Afghanistan

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Simpson]

There is a direct connection, although I do not necessarily completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s logic. If he will bear with me, I shall come on to that.

The basis of British foreign and security policy is twofold: first, absolutely to hang on to and stand by the special relationship with the United States of America; and, secondly, to play a leading role in NATO. Those two elements merge in our participation in the operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to think seriously about the first, our special relationship with the United States of America. Crucial to it, and part of our mythology, is the way in which Winston Churchill persuaded the Americans to come into the war when we were on our knees. That, however, is of course a myth, because the United States of America eventually came into the war because Hitler declared war on it after the Japanese attack.

The special relationship, in many respects, has been more important to us than to the Americans, because of the decline of empire and because we want to participate with and influence a superpower with which we had much in common. However, by the time of our participation in Iraq in the 1990s, it seems to me that there was a serious problem with the ability of a British Prime Minister to influence the United States of America and make certain that Britain’s national interests were addressed.

At a military level, our problem is increasingly that we cannot will the military resources to the promissory notes we write to the Americans. Sustainability of political and military effort then becomes very crucial indeed, and we are found wanting—not because the military are incompetent or because the men and women in our armed forces are not courageous, but because we are punching above our weight. We need to look seriously at what we can and cannot do as a powerful regional power with global interests and commitments.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he not think that there is a case to be made for saying that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were in our national interest, in keeping our streets safe and maintaining our homeland security?

[Mr Simpson]

The problem with our participation in the Iraq campaign and our military commitment in Afghanistan, which then expanded, was that the policy aims changed, and widened out. There is an argument—I do not actually stand by it but there are many who believe it, including perhaps some hon. Members present—that, through our participation in Iraq and Afghanistan, we made our streets less secure. But that comes back to the issue that we and the Government should be considering: the lessons learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti]

Does my hon. Friend accept that Iran was then and now remains one of the biggest world sponsors of terrorism, and that its weapons and money cause chaos around the world to our strategic interests and peaceful nations?

[Crispin Blunt]

We should take the trouble to understand why Iran behaves as it does. Why does it have the relationship it does with Hezbollah? What interests are served by its supporting what we have proscribed as a terrorist group in Lebanon? What is its relationship with the Assad regime, its neighbours in Afghanistan, and the rest? We must add to that the complexity of the whole existing Iranian political set-up. We ought not simply to deal with things in black and white. The world is all shades of grey, and all the actors playing into the drama that led into Afghanistan had their interests.

Our failure in all instances to turn the board around and understand the perspective of the other players in the drama led us into a series of decisions that were, overall, catastrophic for the British national interest, with 453 dead soldiers as a consequence and al-Qaeda replaced in Afghanistan by the forces of Islamic State. Those are beginning to emerge in Helmand, as parts of what was the Taliban appear to be changing sides and declaring allegiance to it. Goodness knows what that will mean for the future of Afghanistan.

From the decisions of 2001 through to those leading to the military campaign in Helmand, what was Dr Reid —now Lord Reid—doing as Defence Secretary, along with the Prime Minister, at the NATO summit in 2005? Who was trying to drive a new role for NATO—some new justification for NATO’s role? When the United Kingdom picked up responsibility for drugs policy in Afghanistan at the 2002 conference, that was the moment at which the west decided we were going to try to create Switzerland in the Hindu Kush, and the nations of the west took up differing responsibilities for helping Afghanistan in various ways. Why did people not properly understand what happened to poppy cultivation in Helmand between 2001 and 2004, which led to our feeling that there was a role for the United Kingdom there? Then, with all the tragic military mis-appreciation that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to, we went in with a wholly inadequate military force, with an objective that frankly could not in the end be achieved with 10 times as many troops.

There are so many issues to examine from the Afghan disaster that it can only be right, even though one trembles at the expense and time that it would take, to hold a proper inquiry. Its terms of reference should give it enough resources to do the job in reasonable order. It would cost a lot of money, but we owe it to 453 of our servicemen who did not return alive from Afghanistan, as well as all those who served there and were grievously injured in the process. Because of the fantastic medical contribution that was made there, there are many more such people than would have been associated with other conflicts.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to discuss what we all realise is a very important subject. He said that he wanted a good debate, and he has succeeded. By my count, 19 Members have been present for either all or part of this debate, including you, Mr Pritchard. That figure includes a number of members of the Defence Committee and, indeed, former Defence Ministers.

This debate takes place a short time after our combat mission in Afghanistan concluded. At the height of our involvement, the United Kingdom had the second largest fighting force in Afghanistan, and our troops undertook some of the heaviest fighting. At one time we had more than 9,000 troops and some 137 bases in Afghanistan, but the increasing capability of the Afghan security forces has enabled us to bring our combat troops home. Our troops left Camp Bastion, our final base in Helmand, on 27 October 2014, and on 24 November 2014 the final UK service personnel left Kandahar airfield, marking the UK’s departure from southern Afghanistan. Although our combat mission is over, we are continuing to help the Afghan people and have made an enduring commitment to Afghanistan.

