|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I consider it a great pity that he will not be present for the end of the debate. The Minister cannot be expected to reply to his remarks and I would have greatly looked forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a remarkable and splendid speech--it is what we have come to expect from her--and make two points. First, this Government did indeed inherit many deplorable things in the area of defence. Front Line First's destruction of the medical services and the sale of the married quarters estates are examples--and, not least, the defence cuts. The Treasury called the tune then, as it does now.
Secondly, much good has been done in the field of humanitarian operations in the Balkans, and in this new world there may be other such worthy causes. What concerns me is that the Government continue to pour quart after quart into a pint pot. If they would pay for what they exact from the over-stretched Armed Forces, I should be much happier. But the bill comes also in terms of skilled men. We cannot go on stretching them for ever without threatening to destroy the skills that are needed for their paramount target: the defence of the realm.
In view of the damage clearly being caused by over-stretch, the review body had expected to receive from the MoD and the services an up-to-date and detailed analysis of its effects, together with recommendations to counter the immediate and growing retention problem. Much to its regret, the MoD had declined to present formal evidence, although it did respond to specific comments and proposals.
The review body expresses a number of concerns relating to pay, notably the 12 months' delay now expected in the introduction of the new pay system, and continuing problems in the service housing sector, where the review body was,
We come back to the infamous Treasury-driven decision to require a 3 per cent annual efficiency saving in operating costs over the four years from 1998 to 2002, and the proud boast that the defence share of GDP will fall from 2.7 per cent in 1998 to 2.4 per cent in 2002. I read the White Paper carefully. Although much good work has clearly been done on reorganisation and such admirable concepts as the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces, I hope that the Minister, who has given us an encouraging review of a procurement programme which necessarily cannot be delivered today, or even tomorrow, can nevertheless tell us whether the general sad message is still that it is jam tomorrow rather than jam today.
What additional funding is mentioned concerns chiefly the restoration of deficiencies in weapons systems and the spares of critical equipment. I say nothing about recent press reports but confine myself to the Government's own statements. Many of the major procurement programmes still seem to be in the future. The competition to fulfil the need for a short-term strategic airlift, which was mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, started in 1998 but none offered,
Understandably, the White Paper is more concerned to define tasks and set out what should be accomplished to make good capability shortfalls than to recognise the continuing and dire problems of overstretch and retention, although naturally reference is made to them. It says that the highest priority must be to ensure that we have robust forces available to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and stability, that the forces we deploy are trained and equipped to the highest standard and that we cannot,
The whole of the White Paper is much more about ever-increasing commitments rather than the resources needed to meet them. We all know that those resources are not there and that the services are being asked to do the impossible time after time. There are constant references to new threats and challenges, but only one paragraph about overstretch, and that is
The make-up of the task force reminds me strongly of the annexe to the memorandum of understanding with the UN, signed by the UK last year, in which we undertook to provide a brigade for so long as it was wanted and wherever it was wanted. Listed in that annexe are the destroyers, frigates, helicopters and other logistical and technical support which would come with it. There is a further annexe which lists equipment that will be available after October 2001. It includes strategic air transport and outsize heavy lift aircraft. One wonders whether this is to be a rented Antonov or we are still pursuing our options.
It is interesting that in the White Paper there is no reference whatever to that commitment to the UN. I know we have been told that we would not necessarily be able to do this. It seems to me very rash to sign a treaty to say that we will do it if we cannot. It is one thing for the Government to recognise and value the major contribution of highly trained and disciplined troops to what is now called peace support operations, but quite another for these commitments to be heaped upon the forces without the resources to match them, and with no proper recognition that the MoD's primary task must be to train high-intensive forces capable of defending the realm.
I have spoken on earlier occasions about the common foreign and security policy agreed at Helsinki and the probable conflict between its needs and those of NATO when they will both be relying on the same rather limited assets. The White Paper recognises that the EU will have to develop capability goals such as command and control and strategic transport. It says nothing, however, about the cost of all this in men, equipment and armament, and presumably accepts the
We are living, surely, in an amazing world of spin if the Armed Forces are to be treated as a useful but expendable card in the hands of Ministers while little indication is given of any readiness to pay the costs, or any understanding of the political implications of the interesting new game of military monopoly that we seem to be playing. If we offer 13 destroyers and frigates to the UN, as we do under annex 1 to the memorandum, why are we selling a number of them? Is the Navy to acquire new ships through refocusing? If the other EU countries go on cutting their defence budgets, having been advised by us that all they need do is imitate the Strategic Defence Review and retarget and refocus in order to reach new and demanding capability goals, will our own forces be playing a new kind of musical chairs in which the enthusiastic defence diplomats add more chairs instead of taking them away?
For how long will the demands of the Treasury and the new commitments entered into decide our defence policy and the use of our resources while no provision is made for them? I have not for once even mentioned Russia, but her activities in the defence field can only enhance the very serious asymmetric threat. We cannot respond to that without forward planning. Is it there?
Lord Bramall: My Lords, although I have always admired and enjoyed the passionate way in which the Minister makes the very best of her brief, and the courteous manner in which she invariably handles the very real concerns of noble Lords, for two reasons I find these defence debates rather depressing. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out, the fact that defence has been relegated to a Friday indicates yet again the low priority in political terms which governments accord it. Once upon a time it was considered the prime responsibility of any government. That trend does not augur very well for the MoD's chances in any battles in Cabinet for resources. Secondly, the apparent imperviousness of the Ministry of Defence to any criticism, however constructive--we have heard such criticism from my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert--means that these debates do not appear to get us anywhere.
Most noble Lords with experience and interest in these matters know well the many things that have been right about the handling of our defence affairs and our magnificent Armed Forces since the Government came to power. We now have the White Paper which, although some of us find it a little irritating for reasons that I need not repeat, sensibly sets out the Government's priorities, their justifiable pride in the Strategic Defence Review, and their determination to implement it.
In past debates--including a recent one--many noble Lords have consistently gone out of their way to praise the strategic policy, the operational requirements and most, if not all, of the organisational innovations set out in that admirable review. They have also praised the high quality of the men and women who serve, of whom this country can continue to feel extremely proud, always providing that some of the political, legal and financial currents that are now besetting and eddying around them, which could so easily affect their ethos, motivation, loyalty, command and discipline, do not progressively make their job too difficult.
Generally, there has been much support and encouragement for the way that the Government have started to tackle and face up to our defence problems. The Minister knows that I fully subscribe to that view. Equally, many noble Lords and noble and gallant friends know only too well what is wrong with the way that the Government's handling of defence has developed over the past year or so. It can be summed up in one word, "underfunding", which is made all the more poignant and unnecessary by that iniquitous and entirely arbitrary penalty of 3 per cent compound interest over four years, which, however it is dressed up, hits every vote-holder, and strikes at the very heart and viability of the whole Strategic Defence Review, and the Government's performance that emanates from it. It is sad that, although I have often raised this point, the Ministry of Defence does not even seem to recognise that there is a problem, choosing to portray it as an exciting, voluntarily incurred challenge in service modernisation when everyone knows that it was forced on it by the Treasury--one might almost say the revengeful Treasury--which did not obtain as large a dividend as it had hoped from the rightly, this time, policy led Strategic Defence Review.
This underfunding--already highlighted ably and thoroughly by the Select Committee on Defence--not only makes the job of every vote-holder infinitely more difficult and often impossible if those under them are to carry out their everyday missions properly. All current shortcomings, weaknesses, slippages and potential cancellations can now be attributed to it.
Perhaps I can remind noble Lords of the historical context in which the current underfunding exists. From the end of 1978--the last year of the Labour government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan--until 1986, defence spending grew at a consistent rate of 3 per cent per annum in real terms, which constituted well over 5 per cent of the gross national product. It then reasonably levelled off until 1988, when it started a steady decline, or dive, from which it has not yet pulled out, averaging 2 per cent to 3 per cent per annum; each annual cut being made from a lower base line, bringing the ratio of the gross national product to only just over 2 per cent. This all happened at a time when lengthy, expensive and manpower intensive military commitments outside NATO, which the Government claimed to be unavoidable, were becoming more numerous than ever, and with the reduced Armed Forces proportionately more occupied and overstretched than virtually ever before.
Now, of course, with turmoil in parts of Africa, still further commitments, as we have heard, of so far uncertain length and unquantifiable costs are rolling in to stretch our forces still further. All of those, in financial and manpower terms, more than balance any thaw in the Cold War, with the Government manifestly determined to play their full part and even take the lead on the international stage.
In all my experience of Whitehall I have never known a government, to use a "wild west" term, so quick on the draw as this one. Given the circumstances and the changes in the international scene already mentioned, we have clearly cut far too far, and this will inevitably have a serious effect both on current activities and those proposed for the future. For instance, when glaring and fully recognised weaknesses exist, such as overstretch, lack of formation training, the state of the Armed Forces medical services, the maintenance of quarters, and so on--some admittedly inherited--underfunding on the present scale makes it virtually impossible to do enough to correct them in the short term, so they drag on and become even worse.
Underfunding has presumably also provided the background against which the Territorial Army--our only reliable reserve--has been weakened, just when it has rightly been asked to do more, particularly in those areas which have been cut most, such as the infantry, engineers and Military Police. There can be, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out no other good reason for such cuts. The longer-term effect could be serious. It will also have accounted for some of the admirable organisational innovations such as the air assault or air mobile brigade, not being implemented and deployed, in terms of equipment and manpower, as early as planned; and for any slippage in the equipment programme, which although good in many respects, particularly in tanks and artillery, has some glaring deficiencies especially in the important communications field and in the vital strategic airlift.
Moreover, if funding is not improved, the future for the Government's stated, even boasted about, policy and aspirations looks pretty bleak. For instance, if there is to be any real attempt to get Europe to get its defence act together, so that it could, if necessary, undertake limited operations in its area of interest without some United States involvement--which it could not do at the moment, and about which I may be more in favour than some noble Lords--it will not only require more money, but more money from us. Without that, we would be in danger of achieving the worst of all worlds: enough talk to annoy the Americans and to drive them into a never far below the surface isolation, which would be disastrous for the stability of Europe, and of the whole world, and virtually no comprehensive and compensatory capability to speak of on this side of the Atlantic. Extra resources will equally be necessary if the present--let alone any future--extension of NATO, on which the Government seem so politically bent, is to mean anything at all. It would be intolerable if this had to be at the expense of other vital parts of the existing and greatly overstretched budget.
Underfunding will clearly have serious repercussions on the future equipment programme generally, of which the noble Baroness has particular knowledge and expertise. Even now, the programme seems to be in a bit of a muddle, with an unreliable rifle, Lynx engines which need to be modified, the replacement for Clansman well behind schedule and now, at an incredibly late hour, the removal of the cannon from the massively expensive European fighter aircraft, which must reduce its flexibility in the spectrum of lower intensity operations.
Moreover, the Government have committed themselves to providing two very expensive fleet carriers, both as a means of projecting power and in order to provide close air support when no land bases are available. But since the European fighter neither can nor ever will be able to land on a carrier, yet another new ground attack aircraft with, presumably, a capability to defend itself, and somewhat in advance of a Harrier II, will now have to be developed. I wonder increasingly how this belt-and-braces strategy can possibly be sustained with the ever-declining defence resources that we are experiencing.
