Defence Reform Bill

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Levene, in this debate. I think your Lordships will recognise that nobody in the country can speak with more authority on the subjects that are part of the Bill than the noble Lord. He has had quite exceptional experience in this field, having headed up the procurement executive and having been recalled by successive Secretaries of State to overhaul and review the programme of reform for the Ministry of Defence. I particularly echo one point that he made very forcibly. It has been a feature of opening speeches from the Front Benches to pay tribute to our Armed Forces. I readily endorse that of course but also pay tribute to the civilian members in the MoD who back them up. I exempt the current Secretary of State and Defence Ministers from this, but there is a tendency in other parts of the Government to decry civil servants and say that all their present problems are problems with the civil servants rather than necessarily with policies or things they have inherited. The Minister ended on a cheerful note, saying that he looked forward to this debate. I am not sure it is the easiest debate he will ever have to reply to in his career and I admire his optimism.

The Bill has three main parts. I have no comment on Part 2, about which other noble Lords have spoken, but will say a word about Part 3. I have considerable concern whether it will be possible to reach the numbers planned for the new reserve. I am an old TA officer used to serving my time with drill nights, a few training weekends and a few fortnight camps but am all too conscious of the different demands that are now made of people serving in the reserves. I used to spend a lot of my time as Secretary of State going round an organisation called TAVRA—the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association—and persuading employers to encourage their employees to serve in the TA.

However, of course I was trying to sell an entirely different sort of menu from what is now required. The challenges for companies and for employees are now very much greater. I was struck by the comments made by Tobias Ellwood in a debate in another place. He is a Member of Parliament who is a former soldier and a former PPS, I think, to the Secretary of State and who continues to be a member of the Reserve Forces. His last exercise was in Laikipia in Kenya:

“Halfway through the two-and-a-half week exercise, we came together to discuss the future of the TA and its impact on each of us. Round the table, we had to say what would happen if we were required to break away from our jobs for nine months. Not one person in my group was able to put up their hand and say that their employer would be able to grant them permission to be away from work for that period”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/13; col. 1009.]

That very much sums up my concern about this proposal. The amendment that the Secretary of State has announced in another place, which will come forward on Report, is extremely welcome. It will be necessary to watch this very carefully as it is in nobody’s interest to find, at the end of this period, that we have a substantial shortfall.

I note the criticisms that were made about Regular Army recruiting, which suggested that part of the problem was that it was not very good at recruiting people for the TA. That may be a little unkind and is simply a measure of the difficulty that it would have doing so. It clearly has to be recognised that, by contrast to what used to be the position in the TA, it will be extremely difficult for small employers to agree to their employees going off and run the risk that they may disappear for six or nine months.

Turning to Part 1, I have reservations about the proposed GOCO but I was very interested to see what the outcome of the competition would be. As the various candidates fell by the wayside, finally leaving just one competitor, I entirely understand why the Secretary of State has decided, and announced today, that he will not proceed with the proposal. It is fair to say that there are rather better omens than there might be for making a success of DE&S-plus.

I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Levene. He quoted a report from 1991. I rather enjoyed that because I was Secretary of State at that time and he was in charge of procurement, and he showed what a much better performance was being achieved then than sadly has been the case more recently.

Only last Thursday my noble friend published in this House a Written Statement by the Secretary of State in connection with the second annual review by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, which recognised that there had been substantial progress. The Secretary of State said that there was,

“clear evidence that the Ministry of Defence has become more businesslike”.—[Official Report, 5/12/13; col. WS 37.]

which was, “very encouraging”.

There are real difficulties about a GOCO taking over the DE&S function. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has said, I have no objection to GOCOs, because we did them. We did them in Devonport and Portsmouth and they were a great success. They had limited, targeted objectives—putting a company in charge of something with its commercial expertise and defined objectives—and nobody would criticise them now.

However, if you take the wider considerations for total procurement in excess of £10 billion a year, the implications are not simply about what is the best commercial deal; there are economic implications for every part of our country. There may be regional aspects to that; the future of an industry may be at stake; international collaborative ventures may have to be taken into account. What could well become a real headache for a future Secretary of State are possible conflicts of interest and allegations of failure and lack of impartiality in the treatment of contracts. There are also the security implications of foreign companies that are applying to become the GOCO operator working for other Governments as well. There is a range of issues that goes much further.

I hope that the proposal in the Secretary of State’s Statement, DE&S-plus, can be made to work and that we can build on existing capabilities. Many will have noticed the key paragraph in the Statement, that,

“we will permit the new organisation significant freedoms and flexibilities, agreed with the Treasury and Cabinet Office, around how it recruits, rewards, retains and manages staff along more commercial lines”.

