Strategic Defence Review
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a first-class idea that we should have this opportunity for import from your Lordships, with all the enormous experience here, into the review before it happens, rather than waiting until it has happened and then moaning that they left out this or that bit that they should have put in. We may still moan at the end, because some of us moan all the time, but this is a very good way of approaching it and I congratulate the Government on doing it this way. I congratulate them on choosing the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to chair it; he has assembled an extremely impressive team around him. This is a very good set of minds applying to a very difficult, disorganised and expanding concept of what on earth “defence” is and what we are trying to defend in a constantly changing world.
As the noble Lord said, it is the fifth strategic defence review this century if you include the 1998 review, which was modified in 2002. If you add in the integrated reviews we have had in recent years—there was one in 2021 and then the refresh review, and I have no doubt that another refresh review is being prepared now—we get the picture that there is a continuously changing platform. Technology is racing ahead at such an intense speed in the matter of defence and the conduct of war and battle, so we need to be almost constantly on the train. I have no doubt at all that, in a year or two, we will need to come back to this again—and then again—to keep up with the enormous technological advances taking place. We read about one almost every week. Last week it was explosives in pagers and exploding telephones; next week it will be something else in that region.
I take this as an opportunity for us all not so much to go over the obvious, central points—which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, quite rightly touched on, with NATO as a bedrock—but to put in our own thoughts and hopes about particular issues that we would like to focus on and that might just be overlooked if we did not give them a little nudge. That is all I will do in my few minutes.
First, I will talk about China’s and Russia’s vast intrusion in the developing world, which is taking place almost behind the scenes while our eyes are on Ukraine, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Syria and the Pacific dangers around Taiwan. That is the front line but, behind it, the autocratic powers are moving very fast in a variety of ways—China mostly with bribes, insidious involvements, the belt and road initiative and so on; Russia in a more crude and violent way with the Wagner Group, which is still very active throughout Africa and Asia, although its leader came to a rather abrupt end after he was unwise enough to try to invade Moscow. That is what is happening before our eyes, and I hope that the review will concentrate on all that is going on there. As one expert put it, China is hoovering up the Commonwealth and the developing world, and we need to watch that, because we may find that it is too late if we do not act.
Then there are the neo-non-aligned countries—which, after all, are most countries—that are watching very carefully. I am glad to say that many are members of the Commonwealth, and I think they are all saying, “Look, we believe in independence. We are watching. We want support and advice from and a good relationship with the United Kingdom, but we don’t want to see Britain become too much a puppet of Washington. We don’t want to be under the hegemony of the Chinese either; we are trying to avoid being sucked into their nexus and network. But nor do we want to be necessarily lined up with a Manichaean view of the world, which comes particularly from the United States, that the world is just divided between good and evil, or the West and the East, and that that is the way it must be fought out”. Therefore, I hope that, in addition to the China and Russia scene, we use this review to get our own relationship straight with a changing United States. It is not 1945—it is not the heroic days of the Second World War or the Cold War. It is an entirely different situation. That is my first point.
Secondly, I hope we recognise that the fight is now on to kill civilians—to demoralise, undermine, frighten and terrorise civilians—and every kind of AI and other technology will be used by our opponents to do that. I saw that the director of MI5 said yesterday that we are now at the greatest level of threat in decades and that Russia and Iran, to take two, are determined to generate “sustained … mayhem” in this country. I hope that will be a matter of focus.
Thirdly, the whole industry and defence relationship has changed. A Ukraine expert was here yesterday and talked about battlefield co-ordination and management in Ukraine. That has been largely organised by private enterprise or by enterprises that are semi-private—some in uniform, some not. That expert pointed out that on the Ukraine side there is the question of managing 1 million drones, either in production—maybe in remote garages that no one knows about, or in unofficial factories—or being deployed and sent in various directions. No single military authority, no single Government, can co-ordinate all the movements of that sort of thing. His firm is called Aerorozvidka and he is deeply involved, as a civilian, in battlefield deployment and in new ways of industry co-ordinating with the military not only in supply chains—we know about all that—but in the organisation and deployment of strategy on the battlefield.