Unless the Ministry of Defence can find the skill, determination and political guts to secure the essential support of the Prime Minister and take on the Treasury--it keeps on saying that it is fighting like hell, but as in everything else, it must be judged by results--some of the good intentions that emerged from the Strategic Defence Review and have since been trumpeted with fine words in the White Paper will become virtually meaningless. There will be disenchantment; and the drain from the services, of which we have already had glimpses through, among other things, the departure of so many of that key age group 28 to 32 and in the manning of the medical services, will become a flood. Then we shall be left with much smaller, less well trained forces than the Government had planned with a more limited operational capability than the Strategic Defence Review considered necessary. I am sure that is not what the Government originally had in mind.
I therefore urge the Government to take note of the strong, detailed criticisms and recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Defence in another place, and action on the funding front, before it is too late. Otherwise they must be forced to forget cutting a dash in the international arena--I refer to their grand design, however laudable, to use the Armed Forces as international policemen and a force for good in a troubled world--and instead cut a more modest, less effective, far less influential defence coat according to the totally inadequate cloth the Treasury now allows them. That would be so contrary to what the Government have promised, and even boasted about, that it would represent a most unfortunate climb down. I only hope that for the sake of the country that can be avoided.
Yesterday I reread the speech of Michael Colvin in another place. As your Lordships will know, it was his last speech. It was also a wide-ranging speech in which he covered everything from the Eurofighter to budgets and developments in European defence. He set out the inequalities in defence expenditure and capabilities, which are well known. He also set out the various options for the institutional changes involving the WEU, the EU and NATO. Michael Colvin made his speech on 22nd February and I would argue that already perceptions are changing about those changes. A strengthening of the likely institutional arrangements for European defence is about to be agreed.
"Separable but not separate" is the way the relationship between a common European defence and security capability is described in relation to NATO. Concern has been raised, mainly by the Americans, that this could weaken the alliance. There has been the rhetoric of the three Ds, decoupling, duplication and discrimination: decoupling of Europe's security from NATO's; the wasteful duplication of capabilities; and discrimination against allies who are not European Union members.
I believe that that rhetoric has been damaging because it stresses the risks and the negatives rather than the huge benefits to all if Europe were to develop some limited capability to undertake Petersberg missions in its area of interest. Since the Helsinki accord of December last year, the debate has moved on rapidly to the setting up of the intergovernmental machinery within the EU to deal with defence issues. It is worth noting that the traditional neutrality of certain EU members has not proved so far an impediment to this remarkably swift process.
In previous debates, when my noble friend was a Minister at the Foreign Office, she always argued, and rightly, that it was capabilities that mattered and not the institutional arrangements. She repeated that argument today. I argue that matters have moved forward. Of course, the capabilities remain a serious European problem but the institutional arrangements are under way and of huge importance, not least to those outside the EU who want to retain influence within NATO and those who aspire to joining both NATO and the EU. The arrangements are extremely important to those countries.
There are a number of initiatives outside the CFSP initiative. Our own MoD has its Outreach programme which I believe to be successful in establishing bilateral relations with former Warsaw Pact countries. NATO's Partnership for Peace is bringing in countries of central and eastern Europe, including the Russians, and proved its worth in enabling partners to play their role in peace support operations in Kosovo. Another important, longstanding initiative is the WEU assembly where parliamentarians from 28 countries meet to debate and scrutinise defence policy in a well established way.
All those types of initiatives are worthwhile and they are not in competition with each other. But the fear of many countries outside the EU is that they will lose influence if they have no forum in which to play their part in scrutinising Europe's CFSP.
I mentioned America's three Ds. There is a fourth D: democracy. It is worth remembering that all countries outside the EU are vigorously in favour of retaining the WEU assembly in some form. It is only the 11 EU members who are also in NATO who are as yet undecided on the future of the WEU assembly.
At the risk of labouring my point, the issue is not one of accountability. No one questions that accountability will remain with national parliaments because national parliaments set the defence budgets. The issue is one of scrutiny; and the WEU assembly alone has developed a record of scrutiny, recognising the different statuses of its 28 members and their different aspirations. I believe that that record should be built on in encouraging greater co-operation between countries of central and eastern Europe.
Yesterday I was reading an article by Dmitri Trenin from the Carnegie Center entitled "Russia-NATO relations: Time to pick up the pieces". He makes the familiar point that the only thing Russian politicians can agree upon is that they are against NATO enlargement. Most Russian politicians are fairly agnostic about EU enlargement and the EU taking on the military capability for Petersberg tasks. Dmitri Trenin makes the point that following the Chechnya debacle it may ironically be easier for Moscow to resume expanded contacts with NATO rather than to receive a clean bill of health from the usual Russian favourite institutions like the OSCE and the Council of Europe which have been far more critical of Russia's behaviour in Chechnya. Ironically, NATO might find that it is leading the way in rebuilding institutional arrangements.
My general point is that we need to build at all levels to promote greater co-operation. I have mentioned the MoD's Outreach programme, Partnership for Peace, the WEU assembly, and how NATO could find itself in a leadership role over the other human rights based organisations. I hope that the CFSP institutional arrangements can also be seen in this perspective as a method of outreach, if I may so put it, to build and promote greater co-operation with central and eastern Europe.
Michael Colvin gave his speech on 22nd February. Since then we have a new Russian president. Russia has been expelled from the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. The five options for change which he outlined in his speech have been whittled down to one or perhaps two realistic options for the institutional arrangements. The countries outside the EU are becoming far more focused and vocal in saying that they want to retain some measure of influence. On top of that, British troops have recently been deployed to Sierra Leone.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in congratulating our Armed Forces on their everyday skills and sheer professionalism here and around the world today. I, too, thank the Minister for her sincere update on Sierra Leone to which I shall refer later. This country is both justly proud and grateful for the security and safety that our Armed Forces give us.
Today we are debating the 1999 Defence White Paper which has an interesting mixture of positive remedial measures as well as a number of omissions. I shall draw your Lordships' attention to some of them. The Select Committee on Defence in another place stated:
I had hoped to see in the White Paper some indication of whether the Government are considering expanding the junior tradesman training units which have been so effective and have provided the backbone of the warrant officer structure. However, it is particularly welcome that the reserve forces continue to play an important, indeed vital, role in supporting their regular counterparts. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to that. It is particularly so in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that two of the three escapees in Sierra Leone were reservists.
I wonder whether it is time to recognise the voluntary service. Perhaps a reservist who has done more than one tour of duty abroad should receive an award, not necessarily money. I believe that for long enough the reserve forces have played an important role in the defence of this country and it is time they were rewarded. When can we expect to see the results of the Reserve Mobilisation Study and what are the current manpower shortfalls? Many figures have been bandied around, but no one seems to know what the shortfall is.
The White Paper makes reference to several new initiatives to interoperability and to jointery, which on the whole are to be welcomed if they can be properly equipped and fully effective, and not some hotchpotch set-up which one or two might well become. I draw your Lordships' attention to the new staff college in particular. It has been set up at Shrivenham and is due to open on 1st September. That is a great step forward.
There is just one new organisation which I believe may have to be looked at again; that is, the Joint Nuclear and Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment--and I emphasise the word "regiment". The needs and doctrinal approach of the Army and RAF are rather different, and I wonder whether it will work fully effectively, especially bearing in mind the very high cost of equipment. The role was previously given to a reserve regiment with which I had connections and it was never fully equipped. As an aside, it is unfortunate that the Army regiment assigned to this task is the Royal Tank Regiment.
Reference has been made by a number of noble Lords to the continuing shortfall in medical services. The remedial action outlined in the White Paper is to be welcomed, but there is still a vital need for medical units, surgical and medical air evacuation teams at the front line, not withstanding full field hospitals able to cope with the higher casualty rates that we have experienced. As was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, we cannot assume that casualty rates will not be high in future.
The White Paper refers to further withdrawals from Germany and the formation of two new brigades; the 16 Air Assault Brigade at Colchester and the 12 Mechanised Brigade based at Aldershot. Both are to complete the Formation Readiness Cycle. It is difficult to understand the logic behind moving 16 Brigade from Aldershot further away from the Movement Control Regiment and mounting airfields in the centre of England, but there must be a good explanation for that. The problem raised in my mind is where and how these formations will train realistically, particularly the Mechanised Brigade which has only small training areas nearby. I have to tell your Lordships that I was once involved in a study of Army training areas in the UK and we were amazed how little the training areas had changed since World War I, when the Army was largely horsed and weapon ranges very short. It seems to me that we have now reached the end of the road and that a radical review of how and where the Army is going to train is necessary.
The problems facing our Armed Forces today are as complex as they have ever been. Service life is no longer from the cradle to the grave, as the Reverend John Dyer said in 1726. Unlike any business or industry, there is no productivity level by which we can measure effectiveness. Our Armed Forces are rapidly evolving and coping with modern technology, but the principal resource, manpower, needs to be nurtured and not overburdened by financial control.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I rise to make a modest and brief contribution to the debate because I am broadly supportive of the White Paper. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, in her well deserved praise of the Minister's excellent and honest presentation.
A number of important and interesting points have and will be made, but perhaps as a civilian I may be forgiven for believing that the solution might be for 3rd Para to be used to storm that stronghold of the true enemy; namely, the Treasury. But that must be too over-simplistic!
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, gave us a 20-year history of the see-sawing of defence expenditure and its proportion of GNP. But it would be wrong to believe that in those 20 years, under either administration, that happened solely at the whim of a Chancellor or the desire of a particular Prime Minister--strong though Prime Ministers have been during that time. Government have decided their priorities in terms of their commitment to defence versus their commitment to other areas of expenditure. We ignore that at our peril.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, made three points which I should like to reflect upon because they are of interest to me. He started with the issue of Smart procurement. I believe that I should declare an interest. Prior to my retirement a year ago, I was the general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which has over 20,000 members serving as scientific, technical and professional civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence.
I can recall my desire that there should be a Strategic Defence Review. I remember the pain and torment of a decade prior to 1997--the very same decade that was described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as being the decade of cuts--when we had absolute short-termism. I, for one, welcomed both the Strategic Defence Review and, indeed, the tough, but I believe realistic, at least in terms of the developments as we understood them at the time, situation of understanding absolutely during a five-year period from 1997 to 2002 the limitation but also the guarantee of what the services and civilian support would receive by way of government share of expenditure.
I do not believe that I can go along with those who say that Smart procurement is a failure; nor do I believe that anyone claims it is already a total success. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, set out too many examples of failure for that to be a boast that anyone can make. I claim that it is too early in the process to say that it is a total success. However, it is far truer to say that it is succeeding than that it is failing.
I say that in tribute not only to the policy but to my many Civil Service members--or, rather, my former members, although I am still a member of the same union--who are putting in place the innovative and sometimes very difficult managerial decisions which will bring about change in procurement. I believe that the jury is out but, to use a boxing analogy, there is a points lead to the Smart procurement. I believe that to call it anything other than that at present would be wrong.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham--namely, in relation to DERA--is one on which I have considerably more sympathy with his point of view than I do on other issues. I have made my views on that matter known, both to the Minister and to the House, on previous occasions. Therefore, I shall not dwell upon it.
My third point of concern, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, relates to troop reductions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Government will not seek troop reductions that are not supported by political change and political advance. However, when those reductions take place--it is hoped earlier rather than later, as we all wish to see political advance in Northern Ireland--I make a plea to the Minister for the civilian personnel working in support of the defence forces who will then be affected. Any stage of withdrawal of a substantial proportion of our defence establishment will leave a considerable number of civilian support staff in Northern Ireland, in a sense, somewhat marooned. I ask for sympathetic treatment, both for those who request postings perhaps to mainland UK and for those who perhaps wish to seek voluntary severance.
