HC Deb 03 July 1998 vol 315 cc653-62

11 am

Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon)

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who, in his Department or elsewhere in the Government, briefed the press yesterday on the contents of the strategic defence review and the outcome of the Cabinet discussion on the same subject.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid)

As Members of the House will know, the strategic defence review has been conducted in an unparalleled open and consultative fashion. [Laughter.] I shall enumerate some of the briefings that have been given, including to those hon. Members who are laughing.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has held three open seminars and made two major speeches on the subject. The second, on 12 March this year, set out the key emerging themes of the strategic defence review, many of which were reflected in this morning's press and other press reports. He set out themes including the importance of our forces operating together jointly to provide maximum operational punch and the tough decisions that remained, such as whether to replace our existing carriers with larger, more flexible and more usable ships.

In addition, we have received hundreds of contributions. We have talked and listened to our own people throughout defence on this matter. A BBC documentary has been transmitted, showing the processes by which the conclusions were reached on the strategic defence review and many of the issues involved.

The emerging conclusions have not only been discussed internally, but briefed to Members of the House, including the Defence Select Committee and the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues. Only this week, those conclusions were briefed to the then shadow Secretary of State, and we gave a briefing on general military matters to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who has asked the question today.

Any briefings that broke the conventions of the House, or such briefings as are being suggested by the hon. Gentleman, are deprecated by me, the Prime Minister, the Government and No. 10. However, it will be obvious that particular interest on this topic was engendered yesterday, first, by an item in The Times, which was in parts inaccurate, and, secondly, by an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there would be a statement next Wednesday.

I confess to the House that I have discovered that one formal briefing, 11 pages long, on the strategic defence review was issued yesterday—by the Conservative central office political operations department. You may be interested, Madam Speaker, to know that, even before the conclusions in the review were announced, the Conservatives said in the briefing: the main thrust of our case is that it has just been a cover for 'cuts'. I cannot answer for Conservative central office, the media, their sources or the stories that they write, but I can assure the House that there have been no formal briefings of the media on the outcome of the strategic defence review by Defence Ministers or officials. The House should hear, and I am sure will welcome, the conclusions of the strategic defence review on Wednesday, as announced by the Leader of the House yesterday.

On such an important and far-reaching subject, it is not surprising that there has been much speculation in the press. This is the most radical, deep, wide and open consultation and analysis carried out in the Ministry of Defence for decades. Given the nature and openness of the review, it would not be surprising if such speculation were, on occasion, well informed. That is surely a consequence of open government that we should all welcome, but the first people to know the true facts and the full outcome of the review will, as ever, be Members of the House.

Mr. Maples

It is a measure of the Government's contempt for the House that even when they are caught red-handed, as they have been twice today, they obfuscate. [Hon. Members: "It is you."] I do not know what is in the defence review. It is absolutely ridiculous for Labour Members to level a similar charge at us and try to obfuscate the issue.

I am not referring to the open consultation that the Secretary of State conducted before the conclusions were reached; I am referring to specific briefing of the press, yesterday and the day before, after conclusions had been reached. Who told Mr. John Deans of the Daily Mail and Mr. George Jones of The Daily Telegraph the specific conclusions? The Minister says that no formal briefing took place. It is very difficult for me or any other hon. Member to believe that. Those journalists were briefed. That may not have been done by the Minister or the Secretary of State. I suspect that it was done by his special adviser, who is apparently giving a series of lunches at our expense to brief journalists on these issues. Will the Minister deal with that specific point when he replies?

Someone briefed those journalists. It is not general speculation, and nobody who reads the articles could possibly think that. Those articles follow an article about the review in The Times yesterday, which must also have been the result of briefing.

Dr. Reid

It is inaccurate.

Mr. Maples

The Minister says that it is inaccurate. I suppose that is—it was probably based on briefing by the Treasury. The Government's spin doctors are briefing against each other at such an incredible rate that one does not know of whom to ask private notice questions such as this.

