Armed Forces: Reserve Forces

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, the loss of two more soldiers in the past two or three weeks—to whom I pay particular tribute—reminds me of the price that the people of Yorkshire in particular have paid in terms of losses in Afghanistan. Scenes of grieving families outside our cathedral in Wakefield before and after military funerals have become all too frequent. In the light of this, I am particularly proud that two priests in the diocese of Wakefield are reservists. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Lee, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, will consider the Church of England to be a model employer in these circumstances. Each priest has served a three-month tour in Afghanistan, and one is likely to serve there again in the not-too-distant future. I have kept up with issues of morale and resources through one of the priests; he briefs me regularly. He is involved in training reservists at York, Catterick and elsewhere.

The strategic defence and security review, with which I engaged previously in this Chamber, has already had an impact in these areas. There is an understandable pressure on reservists to play an ever more important role in the UK Armed Forces by providing a greater and more integrated proportion of total manpower. This means that there ought to be an urgent strategic review of the welfare, healthcare and support needs of both serving military personnel and their families. Not long ago, I attended an excellent briefing by the Ministry of Defence on our military reservists and on the strategy for the future. I give particular thanks to the Minister for arranging that and a number of other excellent briefings over the past two years.

Clearly, the Future Reserves 2020 report is central to the plans of Her Majesty’s Government for increased reliance on reservists. It makes crucial reference to increasing welfare support to these people and their families while they are engaged in operations. However, it provides virtually no plan or strategy for precisely what is required or how it should be achieved. This stands in contrast to the conclusions of the 2009 Ministry of Defence report on the strategic role of reserves, where again the argument about the need for improved support was made.

It is perfectly clear that we will need to rely more and more on people giving freely of their time in the naval, Air Force and Army reserves. Our resources are stretched severely because of the fragility of the international situation in any number of different theatres. I hope that as a result of this important debate—for the securing of which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—Her Majesty’s Government will assure us of a proper level of support such as that for which I have argued, and also of proper resources and back-up for the operations in which they are to be engaged.

We owe all of our military an enormous debt at this time, as ever. Furthermore, our reservists, of course, give of their time entirely through their own generosity. Theology has had a bad name among politicians going even back to the time of Harold Wilson’s premiership, so I have avoided theology thus far. However, I must describe this extraordinary and courageous generosity as an outpouring of grace. I wish to give thanks unreservedly—excuse the pun—for the graciousness of these people and their continuing demonstration of that through their service.

Defence Budget

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have a new team in the MoD who, as I have seen with my own eyes, are absolutely on top of this issue and will do their very best to make sure that this plan is properly carried out. On submarines, as confirmed in the SDSR, the MoD is committed to delivering seven Astute-class submarines, at a cost of approximately £10 million. In order for the UK to continue as a nuclear power, the MoD is committed to delivering continuous at-sea deterrent. The MoD has started the £3 billion assessment phase for the £25 billion successor programme to deliver long-term CASD.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, first, from this Bench, I join with all others in their tributes to those who have lost their lives recently in Afghanistan. I am grateful to the Minister for the considered Statement and for the acknowledgement that the budget should be balanced. I am sure that we would all agree with that. I assume from what he said that much of this is derivative from the SDSR. I am concerned about three questions. First, progress has been made recently with the military covenant, particularly in the area of welfare for families affected by casualties and injuries, and, more generally, for those serving in the Armed Forces. At a time when the conflict continues in Afghanistan, I want to be assured that all that has been set out there can be fulfilled in the short term.

Secondly, and similarly in the short term, in thinking about resources for those serving in Afghanistan, we have all heard on a number of occasions the fears of senior officers in the forces, who are unhappy with the present support in terms of equipment. Can we be assured of that support at present, rather than looking further into the future?