I ask for that sympathy in the total knowledge that it will be given. Although I may have a difference of opinion on what would be the right outcome for DERA, I am asked by my trade union colleagues to place on the record their appreciation of the Minister, who has acted in an open, frank and collegiate manner and has shown sympathy for the personnel difficulties that accompany difficult decisions. I am sure that that same attitude will prevail in respect of any changes in Northern Ireland. As I said at the beginning, on that basis I am broadly supportive of what I consider to be a fine White Paper.
In the last defence debate I commented on efficiency savings and cuts to the defence budget. I wish to emphasise once again that the so-called annual 3 per cent efficiency savings are insufficient to fund the SDR and, overall, are now acting as cuts. Some aspects of SDR have already slipped. If we continue to make financial cuts and do not provide realistic funding, SDR will not be achieved on time.
No longer will our servicemen and women accept poor standards of accommodation, poor equipment, excessive operational deployments and poor pay and conditions of service. As I have warned your Lordships before, I sense now that if SDR fails to deliver on time, massive premature voluntary retirement will take place, leaving the country with an ineffectual and poorly trained Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force.
Chapter 1 of the White Paper covers the current security environment. Therefore, it is an opportune moment to remind ourselves of the threat. Briefly, the risks are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; 20 countries that have a chemical and biological capability in addition to those countries that have a nuclear capability; serious concerns over North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya; the fighting between India and Pakistan; the tense situation between China and Taiwan, and the rivalry between China and India; the possibility of a resurgent Russia under Putin; civil wars within nation states such as the Balkans, where the interests of our country and NATO may be affected; international terrorism; and terrorism from Sinn Fein/IRA.
In connection with the IRA, a great number of people firmly believe that the recent statement about their weapons is completely meaningless and full of conditions. In the past, it seemed that only negotiating from a position of strength had any effect on the IRA. Since 1997 they have seriously weakened the British position. To contemplate the withdrawal of troops now and to destroy our sensitive observation posts at Crossmaglen, Broadway and the New Lodge in Belfast, Fort George in Londonderry and our military base at Cookstown will be seen as a complete victory for the IRA and a virtual surrender by the British.
That really must not be allowed to happen and I question why the Government are so nai ve as to adopt this course of appeasement. The recent IRA statement, so full of conditions, does not promise to complete any destruction of their weapons, nor offer any timetable for putting arms and explosives beyond use. And beyond use is not to guarantee that they can never be used again. They have said that they will initiate a process whereby a number of arms dumps, selected by themselves, can be viewed by a third party. Why not all their arms dumps, and what is the reason for not destroying them now?
From all those threats it is concluded that we live in a volatile and dangerous world. It is absolutely clear that we must have superbly trained troops for war-fighting and rapidly deployable expeditionary forces with the appropriate heavy-lift capability by sea and air for operations in other parts of the world. In connection with that, perhaps the Minister can bring your Lordships up to date on the progress of acquiring heavy-lift aircraft and shipping. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on his views about the C-17. We need them now.
I wish to stress the importance of ensuring that our intelligence coverage is sufficient and technically as up-to-date as possible. It has been assessed that Russia may not be a great threat at the moment, but it should not be forgotten that, whereas Putin's domestic policies are somewhat obscure, he favours weapons of mass destruction, has a hatred of NATO, and has dramatically increased his exports of weapons and his defence budget by 57 per cent to modernise his conventional forces. At the same time, his rocket forces, nuclear weapons and nuclear submarine fleet have all been kept in good condition.
Those are certainly matters of which we should take careful note. With the small defence forces that the country can afford, intelligence is, as it always has been, a key factor of early warning of changing attitudes in this increasingly dangerous world.
Intelligence matters are always sensitive. However, I should like to stress the importance of ensuring that they are funded properly and with sufficient funds to achieve their essential tasks. The Government's current agreements and responsibilities for the American intelligence agencies underpin the transatlantic relationship with the US which allows us a provision of almost the total US product. From our national effort and our unique talent for intelligence assessment which is shared with the United States, the special relationship with the US gives us a quasi-superpower level of intelligence. It is absolutely critical that nothing upsets that special relationship, if we are to be assured of receiving the product from the USA and, for that matter, the heavy lift capability and the logistical support without which it would nearly be impossible to carry out large-scale overseas operational deployments.
Chapter 2 covers aspects of NATO and European defence. I am well aware that the noble Baroness has said that there is no intention of giving Eurocrats a role in our military command; that we have no intention of moving to some sort of mini-NATO for Europe; that there is no intention of ruining an organisation that has reliably provided Europe with its security for some 50 years; and that there is no intention of establishing a European Army.
There is no disagreement with Europe playing its full part in defence matters that do not directly affect the USA. But it is essential that it does not occur at the risk of our special relationship with the US. To safeguard that relationship, would it not be better for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe to establish an additional command to Allied Forces
Turning to Chapter 3 of the White Paper, I have not been able to find any specific mention of training. Your Lordships may recall that I touched on this matter in the last debate and I feel that it is important that I repeat once again what I said then. Due to all our current operational tasks and the fact that in 1999 47 per cent of the Army was operationally deployed, there was serious skill fade with regiments becoming less capable in their primary roles, because opportunities for training were not available. If our troops are not trained properly for war fighting, we cannot expect to win battles in the future.
Some 39 exercises were cancelled last year, including the Royal Marines Arctic exercise, due to financial restraints. Now the Marines are unlikely to hold a formation level amphibious exercise for the next two years or so due to a forthcoming deployment. We cannot go on like that any longer and the current deployment to Sierra Leone is likely to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Those troops must be returned as soon as possible, as the noble Baroness has indicated. Most cancellations were due to Kosovo, the over-commitment factor, but some were due to budgetary constraints. If over-commitment for operations affects training to such an extent, it is surely an indication that the SDR force levels are not right.
Over-commitment in the Army has resulted in the fact that there will be no high readiness brigade at the required collective performance level for the next two years or so, and then only one of the two brigades as required by the SDR. Will the noble Baroness say whether the Sierra Leone deployment will delay that further and when will 12 Brigade now be operational? Could she also update your Lordships on the training review and let your Lordships know how many operational aircraft are without pilots and what is being done to fill these spaces?
Chapter 4 covers people in the Armed Forces. In the last debate I covered recruiting and retention in some detail and I do not intend to go over this ground again. However, I would like to point out that recruiting has gone well, but the inability to retain people in the armed services is causing serious problems. In the main, it is the constant operational tours and the consequential separation of families due to too many commitments in the past which forces people out of the services. Those experienced and well-trained people have probably completed around 7 years service and are the very people one does not want to lose.
I am aware of and welcome the steps that the MoD has taken to improve conditions resulting from operational deployment, including the fact that the deployment figure had dropped to around 27 per cent. However, another positive step that could be taken to help retention is that many of those who apply to leave the Armed Forces prematurely might stay if they were offered around £5,000 remuneration for any occasion when a second or more separated tour takes place within 24 months.
The code of conduct for commanding officers has not been mentioned and, in view of the Human Rights Act, there are many problems with which they will have to grapple. I do not think that the code of conduct provides enough guidance for commanding officers, although I am aware that the code was drafted very widely to ensure maximum flexibility in its interpretation. If I may, I would like to write to the noble Baroness on this subject.
For a brief moment I would like to touch once again on the shortage of surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses in the Defence Medical Services. I accept the fact that it takes a great number of years to train doctors and it is pleasing to note that doctors are well recruited for the future. But that does not help the present situation. Will the Minister say why it would not be possible to recruit military doctors from the USA, where their medical services have been run down, or, for that matter, recruit for a limited number of years doctors from other countries such as those in the Commonwealth and adopt a similar line for getting more nurses? After all, the post of civilian military practitioner already exists within the Armed Forces.
I turn briefly to Pay 2001. There is great concern from all servicemen and women about that proposal. It may well cause divisions within the team spirit ethos, so important to the Armed Forces, and possibly affect recruiting and PVR rates. The message that I have received on defence group visits is that it is most unpopular and why, when we are struggling with retention, do we have to pursue such an unpopular policy?
Chapter 5 deals with the defence estate and equipment matters, among other things. Although there will be around 500 houses added to the estate, will the noble Baroness say whether the completion date for the refurbishment of married quarters has slipped to 2005? Will she also comment on why we need to bring more troops back from Germany when, at great expense to the defence budget, new barracks have to be built or are being built at the moment in the UK?
Furthermore, as the defence budget is in such difficulties, would it not have been better to have postponed the modernisation of the Main Building, saving around £1.5 billion? May I also ask the Minister whether she will say how far advanced is the new reconnaissance vehicle known as Tracer and why the Multi Role Armoured Vehicle has been approved by the MoD when, as far as I am aware, it is too large to fit into a Hercules aircraft?
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are highly professional; determined to achieve success; protect our liberty and freedom; are brave and courageous and always prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. Those men and women are an outstanding example of loyalty to their country and dedication to duty.
Lord Inge: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review, quite rightly, earned considerable praise for its quality, its intellectual vigour, for the way it thought through the new security challenges which will face our Armed Forces and for the way it was presented. But--and it is a very big but--the real test of the Strategic Defence Review and any Defence White Papers which follow is whether Her Majesty's Government will deliver the operational capability, stability and quality of life improvements which were promised. That is the real test.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reminded us, at the time of the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review, of what the Armed Forces had been going through. They had had Options for Change, which certainly did not reorganise the Armed Forces to meet the new operational challenges posed by the new strategic environment and was based on such flawed assumptions of only 1,500 servicemen being deployed on UN-type operations. Certainly, the smaller and better Armed Forces trumpeted by Options for Change never materialised.
Indeed, in the middle of the ongoing major reorganisation caused by Options for Change, the Armed Forces were faced with further major reorganisational changes following the defence costs study exercise. Throughout that period there was the annual demand from the Treasury for a 2 per cent efficiency saving. In other words, the defence budget was reduced every year by 2 per cent. All that change and uncertainty was carried out at a time when the Armed Forces were heavily stretched on operational duty.
The big question remains: will Her Majesty's Government provide the resources necessary to give our Armed Forces the fighting capabilities that they need, as spelt out in the Strategic Defence Review, and will the re-organisation be completed in the timescale outlined in that review? For the Armed Forces to feel let down again would have serious consequences for morale, recruitment and retention.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the priority that this Government are prepared to give to spending on defence. If they are prepared to deploy the Armed Forces on so many operations and keep them at such a high level of operations, they must fund them so that they can be looked after and protected in the way that they deserve.
I have noticed a tendency to say how good the SDR study was, rather than face the much more important question of how Her Majesty's Government are coping with delivering the capabilities that were promised. I sense that the 1999 Defence White Paper was rather complacent in that respect.
There is little doubt that the budget agreed for implementing the SDR was always very tight, with little left in the kitty to cope with the unexpected such as rising oil prices and additional operational commitments. In addition, the timescale for implementing the SDR is also tight. Some of the key assumptions on such things as the level of operational demands have proved optimistic. The services are still committed in Kosovo and Bosnia, despite reductions there, and now we are involved in a new dangerous operation in Sierra Leone.
