Strategic Defence and Security Review

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who, as ever, was thoughtful and knowledgeable.

I welcome the decision by the current Government to follow through, as recommended in the Gray report, on the Labour Government’s proposed strategic defence review, now the strategic defence and security review. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House of the importance of assessing our forward requirements and cutting our cloth to ensure that we do not leave our country, our armed services or our people at risk from the range of potential threats that we face. How we equip ourselves to meet those risks and the implications for the UK defence industries, for service personnel and their families and for the taxpayer are all questions which the SDSR will have to answer.

I accept that linking homeland security to the review makes sense, but this will make the process a hefty task and clearly one that should not be rushed. Does the Secretary of State have any concerns about the capacity of those undertaking the work to deliver an outcome within a realistic time scale, given the Government’s intention to cut as far and as fast as possible in all Departments?

So what are the risks? Across the globe there are three main areas from which threat could develop, areas where pressures have already built, or are building, and could lead to the need for engagement—engagements in which we as a nation could, or perhaps should, become embroiled. We need a sensible assessment of the international context in which the review takes place and of the future character of emerging conflicts. Those risks involve climate change, globalisation and global inequalities, and the sense of injustice that grows from that. This SDSR will need to make an assessment of the nature of the changes that will arise from climate change. There is an increased likelihood of mass migration as a direct result of the scarcity of materials and natural resources and the loss of habitable land.

Globalisation presents different concerns, which could need a military solution. Competition for goods and markets will increase, and there is an inevitable increase in the use, internationally, of telecommunications and cyberspace, and, therefore, the vulnerability of companies and countries to cyber attacks and the threat posed by serious organised crime, occasionally masquerading behind an ideological or religious front. The continuing divide between rich and poor nations, and between the rich and poor within nations, and between different societies and groups, is also a flashpoint that might need a military response from Britain, or indeed bring terrorist or other activity to our shores.

The Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre's strategic trends programme sets out those risks in great detail, looks at the next 30 years and offers analysis on the type of future military capability that might be required. We know that our armed forces have undertaken over 100 operations since the last strategic defence review. Those varied from major conflicts in Iraq, international operations in places such as Kosovo and a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan, through to counter piracy work in the Indian ocean and drugs patrols in the Caribbean.

We have in the last decade moved beyond the cold war scenario and our capabilities have changed to match the new requirements. However, we have always to be mindful of the risk of a sudden change to the demands being placed on our armed forces, including a new cold war, and this SDSR has to ensure that we are equipped to meet all risks while ensuring that the UK maintains its place at the top table internationally. We do not want to be caught out, as Governments were in the past following earlier defence reviews in which swingeing cuts were the outcome, and find ourselves in a Falklands war scenario with inadequate equipment and a reduced Navy, or, as at the time of the first Iraq war, with an Army that has been cut back. Both, incidentally, followed Conservative Government strategic defence reviews.

I want an assurance that this Government will not cut for the sake of it, but that they will, as they seek to ensure that we have a flexible and affordable capability, listen very carefully to the advice being offered to them from across the services and avoid being Army-centric. Clearly, as a Plymouth MP, I would be expected to say that, but a number of the signals from Ministers, both before and since the election, have suggested an increased role for the Army. However, the other two services, especially the Navy from my constituency perspective, are vital. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the settled view of the Government is that the Army is too small or needs enlarging.

I would argue that there is an ongoing requirement for the capability to ensure that our merchant shipping is protected and sea lanes remain open. We could not afford to be caught out with an undersized Navy were another Falklands-type incident to arise, and we certainly need to be able to move armed forces by sea and into the littoral environment quickly and safely on vessels that can give hard support to troops on the ground.

I do believe that we have to have a nuclear submarine based deterrent, but I am unclear exactly how Trident and its platform—the successor to Vanguard—fits into this SDSR. I did ask the Secretary of State this question during our last exchange, when I gave my second maiden speech, but I did not, perhaps because the right hon. Gentleman was thrown by the response of the House to that comment when he made it, get a reply. What specifically will the remit be for this proposed value-for-money review into Trident, and how would that process be scrutinised? Given that Trident money was earmarked as Treasury spend originally, not MOD, what pressure is the Secretary of State under from his Treasury colleagues, let alone his Liberal Democrat friends, to bring Trident forward and for these costs to be cut?