My third question is about morale. I am grateful for all the briefings that the Minister has organised. Morale is one issue that has come up time and again. There are bound to be difficulties at a time when such drastic cuts have to be made. In the Army, I think another 20,000 people will eventually lose their jobs within the forces, and that uncertainty causes continuing difficulties with morale. I want assurances on welfare, the equipment at the present time and how we will try to encourage morale at this tricky moment.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Finlay in this amendment, having also supported her in the campaign to get the chief coroner into post as part of the Public Bodies Bill. She has already mentioned that. I mention this because it has been 149 years since the coroners legislation was last updated, and it is now not fit for purpose. Those constituents who are finding it so are the families of those armed servicemen who are killed overseas. They have to wait an inordinately long time now for the inquest. This adds to their distress and is the very antithesis of everything that the Armed Forces covenant is all about. Therefore I hope that by putting this in the Bill and having it included in the annual report on the covenant, we will put pressure on those who ought to see that the coroners regulations and way of operating is updated and made fit for purpose, particularly for our servicemen and their families.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Once again, I thank the Minister for all that he has done in helping us forward on the covenant. I have seen all too often in the see city of Wakefield recently the tragic sight of funerals at the cathedral of people who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. The clergy often finds itself at the sharp end of this, as it were, because it is trying to minister to families who are feeling particularly raw through the normal outcome of war and the sadness that that brings.

I support the amendment for two reasons. First, the delays that we have heard about reinforce that rawness and sense of loss that families find so difficult to cope with, particularly having lost loved ones in these tragic and, in some ways, unforeseen circumstances. Although people realise that they are taking a risk when they join the military forces, somehow one always thinks that it will be someone else who actually dies in battle.

Secondly, there should be proper monitoring of what is going on, as the noble Baroness said. It seems to me that remembering people who have lost their lives and having them recorded is essential in this process. The fact that it is not going to cost anything ought to encourage us to go with this amendment. I realise how much the Minister and the Government have worked to improve the Bill, but if we do not include this amendment, I think that ultimately it will not capture the proper operation of inquests. For that reason, I ask noble Lords to support this amendment.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, as someone from the ranks, as it were, not having been a Defence Minister, I add my voice to those of former Defence Ministers and speak to Amendment 10 standing in my name. Other amendments in the group concern important matters such as who should prepare reports. My amendment concerns the more mundane but nevertheless important matter of a covenant with our Armed Forces which must note what improvement has been made to the dire condition of too many of the 44,000 forces family homes in the UK.

As noble Lords will remember, the housing was sold off but the MoD is responsible for repairs and maintenance. That is not necessarily a good deal. The MoD has not had the will or the funds to keep many of these properties in a good state of repair. It is clear to me from the inquiries I have made that the coalition Government accept that this problem goes back many years and recognise that something needs to be done. I also accept that in these times of cuts and reductions in expenditure there are unlikely to be sufficient funds radically to improve the existing housing stock. I hope that the purpose of my amendment is simple; namely, to think outside the box. If the MoD does not have the funds to carry out this work—I am told that it does not—and if the freeholder will not do the work because the properties were sold off to a housing association, we should look at other funding streams, as is the case with social housing in the public sector. The amendment is meant to be helpful in terms of directing thought towards other methods.

The amendment asks for a report on the progress being made between the Ministry of Defence and housing associations to improve the accommodation for servicepeople. I am sure that this is not an original thought, but I envisage a round table of housing associations active in garrison towns to build new homes for service personnel or to renovate existing stock to a high standard. A few minutes ago, at Oral Questions in the Chamber, people were reminiscing about World War II. For people of my age who were born during that war, the saying was “homes for heroes”, but I am afraid that we do not nowadays have “a fair deal for squaddies”.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2, which is in my name and co-sponsored by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig. Perhaps I should begin with a mild apology for being slightly overdressed for this Room but, with the warning that there might be a Division, there would not be time to get backstage to get sorted out in time for that.

I begin by thanking the Minister for making so much time available earlier today in his “open house” at which this amendment was given the chance of some airing. It was a most constructive lead into this debate and confirms the willingness of Her Majesty’s Government to engage in dialogue over the Bill. At Second Reading, the introduction of Clause 2 was welcomed generally by this House. However, there remains a concern from a wide compass of people as to whether the reporting mechanisms envisaged in Clause 2 are sufficiently robust and adequately objective. In earlier debates and in the very helpful briefings arranged by the Minister, I have raised this issue.

