Select Committee on its visit. Those personnel will be in that permanent accommodation as soon as it is ready.

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

As the Minister correctly says, this Government have done a great deal since they came to power. However, does he agree that the provision of decent accommodation, for both single servicemen and married couples—and, indeed, for families—is central to the military covenant? Does he agree that there is so much more to be done, and that even the announcements that he has made are not yet all that could be done? When does he anticipate having an entire military estate that is fit for purpose?

[Nick Harvey]

As I explained in my initial answer, we continue to make substantial investments, which were further boosted by the additional funds that were made available last week in the Budget. It is important to keep a sense of proportion about the condition of housing at the moment. More than 96% of family accommodation in the UK is in either condition 1 or 2, and we are now meeting the commitment in the armed forces covenant that no family accommodation will be newly allocated if it falls in condition 3 or 4. There is more to be done in the case of single living accommodation, but that work continues apace. Even as we speak, the Allenby Connaught project is continuing to deliver new units of single living accommodation across Salisbury plain and in Aldershot.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the likely cost of upgrading the service accommodation in the Edinburgh estate, including at Craigiehall in my constituency, is likely to be significantly less than the £600 million cost of the proposed super-barracks in Kirknewton?

[Nick Harvey]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the costs of differing future accommodation options for the Army are being scrutinised closely. The Army 2020 piece of work is nearing a conclusion. The attendant estate study will continue for a few months, but the sort of comparisons that he makes will be central to the thinking in those studies.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister on his answer on single accommodation? When does he expect single accommodation—I mean single accommodation specifically—to be up to a standard that he would expect all service personnel to live in?

[Nick Harvey]

The aim would be to complete that as part of Future Force 2020, but we cannot know for certain until the work that I described a moment ago is completed. Until we know the future basing requirement of the Army, it will be very hard to say. For example, if a great deal of new build for new barracks were involved, this goal would be likely to be achieved much earlier than if it were a question of “make do and mend”. Some pretty big strategic decisions need to be taken on the defence estate during the next six months.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome the priority given by the Government to this issue when they are under intense financial pressures. May I suggest that the very different accommodation patterns across the services are one of several good reasons why the future new employment model should be devolved to the three services rather than developed centrally?

[Nick Harvey]

It is certainly the case that future employment practices will determine the sort of accommodation we supply to our armed servicemen, and these will vary across the three services, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the level of morale in the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I continue to be impressed by the morale and commitment of those putting their lives at risk on operations on a daily basis. This was particularly evident to me during my recent visit to Afghanistan. More broadly, the Ministry of Defence uses a number of measures, including the annual armed forces continuous attitude survey, to monitor and understand changes in morale across the services. In the 2011 survey across the three services, 46% of respondents reported that their morale was high, and 31% were neutral.

[Sajid Javid]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, and in particular convey my deepest sympathies to the family of Captain Rupert Bowers of the 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan last week? The people of Bromsgrove are rightly very proud of having given the Mercians the freedom of the district last year. Does the Minister agree that if more cities and towns throughout the country followed their example by conferring a similar honour, that could help to boost morale?

[Nick Harvey]

I do agree, and I applaud the local communities that are taking part in the armed forces community covenant scheme. Over the past five or six years, the community in general has increasingly recognised the contribution that our armed forces make, and has become increasingly willing to make spontaneous gestures of respect for them. That is very welcome, and it undoubtedly has an impact on morale.

[Dan Byles]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to the morale of our troops on operations that they know that in their absence their families are safe, secure, and surrounded by understanding and like-minded communities such as those in the neighbourhoods of married quarters, which are known as “patches”? Can he reassure service families that the forthcoming review of accommodation options under the new employment model will take account of the intangible benefits of such communities in towns where there are married quarters?

[Nick Harvey]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a balance to be struck, but the community support that results from the collocation of armed forces families is tangible. We must also concentrate on the ability of families to secure employment in local communities, and that is another consideration that we take into account.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. Forces’ morale is closely linked with events in Afghanistan, and I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences: the thoughts of all of us, and the prayers of many of us, are with the families and friends of those who have been bereaved today. I do not want to go into the specifics of that attack, but attacks on NATO forces by Afghan forces have resulted in 75 fatalities since 2007, and most of the attacks have taken place in the last two years. In the light of previous incidents, what new procedures have been implemented to vet Afghan recruits, and will Afghan forces be responsible for the protection of UK trainers who remain in Afghanistan post-2014?

[Nick Harvey]

We keep force protection issues under continuous review, and we have changed our procedures in the light of events that have occurred both recently and over a longer period. The decision of the Government —the last Government, as it happens, but that is not relevant—to adopt a partnering strategy and put our troops in alongside those of Afghanistan undoubtedly carried a considerable degree of risk, and there are those who think that that is the wrong approach, but I do not agree. I believe that the last Government were right to compute that the risk was worth taking, and I believe that that is the only way in which we will engrain the necessary skills and culture in the Afghan forces and complete our mentoring task.

[Mr Murphy]

Forces’ morale often depends on success in Afghanistan. Last week the Prime Minister made clear his view that the handover to Afghan forces could be achieved satisfactorily without a political settlement, but that is contrary to all experience in Afghanistan. Such a vacuum would encourage neighbouring countries to seek influence, allow the Taliban to return, and allow other elements to exploit the ungoverned space. Does the Minister accept that while there can of course be significant military success in Afghanistan, stability in the country will ultimately rely on a political settlement?

[Nick Harvey]

I certainly agree that a political settlement will be required if there is to be enduring stability beyond the end of 2014, but I think that the hon. Gentleman conflates two issues. It is perfectly possible for us to complete the security challenge of handing the lead over to the Afghans district by district, area by area, which we are doing now, and doing successfully; but if that is to stand a chance of sustaining peace in Afghanistan in the long term, a political settlement will need to come behind it to return the country to the stability for which we have all been trying to work.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on defence policy on Iran.

