DERMOT MURNAGHAN: So Britain’s combat role in Afghanistan is officially over, the Union Flag has been lowered for the last time at Camp Bastion today and British troops are beginning their final withdrawal.  That brings to an end a 13 year conflict in total that has cost the lives of 453 British service personnel so have we prepared Afghanistan to face up to the considerable challenges still ahead?  Well the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, joins me now and a very good morning to you, Mr Fallon.  As we enter the Remembrance period it is appropriate to remember those 453 service personnel who have given their lives, what would you say to their families?  Are they leaving behind a more stable, democratic and potentially prosperous society?

MICHAEL FALLON: It is a tremendous sacrifice that our forces have made and I pay tribute to that but yes, that sacrifice has not been in vain.  Afghanistan is now a safer, more prosperous and democratic place than we started.  We’ve not eliminated the insurgency there, there are Taliban still there but what we have done, through their sacrifice, is given Afghanistan the best possible chance of a safer future by training up a 300,000 strong Afghan army and security force that takes over responsibility for Helmand Province from this morning and by having a democratic election, it gives them a government of national unity and by all the improvements that have taken place in schooling and healthcare and the growth of the economy, so Afghanistan is a different place if you go there now to what it was when we started.  

DM: But if you take the word Afghanistan out of the sentences you have just delivered to me and insert Iraq and rewind three years then you get similar sentiments being expressed.  Let me read this to you after the American and indeed the British withdrawal of course from Iraq, this was President Obama at Fort Bragg in North Carolina welcoming back the final troops, the final deployments from Iraq.  He said, he saluted them all and he said ‘You leave behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq’.  Now we know what’s happened subsequently, couldn’t the same happen in Afghanistan?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well Afghanistan has a better chance because its army is not sectarian, which is what happened in Iraq, the army became perceived to be simply pro-Shia.  There wasn’t a government that was perceived to reach out to all parts of Iraq and the army was a very defensive force and found itself put on the back foot by ISIL.  Now in Afghanistan, you have a government of national unity, genuinely comprehensive, representing all the tribes and different parts of Afghanistan, you have an army that has the support of the local population.  That hasn’t been happening in Iraq so they have a better chance.  

DM: You say the support of the local population, well who’s killing them then?  The local population are the Taliban as well, we’re hearing that they have lost 4,000 personnel in the last year.  

MICHAEL FALLON: Well they have been doing the fighting.

DM: So that’s not the support of the population then is it?

MICHAEL FALLON: There is still insurgency, yes, the Taliban are still there in North Helmand but for the last couple of summers it has been the Afghan army that has been taking them on, they’ve been taking casualties.  It is perfectly true the Taliban has been advancing into some villages and the Afghan army then go up there and push them out again and that will continue, there is insurgency there still but you have a better chance of dealing with it I think in Afghanistan than we had in Iraq.  If you do have an army that does have the support of all parts of Afghanistan and you have a government that is genuinely representative of all parts of Afghanistan, you’re right, that didn’t happen in Iraq.  

DM: You say there’s a chance that it will go well but we remember what was said about the army in Iraq three years ago, how well trained they were, how capable they were and being non-sectarian in dealing with any of the forces, it was then Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in dealing with them.  You will know these figures, these estimates about the Afghan defence forces, both the police and the army, the estimates every month of desertions is 2% of the forces desert not to come back, that’s 15,000 a year is the estimate.  Are they really of considerable quality?

MICHAEL FALLON: Yes, they are.  I’ve been there, I’ve been to Helmand Province, I talk to the …

DM: But some of them run away.  

MICHAEL FALLON: I’ve talked to the core commanders, some of the desertion rates in the police have been too high but let me assure you, the Afghan army is now bearing the brunt of the fighting, over 95% of all the operations over the last summer in North Helmand have been conducted by the Afghan army and they are ruthless fighters about dealing with the Taliban.  Now of course it’s a new force, we are helping to train up the officers of that force at the Afghan Officer Academy and we’re going to remain next year supporting that training programme and giving them other liaison support in Kabul but the best way in the end to deal with insurgency surely is to have a home-grown army, not Western or American or British combat troops trying to do it for them.

DM: Yes but as we know, the Taliban have not been defeated and in some areas they appear stronger.  Within the last year there have been considerable battles outside Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Sangin, Qunduz, offensives right on the doorsteps of those cities.  They control other provinces altogether, the Taliban have not been and cannot be defeated.  

MICHAEL FALLON: The Taliban have not been eliminated, I am absolutely clear about that, but the fight against the Taliban has been taken on by the Afghan army.  They are not running away from them.

DM: But they are going to have to talk to them eventually aren’t they?  They are already.

MICHAEL FALLON: Well they are talking politically to them of course because they want to make sure that there is a comprehensive approach to Afghanistan but let me be very clear with you, the Afghan army is not running away from this fight, they are absolutely up for this fight and we’ve helped them with training and we’ve helped them with equipment and they are going to be taking on the fighting now.  In the end this is something that can’t be won by British or American or NATO troops, it has to be a home-grown army that has the support of the local population.  The quality of life in Helmand is very different to what it was ten years ago.

DM: So fingers crossed for Afghanistan but I wanted to ask you about Iraq and indeed Syria, the current operations against Islamic States. You’ll have read this in the Independent this morning from the former NATO chief, Sir Richard Sherriff, saying that the government talks about the huge threat posed by Islamic State, not just there but on our own very shores and he says we ought to have a proper strategy in place and that may eventually involve boots on the ground.

