Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Beamish and Martin Horwood

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome this timely debate. It is healthy that on a Thursday when there is a one-line Whip, there is such pressure on time because of the number of Members who wish to contribute. That reflects the importance of the subject.

As always, it is right to begin by paying tribute to the professionalism and courage of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they so often make. We owe them our thanks.

The world in which the armed forces and the British Government operate is changing. We have rightly talked about the changing nature of the threats, but another way in which the world has changed is that our financial resources are not as great as they were. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) understands that. He mentioned by how much China is increasing its defence expenditure. I quickly looked up the figures of the International Monetary Fund on gross government debt as a percentage of GDP. China’s is only 22%; ours is 90%. That is a risky financial situation and is one of the reasons why we must have good fiscal discipline.

Otherwise, we might end up in the same situation as some of our NATO allies. Italy’s gross government debt as a percentage of GDP is 126%. Greece’s is 158%. If they allow that to continue, we all know what path they will have to go down—they will have to cut all sorts of expenditure, not least defence expenditure. If I had to speculate as to why Greece is one of the few countries within NATO that is achieving the 2% target for defence spending as a percentage of GDP, I would suggest that it is less to do with skyrocketing defence expenditure than with plummeting GDP.

That is one reason why we have to be a little careful about using such absolute percentages. If we were spending just above 2% and we had a good year in which GDP grew unexpectedly, we might fall below 2% mathematically without cutting our defence expenditure. If that happened temporarily, we would all regret it, but we must not fixate too much on the absolute percentage. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad thrust of the many contributors who have said that we need to encourage other NATO partners, when they can afford to do so, to step up to the plate. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) that we cannot guarantee that America will continue effectively to subsidise the defence of Europe. We have seen the risk of American isolationism in the past and it may well raise its head again.

I do not have much time to talk about how we can economise on our defence, but I emphasise that we are still spending £38 billion in 2014-15, giving us one of the best-equipped and most technically advanced military forces in the world. It is still arguably the fourth largest defence budget in the world—it depends on whose figures we use, but I think the worst estimate that I have seen is that it is the sixth largest, which is still substantial for a country of our size—and we are over the 2% of GDP target for NATO members at the moment. We are constructing the two largest aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy’s history, and we are planning a fleet of destroyers, a new fleet of both nuclear and conventionally armed submarines and, further ahead, the joint strike fighter and the Type 26 frigate.

That will all put intense pressure on our defence budget, so we have to consider ways in which we can make it more cost-effective. That is not just about budget cuts—it is a great tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence that he has put such emphasis on efficiency and better management. He may have been slightly disappointed not to have become Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the outset of the coalition, but the Treasury’s loss has been the gain of first the Department for Transport and then the Ministry of Defence. He protected investment in transport infrastructure, and he has been good at prioritising more efficient defence spending and procurement. Both the 2010 strategic defence and security review—the first for 12 years, it has to be said—and more recently the Defence Reform Act 2014 have emphasised the strengthening and reform of defence procurement, perhaps saving as much as £1 billion a year. That compares with the last year of the Labour Government—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

indicated dissent.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Martin Horwood

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I think was raised in evidence to the Electoral Commission by the Plain English Campaign. It pointed out that in response to a yes/no question, as is traditional, there would be a yes campaign and a no campaign. In response to what appears to be the Electoral Commission’s preferred question, we would have to have a remain campaign, and a leave campaign—I do not particularly fancy carrying placards stating, “Remain”. There are some problems with the preferred wording in the commission’s report, and the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point that underlines the fact that the issue requires more consideration. I would like that consideration to be led by the Electoral Commission and to inform the wording of the Bill. If the Minister is unhappy with the wording from the Electoral Commission, and thinks we are being rushed into a decision on that—just as the Bill appears to be rushing us towards even less adequate wording—the solution is in his hands and those of the Conservative party and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). They could pause the Bill and wait for the Electoral Commission to consider the question more fully, and satisfy itself that it has the best possible question to put to the British people.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Would it not help the House and the debate if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a contribution to the debate or was in the Chamber to hear it?

[Martin Horwood]

It is rather extraordinary that only one Conservative Back Bencher and one Liberal Democrat are in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps Members are following the Prime Minister’s injunction not to bang on about Europe—at least at the moment, if not generally.

Amendment 37, tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South, would replace a Welsh “version” with a “translation”. I think that is a little superfluous; I am not really sure of the precise difference between a version and a translation, and even after listening to the hon. Gentleman I did not quite pick up the nuanced difference. I think the Minister made a reasonable response to the amendment, which is that we are following precedent by using “version”.

There is more of a problem with amendments 39 and 40 which mention Gaelic translations, and a bit of a linguistic pickle is going on. As I understand it, Gaelic covers a family of languages that include Manx and Irish, and not just Scottish Gaelic, which is the normal term used to describe the Celtic language in Scotland. The Scottish Government are promoting the status of Scottish Gaelic on the basis that it should have equal respect with English, and that there should be language rights for its tens of thousands of native speakers, but not that it is based on a perceived lack of understanding of English. No one is really expected not to understand a question in English—for instance, there is no requirement to have a Scottish Gaelic version of the independence question in the independence referendum, and that appears to be the intention of both the Scottish and UK Governments. Amendment 39 is a wee bit superfluous.

The hon. Member for Ilford South gets into even more of a linguistic pickle with amendment 40. It mentions Gaelic, although I think the accepted terminology in Ireland is Irish, not Gaelic. This is becoming a bit of an attempt to find various things to talk about, which obviously I am not sure we in this place would entertain.

Amendment 38 has slightly more weight because the hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to include in the Bill the requirement to consult

“with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government.”

There is much more precedent for using the Welsh language, but then the Welsh language is already mentioned in the Bill, and I am not sure whether we need that sensible requirement for consultation in the Bill too. Such a consultation is something that the Government would seem to be perfectly capable of doing, and if the Electoral Commission is looking at the wording of the question, it should be the body that leads on our Welsh version of the question, as well as the English language version.

That leaves amendment 71, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). His amendment is an attempt to tackle a fundamental problem with the Bill, namely its curious approach to the timing and the curiously delayed nature of the referendum question that it would put to the British people. Amendment 71 provides a small antidote to that by emphasising that we are not binding our successors. [Interruption.]

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week we had the Government advisers in the Box communicating via Back Benchers and even with the Bill’s promoter. Today I notice that another Back Bencher is doing the same thing. Is this really in order?