| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: My Lords, there seems to be a misunderstanding among noble Lords, and perhaps among Members of another place. It was always intended to use the TA extensively on operations at the large scale of effort.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I entirely accept that and support it. My remarks were really about going into overstretch. I deleted certain parts of my speech as a result of other excellent speeches, and it would have been inappropriate for me to go through the whole story.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to hear how many noble Lords have sought to take note of the passing of Peter Hardy. Like my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, I arrived in the other place on the same day as Peter Hardy and in this place on almost the same day as he did. I like to think of him as a very great friend. I shall always remember him as a man of courage, courtesy and humour who was always very loyal to his friends. I shall miss him very much indeed.
On another personal note, I must say how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, back with us today. He tried very hard to give me a hard time for the first couple of years that I was in this House, but I always enjoyed our exchanges, which were conducted with great good will on both sides.
I was a little startled to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, thinks that looks of mine could have any effect on his happy temperament. However, as he referred to me in the context of American policies, perhaps I ought in self-defence to assure him that, while I am a self-confessed Americanophile, I do not slavishly follow all American defence policies. I think that the Americans are quite capable of making huge miscalculations and allocating ridiculous amounts of their obviously huge resources to quite wild projects. I may not carry many noble Lords with me, but I cite in that respect the F22 programme, which is a complete and absolute waste of money, so far as the Americans are concerned.
I would also cite the American expenditure on ballistic missile defence. It may surprise the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I agree again with his words on the implications for this country of our following America down that path very far. The threat is not coming from ballistic missiles, but in the area of home defence. The amount of resources that the Americans are putting into ballistic missile defence compared with homeland defence is quite ridiculous. We are in danger of making much the same sort of mistake in this country, and I would like us to spend far more on intelligence. That is not an area where huge resources can be put in in 12 or 24 months; it takes a long time. One has to train people, get the language skills and so forth, but we are all deeply conscious of the difficulties that we have had in intelligence in the past few years.
There are projects on which we are spending money that we might not be. I assure my noble friend that he will receive no criticism from me if he finds it necessary to cut back on the Eurofighter programme. I was horrified to be reminded by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, that it will cost £50 million a copy. We would get far more value from it if we took the pilot out and made it into an unmanned aerial vehicle. That is not a flippant suggestion, and I commend it to my noble friend.
Then there is our old friend the A400M. I shall not say much about that today, but I shall say a little. I agreed with every syllable uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, on that subject, and I was delighted to hear him express himself so vigorously. So far as I am concerned, he was addressing not only the Minister, but the whole House, and I listened to him with great care and enthusiasm. I shall come back to the subject in a moment.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, rightly said that the Eurofighter was a Cold War project. I remember vividly, when I first arrived in the Ministry of Defence in 1976, that the then Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Beecham, came to see me. He said that AST 403 was the most pressing need
of the Royal Air Force at that time. AST 403 is now Eurofighter. It was going to be built with the French and optimised in the ground attack role, and would have been the Harrier/Jaguar replacement. I shall not dwell on what actually happened, as all noble Lords will know that we did not get any of that. The first tranche—it will not be cut back, so we shall be stuck with it—is unfortunately the air defence variant, which of course we need least. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if need be.I would like the Minister's full attention to what I am about to say, as there is some conflicting evidence on the future of the C17. He has an uncorrected answer in Hansard that says that when the A400Ms arrive, they will replace the C17. I have discussed that with some of his colleagues, and there is a certain ambiguity about that. Paragraph 4.18 of the White Paper talks about our transport capability, stating:
- "The core of this capability will continue to centre on the C-130 fleet, and the A400M when the latter replaces older C-130s from 2011";
- "We have already announced that we are considering the options for retaining a small force of C-17s after the A400M enters service".
About a year ago, very heavy hints were dropped that we would move from what we then had—four leased C17s—to a total force of six C17s, if we were lucky, the last two of which would probably be purchased. All we have at the moment, a year later, is a certain ambiguity. I realise that we shall move to lighter forces and I applaud that, but we will always need heavy forces. We read in the lessons from Iraq that the Challenger 2 and AS90 proved to be "battle-winning equipment". Of course, the only problem with the A400M is that, even if it arrives in 2011, it will not be able to lift either Challenger 2 or the AS90. That is why, as I am sure my noble friend realises, it is absolutely essential that we maintain the C17 capability.