I want to add my strong support to what the Government are doing in Sierra Leone. I believe that it is quite right to help in the evacuation of British and other countries' citizens. However, it would have been nice if one or two of our fellow Europeans, who support the ESDI, were there as well. I recognise how difficult it would be for the Government to withdraw the British contribution before the UN force is properly in place. I hope that we shall not be sucked into another quagmire because I believe we have our hands in too many mangles already.
When I hear talk about the additional UN forces coming from Bangladesh, India and Jordan, and talk about days becoming weeks, I fear that it will become months, and that getting the British force out will prove even more difficult.
Returning to my concerns about the MoD's ability to deliver the SDR, it is common knowledge--the noble Lord, Lord Vivian mentioned it--that at least one important major exercise and many minor exercises have had to be cancelled because of the shortage of money. Given the high level of operational commitments and that major equipment such as the communication system, Bowman, have either been reduced in scale or delayed into service--the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke at length about the importance of the C-17 and that the bid has been reduced from four to three--that indicates that the defence budget is under severe pressure. The SDR is unlikely to be delivered on time as the MoD has not been given the resources to implement the SDR properly.
In addition, if my experience of the MoD is anything to go by, that financial pressure will also mean that there will be reductions in or delay into service of operational reserve stocks and items in the war maintenance reserve. Such reserves are not as important for peace support or more benign operations, but they are critical for high intensity conflicts. Quite rightly, the SDR stresses the importance of retaining a true high intensity conflict capability.
I turn to our most important asset--people--our servicemen and women who carry out such a wonderful job supporting our nation. We already know that they are faced with a serious problem of undermanning that will not be put right before 2005 at the earliest. Even then I understand that there will be serious undermanning problems in certain corps and specialist areas. I would be interested to know what the recruiting surveys show about why people do not wish to join the Armed Forces.
Although retention is improving, it is not as good as it should be. I want to know the main reasons why servicemen and women are leaving the Armed Forces sooner than we would wish. What additional measures are Her Majesty's Government considering to help to improve recruitment and, more importantly, retention? Can the Minister confirm that the Army training organisation is working to full capacity, is fully staffed and fully funded?
While on the subject of people, I want to highlight, as I have before in the House, the concern that exists throughout the Armed Forces, particularly among the commanders at the sharp end, about the increasing rise of litigation and political correctness. They are deeply concerned about the effect that that is having on commanders' willingness to take risks in training. We are in danger of producing a breed of commanders who are too cautious and wary of taking decisive decisions that could be disastrous on operations. If we undermine leadership at the lowest levels, and the feeling of collective responsibility that goes with it, we could do serious harm. Ironically, that could put the lives of our servicemen at greater risk when they are on operations. The German saying of "train hard and fight soft" remains relevant.
Mention of training in the White Paper, as indicated by other noble Lords, is a little thin. I sense that there is a misunderstanding in many people's minds that, with so many servicemen on operations, the need for training is reduced. Of course, operational experience is invaluable, but I do not need to tell Members of this House that that is only part of the equation. Recently, we have had experience in places such as Bosnia and Kosovo and now in Sierra Leone, which, although dangerous, complex and difficult, has not been high intensity conflict.
In speaking of high intensity conflict I do not speak of a third world war. Quite rightly, the Strategic Defence Review laid great emphasis on retaining a war fighting capability, which is the ability to take part in high intensity conflict. If that capability is lost, it will take years and years to regain. There is no doubt that the capability of our Armed Forces in that respect has
On the European Security and Defence Initiative, I have to declare an interest in that I am a member of the sub-committee that is looking into that. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am strongly in favour of Europe doing more, but I am also convinced that we are not talking about a European army. I believe that there is some muddled thinking about the true American attitude to that initiative, although I am not sure whether there is such a thing as a clear American attitude to it. The Americans to whom I have spoken over a number of years have said that Europe should do more. By "more" the US means providing real--I emphasise the word "real"--military capability. In that respect, NATO also is important. It would be disastrous to the transatlantic link if the rhetoric overtakes the reality.
We have to recognise that there are major capability gaps in Western Europe's military capability. I do not see how that capability can realistically be improved without some countries significantly increasing defence spending. That means much more than simply refocusing their defence spending. For us it means at least delivering the Strategic Defence Review.
In conclusion, we have small, but first-class, Armed Forces. Quite rightly, they are greatly respected, not only in this country, but also by a number of other nations. Critical to recruiting and retaining the right quality of people and giving them the effective operational capability will be the Government's determination to allocate the additional resources that they clearly need. At Christmas time, the Prime Minister was at pains to praise the service and quality of our Armed Forces. I know that that message was well received by them. Loyalty goes two ways--upwards and downwards--and the Armed Forces will be looking to the Prime Minister and to the Government to deliver the additional resources that they so badly need.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, when returning to central London last week after an appearance on the morning "Kilroy" show, I was initiated by my chauffeur into the intricacies of the car's on-board global positioning system. We were using the GPS to negotiate the arterial streets of London, some pock-marked by holes in the road such as your Lordships' latest allocation--into which this House has recently much peered. "Blooming hopeless", opined my chauffeur about GPS, and as we approached Regent's Park, the whole system went entirely AWOL. "Ah! We have come into range of the MoD's radio defences", said my "Jason Button". He fingered the culprit. "It's the ring of radio steel protecting London's chief targets from outside missile attack. It breaks up the GPS monitor every
But what of the United Kingdom's global positioning? What of the Government's standing in their own country, in Europe and in the wider world as regards their first and fundamental duty, as our Government, of ensuring the defence of the realm? Well, as I believe the 1999 Defence White Paper demonstrates, the Government can be satisfied with a task well done.
That the Government are doing well is illustrated by the dog that does not bark. All previous Labour administrations have faced, albeit unfairly, the twin scare stories that, first, they would ruin the economy and, secondly, leave our island vulnerable to external attack. Recently, however, many have commented on the trust in which the electorate holds the Chancellor for his running of the economy, but fewer have noted the equal confidence that the British people have invested in the Government's handling of defence. The truth is indeed that of a people at peace with their government. No better expression of that contentment can be found than in the investiture of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen as Secretary-General of NATO--clearly the right man in the right place at the right time.
But the Government have also carried that domestic conviction and reform on into Europe. Just as we are advocating a better way for Europe in other policy areas, including reform of the economy, similarly, the Blair administration is leading in developing the post-Kosovo debate. That Europe could do better inside NATO is uncontested. Indeed, to quote my noble friend Lady Symons, "Europe does not measure up". But it is Britain that is suggesting the "where" and "how" of reform and change.
Premier Blair initiated the common European foreign and security debate some 18 months ago. This was an example of being "quick on the trigger"--a phrase used by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It was also a departure that surprised and delighted many of our European allies who have become too used to two decades of a British government with their back against the wall and Euro-sceptic to the core.
The initiative has grown into the Helsinki European defence initiative--formed in recognition that Euro-sclerosis had hampered the urgent mobilisation of troops at the time of the Kosovo crisis. That happened at a time when we still had a generous pool of some 2 million soldiers available in Europe as a whole. The fast pace of implementing the proposal for a rapid reaction force has been gratifying to all but the greatest sceptics, who regret all aspects of sensible European integration and this Government's role in it. Indeed, we still need to prevail over those who generate "hostile weather systems" against this initiative on the bogus ground that Britain's sovereignty is being somehow irredeemably undermined. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, implied that.
However, if we do not persuade with clear arguments that it is a worthwhile aim to make allies in Europe to rebut our enemies abroad, we will throw out the baby of mobilising Europe swiftly with the bathwater of reinforcing NATO effectively--for NATO is our lodestar and we make it clear that our desire to strengthen our cisatlantic arm does not imply traducing our transatlantic partners. In that regard, we are particularly supportive of the forthcoming capabilities commitment conference.
The British agenda can be extended under the imminent French presidency of the EU without creating a fully-fledged, independent European army, a concept redundant to all but the most Napoleonic. Nevertheless, we can and should introduce efficiencies and boost effectiveness by, for example, promoting a single market in arms procurement to aid and abet the interoperability of Europe's army and navy stores of weapons.
Those practical steps towards rational reform bring me to a prediction. In 25 years' time we shall continue not only to harbour a NATO of nations dedicated to a common defence of western values, but there will also emerge a single market and a single currency to buttress the transatlantic alliance. The marrying of political and defence imperatives will indeed see Machiavelli supping with Clausewitz.
In these global reforms Britain has a unique window of opportunity. Where once we were the belligerent on the Continent, in the Americas and in an Empire transmogrifying into a commonwealth of nations, we can now use that triple special relationship--that triple alliance--to foster peace and democracy worldwide. No better example presents itself than Sierra Leone, where the escape of Major Ashby and his colleagues, as reported this morning, testifies to British courage on active display. I, too, wish to thank the Minister for her excellent opening speech, which included reference to Sierra Leone.
But such challenges seldom come as single spies; they come as battling battalions. Because of that, we must ensure that Britain does not bite off more than it can chew. We must not be left overstretched. However, it should be noted that it was the Opposition who in 1997 left us with 5,000 soldiers short of a full complement in the Army. It was the Opposition who bequeathed us a weapons procurement policy that was two arrows short of a quiver. No wonder then when discussing government policy the Opposition would prefer to trade a Bowman for an Archer.
But domestic reforms also find the Government scoring a bull's-eye. The Defence White Paper points to the innovative use of modern technology to win the battle of minds as well as the battle of mines in the theatre of war. Some 6.7 million hits on the FCO and MoD websites during the liberation of Kosovo helped to keep anxious Serbs and Albanians abreast of the truth about the malign Milosevic.
My only misgiving in the 1999 White Paper which I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend is the reference to key skills training for school students located in Newcastle. Perhaps I may ask: why
Equally, I pay tribute to the development of the Service Families' Task Force, the Veterans' Advice Unit and the learning forces initiative. Those all testify to the vibrancy of the "policy for people" philosophy that infuses the White Paper.
I reiterate that I believe the Government's sensible and practical policies towards strengthening Europe within NATO are the distinguishing characteristics of their White Paper. The foreword to the 1999 report is concluded by the Secretary of State, himself a distinguished former Member of the European Parliament, with the declaration that this is a programme of reform and modernisation that will equip the United Kingdom with the effective Armed Forces that we shall need well into the 21st century. Noble Lords may agree with me that around the world, and for the benefit of all, we may be glad that it has so often been the British soldier, if not Kilroy, who was there.
We are coming to the end of some interesting speeches and I shall not detain the House too long. But I should like to remark on one or two points that have arisen. First, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in his independent role--I said to him that perhaps he ought to be sitting on these Benches--was splendid. As the noble Baroness is aware, I have talked both publicly and within the MoD to friends and officers, saying that we must do something about the medium and heavy lift capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, got everything in the right order. I hope the noble Baroness will go back to her department and really push for the C-17. We are not in a position, with our jolly good, but ancient workhorse short-lift, almost medium-lift aircraft, to handle too many situations at once with the air support of munitions, people and equipment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that the main enemy is just across the road from the noble Baroness's office, and it has not been attacked in a way that produces any response. Those chaps in the Treasury sit behind locked doors; they are smug; they are well-fed; they are comfortable and well paid. And when I say those words I think of the chap in his slit trench in Sierra Leone at the moment who will not necessarily have everything he should have or may require. He will of course say the same thing, but in slightly more robust language.
