Defence

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

By way of disclosure, I should say that I had the privilege to serve, in a modest way, in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, and I remain a reservist soldier. I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) very much for securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).

In this brief speech, I would like to talk about defence in the broader sense of the word, because the security of our nation rests on many things, not just on how many tanks or ships we have. At times, we can be fixated by so-called heavy metal warfare: ships, planes, tanks and so on. Physical defence is important, but it should not be seen in isolation, and today I would like to talk about security and defence in the round. Having said that, it is clear that we are significantly under-resourced and underfunded. What concerns me most in terms of Government Departments is that the Treasury seems to fail to understand that the point of having an armed force is not to use it. The Treasury seems to think that if an armed force is not being used, it can be cut—that is an incredibly foolish thing to think. It encourages our generals to look for wars to justify the existence of the armed forces, and starting wars and being politically or economically unwilling to finish them—there is some truth there as regards Iraq—is at best bad strategy and potentially disastrous for this nation.

I wish to talk about strategy and whether we have one, and about how we can improve coherence in policy making. I also want to make a few suggestions for parliamentary committees, building on some of the excellent things said by my colleagues on both sides of the House. First, on strategy, it is ironic that we have so many think-tanks in this country but we seem to lack one sometimes in our national strategy. I fear we are losing the capacity and confidence to act without clinging on to the coat-tails of the European Union or United States. Indeed, the US, despite its many great benefits as an ally, has in some ways exacerbated that problem. The great Oxford historian Sir Hew Strachan argues:

“a power which possesses overwhelming force has less need of strategy”

because it has so much power. That has resulted in thoughtlessness, definitely in Iraq and perhaps to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. We have been somewhat corrupted by that thought as well, because our strategy in the past 20 years seems to have been to cobble together just enough kit to take part at a meaningful level in a US-led coalition, so that we can have a political voice at the top table.

That strategy is now under pressure. First, the US has been disengaging—regardless of what one thinks of President Trump—slowly from Europe for the past three presidencies and the Russians are now a threat, with what they call “contemporary military conflict”, using both military and non-military tools.

[Mrs Moon]

One thing has been worrying me a great deal. A number of people have cited Russia as a growing threat, but it would be dangerous to ignore the threat from the south, which still exists. Is it therefore not time we stopped focusing simply on the threat from the east and recognised the threat from the south, which has not gone away?

[Mr Seely]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I talk about the threat from the east because I would like to bring this in a bit later and I am trying to finish a thesis on contemporary Russian warfare. But she is right that in many ways the non-conventional warfare threat—migration and chaos—is represented in our southern flank. She makes a valid point and I thank her for it.

Post-Brexit, it is critical for our nation that we have a powerful security and defence policy, one that not only projects our identity—our values and our brand, if you like—but provides balanced and comprehensive security. Part of that is about remaining a powerful player on the world stage across the spectrum of effects. We are trying to be more holistic, and the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre in Shrivenham, with which I have done a little work over the years, has done some important work looking at national strategy in many of the joint doctrine publication documents it has written. According to the DCDC, our national strategy rests on political, military and economic power, but I wonder whether that is not quite subtle enough for today’s world. In defence, we need to be thinking about humanitarian power, governmental power, cyber capability, cultural, linguistic and informational capability and public outreach. All those tools are critical because the wars and conflicts of the past 30 years, including those we have been engaged in, show that populations have become the critical information and psychological targets. If we look at the three Russian military doctrines since 1999, their two foreign policy concepts, their national security concept and their information security concept, we see that they all put the integration of military and non-military effects aimed at civilian populations as a critical characteristic of modern warfare. Indeed, we see that in Ukraine, eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Historically, the tools of grand strategy have been held at national level. Military force is one element of that defensive strategy. Nowadays, especially with Brexit happening, we have an opportunity to rethink our national strategic culture so that we can understand how we can use our past experience of strategic culture to understand the future. Basil Liddell Hart, who was perhaps our greatest military theorist ever—I am sure that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will know him well—said that we were champions of the indirect strategy. We had a powerful Navy and a small standing Army, and we used money to encourage others to fight. We used our alliances and set examples by our behaviour. We probably need to return more to that behaviour.