The economic benefits to British industry and to its work force of maintaining this programme, and indeed the Astute programme, which is so vital to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), are significant. Babcock, which has its headquarters in Plymouth and which punches above its weight, as the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, is not only involved in successor submarine contracts but has a major commitment to the carriers. The first sub blocks have already made their way from Appledore to Rosyth, on time and on budget. That is very much in line with what Bernard Gray, in his report, wanted to see. My constituents are also benefiting from the work on the carriers as Babcock moves work down from Rosyth to accommodate the expansion of the carrier build. The new ships should be a vital component in the future fleet. When the Minister replies, will he explain what the options are of not proceeding with one or both of the carriers?

The future surface fleet combatant, or the new Type 26 class, was designed to replace the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. What scope is there for BAE to bring forward initial concept designs offering the full range of options, from the gold-plated option down to the workhorse frigate? We in Plymouth believe that the workhorse frigate would give us some opportunities not only to base port, but to continue to service.

This SDSR has to balance the UK's need to preserve its position internationally with the role that our armed forces play in protecting our security at home and abroad and support our trade routes. Therefore, I would suggest closer working between Departments. But given the Treasury's strong involvement in the process, will the Minister confirm whether the Treasury will be the final arbiter rather than the MOD?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your weather eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—a new dawn, if not a red dawn.

Anyway, let me turn to the question at hand, which concerns the strategic defence and security review. I do not want to deal with some of the things that ought to be in the review; I would like to return to the discussion about how we are going to conduct it. It seems to me that we are talking about a collection of reviews. There has been much talk about, for example, the discussions that we have had in the past about the strategic nuclear deterrent and other things. As far as the strategic nuclear deterrent and the last discussion that we had on it are concerned, I can say as a member of the Defence Committee at the time—there are other members in the Chamber today—that we had to fight to have that discussion in the first place. We produced three reports—in order to do what? To inform a discussion; so there must be scrutiny.

We have heard about scrutiny of the current nuclear deterrent review. As I understood it—there are people here who can correct me on this—the coalition document says that it has been agreed, quite rightly, that

“the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money.”

I thought that that would mean scrutiny of the process as it went along, but it appears today that it means a one-off shot. I am sure that there are Liberal Democrat Members who will be somewhat surprised, as I was, that this scrutiny will not form part of an ongoing process of deciding where we are. I thought that the debate about whether we should have a strategic defence review was a debate about possibly having one at the start of every Parliament. Over the past 10 years, we have effectively been having a series of strategic defence reviews, but in an ad hoc and piecemeal way, without taking a strategic approach.

In “On War”, Clausewitz said that strategy is more like an art than anything else. What is the art? It is the art of timing. Knowing what to do and how to do it can be the science; knowing when to do it is the question, and that is what we should address. In doing that, we also have to open the process up to some form of scrutiny. We are talking about a strategic review, apparently of both security and defence, and it was the Secretary of State who talked about the MOD’s contribution to that discussion. That assumes that we will therefore have a Foreign Office contribution and a Home Office contribution as well, with all the different elements coming together. I hope so, and I hope someone is going to explain to me the sequence of events by which we can scrutinise not only the strategic nuclear deterrent, but all the elements that make up what counts as strategic or otherwise.

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is making entirely appropriate points, but does he share my concern about the time scale and the fact that the SDSR and the comprehensive spending review seem to be on top of each other? Which will take priority—the MOD or the Treasury?

[Mr Havard]

I could give my answer, but it is not mine that is important, is it? What is important is the question, and as I understand it, based on published coalition documents, the position is this:

“The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review… alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury”.

[Alison Seabeck]

Strong.