The Chancellor is a brave man and I do not quarrel too much with what he has done so far for the nation. But a visit to see what happens on the ground would be useful for him. As we used to say in my day, "There is nothing like having your hair parted by a bullet to bring you down to reality and teach you what a front-line soldier, sailor or airman has to do". So let us hope we move in that direction.
What really worries me is the state of the infantry. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is having a good month of recruiting. But how short is the infantry. Fracturing major units, battalions and regiments; carving them up and sending them off with other regiments is very much an ad hoc arrangement and is no good for overall efficiency. It has worked so far, notwithstanding what my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge said. But so far we have not had to go to war. We have been taking part in peacekeeping and other operations. That is something on which we must work. The infantry is the main arm and something must be done.
I come back to training. There is no doubt, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that we are not trained for war. When we look at Sierra Leone, which is just a mission to relieve British residents--beautifully handled and I congratulate the noble Baroness on what was definitely a copybook operation with harsh but good decisions taken at political level--we recognise that it is a town. Those who may have some experience of fighting in what we call built-up areas, streets and houses, will appreciate that that sort of situation sucks up soldiers.
My anxiety is that, if we are forced to extend ourselves, the whole area will need reinforcing; the British contingent will need reinforcing. Do we have those reinforcements? Are they standing by? Are they available, bearing in mind Kosovo, Bosnia, Timor, Northern Ireland and the normal roulement of what goes on inside the United Kingdom? It is the harshest fighting of almost any sort. If we do not have the numbers, the training and the experience, it becomes an extremely tough learning curve. It is okay to guard an airport, though an airport is basically inside a town. I merely put that position forward: that there is danger in that situation. We must not be frightened of it, but we must be careful how we deploy our troops there.
All those areas we are working in are areas where battle helicopters, support helicopters which can use their missiles, machine guns and all the paraphernalia that goes with that, are essential and I am perturbed to hear that some of that equipment does not work. It is a classic case where the attack helicopters can help the infantry in an important way. Are there any out there? Or are there just the big Chinooks? The noble Baroness will not mind my saying that we have discussed a certain Chinook ad nauseam, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont and I, and others, perhaps do not have the confidence in that aircraft that we should. We are trying hard to come to terms with it but it is a bit "iffy" as I see it.
We have splendid men and women in the armed services and we keep on saying so; it is right that we should. It is right that we should tell the people of this country that they are special and that they are doing a magnificent job wherever they are deployed. But they must be looked after. They must be cared for and have what they need to fight--I emphasise the word "fight". It should not be a question of them dishing out food parcels to destitute refugees, and so on.
I turn now to this very good SDR. It is one that we all support and it is about the only real in-depth review. I have always congratulated this Government on it. However, like one or two other speakers, I just do not think that we will be able to match the targets that it sets with delivery at times, and I am sad about that.
I have two further points. There have been some 200 new Peers introduced into your Lordships' House, hardly any of whom--indeed, if any--have any military experience whatever. Again, in another place, there is hardly anyone with any military experience. However, I believe that one can learn. Perhaps I may put a plug in here for those noble Lords to be made aware that your Lordships' House does have a study group on defence, which is very bereft of Labour Peers. It is an all-party group of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is sitting beside me, is the president. Both he and I were grabbed by the late Lord Shinwell, who established the group, some 30 years ago. It was set up by a Labour Party, by a Labour Minister, and it should be full of Labour Peers. He did not invite us to join: he just said that we would start "next week"; and we did.
There is also this excellent thing that the MoD does with the support of the CDS and Sir Neil Thorne, a former Member of Parliament, where Peers and Members of the House of Commons can spend time with all three services of the military and have a very interesting time. I think that they probably will not get their hair parted by a bullet--some of us, of course, cannot--but they will learn a great deal. They will become enthusiastic about their defence services and their Armed Forces. So I put those two final points to the Minister. I hope that something may develop therefrom.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome this debate on the White Paper. I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing it in such a fine way. I should like to pick up on the final points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Not only have we seen a substantial increase in the number of Labour Peers coming into the House but, on the other side of the coin, we have also seen, under the House of Lords Act of last autumn, a substantial number of people with previous experience of both working and living in the forces actually leaving this place. That is an overall issue which is of concern to us.
I am one of the few noble Lords on the speaking list who has come here with no experience of either working or living within the forces. Like two or three of my noble friends who are in the same position and who have probably spoken for the first time on a forces/defence debate, I believe that not only have we much to learn but also that we may perhaps bring the benefit of the experiences that we have gained in the wider world to our contributions to such debates.
It is important for us to seek to encourage more people to play a part in such matters. One of the suggestions I should like to make is that there could be a positive outcome from today's debate if we all recommitted ourselves to encourage other Peers, irrespective of party, to play a bigger part in the affairs of state and of defence. I refer particularly to the two points precisely made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, as regards those of us who are in the group of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. We received a call from him recently urging us to start playing a more active role, and we should respond to it. We should find the time for it and become further involved in it. We are shortly to have a meeting about support for the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme with Sir Neil Thorne to see what we can do to try to get more Peers involved and lined up to go on courses. In that way, intelligence, knowledge and perhaps a little skill might indeed be developed out of our association with the Armed Forces. I quickly point out here that I have no desire whatever to change the way in which I part my hair, even though I have an interest in increasing my knowledge of the forces.
This year those in the services have been putting themselves out to try to raise our understanding and knowledge of what they are doing and, indeed, to whet our appetites. I attended the three presentations that were held earlier this year. They were well supported
There was something that I found particularly encouraging in those conversations. Although the personnel felt that there were still many problems to be solved--indeed, as other speakers today have said, there are question marks remaining about the extent to which there will be delivery on the review--they said, none the less, that there had been a significant change within the forces in the form of a lifting in morale and spirit and, indeed, a general optimism. I was very pleased to hear that. I hope that other colleagues who have spoken to Armed Forces personnel received similar messages. I was told clearly that the SDR has gone down extremely well and that people are now much more positive about their future, their role and their prospects.
When we attend such presentations, we can sometimes perhaps have the rosiest picture put before us. But I suspect that what was conveyed to me was not too far from the mark. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the department is continuing to monitor morale within the services? If so, can she say what is the current response coming through to her? If she cannot answer today, I should be very happy to receive that information in the form of a letter in due course.
However, I must be open and honest and say that there are also a good number of criticisms that came through about the continuing concerns of those employed within the forces. Again, they have been expressed strongly by most speakers in the debate. The principal topics addressed in Chapter 4 of the White Paper--this is the area in which I have a particular interest--are overstretch and undermanning.
When I first entered the House of Lords just over a couple of years ago a substantially higher number of people in this country were unemployed. At that time nearly three-quarters of a million people were on the unemployment register. I was surprised to discover that nearly 10,000 vacancies existed in the Armed Forces. I pressed the then Minister responsible for these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert--I am sorry that he is not present at the moment--to set out a programme and tell us what steps the Government were taking to try to fill those vacancies, especially from among the ranks of the unemployed. I also pointed out that there had been increasing criticism of the Armed Forces' image and of their human resources and management practices. There was much criticism of the Armed Forces in the press at that time, in particular of attitudes to race and gender. Some promotion issues had also been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, assured me that steps were being taken through the New Deal and a range of other initiatives in the SDR to seek to solve those problems. Over the past year those and many other issues have been addressed.
Much more significant progress has been made overall and is described in Chapter 4 of the White Paper. My noble friend the Minister covered many of these topics in introducing the debate some few hours ago now. However, on balance, I believe that substantial progress has been made on personnel and management issues in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces human resources development policies and practices are being transformed and now stand comparison with good employment practices almost anywhere one cares to look. Given my trade union background, I am happy to note that there has been no interference from the Civil Service and no interference whatsoever with the pay awards which have been recommended by the Armed Forces pay board. I trust that the Minister will confirm that that will continue to be the case and that every effort will be made to ensure that changes that are made to pay will be acceptable to those who will be principally affected.
Good advances have been made in improving operational welfare; in establishing the service families task force; and in support given to the veterans advice unit. I do not believe that these are minor issues, especially from the point of view of those in the ranks. The good work which has been started should be maintained and pursued further.
I have listened carefully to the views which have been expressed on training. I was interested to note the announcement made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, when he had responsibility for these matters that £1 billion had been allocated for training purposes. That had been negotiated with his big, bad brother in No. 11 Downing Street. That was a significant and useful sum in terms of pursuing policies to improve recruitment, to train people and to enable them to gain portable qualifications.
That training should encourage people to stay in the services and reduce wastage. I refer also to assisting people who want to leave the services. Between 22,000 to 24,000 seek to leave the services each year. However, the Armed Forces, in partnership with Coutts Consulting, are practising excellent management techniques and assisting with resettlement in civilian life. That is a big step forward, although some people may feel that that harms the Armed Forces in that it helps people to resettle in civilian life and people are tending to leave. We need to keep working on that practice. Those who leave the services will spread the good message of the good life and the good training they have received. They will tell others of the qualifications they have gained and of the assistance they have received, even to the extent of receiving assistance in finding placements when they leave.
Paragraph 78 lists an impressive catalogue of achievements. However, it is only a start and much remains to be done. Overstretch, especially for the Army, remains a big problem. Undermanning also continues to pose a big problem. It has been eased to some degree in certain quarters within the forces but continues to be a major problem within the Army, as does understaffing. We cannot ignore the fact that the labour market has tightened substantially in the two years that I have been in the House of Lords. It has
Other changes are taking place in the labour market. People are staying out of the labour market for longer with the increase in the numbers undertaking further and higher education. We are now approaching a situation where 50 per cent of our young people go on to university to obtain degrees. Again, in the past those young people would have been eligible to enter the Armed Forces. I believe that the labour market will become even tighter in future years.
It was good to hear my noble friend say that recruitment has improved. However, I was disappointed to learn that problems of retention are undermining that progress. I echo the question that has been asked by others; namely, can we be given an update on overstretch? In particular, I should like to see the figures for each of the services in terms of the numbers recruited and those who leave. We need to have all the facts to be able to determine how we move forward on these issues.
While savings through Smart Procurement and other technological changes are widespread, I sincerely hope that application of e-commerce in the MoD and in the forces will generate savings and opportunities for redeployment and greater investment. I still believe that the longer term prospects for adequate staffing will be problematic and need to be addressed. We need to look for new initiatives and innovative ways of trying to solve those problems. There will never be enough money to satisfy any of the public services. Although we need more money, we shall never get as much as we wish.
We should consider the interesting suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about ways in which we can retain more servicemen. I should like to persuade the powers that be to introduce a debate solely on the problems of overstretch, recruitment and retention. Such issues could then be discussed in more detail.
It is interesting that the United Kingdom can change its entry regulations to admit non-UK workers if they have IT specialties, as announced in the recent Budget. We have great problems within the forces and, perhaps in collaboration with the Commonwealth, this may be an area for people to come in on a bigger scale than at present in order to fill some of the gaps and to make careers for themselves in our Armed Forces.
An increasing number of youngsters are being incarcerated or placed on community programmes. Although I do not suggest the introduction of boot camps or anything like that, we should examine the possibility of using the Armed Forces to provide such youngsters with training and discipline. That would bring a purpose in life to those who lead what the Home Secretary described as "chaotic lifestyles". After all, we have had conscription in the past. Many people of that ilk were conscripted into the forces and
I have a number of other points to make but I have spoken for long enough. I welcome the White Paper. It is a good paper overall, but much remains to be delivered. I hope that we shall all put our shoulders to the wheel to do that.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting this report. She need not feel worried about it being, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, put it, "shiny and well presented". Being a somewhat cynical chartered accountant, I have looked at its contents and I find them relevant, interesting and most helpful.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, because, at the conclusion of his remarks, he mentioned conscription. I can speak as one of the last conscripts. Indeed, it is 43 years ago that I was Recruit Lyell. People younger than I, sons of my friends and people of my age say, "Oh yes. You poodled around and did not do a great deal". I wonder if they have ever looked at what happened.