Let us consider the example of the Russian threat in Ukraine. We have parked some soldiers, some kit and around four planes—which is probably half the RAF these days—in the Baltic republics. Russia has used force in Ukraine and is bellicose towards the Baltic republics, so it is right that we put that kit there, but the most powerful threat to Ukraine is not necessarily the military threat, but the political and informational war, the co-option and corruption of its political leadership, and the trashing of its ability, confidence and statehood.

Our key weapon is not the planes or the troops—important though they are—but our ability to work with the Canadians, Americans, Germans and EU to provide a Marshall package and significant sums of money to Ukraine. We spend £13 billion on aid every year, and I apologise for saying this but much of it is badly spent. Here, though, is a major prize that we are not trying to attain. We spend probably £40 million in Ukraine, all in, including Department for International Development spending. We irritate the Russians by parking military kit in the Baltics, yet we do not seem to be thinking enough about the most powerful weapon we could have against Russian expansion, which is a stable Ukraine that looks like Poland, not like Russia. That is an example of haphazard strategic thinking.

We have an unbalanced foreign policy. DFID burns though money like it is going out of fashion. I had lots of pretty miserable experiences of DFID in Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember asking at the UK consulate in Basra how many DFID projects there were in southern Iraq and how much money was being spent. I was staggered that DFID could not provide an answer. For me, that summed up how DFID is sometimes profligate and lacks competence. I know that it does great work in some parts of the world, but sadly I have not seen the best of it.

At the same time, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is chronically underfunded and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, the Ministry of Defence is scraping together savings in areas in which it should not be looking to make savings. Cyber-attacks are regular in Europe—in France, Germany and the United Kingdom—and the BBC, which is a critical part of our soft-power infrastructure, even at arm’s length from the Government, is funded such that it has to exist hand-to-mouth. BBC World Service TV and radio broadcasts should be funded entirely by DFID, by looking into and rejigging the definition of official development assistance.

I shall try to make progress; I do not have too much more to say. We must look closely at defence procurement. Can we please have a level playing field? Let us buy kit from other countries to save money, but some countries, such as France, have closed markets, so why are French companies allowed to bid here when we do not have the same rights to secure contracts there?

I will seek a meeting with the Minister in the near future to discuss the need for a complex radar technology demonstrator at the BAE site in Cowes in my constituency. As the Minister knows, the BAE radar factory in Cowes produces all the radars for the carriers and the Type 45 destroyers. If we want our own indigenous radar capability, we need that technology demonstrator soon.

We should use reservists more. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a series of eloquent points about reservists—I am one myself. We need reservists, but let us also support them. The reserve unit on the Isle of Wight was saved not through the MOD’s wisdom but thanks to the remarkable work of Captain Richard Clarke and the continuing leadership of Acting Sergeant Matt Symmans, for whom I feel a certain affinity as I was an acting sergeant for much of my Army career. It is individuals punching above their weight who are saving units from closure.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, there is no redundancy in our defence system. There are so few surface ships—I think there are 17. Talk to any admiral—give them a drink or two—and they will admit that the Royal Navy at its current size cannot protect the carriers. In any conflict or at the threat of conflict with peer or near-peer nations, those carriers would go home and sit in a base because they are not protectable, unless they are to be surrounded by a US fleet. They have no protection against ship-busting ballistic missiles. If we keep reducing the armed forces in terms of personnel and kit, we will encourage violence against this nation rather than deter it.

I have some brief suggestions. Can the Foreign Affairs Committee champion the need to think about strategy and hold hearings to give platforms to leading academics so that they can discuss our national strategy and defence culture? With Brexit coming up, this is a perfect point in our history to look into our national strategy. If we leave the security review to the Government, they are going to come up with the answers that they want, not the answers that we all need and want to hear. We need to rethink DFID funding and encourage DFID to take greater responsibility in a more holistic and joined-up strategy. We need to think about defence in the round.

We need all forms of power for our security and the protection and projection of our values. We need soft power, hard power and cyber power, but most of all we need an attitude of smart and integrated power. We need to study and understand how to project that smart power at a strategic, operational and tactical level. From what I have seen on operations and here at home, we still lack that, but it is not unachievable, if the Government have the ambition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the Minister for that very good reassurance. However, that does show an example of some of the more irresponsible reporting.

[Mr Seely]

Specifically, the Chatham House report, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers, spoke about not our own missiles—I am quite concerned about the Russian stuff—but the US Minuteman being susceptible to cyber-attacks.

[Jamie Stone]

That is absolutely correct.