That is a crucial decision, which seems to meet the challenge. There are many very experienced and talented people in the procurement field within the Ministry of Defence, but some of them lack wider senior commercial experience. If we can reinforce that, I have every hope that that could work.

It is against that background that I hope that we will also tackle one of the besetting sins of the Ministry of Defence over the years, and get greater continuity. People continually changing jobs is a problem in many government departments. We must build up that field of expertise with maximum continuity of employment.

The more difficult issue that I have to raise is that, if this is the Secretary of State’s announced decision today—and it has been referred to already—there is the question of whether we are really going forward with Part 1. I am in favour of giving every possible encouragement to the Government’s now announced decision for DE&S-plus. I hope that he can recruit the very best people to work in that, to reinforce it and to make it an effective body. It does not seem the ideal start for them if you say, “By the way, we may chuck it all in a couple of years’ time and, by the way, we don’t actually have to go back to Parliament because we already have an Act of Parliament in place that enables us to do it”. There is a difficult constitutional point as to whether this should be proceeded with at this stage. I am talking of course only about Part 1.

This has all happened in a great rush. We have had the Secretary of State’s announcement only this afternoon and not had a chance to discuss it. Your Lordships’ House does not vote against Second Readings so the Bill will proceed, but, between now and Committee, we have seriously to consider what really should happen to Part 1. I hope that we will give our fullest backing to DE&S-plus and make that work, and really see the improvement in the performance in MoD procurement to which I know the Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department attach such enormous importance.

Defence: Procurement

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot comment on the Ministry of Defence’s accounting procedures, but I have full confidence in them.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the status quo is not an option, and certainly there needs to be a massive improvement in the procurement capabilities and efficiency of the Ministry of Defence; it is a long-standing problem. However, when my noble friend Lord Lee says that you cannot have a competition with only one entrant, is it not true that the competition now is between an outside contractor—Bechtel and its consortium—and an in-house resolution? If we do that, will he ensure, because it is essential, that there is more continuity and expertise, as has been referred to, in the procurement section of the MoD?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. Two processes are happening—one as a result of the single GOCO bidder and, as yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement made clear, that requires a further review across government of the validity of the competition. Secondly, the MoD will be assessing the bid that we have on the table for a GOCO, along with a DE&S-plus proposal, when we have it, to see which will provide the best solution.

Armed Forces: Redundancies

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, as I said earlier, the National Security Council is meeting at this moment. It will obviously be considering world events as they evolve. We are confident that we have the members of Armed Forces to deal with any situation. As the noble Lord knows, we are reducing the numbers next year, coming back from Afghanistan. We have plenty of members of the Armed Forces to deal with these eventualities.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the Government’s record in this area is not a good one. Within a few months of getting rid of our carrier strike capability, we found ourselves regretting the absence of a carrier in the Libyan operation and were forced to spend even more money hiring an Italian naval base and providing in-flight refuelling which we would not otherwise have needed. In the present state of affairs, is there not all too great a chance that we might soon regret this hasty decision to reduce our Army, which was taken in rather different circumstances a couple of years ago?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear that from the noble Lord. These redundancies are not new, and were part of the difficult decisions that had to be made to tackle the multi-million pound defence deficit which we inherited from the previous Government.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the challenge faced by the Ministry of Defence and the Army now is whether they can produce the number of reservists who are to take the place of those made redundant from the regular Army? That will need to be kept under review.

Is not the lesson of current events—not least in Mali and perhaps leaking over into Algeria—and of events in Afghanistan that there is definitely a time limit for the use of foreign troops in other people’s countries? The real challenge here is to make sure that we can train local military competence, whether in west Africa or elsewhere. Increasingly, they are the people who want a more ordered and stable world. The local people will increasingly have to be responsible for their own defence.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, on the first part of my noble friend’s question about reservists, we are confident that we can get up to the number of 30,000, which is our ambition. When my noble friend was Secretary of State, the numbers were about 72,000, of which 30,000 is less than half.

My noble friend makes a good point on training. Much more of the emphasis of our Armed Forces in future will be on training and mentoring our allies throughout the world.

Afghanistan

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I reconfirm to my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford that more and more members of our Armed Forces will take on a training and mentoring role. As the Statement said, 80% of operations are now led by the Afghan national security forces. I have been out there and seen for myself the mentoring and how successful our Armed Forces and our allies are in training up the Afghans.