MICHAEL FALLON: Well it should involve boots on the ground but they should be Iraqi boots on the ground, other forces from the region itself.  What we’ve shown I think is that you can’t do this with American or British troops, you have to have home troops.

DM: But if there is a threat, an existential threat to the United Kingdom, should we then freelance the defence of our kingdom to other forces?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well we’re not freelancing, we’re contributing there.  We had the RAF, they have carried out some 45 combat missions already, they’re flying again today.  We’re helping with surveillance and intelligence gathering, we’re helping with training and we’re helping with equipment.  There are some fifty countries now helping the government of Iraq to deal with ISIL and the RAF are playing a major part in that.

DM: So you are ruling out British boots on the ground in any substantial numbers?  Because this is what Sir Richard is talking about.

MICAHEL FALLON: Well we’re not going to commit combat troops to Iraq, we’ve done that already and the answer is to do what we can do best which is to supply the air power, the surveillance, the intelligence gathering, the liaison, the training and the equipment and to help stand up the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces who are now bearing the brunt of the fighting.

DM: But if circumstances change, then the response has to change.  We can put the two together, what we’re talking about here is that with the end of combat missions, the formal end there of the operations in Afghanistan, does that free up resources for use elsewhere wherever that may be?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well we have the resources of course to commit when they are needed, we’re sending troops now to Sierra Leone to help fight Ebola, we have to deal with all these different threats but what we’re not going to do is commit combat regiments again to Iraq.  We’ve done that and we’ve been there and we’ve done it in Afghanistan, we’ve been there.  In the end these insurgencies have to be fought on the ground by home armies.  

DM: Talk to me about Europe and what’s going on in your own party and government and this emerging from Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, today that the Prime Minister’s hopes about doing something about migration from within the European Union is a non-starter.  The Germans wouldn’t countenance it.  

MICHAEL FALLON: Well the Germans haven’t seen our proposal yet and we haven’t seen our proposal yet, that’s still being worked on at the moment to see what we can do to prevent whole towns and communities being swamped by huge numbers of migrant workers.  

DM: Where is being swamped at the moment?

MICHAEL FALLON: In some areas, particularly on the east coast, yes, towns do feel under siege from large numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits and it’s quite right that we look at that.  The original Treaty when it was drawn up fifty years ago, didn’t envisage these vast movements of people and we are perfectly entitled to say this needs to be looked at again and we will put our proposals forward and we will look for support from other member states as well, including Germany.

DM: But if they come to work from within the European Union, if they come to work and they have a job to go to, there is nothing you can do about it, that’s what Angela Merkel is talking about.   Yes, if it’s about benefits you can look at that.  Yes, if it’s about access to all kinds of public services but if they come here to work they are free to come, we are all members of the European Union.  

MICHAEL FALLON: Well that’s the current position but what we want to do…

DM: So you are looking at changing that?

MICHAEL FALLON: We’re looking at changing that to make sure that we have some control.

DM: But Angela Merkel says she won’t consider that.

MICHAEL FALLON: Well she hasn’t seen the details of our proposals yet because we haven’t put it forward yet but we can’t simply say that’s been the rule for fifty years and it can never, ever be changed.   Things have changed in Europe, we have seen large movements of not just migrant workers but migrant benefit claimants as well, right across Europe and we are fully entitled to say this is making a difference to us that now needs to be dealt with.

DM: So what are you looking at?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well we are looking at the numbers particularly, is it right to allow huge numbers to come in particular sectors, in particular areas of the country, without any kind of restraint whatsoever?  Mistakes were made you’ll recall when some of the new members of the European Union were allowed to come straight away, other countries applied a derogation, a certain period when they didn’t come.

DM: So this is looking at limiting national insurance numbers, is that what you’re doing?

MICHAEL FALLON: We’re looking at things like national insurance numbers and so on but we’ve not finalised our proposals yet and they will be put forward not only to us here but they will also be put forward to the other member states.  

DM: And this extra payment that the European Union has landed the UK with, this €2 billion, the Prime Minister is saying he won’t pay it on December 1st.  Might he pay it or some of it a bit later?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well it is outrageous to be given a vast bill like this.  There are often adjustments to our contribution each year, a few millions here, up or down but to suddenly be presented with a bill for €2 billion, £1.7 billion and told you will have to pay it in five weeks, is just not on and I’m very glad that this has now been referred to the finance ministers and they are going to have a look at the detail and whether it’s right that a bill of this kind should be presented that way.

DM: So is it the time you are given to pay it or the actual sum itself?  Are you saying that Britain after December 1st might pay some?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well it’s both, they are going to look at how this sum got calculated, whether it’s right that you should be taxed for the growth that you’ve had and those countries that haven’t had successful growth policies should actually benefit, that doesn’t seem right, but it’s also the payment, why you should suddenly have to pay this within five weeks.

DM: Would the government be comfortable, this has been suggested by an unnamed source in one of the Sunday papers today, with tens of millions or the low hundreds of millions, that would be all right?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well we pay a huge amount at the moment, a vast net contribution and we get some back.  There are adjustments each year but to have this simply added to your bill in such a large quantity with so little notice simply isn’t on and that is now going to be sorted out by the finance ministers.

DM: But if it were tens of millions you’d pay it eventually?

MICHAEL FALLON: Well it might be tens of millions fewer or tens of millions more, that happens every year anyway but this is not just hundreds of millions, this is nearly 2000 million and that is unacceptable and that’s what the finance ministers, they have now agreed, will have to look at.

DM: Secretary of State, thank you very much indeed.  Defence Secretary Michael Fallon there.