--- Later in debate ---

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

16. What steps he is taking to ensure that military personnel deployed in combat zones have sufficient training and experience.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I would like to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for the recent losses to the 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment and 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its responsibility and duty to care for all our service personnel to make sure they are sufficiently prepared for the job they are deployed to undertake. Training is designed to meet the specific requirements of each operation, and individuals will be provided with appropriate training, depending on the role they are going to perform.

[Mr Sheerman]

May I remind the ministerial team that it is young men and women who are killed and have been killed on active service? Captain Lisa Head, from the bomb disposal squad, was killed a year ago in Afghanistan, and the inquest into her death takes place tomorrow. The young Yorkshire men who were killed recently were 19, 20, 20 and 21, which makes one wonder whether these young people are sufficiently skilled, trained and experienced to be in such a dangerous position so early in life.

[Nick Harvey]

I entirely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Army units deploying to Afghanistan go through a bespoke 18-month training progression prior to deployment, which is tailored to the role they will fulfil in theatre and creates a very high level of individual and collective competence. From talking to them out there, I know they will believe that they have had the training they need, and that is also the assessment of the military professionals.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Earlier, we heard about morale in the armed forces. I regret to report that, apparently, morale is low in the Royal Marines Reserve detachment in my constituency, because of uncertainty about its future. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence in January, raised the matter in Prime Minister’s questions in February and today I am raising it for the third month in succession. What does the future hold for the RMR detachment in Dundee?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

That is part of our ongoing review. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman with more details as soon as we have finalised our decisions.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was with service families 10 days ago. They told me that, at the moment, what they are most worried about is redundancy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to get redundancy done as soon as possible, so that morale can improve?

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

On 1 November 2010, I informed the House that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) had been established and had started work to investigate the allegations of abuse of Iraqi citizens by British service personnel that had been brought to the MOD’s attention.

Since its inception, the IHAT has been under the superintendence of the Provost Marshal (Army) and has employed a number of Royal Military Police (RMP) personnel, as well as retired civilian police investigators.

The IHAT arrangements have now been the subject of a detailed scrutiny by the Court of Appeal, in particular as to whether it would meet the requirements of independence. The Court examined the responsibilities of RMP personnel and other members of the Army’s provost branch in relation to detainees in Iraq. It emphasised that there was no evidence of any member of that branch actually being involved in misconduct against detainees. But the Court concluded that the existence of those responsibilities meant that there was the possibility that the IHAT would have to look into their conduct. This means that an IHAT involving the RMP would allow the public perception of the possibility of bias.

I have absolute confidence in the ability and integrity of the Provost Marshal (Army) and of the Royal Military Police, to conduct appropriate and effective investigations. At the same time, however, public confidence in the IHAT’s work is extremely important to the Government, as is the Army’s reputation. I accept the Court’s conclusion as to public perception and the issues that may arise in the context of a full investigation into these allegations.

We will not, therefore, seek to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal. The MOD will, instead, reconfigure the IHAT to meet the Court of Appeal’s concerns. I have therefore decided to remove the Royal Military Police role in relation to the IHAT. Instead, that role will be carried out by the Royal Navy Police, which is headed by the Provost Marshal (Navy). This change is already being implemented and will be complete by 1 April 2012.

Given further concerns raised by the claimants regarding the location of the IHAT, we will also look into the cost-effectiveness of relocating its investigations away from a military base. Such changes would necessarily increase the duration and cost of the investigations and in the current financial climate it is not clear that they would be justified; accordingly I have set work in hand to test this issue.

It is important to note that the Court of Appeal judgment did not state that a public inquiry was needed into these allegations. However, the Secretary of State for Defence will keep this under review in light of the results of IHAT’s investigations.

The IHAT is also best placed to undertake two further related investigations that have emerged since it was set up. These additional investigations will start once the IHAT has been restructured:

The previous Secretary of State committed the MOD to a review of the Baha Mousa public inquiry report to assess whether more can be done to bring those responsible for the mistreatment of Baha Mousa to justice. An additional team will be established within IHAT to undertake this review.

The judgment last July of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of al-Skeini, has also obliged the Government to undertake additional investigations into some further cases that were not part of IHAT’s original scope. Another team will be established to investigate these specific cases.

Afghanistan (Civilian Killings)

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what discussions he has had with his US counterpart over the killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The hon. Gentleman is of course referring to the very regrettable events in Kandahar on Sunday morning. We are all deeply shocked and saddened by the killing and wounding of Afghan civilians in Kandahar province. It was undoubtedly an appalling tragedy, and I know the House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We support the investigation into the attack.

The Secretary of State is currently overseas on official business but has regular contact with a number of Defence counterparts, including Secretary Panetta in the United States. The Secretary of State last spoke to the US Defence Secretary on Saturday about other matters, prior to this incident.

At this tragic time, I can only echo the words of General Allen, commander of the international security assistance force, and inform the House that the attack

“in no way represents the values of ISAF and coalition troops or the abiding respect we feel for the Afghan people.”

These have been a difficult few weeks in Afghanistan, with the Koran-burning, the tragic loss of six of our own soldiers in a Warrior and now this. I was able to see for myself the week before last the progress that we are making, and that the UK and ISAF remain resolute in our purpose.

[Mr Winnick]

As the Minister says, we are all deeply shocked and horrified by the news that an American soldier—a staff sergeant, I believe—went out in the night and murdered 16 innocent civilians in cold blood. Is it the case that the murders were in fact carried out in the night, and that the victims were asleep in their beds? Of the casualties—the victims of this mass murder—will the Minister confirm that nine were children and three were women? It has been reported—perhaps the Minister has the latest information—that some of the children were no older than two or three years of age. Were the bodies burned by the murderer? Perhaps we could have information on that too.