I will write to my noble friend but, in answer to his questions, so far as I am aware the US forces’ reduction discussions are still taking place. I understand that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama yesterday, but I will write to my noble friend on this as I am not aware of the exact figures.

Equipment withdrawal is an issue that has come up a lot in the House. We are making quite good progress on the different routes through which equipment would be withdrawn; it will not just be through Pakistan or the northern routes. Obviously some would come back directly by air, while some would go directly by air to countries in the Middle East. A lot of work is going on regarding this issue. Decisions about gifting and what to do with equipment will be made on a case-by-case basis, using the principle of operational priority and value for money to the UK taxpayer. We are reviewing our policies of gifting to ensure that any gifted equipment is appropriate and follows parliamentary, Treasury and National Audit Office rules, but obviously a number of bits of kit will be gifted. Work on managing the recovery of UK equipment is under way. Redeployment began in earnest, and as planned, on 1 October.

My noble friend asked me about efforts to stimulate the economy post-2014. I know that the international community, as the Statement said, has donated a great deal of money to the Afghan Government for that very end, and DfID has a number of different initiatives in Afghanistan.

With regard to the attitude towards interpreters, I have the line on that somewhere, but I assure my noble friend that we stick by our interpreters and will do everything to safeguard their security.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Does the Minister recognise that there will be general agreement in this House, and widely in the country, that 11 years at this level of military commitment in Afghanistan is quite long enough? I welcome the announcement of this withdrawal since the real threat to our national security, which was Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has long since ended. We should pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives and the enormous number who have suffered life-changing injuries in this very long campaign.

Is the most important part of this Statement not the recognition that it will not be by military means but through political discussions that a better future for Afghanistan will be achieved? I welcome the content of the Statement regarding the efforts that will be made in this respect. That will be very important, if the political discussions move well, as we move towards the extremely difficult exercise of withdrawal of men and materiel from that area. The noble Lord leading for the Opposition referred to the fact that we have been there before and our withdrawals have often been the most difficult part of the exercise. I hope that that will not be repeated in this situation.

We are now committing ourselves to considerable financial support. The Prime Minister said that we are in for the long term, but nothing could be more damaging to that than if there are continuing allegations of corruption. We are aware that certain UK funds ended up in real estate development in Dubai in the hands of certain private individuals, and any suggestion of continuing corruption would be enormously damaging to the national will to continue to support the Afghan people and to carry on the work that has been carried forward so far with the courage, resilience and good spirit of our Armed Forces.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is now time that our Armed Forces started to come back. We have done a very good job in building up the capability of the Afghan national security forces. As my noble friend did, I pay tribute to those members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives and to the large numbers of members of our Armed Forces, as we heard in a Question earlier, who have had life-changing injuries and wounds. As my noble friend said, it is not just by military means that Afghanistan will end up in a better place. I know that those in the Foreign Office and our ISAF allies are in deep discussions with the Afghan Government and Pakistan. As my noble friend said, we are certainly in this for the long term, and we must do everything possible to try to get on top of the corruption.

With the leave of the House, I will answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lee about the interpreters. People who put their life on the line for the United Kingdom will not be abandoned. Locally engaged Afghan staff working for our Armed Forces and civilian missions in Afghanistan make an invaluable contribution to the UK’s efforts to help to support the spread of security, stability and development in their country. We take our responsibility for all members of staff very seriously and have put in place measures to reduce the risks that they face. Precautions are taken during recruitment, and staff are fully briefed before taking up employment about any risks involving their work. We regularly encourage staff to report any security concerns immediately. We follow an agreed cross-government policy in considering cases of intimidation or injury on a case-by-case basis. This policy ensures that we take into account the individual circumstances of each case and allows us to decide a proportionate response.

Armed Forces

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, with whom I had the pleasure of working for a considerable period of time when he was Chief of the Defence Staff.

As the noble and gallant Lord was speaking about the present state of the equipment programme and the facilities and funds that are available to my noble friend the Minister—which he set out very clearly and fairly in his speech, for which I and the House thank him—I was thinking about the criticisms that were made in our time of what was called Options for Change, and the facilities and the range of manpower, equipment and, in the Navy, platforms that were then available, but what we had was positively lavish compared to the situation now, after Frontline First and the various other proposals that followed it.

We listened with great interest to the Minister’s speech. These are very challenging times for the Ministry of Defence. He has inherited an extremely difficult situation, with a huge deficit on the budget. We are told that that has now been met. I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister and his colleagues if that has really been achieved and we certainly wish that result well and hope that it will stand the test of time.