Will the Minister confirm or deny the activities of the Secretary of State's special adviser in giving a series of lunches to brief journalists on the review? [Interruption.] You see, Government Members so hate any criticism of their conduct that one cannot even get a hearing in the House.

The leaking is highly selective, and designed to get the good news in the public domain so that the mood has been set before the bad news comes out on Wednesday, and there will be plenty of bad news for the Territorial Army, the Paras, the Navy and the Air Force. Of course, there will also be the cut in the defence budget that we expect. Of course, those facts are not being leaked.

Madam Speaker, you have in the past, and earlier today, made it clear how you deplore the practice of briefing the press before Parliament is told of major policy announcements. I cannot think of a more important policy announcement that the Government will make than the publication of the strategic defence review, but here we have unequivocal evidence of that practice continuing.

The Secretary of State for Defence personally assured me on Wednesday that he would not use that practice—particularly, as he said, because there were security considerations. He said also—and I ask the Minister of State to confirm this—that, when the press were briefed on the day of the statement, it would be done in secure conditions, they would not be allowed to have their mobile phones with them, and they would not be allowed to leave the Ministry until after he, the Secretary of State, had sat down in the House.

Will the Minister of State today give the House an unequivocal undertaking that the leaks and briefings will stop, and that he will do his duty to Parliament by delaying any further press briefing until after the statement on Wednesday? I ask him further to undertake to make a copy of his statement and the White Paper available to the Opposition on the morning of the day the statement is to be made, and not, as usual, only 20 minutes in advance. As we shall apparently be the last people to find out the contents of the statement, that does not seem an unreasonable request.

That practice is further evidence of the Government's contempt for the House, which we see every day and have seen twice this morning. The Minister has been caught red-handed. He should now promise to desist, and not do it again.

Dr. Reid

What a load of hogwash. I have already made it plain that there was no briefing on the conclusions of the strategic defence review. We would deprecate such briefing. I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps he could not pick it up through his synthetic fury—that the review has been carried out in the most open and consultative fashion. It has included lunches. His predecessor was at one of those lunches, as were Lord Younger and the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo. We have engaged in the widest form of consultation.

With regard to yesterday's speculation, it takes the biscuit when the hon. Gentleman and his friends at Conservative central office whip up interest by issuing an 11-page media briefing pack on the strategic defence review, and are then surprised when the newspapers cover the review. The only comments that I would make about the hon. Gentleman's strategic defence review media pack is that it got even more things wrong than most of the press combined.

When the facts and conclusions are stated, they will be stated to the House first. The statement will be the conclusion of the deepest, widest and most open consultation process that has ever been carried out in the Ministry of Defence. Complaints about that from a party that, during 18 years in government, never consulted anybody on anything before reaching conclusions, is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I do not believe that any members of the Socialist Campaign Group went to lunch, so the consultation process sounds a bit one-sided.

As a result of seeing on the notice board that there was to be a PNQ on the strategic defence review today, I took it upon myself to go to the Library and read all the relevant newspapers to see to what extent that great briefing exercise had produced similar results in each newspaper. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referred to The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. I looked at The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and the Daily Mail. One said that a cut of £500 million would be announced next week; another said that £1 billion would be cut from defence expenditure—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not enough for you."] No, not quite enough. Another newspaper—I think it was The Independent—said that the cut would be more than £500 million.

If that great briefing really took place, everybody would have been told the same figure. It sounds very odd. I do not believe that journalists are altogether dim. How could they have drawn such conclusions out of a briefing? Hon. Members should go and read those reports in the Library, because the evidence is there for people to see. The reason we are having this PNQ today is because the Tory Opposition are not capable of dealing with the job that they have to do in Parliament and are inventing stories to try and give the impression that people are briefing, whereas in reality all the stories tell a different tale.

Dr. Reid

As usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I assume that, if someone was briefing journalists, he or she would try to tell the same story to various newspapers. As my hon. Friend says, there are different stories in different newspapers. Some have extremely inaccurate reports, although none are as inaccurate as the briefings being put out by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Once again, he has excelled himself.

