Armed Forces: Redundancies

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the Government’s record in this area is not a good one. Within a few months of getting rid of our carrier strike capability, we found ourselves regretting the absence of a carrier in the Libyan operation and were forced to spend even more money hiring an Italian naval base and providing in-flight refuelling which we would not otherwise have needed. In the present state of affairs, is there not all too great a chance that we might soon regret this hasty decision to reduce our Army, which was taken in rather different circumstances a couple of years ago?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear that from the noble Lord. These redundancies are not new, and were part of the difficult decisions that had to be made to tackle the multi-million pound defence deficit which we inherited from the previous Government.

Armed Forces: Long-Term Care

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can answer my noble friend. In Iraq, of the 222 UK casualties listed as having serious or very serious injuries, 25, that is 11%, were members of the Reserve Forces. In Afghanistan, of the 591 UK casualties listed, 22—4%—were reservists. Those reservists who sustained wounds or illness while mobilised will be retained in service prior to being demobilised and returning to work, to ensure that they receive the best possible welfare support and care and are eligible for the full range of Defence Medical Services care. Once reservists have been demobilised, their local reserve unit continues to ensure that they have access to welfare services.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, when we were in government there was a rule that no one would ever be fired from the services as a result of wounds sustained in the course of duty. Anybody in those circumstances always had a choice of taking a compensation payment and an immediate pension if he or she preferred or taking a compensation payment and remaining in service. I will never forget the occasion when, talking to someone doing an important job in Camp Bastion, I suddenly realised that what he had in place of a left leg was a wheel. Is that rule still in force and will the Government commit to maintain it?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge that rule is still in place. If it is not, I will write to the noble Lord.

Future Reserves 2020

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. Over the years I have very much enjoyed chatting to him about his distinguished military experiences over 12 years, and I very much hope that he will give his input into this consultation process. We want to change the situation. The noble Lord was critical of the past. We want to change all this, whereby employers, regulars and reservists all have a clear view of where they stand and have plenty of warning if there is mobilisation. That is important. I cannot comment on the noble Lord’s question about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a considerable relief for once to be able to welcome a government Statement on defence policy, and I do so unreservedly. As the noble Lord knows, I am very much in favour of this initiative and I congratulate him on it. I also congratulate General Houghton and Julian Brazier, whose initial study has led to these proposals and provided some of the background. I have just two concerns that I should like to put to the Minister. First, is it not the case that if our reservists are even slightly less well trained and experienced than regulars, we may have more casualties in future operations? That risk can be mitigated only by rigorous and probably more extensive pre-deployment training. Are the Government focused on that?

Secondly, incentives are splendid and, of course, no one would wish coercive legislation on employers, but is it not the case that this will not work at all unless reservists have complete legal protection, as they do in the United States, against discrimination by employers or potential employers in the matter of recruitment, promotion and remuneration? That system seems to work extremely well in the United States. As the noble Lord knows, it has been in operation for a long time; it seems to be widely accepted by American employers and by American society as a whole; and, of course, as we all know, the National Guard plays a vital role in American overseas operations. Does the noble Lord agree that that issue cannot be ducked and needs to be accommodated in the legislation the Government propose?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support and I will pass on his words too to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, and Julian Brazier, the Member of Parliament for Canterbury, who both work very hard. I attended a number of meetings and they were very grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He asked if reservists would be put at greater risk. For reservists doing specialised roles for which they will be trained, pre-deployment training will bring them up to the required levels. The training for reservists will obviously be much greater and they will go into any mobilised operation as well trained as regulars—they will have the same kit, the same uniform—and we will do our very best to ensure that that does not happen.

The noble Lord’s last question, I think, was whether there will be any change to legislation. The integration of reserves within the whole force means that reservists will routinely be part of military deployments at home and abroad. In order to enable this we propose changes to the current legislative power to use and call out reservists. Following the consultation in spring 2013 a White Paper will set out in detail our proposals on, among other things, any legislation necessary to underpin our vision for the reserves.

Armed Forces

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I start by endorsing the tributes that have already been made in this House to our Armed Forces. I know, as everybody in this House knows and I hope the country knows, that those tributes are not ritualistic but deeply felt on both sides of the House.

I also thank the Minister for giving us this opportunity. He is extremely conscientious and serious in his duties to the House, and he has done very well by the House today in getting us this opportunity. I am not going to allow my great respect for the Minister to muzzle the things that I am about to say, but I want to say at the outset how much we appreciate that. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, to her new role on the Front Bench. Those of us who knew him, and all of us today, will be very sad that her husband, who had one of the most brilliant and original military minds that I have ever encountered, cannot be with us this afternoon to see her there, sitting on the Front Bench with those new defence responsibilities.