Finally, we have signed the NATO industrial capacity expansion pledge, which brings industry and technology even closer to the military. We are signing up to AUKUS, which is another opportunity, and to the Tempest programme with Japan and Italy. All these will involve huge new types of involvement between industry and the military, and that will require a considerable amount of time from the review team. Beyond its cellular internet of things, the Chinese Communist Party seem to have taken a dominant role there. We have Russia’s dark fleet sailing around the world undermining all the traditional areas of marine control. These are the frightening technologies of next month, probably, or certainly of the next year or two. These are the things that I hope will be concentrated on.
That is a start from me, but I am sure there will be many other better-informed, deeper and more important views to be uttered by your Lordships. That is my contribution.
King’s Speech
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the world is indeed, if not actually on fire, in a very dangerous state, as we have been reminded. Here, we have been told recently by those in authority that we must prepare for war in a few years’ time. Preparing for war is of course a vastly expensive business; it involves not more wages, higher pensions and all the rest but hardship and cutting back to finance the dreadful demands and dreadful expense of war.
We are going to have our strategic review. I say straightaway that I am a strong fan of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who I see is sitting here. I am also a fan of Fiona Hill. I just wonder, though, whether we are right to air in public all the problems and weaknesses, if we have them, in our defence structure against modern technology, which is changing by the hour. I am obviously a supporter, increasingly over the years, of parliamentary accountability, publicity and so on, yet the nature of war is full of surprises and secrets. Those secrets themselves are weapons, and if we go too far in discussing everything in public and debating it in our splendid Parliament, we tell our enemies a lot about how they should react. Let us go with caution into this review and realise that a basic message is all that is necessary: that if any nation stings us, we will sting back with 10 times the ferocity. That is the basic stance that we want to prevail.
Let me spend my last three minutes on outlining some themes that, in opposition, we can usefully and constructively help with in creating the kind of national unity and togetherness of society that the most reverend Primate has just spoken about. I make the following points.
First, does our capitalism really work for everybody? It is asserted that it does, but the vast majority of young people think that it does not. It is not a sufficient system, in its modern digital form, to deliver what billions of people throughout the planet really want. The younger generation is deeply disappointed and critical of it. We need much wider capital ownership—as well as strong incomes and wages, obviously—to give households and families the dignity and security that capital gives in a very dangerous age. People may say: what about levelling up? That is one of the aspects of levelling up that we should promote much more strongly, whatever party is in power. A wider capital-owning democracy has certainly been a theme in my party for 50 or 60 years. That is one theme that we on our side must work on to support the Labour Government and, I hope, carry them with us.
Secondly, we must take back control of our foreign policy. This is an age of looser alliances and of networks, which I do not think every policymaker, certainly in America, fully understands. In this country, we are crazy not to bring our own network—the biggest in the world, the Commonwealth network of 56 countries—far closer to the centre of our strategy and linkages. There may not always be a pattern of Governments agreeing with each other, but the point about the Commonwealth that makes it a 21st-century organisation is that it links at every level: from primary school and university to every profession, every level of training and every kind of friendship. We are very lucky to have that kind of linkage and should work much more on it.
Thirdly, we need to work with Japan, our great friend in Asia. If there is any question of revising some of these big defence contracts, I hope it will be done not by rumour and hint but in an open, friendly way.
Finally, our energy policy is a mess and remains far from achieving the objectives of the net zero that we want. We have vast expenditure ahead, and delusions that somehow renewables are carrying us along. They are not at all. We will have to multiply our renewables by at least four times, we have to multiply our nuclear by five or six times, and we need an entirely new national transmission grid, with a thousand miles of pylons. On carbon capture and storage, we have barely begun.