Perhaps a key to our discussions is the covenantal relationship between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces. Covenant is a concept with clear foundations within the Jewish and Christian religious traditions. Essentially, it is rooted in trust between various parties. Such trust is made secure only by setting the covenant within properly defined parameters.

This amendment seeks to address two issues. It is notoriously difficult for any institution or organisation to stand outside itself in an objective critical fashion. This is to expect more than is reasonable from either the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State. But a second issue is of equal importance. Vital in all our discussions is the proper, just and generous treatment of veterans, which has been referred to already today. The media have had a field day in the past couple of years in focusing on untreated post-traumatic stress disorder. This is of course a crucial matter to address but, as we have heard, the range of concern facing veterans runs far more widely than this alone. Included here will be issues relating to education, welfare and social security, and to areas relating to social services—family breakdown or even homelessness.

It is unrealistic to expect the Ministry of Defence and thus, by virtue of that, the Secretary of State, to have the ability to respond in each of these areas, including health and notably post-traumatic distress. The MoD has neither the competence nor the facilities to cover this enormous range of challenging concerns. There must be one integrative reviewer who can bring together the resources of the various government ministries. This person will need to respond to individual cases effectively and to engage with local authority provision where necessary. These are matters which each of us will have seen testing the resources in all the localities in which we live.

This amendment aims to provide flexibility in response through the presence of the independent reviewer of armed services welfare. It would allow for such findings to be reported to Parliament annually. It may be that Her Majesty’s Government, in framing Clause 2, took some of these issues and proposals into account. If so, it would be good to know why such a reviewer was not included in the proposed legislation.

Once again I want to emphasise how encouraged I have been by the willingness of Her Majesty’s Government to take the military covenant so seriously and their being prepared to move things on. None the less, at present I am clear that further strengthening is essential if the numbers of our Armed Forces, both serving and retired, are to receive what they undoubtedly deserve. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage—certainly from how I feel things are going so far this afternoon—but I shall bring the amendment back should that seem necessary at a later stage in the proceedings.

I am most grateful to my two co-sponsors, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for their encouragement and advice on this.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the approach outlined in Amendment 2, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate, is one to which we should give careful consideration, which is why I put my name to it. For any report to Parliament on the operation of the military covenant to have credibility, it should be underpinned by an independent review of the welfare needs of both existing service men and women and our 5.5 million veterans. In that way the operation of the military covenant will be properly audited.

On Second Reading I was not alone, I think, in expressing concern that there are just three areas listed in the Bill on which the Secretary of State should report—healthcare, education and housing. The Secretary of State alone would decide whether to report on anything else. If Parliament enacts this Bill as it stands, there would be precious little opportunity for future Parliaments to do anything about the issues to be reported. It would be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. In the coming years there might be many other areas of concern about the welfare of service men and women—and veterans—that should be included in a report to Parliament. The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, if accepted, would afford that flexibility. In my experience, all too often Governments as a rule, Ministers in some instances, and the civil servants always like to have things buttoned down in legislation, leaving little room for manoeuvre or interpretation. I was a strong advocate for that when I sat on the other side.

The scope of this amendment would, I believe, better fit the need of implementing the covenant without being overprescriptive. Under the broad heading of “welfare”, it would be possible to widen the areas to be examined and reported on from the three specified in the Bill without the need to resort to further primary legislation.

I was also concerned on Second Reading to understand how the Secretary of State for Defence would, without being given some special powers, be able to examine and report on healthcare, education and housing for veterans when these responsibilities were held by other Ministers in the devolved Administrations and other bodies that are not answerable to him. I suggested at that time that the National Audit Office, for which I have a high regard, could carry out an independent audit. It has a fine track record and an international reputation for thoroughness. I took the view that such an audit could be presented to Parliament at the same time that the Secretary of State makes his annual report. I think that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, also supported the idea of an independent audit when they spoke on Second Reading. My experience of serving on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place taught me that there is very much merit in monitoring and auditing new systems of service delivery, and the military covenant is certainly that, which is, of course, at the heart of this Bill.