I am going to be very frank, because the situation requires frankness. The state of our Armed Forces is very depressing and worrying. All the serving officers and men whom I have had the opportunity to speak to recently—it so happens that I have not had the opportunity to speak to any servicewomen recently—are all of one accord. They say that morale is worse than it has been for at least 20 years, since the excessive cuts undertaken by the previous Conservative Administration in the 1990s, to which the noble Lord, Lord King, has already referred. In parenthesis, I may say that I opposed those cuts at the time in a pamphlet called Facing the Future, which I published jointly with a number of then Conservative Back-Bench colleagues, including Andrew Robathan and Julian Brazier. My views on defence have not changed since they were expressed in that pamphlet.

I used to think that the Conservative Party among all British political parties was the one with the best understanding of the importance of defence and the greatest sympathy for the needs of our Armed Forces. That was certainly true when I joined the Tory Party in 1974 and remained indubitably true, in my view, for quite a number of years after that. But in the 1990s, I began to wonder whether that was still true, and I wondered even more when I read the Defence White Paper of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in 1998. It is very difficult indeed to imagine that anybody would come to the conclusion that it is true today.

As the Minister said, the Government have made some tough choices; the trouble is that in my view those choices were completely wrong. For example, the Government decided to continue to give India £300 million in aid a year, a country that is building aircraft carriers and buying aircraft to fly off those carriers, while deciding that we could not afford to have a carrier strike force at all for the next 10 years. I think that was profoundly wrong. It might have been tough but it was absolutely wrong and a betrayal of the national interest. The Government have produced a situation in which our Army is now being reduced by 20%. That means that we can now deploy on a sustainable basis only something of the order of a brigade—say, 2,000 men and women with full supporting arms, as opposed to the 10,000 we have deployed in Afghanistan for many years past. That is a good example of the negative gearing effect of cutting your defence forces. I fear that our defence forces have now been cut to a point where they would simply not be able to respond to a whole range of all too easily conceivable scenarios.

The other problem with doing this is that you send quite the wrong signal to those people around the world who might be tempted to breach the international peace or even have designs on our own territory. I do not suppose for a moment that the Argentinians are at this moment planning to attack the Falklands. Cristina Fernández or Cristina Kirchner—I do not know which she prefers to be called—has said that she wishes to resolve the matter peacefully, but aggressors always have a way of saying at the outset that they intend to resolve the problem peacefully. I equally have no doubt at all that the raising of this issue in Argentina, and the terms in which it has been raised over the past couple of years, has not been coincidental. It is not unlinked to the fact that it is now clear that for 10 years we will not have a carrier strike force which would be required if ever the Argentinians succeeded in taking over the Falklands again. We would now be incapable of retaking the Falkland Islands in the way we did in 1982. It is a very serious matter which the whole country needs to take very seriously. That is why I am not muzzling the words that I am using this afternoon, as I believe that they are entirely justified.

The question arises of what you do about a situation like that. It is very easy for me to say, “Vote Labour at the next election and get rid of this awful Government”. I have said that and will continue to say it. However, I recognise that in reality you cannot entirely go back. It would be absurd to make a promise that we could entirely reverse the cuts that have been introduced and go back to square one. You can never entirely go back in history; we all recognise that. We need to think very carefully about what we do to try to make sure that we have the means to continue to make a positive contribution to the world’s peace. As several speakers have mentioned —I would say almost a majority of those who have spoken on both sides of the House this afternoon—we have played a decisive part in that in these many operations and difficulties over the past 60 or 70 years since the Second World War.

As I contemplate this matter, I think increasingly that the solution must be to do something which I know is counterintuitive for some people and would not be welcome to many distinguished members of our Armed Forces, but they might prefer it to having no effective defence at all: that is, to take very seriously the prospect of a European common defence policy. If such a policy is ever to produce any real savings and address the financial issues, which, of course, are real issues, it would have to be based on defence specialisation. You would no longer have everybody, including ourselves, having MBTs, light tanks, reconnaissance vehicles and utility vehicles or large helicopters, medium helicopters, small helicopters and so forth. There would have to be a degree of defence specialisation. That means that you would have to be certain in advance that everybody who was required would be there on the day when you needed to deploy within one coherent command and control system, which, of course, requires common foreign policy. These things are difficult pills to swallow for a lot of people and impossible, I think, for the Conservative Party because it is incapable of taking rational, pragmatic decisions on this subject as it is so imprisoned by its own emotional and ideological opposition to anything European.

[Lord Dobbs]

Will the noble Lord speculate on whether this European defence force that he is so keen on could under any circumstances defend the Falklands if there were another crisis?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Yes, indeed. First, it would not be a common defence force in the sense that you would have people from different countries serving in the same unit. That would be absurd. However, a common defence policy would require a guarantee on the part of all the other members of the EU with regard to all our domestic territories, including overseas territories. That would apply to the French, the Dutch and others who have overseas territories. That would be an essential part of the deal. I have no doubt about that at all. The noble Lord realises that that raises all sorts of issues but all of us need to look at these matters with a greater degree of realism because the alternative is impotence. We will all be spending a lot. The total defence spending in the European Union is in the order of about €200 billion, which sounds a lot but is very small compared with the United States. It must be something like a quarter of the United States defence spending. I cannot get the arithmetic completely right while speaking on my feet but it is a large amount of money. A lot of it is being spent completely ineffectively for the simple reason of the negative gearing effect to which I have already referred. These matters need to be considered. I cannot go into the detail this afternoon but we need to go into the detail on these matters. We need to consider them. I realise that this is considered in some quarters a revolutionary and, indeed, very obnoxious suggestion, but I have put it to the House that the alternative will be impotence, and that cannot be the right solution for Europe as a whole and for the future of a civilised world.

