Defence: Military Commitments

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Government’s primary responsibility is to ensure national security. Without healthy finances, we cannot create the public services or the national security we need. The SDSR established the policy framework for the Armed Forces and the capabilities that they will need to meet future challenges. Events in Libya have proved how right we were to design adaptability into defence so that we are able to be flexible as strategic threats change. The outstanding work of our Armed Forces demonstrates that Britain remains a key player that is able to project power and influence on the world stage.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from these Benches, we associate ourselves with the Minister’s words of tribute to Major Matthew Collins and Lance Sergeant Mark Burgan of the Irish Guards. We too offer our sincere condolences to their families and hope that their pain will be eased a little by the knowledge that, in the eyes of the nation as well as of this House, Major Collins and Lance Sergeant Burgan are brave and courageous heroes.

We now have commitments in Libya that were not anticipated or even contemplated in the recent rushed strategic defence and security review, which has not survived its first encounter with reality. As a result, we have aircraft—and certainly one naval vessel—in theatre that were due to be decommissioned. Is it not time for the validity and relevance of the SDSR to be reviewed in the light of what is happening in north Africa and the new commitments that we have taken on? Is it not also the case that, if the Government decide to extend further our operational commitments, they have a responsibility to provide the additional resources and not leave our Armed Forces even more stretched than ever, as appears to be the case from the comments this morning by the head of the Royal Air Force?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord said about the two brave soldiers from the Irish Guards.

The SDSR states explicitly the need for an adaptable posture to defend our interests in the world. As a result, we have structured and resourced our forces to give us flexibility to conduct operations such as the one in Libya. The SDSR correctly predicted that we would need to carry out civilian evacuations, and rightly assessed that we could mitigate capability gaps resulting from the SDSR through working with allies, overflight and basing rights. We are continuing to develop and refine the SDSR, but it will not be reopened. Finally, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the reserve.

Defence: Military Covenant

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield on securing this debate. He is an expert on the meaning and purpose of covenants, since the idea of a covenant comes from scripture and is used in the Old Testament to describe the relationship that God has with his chosen people. A covenant is a mutual relationship of obligation and care; both sides promise to look out for the other and, in return, both sides can count on each other, too. That in essence is what the military covenant is about: a covenant between the Government, the nation and its Armed Forces. We had a debate earlier today about the physical and mental rehabilitation of military veterans, including our responsibilities to them under the military covenant.

We have the covenant for a number of reasons, not least because we recognise the role and duties of the Armed Forces in defence of the state and that carrying out such duties can result in serious injury or death in action for service personnel. We recognise their commitment and their courage and their devotion to duty and, as part of that, we recognise that we have a responsibility to support them and care for them and their immediate dependants during and after service.

The military covenant is a subject on which the Government have expressed some very firm views. Towards the end of last year, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he would,

“rebuild the Military Covenant left shattered by Labour”—

a clear indication that at times, at least, that gentleman is not enamoured of the idea of maximising the extent to which a bipartisan approach to defence can be secured. He set up a task force to find,

“low cost, innovative policy ideas”.

It reported recently, and the Secretary of State committed to taking forward two recommendations. The first was an Armed Forces community covenant, encouraging volunteers to support their local forces, and the second a commendation scheme, thanking individuals or bodies who give support to the forces. The chairman of the Forces Pension Society described the task force proposals as, “incredibly wet and feeble”, and added:

“If this is all the Government can offer to rebuild the covenant, we have a long battle ahead”.

The Government have not yet given their response to all the task force proposals, and perhaps the Minister will be able to update us on that point and on the work being undertaken on the military covenant by the Ministry of Defence.

The Government plan to publish an annual Armed Forces covenant report which, if it is going to continue the previous Government's plans, will provide an annual assessment of the Government's progress in implementing commitments to strengthen the covenant. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is an issue that the Government's proposed annual Armed Forces covenant report will address.