I rise to speak on this occasion which, as other noble Lords have said, comes so close to Remembrance Sunday. I noticed in my post today, and other noble Lords will no doubt have received it, the annual report of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which offers the clearest reminder of the sacrifice that so many have made for the security of our country over the years.

As we remember these tragedies of the past, it is always said—the Prime Minister said it in introducing the commemoration of 1914 which will come in 2014 and in which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and I will have some involvement—that we must learn the lessons of each war and hope that they will perhaps prevent future wars. It was said that the 1914-18 war would be “the war to end all wars”, but, some 20 years later, we found ourselves at war again. The phrases often used are “wars of necessity” or “wars of choice”. I do not think that anybody would challenge that 1939 was a war of necessity, a war for civilisation against Hitler and the Nazis, who threatened the stability of the whole world at that time. After that war, we saw Korea; we saw Malaya—I was myself involved in the Mau Mau incident in Kenya—but, after that, there was a period of relative calm. It was not a very happy time perhaps, with the Cold War and nuclear deterrence, but it was a time of relative peace, certainly compared to the situation in more recent years. The world was divided into spheres of influence, the Soviet bloc and the western powers, and a certain policing took place at that time.

As people looked then at the old war memorials, I remember them seeming less relevant. A lot of people wondered whether the modern generation would be prepared to go and fight for Queen and country, to endure the hardships and sufferings that in the First and Second World Wars had been so manifest and memorable. Subsequent events have given the clearest possible answer to that. There was the continuity of service and conduct of our Armed Forces over 30 years or more in Northern Ireland during that time of great difficulty in fighting terrorism in that Province and in this country. There was then the Falklands war, mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, and the liberation of Kuwait. Those events showed that there was nothing wrong with the new generation of our young men serving in the Armed Forces and that they were every bit as capable as their forebears of showing fortitude, endurance and good humour—so manifestly displayed most recently, as many have said, at the Olympics, but obvious to anybody who meets them in the front line or in any other of the active service activities in which they are involved.

They are ready to serve and they do their duty, but, for us, there is another question: have we always done our duty? Have we always shown the fullest responsibility before we call on the willingness of the young people of this country to serve? I come back to my distinction between “wars of necessity” and “wars of choice”. I accept the necessity of our initial involvement in Afghanistan and the absolute commitment to deal with the challenge of al-Qaeda and bin Laden—I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that it was not the challenge of the Taliban at the time—and to make sure that Afghanistan did not become a training ground and a base for terrorist activity in other parts of the world.

I would have thought that that has been pretty magnificently achieved. I think that al-Qaeda would now find any attempt to relive its previous occupation of Afghanistan extremely difficult after all the suffering that it has brought on that country. I certainly think that it was essential to go in, in the first phase, to deal with that threat, but we have now been there for 11 years. We commemorate a Great War that lasted four years and a Second World War that lasted six, if one includes Japan, but we have had 11 years in Afghanistan.

I echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said: there is a very heavy responsibility on the Government and on leaders in all parties—the bipartisan situation we inherited from the previous Government carried on by the present Government—to ensure that people understand why they are serving there and what is the objective. There are many people who have served here in your Lordships’ House. One cannot think of a nastier campaign to be involved in than when you face not the ordinary, what you might call conventional war but suicide bombers or IEDs; when you never know whether the next step you take down the track will be the end of you or the loss of two or more of your limbs; where you now have the ghastly prospect of the people you are trying to train, who are serving with you in uniform, killing you in turn.

That is a very demanding challenge. When we consider the people who have laid down their lives in the service of their country in Afghanistan, those who have suffered grievous injuries—there is a new phrase that I had not heard before called life-changing injuries—and, to come, post-traumatic stress of one form or another, there is no doubt that there will be big challenges to meet.

I believe that the objectives of Afghanistan have effectively been achieved. It is obviously important that the move which the Prime Minister has announced, which I strongly support—the gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan—is achieved with honour and great care. I fancy that it will not be achieved without great difficulty, not least with the question of withdrawing equipment from those territories, but that should be done.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to the problems of equipment. If we have a duty, it is our duty to ensure that, if we ask our forces to embark on campaigns or undertakings of one sort or another that are deemed necessary by the Government and the nation, they are properly equipped, properly trained and have good leadership. In that, I make a plea to both previous Prime Ministers and the present one. It is not impressive if your Secretary of State for Defence changes every year. Our forces are entitled to see that that position is given seniority in the Cabinet and a measure of continuity. No business could run with the leader, the boss, changing every year.