Where the Government are moving on all these issues, I hope we will help, and constructively. But where they are failing to move or simply do not understand what is happening, we will step in and put all our brainpower and effort into preparing for the day when what goes down comes up. Perhaps the Conservatives will step back into government again. Either way, both parties should work together.
Tempest Global Combat Air Programme
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question and thank him in anticipation of the sorts of thoughtful comments that he will make and the help that he will give to me and others as we seek to defend our country in the best possible way. He makes a really important point on the GCAP. It is an important alliance between Japan, Italy and ourselves that gives us the opportunity to work with Japan and others—but in particular Japan—to develop that technological progress and partnership, which will be so important as we take this programme forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I declare my interests as in the register. Would the Minister agree that, recently, Japanese industry and its economy and the British economy have been getting on extremely well, with increased co-operation—much better than way back before the Brexit interruption? Would he agree that the sources of our biggest productivity increases of the past 50 years were when we were getting massive Japanese investment in the 1970s and 1980s? In the light of both those thoughts, does he accept that we must be very careful in continuing this progress and doing nothing impetuous that undermines the close co-operation that the Japanese want to have with us and are seeking in many other areas as well?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said in answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord—and the noble Lord makes the point for himself—the relationship between ourselves and Japan is extremely important. The technological advantage that both the UK and Japan get from our close partnership is extremely important. As I said in answer to the original Question, progress continues on the GCAP with the other partner, Italy. A strategic defence review will look at all the various programmes, but progress continues.
Armed Forces: Land War Readiness
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I apologise to the admiral; I am sure his time will come. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government website details on our reserve situation are curiously uninformative? They do not make a clear distinction between the regular reserves and the Army reserves, which are two separate concepts and have been for the past 10 years. They do not make clear how many of our units are high-readiness or how many are combat ready. Will he encourage his colleagues to provide clearer information online about the state of the reserves, and give us more information on how we are developing a new relationship between our reserves and regular troops of a kind that is being rapidly developed by several of our NATO allies?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly take a look at the website and ensure that it is made a lot clearer on what the differences are. As regards valuing the reservists, I can assure the House that the Ministry of Defence values them extremely highly and will continue to make certain that the level of readiness is appropriate.
Ukraine and Georgia
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Russians clearly now have their eye on Kharkiv. The priority—that is, munitions—must be unwavering, despite the enormous amount we have already done and announced. There must be more air power, as the noble Lord opposite has already observed. Can the Minister look beyond the deep troubles of the past that have brought us to where we are to the causes in the future which will perpetuate this situation for decades unless we are very careful? Are there other means to which we are giving thought, and developing back-channels on the future of Russia? We cannot cancel Russia—no one sensible would suggest that—but can we begin to establish that we do not want instability for years ahead? There must be a deal or agreement on how far NATO goes, the borders of the expanded NATO of today and the desires of Russia to have a different system in future. These are the areas where thinking is required. If we do not think now, we and our children will still be in this mess, or an even worse one, in 20, 30 or 50 years’ time.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The most immediate and pressing issue for NATO and the rest of the West is to repel Russia from Ukraine. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is a future post success, but, as the Secretary-General of NATO said the other day, it is very important that we take this stand now and assure all malign influences that NATO will stand firm against any aggression towards its pact. That is the primary purpose.
Military National Service
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
On those words, professional, regular and reserve, my understanding is that for some years now we have been vigorously building up our whole reserve—what used to be called the territorials—including a number of combat units trained to semi-professional standards and readiness. Is that process increasing? Is it reinforcing the number of troops we really have available? Are we following some of the patterns that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, hinted at?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we are. The current mix that we have in the Army is about 70,000 ground troops and about 30,000 reserves. The 100,000 target is where we are focused at the moment. The full size of the forces, currently at about 131,000, is an issue. The outflow is also an issue, as everybody is aware, and we are taking action to improve retention.