Perhaps I may add to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. One of the political reasons that we are stuck at present with the A400M programme is that we cancelled the MRAV; we cancelled the "Horizon" frigate. We decided that we have been bad boys enough and that we should be spanked by the French and the Germans if we were to pull out of the A400M programme. That is based on political rather than military reasons.
On UAVs, our contribution in Iraq was extremely effective. But we had an appalling attrition rate. We lost about 25 per cent of UAVs in a campaign which lasted only about three weeks. Obviously one cannot sustain that attrition rate. We have far too small an inventory of UAVs and far too few capabilities. In that field we have been left behind by many other countries. I hope to have a briefing on the subject. I feel strongly about it. When I first went to the MoD in 1976 I asked about UAVs. They patted me on the head and said that a chap called Duncan Sandys was asking about them. Nothing has ever happened. I went back in 1997 and again it was said that a chap called Duncan Sandys was asking about them. Eventually they have been
taken seriously. They are no longer treated as a joke but I do not think that they have any serious thrust behind them as a ministry-wide programme.I used one other set of initials the second time I arrived at the MoD. I referred to NLWs. To this day those initials are guaranteed to produce a blank look on the faces of most MoD officials. I am sure your Lordships are all aware that NLWs are non-lethal weapons. We shall find ourselves needing more non-lethal weapons of the kind we have had for some time in Northern Ireland—rubber bullets. There are no serious signs that the MoD has a dedicated corps of people looking at NLWs. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. There is a tendency to regard them as rather foppish and effeminate things. In the United States they are the property of the United States Marine Corps, which is hardly a collection of wimps.
I fully realise my own limitations in talking about personnel matters because when I was in the MoD I dealt with equipment. I am much impressed by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean. We are delighted that she is off the leash at last. I hope that we shall hear from her in totally uninhibited form in future debates. There is nothing in the Defence White Paper on the long-term demographic problems facing the Ministry of Defence, which will have to appeal for new recruits for an ever-shrinking workforce, although as the noble Baroness said rightly and fairly it has had some success with recruitment. That is an issue that the MoD will have to face up to. I hope that the Minister can tell us that the MoD is looking at least 20 years ahead and has people with some ideas on what they will do about it. There is not a word about the issue in the Defence White Paper. In the long run that is the most serious problem that the MoD faces.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, as with any debate on defence in this House, it has been not only well informed but extremely useful. As many noble Lords have said, we are grateful to the Government for providing time so early. We hope that this is not just a debate and that the Minister will learn from the remarks made today.
I join with noble Lords who have paid tribute to Peter, Lord Hardy of Wath. Like the noble Lords, Lord Gilbert and Lord Clark of Windermere, I entered the House of Commons on the same day in 1970. In the 1970s, I shared an office with Peter Hardy and got to know him extremely well. I also served with him on the Defence Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union, one of the places where he developed a knowledge of and interest in a number of defence issues. He was a considerable parliamentarian and a considerable friend of the Armed Forces of this country. We shall all miss him.
In many ways, this is a new concept for a White Paper. It does not spell out policy. That is what we expected White Papers to do; and they did so in the past. Instead it gives a broad and often over-detailed analysis of current thinking among military analysts.
It has been described by some today as more of an essay than a White Paper in the traditional form. Nevertheless, it is welcome as a point of reference from which to start the important discussion of the country's needs for defence in the years ahead. We have started that debate effectively today in this House.My second major concern with the White Paper is that it lacks any satisfactory appreciation of costs. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, when opening from the Opposition Front Bench. When I saw the White Paper I was reminded of that brilliant remark of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he worked for Sir Alec Douglas-Home in preparation for the 1964 general election. He unkindly—I say that with apologies to the Benches opposite—described the Labour Party's manifesto as the menu without the prices. The phrase could well describe the White Paper we are considering today.
It is clear that the wish list which exists in the White Paper is unaffordable without a considerable rise in budgetary allocations which shows no sign of coming from the Treasury. As the Chief of Defence Staff said in his lecture at the RUSI just before Christmas, this means that there are tough choices to be made. If the Government have not yet made those choices, Parliament needs to take the opportunity, and subsequent opportunities in another place, to make its views known.
Clearly, the issue much in discussion today—the balance of commitments, capabilities and costs for our Armed Forces—has taxed successive governments since the mid-1980s. In the early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, the noble Lord, Lord King, when Secretary of State—he much regrets that owing to a previous engagement he cannot be with us today—made a bold effort in the light of the newly reduced security commitments to cut unnecessary capabilities and thus try to bring costs into balance. However, as it became clear that first the Balkans and now Iraq were to become long-term commitments in addition to Northern Ireland, his successors have carried out less successful attempts to juggle new commitments while reducing costs. A number of the problems which have dogged our military for a long period stem from measures taken in the mid–1990s. The Defence Medical Services problem, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred, is perhaps best known. It fell because of mistakes which were made at that time. I was encouraged to hear that some of the problems are now coming out. It has taken a long time.
Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, conducted a well received review when the present Government came into office. Yet it should not be forgotten that capabilities were cut even in that Strategic Defence Review and there was no more money for defence even at the time of the SDR. Since then we have seen the commitments for our forces continue to rise—Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and still Northern Ireland and the Falklands. But we have also seen the threat to our territory increase radically. The terrible attacks on Washington and New York in 2001 have given us a new and urgent security problem to add to the growing
security problems from proliferation, international crime and regional instabilities. On any logic, these increased commitments—some of them volunteered by the Government—coupled with the increase in threat, would require increased resources. Since 1997 the Government have maintained defence spending almost level in real terms if one includes the promised increases. This may be better than their predecessors, but it is the cause of the current difficulties. Either commitments need to be reduced or budgets need to rise significantly across the range of security activities. If neither happens, as is almost certain, choices will be made about which capabilities to sacrifice in order to balance the books. These tough choices had better be well thought out and they had better be well thought through as the possible consequences of thinking badly could be serious.The first responsibility of any government is the security of their own people. The White Paper makes that clear. In bold letters on page 4, it states:
- "To deliver security for the people of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories by defending them, including against terrorism".
- "The safety and security of the population of the UK is the responsibility of the Home Office and similar bodies in the devolved Administrations".
I wonder now how we should proceed. We need a second White Paper and we need it soon. It will need to do what successive White Papers have alluded to but never totally achieved: to consider security in the wider sense. We all know—and it has been referred to many times today—that vital and excellent as our Armed Forces are, they are only one component of an increasingly complex security picture. We need, first and foremost, to consider again the immediate threats facing the United Kingdom. They do not come from missiles, imaginary or otherwise, at 45-minute notice from Iraq, but from suicidal extremists who could act in our own country. We need to address the longer-term threats from proliferation, instability, crime, terrorism, refugees, corruption, disease and the many vulnerabilities of our technological societies. It may be that the United Kingdom has a greater contribution to make in the use of its Armed Forces in conflict prevention, nation-building and counter-insurgency. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to our effectiveness in some of those areas.
The United States clearly has the resources and includes research and development money in order to equip itself for high-tech offensive operations. The
question which we must begin to ask is whether we should always try to emulate the US in miniature. We could always buy equipment off the shelf if the need arises. What we cannot buy is experienced, trained troops. We must not repeat the mistakes of the Defence Medical Services. Each specialisation has a critical size. Err on the side of caution lest you destroy our very special people capabilities in a number of these specialisms. If we are not prepared to spend more money now, let us spend money on the long-lead items; well trained people in the military. On the other hand, when it comes to procurement issues, let us be careful that there are no sacred industrial cows, whether they are national, European or any other variety.If the Minister takes only one message from this debate, it should be the respect which exists throughout the House for the people of our Armed Forces and the feeling that has been expressed on all sides today for the need for proper financial provision to be made for them. That is the most important investment we can make in the future of the defence of these islands.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, which was to be expected given the distinguished and informed list of speakers. I join the Minister and other noble Lords in paying tribute to the late Lord Hardy of Wath. As my noble friend Lord Luke said, he was an excellent chairman of our defence group. I was privileged to share his company on a number of group visits. His wise counsel will be sorely missed in defence debates.
I am also sorry that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth had to withdraw from the debate as her contribution would have been outstanding. We wish her a speedy recovery. But it is a great pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Burnham back in his place. His speech brought back happy memories—and some less happy—of my time at the Guards' depot.
We are debating the White Paper against the backdrop of a significant military success in Iraq and I pay tribute to all those who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to our military operations. Our thoughts are with those families suffering the pain of bereavement.
Many noble Lords have made the point that the White Paper is short on detail. It will do nothing to remove the sense of apprehension that hangs over Britain's servicemen and women. They worry that the Chancellor is preparing to take an axe to defence spending—shrinking fleets and culling ancient regiments—at a time when threats are greater than ever.
There is a real danger that the capability of the Armed Forces may be reduced rather than enhanced in the short and medium term by the Government's implementation of network-enabled capability and effects-based operations. They are designed to allow our Armed Forces to do more with less, not less with less. The drive for cost savings must not come at the expense of capability.