I believe that appointing an independent Armed Forces reviewer, which this amendment proposes, dedicated to looking at matters concerning the welfare of service men and women and veterans alone, is even better than my suggestion of bringing in the National Audit Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Brookeborough]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in general and to support adding more regulations and putting legislation behind them. The covenant is a very old understanding and we are talking about it because it is not working. It could be said that it is operated under voluntary support by the different agencies and the different people involved. It has not operated very well and that is why we are discussing it now. We must legislate. When talking of the covenant in this Bill, there is far too much “in the opinion of” and somebody should pay “due regard to”.

We have to be sure that the covenant means something. When people have an obligation to provide specialist help in housing, health or anything else, we have to know whether they have or have not done it. It must not be swept to the back of the annual report for a particular region, unread and ignored. We are very well aware of that, especially in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to go back into aftercare services and that sort of thing, but we go outside medical care. We go into people’s lives to find out whether they need retraining. We go into helping them thereafter.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that there was a certain amount of linking-up and connection that did not always work. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned the covenant to serving people. I hope that our covenant to them is absolute from within the service because we know who they are and where they are. We know where we are sending them and everything about them. The covenant is equally important to veterans. We also have to do something about tying the Ministry of Defence into having a proper record of where those people are and of noting when they leave the service. The covenant relies on two parts: providing a service and a commitment that is honour-bound to those people. It must also have a way of making sure that they are connected with it. It is no good pretending that they leave the armed services with no injuries and bad effects from serving in Afghanistan, housing, or whatever. It is no good expecting those proud people to come crawling back to us for help.

Today in the Telegraph, I think, which I do not have with me, there is a small article saying that Combat Stress has done a survey—the same people that do the parliamentary one that we get, so they are perfectly well founded. The survey shows that a colossal percentage—70 per cent—of GPs are unaware of any links or effects between combat stress and the stressful conditions for ex-servicemen. I have said before that I can sell a bullock here that can go all the way round Europe and you can walk into any agricultural office to find out where it has been, what was wrong with it, and where it can go. Why is it that it is only recently that records have become available in civilian life on leaving the service? Unless you begged for them, they were incarcerated in Glasgow. Why is it that we have freedom of information about everything in our lives but have no freedom of information to find out whether a homeless person lying in the underpass at Knightsbridge is an ex-serviceperson? Something is clearly wrong. It cannot be an infringement of someone’s human rights that when you see a doctor about a member of your family who is too proud to say that something is wrong there is a red dot or something on the record so that the doctor can say, “Ah. I am aware that he is an ex-serviceperson. We have special ways and means of dealing with them”.

The covenant is very important but it needs legislation behind it. I think that we should demand that reports are made every year about how it is getting on. I also think that the MoD should be a lot more aware of who and where its veterans are.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I, too, rise to support these two amendments, and indeed the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said in his amendment. I wish to make a more general point and try to respond in part to the debate on my earlier amendment which got lost slightly in the excitement of all those votes. So many of the contributions seem to be saying things that resonate with each other, but most of them, if not all, celebrate the fact that the Government have taken action in establishing the covenant legally. At the same time it seems to me that there is a fairly clear sense of not quite consensus but a fairly considerable majority opinion from different people around this Room that things still need to be looked at further if the covenant is to be as effective as we wish it to be.

I do not want to repeat the points I or others have made, but between now and the Report stage, I hope very much that the Government will take these comments away. Clearly, if all these amendments were passed, they would duplicate or even collide with each other, but quite a lot of material has been offered throughout our debates today which suggests that there are ways in which the covenant could be more effective than it is as the Bill presently sets out. I hope that the Government will consider these comments before the Report stage so that we can see that we have moved on and do not have to come back with another set of amendments that try to address those areas where we feel that there are still vacuums.

