Defence Spending
Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether to call you colonel on this occasion.
I, like others, have been greatly impressed by the quality of the debate so far. I agree with much of what has been said, but let me pick up on a couple of points. First, it is right to say that defence does not win votes, but poor defence can certainly lose them if the public form the view that we are not fulfilling our primary objective—their protection. Secondly, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) made an extremely eloquent speech, but I say to him that there was no option but to abandon the maritime patrol aircraft. The original decision to go with Nimrod was questioned by the Defence Committee at the time. Other alternatives were available, for example, the P-3 Orion, but the decision was taken, I believe by Mr Secretary Portillo, that Nimrod it should be. A final irony was that Nimrod, the mighty hunter, never actually fulfilled his responsibility.
Let us consider the following:
“The Ministry of Defence is being led by the nose by the Treasury towards reductions in Britain’s armed forces which have no rational basis”.
The House will not recognise that quotation, and neither did I until the BBC drew to my attention, in an article written for its website, that in my capacity as defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in August 1991 I had said just that. I do not introduce that to offer some support for the view that I am wise; I do so to point out that nothing seems to have changed. My proposition was put rather more pithily by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who said that after four years as Minister of State for the Armed Forces he formed the clear view that the enemy was not the Russians, but the Treasury.
Some things have changed, though, and the point has been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard). When I first came into this House and took an interest in these matters, we had five days of the parliamentary year to consider defence. We had a two-day debate on the annual White Paper at the beginning of October, and then each of the services had a single day of discussion devoted to them. When the three service days were amalgamated we were confidently assured that it would not result in fewer opportunities to hold the Government to account—people can form their own view about the value of that assurance.
I have been through it all: “Options for Change”; Front Line First; and Labour’s so-called defence review of 1998. That came closest of all to being a proper defence review, except for one thing: Labour refused to publish its foreign policy baseline attributes or intentions. As a consequence, what was otherwise a first-class exercise, with consultation the length and breadth of the country, driven by the then Secretary of State, now Lord Robertson, and with Lord Reid, as he now is, a very important part of it, that was the closest we have come to a defence review. We have not, even in this Parliament, had a defence review. It is an open secret that in 2010 the MOD was told, “Here is a metaphorical envelope containing money. Go away and find a defence policy that fits that sum of money.”
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a fact that in spring 2010 the Labour Government produced a Green Paper, which would have fed into the defence—[Interruption.] What happened afterwards was what the Conservatives did with it, but we did produce the Green Paper to start the process.
Sir Menzies Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I know a bit about this because I was invited by the then Defence Secretary to be part of the group of politicians, of all parties, who participated in debates with officials as to what should be in the Green Paper.
A defence review is not a hugely impossible concept to understand. What one needs to do is set out one’s foreign policy objectives; decide what military resources are necessary to fulfil those objectives; and then allocate the financial resources necessary to provide the military capability. We have not had a defence review that fulfils those three principles in all the time I have been in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a sound point when he said that 2% cannot be described as a panacea for all the ills of defence. If 2% is to be spent, it must be spent wisely. We do not have to go far in Europe to see that several of our allies spend money, perhaps getting up towards 2%—there are not enough of those countries—which could much more readily be spent otherwise. For example, it could be spent on a greater amount of interoperability, force specialisation and such things. There is no point Mr Juncker talking about a European defence policy when European states have not yet properly fulfilled their responsibilities to NATO, of which almost all of them are members.
Trident Alternatives Review
Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
I am not sure where that came from, first, because the figure that the hon. Lady cites is not correct—this would not be the first time that a newspaper had failed to do its sums—and, secondly, because we agree with what the Defence Secretary says. If changes in technology make the nuclear submarines more reliable, meaning that we can go down to three, we will consider that.
Many Labour Members have waited anxiously to see the report’s conclusion but, 26 months later, the review to make the case for the alternatives, which had the full weight of the Government’s resources behind it, presents us with no conclusions, makes no recommendations and does not even support adopting any of the alternatives put forward by the Chief Secretary. Only the Liberal Democrats could envisage an alternatives review that rejects all the alternatives. It is the equivalent of starting a journey to discover the ark of the covenant only to end up where we began with the conclusion that it does not exist.
The Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto said:
“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime”
Trident
“is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives.”
If that was the case in 2010, given that those alternatives have not been identified in the review, surely it is not too much to ask that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues admit that what they claimed in 2010 was wrong. One by one, each of the alternative platforms to Trident are rejected in the review. Heavy bombers, fast jets, low-orbit vehicles, land silos and maritime surface vessels are all discredited for not offering sufficient capability while costing more.
The review even dismisses the Liberal Democrats’ most favoured option of replacing Trident with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Page 45 of the document states that cruise missiles
“offer a much reduced level of destructive and second-strike capability and an increased level of operational complexity”.
Page 6 states:
“Maintaining the same level of assurance that the UK deterrent can overcome an adversary’s defences is…likely to be harder with a cruise missile-based system.”
Page 8 points out that the cost of developing a nuclear-armed cruise missile would more than double the cost of Trident missiles and would take some 24 years. In support of that argument, the Deputy Prime Minister told Andrew Marr in 2010 that the UK
“could use Astute class submarines and use cruise missiles.”
It is true that they are alternatives but, as the report says, they are not only very expensive, but not very good.
The review totally discredits the Liberal Democrats’ previous policy decisions. In fact, some of the more ludicrous suggestions were not considered in the report because exploring them was deemed to be a waste of civil service time and energy. Page 16 dismisses some of those more wacky ideas, such as using helicopters, unmanned air vehicles or space-based platforms. Hand-held devices on the ground were also excluded
“as they would not meet several constraints, including in particular credibility and absolute range.”