The air defence capability of the Royal Navy will be significantly diminished by the combination of the phasing out of the Sea Harrier and the service lives of six Type 42 destroyers being reduced by one year. Will the Minister confirm the mothballing of four additional Type 42 destroyers, as reported last week in the Daily Telegraph? This seems odd. Around £26 million was spent on getting HMS "Nottingham", an older Type 42, back from the rocks of Australia and repaired. Yet the first of their replacements, the Type 45—HMS "Daring"—is not expected in service until later 2007, a date the MoD has itself said is challenging. The next ship of the class will not be in service until 2009. So the Navy will again shrink in size in the next five years.
The White Paper's enthusiasm for lighter, more flexible forces is sensible, but, as my noble kinsman Lord Vivian said, it would be dangerous to reduce too much of the Army's heavy weaponry. Yet cuts seem likely to be made many years before the new generation of equipment can be put in place. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, said during the White Paper Statement, we need reassurance that reductions in our front line will not happen until the new generation of equipment can be put in place.
We will have to get used to a new terminology for military operations and a new way of thinking about combat. Bandwidth of communications will be at least as important as bullets. Combatants will need rapid and reliable access to megabytes of data, as well as the normal offerings of the logistics supply chain.
I hope that the Minister has allowed for generous bandwidth on Skynet 5. Between the first and second Gulf Wars, the US military found that its bandwidth requirements—that is, the rate of demand for digital data—had increased sevenfold. That trend is certain to continue. Yet, according to an article published this month in Jane's Defence Weekly, UK high-level strategic communications collapsed at key points during the Iraq war last March and April because of equipment failures and inherent structural weaknesses in the UK's military networks.
The successful and timely implementation of network-enabled capability will depend on the efficiency of the defence procurement process. Here there is growing reason for pessimism about the ability of the Defence Procurement Agency to deliver major equipment programmes to budget and within a reasonable timescale.
Let us take the future integrated soldier technology (FIST). From initial gate to full operating capability in 2014 is an astonishing 14 years—faster than Bowman or Eurofighter, it is true, but still lamentably slow. Or let us take the future rapid effect system (FRES), mentioned by my noble friend Lord Attlee. The Defence Procurement Agency's website for FRES, under "latest news", states simply:
- "There is currently no available news".
The Apache is late, over budget and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, some are already mothballed. We on these Benches strongly agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about C17s and the A400M.
I wish my noble friend Lord Luke a very happy birthday. He addressed the important issue of the two projected carriers. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned UAVs. What plans are there for the urgent operational requirement for a UAV to replace Phoenix, whose stocks are fast depleting and will not be replaced?
There is also growing pessimism about reductions in defence research expenditure. In 1990, the Conservative government were spending about £1 billion on defence research; last year, the Government spent only about £450 million. The White Paper places enormous emphasis on the need to develop technology to promote network-enabled capability. As it is universally accepted that today's technology is a product of yesterday's research investment, I hope that the Minister will tell the House what resources the Government will be ploughing into research to produce that all-important technology.
Why is there reluctance to commit to capital expenditure on the Armed Forces? The answer lies in the Treasury's own spending figures. Comparing two periods of three years each, 1997–2000 and 2003–06, is revealing. Over those two periods, capital expenditure on central government administration is set to rise by 560 per cent to almost £6 billion. Defence capital expenditure, on the other hand, will fall by 14 per cent to £3.25 billion. I hope that the Minister will address the question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, in the debate on the gracious Speech, and asked again today by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent: whether the Treasury want £1 billion of defence savings each year for the next four years.
There is also the important issue of resources, especially intelligence, and of homeland defence, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. The Ministry of Defence is failing to look after its most precious commodity—its people. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, touched on the problem that servicemen are experiencing with the NHS. Barracks at home and abroad for all three services are a disgrace. When the Army recently surrendered some barracks for conversion for asylum seekers, they were deemed to need an expensive upgrade before being acceptable to Kosovans or Afghans. Why should our soldiers be expected to inhabit quarters such as those?
Although the improvement programme for single living accommodation—project SLAM—will alleviate that, it is regrettable that it is spread over 10 years and will annually deliver only an average of 1,100 single rooms for junior ranks. What plans are in place for improvements to married quarters for all ranks?