I would like to say a word or two about defence procurement. I say frankly to the Minister that I was pretty astounded by one of the things he said. I am sure that he was loyally mouthing the current government propaganda on the subject; that is what you have to do sometimes when you are a Minister, as I know. He referred to new equipment. I think that he said there would be new submarines, new ISTAR and new helicopters. What did he mean by that? As regards new submarines, as far as I know the Government—thank God—are continuing with the Astute programmes and the Successor-class submarine programme but are delaying both. That is not exactly new equipment. I suppose that by new helicopters the Minister means Wildcat and Chinook. It so happens that I was responsible for promoting, pushing through, negotiating and concluding both those projects. They are not new in any way. Far from adding to them, the Government are actually reducing them. They cancelled 10 of the 22 Chinooks that I ordered, so it is pretty rich to describe that as new equipment and put it to the credit side of the Government. I suppose that by new ISTAR the Minister meant the Predator system, for example, which we bought more of, and Watchkeeper, which again goes back to Labour’s time in office. One needs to be cautious about listening to some of the extraordinary government propaganda that comes out on this subject. We need a reality check from time to time.

We particularly need a reality check as regards the great deficit that the previous Labour Government are supposed to have left behind—the so-called £37 billion or £38 billion black hole. My next comment has been said before but it needs to be said again, because we continue to hear this dreadful piece of black propaganda. There is no such thing as the figures I have mentioned. You get to figures of that kind only if you make two assumptions which you cannot possibly make in good faith. One is that everything on our prospective procurement list would be procured. That never happens. I cancelled several things myself. I cancelled the medium helicopter project in order to finance the Chinooks, as the noble Lord no doubt knows. I cancelled the MARS tanker programme. One is always cancelling things for good military reason and switching to higher priorities in defence procurement.

The second thing which one can accept in good faith even less is the assumption, which has to be made to get to the figure that I have mentioned, that there would have been no cash increase. In other words, there would have been an enormous real-terms reduction in our military budget and our procurement budget for 10 whole years. In fact, the previous Labour Government increased defence spending by 1.5% per annum in real terms after inflation. Although the coalition will hold defence spending within a cash ceiling for the first five years it has always said that in the second five years it would increase the cash spending, so even the coalition is not pursuing a policy which would have led to the £37 billion or £38 billion figure. Therefore, it is time that we ceased to hear about the £37 billion or £38 billion.

I want to say something positive and helpful. I mean that sincerely. I hope it will be in the interests of the country that I say it now. You can always improve the defence procurement process. I think that we did so in my time, working very closely with General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue. We reduced the bureaucracy substantially, particularly the assurance process, and developed new models of open-book co-operation with some of our major defence suppliers, but you can always go further. However, there is one big problem that I identified which I was not able to resolve: namely, that we do not do procurement spending and procurement evaluation on a present-value basis. Noble Lords who have experience in the private sector will know that, in all significant-sized companies, investment appraisal and procurement is done on a present-value basis. In other words, what counts is the present value of the future stream of expenditure or the future return from investment and you compare that present value with alternative approaches or solutions to the same problem. That is not done in defence spending. In defence spending certain amounts of money are allocated to certain years and you have a limit you can spend within a particular year, which means you completely lack flexibility.

I will give the House two examples of where, in my time, we lost hundreds of millions of pounds for no good reason but the existing Treasury rules. One was during the shipping crisis in 2008. I realised that we could probably buy the MARS tankers that we had in the programme for two or three years later very much more cheaply by simply purchasing tankers on the open market rather than building them at enormous expense, which had already been examined and provided for. We had £1.2 billion in the budget for six tankers. I spoke to several shipping brokers and discovered that we could actually buy, on the second-hand market, tankers of the right capacity—30,000 to 50,000 tonnes, capable of refuelling at 15 knots at sea and so forth—for $50 million apiece. If you then spent some money putting on a helicopter pad, one or two bells and whistles, some armaments and so forth, it could not cost you more than $75 million as opposed to the £200 million which we had in the budget for each one of those tankers. It was a no-brainer but I was not allowed to do it. I went to the Treasury and said that we could save public money but it said, “No, no, no, that’s the rules, we can’t do it. Sorry, but you have to wait two or three years”. I told it that in two or three years’ time the shipping market would have revived and we would not be able to get that sort of deal. “Sorry, too bad”, it said.

