Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
Mr Andrew Mathewson, Professor Phil Sutton and Captain
Richard Stokes
29 NOVEMBER 2007
Q60 Lord Swinfen: Where are we going
to get them?
Mr Mathewson: We will have to look at the situation
at the time; we will have to see whether the situation requires
airlift or sealift.
Q61 Lord Swinfen: I am assuming at
the moment it is airlift. In most places we would have to go it
would be quicker to move them by air.
Mr Mathewson: If the situation requires truly
rapid response. I think it is the same answer as I gave earlier,
that we have in-house capability; we will have to assess the availability
at the time alongside whatever else is going on.
Q62 Lord Swinfen: All the RAF transport
aircraft are servicing in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.
Mr Mathewson: So we will have
to look at options like the strategic airlift interim solution,
which we are contracted into, or use of the market. As I said
earlier, use of the market is not novel; this is not a controversial
part of our logistics plan. The in-house capability provides the
base level of capability and we routinely—virtually daily—go
to the market to provide for peak loads. I think we would see
this as one of those peak loads.
Chairman: Lord Crickhowell.
Q63 Lord Crickhowell: Can we move
on to R & T? How will the Strategy on Defence R & T, adopted
at the Steering Board Meeting, help the EU—and I quote Dr
Solana—"spend more, spend better and spend more together"?
Professor Sutton: First of all, my Lord, it
was not the strategy that was supported by the Board but a framework
document which actually set down the criteria for how such a strategy
would be put together. The Board also charged the Agency with
getting its research and technology directors from the Member
nations together and to develop that strategy on some form of
an agreed approach. So that is really the next step in this action.
I am very pleased to say, however, that the UK is already leading
a group looking at where there might be opportunities for a common
interest and so forth, so we are trying to be in a good state
for when that strategy is put together. But there is no time table
yet for when the R & T Directors will meet, although in fact
I have had a discussion with the current Chief Executive, Alexander
Weis, who is planning to get that group together in the spring.
He has not given a date yet but that is his intention.
Q64 Lord Crickhowell: This is an
area which the Secretary of State has endorsed—he has endorsed
the framework for the purpose of his letter. Reading the document
it is a fairly lengthy statement of what is envisaged and what
might be the advantages to various groups—national governments,
industry and so on. As we are endorsing it I would like you to
comment a little further on what we see the advantages are for
this country. Clearly one's instincts are right that it must be
a good thing to identify what are common priorities and who is
working on them and who is ready with what and when, and the other
points dealt with in the framework document. Could you elaborate
a little more because it may enable us to judge better the value
of the whole exercise?
Professor Sutton: Gladly. I should again restate
that we are always driven in our thinking, including for research
and technology, on meeting our military capability needs—that
is always what is behind our thinking. As such we prepared and
released a Defence Technology Strategy very recently which very
much embodied the UK's view and the Ministry of Defence's view
about how various areas of technology would enable it to move
towards meeting our future capability needs. So we would hope
in working with our colleagues across Europe that we would be
able to get them to think in terms also of how their research
efforts would similarly look towards meeting capability needs.
The key part, of course, is seeing where those capability needs
align and one must be careful in that one might be able to agree
a fairly high level topic but depending upon how one is going
to deliver that in capability terms it may be that there is a
subtle or perhaps quite important variation between various Member
States. So looking for Members who have common areas of interest
and certainly from our perspective based on a capability driven
need.
Q65 Lord Crickhowell: I do not see
any reference, from a very quick read, to the academic world,
to the university world. I am not quite clear into which the main
efforts are to be directed. Clearly there are international manufacturing
concerns doing their own research and development as part of the
development of products and so on, but this is an area presumably
which extends far beyond the efforts of individual companies or
the individual national government research efforts. Is it part
of the framework to bring the university and the academic world
into this exercise?
Professor Sutton: I believe it is expected that
the Member nations will make sure that the connections exist between
their respective industries and academia and so forth, and indeed
from the UK's perspective looking to our own indigenous defence
research programme that is very much at the heart of what we are
trying to achieve. And following on from the Defence Industrial
Strategy we are looking for good and effective ways to work with
our industry; we are looking to work with the research councils
that of course fund universities and so forth—a rich seam
of possibilities, something like £2.8 billion a year, I believe.
So that would be the conduit I would suggest for how this would
happen.
Q66 Chairman: But is there a problem
in this given the considerable range between the sort of R &
T expenditure in which the UK engages and the R & T expenditure
which presumably the majority of Members of the EDA engage in,
which is obviously a relatively small fraction of what we do.
How many problems arise because of this spectrum?