The Opposition's motives for raising the matter are simple: they know that, after the most open consultation and the deepest analysis, we have produced a package, the conclusions of which will be announced next week, which will be good news for the House, the nation and the armed forces. It will enhance our capabilities and ensure that we have modern forces for a modern world. Having had nothing whatever to contribute to that for the past 10 months, Conservative Members are deeply embarrassed. Whereas they have shown that defence cannot be trusted in their hands, the Labour Government have shown that the country can place its trust in them on defence matters.

Lest I contribute to any inaccuracy, I said that Mr. Portillo had attended a luncheon meeting. I should have said that he was invited but did not attend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—unlike the former Conservative Secretary of State, John Nott, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), all of whom did attend.

The huffing and puffing by Opposition Members has nothing to do with the open consultation process; it is due to the fact that they have been thoroughly inadequate on the topic of defence, and are attempting to score cheap political points.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

I can take points of order only after statements.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

The Minister will be aware that Liberal Democrats believe that the strategic defence review should be based on the long-term military requirements of the United Kingdom—on foreign policy rather than narrow Treasury issues. Like other hon. Members, we have been concerned about the Treasury's predatory instincts in formulating the strategic defence review. If the reports in today's press are correct, the Treasury has largely been thwarted. Liberal Democrats would welcome that.

Has not the whole process of the review been characterised by leaks in every quarter to the press and other media? Every member of the press who can hold a knife and fork seems to know more about the process than Members of the House and Select Committee members. Ministers must have known that that has been happening, yet they chose to take no action, presumably because they sought departmental advantage in pretending not to see it happen.

Is not the Government's conduct in all Departments predicated on a wish to make announcements to the press and other media before they are made to the House? Was not that demonstrated clearly even this week, with the announcement of a new policy on arms sales, which was not available to hon. Members until 4 o'clock yet was on the morning news on the radio? Is it not time that Ministers remembered that their first responsibility in terms of information is to the House and nowhere else?

Dr. Reid

Of course, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will give me greater pleasure than seeing the Secretary of State announce to the House the conclusions of the strategic defence review and watching the mournful faces on the Opposition Benches.

I repeat that no conclusions have been briefed to the press by my Department. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is supposed to be a member of a party that calls for open and consultative forms of government. We have done that with this defence review to an extent that has rarely, if ever, been done in the Ministry of Defence before. We have consulted and communicated with hundreds, indeed thousands—with hundreds of thousands—of people throughout the armed forces, and journalists, institutes and politicians of every political hue and favour, and with the official Opposition and the minority Opposition parties. They have all been briefed on this matter.

Is it the consensus of the hon. Member's party that we so conduct ourselves in future that we do not do so—that we exclude them from consideration, that, in order to maintain national security, we say nothing to anyone? I should be very surprised if he was supported in that view by anyone else in his party.

Mr. Caplin

We have now spent 19 minutes of a Private Members' day dealing with this private notice question. There appear to be important issues on the Order Paper today, Madam Speaker, as you said; indeed, the Liberal Democrats tried to have today extended, to allow more time, and I see them taking up time on this matter. I feel that there is a filibuster—an abuse of Parliament by those on the Conservative Front Bench and Back Benches. My question to the Minister is: will he publish, for all of us who are interested, the Conservative central office leak?

Dr. Reid

I have always regarded my job as being to spread enlightenment and education, and I do not think that that would be in any way enhanced by publishing that document.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. I am aware of the business that is before the House, so, if I do call all Members who are standing—I do not commit myself to doing so—questions must be direct.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey)

It is pretty rich to accuse Conservative central office of this leak. I acknowledge the work that the Ministry of Defence has done in public relations. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has referred to the widest consultation process ever. I simply raise the question whether that consultation was real consultation or just a public relations exercise to soften up the armed forces for what was going to be a bitter pill. The Ministry of Defence has certainly briefed the Defence Select Committee very assiduously.