The same thing happened with the Astute class. I wanted to buy the components and a lot of the systems for Astute-class boats 4. 5, 6 and 7 together in bulk, getting a considerable discount. I was told, “You can’t do it because all these things are allocated to individual years”. I worked up, with the National Audit Office, a proposal for the Treasury to change this and we had meetings with the Chief Secretary, Liam Byrne. I explained all this to my successor, Mr Luff, who was sadly sacked—I do not know quite why—at the recent reshuffle, but nothing has happened about it so I put it on the table now. This is something that needs to be examined. It can be done and I could go into great detail if I had the time. This is an opportunity and prospect which we cannot afford to ignore in the context of any genuine attempt to save public money and provide a more efficient basis for defence procurement.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I should start by saying that I work for an American defence company called Curtis Wright. The Wright in Curtis Wright was the Wright brothers. Curtis Wright supplied many fighter aircraft to the US Air Force during the last war. After the war somebody came along and said, “We think you should look very closely at the whole idea of jet propulsion for fighter aircraft”. Curtis Wright looked at it very carefully and said, “No, this is not the answer”. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that Curtis Wright are not in the production of fighter aircraft any more, but they are involved in a number of other technical areas in defence supply. It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, because—let us face it—he does not lack chutzpah when it comes to defending the actions of the previous Government.

I will deal, firstly, with the question of defence specialisation. This has a certain allure to it because what it means is that different countries in Europe would take over the sole supply of the capability of certain bits of defence. The very obvious answer to that would be that armour should be in the hands of the Germans. If the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talks to his honourable friend in the other place, Gisela Stuart, who is German, she will tell him that the Germans have become completely pacifist. If we had this arrangement, and we decided we wanted to fight an armoured conflict somewhere, we could not do it because the Germans would not fight. There seem to be enormous problems. The noble Lord says that when this great unification of European forces was put together, they would have to sign up to looking after our colonies. The Spanish are extremely hostile to the idea of us defending the Falklands at all, and I am not sure that they are going to sign up to that in any way. There are enormous shortcomings.

I will move on to the great debate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, about the size of the deficit inherited by this Government. Was it £37 billion or £38 billion of unfunded procurement over 10 years? Or was it a smaller figure? It must have been a pretty massive figure because otherwise we would not have had the devastating review of our whole procurement programme, cutting out ranges of procurement. The Harriers had to go, as did the maritime patrol aircraft and so forth. That would not have happened if there had not been a very serious problem which this Government had to address. I do not expect the Minister to answer this when she sums up, but perhaps she could write to me about it. Last Tuesday, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gave lunch to Sir Clive Whitmore, who used to be the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence when I was there and in the time of my noble friend Lord King. Clive Whitmore, who understood politicians very clearly, was famous for saying all the time, “I have to remind you, Ministers, that I am the chief accounting officer of the Ministry of Defence, and if you want to spend money you have not got, I want a ministerial override”. As your Lordships know, a ministerial override is something that comes from the Permanent Secretary and has to be signed by a Minister. It basically says that “I, as a Permanent Secretary, advise against this particular procurement because the funds are not available and they have to be signed off by a Minister”.

The final signing off of the aircraft carriers was in 2009. The roof had fallen in on the whole economy, and we had complete disaster in every direction. It was obvious to a child of five that there was going to be no more money coming into the defence budget. At the same time, two aircraft carriers were ordered at a cost of around £5 billion. That was on top of a mass of other equipment which had been ordered but for which there were no funds whatever. What happened in the Ministry of Defence? Why were there no ministerial overrides? We look to our Civil Service to guarantee the continuity and solvency of departments of state. What went wrong that that did not kick in? What provision has now been made in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen in the future? Perhaps that could be put in a letter. We should be seriously concerned if we reach a position where things are being ordered in this way. This is always going to happen in political life as politicians believe they can buy people’s votes by putting out enormous orders and there could be no better way of buying votes than to have two aircraft carriers being built simultaneously in every shipyard in the country so the largesse could be spread as widely as possible. Why was there not a ministerial override saying, “The funds are not available for this, I therefore do not recommend it, and I am doing it only because I am ordered to by the Minister”?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord and also defend civil servants whose reputations might otherwise be tarnished by what he has just said. We had the most conscientious and able Permanent Secretary and finance director in my time. There was no ministerial override because there did not need to be one as the carrier programme, like other parts of our programme, was funded and properly provided for within our defence budget.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

That no doubt explains why the first thing this Government tried to do when they got in was to cancel the carrier programme, only to find that it could not be cancelled because BAS is very good at tying up such incredibly tight contracts that it would have cost more to cancel than to go ahead with it. I do not totally buy that: there is something seriously wrong here, and I do not think we would have the current difficulties if there had been a few more ministerial overrides in the past. Critics of my right honourable friend, Philip Hammond, the new Secretary of State, say that he is just a number cruncher who does not know anything about defence priorities. He understands very well the first defence priority, which is that you do not order kit if you do not have the money to pay for it. His second priority is balancing the budget, and he therefore takes total care that we are not going to run into any major crisis, such as the one we have experienced recently. His business experience will be valuable, and he is the ideal man to be holding the position of Secretary of State.