[Jack Lopresti]

What would have been the impact on the deployment if we had had longer tours of duty like our friends and comrades, the US?

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. In simple terms, our normal, standard tour was six months with a two-week break in the middle; the Americans, for instance, tended to go for 12 months. There are advantages and disadvantages with both ways of doing it, and we continue to discuss that with the Americans. We will look at that in future to see whether there are lessons to be learned. They are two different ways of doing it, and they both have pluses and minuses.

We now have around 470 troops contributing to the NATO “train, advise and assist” resolute support mission, our element of which is called Op Toral. The UK is leading international support to the Afghan national army officer academy near Kabul to help to develop the next generation of Afghan military leaders. Just last week, the second graduation of Afghan cadets trained at the academy took place. The United Kingdom has also committed £70 million a year to help sustain Afghan security forces, as well as £178 million a year in development aid.

I have visited Afghanistan twice and have seen for myself the progress that has been made. We have given Afghanistan the best possible chance of a safer future. As part of a coalition of 51 nations, the UK helped to build the Afghan security forces from scratch to an effective force of more than 330,000 personnel. The Afghan security forces now have lead responsibility for delivering security across the country, and they are performing well against a capable and determined enemy. Last year, despite prolonged fighting over the summer, the Taliban failed to take and hold any district centres. Country-wide, Afghan security forces successfully secured the presidential elections last year, with more than 7 million people voting.

The inauguration of President Ghani last September was an historic moment for Afghanistan. It was the first democratic transfer of power from one President to another in the country’s history. We welcome the formation of a Government of national unity, the recent appointment of a number of key Cabinet Ministers and, indeed, the approval of a budget for the country by the Afghan Parliament. In December 2014, the UK worked with the Afghan Government and international partners to deliver the co-hosted London conference on Afghanistan, during which President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah set out an ambitious reform programme that focused on addressing corruption and reconnecting Afghan citizens to their Government. President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah continue to have the UK’s full support in making those and other important reforms.

Veterans (Support and Rehabilitation)

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley.

I hope to outline the ongoing need to support people who have served our great country in the armed forces, once their service is complete. The issue is close to my heart and I must declare an interest, because I am a veteran. I had the honour and privilege to serve with 3 Commando Brigade in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 9. I am also vice-president of my local Stoke Gifford Royal British Legion branch. I know at first hand how important the support network and welfare are, and in particular what is offered by the Royal British Legion.

First off, not all former service personnel need help once they leave the armed forces, as noted in the excellent veterans’ transition review by Lord Ashcroft earlier this year. It is important to point that out. As is too often the case, negative media stories mean that there is a perception among the public that veterans are likely to be physically, mentally or emotionally damaged by their time in the armed forces. In fact, the majority of ex-service personnel go on to good careers where the skills that they have acquired during their service in the military are highly valued. The negative perception, as Lord Ashcroft’s review states,

“in itself constitutes an unnecessary extra hurdle for service leavers, restricting their opportunities by lowering expectations of what they can do.”

I was proud to have served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, through which the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law for the first time in 2011. I find it incredible that, as a nation, we had never previously ensured through statute that the armed forces community did not face any disadvantage in getting access to public services due to their service and that special consideration was, of course, appropriate in some cases. I am pleased that South Gloucestershire council, which serves my constituents, signed the covenant on Armed Forces day in June 2013. I wrote to Bristol city council in January this year to encourage it to sign the community covenant, and it has finally done so, as have, I understand, 100% of local authorities in the country.

The armed forces covenant has created change for the better. Alabaré, with its homes for veterans, two of which are in my constituency, tells me that across all its work with veterans in the south-west

“a noticeable shift is taking place regarding the recognition and support of homeless Veterans by Local Authorities; and housing procedures are reflecting this. This, we believe is a direct consequence of the Armed Forces Covenant.”

Alabaré is, however, concerned enough to ask whether it will be the case that

“once the ‘gleam’ and positive media put upon Local Authorities for signing up to the covenant has died down…the Local Authorities remain true to their word”.

Will the Minister assure us that cross-departmental work will continue to enforce the covenant and that local authorities that are found lacking will be held to account? I await with interest the next report, due imminently, on how well the armed forces covenant is being implemented, and in particular how it supports our veterans.

I welcome the Government’s response to Lord Ashcroft’s veterans’ transition review and am pleased that the Government understand that support to ex-service personnel is needed to aid their move into civilian life. I am pleased that the Government have already started to implement many of Lord Ashcroft’s recommendations. We definitely need to be developing and maintaining contact with personnel on their transition to civilian life, which should be for longer than the six months currently proposed.

It is good that the Ashcroft recommendations on how to support service leavers into new careers now include those who do not finish their contract or who serve for less than six years. I understand that early service leavers who have served up to four years are the most likely to have experienced unemployment and other problems. We need to recognise that they, too, have volunteered to serve their country.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the career transition partnership will be permanently extended to all service leavers. It is encouraging to see the figures for the first quarter of 2013-14, which showed an 82% employment rate for service personnel who used the CTP resettlement services within six months after leaving the armed forces. However, the statistics for ex-service personnel also show that 10% are unemployed and 9% are economically inactive, meaning that up to 20% have not started new careers after six months. I would also like to know what follow-up there is to find out how ex-service personnel are doing after one year, two years and then further on. There is a risk that CTP providers could be getting veterans into jobs that are not suitable for their skills and future prospects in the long term.