One of the innovations we introduced in 2008 was the impartial oversight of the Government's progress at strengthening the military covenant. The External Reference Group, as the right reverend Prelate said when opening this debate, was set up as an independent monitor to be a check on the Government’s implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, the first cross-government strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel, which incorporated some significant improvements. It is essential that such reports are independent, expert-led and above politics. The Royal British Legion has raised concerns about this issue. Can the Minister say who will be doing any scrutiny and assessment and producing the annual forces covenant report? What issues and subjects will be covered in that report? Will it be undertaken by independent people or will it be a report by Ministers? What will be the future role of the External Reference Group?

When in Opposition in 2009, the now Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, said that,

“the Government must look at issues of housing, healthcare and veterans' welfare if it ... wants to avert a serious crisis in recruitment and retention”.

These are obviously matters that would come within the ambit of the covenant. Can the Minister say when they intend to build on the improvements the previous Government made to service accommodation in the light of the strategic defence and security review, which appears to indicate that cost of accommodation is a target area for savings?

The Government have been criticised for their intention to scrap major reforms to the system of inquests into military deaths. The changes we legislated to introduce and were due to be implemented imminently were supported by service charities and families. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 would have delivered a better inquest service and ensured that the coroner undertaking military inquests had the training necessary to conduct an effective investigation. It would also have created a system of appeals against a coroner’s decisions. This has now been undone by the Government’s intention to scrap the office of the chief coroner and abandon the reforms that families want. In view of the vote in your Lordships’ House to save the office of the chief coroner, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will now accept the outcome of that vote in the light of their commitment to the military covenant.

Then there is the issue of pensions. The Government plan to link public sector pension increases to the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index. This will result in lower pension increases than people had previously anticipated and expected and will disproportionately affect members of the Armed Forces and their dependants who rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else. The reduction over the years in the anticipated and expected level of pension payment to some individuals, including seriously injured service personnel and Afghanistan war widows, will run into hundreds of thousands of pounds as their anticipated pensions are reduced for the rest of their working lives. When challenged on this last November, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said:

“It is not possible to treat the armed forces differently from other public servants”.

Can the Minister say whether that statement represents his view and that of his defence ministerial colleagues? Is such a statement consistent with the intention and meaning of the military covenant?

At the time your Lordships’ House debated the strategic defence and security review, there were reservations, in some cases strong reservations, about some of the decisions that were part of that review. The Minister prayed in aid the Government’s analysis of the financial situation, and will perhaps do so again today. No doubt, that is the Government’s justification for their approach to Armed Forces pay, which is hardly designed to improve morale. For a military covenant to have credibility among and within the Armed Forces, it is imperative that the Armed Forces are provided with the resources to undertake the commitments, clearly defined and with clear objectives, that they are expected to carry out and meet, and are not expected to undertake commitments which cannot be, for whatever reason, properly resourced. That relates not just to equipment and manpower, but to the welfare of service personnel and their families, given that that also helps to maintain morale and ensure operational effectiveness.

I do not doubt for one moment the personal commitment of the Minister to the military covenant or his own determination and, I am sure the determination of his defence ministerial colleagues, to try to ensure that the commitments our Armed Forces are expected to undertake are clearly defined and continue to be backed up by the level of resources needed to show that the military covenant is a meaningful and credible covenant which reflects the admiration and esteem that the people of this country feel for our service personnel.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from this side of the House I add our tributes to Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes and our condolences to his family and friends, to those expressed by the Minister. The bravery and courage of the men and women in our Armed Forces know no bounds, but we are all very conscious that when the ultimate sacrifice is made it brings grief and sorrow to the family concerned as well as deep pride in the loved one they will never see again. We hope that those feelings of pride will burn long and bright and his family and friends will be given the strength and fortitude to see them through the especially difficult coming months that they inevitably face.

From this side of the House I also wish to follow the Minister in paying tribute to our Armed Forces, which serve and protect our country and its interests and are prepared to put their lives on the line on behalf of us all. They have the unequivocal support from all sides of the House for the missions they are called upon to undertake, not least for those missions that they are currently undertaking, in particular in Afghanistan. It is crucial that those who wish this country ill and from whom our Armed Forces protect us appreciate and understand that there is no division of opinion between the political parties, but only unity of resolve and support for our Armed Forces in the exacting and dangerous operations in which they are involved.