The White Paper mentions the new pension and compensation arrangements. I look forward to scrutinising constructively the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill with my noble kinsman when it reaches this House.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and my noble friend Lord Lyell mentioned recruitment. As a result of the violent assault by the Treasury, the Army appears to have frozen some recruitment. Can the Minister confirm that? In the United States, members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in size of the active duty military for 16 years. The bipartisan sentiment is that the Pentagon does not have sufficient well rested, well trained troops for an emergency.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who is certainly not a "has been", touched on overstretch. Overstretch is leading the British Army to face a steady loss of the crucial battle-winning skills that it needs. It is hardly surprising that Colonel Tim Collins, the former commander of the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, is resigning.
My noble kinsman pointed out that 94 per cent of exercises were lost last year, and my noble friend Lord Lyell spoke of the training problems of the 1st Batallion, Scots Guards. Constant interruption of training will inevitably lead to a gradual decline in professional standards that could lead to a catastrophic failure in operations and high casualty levels.
Several noble Lords mentioned the NAO report. We must not lose sight of the report's statement that overall, Operation TELIC was successful, especially in its deployment. Overall, performance of equipment was good. But it is scandalous that insufficient sets of body armour and other vital life-saving equipment were distributed in theatre, greatly endangering our soldiers and, in the case of Sergeant Roberts of the Royal Tank Regiment, costing his life.
The report criticises the lack of post-war planning and reconstruction. We have pressed the Government on that issue several times. Can the Minister confirm that greater co-ordination in planning is taking place between the department, the FCO and DfID?
Many noble Lords mentioned the valuable role played by the reserve forces, but I noticed that the Minister did not. We welcome attempts to send out full units of TA, albeit small ones. If they train together, they argue, they should fight together. In total, 8,000 reservists of all types were mobilised for Operation TELIC and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, were vital to its success. A quarter of forces currently in Iraq are territorials. Why, then, are our reservists not getting a fair deal?
TA officers have been warned of significant cutbacks due to the change in MoD accounting policies mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Many officers and soldiers in theatre say that they will leave the TA when they return because the MoD is not matching their civilian pay when mobilised. Pay is topped up to meet his or her civilian salary, but that is subject to a cap. The cap was modest when set and has not been increased since 1996. British reservists in Iraq are discovering that their pay and conditions are significantly worse than those of their American counterparts. An American
reservist does not pay income tax when serving overseas and can earn pension entitlements and contributions towards college fees or receive up to 20 thousand dollars to pay off a student loan. A British reservist receives none of those benefits.As my noble friend Lady Cox said, our Armed Forces represent the very best of our men and women, and continue to bring credit to us, at home and abroad. But if they are to continue to attract and retain, not just the numbers required, but also the quality, we must ensure that they are trained and equipped to the highest standards and treated fairly. We must not take our Armed Forces for granted.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it has indeed been an excellent debate; I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that he hoped that the Government would take note of the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggested that they could learn from it. I agree with both those sentiments; the debate has been so good that I think the Hansard that is produced after it will be looked at and read in the Ministry of Defence in the coming months and years.
I will be generous to the two opposition parties, as it is still too early in this Parliament to put them on the spot by asking them what are their defence policies and how they differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. It would not be fair of me to ask them today, but I would have liked to have heard a whisper about what the opposition parties stood for and what they propose to do when they win the next general election, as they no doubt believe they will—whether it will be a khaki election, I do not know. I put the opposition parties on warning, even in this House, that we on this side, having quite rightly taken a lot of criticism with a little praise, will wish to know what they will do when or if they get into government—that includes how much money they will spend on defence. Not only do I ask that question; many noble Lords who spoke from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches on either side will want to know the answer, as will the Armed Forces and the public.
The past five years have heralded this almost unprecedented era of change in our security environment. The shadow of the Cold War, which for the best part of the lifetime of most noble Lords determined the shape of our Armed Forces, has thankfully drawn back from Europe. But, far from it being the end of history, as we were promised and as too many believed, new and very dangerous challenges emerged to take the Cold War's place. We have had to deploy further afield and more frequently to conduct a more varied range of tasks than previously envisaged. The threat that we face is more uncertain, and that trend is set to continue. We need a defence policy that enables us to rise to those challenges as we have in the past.
The White Paper is a government document. Those who try to draw divisions between various departments of state in the Government will not
succeed—this is a government-agreed White Paper. It sets out the case for Armed Forces that are flexible, agile, rapidly deployable and capable of delivering even more precise military effect. My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere was right in mentioning the word "flexibility"; it is the critical word, if there is one, in the White Paper. But, whatever our planning, ultimately it is the Armed Forces—our people—who deliver military success. As has been said throughout the debate, they deliver it magnificently time and again. We must therefore equip them as best we can and maximise the effects of what we already have. The corollary of that is that they need to dispense with systems and structures that are no longer as effective as they once were.As the Government have made clear, work continues in the Ministry of Defence to translate the White Paper into an appropriate force structure and future investment programme. A series of work streams is studying different aspects of military capability and their associated overheads. We will make announcements, and the House will hear of the results of that work later this year.