The Government’s implementation of personal development pathways for all service personnel will definitely help future veterans take responsibility for their own development and should give them guidance on how their skills are transferable to the civilian world. Initiatives such as the Troops to Teachers programme and provision of free further or higher education for services leavers with six years of service and for members of the enhanced learning scheme are definitely a step in the right direction.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate organisations such as SSAFA that do an amazing job to help veterans? I draw his attention to Lieutenant Colonel John Arthur in my constituency, who does an amazing job supporting veterans in Braintree.

[Jack Lopresti]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We owe a huge debt of gratitude for the ongoing good work done by organisations and charities such as SSAFA. What they manage to achieve is remarkable.

Looking after our veterans is not only our duty; it is practical. For this country to continue to have the world’s best armed forces, we need to recruit the best and those recruits need to know that their service will be recognised and can be part of a successful long-term career, both while they are serving in the military and when they leave. It is encouraging to hear from Alabaré homes that the south-west veterans multi-agency mental health service, provided through the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, has been well received. It shows promise in making a difference in the support and rehabilitation of veterans.

I know the Government have been working with the NHS and service charities such as Combat Stress and Help for Heroes on helping those with mental health issues. Help for Heroes received £2.7 million from the LIBOR fund in 2013 to work in partnership with Combat Stress to develop the “Hidden Wounds” psychological support programme, which supports veterans suffering from early symptoms of mental injuries such as stress and depression, as well as supporting their families. The problem is often that symptoms do not show until many years after the person affected has left the service. I hope that the MOD’s “Don’t bottle it up” campaign will help to mitigate that in the future.

Alabaré homes has also told me, however, that accommodation for those receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, who may need 24-hour support throughout their treatment, is almost unheard of. I understand that care as a whole for those suffering from PTSD is improving and it is encouraging to hear that 16 departments of community health around the country will provide support and treatment to personnel from all three services. Facilitating GPs’ ability to obtain service leavers’ military medical history should help further, as should the GP e-learning programme.

Research on homeless ex-service people carried out by the homelessness charity Broadway showed that 3% of people sleeping rough in London in 2012-13 were former military personnel. That is not as high as a percentage as is sometimes cited, but obviously we would all prefer the figure to be zero. Besides, sleeping rough is not the true measure of homelessness, which also includes those who do not have a permanent home and are sleeping on a friend’s floor or sofa.

Lack of affordable housing remains an ongoing issue, and one that is particularly prevalent in the Bristol area due to a shortage in the private rental sector of suitable affordable accommodation for people who charities such as Alabaré work with. Again, I am pleased to report that the veterans nominations scheme has been used by Alabaré residents as a way of securing accommodation. That seems to be working better in the Bristol and south Gloucestershire area.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Big congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; I consider him a real friend in this House. I thank him for his service to this country during his time in Afghanistan.

One issue I have found when working with veterans is that some of the statistics are very hard to collate. In the north-east, we have worked with people who have gone to prison. The figures for those people vary from around 4% to almost 12%—we are talking about huge differences. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is something that we can work on together to try to make sure that the statistical information that we get on veterans is much more accurate?

[Jack Lopresti]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my honourable friend—for his kind comments about my very modest and short military service. I will touch on veterans in the legal system and in prison later in my remarks, but as far as the figures go, he is absolutely right that it is very important that we try to put figures together that stack up across the country, that people can take seriously and that are credible.

I know that the MOD has committed over £1.3 million in support of homeless and vulnerable veterans. In October, the Minister said in response to a written parliamentary question on homeless veterans that she hoped to announce

“further funding in support of homeless hostels, drawing on the £40 million Veterans Accommodation Fund.”

Will that be happening? If so, what is the time scale?

I welcome the difference and the positive change in how local authorities treat veterans: their being allowed to apply for housing in the area where they have served instead of where they originally came from; the disregarding of any lump sum received as compensation for an injury or disability sustained in active service; and the cessation to occupy certificate given six months before leaving forces accommodation. That will all help veterans find permanent accommodation, as will the recently introduced forces Help to Buy scheme, along with Money Force.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned veterans in the criminal justice system, a subject I wish to touch on now—I know that we are awaiting a review of the issue by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I understand that an estimated 3.5% of the prison population are ex-service personnel—those are the figures from 2010, and, as I have said, it is important to get those figures right. I look forward to hearing what the Government will do to make sure that the needs of ex-service personnel are met while they are in the criminal justice system or in prison, and that once they have served their sentence they are referred to specialist rehabilitation services to help reintegrate them into society.

