Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, this Government have committed to spend up to £3 billion on the successor deterrent system, and that includes some preparatory work for the common missile compartment. There is nothing new in that announcement.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

With 1,000 people killed since the Minsk accord in Ukraine, with up to 1 million displaced and with NATO countries such as Lithuania looking as though they might be prepared to be more deeply involved, can we be told what the latest news is from the European monitoring team on the state of the ceasefire and the risk of escalation involving NATO countries?

[Michael Fallon]

I will ensure that the Foreign Office updates my hon. Friend on the latest status of the monitoring. The best answer we can give is to make it absolutely clear that the sanctions will stay in place and, if there is any further destabilisation of Ukraine, they should be increased. In the meantime, it is important that all NATO members keep up their defence spending and commit to the very high readiness taskforce that was agreed at the NATO summit.

Reserve Recruitment

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Lady. I sat next to her on the Defence Committee for four years, but she really has missed the point on this. Nobody has rebuked the CGS. The CGS designed the detail for this plan in his last job but one. The hon. Lady misunderstands the difference between opportunities for regular use of reserves, of which I have just given three examples, and compulsory call-out. That is the distinction she must understand.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that recruitment to the Army Reserve in the six months to 30 September will be well over 2,000 people, which represents a 60% increase on the same period last year? If that acceleration in Army Reserve recruitment is sustained, it will be in stark contrast to the planned reduction in the TA under the last Government?

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a 60% increase over six months, and as the bulk of that occurred during the most recent quarter, it is almost a doubling in that period. He is absolutely right. It is a tremendous turnaround after years of decline under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

4. What the timeline is for deployment of British troops in west Africa; and if he will make a statement.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

11. What contribution armed forces are making to tackling the spread of Ebola; and if he will make a statement.

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

The armed forces are making a significant contribution in tackling the grave threat posed by Ebola in Sierra Leone. RFA Argus, which left Falmouth on 17 October, is due to arrive off Freetown by the end of this month. Approximately 750 UK armed forces personnel will be in Sierra Leone by the end of October. Those personnel are supporting the Department for International Development-led effort and will initially run a 12-bed Ebola treatment centre in Kerry Town for international health care workers; deliver up to 700 additional treatment beds; and set up and run a training academy primarily to train health care workers for those additional beds.

[Martin Horwood]

Given that Ebola vaccines are unlikely to be ready at scale before April and that in the meantime millions could have been infected, does the Minister agree that these kind of military contributions are absolutely vital? Will this country do whatever is necessary for as long as necessary and encourage other countries to do likewise?

[Mr Francois]

Defence is indeed playing a significant role, supporting the Department for International Development, which leads Her Majesty’s Government’s £125-million mission to support Sierra Leone. The defence contribution to controlling the Ebola outbreak in west Africa—Op Gritrock, as we call it—is well advanced. The contribution is led by 2nd Medical Brigade and 104th Logistic Support Brigade. In scale, this represents the second-largest contribution to fighting the outbreak of any country in the world after the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

No, and I think the hon. Lady will find that the capability was mentioned in the announcement that has been issued. The decision was made to take Sentinel out of service at the end of the campaign in Afghanistan, for reasons of affordability. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, because of careful husbandry of the defence budget, we have now been able to take the decision to extend Sentinel once the Afghan campaign has ended, at least until 2018. That will allow us to look at the capabilities that Sentinel delivers—wide-area surveillance of fast-moving ground targets—in the context of our broader need for wide-area surveillance capability, both maritime and over land.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

T2. The F-35 Lightning II should be one of the world’s most advanced combat aircraft, not least thanks to British expertise at companies such as GE Aviation and Ultra Electronics, but it was sadly missed at Gloucestershire’s royal international air tattoo—a very exciting event this weekend. Can Ministers reassure the House that that has no implications for its service for the United Kingdom from 2018?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the F-35 programme to businesses up and down this country, including in Gloucestershire. Last year, the F-35 suffered an engine incident, which is being investigated. It is absolutely right that the safety of aircrew and aircraft are of paramount importance, rather than seeking to attend air shows around the world. Obviously, we would welcome the F-35 once it has been declared safe, and we are still hopeful that it will arrive at Farnborough before the air show finishes.

Defence Spending

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this timely debate. It is healthy that on a Thursday when there is a one-line Whip, there is such pressure on time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute. That reflects the importance of the subject.

As always, it is right to begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and courage of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they so often make. We owe them our thanks.

