(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity and declare my interests as a reservist, the father of two servicewomen and the brother of a serving admiral.
Among the many issues that should be keeping Ministers awake at night are two tech-based conundrums that particularly worry me. One is future access to critical minerals and their products, which I have spoken about in the past. The other related issue is the patchy nature of the protection of these islands against missiles and drones. That is what I want to raise this evening.
Everything costs, and it is easy when one is not in government to wish the ends without the means. At the moment, defence is spread too thinly and what I am suggesting would spread it even more thinly. Whether the UK should be globally deployable or focus on the defence of the homeland and its Euro-Atlantic neighbourhood is moot. The likelihood is that we will soldier on, make do and mend—we always have. But the scene is set for the biggest retrenchment since Suez. I wish it were otherwise, but it falls to this Government to make the call. Their attempted unforced surrender of the Chagos islands is perhaps an indication of where their thinking lies.
In 1963, the 35th US President told his National Security Council that European NATO members were not paying their fair share. John F. Kennedy said,
“We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves”.
On Monday, the 45th and 47th President will likely be saying the same thing. Clearly, American frustration with Europe enjoying the insurance policy without paying the premium is nothing new. What is new is the American willingness to strong-arm Europe into changing its ways. Forget 2% or 2.5%—Trump says he wants 5% of GDP spent on defence by all NATO members, and here is the kicker: he wants a 20% tariff on all goods imported to the US. Combine the two and it is not a stretch to imagine him slapping tariffs on European goods unless Europeans step up to the plate.
Ultimately, the single most important reason Trump can do what we fear he is about to do is that America is no longer principally competing with Europe’s proximate threat—Russia. A vast but thinly populated nation of 144 million, a busted economy and a military whose weaknesses have been generously displayed for all to see since February 2022 is not perceived by Washington as a main threat. An America emerging from the 9/11 Bush counter-terrorism era is back to facing off with great powers once again, but the great power is not Russia; it is China.
As the US pivots, European states of all sizes must step up to defend their homeland and safeguard the north Atlantic. There are no free passes. Israel is a small state, but its military capabilities are unmatched in the middle east. Its layered missile defence systems—the famous Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow—and its formidable fleet of aircraft demonstrate how small states, with a little help from their friends, can punch way above their weight. Several of those small states will provide the first line of defence against Putin’s Russia. The bulk of the cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles that Putin would fire at Britain as a proxy for the US will be intercepted by existing defence systems and fighter aircraft stationed in the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Poland.
While our geography, as so often in our history, gives strategic depth and protection from long-range attack, we can have less confidence in dealing with proximate threats from sea and subsea platforms and with threats to deployed and overseas assets, such as Cyprus, that fall well within the scope of short-range missiles and drones from Russia, Iran and their proxies. In any event, some missiles directed at the homeland would get through in the event of a full-on attack right now by the Russian Federation. That has been our blind spot.
The public would expect that missiles evading the first line of integrated missile defence would be destroyed closer to their target. The Type 45-mounted Sea Viper and the ground-based Sky Sabre are exquisite examples of air and missile defence systems, but there are simply not enough of them—not enough missiles ready to go and not enough industrial capacity to enable resilience in anything more than the very short term. Russia’s war on Ukraine has helpfully made us alive to our vulnerability. Russia, as we have seen in Ukraine and throughout its history, is capable of taking long-term pain in a way that it seems unlikely we would. As things stand, the capital is particularly vulnerable to Russian missile attack, unless we park all our Type 45s—those that are operational—on the Thames.
Happily, unlike Israel and Ukraine, we are surrounded by friends. It makes sense to be a full part of, and a contributor to, NATO integrated air and missile defence, but European IAMD, and its suppression and destruction of enemy air defence systems, are currently completely reliant on the US. In any event, the suspicion is that a full-on attack by Russia right now would find too many holes in the patchy architecture that has evolved to protect against missiles.
Germany has recognised that threat; it has owned the consequences of doing nothing. It has established the European Sky Shield initiative, and has begun procuring trusted systems such as Patriot and Arrow 3. The UK has been considering joining ESSI. Where are we with that? What about off-the-shelf systems such as Arrow 3?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that point. It is interesting that the Arrow 3 project he mentions is a joint project between Boeing in America and the Israeli defence machinery. Is there something in the innovation offered by Patria, a Finnish company, which is offering to help us build armoured vehicles here in Britain but based on its design? Do we need less of a reliance on domestic systems and to consider, as he says, off-the-shelf systems from elsewhere?