One of the biggest issues that a lot of veterans struggle with is where to find help when it is needed at a particular time. The review of the Veterans-UK website is a positive step, although I am nervous about the site being hosted on the gov.uk website, which can be difficult to navigate and is often confusing. A directory of accredited third sector providers and accredited armed forces charities, run by a central body and with a 24/7 contact centre—as recommended by the Ashcroft review—would be invaluable, as would the proposed advice app for veterans. I know the Government are taking steps towards that and I would be interested to learn from the Minister what progress they are making.

To summarise my feelings on this matter, the issue of caring and looking after veterans is not a new one. It goes back to the inception of the nation state, from the ancient Romans giving land to their veterans to provide them with a livelihood, to Elizabeth I, who recognised the responsibility the country had to wounded veterans by passing an Act of Parliament in 1593 that levied a weekly tax on parishes for the relief of soldiers and sailors, to the modern-day enshrining of the military covenant in law. We have a duty of care, not just as individuals, politicians and law-makers, but as a nation, to ensure that the people who have served our country and have been prepared to pay the ultimate price in defence of our way of life and our freedoms are not in any way disadvantaged by their service. We must ensure that all veterans are treated with the respect, appreciation and honour they absolutely deserve.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I intend to write to every single local authority, so that will include all the Welsh and all the Scottish authorities; I see no division there. However, I said, after the hon. Gentleman had to pop out of the Chamber, that I know the situation is different in Northern Ireland. We discussed that at length in the main Chamber. It was an excellent debate, and I look forward to my visit and all that I will learn.

I began this part of my speech by talking about Lord Ashcroft’s report, which looked specifically at the transition to civilian life. I think that I can sum the position up in this way; it is certainly a view that I share. It seems a bit perverse to say to someone on the day that they sign up, “We want you now to start thinking about the day you leave. Plan your service accordingly.” An 18 or 19-year-old will have some difficulty with that, but it is the standard that we seek to set. The view that we take is, “You are great when you sign up. That is obviously the case or we wouldn’t take you on. But by the time you come to leave the service, you will be even better, not only as a human being but because of the skills and the other things that we will give you.”

[Jack Lopresti]

My youngest boy is joining the military next year—he is hoping to be a paratrooper in the Army —but for more than a year now I have been trying to explain that when he chooses the branch of service, he needs to be thinking already about what he wants to do afterwards and to act accordingly, which is very difficult.

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has said, as he did in his speech, all the things that I would want to say, so I will not repeat everything; he puts it far better than I can.

I join in the tributes paid by my hon. Friend to the big, national charities. We have talked about SSAFA. That charity is often forgotten, but it is a fabulous charity and does great work. We know the Royal British Legion. I am reminded of a study that it has just done. I am happy to share the results by way of a letter, because I cannot go through all the statistics now. It has done a big survey of veterans, and some of the things in it concern me. I am talking about the rates among veterans of, for example, long-term illness and depression. It says that they are higher, although if we look across the mental health piece, we know that actually our veterans, people coming out of service, do not suffer higher levels of mental health problems than the rest of the population. That does not mean that the issue is not important, but we have to set these things in context, because as the RBL says, there are a number of myths. One is that most people are damaged by their service. That is not true. The majority of our veterans enjoy good mental health, for example. We are told that many are homeless. We have heard the stats; it is only 3%. I know that 3% is still 3% too many, but 3% of London’s homeless population are ex-service personnel.

There is also the issue of the number of veterans in prisons, and I shall deal with some of the very good points made by my friend the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) in his excellent speech. We think that 3% to 7% of prisoners are veterans, but I heard the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave from his extensive experience in his own constituency.

I want to give a quick mention to Help for Heroes. It does a fabulous job, but when I go, as I have gone, to Tedworth House, I can see that it is a place that could take more people. I want us to get into the position whereby someone who is being medically discharged from service has the opportunity to go to Tedworth House, so that it can put them in the very place that the hon. Gentleman wants them to be in before they leave service. I want people, if they do hit troubles, bad times and all the rest of it, to have somewhere to go back to—an organisation to go back to that can then pass them on to a local charity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Around 37 combat missions have been undertaken by the Royal Air Force since Parliament gave that authority, and a further mission is being conducted today. Success is measured not simply by the number of airstrikes, but also by the intelligence gathered and the surveillance in support of ground forces. That has already had some success in pushing ISIL back to the civilian areas.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to maintain our essential Apache helicopter capability a procurement decision for the upgrade must be made soon?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is aware that the Ministry is considering a number of options to sustain the attack helicopter capability. We have not yet made a final decision on procurement strategy, but we expect to do so soon. Our existing fleet is due to remain in service until 2025, and in January this year we announced a £500 million package of support to keep the aircraft flying until 2019.

Defence Spending

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate. It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made an excellent speech. I want to declare an interest: I have served in the Territorial Army for a few years, and I am currently in the process of joining the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment.

The year 2014 is one of commemorations, with the centenary of the beginning of the first world war and the 70th anniversary of D-day. In an increasingly unstable world, those commemorations are timely reminders that freedom is not free. This year, we have seen the results of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine and the renewed insurgency in Iraq, and we are facing a growing threat from jihadists around the world. It is therefore more vital than ever to ensure that we spend enough on defence, and it is crucial to have the political will to defend our freedom and our interests. As the former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said,

“weakness is provocative. Time and again it has invited adventures which strength might well have deterred.”