Obviously, as the Minister has said, all hon. Members are deeply saddened and send our sympathy to the families of the victims. I accept entirely that this is not in any way the policy of the NATO forces and certainly not that of the United States. Nevertheless, as he said, this follows other incidents and tragedies in which civilians have been killed by US troops, and US troops have urinated on dead Afghans and burned the Koran. That was a despicable act in itself, but it also took the lives of other innocent people who were killed by the Taliban in revenge.

Will the Minister accept—he mentioned the six brave British soldiers who died last week—that, overall, there is a growing feeling in this country, and no doubt in the United States, that this is an unwinnable war? People certainly no longer accept the official line that our security depends on our military continuing its military role in Afghanistan.

President Obama and the Prime Minister meet this week. Would it not be wise for them to accept the strong feeling that this war has gone on for more than 10 years and is not winnable? Apart from the tragic incidents that we are referring to, the need is for the Afghans themselves to find a solution to their political and military problems. After 10 years, outside military intervention is much more the problem than the solution.

I again make the point that so many people, including me—I do not know how many in the House of Commons feel the same, but I suppose I am not alone—simply no longer accept the official line, which I accept was also the previous Government’s official line, that our security depends on British troops fighting in Afghanistan. That will not help the fight against terrorism; it perhaps even helps the terrorists.

[Nick Harvey]

In answer to some of the factual questions the hon. Gentleman asked at the beginning, ISAF has confirmed that 13 Afghan citizens were killed in the attack. However, open source reports indicate that up to 16 may have been killed. As he said, I understand that nine children were killed in the attack. I have no further information on the age of those children. It is understood that a further five civilians were wounded and are being treated in the military hospital at Kandahar.

On the broader points that the hon. Gentleman makes, at the Lisbon summit ISAF drew up a time scale for the remainder of the combat operation in Afghanistan, which was reconfirmed at the NATO ministerial meeting two weeks ago. I believe that that is a realistic timetable for the remainder of our operation in Afghanistan.

The progress that is being made in building up the Afghan national security forces is impressive—not only in scale but in their competence. They are developing a culture of leadership and planning more of the operations in which they are involved. The process of transition from ISAF security lead to ANSF security lead is progressing well so far. I believe, therefore, that we are on the right course and have the right security strategy. I think what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, though, is the widely held view that we need to find a political solution to the future of Afghanistan. Although progress on that has been disappointingly slow, there are now encouraging signs, and there is a realistic prospect that a political process will be under way within the time scale I am talking about.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

These are devastating events for the victims and their families which may well have long-term implications for ISAF between now and 2014. Does my hon. Friend accept that these events remind us of the fact that we ask our young men and women to be deployed to circumstances that are difficult, dangerous and stressful? In our recruitment, we lay great stress on physical attributes, but is he satisfied that we are equally searching when it comes to the psychological component of recruitment? If not, is it not time for a review?

[Nick Harvey]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we demand exacting standards from our new military recruits, and they certainly have to pass physical tests, among others. We are always on the lookout for signs of people suffering psychological stress—that occurs at every point—and considerable progress has been made in recent years on removing some of the stigma that attaches to anybody in those very exacting circumstances suffering from the effects of stress. There should never be any shame attached to that. We are making progress in identifying it, in extending a sympathetic arm to those suffering from stress and in improving the long-term assistance given to them when they return to the UK, because the sorts of incidents that some of them will have witnessed will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The killing of 16 innocent civilians in Afghanistan yesterday was an appalling act, and I join the Minister in rightly sending our thoughts to the families of the victims of this incident. The information we have so far is that it was the act of an isolated individual outside the chain of command, and it is important that we do not draw any wider conclusions about the conduct of US or other ISAF forces, who act with unparalleled bravery and professionalism in the conduct of their mission in Afghanistan.

We have all heard the warnings from the Taliban of reprisal attacks on coalition forces. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the increased threat posed to UK armed forces and civilian personnel working in Afghanistan? Have any operational changes been made—notably on ending the use of night raids—and has additional security been put in place to protect diplomatic and civilian staff working on behalf of the UK Government?

The influence of ISAF forces in stabilising Afghanistan depends on the trust of the Afghan people. This act has clearly put that trust, carefully built over the past 10 years, in jeopardy. Will the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with ISAF counterparts on measures that can be put in place to build trust in the light of this appalling incident? The post-2014 planning will determine the success of our mission in Afghanistan, so will he say a little more about what early assessment ISAF has made of the impact of these events on negotiations over ISAF’s presence post 2014?

Although the tragedy is undoubtedly a blow to the ISAF mission, what about the UK’s mission and British public opinion? Will the Minister tell the country more clearly what the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan will be and what type of nation he expects to leave when the draw-down takes place post 2014?

We have always approached the issue of Afghanistan from a bipartisan standpoint, which it is important to do while we have our forces in harm’s way there. We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to raise the issue of Afghanistan at his meeting in Washington with President Obama this week, and we look forward to seeing greater details of the plans for post 2014.

[Nick Harvey]

It is important to stress that there is a US and Afghan investigation now under way into exactly what happened. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this would appear to be the action of one isolated individual, completely outwith the control of the chain of command, and he is also absolutely right that it is in no way indicative of the behaviour of the rest of the ISAF forces who are there.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about force protection. We were already operating on an enhanced set-up for force protection in the light of the Koran-burning incident; following this incident, vigilance will be even greater, and at a local level, commanders on the ground will be making whatever sensible arrangements they think are necessary. Operations in the night are increasingly led by Afghan forces, and I think this is likely to be the case even more so in the foreseeable future.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly raised the issue of trust. It is absolutely essential to what we are doing that there is trust between the international forces, and the Afghan authorities and the Afghan people. There is no doubt whatever that that trust will have been tested severely by the incidents of the last few weeks. Of course, this is not one-way traffic, because we have seen incidents where both British and French troops have been killed by Afghan troops they were mentoring. These are delicate relationships, but I was impressed when I was there two weeks ago that the commander of ISAF took this aspect of his work extremely seriously and had been very quick to get on the front foot and go to President Karzai and the Afghan authorities to apologise and make clear the profound regret that he and the west felt for the incidents that have happened.