Several noble Lords made the point—I shall not express it as strongly as "complained"—that the White Paper is long on policy aspiration and a bit short on the details of implementation—I look particularly at the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent. As I attempted to make clear earlier, we believe that the White Paper sets out the policy baseline against which decisions regarding the Armed Forces will be made in future. Much ongoing activity in the department is aimed at working out in its detailed form the force structure that we need. It would be inappropriate and wrong to go into detail before that work is completed. We aim to make further announcements later.
I wish to make one thing clear: the White Paper is not an exercise about cutting defence; rather, we see it as modernising our Armed Forces and their supporting infrastructure appropriately to meet the changed strategic environment outlined in it. The work must be seen in the context of the increased resources that were made available to the Ministry of Defence in the 2002 spending round.
I was asked about the Ministry of Defence's relations with the Treasury. It is a fair question that I suspect has been asked in this House and in another place for generations past, when some noble Lords who spoke today had great responsibility in running the Armed Forces. The answer today is the same as it was then: we work extremely closely and well with the Treasury, which has been a great supporter, particularly on Iraq. It made helpful and large payments of money so that we could do our duty in that country. We work closely with the Treasury, as is absolutely appropriate. There is no crisis. We must deal with fluctuating financial pressures and ensure that we can live within our budgets; it has been ever thus. There is no doubt that the resource accounting and budgeting approach has an impact. We have had to adjust to that during the first year, a consequence of which has been a higher cash spend than originally anticipated. It is therefore natural that the MoD
should carry out a significant examination of defence costs and capabilities. The aim of the exercise is to reduce costs, especially overheads, and, importantly, to allow us choice and flexibility in meeting the priorities of the White Paper.Many issues have been raised during the debate. I shall try to answer as many as I can, limiting myself to 20 minutes, which may be too long for some. Where I cannot provide a full answer now, I will attempt to write to noble Lords with the answers.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Astor, has not heard me praise the reserves previously; I think that I have done so on many occasions. If I have not, it is my fault, but I certainly do on this occasion. They are an integral part of the UK's military capability for operations at home and overseas. As TELIC showed, when mobilised, they face exactly the same risks as their regular counterparts and have more than met the challenge demanded of them. We now have to continue the process of development, which started with the SDR, to confirm the contribution of the reserves to all types of operation and to ensure that the correct measures are in place for their support. Achieving this will involve engaging with reservists, their employers and the wider community.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Luke—who I too congratulate on his birthday—and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, all mentioned decisions or otherwise that they believe have been taken about ships and the Royal Navy. One should not believe all that one reads in the newspapers, even in the Daily Telegraph. The newspaper reports are similar to ones that you and I may have seen in years past, during the annual planning round. Every time there is a spate of stories about possible changes to existing plans, it is pointless and meaningless to fuel that speculation by commenting in detail, and I certainly do not plan to do so. We are focusing on modifying and adapting our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy, to ensure that they are best placed to respond to a changing strategic environment.
There is an extremely exciting new naval programme on the books, which, if I may claim praise, originated with this Government. Two aircraft carriers—and I hope to come to them in a short while—Type 45s and other ships will be procured. That is an exciting programme, which has done something to restore the position—never of course to the grand position we were in before—of some of this country's shipyards.
We remain committed to the Typhoon programme. We have a contractual commitment to purchasing 55 Typhoons in the first of three planned production tranches. A memorandum of understanding with our partner nations covers a further 89 in tranche 2 and 88 in tranche 3. Discussions with the four nation members and with industry regarding tranche 2 are taking place now. Given the obvious importance of the contract, our priority is to ensure that industry's proposals for the programme are soundly based and
are based on appropriate levels of design maturity. Any commitment to tranche 3 does not need to be expected until 2007.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made some helpful remarks. I am sorry that he does not like the word "jointery". I am tempted to ask him where he has been all these years. The word "jointery" has been used in defence parlance for a long time, but I will try to make sure that any second edition of the White Paper reduces it so that his sensitivities are not insulted. He described the missile defence part of chapter 3.12 as being full of equivocation. I was not sure whether that was meant to be a compliment or an insult.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page