Professor Sutton: Certainly, as you correctly
say, Lord Chairman, the difference in spending between various
Member States is quite significant, with the UK and France being
the largest contributors by far.
Q67 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Up
to two-thirds, I think.
Professor Sutton: Yes, indeed; that is clearly
the major part. Where we are really working with colleagues in
EDA is to look to areas where we can see this mutual benefit,
again pointing to the capability need. But I would say that the
contribution that other nations can make must come in two forms.
Yes, we would like to see other nations frankly spending a commensurate
percentage of their defence budgets on research and technology;
but also our need to recognise that a good brain from Slovenia
is as good as a good brain in the UK, and very often looking at
some of the more fundamental areas of technology, even though
it still has to align with capability needs, need not be horrendously
expensive. But if we see that kind of a contribution, that kind
of commitment then there are possibilities.
Chairman: I think that you have really
discussed this question as to how the MOD would implement the
Strategy in the UK. Could I turn to Lord Selkirk to ask his question,
and could I apologise to him that it has been trespassed upon
a certain amount by his colleagues.
Q68 Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Chairman,
thank you very much. May I just preface my question by saying
I think that you have in very large measure answered what I am
about to ask, so if there is anything you would like to add to
what you have already said that would be very welcome. Can I ask
what progress has been made in mobilising the necessary capabilities,
with particular reference to the transport helicopters for the
EU's mission to Chad and to the Central African Republic? I think
you also said in your comments that there was an insufficiency
of helicopters. Could you summarise, in a few words, what you
see as the solution to that problem?
Mr Mathewson: The EU has not yet identified
the forces and capabilities that it needs for the Chad Mission.
A series of options for this mission were identified and the PSC
decided that the option that it would support was one that required
around 4000 people. There have been three-force generation conferences
so far, on 9, 14 and 21 November, and the forces have not yet
been identified up to the level of 4000—I think we are some
way short of it yet. Within that there are some critical shortfalls—a
Role 2 hospital, fixed and rotary wing, both for tactical, logistics
and medical purposes, and intelligence assets. At the moment the
nominated Force Commander, the Operation Commander General Nash,
is reporting to the PSC that he does not yet have the forces declared
to him, identified to him that allow him to recommend to the PSC
that the mission should be launched. So we are in a pause period
where we have to reconsider the scale of the mission and whether
the forces can be generated for the scale of the mission. At the
moment no country has declared, I think, any helicopters at all,
which I find surprising. So I think countries might be asked to
reconsider whether it is genuinely the case that they cannot provide
helicopters, and the EU may wish to consider some of the solutions
which NATO has considered, for example contracting helicopter
support for some of the very basic freight roles which is all
that NATO is looking at. But I think it is surprising that none
of the countries which are offering forces have offered helicopters.
Q69 Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I noticed
in our briefing it is stated that Foreign Defence Ministers met
in joint session to discuss the proposed ESDP mission to Chad.
The Secretary of State for Defence underlined UK political support
for the proposed mission as a key element in the comprehensive
regional approach. Conclusions were agreed on current operations
and missions under the European Security and Defence Policy, and
he goes on to elaborate on that theme. Surely if they have agreed
they should be able to put this altogether and get on with it?
Mr Mathewson: Yes. I think this is a gap between
the political support for a mission and countries' willingness
to declare forces. The position of the British government has
been that from the outset they were clear with the EU that we
would give political support but because of the strains on the
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan we would not be able to provide
forces for the mission. We are providing very small numbers of
personnel to the operational headquarters, to the force headquarters,
but we were not in a position because of current operational demands
to provide any more significant contribution. I think this illustrates
a problem for the European Union, that in theory there is a force
catalogue which says that we can generate a force of 60,000, yet
in practice we are struggling to generate a force of 4000. We
can ask why that is. Is it significant that the United Kingdom
is not participating in the force? I think it is disappointing
if the EU cannot generate a force of 4000 without the United Kingdom;
this ought to be within the range of ambition of other Members
of the European Union. But I think there is this gap between what
nations say they are politically prepared to do and their willingness
then to provide the assets for it.
Chairman: Lord Crickhowell.
Q70 Lord Crickhowell: Can I move
away from helicopters which we have covered pretty extensively
this morning to a new element that you have just introduced, medical.
Can you comment? All these operations will require medical supplies
and medical facilities, and can you comment more about the European
approach to this one and say more than you did in that rather
throwaway remark that this was one of the problems in the Chad
exercise?
