Ukraine: Defence Relationships

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on securing this important debate, which gives us the opportunity to look again at the integrated review in the context of unfolding events within Ukraine. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who has quite rightly focused on resilience in the context of his chairmanship of the National Preparedness Commission, and I have been very pleased to work with him as chair of the National Emergencies Trust.

It is on the integrated review in the wider security sense that I wish to focus my remarks this afternoon. I would suggest that our history since the end of the Cold War of security and defence reviews has been at best somewhat chequered. The options for change exercise conducted in the early 1990s I think is fairly described as something of a semi-camouflaged peace dividend taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and across Europe, by other finance Ministers as well. We then went forward to the end of that decade with the strategic defence review of 1997-98; and that review in many people’s view was an extremely good piece of policy work. Unfortunately, it was holed below the waterline by not being fully funded by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those risks came home to roost when we found ourselves fighting hot wars from 2003 onwards in Iraq and subsequently in Afghanistan.

We then went through a period of 13 years when we had no defence review whatever, until we came to 2010 when the coalition Government found themselves having to take rapid action to fill the black hole of about £35 billion in defence spending that they had inherited from the previous Government. The defence reviews of 2010 and 2015 were both again cost-cutting exercises, and when you have a cost-cutting exercise, you have to decide what costs you are going to cut. Quite rightly in my view, major capital equipment programmes, including—to the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord West —the aircraft carrier programme, continued to be funded. But where there had to be savings, they had to come from our manpower cover. And where do you find most of the manpower? In our Army.

When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, was Chief of the General Staff and I was his Assistant Chief of the General Staff, the Army was over 100,000. A few years later when I was Chief of the General Staff it was still over 100,000. It is now plummeting to 72,000, and if No. 10 and the Cabinet Office had had their way in the early days of the integrated review, it could have gone down as low as 65,000 or 60,000. That I would suggest is unacceptable. So of course, against that background, we come to the welcome news in 2020 of a considerable boost to defence spending. But that boost was not a boost that was going to be made available to really increase our capability; it was largely an exercise in filling in many of the potholes that once again had accumulated.

However, the integrated review tried to take a broad-ranging look at our security, defence and foreign affairs requirements. I would suggest—as other noble Lords have said—that many of the conclusions of that integrated review were valid and reasonable, including, dare I say, the tilt toward the Indo-Pacific. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said, the Americans are very much approving of that because it is a little bit of a quid pro quo for them continuing to support us in continental Europe. But what the integrated review failed to take full account of was what we are now facing: the consequences of a resurgent Russia with a dictator who is determined to have his will in many ways.

So, we could then argue with ourselves, “Well, what should our response be?” Should we be rebalancing and changing some of the conclusions of the integrated review? I suggest that that is not the right approach to take. Many of the conclusions of the integrated review are reasonable, but what we failed to fully factor in was the requirement to be able to conduct a land war, or have a land capability that was strong enough to deter a land war, in Europe. Therefore, this is not to be a zero-sum game, with the Army, the Navy and the Air Force once again arguing against each other for a shift in priorities. Actually, it argues for an increase in our defence budget from 2% to 3%—an extra £12 billion to 15 billion a year—so that we can properly give ourselves the land capability that we absolutely require.

Our land capability is woefully lacking in armour; we are going to go down as it stands to 148 Challenger 3 tanks, and we have cancelled the Warrior tracked armoured fighting vehicle that can accompany them on the battlefield. What the war in Ukraine has shown once again is that artillery is a fundamental piece on the modern battlefield. We are woeful in the number of rocket and tube systems we have in this country. We have just given some MLRS to Ukraine: my goodness, we have few enough anyway, and where are the replacements going to come from? We need more armour, more artillery and we need more manpower; to have an Army that is going down to its smallest size in the last 200 years is completely unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would say that, when we look at the impact of Ukraine on the integrated review, there is a cautionary tale that we need to take note of. We need to look at that cautionary tale, learn lessons and, principally, ensure that an increased defence budget is argued for, and that much of that increased money goes into our land capability.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate on the Queen’s Speech I shall focus on two particular aspects. The first is following up the reference in the gracious Speech to the legacy in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons yesterday and look forward to debating it in your Lordships’ House when it comes here later in the year. Many issues will be raised by that Bill, but I am sure that, in particular, we need to take the opportunity to protect the interests of veteran soldiers who served with distinction in the Province of Northern Ireland 30, 40 and 50 years ago. We owe it to them to ensure that the Government deliver on their promise, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance in his winding-up speech that those issues will be properly focused on and prioritised.