It is not mere coincidence that after the US President failed to enforce his red lines in regard to the Syrian civil war and, specifically, the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, we saw Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine a few months later, with the chaos and bloodshed that has followed. I believe that a major factor in the US President’s failure to enforce his red lines was this House’s refusal to back military action in Syria, and we all have to take some responsibility for that.

NATO is the cornerstone of British defence and security policy, and it is vital for our and our allies’ collective security, as hon. Members have said. It has secured the peace in western Europe for nearly 70 years. I want to make a few points about the importance of our allies’ defence budgets in relation to NATO. We expect—and we need to demand—that NATO members that want to benefit from the security of the alliance should fulfil their obligations on defence spending. In 2006, the member countries of NATO agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence spending, as hon. Members have said. Such a commitment clearly indicates a country’s willingness to contribute to the alliance’s common defence efforts, and it has an important impact on the overall perception of the alliance’s credibility, so why, according to NATO figures for 2013, have only Estonia, the US and Greece—alongside the UK—invested 2% or more of their GDP in their defence budgets?

The combined wealth of the non-US allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. Historically, the US has always spent more on defence, as we know. However, non-US allies together now spend less than half as much on defence as the United States. The US spent 4.4% of its GDP on defence in 2013. NATO members are clearly over-reliant on the US, which is under the same pressure as other nations to reduce its defence spending. US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has recommended that US forces should be shrunk by 13% by 2017. We know that the US is increasingly focused on the strategic challenge from the Pacific, and expects us in Europe to take more responsibility for our own defence.

Today, US defence expenditure effectively represents 73% of the defence spending of the alliance as a whole. I therefore agree that NATO is over-reliant on the US for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling, ballistic missile defence, airborne electronic warfare and carrier strike responsibility.

According to NATO figures this week, we in the UK put 2.4% of our GDP into the defence budget in 2013, even though our Government were faced with sorting out one of the largest fiscal deficits in our history. Along with France and Germany, we represent more than 50% of the non-US allies’ defence spending in NATO.

Given their strategic position and their 20th-century history, what is particularly surprising about NATO’s figures for the estimated spending on defence in 2013 is that Latvia and Lithuania, who joined NATO in 1999, respectively spent only 0.9% and 0.8% of their GDP on defence. Luxembourg, the home country of our friend Mr Juncker, is estimated to have spent only 0.4% of its GDP on defence last year; the figure fell from 0.7% when Mr Juncker became Prime Minister of Luxembourg to 0.5% when he left office. Other NATO allies that spend 1% or less of their GDP on defence are Belgium, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Spain.

The NATO Secretary-General said in May last year to the European Commission:

“If European nations do not make a firm commitment to invest in security and defence, then all talk about a strengthened European defence and security policy will just be hot air.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the former Secretary of State for Defence, said in 2011:

“You cannot expect to have the insurance policy but ask others to pay the premiums.”

It is vital that all NATO members share the burden and responsibility of our collective security. We in the UK are playing our part in NATO and maintaining our commitment. I urge the Government, at a minimum, to maintain the GDP spend on defence and, as others have said, to increase it when the financial conditions allow.

Finally, two years ago I was privileged to be invited to the unveiling by the Queen of the Bomber Command memorial in Green park. My grandfather served with Bomber Command in world war two, first as a rear gunner and then as a navigator. I found one inscription on the memorial particularly poignant. It was a quote from Pericles:

“Freedom is the sure possession of those who have the courage to defend it.”

We must do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman should read chapter 11, on page 8 of the report.

We believe the approach adopted is damagingly short-sighted and plays fast and loose with our nation’s security.

[Jack Lopresti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I would do, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

Our approach is clear. Instead of having the Treasury-led SDSR conducted by this Government, we believe the UK needs a defence review that is genuinely strategic as well as financially viable. For us, these two factors are two sides of the same coin. This country needs an SDSR that provides strategic leadership and asks the most fundamental questions of all in terms of defence: what do we want our armed forces to actually do? As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), outlined in his Royal United Services Institute speech, we have got to be ambitious, but we also believe that to withdraw from the rest of the world as though it is not part of our problem is neither desirable nor possible to achieve. We are also realistic and know there are no gains to be made from promises that cannot be delivered; we saw too many of those at the last election by the Conservative party.