The world in which the armed forces and the British Government operate is changing. We have rightly talked about the changing nature of the threats, but another way in which the world has changed is that our financial resources are not as great as they were. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) understands that. He mentioned by how much China is increasing its defence expenditure. I quickly looked up the figures of the International Monetary Fund on gross government debt as a percentage of GDP. China’s is only 22%; ours is 90%. That is a risky financial situation and is one of the reasons why we must have good fiscal discipline.

Otherwise, we might end up in the same situation as some of our NATO allies. Italy’s gross government debt as a percentage of GDP is 126%. Greece’s is 158%. If they allow that to continue, we all know what path they will have to go down—they will have to cut all sorts of expenditure, not least defence expenditure. If I had to speculate as to why Greece is one of the few countries within NATO that is achieving the 2% target for defence spending as a percentage of GDP, I would suggest that it is less to do with skyrocketing defence expenditure than with plummeting GDP.

That is one reason why we have to be a little careful about using such absolute percentages. If we were spending just above 2% and we had a good year in which GDP grew unexpectedly, we might fall below 2% mathematically without cutting our defence expenditure. If that happened temporarily, we would all regret it, but we must not fixate too much on the absolute percentage. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad thrust of the many contributors who have said that we need to encourage other NATO partners, when they can afford to do so, to step up to the plate. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) that we cannot guarantee that America will continue effectively to subsidise the defence of Europe. We have seen the risk of American isolationism in the past and it may well raise its head again.

I do not have much time to talk about how we can economise on our defence, but I emphasise that we are still spending £38 billion in 2014-15, giving us one of the best-equipped and most technically advanced military forces in the world. It is still arguably the fourth largest defence budget in the world—it depends on whose figures we use, but I think the worst estimate that I have seen is that it is the sixth largest, which is still substantial for a country of our size—and we are over the 2% of GDP target for NATO members at the moment. We are constructing the two largest aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy’s history, and we are planning a fleet of destroyers, a new fleet of both nuclear and conventionally armed submarines and, further ahead, the joint strike fighter and the Type 26 frigate.

That will all put intense pressure on our defence budget, so we have to consider ways in which we can make it more cost-effective. That is not just about budget cuts—it is a great tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence that he has put such emphasis on efficiency and better management. He may have been slightly disappointed not to have become Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the outset of the coalition, but the Treasury’s loss has been the gain of first the Department for Transport and then the Ministry of Defence. He protected investment in transport infrastructure, and he has been good at prioritising more efficient defence spending and procurement. Both the 2010 strategic defence and security review—the first for 12 years, it has to be said—and more recently the Defence Reform Act 2014 have emphasised the strengthening and reform of defence procurement, perhaps saving as much as £1 billion a year. That compares with the last year of the Labour Government—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

The shadow Minister shakes his head, but in their last year, the Labour Government clocked up a record overspend of £3.3 billion on the defence budget, which could not continue.

The best way to reduce defence expenditure is to reduce the need for it, and the current Government have signed up to the international arms trade treaty and have an important strategy of building stability overseas. Such things, which contribute to peacekeeping and the reduction of threats, are quite important, but inevitably we have to face up to some threats. It is right to look at Ukraine, and at Russia’s posture, and be concerned about it, and that should be reflected in our defence strategy. However, it is also right that we look at the different nature of the threat that we face now from that during the cold war. There is increasing need for flexibility and adaptability, and the Future Force 2020 strategy, with more emphasis on the reserves, is right. We can examine the potential for more co-operation with NATO and EU partners, and there are good models, such as Operation Atalanta, the anti-piracy operation.

Of course, I have to finish by pointing out that continuous at-sea deterrence, currently run in the same way as it was at the height of the cold war, offers some opportunity for savings. Only Liberal Democrats have really emphasised that opportunity, but I close by commending it to the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. I have to inform him, however, that the decision of whether the next class of frigate will be named after locations, people or whatever has yet to be taken, but his points have been well made.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Do Ministers know whether the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq will be published by the time of the general election? If so, which one and what is causing the delay?

[Dr Murrison]

Both my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have called for early publication of Sir John Chilcot’s report. I voted against the Iraq war, but served in Iraq in 2003 and I, too, would rather like to see this publication in my lifetime.

Defence Reform Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I cannot let the Minister’s comments pass without welcoming them and thanking him for them, and, in particular, expressing the sympathy of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party and its researchers and staff following the loss of their friend, who displayed great courage and died in the service of his country.

[Mr Dunne]

I appreciate and reciprocate that sentiment.