Armed Forces: Overstretch

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the SDSR was based on a thorough, realistic assessment of the threats we face now and could face in the future. It ensures that we can continue to conduct operations today while preparing our future force. Our rapid and highly effective contribution to the NATO mission to protect the Libyan people is testament to the flexibility and professionalism of our Armed Forces and proof that the UK has the capability to project power and influence at very short notice.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, following the question that has just been asked, would the Minister accept that Britain’s ability to resource recent and additional deployments—deployments that would not have been possible a few months later—draws into question the very plans that have been discussed? Is there not now a very good reason why they ought to be reviewed again in light of the increasingly unstable international position?

Defence: Military Covenant

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the military covenant will be covered by the strategic defence and security review.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce this Question for Short Debate. Well before the strategic defence and security review, Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty, was published, the Church of England already wanted to contribute to the wider debate on our national concern for global security. That was when I was asked, as someone with a background in foreign affairs—albeit mainly in ecclesiastical settings—to be a spokesperson for the church on defence and global security issues. We are also keen to reflect on the nature of the military covenant, whereby we underpin our commitment as a nation to those who risk their lives on our behalf. The impetus for this debate predates both the review and the Strachan report on the military covenant.

The response to the SDSR, when it was published, produced at least as much heat as it did light and, if it is not mixing metaphors too much, it was easy for that to cloud serious reflections on the issues at hand. In my own contribution to the debate on the review, I drew attention to what I believed to be a lack of any full narrative about the global role that we might expect Britain to play and the corresponding resources that might be needed to sustain this. I remain convinced that we should urgently return to that. Of course, the national security strategy has provided some of that narrative in terms of what we ought to be doing as a nation. It is still not clear, however, whether that yet dovetails with the answers that the SDSR gave about what is possible for us to do as a nation, given our finite resources.

We are all sharply aware of the financial restraints placed upon us following a serious global recession. That made the publication of the review a matter of urgency. Indeed, I noted in my reflections that the review had an interim feel to it. There is no time to be lost in making a realistic assessment of the resources available in this next decade and deciding how we might most profitably deploy them so as to make an effective and strategic contribution to global security. I hope that we shall return to a principled debate on strategy in the near future in this House and in the other place.

In preparing for this debate I have consulted a number of people who, from their experience as senior military personnel, have a better reservoir of knowledge than I could ever have. They have generously commented as well on aspects of the military covenant. I shall focus more immediately on the covenant itself, and I begin with a brief local vignette. Six months ago I presided at the service at Halifax Minster for the laying up of the colours of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment. The regiment has now become a battalion within the Yorkshire Regiment. It was a very moving occasion, provoking not only powerful feelings among the military personnel present, and there were plenty of them, but equally powerful responses from the citizens of Halifax, both young and old. The Duke’s regiment had been their regiment and often the soldiers had been their soldiers, so the memories—some black and sorrowful, some heroic and inspiring—were their memories. It was an instructive and very personal indication of the significance of the relationship of mutuality, trust and respect between a community and its military personnel. In other words, here was the military covenant earthed in a local community.

The stream of funerals at Wakefield Cathedral of service personnel from Afghanistan has been another sharp reminder of the cost of war and of what we expect of those who offer their lives for military service. There is no other role within society where the reality of giving one’s life is so sharply within focus, or where the expectations of the role—that is, the covenant with servicepeople and their families—has quite the same edge. Death is one reality that cannot be ruled out, and the rawness of our emotions cannot be downplayed.

This short debate gives us an opportunity to look afresh at the military covenant and how it was covered by the SDSR. I shall focus on the welfare issues within the covenant, allowing others to focus elsewhere if they wish. We can do so, of course, alongside the recommendations of the Strachan report, on which I believe the Government should be duly congratulated. That task force has stimulated fresh ways of thinking about how the Government and society as a whole can fulfil their obligations to develop further the military covenant which, rather like our constitution, is unwritten and is perhaps best left in that form.