Royal Navy: Drone Attacks in the Red Sea
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the First Sea Lord and his team are fully aware of the situation and are keeping as many ships at sea as we can at any one time. There is obviously a maintenance programme that must be adhered to and upgrading programmes that follow the latest technology. All the learnings from this latest situation in the Red Sea are being built in as rapidly as possible to all future plans.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, bombing the launch sites in Yemen makes sense, particularly if they are using Iranian weapons and rockets, if they are advised by the Iranians, and if some Iranians themselves are even involved in the launch. That is getting near the right target. Will the Minister and his colleagues bear in mind that southern Yemen is not so dominated by the Houthis? There are very many people there, for example, who are very favourable to this country and have been for years. Therefore, we should take great care that the bombing aimed at the launch sites does not descend on people who are favourable to Britain and puzzled as to why they should be bombed at all.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The accuracy of the bombing is very precise, very limited and specifically targeted at weapons that are being, or are about to be, prepared to be used. As far as we know, that has been successful, and there has been very limited collateral damage. We completely agree that there is a large part of Yemen which is favourable towards us. In fact, we provide quite a lot of aid—although not as much as we did, as noble Lords have raised before—to support the Government of Yemen.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: China Report
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, our relationships with key partners provide us with platforms across a number of areas in the Indo-Pacific. We have a permanent presence in Brunei, and the British Defence Singapore Support Unit. He is correct that the United Kingdom and the United States share a defence facility in the British Indian Ocean Territory. That plays a vital role in our efforts to keep the region secure. We are very clear about its strategic significance and continue to have due regard to the significance of that location.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Question mentions the two integrated reviews. The first, in 2021, was a very good and helpful document but unfortunately came out before the Russian assault on Ukraine. The second, refreshing the first, was also excellent but unfortunately came out before the present Israel-Hamas horror and the complete change to the map of the Middle East. Can the Minister encourage the Cabinet Office not to be deterred from having a go at a third one, maybe in the early spring of next year, because these documents are genuinely valuable in showing our purpose and direction in a very fast-changing world?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his recognition of the strategic significance of these documents and the enduring messages which both contain and which continue to suggest a pungent relevance to events in the world today. The issues to which he refers are deeply troubling and complex. As to whether the Government would contemplate a further integrated review, I cannot say, but I acknowledge his concern at the extent of global tumult that we are witnessing today.
Wagner Group
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that although all eyes are understandably on Ukraine and Moscow regarding the Wagner Group, the noble Lord, Lord West, is right to raise the activities of the Russian militias and the Chinese right across the Sahel and throughout the whole of Africa? Will she therefore ensure that her colleagues and policymakers are really focused on this other war, as eyes tend to drift away to Ukrainian affairs, and make sure that we make every effort to reinforce security against the authoritarian regimes, which in many areas are winning? This is of particular note since 21 of the African countries being invaded by the Chinese are Commonwealth members.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. He will be aware that through the United Nations and our other relationships and partnerships, whether multilaterally or bilaterally, we are very cognisant of that threat. He is correct that Wagner is a pernicious and unwelcome presence in Africa, and absolutely right that there are other influences at play.
Defence Policy (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to be at the end of the Back-Bench contributions to this very important debate and to have listened to the extremely powerful speeches and the undercurrent of worry and discontent that has run through almost all of them. This report from the International Relations and Defence Committee has given us the chance to examine both the two integrated review papers from the Government on foreign policy and the last defence Command Paper. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, we are waiting for the next one, although the report was published before the second, so-called “refreshed”, integrated review.
I give all credit to the committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I were proud to help instigate and set up seven years ago. It has proved its worth. I also give all credit to my noble friend Lady Anelay, my successor as chair, for her highly successful chairmanship and for securing and opening this debate, which she did with great appeal and effect.