Dr Murrison
There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Historically, buying off the shelf has proved to be somewhat more cost-effective than designing exquisite systems of our own. I hope very much that, as we go further into this process, we can partner with others to ensure that what we buy is both integrated and cost-effective. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on ESSI.
Ukraine has shown the limitations of the “just in time, not just in case” policy that has driven our failure to stockpile the materiel of war in recent decades. In the 1930s, the shadow factories initiative fitted commercial premises that typically produced cars for reconfiguration as armament factories, in case the need should arise, which it did. Car workers would switch to become the basis of the skilled workforce necessary to create materiel for prosecuting the war effort. That then happened, to the point that in 1940, this country was outstripping Germany in the production of fighter aircraft. With every respect due to the Few, the Battle of Britain was won in Britain’s factories and on its production lines as much as in the skies. Victory hinges just as much on logistics now, except the timelines are far shorter. The defence ecosystem in the US 2022 national defence strategy had more than a whiff of the 1930s in advancing an intertwined commercial-military co-operative.
In a good light, we can see shadow factories in the thematic approach to missile defence taken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory missile defence centre. Crucially, it is industry partner-based, with a heavy focus on growing suitably qualified and experienced people, of whom we are desperately short. The MDC is now 20 years old. What assessment has the Minister made of it, and what changes does he propose to its structure and remit to help plug holes in our missile defence architecture? In the light of prevailing circumstances, will he consider upgrading the MDC so that it has the salience and clout approaching that of the pre-war directorate of aeronautical production? Then, it was Spitfires and Hurricanes; today it is missile defence, SDEAD—suppression and destruction of enemy air defences—and drones. Then, it was preparation for the total war to come; now—God willing—it is deterrence.
There are those who say that the solution to our vulnerability to missile attack from the east is simple: it is Israel’s Iron Dome—the close-in element of the layered missile defence system used successfully to thwart Iran in April. However, Israel is a small country with a small population concentrated in a small number of cities with limited critical national infrastructure. It is surrounded by hostiles. Happily, none of that applies here.
Our missile defence must be fully integrated with NATO partners. NATO needs European leadership as the US pivots, and we must not encourage those whose primary interest in defence lies in extending the remit of the institutions of the European Union, rather than the defence and security of Europeans. We do not need the distraction of a separate, competing EU defence architecture; NATO is our strength and our stay, and we must use our status as the continent’s leading military power to ensure it remains so. In particular, we must articulate clearly the case for layered missile defence and SDEAD within a NATO construct, as the US pivots towards the Indo-Pacific. The UK and Europe need NATO integrated air and missile defence that incorporates close-in systems to guarantee major centres of population, defence assets and critical national infrastructure. Crucially, member states must not give an aggressor capable of waging an attritional war grounds for believing that the west will exhaust its ordnance in the first few hours or days.
Where are we with the versatile and scalable very short to medium-range modular ground-based air defence system envisaged by NATO Defence Ministers at their meeting in October 2020? What application might that system have to provide the last arrow in our quiver—one that will destroy missiles that have evaded intermediate layers and are about to land on critical sites in the UK? For a country with no money, directed energy weapons offer a potential solution for dealing with drones and missiles, albeit in line of sight and in good weather. Is DSTL’s DragonFire weapon still on course for service with the Royal Navy in 2027, and what export opportunities are Ministers exploring? Do they expect that Type 26s, Type 31s, and any Type 32s will carry DragonFire or successor directed energy weapons? Will they be fitted as standard, or as expensive retrofits?
Do we really need a sixth-generation manned—or even hybrid—fast jet to replace Typhoon? Would it not be better to rely on the F-35 airframe with mid-life upgrades in a future that is surely progressively unmanned? The lineal, if less romantic, descendants of the Few will be tech geeks, gamers, coders and those who provide a human interface with artificial intelligence. What are we doing to grow them, and will the Minister visit the #TechTrowbridge initiative that I started in Wiltshire’s county town, which was once a centre for Spitfire manufacture? He would be warmly welcomed on his way to his constituency.
The reason that a grisly artillery war has played out in Ukraine is because nobody has been able to command the airspace. Happily and to our surprise, Russia has been unable to suppress or destroy Ukraine’s air defences. In the future, unmanned combat aerial vehicles configured to shoot the archer, not the arrow, will do that. I would be very surprised if Lord Robertson were not casting a critical eye over the global combat air programme, and comparing and contrasting its cost and effectiveness with those of unmanned combat aerial vehicles.