As for the post-2014 situation, it is important that everybody understands—both in the west and in Afghanistan—that the end of western troops being in Afghanistan in a combat role does not mean the international community walking away from Afghanistan. It is certainly the case that we will continue to have troops stationed in Afghanistan, providing training and mentoring for Afghan troops. Specifically, we have made a commitment, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, to take the lead internationally in running the officer training programme from 2013 onwards. However, as we begin and continue the process of transition, we expect to see a greater number of international partners coming in and helping Afghanistan to build up, in terms of both aid and, increasingly, ordinary trade and economics. We cannot allow the setbacks of the last few weeks to put us off that overall objective, which in my view, notwithstanding all the pressures, remains on course.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We have got two years and about nine months left of combat operations in Afghanistan, and we have lost 404 soldiers so far. The idea that we can start challenging the plan to withdraw early worries me a great deal, because soldiers need certainty. It is needed for the officers to plan and for the soldiers to get used to it. It is going to be increasingly challenging for our soldiers over the next two years, as we move towards withdrawing from combat operations. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? We have got to support our soldiers utterly and completely. The plan is set and must now remain set.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the internationally agreed plan remains firmly in place. It was reiterated two weeks ago at the NATO ministerial conference. It is important for all those who are engaged in the operations in Afghanistan to understand that the plan remains in place and that there is no question whatever of our cutting and running early because of these events or any others. Two out of five phases of transition—area by area, district by district—have so far taken place, and both appear broadly to have gone off very well. The three remaining phases will take us through this year and into next year. Within the time frame between now and 2014, the nature of the work that our troops are doing will increasingly shift to a supportive role, but they will still be there bearing arms until the end of 2014. It is important, particularly for those who grieve for the losses that we have suffered, that they should not believe that those losses have been in vain. We are not going to give up; we are going to see this through and finish the job off according to the internationally agreed plan.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

May I return the Minister to the question of a political strategy, which he rightly says is the key to ending any insurgency? The Defence Secretary wrote in The Daily Telegraph last week that a political strategy could not succeed until the Afghan Government had established a position of strength. May I put it to the Minister that the difficulty with that is that the Afghan Government are seen by many Afghans as a significant part of the problem, and that the search for a position of strength defies the logic of a counter-insurgency, which is that one can achieve tactical advances in one part of a country while the insurgency strikes back elsewhere? Does he acknowledge that the best approach would be for the international community to appoint an international mediator with United Nations Security Council backing who could talk to those on all sides and frame the political strategy, both internal and regional, that is so desperately needed? Does he also acknowledge that, if we do not start working on that now, every day that passes will weaken the chances of establishing a stable Afghanistan that we can leave?

[Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s stress on the need for a political solution. During his time as Foreign Secretary, he did his best to promote such processes, but unfortunately he did not meet with a great deal of appetite elsewhere for getting them under way. Frankly, it has remained pretty tough going until relatively recently. Thankfully, some of the key stakeholders now seem to be showing a greater appetite for sitting down and participating in a political process. The Afghan Government are certainly more willing to do so than they have been in the past, and it looks as though the Pakistan Government might also be more willing to engage in such a process. The proposal to open a Taliban office in Qatar has served as a catalyst to focus people’s minds. The right hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing the Defence Secretary slightly; I do not think a political process has to await a situation in which the Afghan Government achieve a position of strength. Applying military pressure to the Taliban has probably made it more likely that they will be willing to sit down and join a political process, but any such process must be inclusive of all the elements in Afghanistan who need to buy into a long-term settlement, as well as all the elements in the region who will be vital to the delivery of peace on the ground in the years to come. We are a long way from achieving that, but progress is at last being made.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thought you might pick me for that, Mr Speaker.

The Afghan Government and the Afghan people are rightly outraged by this atrocity, but does the Minister agree that the one bunch of people who have no right to promise revenge are the Taliban? It was their hosting of an international terrorist organisation that murdered thousands of men, women and children that led to the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

[Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to their past atrocities, the Taliban are also responsible for the great majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan—77% in the past year.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Two years and nine months is half the length of the second world war, and a plan that cannot be changed in the light of circumstances is barely worth the paper it is written on. The Minister has a hard job, and we are not here to criticise, but these incidents and atrocities are typical of the end of an occupation or a conflict. We cannot justify British soldiers dying between now and withdrawal. Does the Minister agree that we should honour the sacrifice of our men by ensuring that no more are sacrificed?

[Nick Harvey]

Nobody has said that we are adhering to a plan that cannot be changed. The point I have been at pains to make is that the plan has not been changed as yet. Of course we follow closely, as do the ISAF commanders, the situation on the ground. The plans will reflect the realities as we go forward. This is a process of transition. I said that we have gone through two of the five phases of transition—and it is broadly working. I have to say that the rate of casualties on our side has come down markedly. I simply do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right: if we were to pack up and leave now, it would make a mockery of everything that has been done to date.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

History has a way of repeating itself. Not only did six British soldiers die last week within miles of where 1,000 perished in 1880, but the garrison of Kandahar in the same year also carried out a series of isolated unpleasantnesses against the civilian population. Armies reflect society. Regrettably, we have to expect more of these sorts of isolated instances. Will the Minister therefore comment on the rumour that this incident is related to alcohol—exactly as it was with the incidents in 1880—and on what is being done in respect of our Muslim allies and on how we will control the consumption of alcohol among allied troops?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting historical points, but asks me specifically whether we know of any connection between this incident and alcohol. I know of absolutely no such connection. It is, of course, the case that our forces in Afghanistan operate entirely dry; alcohol is not provided for them. I have no knowledge of alcohol having anything at all to do with this appalling incident.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The whole House is shocked by this terrible event, as are members of the British Afghani community, thousands of whom have settled in my Leicester constituency. This is the slaughter of the innocents. I understand that the father and son of this family survived these atrocities. In our discussions with the Americans over the next few days, we should urge on them the importance of supporting those who remain and the community they come from. I know there is going to be an investigation, but before that happens we need to do something to help this local community.