The report is therefore credible, as even the most far-fetched suggestions put forward in the outer reaches of the Liberal Democrat world have been addressed.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right that not all parties have been entirely consistent on this matter, but may I remind him that, prior to the 1992 election, the Labour party refused to commit to a fourth submarine, but suggested that one way of maintaining employment at Barrow-in-Furness would be to turn the submarine into an underwater oil carrier?
Mr Jones
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had enough time, and the time is limited.
There was another option that was deemed unworthy of examination by what is otherwise a thorough and forensic document: sending two unarmed submarines out on patrol with the intention of stepping up our posture in a time of crisis. That is the policy the Chief Secretary has just proposed.
Mr Jones
The Chief Secretary asks how much longer I have left. It is taking time to get through the nonsense he has come up with, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that this is not very comfortable for the Chief Secretary, but he is going to have to sit there and listen.
Mr Jones
It is a serious subject. I just wish that Liberal Democrats would treat it seriously, rather than coming up with the nonsense that they keep peddling.
The alternatives review reinforces my point. On page 5, it states:
“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
On page 10, it states:
“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
I could not put it better myself. Breaking CASD would involve an unacceptable downgrading of our capabilities.
To return to the issue of cost, we have been told by the Liberal Democrats that the alternatives to Trident would be cheaper, but their review shows that to be complete nonsense. We were told by the Chief Secretary yesterday that the review was not about savings, but about the nuclear deterrent.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats’ review has not only unmasked their political posturing, but reinforced the case for the policy voted for by this House in 2006. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is muttering. When he is put under detailed examination, he will have to explain the nonsense that he peddled in the run-up to the last general election, which his party’s review has completely discredited. Perhaps he has not read the report. The Liberal Democrats must want to have some credibility. I know that it is not unusual for them to look both ways and ignore the truth, but the report clearly discredits most of the things that he has said over the past few years.
The alternatives review has looked at the alternatives and come forward with the conclusion that we all thought it would reach: the minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the UK is submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent. [Interruption.] Well, that is what it is saying—
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comment from a sedentary position—he was the lone voice on the Conservative Front Bench arguing for the RAF.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) gave a beautiful description of what is a beautiful constituency, and she is a good salesperson for her local tourist board. She also paid tribute to Colin Breed, with whom I served on the Defence Committee and who had a keen interest in defence matters. She mentioned HMS Raleigh—if you want to see the best of British youth, Mr Deputy Speaker, you need to go to HMS Raleigh. As a Minister, I was honoured to attend a passing-out parade there last year, and it is humbling to see those who were once raw recruits passing out, with their families in tears, and going on to make a great contribution to our Royal Navy.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) made, I think, a fitting tribute to her predecessor, as well as to a very good old friend of mine, Eric Forth, who once represented the area, which I had not realised previously. She also rightly pointed out her constituency’s contribution to our armed forces, and I am sure that she will be a strong advocate for that constituency.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) represents a strong military area, which I was fortunate to visit on numerous occasions as a Minister. One of those visits was to launch the armed forces welfare pathway with Hampshire county council, with which I hope the new ministerial team will continue.
I have to say that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), in defeating Dr. Robert Spink, has done a favour to us and the rainforests of South America, because we will no longer have to put up with the nightly petitions he used to present. I thank her for that contribution to the environment. She also said rightly that she represents her constituency with pride, and I am sure that she will do a good job. She made the point that her constituency is a large contributor of men and women to our armed forces, and I wish her well in representing that constituency.
The debate had a large number of contributions. There is usually consensus across the House in such debates, although one would not think that if one saw some of the press comments, or the spin that came from Conservative Front Benchers, before the election. However, this is a serious subject, and we ought to ensure that Members in all parts of the House, as well as in the wider community, are involved in the review.
The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell)—who nowadays, I have to say, looks a bit like the unhappy father of the bride at a shotgun wedding—
Mr Jones
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not be paying for it personally, but I think that his party may well do so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a good point in saying that foreign policy clearly underpinned the review. He also made a good point about finance. One thing that I think the Government Front-Bench team will soon recognise is that the enemy is not in the Ministry of Defence or in its own parties, but across the road in the Treasury.
It was remiss of me not to welcome members of the Front-Bench team to their new positions. Let me also say that I am sad that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who were collateral damage in the reshuffle, are no longer in that team. They worked very hard in opposition, and always dealt with me courteously when I was a Minister.
I think that we have taken a simplistic approach to finance in the context of the review. When we were in government, we fell into the habit of assuming that the civil service was bad and the military were good. I had the privilege and the great honour of being a Minister in the MOD, and I want to record my thanks to the civil servants and the military personnel with whom I worked. The MOD comes in for a great deal of criticism, but one thing that I would not question is the commitment and dedication of the individuals in that Department. It is true that we reduced expenditure on civil servants by cutting their number by 45,000, but savings will now have to be made across the board, and it would be wrong to make them in such a simplistic way.
An important question that has emerged today relates to the parameters of the debate that is to take place. We need to ask whether decisions have already been made, and whether some areas will be ring-fenced. In opposition, the Conservative Front-Bench team made it clear that they wanted to increase the size of the Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) said earlier that he would not quote things back at them. I am sorry, but I cannot help doing so.
In opposition, the then hon. Member for Woodspring—now the Secretary of State—was keen to ensure that we had a bigger Army. On 18 February 2008, he was asked by Adam Boulton of Sky News:
“So are you saying that you want… a bigger army?”
He replied:
“We want to see a bigger army.”
That rather contradicts what he is saying now, and what he was quoted as saying the other week in The Sunday Times—that
“nothing had been ruled out—even cuts to the numbers of uniformed personnel.”
Are we to believe that what the Conservatives said before the last election was just the rhetoric of opposition? Was it not, in fact, a cynical ploy to give the impression that they were the party that was standing up for the armed forces?