[Mr Havard]

I bet there will be strong involvement from the Treasury, but is that involvement just about the costs, or will it also consider other things? The statement I quoted refers to a review conducted “alongside”; it does not say that the parties commit to “having a review of the nuclear deterrent by July” and it does not actually say that they commit to “determining the whole of the strategic defence review before the comprehensive spending review”, but that seems to be precisely what is said in the agreement. I am most confused about what the exact sequence of all these events will be, because if proper scrutiny is not allowed for, there will be a democratic deficit. After all, legislative change could be required. One would have thought that it was a good idea to have pre-legislative scrutiny—we agreed that in the past, but now it has apparently been forgotten. One would have thought that it was a good idea for the various Select Committees to be involved. That was supposed to happen in the new Parliament.

This was supposed to be the new dawn, if I may use the pun again, whereby Parliament, and not just the Front-Bench team, would have an important role in the process. [Interruption.] I am asked, “Where are the speakers?” A good question. I have been in this Parliament for a number of years and taken a strong interest in defence, yet there are some defence debates that I have not bothered to attend. Let me explain why—because I was not going to sit here for six hours to get three minutes to speak. We debated the whole matter of the replacement of the nuclear deterrent in six hours, and two hours of that were taken up with a ping-pong Punch and Judy show at the front. Back Benchers who had an interest in the matter were not allowed to speak because the great and the good came in for that debate and they were given priority in the pecking order. What we need to do is to look at the process: it is not just process in the Ministry of Defence that needs looking at, but the processes here. We need to scrutinise them, and having the McKinsey book of boys consultancy, or whatever, applied in the MOD is not going to hack that. Well, the Foreign Secretary was trained by that book, so presumably he can make a contribution to it all, but that is not going to be important for the public’s understanding.

If we are truly committed to taking people with us when it comes to a serious set of choices, we have to address the public, and we have to provide them with information—ground truth, that is what we need here. This is not a party issue. It is about information, reality and understanding. The Government are effectively claiming that, at last, we have an integrated and coherent process that deals with the issues and lays out the involvement of all the different Departments—but they should do it, not just claim it. From what I have heard today and from how I see the sequencing of events, they will not, in fact, be doing that. It will still be a case, as mentioned earlier, of working in silos, with each individual service doing its bit. The rubber heels at the MOD will do their bit, and everyone else will do their bit—and it will be in bits, and no matter how high they are piled up, bits do not make a strategy.

This issue is too important for such an approach. We are at the beginning of a period of change. The Government are setting an agenda for a generation and committing money that will be spent in 30 years’ time. The Government know that: they know it intellectually, but they do not seem to know it in terms of how process works. They can deny it as much as they like, but the strategic nuclear deterrent will have to become part of a review. Put it in; do it properly; do it comprehensively. That sort of thing happens with DFID and when we go into Afghanistan—the comprehensive approach. Well, this is a comprehensive approach with large parts missing; that is what this SDSR is about.

I plead with the Front-Bench team to look back—or, rather, to step back—and consider the timing of events. It was argued earlier that we do not have to do all of this by a week next Wednesday; and we do not have to do it in a six-hour discussion, in which most of the people here, who represent the real people outside, will not be able to participate. That shows the dysfunctional level to which this Parliament has got to, and I thought that that was exactly the sort of dysfunctional activity that we were meant to be changing. Government Members have that opportunity, because they govern the debate; there are no Back-Bench opportunities to influence that yet. Perhaps that is something that those engaged in the discussion over Back Benchers and Parliament should try to change. Unless and until that debate takes place, whether it is prompted by the Government Front-Bench team or whether it is forced on them by those in others parts of the House, it will not be a real one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), who took us on an enchanting tour of his constituency and touched on some serious issues; I am sure he will represent his constituents excellently.

Defence spending and investment is of particular importance to my constituency, which is potentially under attack on two fronts by more than one party in the Chamber. Faslane naval base, the home of Trident, sits just outside the western end of my constituency and the Clyde shipyards working on the aircraft carriers sit just outside the eastern end. Disappointingly, the new Government have not committed to backing the new aircraft carrier projects and, frankly, have not given good enough answers today about the replacement of Trident.

At the same time, the Scottish National party Government would, if they could, try to remove Trident from Faslane, and as a consequence would run down the base there. Multilateral disarmament is a noble aim that I support, but it would be foolhardy, to say the least, to get rid of our nuclear deterrent when other countries will not. Negotiation is the best way forward. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is now in his place. I thank him for his letter to me and a few other Members last week, which came with a glossy booklet that seems to have been commissioned since his appointment. In his letter, he writes:

“The importance of defence within constituencies, but also across the country as a whole, warrants far greater attention from us all.”