The second aspect on which I wish to comment is the effect of the Ukraine war on British defence policy as we reassess, as we should, last year’s integrated review. The aspiration for global Britain and the tilt towards the Indo-Pacific has faced a sharp reality check from the war in Europe at the present moment. I think we all agree that the architecture of the European security structure is changing almost as we speak, as is NATO’s response, not least due to Finland and Sweden wishing to join NATO, and, of course, the changed position of Germany.

Obviously and importantly, there are implications for the United Kingdom specifically. In my view, unless Her Majesty’s Government wish to change their priorities which were set out in the integrated review, there is no alternative than to increase our defence budget. It is not a zero-sum game at this moment in our history. If we are going to spend more in one area, we are going to spend less in another. There is an increasing case to spend more, probably approaching a rise from 2% to 3% of our GDP.

The argument behind that increase is driven by the needs of our land forces. The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of having adequate land forces that can be employed. As a first step, I urge the Government to reconsider the cuts that have been tabled in recent defence reviews, particularly the cuts to Armed Forces manpower, particularly Army manpower, to reassess some of the proposals to take equipment out of service and to consider new programmes.

Time precludes a lengthy shopping list, and I am well aware that there are respectable arguments which point to warfare having changed as innovation has driven new technologies and that there are different ways of conducting warfare in the 21st century. That is true, but that does not mean that some of the traditional conventional methods of conducting warfare are any less valid. The sad reality that the Treasury and the Government have to accept is that a range of golf clubs is required in the bag, and just because you have a new club does not mean that you can throw away some of the old ones.

Therefore, I urge the Government and the Ministry of Defence to look at our land manoeuvre capability. That capability has been illustrated by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We have to ask ourselves whether having 148 main battle tanks, albeit refurbished main battle tanks, is sufficient. In the days of the Cold War, we could field four armoured divisions; now, we cannot field one armoured division. In the First and Second World Wars, we fielded countless divisions. Our capability is much reduced.

It is important to look again at the upgrade to the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. It was decided that it was too expensive, so that programme of vehicles is being taken out of service. Why does that matter? The tank is a tracked vehicle and can manoeuvre across difficult country; the Warrior is a tracked vehicle and can manoeuvre across difficult country. It will be replaced with the Boxer, which is a wheeled vehicle. Put simply, a tractor can get across a muddy field; a saloon car cannot follow. A main battle tank can get across difficult country, as can a Warrior, but a Boxer, a wheeled vehicle, cannot follow.

We need to increase our air defence capacity, our counter-drone capability, our field and rocket artillery and our logistics sustainability. The post-Cold War mantra which changed “just in case” to “just in time” has been proved to have failed on many occasions. We must increase our logistics sustainability. The war in Ukraine is a wake-up call for us and for NATO. Previous risks taken with our defence expenditure are coming home to roost. It is our obligation to buy out some of those risks and ensure that we have a good capability, particularly a good land capability, to field in future.

Afghanistan

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on securing this important debate this afternoon although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, it is a shame that we have only an hour to touch on these subjects.

Of course, the real shame is that we are having this debate at all. We cannot roll the clock back, but the unilateral decision of the United States, started by former President Trump and continued by President Biden, which led to the precipitate withdrawal of international forces in the summer, has led directly—and there is no getting away from it—to the poverty and hunger that 23 million people in Afghanistan are suffering at the moment.