It is not just a shambles that we find in the administration of the Ministry of Defence. We used to be able to rely on men in uniform to do the right thing, but what have we seen? We have seen the humiliation of the retreat from Basra, which raises serious questions about the intelligence given to our military commanders before they went in. Was it a complete surprise that the Iranians decided to get involved in all the Shia militias there? The result was that we had to pull out. In terms of safe passage to get back to the airport, we had to do a deal whereby we would not go back in. The Americans were, to put it mildly, dismayed, and eventually the Iraqi Government took the view that such was the appalling shambles left behind in Basra that they had to go in with the Iraqi Army and US Marine Corps. Once they went back in, they certainly sorted out the problems there, and there has not been much of a problem there since.

Almost as a reaction to Basra, the British Army afterwards decided to deploy 3,500 men in Helmand province. What was the intelligence there? Did they not know that the Pashtuns in Helmand loathe all foreigners, and the foreigners they loathe more than any others are the British, because they still have not forgiven us for the wars we fought against them in the 19th century? The result was that we nearly lost that whole force of 3,500 men, but for the fantastic air power provided by NATO, which pulverised all the mud villages in front of it but would not have done an awful lot for hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

I am actually seriously worried about where the Ministry of Defence has gone in the past. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a serious problem of getting this thing back into some sort of order, both in terms of finances and, I hope, in getting involved in operational matters, because serious problems have been created for which we are paying a hefty price. I wish I could say that I looked to the future with confidence as regards the serious challenges facing my right honourable friend. He has an awful lot of work to do.

Armed Forces Day

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the independent review by Sir John Holmes of the rules applicable to the awarding of military medals is currently under way. He is considering all known campaigns for medals, including the case for a national defence medal, and will report reasonably soon.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I know the noble Lord is a great supporter of our Armed Forces and stands up for them on many occasions. Will he therefore join me in condemning the absolutely despicable behaviour of the publican of Browns bar in Coventry the other day who refused to admit two soldiers, who had been taking part in a military funeral, because they were wearing their uniforms? Will he look again at the recommendations—there were 40 in all—of the national recognition of the Armed Forces inquiry in the last Parliament? One of those recommendations was that we should outlaw discrimination against armed services personnel and provide the same kind of protection that we provide against discrimination on grounds of sex, race, sexuality or disability, so that these incidents never happen again.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said about that terrible act in the bar at the time of the funeral of the serviceman who was killed. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who commissioned the report of inquiry into national recognition of the Armed Forces when he was Defence Minister, which of course led to the setting up of Armed Forces Day.

Defence Budget

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s Statement today—

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is plenty of time. We have heard from two Labour Back-Benchers already. Let us hear from my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I share my noble friend’s views. I am a strong supporter of the union and the Scottish regiments. My brother served in a Scottish regiment. I have the highest respect for them.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s own remarks in the House today have been temperate and statesmanlike, as they always are. Yet the Statement that he read out from the Secretary of State was tendentious, and quite disgracefully so. The great difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative-led coalition in defence spending is that we built up the nation’s Armed Forces. We increased real spending by more than 10 per cent. This coalition has run down the numbers in our Armed Forces by 20 per cent and disgracefully exposed us to having no carrier strike capability for 10 years. The noble Lord said that the equipment in Afghanistan was better than it had ever been. I wonder as a result of which decisions that equipment came through the pipeline.

I was amazed to hear the Secretary of State, whose remarks were read out by the noble Lord, taking credit for a whole lot of projects, such as the A400M, the new Chinook helicopters—although the Government have reduced their number by 10—and the Scout vehicle, which I negotiated. It was a very disingenuous Statement and I hope that the Government will think twice before coming to the House with such a piece of party-political propaganda on so serious a matter in future.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the noble Lord and the Opposition for many of the defence procurement decisions that were taken. I think that he would agree that we were left with a big black hole and a whole host of problems that had to be sorted out. That is why I am here today.

Defence: Carrier Strike Capability

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome. This was a very difficult decision but it was right for the Royal Navy and for the country. In taking this decision, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made no criticism of his predecessor’s decision. Things have dramatically changed over the cats and traps, and obviously with the B-variant. I will take the noble Lord’s other point, on bringing the same scrutiny to other aspects of the SDSR, back to the department.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone is going to be deceived by the attempts by the Secretary of State to make party political points or to make people see this as anything other than a discreditable shambles. It is very unfortunate. The Government would have done better to have come forward with a slightly more humble line and to have confessed that they had made a mistake.

Can we hear how many aircraft the Government are now proposing to procure? We still have not heard that. Does the noble Lord accept and acknowledge that, because the B version carries a lot of its weight in the form of its own lift fan, its range is much less—400 miles against 700 miles for the CV version? Its payload is similarly reduced, and therefore more aircraft will be required to give a similar military effect. Are the Government planning to purchase more aircraft to procure the same military effect? Will the Minister also recognise that if we simply restrict ourselves to purchasing the F-35B, we will have no deep-strike bombing capability at all once the Tornados have been withdrawn? Do the Government have any plans at all to replace that lacuna in our capability, which will emerge by the end of the decade?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, again I resent this criticism. I feel that it is the noble Lord who should be a little humble, particularly when the party opposite’s last single year in office saw a staggering £3.3 billion increase in the total cost of the 15 largest defence equipment projects. The noble Lord asked me how many Joint Strike Fighter B-variants we are going to buy. In the first instance we intend to buy enough Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to build up our initial carrier strike capability. We do not intend to make final decisions on JSF numbers until our next strategic defence review, in 2015 at the earliest.