I appreciate the deep cultural difficulty of envisaging an unmanned future battlespace. It is deeply unsettling for those of us steeped in the traditions of the armed forces, but while there will always be a need for sufficient booted and spurred combat troops ready to close with and kill the enemy and hold the ground—as the Member of Parliament for a garrison town, I am not for one moment suggesting a further reduction in headcount—this country will never again be able to expose itself to attritional warfare of the sort we are seeing being played out in Ukraine. Politically and societally, that would be impossible and unconscionable. That means integrated missile defence, SDEAD, drones, and command of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Once again at a dreadnought crossroads, Britain must configure the forces at its disposal for the long term in all domains and take a lead as what is still the principal military power in its Euro-Atlantic voisinage. Early pointers suggesting that this Government are taking the right fork in the road would include difficult and unpopular decisions such as standing firm on the deep space advanced radar capability envisaged for Cawdor barracks on the St David’s peninsula, which was bottled by previous Governments. As we chop to an unmanned future, those pointers would—for example, and very painfully—include consignment of the RAF Red Arrows aero-acrobatics team to the historic flight.
This Government have four years left to run—the time the directorate of aeronautical production had to fit out this country with what it needed to prevail. Recent events have revealed the fundamental truth that we are vulnerable now, as we were then, and the shifting geopolitical plates will likely make us more so. The public will never forgive an Administration of whatever colour who muddle through, leaving them open to the predations of Putin’s advancing missile programme.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for calling this debate and for the seriousness with which he has approached it. I share his general analysis of the context that we live in more difficult, unsettled and challenging times. That is the reason why, on coming into office, the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Robertson to begin the strategic defence review to look at our capabilities and to set those against the threats we are facing as a country. I will return to some of those areas, and indeed to the questions the right hon. Gentleman asked.
There is a real challenge when it comes to integrated air missile defence, the threats from drones and the threats from one-way effectors and long-range strike, as we have seen every single day in Ukraine, with the brave people of Ukraine being on the receiving end of onslaughts from Putin’s illegal invasion. Those are the lessons we are seeking to learn in the strategic defence review to make sure not only that we can support our friends in Ukraine with the equipment they need, but that we can adapt our own ways of war fighting and defending to deter aggression if at all possible, and to defeat it if necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, and I will come on to those in my remarks if I can, but I am sure he will keep me honest if I have missed any by the time I reach the end of my response to him. His analysis of the context of the political challenges in this debate is certainly true. When he was a Defence Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, the current Defence Secretary and I made that argument. Having heard from the Government Dispatch Box that defence had been hollowed out and underfunded, we argued that we needed a different approach.
I do not like the approach the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of having to “make do and mend—we always have”. I recognise it, but I do not think we should accept it, especially in more difficult times. Precisely because of that, the SDR needs to be bold, and that is in effect the remit given to Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that it falls to this Government to make those decisions, and we have already made a number of decisions about retiring old platforms. That is sometimes difficult, and he raises the interesting challenge of how we renew technologies without offending or upsetting the established norms. As an example, Watchkeeper, a 14-year-old drone system used by the British Army, has been retired because it cannot keep pace with the modern challenges of electronic warfare jamming and other things we would be asking it to do if it were to be deployed on a frontline. That is certainly something we feel incredibly strongly about.
I have just returned from the E5 Defence Ministers meeting that took place in Warsaw in Poland, and it is clear to me that our NATO allies are all taking integrated air and missile defence seriously. If we look at the experiences of the nations on NATO’s eastern flank—particularly Poland and the Baltic states, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—we are seeing very real concern about protection of their airspace. Protection is being built up through what they are seeking to procure and the support they are asking for from allies in providing a protective bubble over their countries. Britain’s island geography may have deterred aggressors throughout much of our history, but it is no shield against sophisticated weapons and modern air warfare, and for that reason the SDR has been commissioned.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. From the discussions the Minister had at the E5 conference, does he think our allies are confident that we are playing our part in air defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank my fellow Devon MP for that question. He will be able to read the joint statement by the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Poland when it is published on the Ministry of Defence website on the conference’s conclusion. I made the point clearly in the press conference afterwards that the UK is calling on all NATO partners to increase their defence spending. We have a plan to increase our defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5%. Where any increased defence spending goes matters, because it needs not only to deter aggression, but to defeat it and—perhaps most importantly and relevant to this debate—to be interoperable with our allies. We need to ensure that any investment in defence has an increase in our deployability and our lethality as we fight together. It is the assumption of this Government, with a declared NATO-first policy, that we will be supporting our NATO allies in any defensive measures. That is the reason we have the British Army in Estonia with Operation Cabrit. It is the reason we have NATO air policing in a variety of states along NATO’s eastern flank.