As the Minister has said, we have a lengthy debate ahead of us, and I am sure that we are all looking forward to the many speeches from noble Lords with great knowledge and expertise in this field. We look forward in particular to the maiden speeches from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and my noble friend Lord Hutton.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s thinking and objectives reflected in the review. In the course of his comments, he referred to the background against which the review had been undertaken, and in particular the financial situation. There was a strong inference in his comments that the outcome of the defence review rests at the door of the previous Government. I do not share the Minister’s analysis; the financial crisis was a global one, which did not start in this country. We were hit hard because the global crisis started in the financial sector, and the financial sector is a big player in our economy. The problems have not been caused by the level of public expenditure in this country, a level of public expenditure with which the then Conservative Opposition agreed until the end of 2008. There was a clear determination by the last Government not to make significant cuts in public expenditure until the recession was over, since the way this country will restore its full financial health is through a growing economy, and not through public expenditure cuts that would have jeopardised growth. This country came out of recession in the second half of last year, and there was a significant increase in growth in the first quarter of the current financial year, and significant though lower growth in the second quarter.

This country was not on the brink of bankruptcy, as some have sought to suggest in seeking to justify the speed of the cuts that have been and are to be made. The average maturity of funding for government debt is 14 years. Neither are the difficulties that we face home-grown. If they were, and it was not a global financial crisis, then a number of other countries such as Greece, Spain and Ireland would not have to address even more serious financial issues than those that we and a number of other countries have to address.

I know that the Government are sensitive to statements that this review has been driven by financial considerations, but that view arises from the very strong impression that the need for reductions in expenditure played the biggest part in determining the outcome of the review, rather than any carefully considered strategic considerations. Nobody is arguing about the need for reductions in expenditure, but this Government seem to be proceeding with these reductions with a degree of rapidity that they have yet to justify. The more the Government pray in aid the financial situation, and in particular the dodgy assertions about the country being on the brink of bankruptcy like Greece, the more the Government are under a self-imposed pressure to make cuts at a speed that match those assertions rather than in line with a considered review of strategy. As the Defence Secretary said in his leaked letter to the Prime Minister:

“Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR and more like a ‘super CSR’”.

We then come to another matter, which the Secretary of State for Defence is fond of raising, namely the issue of the alleged £38 billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget. If the Government believe that that figure is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation, presumably the decisions on the cuts in expenditure and the speed of those cuts have been related in part to a belief in that figure of £38 billion. However, the only way that one can find the alleged £38 billion black hole is by assuming that there will be no increase in our defence budget until 2021—that is, a cash freeze—nor any rationalisation of commitments or programmes. That assumption, frankly, lacks credibility.

The defence review rightly stresses the significance of Afghanistan among a great many defence and security issues that we face. There has been real progress in Afghanistan in a range of key functions and activities, including law and order, civil administration and economic growth, which are vital to the functioning of a stable state and to achieving a lasting political settlement. The Government have our support in taking forward this work, which is also crucial in the light of the target of 2015 for the conclusion of our forces’ combat role. There is, as the Government have said, obviously a need for Afghan forces to take on greater responsibility. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the Afghan forces’ capacity to take on those responsibilities in line with our 2015 target date. Can he say what the government position would be if it was clear, as we approached 2015, that our combat role was needed for longer?

We welcome the commitments to hold further reviews every five years; to continue to develop the previous Government’s work on addressing and combating the increasing threat of cyberattacks while investing in cybersecurity; to reduce warheads; and to continue to increase funding for our Special Forces. However, there appears to be a strategic deficit in the Government’s plans. The security strategy emphasises flexibility and adaptability for our Armed Forces, but the defence review appears to go in the opposite direction for the Royal Navy. The Government talk about taking tough long-term decisions, but taking decisions is precisely what has not happened in relation to Trident. The concern is that it has rather more to do with avoiding dissension within the coalition than with the outcome of any carefully considered strategic review.

This strategic deficit is hardly surprising. Speaking of the strategic defence and security review, the Conservative chairman of the Select Committee on Defence said in the other place at the beginning of this month that,

“it became primarily a spending review and, secondly, a defence and security review”.