Let me now deal with the Lords amendments. They deal with all three elements of a Bill that introduces a new and significantly stronger regime for the management of single-source contracts, and makes important legislative changes that will enable us to modernise and make better use of our reserve forces. There is a great deal of support for those measures in all parts of the House, as was evident when we discussed all its previous stages here. The Bill also includes the measures that are needed to help an effective Government-owned contractor-operated organisation to manage defence equipment and support should a future Government decide to proceed with such an option. I shall return to that shortly.

These are all Government amendments, which were made following detailed consideration of the Bill both in this House and in the Lords. Although they deal with different parts of the Bill, they have a common theme: they either provide Parliament with further information relating to the implementation of defence policy, or strengthen parliamentary oversight of future legislation. That, I think, is right, and it reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Parliament has a greater role in the scrutiny of the Executive. The amendments demonstrate that we have listened to the concerns that were raised about issues covered by the Bill, particularly in the other place, and that we have responded accordingly.

Lords amendment 6 fulfils a commitment given on Report in this House, on 20 November, to make it a statutory requirement to report annually on the state of the reserve forces, while Lords amendment 7 reflects the debate in the other place about parliamentary involvement in any future decision to proceed with a GoCo proposal requiring the provisions in part 1 of the Bill. The amendments will strengthen the parliamentary oversight of future defence plans, and I hope that they will be widely welcomed.

Lords amendments 1 to 5 relate to part 2, which concerns single-source procurement. They were made in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill, which was published on 20 December last year. I am grateful to the Committee for its report, and for the excellent work that it does in ensuring that any proposed delegated powers are appropriate.

The Committee recommended that the first set of single-source contract regulations should be debated and agreed by Parliament. It also recommended that certain of the regulations—namely those relating to the definition of a qualifying defence contract and to the penalty amounts applied under clause 32 of the Bill—should always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Those recommendations are reflected in Lords amendment 5, and Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 make the necessary consequential changes that arise from that amendment.

Lords amendment 6 would require reserve associations to report annually to the Secretary of State on the condition of the volunteer reserve forces, and for their reports to be laid before Parliament. The reports would include the associations’ assessment both of the capabilities of the reserve forces, and of the provision made in relation to the mental welfare of their members and former members. The amendment delivers on the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Report in this House last November. Members will recall that we had a substantial debate at that stage, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—it is good to see him in the Chamber—about the state of our reserve forces, and the need to report regularly to Parliament on the issue. The amendment enshrines in law the requirement to produce such a report.

Members may be interested to know that on 10 April I had the privilege of attending the West Midlands Reserve Forces and Cadets Association annual dinner. Their knowledge and enthusiasm for the reserves was palpable and I am glad we will have such expertise reporting to the Secretary of State on an annual basis as a result of this amendment.

At the dinner, Defence’s most senior reservist, Major General John Crackett, spoke eloquently and persuasively of the reservists’ contribution to our nation’s defence in the past century and the importance this Government have attached to revitalising and expanding the reserves during this century.

Last weekend’s helicopter crash, which unfortunately I have already had to refer to today, underscores the fact that, tragically, 31 reservists have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country since 2003.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brazier]

We do not have the detail, but we do know that there is now more flexibility on people and in other crucial areas, such as the annuality of budgets, which are extremely important for running an operation such as procurement.

I want to leave one thought on procurement. Some 25, 26 or 27 years ago, when working as a management consultant, I was privileged to take part in a study comparing the procurement methods of seven different countries. Our procurers in the then procurement executive—it has changed its name several times since—were at least as good as the average and arguably better. The majority of the problems in the system fell into one of two categories. Either the customer within MOD changed its mind or was unclear about its needs, or things were laid down from outside, some of which appear to be being addressed. As a result of the unsuccessful attempt to create a GoCo, we have ended up with a better outcome than we would otherwise have had.

I support all the Government’s amendments and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View is with them, too, although she has indicated one area in which she would like to go further.

I of course knew when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his pledge on the reserves that it would be honoured. However, not only has it been honoured exactly, but the Government’s wording of the clause is better than I originally proposed and has been well thought through. They particularly thought through the complicated federal nature of the reserve forces and cadets associations. The clause deals neatly with a problem, which I hope will never occur again but happened some 15 or 16 years ago, when the centre got out of touch with its regional branches. Leaving the real power with the regional branches, which are elected, covers that issue nicely. Parliament will get a good report whatever happens. I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to the proposal and to the Members on both sides of the House who supported the original measure.