I understand entirely why the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was guilty of one departure ahead of time. We respect that it was important for the United Kingdom that he should go to be Secretary-General of NATO, but he will know that, more recently, we had five Secretaries of State for Defence in five years. For difficult reasons, as the House knows, we have already had one change under this Government. I hope that there will now be real determination to get some continuity so that people can know who their Secretary of State is and see the leadership that they expect.

On top of that, and this has already been mentioned, if we have a duty to those who serve, we have a duty to their families who encourage them to serve, and we have a duty to those who have served. The importance of the covenant, to which the Government have given suitable prominence, must be fully seen through. The challenge will be great. That covenant will apply not just to serving forces and the Regular Forces; the biggest challenge that the Government will face in maintaining the numbers that we need for our defence is how we are to get reservists of the right calibre and ability to serve. It is much more challenging than it used to be when the TA was a much more part-time activity. Asking people in the TA and others to go for six months —to be taken out of their businesses, as the noble Lord said, and to be willing to serve in that way—will be a major challenge but they must be made part of the military family in every possible way, so that every encouragement is given to that service.

We owe a great debt to those who have served and we shall recognise it this week, on Sunday, but our debt is not just to remember those who have fallen. It is to try to ensure that those who have served already have not died in vain and that the lessons are learnt for us in the future in the most serious way.

Defence Budget

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, does not feel that I approach matters in a partisan way. I do not use this as a criticism, but I try to go out of my way to invite Members of all parties in this House into briefings. This is indeed a very complicated Statement so I shall be happy to lay on a briefing in the Ministry of Defence on all these issues. However, I hear what the noble Lord says.

With regard to the C130, the problem as I understand it is that the production line is going to close quite soon. I did have a flight in the A400M the other day—it was its first flight. I did invite the noble Lord and I had hoped that he would join me—and I think I very nearly got there. It is a wonderful plane and the Royal Air Force, which was originally very much against it coming into service, is now absolutely delighted. I think it makes a very good addition to the Royal Air Force.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I apologise to my noble friend for not being here to hear the opening Statement, but I have for greater accuracy obtained a copy, which I have had a chance to read. He spoke about a bipartisan approach. If I understood correctly the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition, he called for no more cuts. It seems that we are moving in that direction, which is encouraging. The MoD is very good at producing plans; the problem is whether they are fully executed. Even if the NAO approves the plan, the challenge will then be the difficulties of having single contractors and the various contracts which might be entered into—they are major challenges. In that connection, I agree with what my noble friend said about the Secretary of State. We have a more numerate, literate Secretary of State than perhaps were some in the past. If he keeps up the initiative that he has announced in this Statement, the challenge for him is to make sure that it happens.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I thank my noble friend for his support. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but, as my noble friend said, the current Secretary of State is very numerate. He is on top of his brief, and I am fully confident that we can carry these plans out.

Libya

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, taking the noble Lord’s last question first, I do not think Gaddafi is in a position to use any helicopters at the moment. The no-fly zone would ensure that no helicopters were able to be operational. The noble Lord asked me the other day about the helicopter that was supposed to have taken off. I am not aware that this categorically took place, but I will look into the matter, report back to him and put a copy of my letter in the Library. It is a very important question and I am not able to answer it at the moment, but I will get back to him as soon as possible.

Finally, we are not being led by the French: no decision has yet been taken. We want to put the pressure on Gaddafi, and if a decision were taken to use Apaches, it would be for that reason—not because we were being led by the French.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I certainly echo the tribute paid to the Minister for the efforts he has made to keep this House briefed on the situation in Libya. However, does he recognise that it is extremely difficult—in spite of the excellent briefing—to get an accurate picture of what is really happening on the ground and the way this event is moving? Against that background, I found that the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition made an interesting point. Presumably, the decision to send Apaches did not originate with a decision of the National Security Council; it must have originated in a request from the NATO commander on the ground. I imagine that is where it originally came from, and not the other way around. Will my noble friend comment on that?

Also, are we to have a situation in which, if one French Apache or attack helicopter gets involved, then there has to be a British one as well, and then we have to have a parallel approach in this? My understanding was that individual nations would contribute to this effort the resources they thought most appropriate and had most available. If there is to be a limited attack helicopter effort, it is probably much more sensible if it is done by one country than by trying to do a bit from one and a bit from the other.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

As far as the last point is concerned, my noble friend makes a very good point. I thank him for his kind words about trying to keep the House involved: I do my best to keep all noble Lords involved and I am open to any suggestions about how I can continue to do that. If anyone feels that I should be doing more, I would be grateful to hear about that. As for my noble friend’s question about who requested the Apaches, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer that.