He went on to say that the Defence Committee,

“wanted to look at the process of the review and … concluded that it was, pretty much, rubbish. This review took five months, whereas the highly regarded 1997-98 review took 13 months. The haste of this review meant that an opportunity to consult the wider public, defence academics, the defence industry and Parliament was missed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/10; col. 1092.]

In a defence review which results in reductions in expenditure, there will inevitably be criticism of some of the decisions made. It was reported in the media the other day that the head of the Royal Navy had said at a conference:

“I am very uncomfortable at losing Nimrod. I am happy to say that publicly”.

Whether that is what he actually said I cannot be sure, and if the Minister says it was not what was said I will of course accept his word.

However, the Secretary of State for Defence had also raised similar concerns in his letter to the Prime Minister. The Defence Secretary appears to have accepted that the decision on the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft which protect our nuclear armed submarines has required taking what he described as a calculated risk with our surveillance capabilities. Obviously, I would not expect the Minister to comment in any detail in a public arena on matters directly affecting national security, but does he consider that what has been claimed was said by the head of the Royal Navy is in reality simply expressing the Secretary of State’s own stated view, albeit in rather more forthright language?

There has also been concern over the decision to retire the Harrier force in 2011 and to give up the ability to use short take-off and vertical landing aircraft. For a decade, we will have no carrier strike capability of our own. I hope the Government have got this one right. In the light of his other comments, can the Minister say quite clearly whether the Government regard this decision as another one that involves taking a calculated risk, or do they not regard it as in that category?

Like many other departments, the Ministry of Defence will be making significant cuts in staffing among civilian staff. The figure, I believe, is a 29 per cent reduction. Can the Minister say a bit more about where these cuts will fall? There is a tendency which this Government have done little to counteract—indeed, some would say that they are its instigators—to regard anyone not on the front line, whether in the Armed Forces, the police, education or health, as unnecessary bureaucrats who are a financial burden, contributing nothing of substance or value. In reality, the overwhelming majority are dedicated and committed; without them, those on the front line could not function as effectively as they do. In asking the Minister where he thinks substantial savings can be made among civilian Ministry of Defence staff, I seek an acknowledgement of the vital role such staff play and an assurance that a proposed reduction in staffing in this area will be the subject of the same kind of rigorous examination of the consequences as one would expect in relation to any reductions on the front line.

I have set out areas of concern about the strategic defence and security review and the basis on which some decisions appear to have been made, but I acknowledge that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues have had a far from easy task in making their decisions on where and how to achieve the reductions in expenditure that they—or, perhaps more relevantly, the Treasury—consider are necessary. I know that in carrying out the exercise, they will never have lost sight of what we all acknowledge as the overriding responsibility of any Government—to protect the nation, maintain our ability to defend ourselves and protect our national interests. To enable that onerous responsibility to be delivered, any Government depend on the commitment, dedication and bravery of the men and women in our Armed Forces, and we are all at one in our support and admiration for them.

Significant cuts are being made in defence expenditure, but it does not appear from the national security strategy that the threats we face and the commitments we have can necessarily be met by that reduced capability. Only time will tell, and we shall be doing our duty as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition in questioning and holding the Government to account for the decisions they have made.

Employment: Defence Expenditure

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, from these Benches I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those who have lost their lives serving our country since the House met before the recess. For the families, there is overwhelming grief and sorrow at their loss and the pain of separation but also in each case pride at the brave and committed service given by the loved one they have lost. Our thoughts and prayers are with those bereaved families and with the colleagues and friends of all those who have died.

The Secretary of State for Defence in this self-proclaimed transparent Government appears to have written a secret letter to the Prime Minister on a matter of real public interest—namely, whether our Armed Forces will in future have the resources to continue to carry out the commitments we expect them to undertake. Does the Minister agree with his Secretary of State’s concerns that the strategic defence and security review is not really a genuine review of defence and security strategy but is instead everything to do with the Conservative Government’s spending review aimed at cutting costs, with inadequate regard for the consequences for private sector jobs in our industrial base and for our Armed Forces and their continuing ability to meet the onerous responsibilities we place upon them?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this is not just a Conservative Government; we are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—