I end by saying—I hope that you will indulge in me in this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, strictly, it is beyond the amendment—that when we originally debated the matter in the House, there was great concern about recruiting for the reserves. I expressed the view that it had been seriously mishandled under the new assimilated structure controlled by the Regular Army. I also expressed confidence in Major General Chris Tickell, who had taken over.

Since then, things have moved a long way. My local TA infantry battalion got as many soldiers in January and February as it did in the previous 10 months. That is still only two thirds of what it needs if it is to grow, rather than just tread water, but it is a huge step forward. Today it has eight young officers under the age of 30, whereas a couple of years ago it had only two or three.

I firmly believe that things will move in the right direction, but I think that the steady hand on the tiller of this annual report from the RFCAs, which really do get it, will play a profound role, and I am grateful to the Government for giving way on that. I support all the Lords amendments.

[Martin Horwood]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who displays great knowledge of these issues. I am sure that the friends and family of Oli Thomas will very much appreciate the comments that have been made across the House, as I am sure will my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). He would have been here at the beginning of the debate to respond to the Minister’s comments had the expected times for votes not changed rather suddenly. I hope that people will understand that. I am sure that all Members across the House would wish to express their sympathy to the friends and family of all the servicemen who lost their lives in that terrible accident.

I welcome the Lords amendments, which I think strengthen Parliament’s role in scrutinising the implementation of defence policy, which is very important. I know that several of my noble Friends had concerns about the process of building up the new reserve force and about the technicalities of the GoCo idea. It is very welcome that the Government have been open-minded enough to bring forward their own amendments to reflect those concerns and increase parliamentary scrutiny.

On the volunteer forces, we have an ambitious plan to change the whole chemistry and make-up of our armed forces. I think that will leave us with armed forces that are more flexible, more light-footed and more cost-effective, and in a time of genuine austerity that must be borne in mind. On the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House about exactly how well that will work, whether it is too ambitious and whether it will at some stage pose unexpected challenges, I think that it is right to have this extra level of parliamentary scrutiny over the process, so Lords amendment 6 is extremely welcome.

Lords amendment 7, which relates to the GoCo, now seems slightly academic, given that we are unlikely to see any proposals for a GoCo in the near future. However, were such a proposal to come forward at some point, I think that it is important to have the safeguards in place to ensure not only that a draft statutory instrument is laid before the House before the actual order is laid, but that we have the report beforehand on alternative options and impact assessments for each one.

In tabling amendment (a), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) is perhaps trying to gild the lily. I think that she is trying to conjure some mild controversy out of what is now a consensus on the issue. She said that she had remaining concerns about wholesale outsourcing, but of course that is only about the outsourcing of outside supplies, so it does not really change anything in that respect. It is only about whether in future that outsourcing is managed directly by a Government agency or by a more independent and commercially orientated organisation.

Many of us have expressed doubts about that idea. I expressed doubts on Second Reading about whether we should have yet another tier of decision making in between the armed forces and the actual decision-making process and the eventual supplies. However, I think that the formula we have come up with, whereby the different options will be re-examined at the time any such proposal comes forward, is a good one. We would not normally insert another 12-week time scale into legislation of this kind, so I am not sure that that is absolutely necessary, but I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was moved.

I think that the Lords amendments have made a good Bill even better. I join the consensus on both sides of the House in this good-natured debate by saying that this is the right Bill to bring forward at this time.

[Mr Dunne]

With the leave of the House, I shall make a few closing remarks. I know it is not conventional to do so, but I have been challenged in customary fashion by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) with a number of questions, and it is right that we put some answers on the record.

The first question that the hon. Lady posed was a technical one about whether the framework of part 2 had been approved by the RPC. We approached the Better Regulation Executive in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which confirmed that in its view part 2 did not constitute regulations of the type that ought to be considered by the RPC or the reducing regulations committee. We therefore did not do so.

The hon. Lady also asked whether in the strategic defence review in 2010 there was some strategic basis for arriving at the force composition of regulars and reservists. As she will know, I was not in post at that time, so I cannot give her my personal recollection of those discussions. It is undoubtedly the case that the fiscal situation that not only the country faced but our Department inherited—the £38 billion black hole in unfunded commitments—played a part in determining dispositions, but the main drivers of the force composition were set out at the time of the SDSR—namely, the unpredictable strategic environment and the need for an agile and adaptable force structure. The force structure that we ended up with, we believe, will enable us to meet the unpredictable strategic environment in future. It also moves UK armed forces closer to the force structures in place among many of our closest allies, so we do not think it is out of line with our main partners and allies.