It is only by asking these questions and delivering the strategic leadership this Government have signally failed to offer that we can do our armed forces and the British public justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I personally have not, but I undertake to make full inquiries when I go back to the Ministry to see whether any of my officials have done so, and to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

T10. What steps are the Government taking to encourage former reservists to re-enlist? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us old veterans may still have something to offer?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

We are particularly keen to get former reservists to re-enlist, not least because of the experience they bring to the role. My hon. Friend practises what he preaches. He served as an Army reservist in Afghanistan, left what was then the Territorial Army, has clearly missed military service, and has recently joined the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish Officer Cadet Lopresti the best for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

There have been discussions with the trade unions and there will of course be further discussions with the trade unions as DE&S-plus develops its pay model, but we do have to face the reality that this part of the public service is very much commercial-facing. It deals with commercial bodies and it interacts and exchanges staff with commercial contractors, and we have to be able to pay competitive rates and we have to adopt competitive employment practices if we are to get the best deal for the taxpayer and the best deal for our armed forces.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that reforming defence procurement is a key step in driving better value for money for the defence budget, and will he join me in paying tribute to the staff of DE&S in my constituency, especially those involved in the draw-down of kit and equipment from Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

The staff at DE&S at Abbey Wood perform an extraordinary range of functions and play a vital part in this new whole-force concept. It is about how the armed forces work together, regulars and reserves, with civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence—whom I am happy to put on the record in the House today are not pen-pushers, as some parts of our media would have us believe, but vital components of our defence infrastructure.

International Military Sales Ltd

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I have been the chairman of the all-party group on Iran for the past nine years, and I am a former overseas director for the aerospace company Qinetiq.

I want to highlight the relationship between International Military Services Ltd and the Ministry of Defence, and a specific case as it relates to Iran. It is a sorry passage in our history and the UK’s relationship with that country. It is not only a sorry story, but un-British in that the process that I will describe has been marred by double dealing and obfuscation. The Minister will be relieved to know that I am not talking about recent history; I am talking about way back in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the days of the nationalised defence industry, the British Government established a private limited company as its trading arm to sell weapons and aerospace equipment abroad and munitions to overseas buyers, mostly to other Governments. A lot has changed since then and the aerospace industry has been almost completely privatised. For that reason, in 1991 it was decided to wind up this little shell company that was wholly owned by the Government. It would have been wound up, but for one problem—a debt owed by that company to the Government of Iran, equivalent to between £400 million and £500 million.

The debt may explain why, 23 years later, the company still exists. What was the cause of the debt and what should we do to put it right? Between 1971 and 1976, the Shah of Iran paid up front—quite rare in those days, and even today—the equivalent of £650 million for 1,500 Chieftain tanks and armoured vehicles. When in 1979 the revolution deposed the Shah, Britain quite rightly ceased those exports until the country had settled down and we clearly knew its intentions.

However, we chose not to return the equivalent of the £450 million that Iran had paid us. Instead, we sold the tanks to Saddam Hussein, who then proceeded to use a number of those tanks against the people of Iran. I think it is widely accepted that the west’s support for Saddam Hussein was a catastrophic error. That period of history is well behind us, and I hope we will not make such mistakes again. However, since that time, and despite Iran’s attempts through the rule of law to access the funds owed, the UK has held on to them.

I am not here to urge the British Government to break the successful sanctions regime, but I am here to urge that we honour the debt once and for all.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. If the matter were to be resolved, what impact would it have on the sanctions that Iran has to adhere to, given what we know about some of their motivations and activities?

[Mr Wallace]

There would be no impact, because in this country we have the facility of the High Court. The funds are already held by the High Court on behalf of the Government, but should the High Court make a ruling, or a settlement be reached, they could be handed over within the parameter of the High Court and held until such time as they were unfrozen through the sanctions licensing scheme or made available as a result of a change to sanctions. This is not about releasing funds tomorrow morning to the Iranian Government, but about putting a wrong right, putting our relationship with Iran on a more open and just footing, and, hopefully, putting the matter right.

However, I am afraid that this matter does not quite end there, because Britain and Iran are signatories to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, an international treaty whereby we effectively arbitrate over contracts. In 2001, the court ruled in favour of Iran to recover the debt. The onus is on the United Kingdom to honour its treaty obligations.

If we fast-forward to 2013, however, we find that Iranian officials, who had set out from Iran with UK visas issued by the Foreign Office, come to this country to access the services of the commercial court. On landing at Heathrow, their passports are removed from them, their visas are revoked and they are detained for a number of days in asylum centres. That was not a particularly British way to resolve an issue, especially given that we had only recently issued their visas. It was a worrying sign.

To date, the Home Office has not been willing to give me a full explanation of the reasons behind the officials’ detention. However, I am sure that the Home Office will be careful, because any court—any judge—would look very poorly on something that is done without a valid reason, as this case involves access to legitimate justice and our courts. Let me be clear: I am not seeking to change the sanctions regime and I am not seeking to hand this money over. However, in the current environment, in which we are trying to put UK-Iran relations on a better footing, I am seeking a swift settlement for all parties.

Across a range of areas, Iranian entities that are not under sanction and are not involved in any way with the Iranian Government are suffering as a result of the UK’s fear about extraterritorial US sanctions. That is because many of those sanctions, while they do not deal with US companies, have an extraterritorial reach that can unfortunately leave many British entities with a Hobson’s choice—trade with us or trade with Iran.

We are now in the rather perverse position in which the US Government are issuing letters of comfort to US banks to allow them to trade with Iran, and to allow them to have approved and licensed financial transactions with Iran, while our banks are receiving no such comfort or protection from the reach of Congress. American banks in the US are protected from Congress by the US Administration, but British banks are thrown to the lions.