My final point is that the importance of the armed forces’ confidence in our politicians cannot be overestimated. When that is eroded and they feel that we are not acting in their best interests, or indeed that we do not understand what they do, it is incredibly corrosive. That, in turn, will affect their capability to defend this country if, God forbid, that time ever comes.

The point has been made about the pay gap. I have to be careful when I speak about that given the interest that I declared at the start of my remarks. There are also issues related to housing and recognition of what the armed forces do.

On behalf of my party, I applaud the tone of this debate. It is my great honour to associate my party with that tone and with the thrust of what has been said today.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Who could ever forget him? I say to my hon. Friend that I am terribly sorry—I had not seen him back there.

Let me just add a few thoughts on the threat we face, the budget constraints and personnel issues to the many cogent points that have been made in this debate. First, let me say that it is truly extraordinary that this country is in a position where the Ministry of Defence is locked in a battle with the Treasury and we are talking about desperately trying to save vital capabilities such as our amphibious capabilities, the size of the armed forces and so many others. We are scrapping merely to maintain things at their existing level, when we have heard so often and it is so obvious that the threats we are facing are expanding.

Russia has been mentioned many times in this debate. The scale of the threat posed by President Putin’s expansionist regime is not spoken about nearly enough. It is not mentioned nearly enough that, for the first time since the second world war, part of a European nation has been annexed by another European nation by force. That has almost fallen off the public and political agendas, yet it has happened and it will happen again, unless countries such as the UK can wake up to the scale of the threat we face. The values that we all hold dear are potentially in mortal danger. In an act of terrible complacency, we seemed to believe that the post-cold war consensus had settled those values for good, but they are being eroded. Even now, we are not prepared to understand the scale of the peril they are in.

We have an expansionist Russia, and we have, potentially, a similar mortal threat to our country and our values from the evil ideology of which the latest encapsulation has been Daesh. Although that organisation is crumbling, that ideology will certainly resurface in other forms. Part of the investment that this country makes to combat that ideology will extend far beyond the MOD’s capabilities, but we have seen its capacity to cohere around a capability that can control a state for a certain amount of time.

If we look just beyond Daesh’s first foothold in Iraq, we can see how in Syria our complacency about tackling Daesh and the perversion of Islam that it represents has mingled with our complacency about the threat posed by Russia. As has been well articulated not only today but in a Conservative Member’s question in Prime Minister’s questions this week, that has gravely diminished the UK’s standing and put a question mark not only over our capability to intervene if we wish, but over our willingness ever to do so, despite the fact that our values are threatened.

We have those two weaknesses coming together, as epitomised in Syria. We do not know what the future of the European Union will be after the UK leaves, but we have drawn a red line in respect of areas of future co-operation, so we must have our own capability outside the EU. America is retreating into itself. Aside from the monstrosities of President Trump’s regime, we simply cannot rely on America coming to the aid of our values in Europe.

[Mr Seely]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point—I do not like President Trump any more than he does—but in the US it is an Administration, not a regime. There are regimes in Cuba and Russia, because their democracies are questionable. I know that some of us do not like the American Administration, but it is an Administration, not a regime.

[John Woodcock]

It is, and let us hope it is a one-off. I cannot remember who made this point earlier, but there has been a real question mark over the US’s enduring willingness to engage around the world that dates from before the current Administration. The fact that we can have someone such as President Trump shows that our complacent reliance on the Americans must go forever, even if—God willing—we get someone we can actually trust with the nuclear button in the future.

We have this budget process whereby we have to plead for even current levels of defence spending to be maintained. Let me say another thing on that—this has been mentioned by a number of people. In fact, this is the first time that I can recall agreeing so substantially with Scottish National party Members on an issue—I am sorry to have to break that to them. It must be the case now that the Government act to take the Dreadnought programme out of the Ministry of Defence’s budget and deal with it through the Treasury reserve. I was privileged to be an adviser to the previous Labour Government for a number of years. I remember quite clearly the agreement that the then Defence Secretary, now Lord Hutton, reached with the then Chancellor, now Lord Darling, over restoring what had historically been the position that the nuclear deterrent would be treated outside the MOD’s budget. It was a grave act of complacency by this Government, which came to power in 2010, to rip up that agreement. While I was waiting to speak just now, I tried to refresh my memory of what happened then. I came across the way in which the then Chancellor, George Osborne, announced it at the time. In justifying the decision, he said:

“All budgets have pressure. I don't think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence.”