I agree, and I echo those sentiments. But to give some meaning to the words, will he commit to including an assessment of the economic impact on constituencies of any decisions made as a result of the review?

The new Chancellor may be looking to the defence budget to save billions of pounds, but does he have any idea of the economic impact and financial cost to my constituents if he gets his way on defence cuts?

[Alison Seabeck]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some confusion on the Government Benches, given that the Business Secretary is clearly of the view that it is really important to keep manufacturing in the UK going, yet some of the changes that might come about could have completely the opposite effect?

[Gemma Doyle]

Yes, I do agree. I share those concerns, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

My constituents watched the demise of their world-class shipbuilding industry under the previous Conservative Government, and I can tell the House that that might have something to do with that party’s share of the vote in West Dunbartonshire even today. It has taken not years but decades to try to recover from the devastation caused by the decisions and inaction of the previous Conservative Government. We are only now in the middle of regeneration works on the former site of John Brown’s shipyard. As such, Members will understand my concerns, which arise not only from the prospect of cuts to the defence budget but the further damage that is likely to be done to my constituency because of this Government’s desire to cut public spending at the expense of vital services.

The Secretary of State should note that some 6,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the aircraft carriers alone, along with, I believe, another 4,000 jobs in other parts of the UK. Any slippage in the project could cost jobs and skills, and I urge him to give some reassurance to these workers that their jobs are safe. I mentioned that Faslane naval base is at the other end of my constituency, just outside it. Some 7,000 jobs are based there, and given that the entire submarine fleet of the Royal Navy will be based there in future, I understand that that figure will increase.

There has recently been much gnashing of teeth in the press by SNP Members concerned about the impact of cuts on defence projects and jobs in Scotland. They should stop their crocodile tears, however, because under their plans for an independent Scotland, all UK defence contracts and jobs would be lost. They advocate the scrapping of Trident and, according to reports, would be happy to see Faslane run down to become a small facility. What it would be doing in an independent Scotland I am not quite sure, but perhaps this shows that they agree with the sentiment once expressed on the Conservative Benches that unemployment is a price worth paying.

On that note, I should mention that many of my constituents work at the MOD personnel centre in Kentigern house in Glasgow. I imagine that it will be tempting to target cuts at so-called backroom staff. The Secretary of State should know, however, that the previous Government had already reduced the number of MOD civil servants by a third to maintain investment in the front line, and he should be cautious of further reducing back-up services to front-line staff.

I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an excellent article in today’s Financial Times by Professor Alison Wolf, in which she argues:

“Defence R&D matters to Britain’s manufacturing future because it offers able graduates the incentive to work as engineers and scientists rather than as bankers or analysts.”

That is an important point that those of us who support Britain’s manufacturing industries should bear in mind. Under the previous Government, the strategic review would have examined what our modern defence needs are and how we can best meet them. I am afraid that this Government will not follow our lead and will instead use the strategic review as a smokescreen for cuts.

Yesterday I attended a service to celebrate Armed Forces day in Clydebank town hall. As this is the first time I have spoken in this place on defence, I would like to put on the record my gratitude to our armed forces, although my words hardly seem adequate. We now have an entire new generation of men and women who have seen active battle, many of whom are from my generation. They are heroic men and women who serve their country with such skill and bravery. Their job is the difficult one; mine is only to speak up for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but from the tone of his argument, he seems to be suggesting that those on his Front Bench should perhaps have the opportunity to purchase off-the-peg items from overseas, rather than from British industry.

[Dan Byles]

There is a balance to be struck. In fact, before the hon. Lady intervened, my very next sentence was going to be: there is a balance to be struck between supporting our vibrant defence industry and ensuring that our soldiers get the equipment that they need in a timely manner. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck—it is not about one thing or another—but we are simply not striking it at the moment. We have to look hard at how we equip and sustain our armed forces, and we must do so as part of the strategic defence and security review, not later as a stand-alone review. I sincerely hope that that will be the case.