[Nick Harvey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—that the sense of grief that will grip communities in Kandahar will, of course, be felt by the diaspora of Afghan and Pashtun people, not least here in the UK. He is absolutely right that there is no need to await an investigation of exactly what happened before we begin to repair relations with those communities as far as we possibly can and to offer every possible support to the families and those grieving in the wake of this appalling incident. It is certainly the case that we will urge our allies to crack on and do that.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware that a minority of the House, including myself, voted for withdrawal some time ago.

In an asymmetric conflict, emotions are very important in driving people’s behaviour. Will the Minister agree to review the current strategy to identify whether that fact in itself could make it harder rather than easier to achieve our objectives in the long term?

[Nick Harvey]

The ISAF strategy is kept under constant review. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will continue to be so, but I do not think it would make sense for us to be in a great hurry this week, in the aftermath of these incidents, to spring into some fundamental review. I can assure him, however, that the temperature is read constantly and that progress is assessed all the time. We will take stock of everything that happens as we continue to plan on an international basis what we will do for the remaining two and a half years.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This is a terrible tragedy. It is not the first, and it will probably not be the last. Equal tragedies—such as the killing of wedding parties by drone aircraft, and so many others—compound the results of this the 11th year of the war. As neither the Minister nor his Secretary of State is able to say what success would be in Afghanistan, is it not time to bring forward the date of withdrawal, and to recognise that this has not been a profitable or a successful operation?

[Nick Harvey]

We are able to say what success would be. Success would be an orderly and successful handover of security to a competent and able Afghan national security force by the end of 2014. Many challenges will face us between now and then if we are to achieve what remains an ambitious target, but that is what success would look like, and that is the strategic goal in security terms towards which we are working. However, I repeat the point made by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband): if there is to be a lasting peace in that part of the world, a political process is needed alongside the security strategy. Unless we have both, we will not secure the lasting peace that I think everyone in the House wants to see.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I share the horror felt by Members in all parts of the House at this ghastly incident, and endorse the policy supported by both Government and Opposition. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the show of solidarity by Angela Merkel at a time when her Government are suffering from a number of other pressures?

[Nick Harvey]

It is important for us to retain an international view. The ISAF strategy is one that we have drawn up together, so expressions of support from the German Government are of course very welcome. Essentially, the conclusion that was reached at the Lisbon conference was that we had gone in together and should come out together. That is what I mean when I say that we will agree with our ISAF partners exactly what the strategy and the timelines should be, and that we will act together according to our collective judgment of the progress that we are making.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does not the recent tragedy demonstrate that we need to speed up the process of transferring as much of Afghanistan as we can to Afghan control? Will the Minister give some indication of how many Pashtun soldiers will be in charge of Pashtun areas once the takeover has happened?

[Nick Harvey]

I do not think that the lesson to be drawn from this is that we should speed up a process which is moving as fast as it possibly can already. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Afghan national security forces are being grown from a cold start. I think that the progress they have made is remarkable: they have grown in number, but, far more impressively, they have grown in competence, in their quality of leadership, and in their ability to plan and execute operations. I think that hurrying the process at this stage, or passing the baton to them prematurely, would undermine all the progress that has been made. We are pushing the process of handover as fast as we possibly can, and if we were to cut and run now, we would risk undoing the progress that we have made.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I echo what has been said about the improvements to the Afghan national army. We should not forget that that is due not just to British forces, but to the American forces who have trained them. We should also not forget that this was an isolated incident, and that more than 2,000 Americans have been killed. There will be some who call for urgent withdrawal, but I stress what has already been said by Members on both sides of the House. This is not just about security; it is also about governance, and I hope that that will be discussed at the forthcoming summit in Chicago.

[Nick Harvey]

The Chicago summit will provide an opportunity for the international community to make long-term commitments both to the future security of Afghanistan after the combat role has ended and to its future prosperity. We will look to countries around the world—countries that have been involved in ISAF, but also many others that have not—to come forward and make commitments to Afghanistan’s long-term future. We want all stakeholders in the equation to understand that the international community remain committed to the future of Afghanistan, and that simply ending a combat role at the end of 2014 does not mean in any sense that we are walking away or leaving them to it.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Apart from the horror of the latest incidents, by which we have all been rightly shocked, a number of other issues have been raised during these exchanges about the conduct of our combat mission during the remaining period in which we will deploy a combat role in Afghanistan. They are difficult issues, and I wonder whether it would be sensible for the House to have the opportunity to take part in a full and serious debate on the conduct of our mission. I see that the Leader of the House is present, and I wonder whether the Minister might recommend an early debate on the subject.

[Nick Harvey]

The right hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, raise that issue at business questions. I agree that it is important that we debate these matters, which is why the Government make quarterly statements on progress in Afghanistan and why, in between them, we have monthly written statements. If the House wishes to debate these issues further, we would welcome that, and I have no doubt whatever that there will be an opportunity to do so before too long.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

At morale-sapping moments such as these, our troops need to know that the standard operating procedures, and the checks on those whom they fight alongside, are as good as they possibly can be. Will the Minister assure the House that the lessons learned will be shared fully with the UK, and that we will be able to reflect upon the report on this terrible tragedy as soon as possible?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend’s constituency has been in the eye of the storm in the last couple of weeks, and it will feel more acutely than anywhere else the pain of the six losses we took in the earlier Warrior incident. He is right that there are broader issues at stake in the incident under discussion. We have a very open relationship with the Americans and the other ISAF allies, and we have the opportunity to reflect upon everything that happens and to learn from that. I assure my hon. Friend that everybody in ISAF is absolutely determined to learn from these incidents, and to ensure, to the extent that we can, that nothing like this happens again.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given the differences that there are between the Taliban and al-Qaeda and the increasing amounts of intelligence suggesting that very few al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan, if we are to remain true to our original mission, does not this incident underline that the Americans, as the lead force, should open non-conditional talks with the Taliban in order to explore possible common ground, particularly given that the Taliban have recently sent signals that they are willing to talk?