All in this House would doubtless agree that ensuring that the covenant is in robust health is as much a moral imperative as it is a strategic one. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who have served and continue to serve in our Armed Forces. I have already alluded to the potential costs to individuals and families. I shall use this occasion also to pay particular tribute to the dedicated and loyal service provided by those who support them, including our military chaplains past and present. I also pay tribute to reservists, now numbering some 20,000 recently serving. I should say that that includes two clergy from our own diocese, who have been on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan in these past years.

That moves me on to ask some practical questions. First, what steps have been taken to update the existing package on terms and conditions of service, and what is the envisaged timeframe for the development of a new employment model? Alongside this, I am prompted to ask for some indicators in education. The Strachan report points to education throughout the service career as a priority and the SDSR highlights support to ex-service personnel to study at university. I have commented on the Browne report’s impact in another debate in the Chamber and would welcome assurance that the changes in higher education funding will not delay the SDSR’s recommendations in this area.

I revert to the excellent work of the Strachan task force. As I have hinted, the avoidance of semi-legal language is much to be welcomed. Those noble Lords who have sight of the more scurrilous of the tabloids will know that the Anglican Communion is itself struggling to put together a covenant. Similar issues of legalism or non-legalism have arisen there. I am sure that legalism is best avoided all round. Interestingly, the Old Testament is riven with a number of different models of covenant. The most attractive feature of all of them is an avoidance of a language which legislates. Instead, the model is one of gift. Each partner willingly gifts to the other. Here, we begin with a gift of military service and a paired gift is offered by the nation to all in military service. That gift is shared by government and the wider community. It is eloquently set out in the task force’s document.

Within all that, however, we need confidence that such gifting is assured, especially from government. Here there are lacunae. In neither Strachan nor the SDSR is there an analysis of the welfare needs of serving personnel and veterans. Any research into that has been ad hoc and piecemeal. There are real questions about the ability of regiments and corps individually to look after families. There are also specific issues about the adequacy of support for reservists as they return to their normal work following the pressured extremes of military service. These issues argue for a permanent mechanism through which we can review the situation in the future. I realise that the question of how we assess the treatment of Armed Forces personnel has been raised in another place within the context of the Armed Forces Bill. As I understand it, the independent external reference group, which assesses annual progress against the service personnel Command Paper, is due to be phased out or brought in-house to the Ministry of Defence, where its independence is less assured. Could the Minister shed some light on the logic of that decision?

Finally, I accept that this time of financial stringency is hardly one in which to encourage the setting up of new posts and appointments, but ought there not to be someone who effectively acts as the reviewer of armed services welfare? That might be combined with other work while remaining a distinctive function. The reviewer would report to the Secretary of State for Defence perhaps once every four years. Such a statutory measure might help depoliticise our discussions on the military covenant and ensure that the sacrifices that I mentioned earlier are responded to by a proper sense of giftedness from the nation’s side of the covenant. Without a clear assurance here, one cannot guarantee the relationship essential in a military covenant. Field Marshal Montgomery commented:

“Leadership is the capacity and will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence”.

This confidence must be rooted in a mutually assured covenant which has clarity about both its purpose and its commitment. Again, Montgomery noted—and I conclude—that:

“Theological virtues amount to this: get your major purpose clear, take off your plate all which hinders that purpose and hold hard to all which helps it, and then go ahead with a clear conscience, courage, sincerity and selflessness”.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Bishop of Wakefield Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I join others in offering condolences from these Benches on the tragic death of Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes. At remembrancetide, as has been said, we are sharply reminded of the cost of the protection of our interests internationally and the sacrificial contribution made by Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Living in Lincoln, as we were in 1982, we saw the Vulcans take off from RAF Scampton and RAF Waddington for Ascension Island and Port Stanley. It was a bold and courageous move and a remarkable logistical achievement. Indeed it was the only ever use of the ageing V-bomber force in anger. Its strategic impact, however, was limited. The Stanley runways were pock-marked, but not put out of action. None of this was surprising, either then or in retrospect. The Vulcans were designed first for free-fall and, later, stand-off nuclear bombing in a European theatre of conflict. For fairly obvious reasons, rarely will forces designed for one strategic purpose with a clearly defined enemy be easily adapted to an utterly different target and theatre of war.