Well, absolutely. As we have heard from so many speakers, the MOD’s budget, with the capabilities that it is defending, is unique. Even if that complacency was justifiable back then, which it was not, it is deeply worrying that we now have another Chancellor who is potentially adhering to that line of thinking, when all the developments in the world since then have shown that, actually, we did not understand the level of threat we were facing.

In conclusion, let me turn to personnel, but in a different sense from that which has been cogently spoken about by a number of Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this magnificent debate in which we have heard a series of robust, resilient and passionate contributions, not least from my immediate predecessor in speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). He represents a fine shipbuilding town that has a critical stake in the future of the defence equipment programme.

I think it is fair to say that there has been consensus, and that it is a source of great dismay, among everyone present today that every year of this Government has seen a steady decline in defence spending as a percentage of GDP, from 2.4% in 2011 to 1.9% in 2016. Not only has it declined in every year of this Government, but it is lower than in any year of the previous Labour Government. Those figures, damning as they are about the Government’s real commitment to defence, belie the true criticality of the situation. A letter published by former defence chiefs during the general election last year called the 2% target “an accounting deception” and added:

“Most analysts…agree core defence expenditure for hard military power is well below 2%.”

Not only is real defence spending well below the purported 2% target minimum, but its effective purchasing power is being eroded year on year; as many Members will know, the defence rate of inflation runs well above the national rate. In 2015-16, for example, the defence inflation rate was 3.9%, the highest since 2010, while the national GDP deflator was just 0.8%. That relentless pressure on defence resources explains the litany of cuts stemming from the 2010 and 2015 strategic defence and security reviews. Most notable in its absurdity has been the scrapping of the Nimrod MRA4 programme mere months before it entered service, squandering £3.4 billion and leaving the UK with no maritime patrol aircraft for at least a decade.

In recent months, the Army has been cut by a fifth, wages have been frozen for a sustained period and no Royal Navy ships have been on patrol in international waters over Christmas for the first time in history. That is an absurdity and a really depressing situation. We continue to see the playing out of chaotic and wrong-headed thinking on procurement of defence, most notably in the recent national shipbuilding strategy. Yesterday, I had the privilege of chairing the latest meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding. We heard further testimony about the urgent need to improve key elements of the strategy if we are to achieve the best effects possible for our national shipbuilding sector.

Key themes seem to be emerging from the ongoing process of discussion with key stakeholders in industry and in the defence community. The national shipbuilding strategy must both define and outline measures to safeguard key industrial capabilities. It is breathtaking that the strategy has taken no steps to define the minimum sovereign capabilities that we need to sustain as a nation in the shipbuilding industry or to prescribe how we achieve and sustain those capabilities.

The strategy must also commit to investment that will ensure that those key industrial capabilities, once defined, are modernised to be world class. That was the case under the previous defence industrial strategy created by the Labour Government in 2005; it designated that the Clyde shipbuilding industry would be the key deliverer of the nation’s complex warships and prescribed a solution that would allow that industry to become world class by developing what was called a frigate factory or modern dock facility. That would deliver an integrated, consolidated site achieving the efficiencies necessary to deliver the defence capability for the Navy at an effective value for money cost.

We also recognise as a result of this process that a distributed block build strategy as defined by the national shipbuilding strategy is not suitable for frigates such as the Type 31E as it will actually drive up unit costs to manufacture; they would best be built in that consolidated world-class facility, with the benefits from learning curves and efficiency from integrated production. The national strategy must also recognise clearly that there is a huge opportunity for that distributed block build strategy in the next tranche of royal fleet auxiliary ships to be procured: the three fleet solid support vessels with a displacement of 40,000 tonnes—a scale suitable for such a strategy. No one site in the UK would be capable of building such a ship alone. That is the key opportunity: to use that distributed block build strategy to sustain shipbuilding capacity across all the multiple sites in the UK and maintain the resilience of the defence supply chain. I would like to insist that the Minister consider applying the treaty on the functioning of the European Union article 346 protection in the case of the new solid fleet support ships to ensure that there is a UK-only competition to build those new complex royal fleet auxiliary ships.