Nuclear Deterrent

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, the Minister will recognise that the Statement he has repeated today is a major one, not least on the cost issue. In the more dangerous world in which many of us feel we now exist, it must be right to ensure that we maintain our deterrent. However, it is noticeable that the £25 billion as the outturn cost of a submarine takes no account of any additional costs that may come from any upgrading of the missile in the D5 Trident system, which is being deferred until the 2040s, or of any work done on the warhead, which is being deferred until the 2030s. There is also reference to the infrastructure. I certainly hope that any design work will ensure that the extremely expensive infrastructure work in which we got involved at Faslane will as far as possible remain usable by any new submarine.

I have reservations as regards one area. I recognise the awesome power that is represented by the warheads that we are intending to maintain. I also recognise the different world in which we are now living, compared with the Cold War period with its detailed targeting plans and requirements assessed against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, in this different world, I do not believe that there is not room for improvement and a further reduction in the number of warheads that we are seeking to maintain in our national stock.

I am pleased to read in the Statement that, echoing the call of President Obama, the long-term goal remains a world free of nuclear weapons—a world that we would like to see. Obviously, it is not a realistic possibility in the short term, but I believe that we could give even more of a lead to non-nuclear powers by showing our determination to maintain the absolute minimum number of warheads needed for our national defence.

Armed Forces Covenant

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement but it is worth reflecting that during the time I was the responsible Secretary of State I never heard the phrase “military covenant” used at all. During that time it was accepted, and understood by all who were involved, that we had a responsibility to care for our servicemen. I appreciate that it is the first time the opposition spokesman on defence has spoken, but I found it rather difficult to contain my normal calm self when I heard him complaining about why we were not spending more money on certain aspects of the covenant. How much more we could do if we had not inherited the biggest defence deficit in modern times—£30 billion. Even the papers today make clear the problems we face.

There is heightened public concern because of the campaigns and activities in which we are involved at the present time. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan is coming a legacy that will require enormous attention, considerable expense and priority consideration in housing and health. I welcome the statements made by my noble friend, particularly about housing as there is a distressing number of homeless ex-servicemen and a number who are severely handicapped and homeless. However, the issue is not just the housing of ex-servicemen. We are told that if efficiency improvements provide the resource, something will be done about serious problems in existing service housing, which certainly ought to have the priority in any official covenant. Covenants are fine, enshrined in law is fine, but it is the actions that are taken and the care that is given that matter above anything else.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point and I am certainly not at all happy to be a Minister in this very difficult financial environment. Honouring the covenant does not necessarily mean having to spend large amounts of money. Ensuring that service personnel, their families and veterans are treated fairly can often be about adapting existing policies where the particular needs of the service community have not previously been taken account of. Many of the commitments in the covenant are being led by other government departments and will not rely on the defence budget.

My noble friend made a very good point about the homeless. We take the issue of former personnel who find themselves without a home very seriously. Research carried out specifically in London shows that the proportion of veterans among the homeless population has fallen dramatically over the last 10 years.

Armed Forces: Post-service Welfare

Lord King of Bridgwater Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

To call attention to the physical and mental rehabilitation of military veterans and their post-service welfare; and to move for papers.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the physical and mental rehabilitation of military veterans, and to issues of post-service welfare. I welcome this opportunity to bring before the House an issue on which I think every Member will share the wide public concern at the present time. I am grateful for the number of noble Lords who are determined to speak in the debate. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who takes a keen interest in these matters and speaks with great authority, cannot unfortunately be here. He has a cast-iron excuse; he has to appear before the Iraq inquiry today, so the House will realise why he cannot here. I have also received an apology from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who takes a keen interest in these matters because of his military background. He has duties to Her Majesty as a Lord in Waiting at an investiture, so he, too, cannot be here.

It is no secret that the issues that we discuss today are in the public mind overwhelmingly because of the consequences of Operations Telic and Herrick. These were the names given to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I make clear that my observations relate not just to the casualties of those conflicts. I include those who served in Korea in what was a particularly nasty war for many. Some of my contemporaries, and some who I expected to see at university, did not come back from that bloody encounter. The mass Chinese attacks in some ways resembled World War I. As a national serviceman, I saw active service at the time, and some of my colleagues still bear the scars. I include also the veterans of the Falklands. I have seen many who faced the consequences of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and of the brave work of our forces during that time. I include members of the security forces and of the RUC. Many noble Lords will recall that we are also approaching the 20th anniversary of the ending of the first Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait. Many casualties occurred in that conflict.