Mr Mathewson: I do not know. I could certainly
look at the data which we have in the force catalogue. The EU
works on the basis that it asks nations to identify the forces
they are in theory willing to commit to an operation, and there
is this force catalogue that shows that the EU has sufficient
forces in theory declared as potentially available to mount an
operation of around 60,000, and that would include a full range
of capabilities that a mission would require. I am certainly very
happy to check.
Q71 Lord Crickhowell: Could we have
a note perhaps on the medical point because it does seem to be
a rather important one.
Mr Mathewson: Yes. I would expect that the force
catalogue includes a number of countries that have declared hospitals
in theory as available and they have not been offered on this
occasion.
Chairman: Lord Anderson.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Turning from
Chad to Kosovo, clearly the EU would be playing a larger role
there. Is there that same gap between aspiration and capability?
Chairman: Not militarily.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: No. Helicopters
would be relevant, for example.
Chairman: With respect to Lord Anderson,
the military operation in Kosovo is and will continue to be a
NATO operation rather than an EU operation.
Q72 Lord Anderson of Swansea: But
there will be a much grander EU operation on the civilian side
and that will include, no doubt, relying on the military for the
provision of helicopters and clearly across the board in that
area, save for the NATO contribution from the military. What is
the degree of preparedness of planning in response to a greater
call for a civilian operation?
Mr Mathewson: I am afraid I simply do not know
and the EU will, if the proper legal basis can be found, mount
a policing mission in Kosovo to go alongside the NATO military
mission, KFOR and replacing the United Nations in the policing
role. The MOD is not actually very closely involved in planning
the EU police mission and I have not so far been made aware of
any concern about helicopters as being an issue in the EU policing.
Q73 Lord Anderson of Swansea: The
police operation may require in an emergency rapid deployability.
Mr Mathewson: Yes, and clearly NATO has a rapid
deployable capability for KFOR, but I am not sure that it has
been raised as an issue in terms of the EU's police capability.
Chairman: Lord Hannay.
Q74 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Following
on this point about the difficulty of generating 4000 force for
Chad and some specialist aspects to it, could you roughly rank
in order of difficulty the problem that arises with regard to
UN peacekeeping operations, the problem that arises with regard
to NATO operations and the problems that arise in this case to
the EU? Are they all much the same or are one of these three much
better at generating forces when they take a political decision
that they will become involved, because there is a really serious
problem across the board, it seems to me, that one's method of
approaching it would be different if it was merely identical in
the case of all three organisations to which we belong or whether
there were some which were better at it than others.
Mr Mathewson: I think as between the EU and
NATO the issues are very similar, which is that nations declare
what are on the face of it substantial forces, but those forces
have not yet properly adapted to the requirements of deployable,
sustainable expeditionary forces. NATO has issued planning guidance
set out in its comprehensive political guidance about what sorts
of forces it needs, emphasising the need to be able to deploy,
sustain and reinforce on a deployed mission. Those are essentially
the same requirements as exist for an EU mission. So the challenge
on the EU is essentially the same, albeit at a slightly lower
scale and not across the full range of potential operations. I
think what we are seeing in Kosovo and in Chad, part of it is
aspects of a similar problem, that while nations have substantial
Armed Forces they have not yet made the investment in the capabilities
that make them deployable, whether that is deployable medical
facilities, logistic support, the airlift. I think the scale of
the problem is probably the same and the nature of the problem
is probably the same for NATO and the EU. I think for the United
Nations it is slightly different in that most of the logistics
of what I think is provided essentially through UN arrangements,
and they have their own logistic arrangements with which you,
my Lord, will be more familiar than I am. There is less of a presumption
in generating forces for UN peacekeeping that they are as fully
deployable and fully as capable as they are for NATO and the EU
operations.
Q75 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Although
from what the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping is saying
about the Darfur operation they are facing similar problems, although
they are compounded by the unhelpfulness of the government of
Sudan to allow certain units to be involved, but they do seem
to be suffering from force generating capability problems too
in that one. But I think there is a briefing by Lord Malloch-Brown
and the Secretary of State for International Development this
afternoon, so I will not waste more time at this meeting pursuing
the matter here because I would like to raise it there.
Chairman: Thank you very much for having gone through
the questions which we had let you have in advance. Can I thank
you Mr Mathewson, Professor Sutton and Captain Stokes, we are
really very grateful for you to coming to spend so much time with
us and to enable us to really explore these things because it
is, I think, probably only in this Committee that it is possible
to go into some depth about our relations with the EU on defence
matters—at least this end of the building—and we are
therefore really grateful that you have found time to come to
talk to us. I think you may be coming back with some of your DFID
colleagues in the New Year to discuss some of the paper on fragile
states and security, which was also discussed at the meeting on
19 November. Thank you very much for this morning's evidence.
| 