[Nick Harvey]

Many more parties in addition to the Americans and the Taliban will need to be party to any lasting political settlement. There are other elements within Afghanistan who might not be at all comfortable with a simple two-way arrangement between the Taliban and the Americans. I believe that on all sides there is a genuine and growing openness to the idea of having a political dialogue, and I believe that that will begin to happen in time. However, I have to say that the way to ensure that al-Qaeda does not come back into Afghanistan and become an element in the future is for us to ensure that the future Afghan forces are able to look after their own security, including their own borders.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Although this was an appalling atrocity, does the Minister agree that, in recognition of what has been achieved by Her Majesty’s armed forces—those who have served, those who are currently serving and those who will serve—we should make it clear that it is in neither Britain’s nor Afghanistan’s best interests to follow the line argued by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who tabled the urgent question?

[Nick Harvey]

I could not agree more that the extraordinary investment that has been made in Afghanistan over the past decade—the money, the time, the patience, the bloodshed and everything that everybody who has gone out there and served so bravely and so valiantly has done—would be wasted if we were to cut and run now, when we can clearly see the remainder of the task that stretches out before us and we know what needs to be done to finish the job.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

This incident raises broader questions about the general responsibility to the civilian population. Will the Minister confirm that infinite care is taken to ensure that everyone in the British Army—from the most senior commander to the most junior private soldier—is fully aware of their duties, responsibilities and obligations under the law of war? This is, perhaps, more relevant now than at any time since we have had a standing army, and there are probably currently more members of the army legal services advising throughout the British Army than there have ever been at any time in military history.

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes some very good points. I would like to reassure him that, as part of the pre-operation training before going to Afghanistan, British troops are indeed given detailed tuition in the legal and moral aspects of warfare. I wish to put his mind at rest on the fact that they understand exactly where their obligations lie. Every time I visit Afghanistan, I am struck by the extraordinarily thoughtful way in which our troops go about their operations. If one has any sort of discussion with them, particularly with officers who plan and execute operations, one finds that there is nothing remotely gung-ho about what they do; it is all extremely thoughtful and it is always conducted with a keen appreciation of the legal and moral framework in which they operate.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Despite the terrible events of the weekend, does the Minister agree that it is more imperative than ever that we stick the course in Afghanistan to produce the stable country that we all need and want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree. We will still face many challenges in the remaining period of combat operations in Afghanistan, but we have identified a clear strategy and it is essential that we stick to it and create the space within which a political dialogue of the sort we have been discussing can take place.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Three of the six British servicemen who died last week were constituents of mine. Over the weekend, I met the parents of Corporal Jake Hartley and the grandparents of Private Anthony Frampton—Private Danny Wilford was the third of my constituents. Many other constituents have legitimately been asking me this weekend why we do not just withdraw now, so that there are no more young losses. However, after their deaths and those of their colleagues from the Yorkshire Regiment and the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment, and after these horrific killings of innocent civilians, it is important that we do not let their deaths be in vain and that we withdraw in an orderly and calm way, as we had planned with ISAF forces.

[Nick Harvey]

I commend my hon. Friend’s words, as he is absolutely right in what he says, and I know from the contact we have had with other bereaved families that that is exactly their view, too. They feel that the sacrifice that has been made and the valour that has been shown will be rewarded only if we stick at the task and finish the job that we can see clearly before us. That is what we are determined to do.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This was a terrible incident, but the whole House will be aware that our young men and women put their lives at risk every day to protect Afghan civilians. There is a group of people in this country who are always worried about those people overseas: their family and friends. Given the heightened danger that our troops must be in at the moment, what reassurance can we give to those people?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the personal commitment made by all those whom we ask to go out to serve on our behalf, and of course we must recognise the stress and worry that this puts on their families behind them. We will continue to do everything we can to support them, and I know that everyone in this House is very proud of what they do, no matter what our policy differences might be. It is right that, after we have had casualties of our own, we grieve and acknowledge the sacrifice that has been made, but of course the reason why we have had this question this afternoon is to recognise also that the Afghan civilian population is making a terrible sacrifice. Our thoughts and our prayers remain with those Afghan villages and the families there, who have been on the wrong end of an appalling tragedy, which I know we all profoundly regret.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister. I call Mr Eric Joyce to make a personal statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

3. How many times the medical emergency response team has been called out in Helmand province in the last year.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The UK Forward Aeromed capability, commonly referred to as the medical emergency response team, has been called out around 480 times in Helmand province in the past year. As air evacuation assets like this are shared between coalition nations, not all call-outs will have been for UK personnel, as the team provides medical evacuation for UK and other international security assistance force troops, as well as Afghan security forces and civilians when appropriate.

[Mrs Moon]

I am sure that the House will want to put on record its appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of the members of the medical emergency response team, many of whom are civilians who risk their lives helping personnel who have been injured. One of the issues I am greatly concerned about is the capacity to rescue people who may have suffered spinal injuries from heavily armoured vehicles, and whether appropriate rescue and cutting equipment and release mechanisms for doors and roofs are available so that when people are removed further damage to their spine is limited. Will the Minister confirm that such equipment is available for MER teams?

[Nick Harvey]

It certainly has not been put to us that there is a problem in that respect, but in the light of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, I will take that issue away, look at it in detail and write to her.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain what efforts have been made to improve the capacity and efficiency of medical emergency response teams over the past 12 months?