The two integrated review papers of 2021 and 2023 have been curiously undiscussed. This debate has made it pretty clear why that is so: we have not had the chance or an opportunity, and in a way they have almost fallen outside and behind the rapid pace of events. “Integration” was the right concept in both papers, not least since today’s adversaries are weaponising nearly every aspect of daily life, far outside the military zone and far into areas which have never before been touched by warfare, defence or external security. The papers were right to avoid calling it a plan or strategy, because we all remember General von Moltke’s classic remark that no strategy or plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, so flexibility and uncertainty are understandable.
However, I share some of the committee’s scepticism and disappointment when it spoke in its report of a lack of focus in these integrated reviews and said that there was a lack of priorities, in both the 2021 and 2023 versions. In fact, I would go further in three respects. First, both reviews continue to underestimate the evolving power of new international networks. Yes, of course they mention ASEAN, the five-power defence pact Five Eyes and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which have been mentioned in the debate. We also have the AUKUS plans with the Australians and Americans to build submarines that are nuclear-powered, but not equipped with nuclear weapons. We are also engaged in an enormous project with Japan for the next combat air programme, and a lot of other things go in with that which to me are extremely welcome.
All that is so, but there are huge changes in the Middle East. The role of China there is growing all the time, and for instance there is Israel’s move closer to the Saudis and the new Saudi-Iranian rapport, which may or may not come to something. None of that comes into the integrated reviews at all, as the present chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lord Ashton, pointed out in his reply to the Government’s comment and as my noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned in her opening speech. Nor does the African Union seeking to join the G20, which is an enormous change in world affairs, feature at all.
There was no more than a passing reference to the biggest network of all: the modern Commonwealth, which could well prove our gateway to Asia’s and Africa’s vast new markets, where all the growth is going to be. It could be one of our greatest assets in the changed world, as a bulwark against the Chinese expansionism and maritime intrusions which have been referred to. None of that gets mentioned in these documents at all. Indeed, some of us have suggested that the 56-nation network which is the Commonwealth, with several more countries interested in joining it, could become a sort of safe haven from a divided world as the great powers slug out their 20th-century quarrels and ideological conflicts, which are less and less relevant to the problems that these nations face. That is my first concern.
Secondly, both documents shy away from our changing relationship with a changing USA. We remain, of course, the closest partners and friends but they are not our bosses; they are our partners and we work with them. We are in no way the puppets of Washington, nor should we be. That relationship needs much more careful updating than merely repeating the hopes of the previous century, and that updating is long overdue. Why is this crucial? Because the majority of independent nations, many in the Commonwealth, which have been called by many commentators the neo-non-aligned—quite different from the Bandung non-aligned of the previous century—are watching to see where we, the British, stand. They want neither Chinese hegemony nor American puppetdom. Of course, they are quite ready to take what they can from both, and rightly so, to preserve their independence in this new age.
Thirdly, eyes are understandably on Ukraine and the hideous but conventional war there, which some experts said would never happen—but it has—and on NATO and its need for solidarity and expansion. But eyes should also be, and are not enough, on what might be called the autocracies’ other wars, as China, followed to a more violent extent by Russia, is quietly hoovering up the developing world and large parts of the Sahel and central Africa, including numerous smaller Commonwealth islands in the south seas and the Caribbean, and African coastal states, while we sit watching, seemingly unaware of what is happening, to judge by the reviews. We should be thinking about how to put the autocracies on the defensive; yet instead, they appear to be turning the Commonwealth network, the chain of what should be bastions of liberty and freedom, the other way around, using them as their advance points of intrusion into the rest of the world.
The late Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the much underestimated former UN Secretary-General, once said, and repeated to me, that “Everyone must have a country to love and believe in”. Well, we love our country and believe in its future, in utterly transformed conditions, with much more rapid change to come immediately ahead. Nothing like enough of that comes through in either of the government documents looked at in this excellent report. We need to do much more thinking and to be less confined in silos, and a much deeper effect needs to be achieved. Like others, I look forward to hearing what our Front-Bench sages have to say on that.