I note one thing from recent discussion of these issues. I do not recall any discussion during my time as Secretary of State of the military covenant. It was taken for granted, it was implicit and, if pressed, people recognised that of course there were obligations. However, as the casualties and the challenges that we now face have grown, the importance of that implicit covenant being respected is now being put into written and public form. We now even have the niceties of deciding whether we have a no-disadvantage covenant or a citizen-plus covenant. These are the two alternatives: whether the objective should be that no one should suffer any disadvantage from their service, or whether the nation recognises that in some ways they should have enhanced recognition—citizen plus—for the service that they have given.

It is no secret that the pressure that we feel on this has to do with the length of the campaigns. I was involved in the first Gulf War, which was over almost in the twinkling of an eye. The build-up took months, but the whole campaign to liberate Kuwait took barely two months, with an air campaign and what was almost a five-day land campaign to free Kuwait from the Iraq invasion. Now we see that we have spent nearly 10 years in Afghanistan. We have been in Iraq for eight years. Will the Minister confirm the figure I heard that 180,000 service people are now veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan? That is the scale of the challenge that we face. There is no question that while we very properly pay our respects, and the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and we in this House express our condolences to those who lose their lives, many of us recognise that the real and lasting tragedy is the scale of the appalling injuries that many come back with.

That is of course a consequence of the triumph of medical progress. I saw that in Northern Ireland; if we could get someone to hospital when they were still breathing, there was every chance that their lives could be saved. Many people who previously would never have survived are now coming back with appalling injuries, but medical triumphs ensure their survival. That places heavy obligations and liabilities on their families, and on society as a whole, which has asked them to embark on those dangerous challenges.

After the scratchiness of this House too often in recent days, I pay tribute to what the previous Government did. I do not admire the campaigns in which they got us involved, but I recognise that they introduced a number of helpful measures, and I am very pleased that the present coalition Government recognise the importance of carrying on that work. I pay tribute to the incredible skill and wonderful competence of the medical profession, all the way from the combat medics on every patrol to the helicopter that may convey them back to Camp Bastion, to Camp Bastion itself, and to the outstanding treatment that they receive on transfer by air transport back to this country, into Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and then on to Headley Court. This is a service and a quality. Someone can go out on patrol, and the next thing they know they are waking up 24 hours later in a hospital in Britain, getting the best medical attention that anyone could wish for.

Of course, that is when the challenge really develops. In this connection, there is no question that this is not just a job for the Government or the public services. One of the most moving things about recent events is the way in which charities have become such a key part of that activity. I doubt whether there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who has not had some contact with Help for Heroes, Combat Stress, ABF The Soldiers’ Charity or the Royal British Legion. The Royal British Legion has just given its biggest donation in its history, £50 million over the next 10 years, to help some of those centres. Help for Heroes has made huge investments because of the response to its fundraising, which is recognition of public concern. I should declare an interest, because I am an ambassador for Alabaré Christian Care & Support, which has now established five homes for veterans. My sister happens to be the chairman of an organisation called the Community Self Build Agency. As part of a very enterprising idea, it is now getting self-build schemes going to help ex-servicemen veterans with housing, in which they do the building themselves and rebuild their life, their competence and confidence.

I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, here. As we recognise the role of full-time servicemen, there is a particular challenge in this situation for reservists. They often come straight out of civilian life, they do not have the comfort and surroundings of the regimental family, and they are often scattered in different parts of the country. They come back from some of the most challenging combat situations and find themselves immediately back on civvie street among colleagues who do not understand anything of what they have been doing. We need to recognise their particular challenges.

We need to provide in so many ways, including financially. It is interesting that SSAFA and the Royal British Legion said that 60 per cent of the cases that they deal with are problems with debt management. In this connection, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, conducted an important review. I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government are carrying forward the Armed Forces compensation scheme review, because finance is obviously important. Far too many of our servicemen coming home are homeless. We need to give them proper access to social housing and advice as to how to access it. There needs to be proper recognition by local authorities of the priority that they should give to returning servicemen to ensure that they do not get left out.