I will just re-emphasise what the Statement said. We are getting our first and second aircraft this year. We are getting the first production aircraft in 2016. The first aircraft trials at sea, when we will have three aircraft, will be in 2018. The initial operational capability will be in 2020, when we will have eight useable aircraft. This is three years earlier than would be possible with the C-variant.

Armed Forces: Vehicles

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Warrior is very popular with our troops. I was out in Afghanistan two weeks ago and I spent quite a lot of time talking to members of the Armed Forces who work with this bit of equipment. They are very impressed by it. It is seen by insurgents as a tank and they will normally melt away on its arrival. It provides excellent mobility and survivability and is able to operate over the most difficult terrain. I need to be careful what I say for security reasons but I can say that the recent incident was a combination of several really unlucky combinations. No vehicle in theatre, including one with a V-shaped hull, would have survived a similar explosion. Warrior has been extensively upgraded, particularly to deliver enhanced protection against IEDs. I have copies of the upgrade work on the Warrior, which has been security cleared. I am very happy to distribute them to any noble Lords who would like to see them.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, anybody who knows anything about this subject will know that the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is a level of weight of explosive which will destroy any vehicle, including a main battle tank. That is just one unfortunate fact of life. In my time I think that I ordered eight new armoured vehicles, seven of which were procured specifically for Afghanistan under the UOR initiative. I hope that all of them were successful in their way. Does the noble Lord agree with me that the outstanding success among them has been Mastiff 2 and that there must be a very strong case, even though Mastiff 2 was ordered under the UOR programme, for keeping that permanently in inventory, where almost certainly its qualities will be necessary in any other deployment we make in a third world context?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this Government take the protection of our Armed Forces against IEDs very seriously. I know that the previous Government did so as well and I pay tribute to them for what they did in this area, particularly as regards equipment such as the Mastiff. I take seriously what the noble Lord says about Mastiff in the future. We are looking at that very closely.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kakkar]

I speak to Amendment 11 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The matters I wish to cover in this amendment were dealt with at Second Reading in my own contribution, and relate to the obligation as part of the covenant to make an annual report with regard to matters of healthcare that attend former or current membership of the Armed Forces.

The amendment proposes that that report be properly informed through the collection of objective evidence that will allow us to ensure that the conclusions reached with regard to the impact of service on health status and the requirement to access healthcare facilities are properly recorded, and that conclusions derived from that report can be used to inform the provision of services in the future.

The health consequences of membership of the Armed Forces receive coverage regularly in the media, but much of that is anecdotal reporting. It does not provide the opportunity to constructively understand the implications of service, or how health services should best be provided to ensure that those who have served our country in such an important way have available primary and more acute hospital services that meet their needs. A report to Parliament dealing with the healthcare consequences of membership of the Armed Forces is very welcome. If it is not properly informed by prospective research, however, it will be meaningless and provide little opportunity to report anything other than anecdote.

These two amendments are not onerous. They just ensure, in moving forward a report on the question of healthcare and health status, that questions are posed at the beginning of any reporting cycle; that objective evidence is collected using established public health methods to answer those questions; and that those questions are reported in a systematic fashion to inform future development of policy, and to ensure that we are not in any way denying services or the best possible health outcomes for those who have served our country.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I say, first, that the Bill is extremely welcome. It is clear that Clause 2 is very well intended by the Government, but also that there has been a consensus among the contributions in Committee so far this afternoon that it does not go far enough and is inadequate. I congratulate all four supporters and proposers of the amendments who spoke; their contributions were extremely helpful. I will make one or two comments on each, starting with Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

I totally agree with him that it is important that we should have professional analysis of the problems in the medical field before we start reporting on how adequate the medical facilities are, either for those who are serving or for those who have served. Clearly, we need to know what the problem is before we can assess the effectiveness of any solution that is proposed or implemented. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, I say that his amendment has it the wrong way round. It is wrong to wait for the stage after the reviewer has produced the review, at the point where the Secretary of State is going to publish the report, to have that specialist professional work done. We should start with that; it should be the evidential basis on which the reviewer works. He should compare the facilities in place with the professional advice on what the facilities ought to be. That work should be done at the outset, and I hope that if the reviewer is doing his job he will commission such work.

Under the proposals tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, my noble friend Lord Touhig and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as well as in the original draft of the clause, there is provision for the reviewer to receive remuneration. Therefore, I do not see a problem in that. Perhaps we should not tell the reviewer exactly how to do his job, but we should express the hope, here and in other contexts, that he will commission professional work of the kind that has been suggested—or else there should be an obligation on him to commission the work. We should not leave it to the second stage of the Secretary of State.