[Nick Harvey]

We are not aware that there are any specific capacity problems. In fact, calls on the service over the past 12 months have been rather reduced from the level experienced in the previous 12 months. That reduction reflects both reduced kinetic activity in the area of operations and improved efficiency in the way in which the task is shared across Regional Command Southwest. I believe that the position has improved significantly, and that there are no specific capacity difficulties at the moment.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

On Helmand, up until 2 February the UK Government had a clear position in Parliament, in NATO and with the country about a conditions-based withdrawal, and for the medical emergency teams and all our forces to return home and for the Afghan forces to take the lead on security by 2014. On that date the US Secretary of Defence announced a 2013 timetable for Afghan forces to take the lead and within hours the UK Government followed that timeline. What changed on the ground in Afghanistan in that week for the UK Government policy to change so dramatically?

[Nick Harvey]

There has been not been a dramatic shift of policy on the part of the US, ISAF or the UK Government. What the American Secretary made clear, as have the French, is that they will be accelerating the pace at which they hand to Afghanistan forces the lead responsibility, but there is no suggestion that the commitment of the ISAF countries is reducing or that the numbers are necessarily reducing. Simply, the speed at which the Afghan national security forces are developing is enabling them to take the lead more. The shift will therefore be more into a training, support and mentoring role, but that does not affect the overall strategy, and the Lisbon agreement among ISAF countries remains in place.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to promote defence exports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Government have willed an end-date for combat operations in Afghanistan, but not yet an endgame for how we disengage militarily. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that the sacrifice and outstanding efforts of those who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan will be underpinned by a departure that is properly planned, co-ordinated and commensurate with conditions on the ground?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The ISAF strategy for transition in Afghanistan has been worked up in detail and continues work that the previous Government had started before we took office. The strategy is clear—it is a progressive transition to an Afghan security lead, which is taking place area by area throughout Afghanistan. It is proceeding well and on a time line that gives every indication that we can make the withdrawal from the combat role at the date that we have suggested. Obviously, the precise speed and order of events depend on circumstances on the ground, but the direction of travel is clear. All international elements are signed up to it and it is progressing well.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the review of the awarding of medals, but will it also look at the service of police officers who have served with distinction on the police training mission in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

HMS Affray

Nick Harvey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on raising this important issue through the vehicle of an Adjournment debate. I acknowledge his concerns for his constituent, who lost her first husband in this tragedy. I would, of course, like to pass on my sympathy to her and to all the families and relatives of those who were affected by this loss. I also have a constituent affected by this, Mr Kevin Cook, whose father went down on the Affray in the months before he was born. He has approached me for help with this issue as a constituency MP.

As my hon. Friend explained at the outset of his speech, it is now 50 years after the Affray was lost with all hands. However, what passes as history for many can remain a fresh concern to some, particularly if they feel—as clearly my hon. Friend’s constituent does—that there remains unfinished business. We have a duty to ensure that concerns are addressed as fully as they can be and that they are dealt with sensitively, within the bounds of what can reasonably be achieved this far after the event.

Let me set out a little of the background. HMS Affray was an A-class submarine completed in 1946. The class had originally been designed to undertake operations in the far east during the latter part of the second world war. The submarine used diesel-electric power-plant. Diesel engines were used for surface propulsion and charging of the electric batteries, which were used to power electric motors for propulsion when dived. Subsequently, Affray was fitted with a snort mast, which was a breathing tube to permit the submarine to run its diesel engines while at periscope depth, much reducing the chances of it being detected.

As we have heard, on 16 April 1951, Affray left Gosport on a training exercise under the command of an experienced submarine captain, Lieutenant Blackburn. There were 75 men on board and she was scheduled to make a surfacing report by radio at 10 o’clock the next morning, 17 April. When that was not received, Operation Subsmash was ordered in accordance with standard submarine search and rescue procedures, beginning at 11 o’clock the same morning. Over the next few days, many ships and aircraft were involved in the search for the Affray, but, sadly, to no avail. On 19 April, the Admiralty accepted that the Affray was lost, with no reasonable hope of any survivors. It was not until 14 June that the wreck of Affray was detected and identified north of Alderney in the Channel Islands, lying in 260 feet of water. In the following months, divers from HMS Reclaim spent much time investigating the wreck, hoping to discover the reasons for her loss. That was considerably dangerous work.

The board of inquiry convened to investigate the loss of HMS Affray presented an interim report on 19 July. The board considered a number of possible causes. Material failure was considered the most likely cause. That was not, however, a definitive finding. The board also considered issues of human error or the possibility of collision. The board of inquiry continued to seek further evidence. Diving continued to be carried out on the wreck, using some of the most advanced techniques available at the time, but no firmer conclusions could be reached and diving was brought to an end in early November 1951.

The final report of the board of inquiry reached conclusions that were broadly similar to those of the interim report: that the submarine was lost because of the material failure of the snort mast, which broke off without warning, and that the resultant rapid influx of water resulted in the submarine dipping markedly by the stern, becoming increasingly heavy and sinking to the bottom. The board also concluded that the rapidity of events did not allow the release of position indication signals, that the crew died rapidly and that the search organisation was rapidly and energetically implemented.

The report was laid before the House on 14 November 1951 by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr J P L Thomas. It noted that there was no certainty about the reasons for her loss and that the broken snort mast might be either the cause or the consequence. The Government judged that any attempt to salvage the Affray would be dangerous, expensive and not at all certain to be successful. With the extra risk to life that salvage would have incurred, the Government decided that it was best not to proceed. As a result, the definitive cause of the loss of the Affray could not be proven and the wreck of HMS Affray would therefore be the final resting place for the 75 souls on board.

As I am sure the House will agree, it is fitting that that grave is now protected from being disturbed under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. I took note that my hon. Friend told us that his constituent’s clear preference was that it should not be disturbed. As Members may be aware, claims were made in print in 2007 alleging that the true cause of the loss of the Affray was known but suppressed to spare the embarrassment of senior naval officers. A study of those claims has been carried out by the Naval Historical Branch of the Royal Navy, but it has concluded that there is no reason to disagree with the findings of the original board of inquiry. Indeed, scrutiny of the paper trail around the inquiry found that it was far from a review carried out by the Admirals for the Admirals, which was, I think, the expression my hon. Friend used. In fact, far from the Royal Navy hierarchy encouraging the board of inquiry to the conclusion that what happened was caused by the mast snapping, they were, on the contrary, very sceptical about that account. They did not encourage the inquiry down that line, but continued to question whether that was the true explanation. Some people have called for a new inquiry to be launched on the basis of those various allegations.