My noble friend Lord Burnham will remember that there was a Guards brigade in Malaya and that young National Servicemen fought in Korea, with considerable success. Those campaigns were perhaps not exactly similar to the two other campaigns in post-war times that have been fought largely with conscript forces--one in Vietnam, or Indo-China as it was then called by the French, and one in Algeria--but perhaps the enemy and the entire concept of the conflicts were different.
I was a conscript. Six of the speakers in the debate today are considerably senior to me in military rank--five are very senior indeed--and on occasions such as this, I always rise to speak with great humility. I wish to put one or two of my thoughts to your Lordships, but not only on the defence estimates.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I serve on the House of Lords All Party Defence Study Group; I am purported to be the acting secretary at this moment. I look to my left and I notice that my noble friend appears still to be reasonably satisfied with me. I try to provide him with information and help.
The main thrust of any thoughts that I may have on the White Paper concern the section classed as "People in defence". I am in full agreement with the general aims in paragraphs 65 and 66, which are all good and well presented. It is only when I come to paragraph 70 and see the word "overstretch" for the first time that my blood pressure and hackles rise. Several other noble Lords have the same reaction. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig, presented this as being one aspect which is no doubt
In July 1957, when I was still a recruit, there was a major change. I remember seeing a Part II order go up that the British Army was to change from being a national service army into an all-professional new regular army. I did not necessarily have in mind the picture half-way down the Lords' corridor of the New Model Army marching out to relieve the siege of Gloucester during the war of King versus Parliament, but I took the order on board despite the fact that then I was due to serve for only two years. In fact, I served considerably less than that thanks to a ski-ing accident--whether that was on leave or duty I am not too sure.
Noble Lords have referred to the SA80 rifle. I have the letters VC after my name--not like my father; no, I am visually and vertically challenged. Being somewhat too short for the major parades in which the Scots Guards were engaged in 1958, I was sent off to Hythe. It was then discovered that I was considerably visually challenged. I am just able to see across your Lordships' House. Never mind, the commanding officer took the fine decision to send me off to Hythe. On 15th May 1958 we were all sent along to the armoury and given huge plastic pouches. We cut them open and out came the new self-loading rifle. I borrowed a fellow officer's glasses, changed the lenses and stunned everyone and myself by achieving 94 out of 100 at 200 and 300 yards with the aid of the rifle. If I could do that, guess what the British Army could do. That was May 1958. Ours was the first course at the Army School of Infantry at Hythe to use those rifles. I wonder whether the Minister could have a look at the records in what I call the dungeons in the Ministry of Defence to see whether there is a parallel with the SA80 and whether anything can be learnt from what clearly was the enormous success of the self-loading rifle. I seem to recall that our self-loading rifle was a development of the FN that had been in use in Belgium.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have referred to the developments in Sierra Leone. That goes to show just what are the demands on our regular forces--the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Royal Marines--let alone on the civilian support, which is so important. It was very nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brett, refer to them. I may come to that point a little later.
I was interested to see in paragraph 70 of the White Paper the details and figures of overstretch and how many personnel who had been in places like Kosovo and Bosnia had also been in the Gulf. Although their duties and the needs of each situation tend to vary, those personnel are able to be redeployed. But I just wonder what lies hidden. What figures are not mentioned--for instance, Northern Ireland or Germany? Sierra Leone will provide a seismic shift in
In the past 10 days I have had the chance to visit two infantry battalions. One is just back from an 18 month tour in Northern Ireland. Next year it is likely that it may take a roulement tour. That is supposed to be from May to November, but by the time one has taken the work up, the actual tour and the continuation, it is likely to be nearly one year. That is in the middle of a two-year posting in the United Kingdom.
Another battalion with which I had contact is resident in Scotland and used some of the farm buildings at home for training. It has trained for a roulement tour. I was able to see at close quarters how its training is particularly relevant not just to Northern Ireland but is a development of the training I had 42 years ago as a very junior platoon commander. Both battalions reminded me of the motto--it is a pity we did not adopt it when Independent Television was coming in--"Be the Best, Join the Army". Each and every one of them had those words in front of them while they continued with their training.
I have in front of me a note saying, "Return to your Lordships' House and support the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, seeking recruits to the Defence Study Group". The group visits all three services. That has been superbly put about by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who was one of almost 50 recipients of letters which I mailed seeking support. This is also a chance shot at the noble Baroness on the other side. Perhaps the desire of your Lordships to take part in such visits could be conveyed to the Whips' Office. If it could look sympathetically on the programme, I am sure that today's debate would go down much better.
Everywhere I have visited with my noble friend Lord Vivian and other noble Lords on the Defence Study Group, we have received marvellous briefings commencing with the great words, "Efficiency Savings". Everyone believes that the concept is fine; the details are also pretty good--they are helped by developments in information technology, new ideas and imagination. Indeed, I was very pleased with the new idea put about by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, regarding civilian support for the military in Northern Ireland and no doubt elsewhere. As military personnel move, the talents of those who have given support to the military can be utilised in some way. I know that the Minister will take that idea on board and put it into action as she sees fit.
However, we must reflect on efficiency savings in relation to what the late Harold Macmillan called "events". We have only to look at Kosovo, Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Indeed, 10 years ago I drove to Switzerland on holiday. On my arrival, after driving all day from London, I turned on the television only to see on CNN reports of the invasion of Kuwait. There are "events" at all times. There is the Strategic Defence Review; and there is Sierra Leone. The noble Baroness
Several speakers have referred to reservists and the Territorial Army. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Vivian had some strong remarks to make in that respect. I have some personal knowledge of the Army medical services being reinforced by enormous and very welcome territorial support. Were it not for that help, they would be in a grave state. Territorials are taken on as full-timers and are in front- line service all over the world. I hope that the Minister will be able to give as much support as possible, indeed give a high priority, to the Territorials.
Within the past week I have seen two examples of the wonderful people who make up our forces. Last Friday, I attended a quasi-military event with the Scots Guards Association and I was misdirected in Purbright camp. I found myself in the middle of what can only be described as a passing out parade. There were lots of mums and dads and sisters running about. They surrounded my car and I became slightly concerned. I then saw a squad of recruit guardsmen marching down the road towards me, singing, pursued by a particularly fierce Coldstream Guards sergeant who was their squad instructor.
It took me back to the time, 43 years ago, when I took part in a similar event. I had a Coldstream Guards instructor, Sergeant Clements, who went by the attractive name of "Kiwi", as it was seen that he spit-and-polished everything, including us and himself! Those young recruits evidently had enormous pride and had taken their valuable first step as soldiers. Their standards were certainly as high as I was able to achieve all those years ago. But there was also the pride and happiness of all the mothers and fathers and other family members who supported them. They were immensely proud to be there that day. I hope that we can build on that.
On Wednesday of this week I was unable to attend the important debates in your Lordships' House. I accompanied my noble friends Lord Luke and Lord Vivian on a visit to HMS "Sheffield". The predecessor of that ship was in everyone's thoughts and prayers during the Falklands conflict. For me, that visit was one of this year's highlights of the Defence Study Group. Commander Lowe and the ship's company were a prime example of the qualities to which the MoD and White Paper refer. All of them were smiling, effective and first class, from the weaponry right down to the fire-fighters. I was taken right down the ship to see people who were called "writers". Each and every one of the crew was first-class and on top of the job. It was interesting that, no matter what came about as a result of Pay 2000, they were still keen and proud to do their job.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships as one of the junior military Members of your Lordships' House. In your Lordships' House, as elsewhere, humility in one's military career stands one in good stead. I add my thanks to the Minister but, above all, to each and every one of the service men and women
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that is a very hard act to follow, but I shall try. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I echo the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that this important debate takes place on a Friday. The defence of the realm is, after all, the most important function of any government. I would have thought that if any subject deserved prime time it was this. If it had taken place at prime time it might have ensured that the Front Benches had better support from behind. For the first time I find myself offering sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in that respect. But we have had a very good debate. I express particular gratitude to what I might call my noble and gallant five-star friends for their contribution to the debate, which, as always, has been professional and instructive. We had an introductory speech of the high quality we have come to expect from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons.
In the brief time that is left I should like to concentrate my remarks on only one paragraph of the Defence White Paper. In the section, "New threats and challenges", paragraph 8 is, as far as it goes, a constructive and thoughtful part of the report, but one sentence which needs closer attention begins:
By way of background, for the past year or more I have been chairman of a cross-party group which has been formed to examine the problem of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Our report, Coming into Range, will be published next Monday. The very title suggests what it is about. It paints a slightly more disturbing picture of the ballistic missile threat than that in the White Paper.
It is obvious to any serious student of military strategy that ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction will be the defining characteristic of strategic thinking in this century. Since the ballistic missile was first used at the end of the war more than 5,000 have been fired. That fact greatly surprises many people. It is even more surprising and significant that there are now more than 13,000 ballistic missiles in the hands of 37 different countries. Such proliferation should give us all great cause for concern. It may
Military intervention in such crises now seems to be an important part of our military strategy. As has been confirmed, we are committed to the idea of sending expeditionary forces to deal with crises involving human rights, humanitarian aid and political instability. It is what I have called in another context the right to interfere. Although we may not all agree with that right, it is now at the heart of western strategy.
I do not want to be alarmist but all the evidence supports the view that before too long several states will be able to strike at European cities with missiles armed with chemical, biological and even nuclear warheads. Some people seem satisfied in the belief that we are well out of range. But missile ranges are lengthening and in the not too distant future non-ballistic missiles could be fired from surface ships, which will bring all sorts of areas and bases within strike range.
Although the Strategic Defence Review and the White Paper, which is a high-grade publication, have several admirable and constructive qualities, they give rise to the suspicion that we may be entering a new century with new ideas and aspirations, but with weapons and strategic concepts that are more appropriate to the last century and to Cold War confrontation, which require different weapons systems and different strategic concepts.
The Strategic Defence Review was an extremely imaginative and first-rate attempt to solve some of the strategic concepts of the future. Among other things it promised a massive agenda for change, including the use of rapid reaction forces to deal with regional crises. But unless we can defend our rapid reaction forces and their bases, including the home base, from missile attack, that agenda for change will be dangerously incomplete and Britain's future capacity to project its military power overseas will be in doubt. Once that is in doubt, our influence in world affairs and our value as an ally will be greatly reduced.
The White Paper rightly emphasises the capacity that we must have to deter threats to our interests and to those of our allies. That is all very well as a statement but, as far as I can see, there has been no attempt to redefine the requirements of deterrent strategy to meet the new strategic environment. We are still trapped in the time warp of mutual assured destruction, the anti-ballistic missile treaty and all the trappings of the Cold War as regards deterrence. I do not suggest that the whole strategic concept has not been changed considerably. It has. I am talking now simply about deterrence. All we have at present is our Trident system. It still has an important part to play. However, we must recognise that its use would be inconceivable in a great number of circumstances. In a great superpower confrontation, it would be, yes; but in the multipolar world in which we now live, no. It would be foolish to regard the Trident as a weapon system for all seasons.