I find myself entirely in agreement with Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. I do not know why anybody would disagree with it. The issue is one of making sure that the report covers what progress has been made in the provision of housing. This is not in any way a prescriptive obligation placed on anybody; it is purely descriptive and sets out the facts. I do not see why Parliament should resist a proposal, which is not unreasonably costly, that we should be given the facts when we ask the reviewer to review the state of housing. We need to know the facts relating to the portion of housing that is in the hands of housing associations. I am very much drawn to the proposal.

I turn to Amendment 9, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Glenarthur, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. At first sight I thought that it was a splendid proposal, but it is a little ambiguous. It states that the covenant report must include a statement that,

“the provisions of the report are compatible with subsection (2)(a)”.

I am not sure what that is intended to mean. Is it that the statements of fact in the reviewer's report are a correct description of the facts in the respective areas of health, education and local government? Or does it mean that any shortcomings that have been identified, and any recommendations that have been made, have been resolved and implemented by the time that the three Secretaries of State signed the statement? It is slightly unclear what is intended. If it is the latter, that has cost implications of a potentially unlimited kind, so the Treasury may see some difficulty in that. If it is merely a matter of the three Secretaries of State explicitly endorsing a description of the facts that the reviewer has uncovered, I see no objection at all: indeed, that would be extremely helpful.

Amendment 2, the key amendment in this group, is in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, and the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig. It is designed to address an obvious inadequacy in Clause 2 as produced by the Government; namely, first, the reviewer has to report only on “healthcare, education and housing” and, secondly,

“such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine”.

We know that “healthcare, education and housing” are not the full picture as far as the covenant is concerned. Several issues have been raised, notably veterans, which is terribly important. But there are also such issues as, for example, coroners’ inquests—this is a big issue which we will need to discuss during these proceedings and has been left out—and many other things.

Another aspect which concerns me is any potential discrimination which may exist against members of the Armed Forces. I am sorry to say that when I chaired the National Recognition of the Armed Forces report some years ago, we uncovered and documented in that report a number of cases of serious discrimination against members of the Armed Forces in this country. Luckily, we have not had incidents of that kind—at least not that I am aware of—in the past few years. But should such a situation arise again, the issue very much should be the target of a report by the reviewer on how the covenant is being implemented. I think that all sides of this Committee are agreed that there are many issues other than those three provided for in Clause 2.

Surely, the idea of the,

“other fields as the Secretary of State may determine”,

is ludicrous. This Bill would be a laughing stock if it went forward in that way. That someone should decide what aspects of fulfilment, responsibilities or behaviour should be reported on would be regarded as ludicrous in any other context and is, indeed, ludicrous in this context. That certainly should not stand.

Therefore, the proposals put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield are very much to be welcomed. I see no obvious difficulties with any of the text of this provision and no reason why I should not support it if it comes to that point. It is again not a provision that places significant financial obligations on the Government. Of course, the reviewer has to be paid and he is allowed to run up some expenses and to pay his staff, which must be reasonable. We have already gone through one aspect of where he may legitimately incur expenses—for example, on professional medical advice. But these are small sums and very small beer. It could hardly be considered to be a serious financial liability.

I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government. If they were to accept this, I believe that they would find immediately that there was a qualitative enhancement in the credibility and impact of the Bill as it becomes an Act of Parliament. It would make a real, historic change in the way in which this country regards the covenant, to which we all feel an obligation for the men and women who serve in our armed services.

[Lord Freeman]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about Amendment 2. First, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield for raising this whole issue and for speaking so clearly and comprehensively about his amendment. I speak with some trepidation because I spot five former Defence Ministers in Committee and three very distinguished former senior officers in the Armed Forces. But I believe that we need a moment of caution before we separate responsibility for looking at and making sure that the covenant is properly observed and pointing out difficulties and failure to achieve objectives from ministerial responsibility.

Like many of my colleagues of all parties, I speak as having served twice in the Ministry of Defence. I believe strongly that the responsibility of the Secretary of State, through his junior Ministers—Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries—should not be in any way compromised by attempting to shuffle it off to an independent reviewer. This is a bureaucratic point, not one of principle. It is a point about how the Ministry of Defence works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment deals with Armed Forces advocates, which were raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. The amendment provides for the existing network of Armed Forces advocates to be extended at the regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services which may affect servicepeople.

My noble friend Lady Taylor referred to the action of the previous Government in piloting an Armed Forces welfare pathway under which some local authorities appointed Armed Forces advocates to ensure that, as part of policy development, steps were taken to ensure that services provided at the local level appropriately recognised the specific needs of Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in response that the Government supported the idea of Armed Forces advocates at the local level if that was the approach chosen by the local authority concerned. That was a rather disappointing response as it suggested that, despite the warm words, the Government intended to do nothing to promote Armed Forces advocates. As my noble friend Lady Taylor said, there are considerable pressures on local authorities at the moment. She asked what mechanisms the Minister thought should be put in place to ensure that local communities are protected and that real progress is made, along with effective monitoring at both the local and national level. It is important that we have Armed Forces advocates at the point of service delivery, where the test will come of whether the state’s commitments, on which there is a political consensus, are being realised.