I would ask a very important question. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, there is remarkable consistency in the figures quoted in the press reports. It all depends whether one is viewing the cuts over one year, two years or three years, or over the rest of the Parliament. The Minister knows as well as most of the rest of us do, as a result of the press leaks, that the proposed cuts of £2,000 million will be spread over a period of four years—perhaps, to begin with, just £500 million, or—

Madam Speaker

Order. I must keep hon. Members to the question before us. The question before us is not the defence review itself and what is in it; it is the briefing of the press, not the details of it. I ask Members to put their questions directly; otherwise, I must move on. May I now have a question to the Minister?

Mr. Colvin

My question is simply this. In view of the consistency of the press reports, will the Minister for the Armed Forces get the Secretary of State to authorise a full inquiry into these leaks before he comes to the House to make a statement next Wednesday?

Dr. Reid

The premise on which the question is based is false. There is no consistency in the press reports, any more than there has been for the past 10 months. I therefore do not intend even to consider asking the Secretary of State to institute any inquiry.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

A very serious charge has been made against the Government—that they have leaked, either from the Ministry of Defence or from the Treasury, precise figures of cuts to the Territorial Army and details of the precise equipment that will be ordered. The only query is about the length of the period over which the review will take place. Clearly the information has not come from Conservative central office—it has many claims to fame, but that is not one of them. Where have those precise figures come from, if they have not come from a leak from the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury?

Dr. Reid

The precise figures for the cuts in the Territorial Army in this morning's press came from an article six weeks ago in The Times by Mike Evans—which was again based on speculation—not from any brief that we gave.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that no Minister or special adviser told The Times this week: Mr. Brown was not satisfied and demanded a cut of £2 billion in the defence budget and told the Daily Telegraph: it will not deliver the savings of £2 billion"? Will the Minister confirm that no Minister or official told the papers that this week—indeed, that, if there was any briefing, it was apparently by Conservative central office?

Dr. Reid

I do not know the exact quotes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not know the exact quotes, but I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor did not demand any arbitrary cut of any nature whatever. [Interruption.] If that is the gist of the quotes, it is accurate, and it is something that was not revealed there but has been said for 10 months by Ministers from the Dispatch Box.

This was a foreign-policy-led review, which has given us a configuration of modern forces for the modern world. It has done so within budget. It has enhanced our capability. It has back-filled the hollowed-out areas left by the previous Government. It is a good story, and that is what is getting up Conservative Members' noses.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

May I draw the Minister's attention to a small paragraph in today's Daily Telegraph? It reads: Ministers conceded yesterday that the Ministry of Defence would be offering significant savings from its £21 billion-a-year budget. I draw his attention in particular to the words, "Ministers conceded". Does he agree that Mr. George Jones is a senior Lobby correspondent of high reputation? Does he think that he would write "Ministers conceded" unless he had had a briefing from Ministers or officials?

Will the Minister place in the House of Commons Library a schedule of contacts that he and his officials and Treasury officials have had with the Telegraph over the past few days, so that we may make up our minds ourselves whether there have been conversations between Ministers and officials on that subject?

Dr. Reid

Point one: I have the greatest respect for Mr. George Jones, a serious journalist. Point two: Ministers have never conceded that there were significant cuts made to the defence budget in here, outside here, in public or in private. Point three: significant cuts were never demanded to the defence budget. Point four: the request for a list of every person that we have met in the course of the last year, is a silly point—[Interruption.]—or of every person that we have met in the last few days—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)

In the last two days.

Dr. Reid

Or in the last two days. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is being stupid, and Conservative Front-Bench Members have been even more stupid in supporting him.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister understand that there is a world of difference between consultation in advance of the taking of decisions by Cabinet Committees and the briefing of decisions reached by Cabinet Committees? It is precisely on that latter point that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House for briefing to take place before the House is told. That is precisely what the stories suggest. Will the Minister accept that?