If we just pause for a moment to think about what we were doing in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, we were actually there to give those people the chance of a better life. At a stroke, that better life was taken away; so what should the response now be from the West? We do not like the Taliban regime, but is that actually a good enough reason to stand on those issues and not give the humanitarian support that the Afghan people really need? I do not believe that it is. There is a saying that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and in these limited circumstances for a period of time, although we do not like the Taliban and what it is doing, a higher cause is to appeal to our own sensitivity and look after the 23 million people who are suffering in Afghanistan at the moment. Why should we leave it to the NGOs and the charitable sector to pick up these things? That is not right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred quite rightly to a number of charities that are working there. I draw attention to Street Child—I declare my interest as a patron of that charity, started by my son in 2008 —which had plans at the start of this year to educate 65,000 children, in southern Afghanistan in the main. It is continuing with those plans and providing food for that community in southern Afghanistan. We should not leave it to the charitable sector to be picking up these things. Governments should actually make a decision that the time has come to bury our difference with the Taliban for the time being, support the people whom we tried to help for the last 20 years and sort out the other issues in slow time.

Frankly, wringing our hands and saying, “It’s awful” is not good enough. The time for action is now. Winter is coming; people are hungry; people are dying; babies cannot be fed. It is not good enough: we have to do more and we have to do it soon.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, in the quite extraordinary times within which we are currently living—both in terms of our external security and our internal security, well described by my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup earlier on in our debate—like other noble Lords, I was very pleased to note that Her Majesty’s gracious Speech made reference to the Government’s commitments to spending 2% of GDP on defence and to spending 0.7% of GDP on international development, as well as including a reference to a renewed commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and a determination to improve the provision made for mental health. I would like to make five points arising from those references.

First, there is the commitment to 2% of GDP being spent on defence, or more specifically the commitment in the gracious Speech to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence. I assume that this was deliberate drafting and indicated the welcome intent to increase our spending on defence. I am not alone in believing that an increase in our defence budget, and a renewed commitment to not just our own security but that of Europe, would be an important signal to our European friends that, although we are leaving the EU, we are not walking away from playing our full part in European security but, within the context of NATO, are prepared to play an even greater part. Our Armed Forces are the benchmark for armed forces within Europe, and an increase in spending on defence would be welcomed in Europe and by our principal ally, the United States.

Furthermore, the reversal of the decision to withdraw all our troops from Germany—a decision which seemed right at the time and one that I supported then—would send a strong message from Brexit Britain to our friends and foes alike. Retaining the armoured infantry brigade in the well-found garrison of Sennelager and Paderborn would substantiate that message and have the side benefit of removing the necessity of rehousing that brigade within the UK, at least in the short to medium term, a move for which it is a challenge to find adequate funds and which would be the potential cause of an unacceptably high concentration of armoured vehicles around Salisbury Plain.

Secondly, I draw attention to the relationship between our defence budget and our spending on international development. Some might characterise this as our spending on hard power and soft power respectively, but I believe such characterisation misses the point. If the short-hand précis of our foreign, defence and security objectives is for the United Kingdom to exercise beneficial influence around the world, then the way to maximise this is the complete integration of our diplomatic, defence and development capabilities. Currently, such integration, although much talked about, is not fully practised, notwithstanding the double-hatting of the right honourable Alistair Burt in the present Government. A few years ago, I was staying with our high commissioner in Rwanda, and he remarked with exasperation that the UK had two foreign policies in that country: one run by him and the other by the senior DflD official in the country. Of course, it was the DfID policy that prevailed, as it had the money, as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, informed us earlier on in our debate. I know there is a danger of formulating policy based on anecdote, but how much more effective would our influence be if our diplomatic, defence and development capabilities and policies were fully integrated—even to the extent of allowing elements of the sizeable international development budget to be spent on diplomatic, defence or security matters where a particular situation demanded that response? That would be truly beneficial integration.

Thirdly, I welcome the reference to the Armed Forces covenant in the gracious Speech, coming as it does in Armed Forces Week. We all recognise that the Armed Forces covenant remains, almost by definition, work in progress, as illustrated by the tabling of the annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence in association with the other delivery departments. But I continue to wonder whether our governmental structure is right to do the best for our veteran community of some 6 million people. The Veterans Minister is to be found within the Ministry of Defence, but apart from the administration of pensions, the MoD has little to do with veterans: its focus is quite properly on the current serving population and the defence capability that is delivered by those uniformed serving individuals. The needs of the veteran community are predominantly met by other government departments, which focus on health, housing, education and social welfare. Is there therefore not a case for the Veterans Minister to be found, not in the MoD, but in the Cabinet Office, where a more cross-cutting and co-ordinating function could be exercised? I urge the Government to consider that possibility. The recently announced Veterans Board in the Cabinet Office is a step in the right direction, but I am not sure it goes far enough.