[Mr Seely]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says as I have the same problem. Does he agree that, as well as having shipbuilding as a core strategic industry, we need to keep radar capacity in my constituency and others? We need radar demonstrators to ensure that we continue development of radar in this country for those ships in the next 50 years.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent contribution. What he says is absolutely critical. When we think of shipbuilding, we often just consider the hull of the ship. However, when we see a ship launch into the water for the first time, we are seeing perhaps only 8% of the value of the overall project, even though structurally it looks like much more. The real value is in the ship as a platform for multiple other high-value defence capabilities. A good example is the multi-function SAMPSON radar. It is manufactured on the Isle of Wight and constitutes a large share of the overall cost of the Type 45 programme. That is where we need the pipeline of capability: not just in the front-end shipbuilding capability, but in the second and third-tier supply chain.

Our RFA capability provides an opportunity to pump-prime our national shipbuilding capability. According to the latest figures compiled by the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde, shipbuilding on the Clyde alone contributes £231 million a year to GDP in the UK and—critically—generates, in addition, a multiplier of £366 million a year across the wider defence supply chain. That includes the facility in the constituency of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). It is critical that we use the national shipbuilding strategy to involve that wider supply chain and so maximise the value to the UK economy.

The all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair yesterday discussed how we gave the contract for the latest fleet support tankers to Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering in South Korea. The cost of building them there was equivalent to the cost of building them in the UK, but the price the South Koreans offered was considerably lower than any UK shipbuilder alone could have offered. In effect, the South Korean taxpayers are subsidising the British MOD to build its ships for it. Why on earth would they do that if they did not recognise that it is a major industrial opportunity for them? Surely there must be an opportunity for the South Koreans. They would not do it simply out of generosity or altruism; they are doing it because they recognise that it is a core part of their defence industrial capability and national industrial strategy. Perhaps we ought to take a leaf out of their book by having a more active industrial strategy when it comes to defence and including those RFA ships.

There is a further issue in the national shipbuilding strategy: the financing, particularly of complex warships. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness mentioned that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer described defence as no different from any other Government Department when it came to capital expenditure. I take issue with that, as I am sure do many other Members. Defence is unique when it is commissioning complex warships such as the Type 26 and the new deterrence submarines. These two vessels alone constitute two of the most complex engineering projects every built by mankind. They are huge national, generational programmes. The idea that they ought to be constrained by in-year spend profiles is absurd, because it militates against the efficiency of the programmes. They are not managed in the same way as, say, the Olympic games, the High Speed 2 programme, Crossrail or any other large-scale infrastructure project. They are arbitrarily constrained by Treasury limits on annual spending. It is critical that we change that—this is a cultural thing in the UK—if we are to achieve the best opportunity for defence. That has to be tackled on a cross-party basis.

When I worked at BAE Systems, innovations for the Type 26 programme, which included changing to spray-on insulation, using LEDs and replacing non-structural welding with adhesives, were constrained because the MOD was not willing to adapt and innovate and apply new standards to its shipbuilding programmes. That demonstrates that it is the customer that is sclerotic in its approach to innovation in new programmes. It drives costs into projects and militates against innovations that would save costs in the long term. Those short-term constraints cast a long shadow through the life of the programme and build in an overall cost.

That is the reason for the attrition we often see in programmes such as the Type 45—originally 12 ships were meant to be built; that was cut to eight; and finally six ships were built. There is an optimism bias at the start, followed by annual constraints on spend and a structural rigidity built into the programme that fails to adapt as it goes forward and innovate with new products as new technologies emerge. That approach also insists on arbitrary competition in the supply chain, when actually long-standing relationships can be established there—for example, with gear box manufacturers and engine builders—that can ensure a commonality of approach and adaptability and enable ships to be built more efficiently. A year-zero approach for every programme duplicates costs and adds complexity that could easily be avoided.

All that ought to change. We have a huge opportunity. We have seen the bigger picture. The root cause is the relentless decline in defence spending as a share of GDP. The Chair of the Defence Select Committee mentioned that it has halved as an overall percentage of national wealth in the last two decades or so since the end of the cold war. That is the root cause, but we could certainly provide mitigation in the meantime by more efficiently managing the remaining resources we do receive and managing our defence equipment programme in a more resilient and innovative way.

Hopefully I have presented some practical opportunities to improve the national shipbuilding strategy that can help us to achieve a future fleet of the scale and capability that we need to sustain British military power around the world in the coming decades. I look forward to the Minister offering his view on that.