The hon. Lady touched on reserves and the status of reserve recruiting, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). I thank him for the anecdote he gave us about the growing youthfulness of officers and the growing numbers of recruits that he referred to. I am not in a position to give the House detailed figures at this point, but applications are running significantly higher than average applications in months last year, which is an encouraging sign. We are making good progress in increasing the conversion rate from applicants to trainees. That is also an encouraging sign. I would not like to give the House the impression that we do not recognise that we have a considerable way to move in raising both the number of applicants and that conversion rate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

On behalf of the whole House, I am delighted to receive my hon. Friend’s positive report. We do believe that we can meet the target. The reserve forces when I served in the 1980s had 75,000 men and women under arms. I have to believe that now, with a larger population, we can get to 30,000 trained, particularly as we start with 19,000 trained now. Put another way, it would require a net increase of only about 20 in each of the 650 parliamentary constituencies in this country across a period of four years. I believe that is eminently achievable and, backed by initiatives such as the corporate covenant to get employers’ support, we are getting on with it. We will deliver this programme.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support conflict prevention; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Together with the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence is a full partner in the delivery of the July 2011 building stability overseas strategy, and uses a multi-departmental approach to prioritise UK activity in upstream conflict prevention and stabilising fragile and conflict-affected states around the world in association with partner nations.

In addition, the Ministry of Defence has developed the international defence engagement strategy jointly with the FCO. Published in February 2013, this sets out how the Ministry of Defence can contribute most effectively to the building stability overseas strategy, as well as wider overseas Government objectives.

[Martin Horwood]

I welcome the Ministry of Defence’s involvement in the strategy. Security sector reform is one of its key elements with regard to conflict prevention. How do we ensure that, by building capacity among local security forces, we do not inadvertently enable repression and repressive tactics among those organisations, and that we instead make people feel safer in those countries?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend will be aware that, when taking training to countries we partner, we put a great deal of effort into instilling what might be called the “moral component” of warfare very directly into what we teach and into what we inculcate in them. That is a very strong part of our overall offer. We can never guarantee that the people we train will not go on to do terrible things, but we can reduce the chances of that happening and make sure that the ethos we are rightly proud of in our own armed forces is exported to others.

Defence and Cyber-security

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I should declare an obvious interest as the MP for Cheltenham, since GCHQ is based in my constituency. This is also a topical day to debate cyber-security, because this morning the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech in which he talked about the balance that needed to be struck between digital freedom and national security. He praised GCHQ for its continued expertise and its role in defending us all against cyber-attack.

Although there is currently no cold war in the old sense—I hope that is not the wrong thing to say; perhaps events in Ukraine are making us worry a little about that, but there is no active cold war in the way there used to be in the 1960s and 1970s—we are in effect at war in cyberspace. Ongoing attacks are taking place against this country and its institutions and businesses, and it is right that in 2010 the national security strategy identified cyber as a tier 1 threat alongside international terrorism, military crises and major accidents or natural hazards. Although the £650 million committed to the national cyber-security programme in 2011 sounded like a great deal of money, considering it against the billions being committed to Trident, for instance, which does not address any of those tier 1 threats, should give us some pause.

Trident addresses a theoretical and perhaps quite real future risk, and there are different views on that, but the cyber-security programme is defending us against current ongoing attacks. As hon. Members have pointed out, they are taking place at the rate of thousands an hour. It is almost like attacking an onion—Russian dolls would be the topical way of describing it. The core is the Government, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. We know that malicious e-mails are being blocked at the rate of 33,000 a month at the gateway to the Government secure internet. The next layer is defence contractors and the supply chain which, as other hon. Members have rightly pointed out, are just as critical to the successful operation of the armed forces and our defences as the Government core.

Critical infrastructure is the next layer. Hon. Members have rightly referred to banks and food supplies as part of that wider layer. The next layer is the wider economy and society. The threat to business is a threat to our national security; 93% of large businesses and 87% of small businesses have reported cyber-attacks in the past year, potentially costing thousands, as the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) mentioned.

The Defence Committee rang the alarm bell in 2013. It said that the risk of military operations being fatally compromised continued despite all the effort, and that we perhaps needed more resource and focus on cyber-security. It is right that we commit spending, and look at structures and process, but spreading the culture and practice of cyber-security matters at all levels, and across Government, business and society.