The conclusion, therefore, of my group, after over a year of careful study and analysis based upon sources of information and intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic, is that in the short term Britain should take some urgent steps to acquire ballistic missile defences at least sufficient to protect our expeditionary forces against missile attack. If we are going to continue to send British forces overseas to engage in these various brush-fire operations (or whatever they may be) we must be able to protect them; and we have no way to protect them at present against counter-attack from missiles and missiles with weapons of mass destruction in their warheads. That is not, as it may seem, an alarmist statement. It is based on a study over a year by serious people who know a bit about defence. We have the same information and intelligence as the Ministry of Defence. The difference is in the conclusions.
This kind of threat assessment is always subjective and always a matter of opinion. However, our judgment is that the ballistic missile threat, not just to our forces, but to their bases and perhaps eventually to the home base, has been seriously under-estimated. We believe indeed that in the long term Britain should be prepared to consider joining in a system of global missile defence led by the United States and organised through NATO. As noble Lords will know, the United States is already working on a national missile defence system. It has to be admitted--we have had discussions about it in your Lordships' House--that such a global defence system could not be developed within the constraints of the famous anti-ballistic missile treaty. For that reason, the United States is attempting to renegotiate the ABM treaty with Russia in exchange for a further reduction in its stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I should have thought that that was a deal which would appeal to most people on whichever side of the argument they stand. However, all I have to say, based on information which I regard as being totally reliable, is that if the United States does not succeed in renegotiating the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, the United States will abrogate that treaty and withdraw from it unilaterally.
We are at an important turning point in our strategic thinking. It is no longer any good expecting arms control to solve these problems. The anti-ballistic missile treaty, the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime are all excellent political aims and policies for any civilised government to follow. But none of them will protect our forces and their bases against the emerging threat.
If we resist the need to develop ballistic missile systems we shall do grave damage to the alliance. We shall cause strains in the alliance and strains with our principal ally, the United States of America, possibly leading to US isolationism, which is never far below the surface, or at best to the US wanting to act militarily outside the ambit of the NATO alliance.
None of those things would be in the interests of Europe. I suggest that we must now begin to pay serious attention to the problem. We pay great attention to such issues as the European security and defence initiative, which, despite what the Minister
I shall leave that aside--it was an irrelevance on my part--and return to the main issue of the debate. I know from personal experience that the noble Baroness thinks deeply about all these issues. I ask her to return to the Ministry and look again at paragraph 8. Are we not underestimating what I regard to be the most serious emergent military threat of the 21st century?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as with all defence debates, this debate has raised a wide range of subjects. I note that we have heard more speeches from Members on the Cross Benches than from those on the Conservative Benches. That should not pass unnoticed in a defence debate. For some time I have felt a little naked on these Benches in defence debates. I shall welcome to these Benches the arrival next week of Lord Roper, a very good friend with whom I have worked and written on defence issues for many years, and the return of Lord Redesdale, who has experience of serving in the Territorial Army.
I should like to touch briefly on a large number of subjects. As regards manned aircraft, I am more persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, than I am by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I worry whether within the next 10 years the manned fighter bomber will become the equivalent of the battleship. I should like to comment on recruitment and retention, about which we are all rightly concerned and which deserves separate treatment. As my noble friend, Lord Dholakia, has reminded me, there is underway in this country a sustained effort to recruit among ethnic minorities. It is going well and we are grateful for the help of Colin Powell in that respect. It is one way in which we can reduce the current shortages.
But I want to talk mainly about defence as such and the threat against which we believe we are now preparing. After all, defence is needed to meet anticipated threats. It is now 10 years since the end of the Cold War. There is no foreseeable threat to the territory of the United Kingdom or to what we used to regard as core western Europe as a whole. Therefore, it has been rational to reduce defence spending over the past 10 years.
I disagree with the Conservative point of view as put by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, which seemed to me to echo that of the American Republicans who wish always to cut spending on education and health and increase it on defence. They then resist using or deploying forces outside the country. Incidentally, I must also say that, having spent some time going in and out of a remarkably unsafe building--the Ministry of Defence Main Building--I would have thought that recent refurbishment might have made the survivability of those who work in the building rather better. The Conservative approach to defence seems to me to lack a degree of common sense.
It is now a question more of security than of defence. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, we are talking about stability and about Britain's global and regional responsibilities. Britain has responsibilities as a member of the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and as a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Again, I would say to our Conservative colleagues that the vigour with which they insist that Britain maintains its permanent membership of the UN Security Council does not sit easily with their resistance to the use of British forces in support of UN operations outside Europe.
I want to concentrate on Chapter 2 of the Defence White Paper and on the question of NATO and the very relevant issues which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised about nuclear missile defence and the implications of that for the transatlantic partnership. I share his view that the transatlantic partnership remains the key to British and European security and that the maintenance of NATO is therefore of fundamental importance to Britain. However, as the noble Lord also said, I believe that we face some immense problems which arise from the divergence of assumptions on the different sides of the Atlantic.
I spent two weeks either side of Easter in the United States, at the spring conference of the Transatlantic Policy Network. I met a number of Congressmen. I met several members of the foreign policy advisory team of George W Bush, and I have to say that I came back very worried. We were told firmly that nuclear missile defence in the United States,
Those of us who then listened to people who spoke about the severity of the North Korean threat to the United States found that a little difficult to grasp. However, we were equally worried when some of those to whom we spoke said, "Well, of course, it is not really North Korea; it is really China and Russia". The assumption that China and Russia are fundamentally antagonistic to the United States and must remain enemies against whom one deters is part of the worry that I have about the discourse of American defence policy.
I was also worried when one of the experts there to whom I spoke said that within the defence circles of the United States a discussion was just beginning about the ethical quality of the current trends within American defence; that the pursuit of the revolution in military affairs and in nuclear missile defence is intended to ensure that no American is ever killed in any conflict and that the only ones who are killed are always foreigners. That view is beginning to worry some of the more responsible people who are involved in these discussions.
I found myself thinking about the debate held 20 years ago in the Committee of the Present Danger, which suggested that the Soviet Union was building up an overwhelming preponderance of weapons and was inherently expansionist in the early 1980s. This partly led to the SDI debate.
I remember, 20 years before that, when I was first in the United States as a student, the missile gap debate. I even remember visiting in Vermont an observation post on the corner of a property there which still had in it the identification charts for German bomber aircraft. It had been manned from 1942 to 1945. In spite of the fact that no German aircraft had the capacity to reach Massachusetts, let alone Vermont, that had fed the American vision that there is a threat out there and that, above all, one must maintain the United States secure from it.
Over the next two years, there will be a very severe set of difficulties across the Atlantic in relation to nuclear missile defence. It involves the United Kingdom directly because, as an authoritative article in Survival said recently, upgrading the radars on British territory is clearly a breach of the ABM treaty as currently signed. Therefore, it requires amendment. Thus, the British Government will have to accept amendment of the ABM treaty.
I worry also about the divergence of the discourse about defence and security in western Europe from that of the United States. In the United States, one hears conversations about rogue states--Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea--and about weapons of mass destruction--chemical and biological weapons. The last time I was at Harvard, I was shown some wonderful charts about how far biological weapons spread if dropped from the World Trade Tower in New York. There is a whole set of discussions going on about that sort of thing. They speak of the revolution in military affairs, the greater Middle East, the strategic importance of central Asia as a buffer between Russia and China, Islamic fundamentalism and the role of the Turkey/Israel partnership in resisting Islamic fundamentalism, the geopolitics of oil, and so on.
As the Minister's excellent introductory speech clearly demonstrated, the European discourse uses a very different language. It is about peacekeeping, peace-making, conflict prevention, weak states, defence diplomacy, partnership and dialogue. One needs a different balance of forces for that. One needs different equipment. The deployment in Sierra Leone demonstrates that.
There is a particular problem for Britain in that regard because, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned in the debate, the United Kingdom wishes to maintain interoperability with the United States, as well as recognising that in active conflict situations, we are most likely to be working alongside our European allies. So we are torn in both directions in terms of what sort of equipment we want to have and how much high technology we wish to procure.
I welcome, as my party has throughout, moves towards closer European defence co-operation. Again, I wish to remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, how that started. It started in 1994-95 with the Franco-British defence dialogue in great secrecy. Michael Portillo was one of the major players in that dialogue. It grew partly out of the experience of British and French commanders in the field in Bosnia and the recognition by both British and French commanders that they were the two who were serious and that there was a great deal to be gained from working more closely together.
The United Kingdom has become the model for successive European defence reviews elsewhere. The United Kingdom Government have rightly taken the lead in pushing very good progress so far. We have some way to go. We are waiting to see the next key decisions which will be in Germany when the Weisza cker Commission reports next month as to how far the Germans are prepared to follow the model which the French, following the British, have now taken.
Rational further progress down that road includes pursuing further shared logistical chains, further joint training establishments and, please, one may ask the Government, a little more visibility for those areas in which the British and the Dutch, the British and the French, already collaborate closely. I always wish to remind people that there is the British-Dutch marine amphibious force, now 26 years in operation, about which very few people in the British Parliament are even aware.
The underlying question is, where will forces be needed and what will they be required to do? We dearly hope that current progress in Ulster will reduce one cause of overstretch for the British Armed Forces. We also recognise that in south eastern Europe, Britain and her European allies have now taken on a long-term commitment. It should not be one that will require too many front-line British forces. There is likely to be a gendarmerie requirement for state reconstruction for which the British are less well equipped than some of our continental partners, and a requirement for soft security operations in which the EU, as well as NATO, is an active participant.
Africa and the south, as we see with Sierra Leone, will clearly be a major preoccupation. As Chairman of Sub-Committee F of the Lords European Communities Committee, I have read various papers from the Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers. They spoke of how to cope with the flood of immigrants and refugees entering Europe. The common conclusion of the various country studies was
In the Middle East, unlike Africa and south-eastern Europe, we are likely to work with the Americans; indeed, we will be working in support of them. In that area British, European and American views diverge. We face a difficult dialogue with our American partners, particularly under a Republican administration, as to what we do in the Middle East. Clearly, continuing to sell arms to the Middle East is not a sensible policy. Anything that we can do as the EU, and at a transatlantic level, to tighten controls on arms sales to that unstable region will be highly desirable.
Lastly, there are the Caucasus and the other areas around Russia. It is possible that if the Chechen war had overflowed into Georgia or if there had been problems with Russian minorities in the Baltic states, we may have seen problems that would have required some sort of limited confrontation with the extremely inefficient, badly organised Russian armed forces. I hope that the British Government will stress--here again we differ from our American partners--that Russia should be engaged in dialogue and should not be assumed to be a long-term enemy. Pursuit of NATO enlargement should be taken carefully and slowly rather than as a process that is seen explicitly as excluding Russia.
Closer co-operation with our European partners is the basis for an intelligent British defence policy. The maintenance of the transatlantic partnership, in spite of the many and real difficulties ahead, is as important. On these Benches we believe that we should maintain the size of the budget, particularly if Ulster allows us to reduce overstretch; that we should put much more effort into maintaining the quality of our Armed Forces; that improvement in recruitment should take place; and that we must ensure that we obtain the best quality equipment possible.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before turning to the substance of my remarks, perhaps I may remind the House that I have an interest as a serving TA officer. However, I am no longer in a command appointment, but in a pool of specialist watchkeepers. That allows me more time to attend your Lordships' House.