Integrated air and missile defence is an area that all NATO members need to develop. There is not one answer that everyone has reached for yet. It is a difficult, wicked problem that requires investment and a change in strategy. That is part of the reason why that is being addressed by the SDR. That is a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope it provides him with the clarity he needs.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister represents a city and a football club that are close to my heart. I also thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing forward this important debate. I am heartened to hear that the Minister views the interoperability of our workforce and our assets alongside our NATO allies. Do the Government view the defence of UK airspace not singularly but, as I do, as the western front of European air defence?
Luke Pollard
I would certainly be happy afterwards to take up any discussion about Plymouth Argyle and a post Wayne Rooney world.
It is certainly true that the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks. Part of the challenge we have with integrated air and missile defence and the threats that the UK and our allies face is that the definitions of what are the close and the deep have fundamentally changed, because of the experience of the Ukraine war. I recognise that there are Members in this House and this debate who served in our armed forces, and they will be familiar with the broad definitions of close and deep.
It is certainly true that what we previously regarded as close and deep have fundamentally changed. The distances have increased enormously. We are seeing that in Ukraine, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments. Having the ability to project power and fire at distance is one reason that we have supported Ukraine with so many weapons systems. It is also the reason why the SDR is looking in particular at this area and how any forces and capabilities can meet the threat we are facing. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) understands that the SDR will address many of the answers to his broad question. Our responsibilities are more than just securing the UK homeland; they are about supporting our allies, and indeed it is our allies’ role to support not only their own country, but their NATO partners, including the UK.
The threats posed to our security continue to proliferate and converge. With technologies rapidly developing, protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging. Let me be absolutely clear: adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities contributing to our integrated air and missile defence, along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies. We have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has seen the quick reaction aircraft, as I have, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth and seen the incredible speed, dedication and professionalism of our teams there responding to threats approaching the United Kingdom. Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 destroyer against different air threats in the recent operations in the Red sea in particular. That included shooting down drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine.
In relation to the specifics of our capabilities, I have had the privilege of visiting UK forces stationed forward in Poland using the Sky Sabre system, supporting the NATO logistics hub that supports so much of what we provide to Ukraine. Operation Stifftail has now concluded, and that mission has been a success. I thank all those members of the Royal Artillery in particular who supported that mission.
The Sky Sabre system that was in Poland has been returned to the UK and is being reconstituted. The Sky Sabre system that we have in the Falklands provides continuous air defence to the islands, protecting the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. Having seen that system up close and personal on my recent visit to the Falklands, I thank those members of our armed forces protecting the skies above the Falklands. We will need to ensure that integrated air missile defence is more than just a bubble over Poland and protection of the Falklands.
I think that is at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise in the debate. It is also one of the challenges that the strategic defence review seeks to answer. I will not steal Lord Robertson’s sandwiches in terms of what I expect to see in the strategic defence review, but certainly enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR, and I would expect him and his review team to be making recommendations about how that should be done in the SDR when it is published in the spring. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring. Hopefully, that will enable us to look at those two parts together to ensure that we are, in his words, meeting the challenge of stepping up. I agree that there are no free passes, and as a nation we have relied on our strategic depth for a great many years, but we cannot rely on that alone today. That is why our capabilities need to match that challenge.
Our NATO-first approach means ensuring that we deliver not only on the article 3 responsibilities in the NATO treaty to protect our own homeland, but on article 5 and be able to support our NATO allies. That is why we will continue to support our deployments around the NATO area of operations.
As a country, we are leading the way with initiatives such as DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—which will improve air defence integration across Europe and strengthen NATO’s air and missile protection. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on missile capabilities, which is a catalyst to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine and address the burgeoning security threat to NATO members as well.
We are also forging deeper relations with individual European partners. Hon. Members may have seen the landmark Trinity House agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Germany, which will see us turbocharge a series of major projects across air, land and sea, working in partnership to strengthen air defences and better protect European airspace. We are also working more closely with France, with our most recently signing a letter of intent for the European long-range strike approach—the ELSA initiative—at France’s request. Such initiatives demonstrate our determination to support Ukraine, counter the threat posed by Putin and reconnect Britain internationally.
I realise that I have not got to every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but if he will forgive me, I will write to him and place a letter in the House so that all Members can be certain of these matters. Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values and our allies in more uncertain times.
Question put and agreed to.