This tiny piece of historic narrative focuses sharply for us the key issues behind the present debate. The strategic defence review is clear that we no longer face one polarised ideological enemy. No longer is it a matter of mutually assured destruction or the mobilisation of the entire nation. Indeed, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire in late 1989 onwards led to jubilant cries about the world now being a far less dangerous place. Twenty years on, however, following two Gulf wars, Serbia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, it all looks very different. That is, of course, the conclusion, too, of the recent report of the National Security Council.

Doubtless that has contributed to the discrepancy in figures between the overall 19 per cent cuts of the comprehensive spending review and the specific conclusions of the strategic defence and security review, resulting in a more modest 8 per cent reduction in spending. Despite this, the impact on our different forces will still be sharp, as reactions to the SDR suggest.

At root, we face two decisive questions. In an increasingly insecure and uncertain world, how can greater stability be secured? How can we plan to meet both our present and future responsibilities and afford to do so? The answer to these questions must lie primarily with those nations with a sophisticated defence capability working together for world peace and security. That must be the key to our own foreign and defence policy. There is, then, a responsibility placed on the powerful nations to protect those who are weaker. This may begin with enlightened self-interest, but the imperatives on us all direct us toward a wider concern for human flourishing and well-being.

What is Britain’s part to be in this broader search for international peace and security? How can that be integrated into a broader vision and strategy—a strategy that ultimately presses us well beyond the principles of those worthy statesmen who fashioned the North Atlantic Treaty? How, then, does the present defence review measure up to those questions?

As we have heard from noble Lords who have spoken, the reviewers had the unenviable task of seeking a pathway that embraced one of three contrasting responses open to government at this time. Those responses are often labelled “committed”, “adaptable” or “vigilant”. A committed response would have required long-term overseas deployment, which is now unsustainable within our contemporary financial resources. Vigilance would simply imply a withdrawal from much of Britain’s previous international engagement.

As we heard from the Minister when he opened this debate, the review has attempted to embrace adaptability. Such an approach would inevitably lay policy based on such a premise open to the criticism of muddle or lack of clarity. “Adaptability” can mean anything, especially when we remember the constraints that apply at present. The review bears the marks of such uncertainties, but it has the merit of feeling like an interim review, leaving options open for a return to these issues later. The Government could help to avoid confusion on this point by not using vocabulary that sounds as if it belongs to the “committed” stance when the chosen path is that of adaptability. To do otherwise risks repeating the mistakes of other Governments.

The principles that I have outlined, relating to the responsibilities of the powerful nations with sophisticated defence capabilities and our part in that, will, I hope, play a paramount role in continuing planning and debate. The initial reports of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Sarkozy and their discussions about shared defence facilities are encouraging as a sign of co-operation in international security. We hope that it will become a reality.

The publication of this review, initiated by the previous Government and enacted by the present coalition, is a beginning and not an end. There are still further issues to be brought into the discussion. For example, all this has crucial implications, too, for the military covenant and for our responsibility as a nation to those who serve in our Armed Forces. The tributes that we have heard this morning reinforce that fact.

Some weeks ago, as we awaited the review, I wrote to the Times, highlighting the significance of this whole process. My letter coincided with a flood of correspondence about Stephen Hawking’s book on the origins of the universe and the implications for theism. I was castigated by a later correspondent for failing to be on task. Surely my job was religion, so why did I not stick to rebutting atheism and prescind from intervening in debates on defence and security? Had I replied, my response would have been to remind my correspondent of the French statesman Georges Clemenceau’s eloquent maxim that war is too important to be left to generals. It is also, I suggest, too important to be left to politicians alone. International peace and security, and the human flourishing that they should nurture, are the responsibility of every one of us individually and all of us as a nation.