In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the Minister said that there had been no formal briefings by Defence Ministers or officials. Will he further confirm that there were no informal briefings by Ministers of any kind or officials of any Government Department?

Dr. Reid

That is the first sensible question that has been asked. Yes, there is a distinct difference between informing on the background, on the processes, and on the development of the thinking of the defence review, which has been going on for 10 months—and that has been done, and those who have been briefed have included not only journalists but officials—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Gentleman's second point. Indeed, a whole documentary was made on that very subject.

That is different from a briefing on the conclusions of the review, and the conclusions of the review have not been briefed by my Department. As far as anyone else is concerned, in terms of the speculation on what they have been saying, I do not know, but I do know that the Government, from the Prime Minister down, deprecate briefing, on or off the record, of any material which most appropriately should come before the House first.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

The Minister has been very careful in his choice of words this morning. We all appreciate that there is a difference between wide-ranging consultation before the conclusions are reached, and the conclusions. The Minister is careful to say, that there has been no briefing "by my Department". It is not good enough for the Minister to use that as a defence to the systematic leaking, which we have seen in the press, from the Government.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that he speaks for the whole Government, not just for himself, at the Dispatch Box? Will he give us an assurance that Ministers from any other Department, or No. 10 Downing street, or special advisers from any other Department, have not been systematically leaking part of the defence review?

Dr. Reid

I have already made it plain that the position I adopt, in deprecating any such briefings and being opposed to them, is fully shared by the Prime Minister and No. 10 Downing street. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether anyone, in any Government Department, out of several hundred civil servants, has ever said anything to a journalist, I am not prepared to make such a wild statement, and nor could any human being. However, there have been no briefings, formal or informal, by officials or Ministers on the conclusions of the strategic defence review; I keep repeating it. If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that, I am afraid that I cannot help him.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

As the Minister says that he cannot rule out the possibility that such briefings took place, will he institute an inquiry? Is the Minister saying—may I have a yes or no answer—that, when George Jones reported this morning that he talked to Ministers yesterday, George Jones made that up?

Dr. Reid

I did not say that I could not say that there had been no formal briefings by anyone about this matter. I denied that there were any briefings on it, formal or informal. I could not say—because it is ludicrous to ask me to do so—whether any civil servant in any Department, among hundreds of thousands, had spoken at any stage over 10 months to anyone who happens to be a member of the press or who knows someone in the press. That sort of question shows how desperate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is, and how far he will go in an attempt to prove a conspiracy that does not exist.

So far as the hon. Gentleman's question is concerned, I repeat again: there has been no briefing on the conclusions of the defence review. The Opposition are annoyed, not because they think that there has been some briefing, but because they think that gradually emerging in press speculation—after 10 months of such speculation—is a good story on defence.

I cannot account for the infallibility of George Jones or anyone else. As far as I am aware, no politician or any reporter—however esteemed, and however much respect I have for him—is infallible. When the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that it is ludicrous to ask anyone in the House to account for the veracity or otherwise of, or the motives behind, any report that is issued. I merely point out that what George Jones said in The Daily Telegraph is different from what Mr. Mike Evans, another highly reputable journalist, said in The Times, which is different again from what Mr. John Deans, another reputable journalist, said in the Daily Mail. There is no common thread, because there has been no briefing.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

In that case, if Mr. George Jones's article is proved to be accurate in detail, will the Minister come to the House next Wednesday and apologise, and launch a full inquiry into where Mr. Jones got the words "Ministers conceded yesterday"?

Dr. Reid

I will go further than that. I will relate to the hon. Gentleman the whole of my conversation with the said Mr. George Jones yesterday.

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

You spoke to him.

Dr. Reid

Yes—I never denied that I spoke to him. I shall give a verbatim transcript of our total conversation, which was held not 15 yards from here, in the Lobby. Mr. Jones said, and I quote, "They got it wrong in The Times this morning, didn't they?", and I said, "Yes." He said, "I'm going to stick to my figures," and I said, "And I'm going for a coffee."