We have talked about the various units. I am pleased to say that GCHQ is in the lead, but the Global Operations Security Control Centre plays a vital role, as do the cyber-security information sharing partnership and various cyber-units in various places across Government. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) offered criticism of that proliferation of different units, but I believe the network approach is the right one. We need attention and focus in different places across Government. The last thing we want is for cyber-security to be silo-ed. We need the culture and practice of cyber-security to spread across Government.

That was brought home to me recently when I visited Bletchley Park, and the brilliant National Museum of Computing, which was celebrating 70 years since the Colossus machine, arguably the world’s first programmable computer, started breaking the Geheimschreiber codes at Bletchley Park. A lot was said about the technical expertise of the Government code and cipher school, which became GCHQ, and the genius of Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers, the great engineer who led the Colossus team—I am proud to say that my father was one of his Post Office engineers. However, it was emphasised that human error allowed many of those codes to be broken. It was not just human error in the sense of mistakes that gave away code keys, but the fatal underestimation of Bletchley Park’s capabilities on the part of Hitler and the German high command. Right up until D-day, Hitler held back Panzer divisions in the Pas de Calais because he simply did not believe that the Normandy landings were the real deal—he believed the misinformation and the false intelligence that was being fed to him. It never occurred to him that the Geheimschreiber codes were being broken and that our side had that capability.

I am pleased that GCHQ is in the lead on cyber-security and that it provides that technical expertise, but we need to spread the culture and understanding. By way of justifying the supplementary defence estimates to support that and other defence work, having that expertise has benefits for the UK economy. GCHQ has enormous links to academia, business and other parts of Government, but it supports cyber-skills at all levels, including encouraging maths, science and engineering in schools. I saw that at the Cheltenham science festival, although it encourages those subjects in many other ways. It also recognises academic departments that specialise in cyber-security. As has been said, they are now present in a large number of universities. That focus on high-tech skills, and research and development, could, and should already, make the UK a centre of global importance in cyber-security skills. In turn, that builds resilience, not just in Government but in businesses, making Britain a safer place to do business in cyberspace. All those things have economic benefits and more than justify the spending we are considering.

There is a slight sting in the tail. GCHQ and its expertise are widely recognised now, which may be one of the benefits that it has inadvertently gained as a result of Mr Snowden’s recent activities. Business recognises that expertise and skill, and is able to poach very expert people from GCHQ and, perhaps, from the Global Operations Security Control Centre as well. The Government need to value the people in GCHQ and GOSCC, and others across Government, who have those extraordinary skills, and—sometimes, I am afraid, in material terms—try to ensure that we hold on to the best people, and the real skills and expertise. We need to value those skills in all sorts of different ways, but I hope that Ministers will not take it wrongly if I say, on behalf of my constituents, that that way would also be appreciated.

We are facing a global threat. The United Kingdom is under current attack, and, while I think that the Government have got the strategy broadly right, I also think that they should not let up in defending us against this new and very 21st-century threat.

Afghanistan

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Let me answer that question this way: it is clear that our immediate mission was to deny Afghanistan to terrorists who would have used it as a base to strike at us and our allies and interests. But in the long term, it was never going to be a credible proposition that foreign forces could hold this territory. We had to build a stable and capable state in Afghanistan with a security force of its own that could do that job. My judgment is that a country that has a basic rule of law and recognises human rights will be a more stable and sustainable place in the future. A country that has education, health care and infrastructure will engage the loyalty of its citizens in a way that Afghan Governments have not always done in the past. We have to be very careful about the tone of this debate, however. It is not about exporting our perfect model of society and imposing it on others who in many fundamental respects will not accept some of the tenets that we regard as basic to our everyday existence.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome and support the Secretary of State’s statement, especially his praise for our armed forces. As well the need to bring them safely home, he has touched on the fact that we have to return or dispose of considerable amounts of military matériel. Will he comment—either today or in a fuller statement in due course—on the matériel that we will dispose of and exactly where it will go?

[Mr Hammond]

I can give my hon. Friend some indication. As at the end of January, we had redeployed 1,694 vehicles and other major equipment, and 2,374 20-foot equivalent containers of matériel. We have also destroyed or disposed of some equipment in theatre, but I can assure him that no military equipment is disposed of in any way that would allow anything of military use to fall into the hands of the enemy. I can assure the House from my personal experience that this obligation is taken very seriously. I saw a container full of dead Duracell batteries and I was told that they had to be brought back to the UK because they might be of use to the enemy if they were left in theatre. The military are not taking any chances.