I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will accept this amendment. If he is not able to do so, I trust that he will respond to the questions asked at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and spell out, bearing in mind the Government's support for the idea of Armed Forces advocates, what action they intend to take to encourage more local authorities to go down this road.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosser. I will make two points. First, the system that he proposes, as he is well aware, has existed for some time in France; I take it that the Government, too, have seen that. I believe it works extremely well. It is always sensible not to reinvent the wheel. If one finds a mechanism in a compatible country which is working well, that is evidence in favour of a proposal—or if it is not working well, it is evidence against. The French are very satisfied with the way in which this works.

Secondly, the position taken up to now by the Government—who have been very good at listening open-mindedly to these debates, so I trust that it was a provisional view—is that all we need to do is to facilitate local authorities to appoint Armed Forces advocates where they wish to do so, and that we do not need to intervene where they do not. This is a most illogical approach to the problem. Local authorities with the will to create the post of Armed Forces advocate have, by that fact, already demonstrated that they are alert and sensitive to this need. The problems arise with local authorities that are not inclined to set up Armed Forces advocates. Authorities which, either through mistrust of the military or sheer ignorance, have not focused on this and are not inclined to accept the proposal, are those where problems are likely to arise and where an advocate is most necessary. The more logical solution is the one proposed by my noble friend. I hope that it will find favour with noble Lords and with the Government.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I regard Armed Forces advocates as an excellent idea. In UK government departments and in the devolved Administrations, they carry out two highly important roles. They ensure that their department’s policies take account of the special needs of the Armed Forces community, and they communicate their department’s perspective to others, including my officials and external stakeholders such as family federations or ex-service charities. Elsewhere, in local authorities or in NHS bodies, Armed Forces advocates or individuals with similar titles act as champions for service personnel, families or veterans. In some cases they are responsible for improving communications with the Armed Forces community to ensure that entitlements to services are properly understood. The exact role depends on the job to be done. There is no single model and neither should there be.

In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we want to ensure that best practice is promoted around the country, for example through the community covenant. We will be able to draw attention to successful uses of the advocate system, but it will be for them to decide what is best in their circumstances. I hope that that answers the question.

My difficulty with the amendment does not concern the merits of Armed Forces advocates at the local level; that is not in doubt. The case for them at the regional level is perhaps less obvious, but there is no need to legislate for their existence. The previous Government set up advocates without requiring any legislation and I commend them for doing so. I suggest to the Committee that the same logic applies and that we should not support the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I would be grateful for his reaction to my point that surely it is those local authorities least inclined to establish the post of Armed Forces advocate where it is most likely the Armed Forces will need such an advocate, and vice versa.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. We will certainly look at this.

Defence Transformation

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, given the shortage of time, let me focus on just the procurement issues. My noble friend has dealt with the £38 billion myth. I am very sorry that the Government are still descending to using it. It is of course a completely bogus figure based on, as he said, quite unreasonable assumptions. It is really a very silly, as well as a very disingenuous, piece of propaganda.

Apart from that, perhaps I may surprise the noble Lord—because I believe in giving credit where credit is due—by congratulating him. I do not think that 1 per cent in real terms is enough. I would rather have 1.5 per cent, which is what we had when we were in Government. Of course, the sustainable long-term growth rate of the economy is generally reckoned at being 2.25 per cent. Nevertheless, 1 per cent is considerably better than what we have now got. The noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues are to be congratulated on a reasonably successful outcome on what must have been a very difficult negotiation with the Treasury and, no doubt, with No. 10 Downing Street, but I do not think that they understand much about military matters these days.

I do not resile at all from the critiques I have made in the past, particularly about the disappearance of carrier strike capability, but the announcements that the Minister has made today on procurement are extremely important. I am delighted about the Warrior upgrade. That was the only project, which was a priority of mine, that I failed to get through in my time of office and would have been my first priority after the election if we had won it. The Rivet Joints are an enormously important intelligence asset and it is great news that that is going through.

Fourteen Chinooks is not as good as the 22 which we were going to order but, again, it is a good deal better than nothing, which has been happening up until now. Will the noble Lord say the projected in-service dates for these Chinooks? Obviously, there will be different dates. What are the in-service dates for the Rivet Joint aircraft? What are the expected in-service dates for the new upgraded Warriors with the 45 millimetre cannon and so forth? Will he say how many of the Rivet Joint aircraft and how many of the upgraded Warriors the Government intend to procure?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support. Perhaps I may correct him on what he said about the Prime Minister. I have had a meeting on defence issues with him and I can assure the noble Lord that he takes the whole issue of the Armed Forces and equipment very seriously. Defence of the realm is the first duty of a Government, which he takes very seriously. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord there.

The noble Lord welcomed the Warrior upgrade and the Rivet Joint. I can confirm that we will order three Rivet Joints. I do not have the in-service date for the Chinooks. We are very near a point where we can go ahead with the ordering and as soon as I have the in-service date I will make a point of writing to the noble Lord to let him know the answer to that.