Fourthly, I noted with approval in the gracious Speech the reference to mental health and the intention to ensure that it is prioritised in the National Health Service in England. Detailed discussion of that is for another day in this debate, but in the context of the Armed Forces covenant I wish to raise one issue: the provision of emergency out-of-hours mental health cover for serving Armed Forces personnel. The current policy for serving Armed Forces personnel who are suffering an acute mental health event is that they should go to their nearest NHS A&E department or ring the Combat Stress helpline. I have been contacted several times by serving or recently discharged personnel who believe that this policy is wrong—lives of young people have been lost—and that there should be a dedicated MoD helpline to which those in need can turn. I make no criticism of the Combat Stress helpline, but I question whether serving Armed Forces personnel should have to resort to a charity helpline. I have raised this matter previously with MoD Ministers, as has Dr Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, with the Secretary of State for Defence. We owe a duty of care to all our serving and veteran Armed Forces personnel, but I question whether the MoD is fully discharging that duty to those who are still serving, but suffering from mental health illness, by requiring them to ring a charity helpline.

My final point relates to our serving soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, the very people who are at the heart of our defence capability. Frankly, there are just not enough of them. We have cut the size of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force too far. In the 2010 SDSR, the Treasury demanded a 7% cut in the defence budget, which led to a 20% cut in the size of the Regular Army and necessitated a major reorganisation of it. At the height of our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army and Royal Marines together were able to field 10 combat brigades, with five each going around the two operational cycles. The 2010 reorganisation took the Army down to six brigades, only three of which are at relatively high readiness. The net result is that in future we would have the manpower for only one extended intervention. The maths do not add up—a 7% cut in the defence budget leading to a 20% cut in the size of the Army resulting in a 50% reduction in our operational capability. There may be no appetite to put British boots on the ground in the short term, but somewhere, some day, there will be a non-discretionary set of circumstances that will demand a major deployment of British troops. Like the concerns expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about the numbers of aircraft, and those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord West, about the numbers of frigates and destroyers, I worry about the number of soldiers that we have—or, particularly, do not have. We are carrying too much risk. The last Government from 2010 and this present Government might get away with it, but the future will catch us out at some point and the verdict of history will be damning.

ISIS

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will understand that I am not in a position, and nor would the House expect me to be, to comment on United States military operations. However, I understand my noble friend’s concern about drones and their use; Members of the House have expressed that concern in relation to other matters previously. I can say that our military efforts are intended to help defeat ISIL on the battlefield. We are going to use our military capabilities in Iraq to achieve that objective while working to support political reform in Baghdad to ensure inclusive governance; while in Syria we are engaged in training and providing non-lethal equipment.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, having clarified that the objective of Her Majesty’s Government is to defeat ISIL on the battlefield, can the Minister confirm that they are ruling options neither in nor out, and that all options remain on the table for future engagement if required?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, when we had the recall of Parliament, the Leader of this House and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the security of this country is our first objective; that we had come to Parliament to seek agreement that we should engage in airstrikes in Iraq; and that if there were premeditated action which we needed to take elsewhere because of extreme danger to our humanitarian provision, we would return to seek the approval of Parliament.

Zimbabwe

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, the great privilege of being invited to join your Lordships' House has been exceeded in the past six weeks by the kindness and courtesy that everyone within this House has extended to me since 24 January, when I took my seat. My only sorrow is that my long-time friend and colleague, Lieutenant General Sir Freddie Viggers, was not able to lead me into your Lordships’ Chamber. I know that your Lordships have paid generous tributes to him for his time as Black Rod, which was curtailed only by his wretched illness. While I was the Chief of the General Staff, General Freddie was my No. 2 as the Adjutant General. Nothing would have given both of us greater pleasure than serving our nation together in your Lordships’ House; but it was not to be.