As sanctions become a more common foreign policy tool—with some success; they have certainly helped to contribute to the process of Iran coming to the table—we in Britain should make it very clear that we will follow the rule of law, fill in the detail and ensure that sanctions are clearly adhered to. However, that does not discharge us from our outstanding obligations.

Previously, there have been numerous rulings in the UK, Germany and the US courts that clearly distinguish the difference between the discharge of an obligation by a party—in this case, the obligation of International Military Sales Ltd to the Iranians—and the payment of the funds to a designated entity. They are two separate issues and to conflate them, as people have tried to in the past, supposedly as a reason for not resolving this matter, is to put unnecessary and unreal barriers in the way.

I would like to hear from the Minister. I am grateful to him for coming to Westminster Hall today, because I am aware, as chairman of the all-party group on Iran, that Iran policy is way above my pay grade. It is made by the P5+1, and in No. 10 and the White House. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister at least recognised the importance of resolving this matter. We should wind up the company, which has existed in limbo for 35 years, and we should discharge the MOD’s obligation to a brass plate somewhere else in London. We can then put this sorry tale behind us.

Defence and Cyber-security

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I welcome the chance to debate the UK’s cyber-security defence. Cyber-security is a particularly wide-ranging subject and cyber-attacks are a growing threat. Without stating the obvious, a cyber-attack could impact on everyone’s lives in many ways. We are now all very reliant on technology and the internet; without our mobile phones or when our e-mail goes down, we almost cease to function.

A major cyber-attack on any of this country’s main utilities, such as transport, energy or the banking system, would cause chaos. It would be, at the very least, very bad for the economy; it could, in the worst-case scenario—if we did not have the means to transport food and fuel, for example—cause social breakdown in a short time. South Korea, for instance, has suffered huge jamming attacks, launched by North Korea, against its GPS systems. They affected major airports and shipping lanes. The travel of more than 1,000 ships and 250 planes was disrupted by North Korean jamming attacks in 2012.

Cyber-security needs to protect us against many threats: criminals attacking personal data, small-scale political activists—or hacktivists, as somebody said earlier—and state-sponsored hostilities. The Government’s cyber-security strategy is along the right lines and has led to the national cyber-security programme, which has clear objectives.

Cyberspace is often compared to the wild west and thought by some to be beyond the rule of law. However, our Government have made it clear that it is not and they have encouraged law enforcement teams to use the existing legal framework to prosecute. When cyber-crime emanates from overseas, the Government are working with the G8, the United Nations, NATO and the European Union to help shape the standards and norms of behaviour for cyberspace. Obviously, the solutions have not all yet been found but the discussions are ongoing and the work is slowly evolving. I am pleased that the work has started in earnest.

Part of the solution is a normal, sensible protocol for cyber-security on the domestic agenda and it can be addressed through simple best practice. There is a knowledge gap and the Government are addressing it in the long term via the development of education in cyber-security: teaching materials on cyber-security are being produced for GCSE and A-level students. Academic centres for cyber-security have been set up in 11 universities. Investment in education are far-sighted and will position the UK with experts in the cyber-security arena.

The Government have also gone some way to engaging with industry by setting up the Cyber-Security Information Sharing Partnership. Furthermore, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, or CPNI, is working with businesses to encourage them to make cyber-security a board-level responsibility. The current work on the development of an official cyber-standard will help stimulate the adoption of good cyber-practices among businesses. Given the risks to our infrastructure as a whole, the Government have highlighted the role of regulators in overseeing the adoption of robust cyber-security measures. The companies that supply essential services such as power, telecommunications, water, transport and banking, need maximum protection.

I praise the many organisations that are tasked with upholding the Government’s cyber-defence plans. However, as has been said, the threat is so great that I worry that as a nation we are not doing enough, fast enough. An industry study produced by BT last month found that British companies are lagging way behind rivals in other major countries in addressing cyber-security risks. The survey found that only 17% of UK businesses see cyber-security as a priority compared with 41% in the US. Nearly 90% of directors and decision makers in the US are given IT security training, but in the UK it is only around 37%.

On defence, our armed forces are among the most technologically advanced in the world, and I am sure we are all proud of that. In theory, that allows us to put fewer of our people in harm’s way and their lives at risk. However, as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) said recently, it makes every aspect of our military capability vulnerable to cyber-attack. Obviously, there is no point spending millions on developing leading-edge technology without the cyber-security to stop it being felled by a single cyber-attack.

The Defence Committee noted that the Army has between 35% and 40% too few corporals and sergeants to man its cyber-capabilities. The Government have rightly set up a joint cyber-unit for the reserve forces, which was going well towards the end of the year, and others have said that the reserve forces will play a crucial role in our future capability. The Government have instigated broadly sensible long-term solutions such as apprenticeships to fill the staff-skills gap in industry and business, but how can we attract more trained staff immediately, especially in the defence reserve?