Several noble Lords have remarked on the lack of Conservative Peers in this debate. I should point out that, although we have 42,000 men serving in the Navy, as a result of the House of Lords Act we have
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate. Noble Lords have always had the benefit of high quality defence Ministers, and the noble Baroness is no exception. Some noble Lords have remarked on the timing of this debate. But since 1992 I have taken part in several similar debates that have been scheduled on the last sitting day before the Summer Recess, so I think that in fact we are making progress. The average length of the excellent speeches we have heard today has been 13 minutes. I believe that that gives an indication of the value of our debate, especially as very little time has been wasted. I have found it a fascinating and informative debate.
I am grateful for the Minister's update on the situation in Sierra Leone. Matters are moving very fast indeed. The speed with which our forces were able to deploy was quite remarkable and commendable. How much more we shall be able to do when we have the heavy-lift aircraft, the need for which was identified some time ago, although the Minister has yet to place an order. We on these Benches applaud the actions of our forces, but we have deployed a very potent force, much greater than would be needed for the stated role of our troops. On the other hand, it makes sense to be able to wave an even larger stick at a potential opponent, if that proves to be necessary.
I feel that a problem has already developed. Now that our forces are in place, the people we aimed to evacuate are apparently now more confident and wish to stay. Will this situation not force the Government to leave our forces in place longer than is necessary, desirable or even planned for? Can the Minister tell the House what commitments, if any, HMG have made to the Government of Sierra Leone, or to President Kabbah, in the run-up to this crisis?
We are concerned about mission creep, as we were when UK forces were deployed to Macedonia. As it eventually ended up we were within a few days of having to mount a force of 50,000 men to deal with President Milosevic in Kosovo. However, on the other hand, in 1995 I personally witnessed the aftermath of the results of inaction when the UN force collapsed in Rwanda in 1994, so there is a balance to be struck.
I do not expect the Minister to say anything about the rules of engagement for our forces in Sierra Leone. However, I am always amused to learn that the warring factions in a conflict understand our rules of engagement when parliamentarians do not, even in confidence. Can the Minister give an assurance that our rules of engagement are broadly similar to those which obtained for our NATO forces in Bosnia? If not, what training was undertaken before deployment? This impinges clearly on some of the questions put to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Can the Minister say on what date and at what time Ministers approved the rules of engagement for this operation? I appreciate that she may prefer to write to me in confidence on these points.
Members of another place are concerned that they have not had a Statement today about this very serious matter. Can the Minister give an assurance that a Statement will be made on Monday which will lay out clearly Her Majesty's Government's strategy for this operation?
On reading the White Paper, it struck me as very much a mutual pat on the back. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said that it was well produced. That pat is well deserved for our soldiers but less so for the Ministers. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that it was "rather complacent". As we examine the SDR during its implementation, we realise that the Government almost undertook one of the best post-war reviews of defence. Indeed, favourable comments were made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and many others. That review has been built on the work of the previous administration. When they defend the SDR cuts--the SDR has indeed reduced defence expenditure--Ministers point to the cuts made by the previous administration, in particular Options for Change.
But our major threat from the Warsaw Pact had disappeared. What message would have been received by the Russians and others if we had maintained defence expenditure unchanged and if we had not followed the Partnership for Peace route? In the end, the Government ruined their own SDR by not properly funding it; in particular, by having a plan that the staff carefully worked out and costed and then allowing the Treasury to impose an arbitrary 3 per cent year-on-year efficiency saving. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, made some interesting comments in relation to the Treasury and the Chancellor. When one remembers that a large proportion of the defence budget is fixed, the 3 per cent could become rather more like 6 per cent on the items that are variable; the items that can be adjusted.
Many aspects of SDR are not new; they are just built upon the efforts and results of the previous administration. There is nothing new in jointery. That was always being continuously developed. Defence diplomacy--eloquently written up in the White Paper--is a new mission which, according to the White Paper, covers verification of arms control, visits by ships, aircraft, units and personnel at all levels, staff talks, personnel exchange programmes, education programmes, loan service and the British Military Advisory Team. I am not quite clear which of those laudable activities is a new one for the MoD. But I agree with Ministers that they are all highly desirable. Perhaps one of the most important is the promotion of democratic control of the Armed Forces.
16 Air Assault Brigade will be an extremely potent and desirable force, but noble Lords will recognise that it is not an additional brigade. It builds upon the experience and structure of 24 Air Mobile Brigade, and that was already based at Colchester. And indeed it builds upon the availability of the Apache AH64 attack helicopter ordered by the previous administration.
I welcome the Minister's comments about improving conditions for servicemen and families involved in operations. But at the end of the day we must reduce the percentage of our forces engaged in operations. That will be the most beneficial thing we can do for retention.
I used to sleep well at night, but after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I shall now be reaching for the sleeping pills. He referred to the difficulty of deploying under the threat of a ballistic missile. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and I suggest the Minister does the same.
I should like briefly to follow up on the many comments made about the TA. It is interesting to note that one of the officers who managed to escape in Sierra Leone was from the Royal Navy Reserve. I am minded to conclude that the Government were right not to use compulsory call-up for the TA for what I would call "base load commitment and overstretch". The TA played a vital voluntary role in reinforcing the regular forces on operations. But the staff are not fully seized of the fact that the TA is a once-only insurance policy.
If a unit, or part of it, is called out this year, it would not be practical to call it out next year without very serious problems for retention in that unit. If it was necessary to call out the TA in order to be able to put 50,000 troops in Kosovo, both regular and TA, that would be completely different and would fit in with the Government's desire to have a more usable TA. If the Minister truly desires to have a more usable TA, she will have to stop allowing the man-training-day budget to be cut in order to overcome the financial problems caused by her friends in the Treasury.
Ministers frequently refer to the Reserve Forces Mobilisation and Training Centre when defending the SDR implications to the TA. But my recollection is that this centre was planned by the previous administration and that the new government Ministers had approved it by October 1997. So it is not clear how it relates to the SDR.
We know that the Minister is responsible for defence procurement, but when reading the specialist press I detect increasing uncertainty as to what Smart procurement is. The noble Baroness said that it is "radical", but is it just doing procurement better? Is it cutting out one approval stage of a major equipment programme, or is it the introduction of integrated project teams, which were introduced during the last administration? Can the Minister say exactly what it is; why it is a different policy from the previous administration; and why informed commentators are confused about what it is?
Much comment has been made about the Clansman radio and the SA80 rifle. Of course, the Minister is proud about the fact that she has ordered a personal-role radio, which will be very useful. But, by its very nature, it has none of the complexity of the Bowman radio.
I know how much the Minister is looking forward to my Unstarred Question on the radios, but I think that we need to put the rifle in its proper context. The Minister has been good enough to agree that it is not ideal for "extreme conditions". Does she agree that this refers to extreme arctic and desert sand conditions? The problem is apparently jamming. But I have fired several thousand rounds through my service SA80 rifle and I cannot recall ever having had a jam. Admittedly, my experience is only in a temperate climate, but I did experience jamming problems with the old SLR.
My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to the introduction of the SLR. When the Minister takes my noble friend to the dungeons, she will probably discover that the SLR had its own problems when it was being introduced. The light support weapon, part of the SA80 family, also comes in for criticism because it overheats. However, it is important to remember that it is a light weapon. The armchair commentators, to whom I believe the Minister referred in her opening remarks, who wax lyrical about the general purpose machine-gun should be reminded that, while it is a very fine weapon, it is also very heavy, as is the ammunition. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that the GPMG is in service in Sierra Leone.
There is a modification programme in hand for the SA80 rifle which involves changing relevant parts. My only anxiety is that it may adversely affect accuracy. No doubt that is why it is taking so long to develop and trial the modifications. I hope that the Minister can agree with me that the SA80 rifle is a weapon that soldiers in West Africa and in the Balkans can have full confidence in, as I do. It may be that the Minister is considering its replacement. No one should be surprised. If the procurement process takes five years, the weapons will have been in service for 20 years by the time that it is introduced.
The radios are more of a problem. Is it correct that not only the enemy can listen to our military radio traffic but that the media can also do so? Is that desirable? The other problem that troops may experience in West Africa comes from the fact that I doubt whether there is an operational civil mobile phone system. My noble friend Lord Vivian raised the issue of armoured fighting vehicles. Once the Minister has replied to my Unstarred Question on radios she can look forward to another one on armoured fighting vehicles. I am glad to see that she has just given me a very pleasant smile.
I have no intention of second-guessing the Minister in her procurement decisions. I am not prepared to pass judgment on the basis of a few sheets of A4 paper on issues such as BURAM and FLA. The Minister's desk will be groaning with briefing, much of it classified. However, I should be concerned with either interference or delays from other government departments.
It is notable that neither the Minister nor her noble friend Lord Gilbert have ever ordered a warship. It would appear that she is unlikely to order a substantial ship from a UK yard. My understanding is that the roll-on, roll-off ferries will not be warships. That creates obvious procurement opportunities and challenges. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, the FORT class, have a potent self-defence capability in terms of helicopters with an anti-submarine and anti-surface capability. Will not the ro-ro ferries be vulnerable to the most modest interference when on passage?
I join with the Minister and other noble Lords in their praise of our Armed Forces, which is well deserved. Noble Lords rightly drew attention to the risks attendant on operations. However, we must never forget that realistic training, particularly for specific operations, is not free of risk. But it is necessary: we must have live firing exercises on suitable ranges. However, live firing, by its very nature, involves risks that bring the activities into conflict with the Health and Safety at Work Act. Will the Minister reject any changes in live firing exercises when her military advice is that it would degrade combat effectiveness?
Over the past year or so there have been some tragic accidents involving live training. Will the Minister confirm that there is a training accidents investigation team which carefully investigates those accidents? Will she join with me and the rest of the House in offering our condolences and deepest sympathy to those involved--and to their families--in such accidents, whether they occurred during operations or training?
One interesting point is that the quality, if not the fitness, of our recruits is ever increasing. In days of old a high quality NCO could expect rapid promotion. Unfortunately, nowadays being graded "very good" means relatively slow promotion. To achieve only a reasonable rate of promotion one has to be outstanding. There is little chance of meteoric promotion, such is the competition in the services. That is an interesting and, in a way, nice problem to
One day the Minister might like to challenge myself or her noble friend Lord Gilbert as to how much we would spend on defence. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, would spend more, as he told us in his most interesting speech earlier today. I believe that we in the UK expend broadly an appropriate amount on defence, and much more than our European allies, with the possible exception of the French.
The government of the day can decide to spend X billion pounds on defence and then provide a certain capability and resources from within that budget. From that will flow what commitments can be met. Alternatively, one can decide what commitments are to be met and then determine the resources and capabilities required. From that the funding requirement would follow. If the programme was unaffordable, the commitments would have to be reduced.
The Government, under the helpful guidance of the Treasury, claim to have done the latter. But in reality they have failed because of the 3 per cent year-on-year efficiency savings or cuts. Despite the protestations of the Minister in her highly illuminating speech, most noble Lords are convinced that the MoD is desperately short of finance. The Government have compounded this by continuing to require operations to be undertaken for which the MoD is not properly resourced. We simply cannot go on with a 20 per cent operational commitment. Until the Cabinet addresses these difficulties, I think that it is extremely unlikely that the nation will be able to reap the full benefits of the SDR.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page