However, I thank my two, or really three, supporters who guided me in my early days, and I hope they will continue to do so, given that map-reading is not my strong suit. I am most grateful to my senior supporter, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He was the undoubted father of the modern British Army and I could have turned to no one else than he to stand beside me. Field-Marshal Dwin had won a Military Cross in battle five years before I was born. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has been a friend for many years. We share a common background in our military antecedents. As a Christian on the one hand and a Zoroastrian Parsi on the other, we share a common desire to do the very best for and with those around us. My third supporter, who was unavoidably detained elsewhere on the day of my introduction, was my former commanding officer and mentor, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. Having been his adjutant and principal staff officer many years ago, I am delighted to be standing by his side in your Lordships’ House today.

Before entering your Lordships' House, it was my privilege to serve for 40 years in the Regular Army— 40 years that naturally divide into four decades, each with very different characteristics. Those decades resonate soundly with this afternoon's timely and important debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whom I thank for providing this opportunity. Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to reflect briefly on those decades to make the association with today’s debate.

For me, the 1970s were characterised by service in Northern Ireland; 1977 was the only year in that decade when I did not serve in the Province. The 1980s was the final decade of the Cold War, and of course included the Falklands conflict. The two are connected, because I believe it was not lost on the Kremlin that a democracy such as ours was prepared to send a task force 8,000 miles to fight for a principle. My third decade was that of the so-called new world order, when Francis Fukuyama announced the end of history—but we discovered the Balkans, East Timor and Sierra Leone, not to mention the deserts of Kuwait and southern Iraq in the first Gulf War. Then 9/11 ushered in my final decade as a soldier, propelling the Army, which it was my privilege to lead for three years from 2006 to 2009, back into Afghanistan and Iraq—countries well known to our grandfathers and great-uncles, and those of previous generations.

The conflicts that I took part in, or which formed the backdrop to my professional career, were all about people: their rights, their hopes and their future. That is all that the people of Zimbabwe are asking for. Like the people of Northern Ireland in the 1970s, the Falklands in the 1980s, the Balkans in the 1990s and Iraq and Afghanistan in this decade, all they want is to live free from intimidation in a secure environment that is conducive to freedom and prosperity. Is that too much to aspire to after the first decade of the 21st century?

It was as a schoolboy in 1965 that I heard that the then Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith, had unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom. To a teenager at the time, it seemed preposterous that this should have happened, and therefore it was with some relief that one heard in 1979 that, after a vicious and bloody civil war, there was the prospect of peace, perhaps reconciliation, and a better future for Zimbabwe. In the years that followed, I visited Zimbabwe several times, noting with a degree of professional pride the staff college that the British Army had established in Harare to underpin the professional development of the post-UDI army. I often reflect that there must be a generation of Zimbabwean army officers who were trained by us in the 1980s and who know that there is a better way than that of the repressive dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. Will they, I wonder, find the moral courage to stand up and do the right thing? They know what that is; we taught them.

On my third day in your Lordships' House, we had a debate on the military covenant. I was too much of a new boy to take part, but the debate highlighted what is really at the heart of the people issue that I am talking about today. In general terms, the covenant touches on the unwritten contract, or bond, between those who govern and those who are governed. In specific terms, it sets out the relationship between an elected Government, who decide what military operations are to be carried out, and those of their citizens in uniform, and their families, who are to carry out those operations. When the covenant is in balance, much can be achieved: when it is out of balance, the sparks fly. In a mature democracy such as ours we can debate these things, imbalances can be rectified and the scales brought into equilibrium: but in a brutish and nasty society such as Zimbabwe’s today, the imbalances are perpetuated, injustices go unchallenged and the poor get poorer while the rich get what passes in Zimbabwe for richer. It is therefore no surprise that decent people around the world say that enough is enough and that the regime of Robert Mugabe has more than had its day.

In closing, I pay tribute to those who, despite the repression and opposition, have continued to try to do what is right for the people of Zimbabwe. I declare an interest as a periodic contributor to the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph for choosing the charity ZANE— or, to give it its full name, Zimbabwe A National Emergency—as one of the charities for its 2010 national Christmas appeal. The £350,000 raised will go a long way to making the lives of former service and civilian pensioners just that little bit more bearable. However, in a country such as Zimbabwe, rich with agricultural and mineral potential, it should not be like this. The people of Zimbabwe deserve a chance, just as the people of Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan have deserved a chance—a chance being given to them, by our nation, as I have witnessed over the 40 years of my military service, but there is more to do. I am grateful to have been given the chance to continue to serve people here in your Lordships’ House.