A further concern is that the threat is so wide and imminent that the command structure is not resilient. I understand that the global operations security control centre at Corsham has been empowered to take rapid action without direction from above to defend the MOD’s own networks from attack. That is great, but with the many groups set up to implement the UK cyber-strategy, how will one section know what the others are doing when an attack has happened?

[Mr Gray]

We are all pleased to see my hon. and gallant Friend back in full working order. The GOSCC is in my constituency, and does an outstanding job in providing cyber-security for the MOD. Is he not concerned, as I am, that with the plethora of Government and MOD organisations with responsibility for cyber-matters, the expertise of GOSCC is being undermined by a variety of quangos and committees whose exact function is clouded in mystery?

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. Within the chaos of a potential attack, I am not sure how the disparate groups would communicate with one another, how there would be a uniform chain of command and how it would work in practice. GCHQ seems to be in charge, but in other countries the matter would fall under the Ministry of Defence. It is fine that the MOD seems to be still developing its own basic cyber-security techniques with the armed forces setting up separate units, but it is the responsibly of the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure to take the lead in co-ordinating a UK response to a major cyber-security incident.

An extremely clear command structure will be needed to deal with a cyber-attack, which may come from a political group such as the group that claimed that the Sochi games were being held on the graves of millions of people who had been murdered and that was, according to the US Government’s computer emergency readiness team, threatening companies financing or supporting the Sochi winter games with cyber-attacks.

The response would be different if an attack was state-sponsored, but it would be extremely difficult, especially in the first day or so, to determine where the threat came from and whether it came from an individual or a country. The internet is worldwide and even if we knew where the attack came from geographically, it would be difficult to identify who was behind it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend a pause to think what he is going to say next. When Mandiant briefed us last week, we were told by Paul Dwyer that 66% of our companies take about 243 days to realise that they are subject to what he called an advanced persistent threat, and that some companies have no idea that they are being attacked and will never find out.

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpfully timed intervention. He is absolutely right. Sometimes it is difficult or impossible to determine that an attack has taken place.

On offensive cyber-capability and action, a recent article published by the Royal United Services Institute said that Stuxnet, the malware supposedly used to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, was not successful in delaying Iran’s technical progress. With hindsight, some have seen Stuxnet as a hindrance to diplomatic solutions. I am not sure I entirely agree with that analysis, but it is interesting. Cyber-space is being described as the fifth domain of warfare, so its defence and protection from attack are integral to the operation of our nation’s defence infrastructure.

My last point is whether we are spending enough, which is not an easy subject in a time of fiscal austerity. Last week, Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence, outlined a vision for a leaner US defence posture with reductions in the US army to a pre-1942 position. However, at the same time, he rightly proposed increased spending on cyber-defence.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the size of the reduction in the US army is exactly the same as the size of our entire Army?

[Jack Lopresti]

Yes, I agree, but obviously we are talking about different scales.

I am fully aware that the issues I have raised today are not easily solved, but I fully commend the Government for the progress they have made so far.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is usual for hon. Members to stand up to indicate that they wish to speak. It makes the life of the Chair rather difficult if no one does so. I was about to draw the debate to a close.

Defence Procurement

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, and if the hon. Gentleman talks to the defence industry, he will find that it is getting a clear and consistent signal. Let me be clear: this is—[Interruption.] I beg to disagree with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones): that is what the industry is saying. This is not about beating people up over their profit margins; it is about working together to try to ensure that we do projects in a way that can deliver value for money. It is about not letting contracts where the costs of any overruns are split 90% to the taxpayer and 10% to the industry. No wonder the industry is having a quiet word with the hon. Gentleman.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that, although difficult decisions will be made, with potentially a detrimental effect on some staff at DE&S, these decisions will be made intelligently and with great sensitivity? Given what has been, to say the least, quite a long period of uncertainty, can he give an assurance about when staff at DE&S will receive some much needed clarity on how the plans will affect them individually?

[Mr Hammond]

We are 800 posts gapped in DE&S at the moment, so this is not some project to reduce the number of staff. The objective is to increase the number of staff by filling some of the gapped posts, but as the process takes place—this will not happen immediately—there will need to be a more robust approach to upskilling staff and monitoring their performance, to ensure we have the right people in the right jobs and with the right support to deliver the outcome we need. However, there is no transfer going on and no TUPE involved. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that those concerned will remain in the public sector and remain covered by the public sector protections that they already enjoy today.

Defence Reform Bill

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Going back to the cost of deploying reservists, the Government have said that they want to increase the percentage who are deployable at any given time from 40% to 80%. “Deployable” does not necessarily mean that they would be ready to be deployed in theatre, however. In many cases, it will mean that they are ready to begin training. I had five months of additional training before I was deployed in theatre. That kind of training involves additional costs, as does the reservist award, so this is not quite as clear-cut as the Secretary of State suggests.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. To double the mobilisation is a big enough challenge. The plan represents a fundamental change in another respect, which provides a further reason to scrutinise it in some detail. I am proud to have served alongside TA soldiers, but the bottom line is that they were in large part in-filling. We helped each other along.