Queen's Speech

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I intend to speak only about two aspects of defence: first, the full strategic review mentioned in the gracious Speech; and, secondly, picking up a phrase from the Speech, in support of our “courageous Armed Forces” and what is called the military covenant. Before doing so, I join in the tributes paid, quite rightly, to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his appointment as Minister; I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor, whose appointment reflects the enormous amount of hard work that I know he put in as a spokesman in opposition.

I shall focus on generalities rather than detailed analysis because that will come when we have the debate on the review. If I had a magic wand, as I have mentioned in a previous debate on the probation service, I would like the clocks now not to say “0.00” but “PANT”, which stands for “People are not things”. I say that because I invite the House to remember, when considering our Armed Forces, that despite all the technical wizardry now available to them our Armed Forces consist of men and women.

When considering the selection of an aim for something like a defence review, various factors have to be considered. One is uncertainty, which will never be satisfied; and the second is affordability, which is a reality which must not be ducked. There are two definitions of “affordable”: one is, “Can you afford it?”; and the other is, “Can you afford to give up what you have to give up in order to afford it?”. I fear that in the past that second definition has been too often disregarded.

Military equipment has to be robust because it has to withstand the ravages of war and is therefore built to last. This means, inevitably, that today’s commanders are saddled with expensive, out-of-date equipment, planned for a different circumstance, which costs men and money to maintain. Would that we were in a “clean sheet of paper” situation, which we are not and never can be.

The previous two defence reviews were conducted in the shadow of the Cold War and the equipment that was ordered during the Cold War period. Our national outlook now, since 9/11 and with the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, is very different from what it was in 1998 when the last review was conducted. This suggests that a major review is both timely and essential and that no sacred cow should be excluded from it—even the existence of three separate Armed Forces—if it is necessary to produce what is required in the national circumstances of today.

In an interview for the Times on 22 May, Dr Liam Fox, the Secretary of State, said that the review was,

“an opportunity to totally reset what we think of as Britain’s global role. First, the MoD must work out what threats the country faces”.

While I welcome those statements, as I do the formation of a National Security Council, I contend that the review should not be an internal MoD exercise but should be conducted by a team representing all aspects of both our global role and our defence and security needs.

However, before such an exercise is embarked on, one other important decision needs to be made which will affect the outcome. I refer of course to the nuclear deterrent. I and many others, including my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall, have spoken out about the proposal to replace the expensive and unusable Trident system instead of opting for a less costly alternative. We are disappointed that, as in 1998, it appears likely to be excluded from the review. To exclude it is not only illogical but also denies the Government the opportunity presented by the review to take a step that has long been needed. Possession of a nuclear deterrent is a political issue, as is its use. The defence budget is currently unbalanced by the nuclear deterrent being included in it. I do not envy those with the task of conducting the review, a task made more difficult by the inclusion of the cost of the nuclear deterrent. Surely that cost should be taken out and put elsewhere, allowing the defence budget to concentrate on non-nuclear requirements.

The term “military covenant” did not exist when I was serving. In essence, the covenant means the nation’s repayment of the debt that it owes to the members of the Armed Forces in return for their preparedness to lay down their lives for the nation. Its most obvious public expression is in the frequent tributes sadly paid to the returning dead at Wootton Bassett and in response to the Help for Heroes appeal. Within the military, it is reflected in the loyalty borne upwards by service men and women to their political and military masters in the expectation that that loyalty will be reflected downwards to them.

I have therefore found it very distressing that this downward loyalty has been in question during recent years. Too many senior officers have resigned complaining of shortage of resources. Promises made by Ministers that all operational needs would be provided have gone unfulfilled. The Ministry of Defence has been required to pay back money made available to satisfy urgent operational requirements. There have been many complaints from families about living conditions. Two senior officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, were traduced in a published inquiry for their alleged responsibility for cuts that were part of the Strategic Defence Review and were held to have played a part in the tragic loss of a Nimrod in Afghanistan. The Armed Forces are accustomed to taking the rough with the smooth, but they are made up of people. They are not things and should not be treated as things.

I draw attention also to the position of veterans. I commend the previous Government for the appointment of a Minister for Veterans but regret that he was placed in the Ministry of Defence and not in the Cabinet Office. In America, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is in the Cabinet. My alarm at the growing number of veterans in prisons has alerted me to the inadequacy of the systems and organisations that could have prevented them being there by helping their resettlement into civilian life. A Minister with the authority of the Cabinet Office would be better able to influence all those organisations that can help with this process. I urgently ask the Government to consider such an appointment.

It is inevitable that the Strategic Defence Review will focus on money and things, but I hope that the Government will not forget their obligation to the courageous men and women who make up our Armed Forces under the terms of the military covenant. My ancestor, Sir John Moore of Corunna, laid down the ethos of the Light Division as being a mutual bond of trust and affection between all ranks, which the officers had to earn. Unless government earns the trust of their Armed Forces by honouring their obligations, I fear that they could respond with their feet, which would be calamitous for the defence and security of our great nation.