I listened to the points that my hon. Friend has raised today. He stated very confidently that this was an accident that could easily have been avoided and that the lives were lost needlessly. I cannot see any evidence that enables so bold a statement to be made. It is perfectly true that there had been problems with the condition of the vessel, but it had spent three months in the dockyard earlier in 1951, during which time most of the serious problems were addressed.

Furthermore, it is true—this is, effectively, common practice—that the Affray was booked in for further repairs to be carried out. However, the decision on whether or not she was fit to go to sea was not taken by the hierarchy of the Admiralty in the fashion described by my hon. Friend; the decision rested with the commander of the vessel, who was, as we know, a popular, decorated and extremely experienced captain. He judged that the vessel was in a fit condition to go to sea, although it is also true that there were more people on board than usual because the exercise was going to combine two different training exercises: one for the submarine crew and one for a small number of Royal Marines who were on board for that purpose. Again, the captain made the decision that the size of the crew was reasonable in all the circumstances, and that it was appropriate to go out to sea with that number on board.

Some of the issues that have been raised, and some of the points that were made separately in the Bennington letters, were known to the Board of Inquiry when it was considering the events that led up to the tragedy. We cannot say with any certainty at this point what the board members made of each of those pieces of information, but we can say with reasonable confidence that those factors were known about at the time, and were considered by the Board of Inquiry. I am struggling to see that new evidence is available today that was not available to the Board of Inquiry when it looked into the matter. It is my duty to tell the House that in the absence of any new evidence, it would not be possible to authorise a new inquiry. The main purpose of a Board of Inquiry is to ascertain the cause of an incident so that a recurrence can be avoided.

The House will understand that submarines of the same class as Affray have been out of service for more than three decades. Indeed, we do not even have any diesel electric submarines in the 21st-century Royal Navy. The subsequent safety record of the Royal Navy submarine service since the sinking of Affray has been excellent—Affray was the last submarine lost at sea—so it is exceedingly unlikely that a new inquiry could make recommendations that would materially affect the running of our modern nuclear-powered Vanguard, Trafalgar or Astute class submarines. A new investigation, even with new technology, would involve significant expense and significant risk, and we would have to be realistic about what it would be capable of discovering, particularly if we respected the wishes of those who would not want graves to be tampered with.

My hon. Friend also raised a question about the Affray fund. It is an independent fund, and is not controlled by the Ministry of Defence. The trustees are the Lord Mayor of Portsmouth, the mayor of Gosport and the Public Trustee. If he wishes to pursue any matters pertaining to the fund, it would be best if he addressed them to the trustees.

Submarines are complex ships, operating in an environment that is extremely dangerous, even in peacetime. Submariners operate at the limits of human ingenuity, and that is to their credit. They are among the bravest men in the Royal Navy, and soon to be the bravest women too. The loss of Affray and the men who served on her was a national tragedy, as well, of course, as a personal tragedy for many. We all understand only too clearly why those who were personally affected want definitive answers, but nothing can bring the fallen back, and after more than 50 years, there seems to me to be no realistic likelihood that we can ever provide the answers that, for understandable reasons, they crave. I cannot see that any new evidence is available to us now that was not available to the original Board of Inquiry. The passage of so much time seems to me to make the prospect of discovering anything new infinitesimal.

[Tim Farron]

The Minister is right to say that there is not much in the way of new evidence, but there are two clear sides that were never really put together. He referred to Affray’s dubious service and maintenance history, and the technical and mechanical problems that it experienced. It is the marrying together of sending the craft out in that state with a crew that was oversized and, probably crucially, under-experienced—25 trainees and a crew that was two thirds inexperienced in that ship—that makes Mrs Tower and me believe that those in charge were culpable. I accept that the argument about the inquiry is one thing, but an apology should be made for that poisonous cocktail of an inexperienced crew and an unfit vessel.

[Nick Harvey]

I have already touched on the points about the condition of the vessel. The records of its condition were all available and properly documented at the time. They were available to the Board of Inquiry to consider. It is true that Affray had had some service and maintenance issues, but there is no particular evidence that their number was unusually high for submarines at that time. Therefore, the decision by the commanding officer and the chain of command was based on their judgment at that time about the safety of the vessel. There is no evidence that anyone can see that they were pressed to take the vessel out. According to the standards of the day, the risk was within the parameters of what they considered to be normal. It is also true that there was quite a large number of relatively inexperienced trainees on board at the time, but again that was not radically out of the ordinary. The captain judged at the time that the blend of experience and trainees on board was acceptable, and that the vessel was fit to set sail.

I would be hugely regretful and deeply sorry if either of those factors contributed to the loss of the Affray, but there is no evidence in truth that either factor did. We must be realistic about what we can hope to establish as definitive fact 50 years after the event when a Board of Inquiry conducted in the immediate aftermath with all the information at its disposal at the time was not able to say with certainty exactly what the cause was. It remains a huge tragedy for the Navy and a personal tragedy for those involved, but after more than 50 years, I just cannot see any new evidence or any realistic prospect that we would be better able to identify the cause of the disaster now than we were at the time.

I am delighted that in April some of the relatives will go out to commemorate the anniversary. I hope that my constituent, who is planning to go with them, finds the experience moving and meaningful, but I just do not think that there is anything we can do to put to bed the unanswered questions, because I do not believe that any more information is available to us today than was available then. I fear that the 75 souls who were lost will have to be left in peace on the sea floor, and that we will not find out anything new as a consequence of the allegations that have been made in the recent few years.