Armed Forces

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord King, on securing this debate. Listening to today’s debate and reading carefully the Hansard of the debate on defence procurement that was held in the other place about 10 days ago, I acknowledge and appreciate the growing consensus across political parties on the whole question of defence. There is an increasing consensus that our force is severely overstretched; that there is a near impossibility, or a considerable unlikelihood, of us going to war alone in the future; that we are more likely to be part of a coalition, part of a UN force or part of peacekeeping operations; that our economic situation at present puts us under severe pressure; that we need—virtually all noble Lords who have spoken have referred to this—a major strategic defence review; and that we must match our commitments to our resources. Where I slightly question what the noble Lord, Lord King, and some of my noble colleagues have been saying, however, is on the issue of whether we are prepared as a country to provide the resources for Britain to remain as a first-division power, or whether we have to accept the reality of our economic circumstances and accept that we are likely to be a very superior second-division power. On the one hand, we have at present what I would describe as first-division weaponry and equipment. We have Trident and the Typhoon, while soon we will have the Astute submarines. Two supercarriers have been ordered, and we have the outstanding Type 45 Daring class destroyers. That is first-class equipment. On the other hand, though, we have a shortage of troops, of helicopters—as my noble friend Lord Burnett referred to—and strategic lift capability, as well as a shortage of escort vessels, which the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, referred to. Unquestionably, we are trying to do too much on the 2.4 per cent or so of gross domestic product spent on defence. Whichever party wins the next general election will face some difficult choices. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the Official Opposition have for the first time acknowledged that the defence spend, as far as they are concerned, can no longer be regarded as a sacred cow and ring-fenced. Indeed, I would suggest that the debate on defence in the Conservative Party in the next 12 or 18 months will be crucial to defence in this country. Of course, it would all be very different if we currently faced a major military threat. We would then have to put defence expenditure as a number one priority. However, this is not the case at present. On the other hand, we have a major conflict in Afghanistan, commitments in the Balkans and piracy off Somalia, all of which have to be properly resourced. It is particularly disturbing to hear that the Prime Minister is blocking the commitment, or the wish of the defence chiefs, to provide more permanent forces for Afghanistan and that he will sanction only a modest increase on a temporary basis. I think that we are letting down our forces. We cannot ignore the terrorist threat to this country. I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, regarding a department of homeland security. We have the nuclear threat from North Korea, an uncertain Iran, a fragile Pakistan and significant increases in Russian and Chinese defence expenditure. Russia is considering using bases in Cuba, Venezuela and pushing into the Arctic. It was announced earlier this week that Russia and China are planning something like 25 joint manoeuvres. That announcement was made by Defence Ministers from what is termed the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation, which is seen as an emerging rival to NATO. The world is still a very dangerous place and we have to keep up our guard. What should be the strands of our defence policy in the short to medium term? First—I believe the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to this earlier—we must stay close to America, our number one military ally. I would suggest that we are all a lot more comfortable with President Obama’s approach of more talking, less sabre-rattling and less axis-of-evil language. Secondly—this came up at Question Time earlier—we welcome France’s return to the military structure in NATO. We must work to support greater European defence co-operation and support more joint procurement. We should try to encourage greater United Kingdom corporate activity in helping to consolidate the European defence industries. One looks at what BAE Systems has achieved in the United States. It employs significantly more people there than it does in this country. The lead towards consolidation can come from our industry. Thirdly, we must work towards a reduction in nuclear weapons. The right reverend Prelate referred to that. There is increasingly a questioning of Trident. A number of noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, referred to Trident. Is it truly independent? Realistically, are we ever likely to press the button? Can we afford the cost of anything up to £100 billion in today’s money values over a 40-year period from 2015? Can that sort of expenditure realistically be justified? Could other delivery systems such as the Astute submarines carry a more modest nuclear capability, if we judge that to be necessary? I am increasingly undecided on Trident, and increasingly Trident-sceptic. Perhaps the time has come to set up a serious Future of Trident commission, involving senior diplomats, defence experts, naval specialists and logistical and financial personnel to look seriously at all the options, however radical. Fourthly, it is increasingly accepted that we need more mobile and a greater number of special forces. The Secretary of State referred to that in a speech earlier this week. A littler earlier today, my noble friend Lord Burnett spoke of the marines and commandos in action in Afghanistan. He also acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the Gurkhas and the debt we owe them. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, also referred to the Gurkhas. In Written Answers to my good friend Nick Harvey in the other place, the Armed Forces Minister, Bob Ainsworth, effectively conceded that 30 per cent of parachutists in our leading airborne fighting unit are not sufficiently qualified at present. A total of 11 parachuting course were cancelled in the past 12 months owing to lack of aircraft. So can we justify two new large carriers plus aircraft and escorts in our increasingly constrained circumstances? The suggestion in the other place made by Nicholas Soames and others was that perhaps we ought to be thinking about a number of smaller carriers—perhaps the development of HMS "Ocean"-type vessels which can carry helicopters. My noble friend Lord Addington also questioned the role of heavy armour. Fifthly, there is the whole question of our reserves. We have to sensibly and intelligently handle the transition from being perhaps a superpower to being a very capable second-division player, all the while keeping up our guard and recognising that we need more mobile and lighter Armed Forces. Finally, and crucially, we have to honour the covenant with our service personnel in terms of length of deployment, training, pay, equipment, accommodation and aftercare. We must show greater awareness of mental problems that arise for those who have been in combat. We owe our brave service personnel nothing less.