The mental challenge will be with us for a long time. Although some physical injuries are all too apparent, the mental injuries may not be. We know that it may be 14 or 15 years before people become aware of them. The new provisions, which mean, as I understand them, that everyone is assessed on leaving the services for their mental health condition, are very important. We also need an outreach programme to check up on people. I commend Dr Liam Fox and Andrew Murrison, who both have the advantage of being doctors. They have for some time, when in opposition and now in government, taken a particular interest in mental stress. The point that Dr Liam Fox made in an article which some might have read in the Sun today is that people with mental health difficulties are the least likely to go to their doctors. We need to ensure that the Defence Medical Services give the NHS access to the records of patients who become patients of NHS doctors, so that they can be aware of some of the background. I pay tribute to the reservists who are doctors and who have already served in Afghanistan and Iraq, but doctors who have not served need help. I recognise the interest that the BMA is taking in that area to see how we can get more advice to doctors who have to deal with situations with which they have never previously had to deal with their civilian patients.

The issue is the strain that people face and the linkage between the Defence Medical Services and the health service, as the health service is now, impressively, gearing up to handle these situations. It is a matter of experience. It stretches all the way to the tragic shooting of the congressman in Tucson, Arizona. People said that her luck—and I hope that that luck will continue—was that one of the surgeons who treated her had experience of serious injuries in Afghanistan and knew the instant action that was needed. That has undoubtedly given her the chance that she has now, which she would not otherwise have enjoyed.

Yesterday we had a further reminder of the tragedy with the 350th fatality in Afghanistan and the name of the serviceman who had lost his life being announced. We do not publish in any great detail the number of those who are wounded, and do not draw attention to the severity of some of those injuries. The Ministry of Defence has invented the phrase “life-changing injuries”, which, as we know, covers some very serious injuries indeed. Through-life support—not just support when there is public interest, as now, when we are very aware and when Wootton Bassett brings to people's attention so frequently the challenges that we face—is critical.

Our duty in this is to recognise the words of the Army Doctrine Publication:

“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices—including the ultimate sacrifice—in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service … the system’s loyalty to the individual—its obligation in the Military Covenant—is manifested in justice, fair rewards and life-long support to all who have soldiered”.

Many have stood on Remembrance Day, as I have on many occasions, saying, “We will remember them”. That, I think, should be our motto as we look at the through-life support that we owe those who have bravely served our country in appallingly difficult circumstances and who deserve nothing but our fullest support in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the Minister for, as ever, his most conscientious and scrupulous attention to the debate and for his reply. This debate has been of real quality. People who are really interested in the subject have contributed to it from their different backgrounds and experience. In our present difficult times, this is the sort of the debate that this House can do extremely well and which makes a valuable contribution.

Without wishing to single anyone out, I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was impressive, drawing on his wide medical experience that is of such great interest. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, drew attention to the debt that we owe to the clinicians themselves who are facing appalling trauma situations and are willing to serve. Against that background, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part.

If there was one slightly contentious note that emerged among Members here today, it was this: we have made some progress in having a Veterans Minister, which we never had before, but now the issue is whether he is in the right place. I see the arguments about whether the Ministry of Defence is absolutely the right place. The only thing that I want to say is that plenty of people have got lost in the Cabinet Office before now, and putting a Minister of perhaps not the most senior rank in there might mean that they were never seen again. Whoever he is, and unless he is of Cabinet rank, he will need a sponsoring Cabinet Minister of some authority, and until someone can think of a better one, this is the answer. We have a Veterans Minister who has been a serving officer, which is a good start. I think that Andrew Robathan has plenty of energy, and now we must make sure that that energy is applied with plenty of forcefulness. He knows his way around. He is a Deputy Chief Whip so he knows where some of the bodies are buried. That was an unfortunate phrase to use and I withdraw it, but that is a phrase often applied to Whips. He has considerable influence, and I hope that he will use it.

I shall add one point. Not every aspect has been covered, obviously, because of time reasons. There was one thing that did not come out in any speech. We use the word “veterans” as though they are all old men or women. A lot of so-called veterans now are extremely young, and one of the things that worries me, and I know that it worries the whole House, is the difficulty of employment opportunities for young people at this time. I know that my noble friend the Minister was not able to cover this in his speech, but I know the initiatives that are being made. I emphasise that giving these people self-respect is the best chance to recover from the difficulties and challenges that they may have faced, and opportunities of worthwhile employment are very high on that list.

I ended my earlier contribution by saying that many of us stand on Remembrance Day at war memorials up and down the country, and we say, “We will remember them”. We say that we will remember the dead. The purpose of this debate was that we will remember the living as well, along with our duties and obligations to them. I am most grateful to all who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.