NATO: Member State Spending

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for having instigated this debate. I congratulate him on that and would like to follow on from some of the points that he has helpfully made. It is timely that we should have this debate so soon after the change in the Administration in the United States. Quite frankly, there has not been too much to cheer President Trump for over the past few weeks. However, we must begin by expressing a sense of relief that during the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington, he managed to bring himself to say that he has 100% support for NATO. That is most welcome and a relief. We must especially commend him for again raising the way in which some NATO states, especially in the European sector, remain freeloaders in supporting NATO.

As the noble Lord said, it was only two years ago, in 2014, that all the NATO countries solemnly got together at the Welsh summit and committed themselves to spending 2% of GDP on defence. Following on from what the noble Lord said about the UK spending 2%, according to the statistics in the most helpful Library briefing pack, current UK spending on defence is 2.1%. When the Minister replies, will he say whether the Government believe that this is the correct figure? If it is, surely it kills all the arguments of those who say that in justifying 2% we are loading various other costs on to the defence budget. The costs to which the noble Lord referred—pensions is one—are easily absorbed in the excess over 2% which the UK is now spending.

Where have we got to two years after the Welsh summit? I find it quite extraordinary that four European states are still spending less than 1% of GDP on defence. For many years I have been a delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I was very recently vice-president and I am currently chairman of one of the committees and a member of the standing committee and the bureau. For years it has been thought rather bad form and bad manners to draw attention to those states that do not shape up. The time has come to put the record straight. Let us put it on the record now. According to the statistics in the Library’s briefing, Slovenia is still spending 0.94%, Spain 0.91%, Belgium, if you please, 0.85%, and Luxembourg, one of the richest countries in Europe, 0.44%—less than half of 1%.

The noble Lord referred to the background we face, with Russia rattling its sabre on NATO’s eastern frontier. Following the outrageous transgressions of Russia in recent years in Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea and Ukraine and, as the noble Lord said specifically, in placing highly offensive weapons in the Kaliningrad part of Russia next to the Baltic states, it is worth pointing out that NATO is responding to the situation, which reflects the urgency that NATO clearly feels. We are in the process of deploying battalion-sized battle groups to three Baltic states and Poland—the United States leading the one to Poland, Canada to Latvia, Germany to Lithuania, and the United Kingdom to Estonia. The battle groups will be in place in order to ensure that any offensive action by the Russians in any of those states in taking on the battle groups will be a clear transgression of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

I have already referred to the member states who spend less than 1% of GDP on defence, but, there are 14 who are still spending less than 1.5%. The figures on page 5 of the Library briefing are extraordinarily helpful. They include rich countries which should not be in this position. I have already referred to Belgium and Luxembourg in the under 1% group, but those in the under 1.5% group include rich countries such as Denmark, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

One might ask what they are doing to put defence spending closer to their solemn commitments. This makes dismal reading. Looking again at the statistics the Library has produced, in the last year Belgium has decreased its spending by 5.3%, Croatia by 8.8% and Poland, surprisingly, by 7.8%. It is a dismal picture—it is a disgrace, quite frankly—given the antics of Mr Putin as we see them. I hope the Government will tell us of the positive and timely steps they are taking to name and shame, as I have tried to do tonight in the House, and that they will use every effort to persuade these countries in the strongest terms to come to the figure they all solemnly agreed two years ago at the Welsh summit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I accept that clarification; it is very helpful. I must admit that I am more concerned in a way about things such as pensions, particularly civilian pensions. What on earth are we doing including those in defence spending? If I was in Luxembourg right now, I would be thinking very hard about our accountancy system. I say to the Minister and to my own Front Bench that we should ask all NATO members to spell out what is included in that defence spending. I would not expect to see pensions and contributions to United Nations peace- keeping. We should take quite a hard line on that because, if we did, the figures would look much worse, but at least we could address the matter more seriously.

[Lord Jopling]

It might be helpful to have what the noble Lord suggests, but also let us point out that if defence spending is 2.21%, which the Library says it is—that same figure appeared in the Times only a few weeks back—it is worth roughly £4 billion, which is a massive amount of spending on top of the 2%.

[Lord Soley]

I understand and accept that point, which the noble Lord made very clear in his contribution, but I simply say that if we have a system where we include such things as defence expenditure, first, it opens the door to other countries which are paying in very little to do exactly the same—if they are not already doing it—and, secondly, it does not really help to say, “Well, because we’re spending a bit more, it covers that up”. Covering it up is not the answer. We are here to hold Governments to account, as I am sure the Minister will know. The aim is not to have accountancy of this type. That is where the Government have to answer.

I want to conclude on a wider point which is entirely political. We have talked about the potential threat from Russia, terrorism and other issues. What we do not look at in this current debate about Brexit is how Europe will change. We are so focused on the changes that the United Kingdom has to make, but we need also to focus on what will happen in the European Union, which cannot stay the same as it is now unless it is to have more problems of the type it has had with Brexit. There is discontent in Europe for a variety of reasons—they are not all the same as those here, but many are similar.

One of my concerns in this context was brought out by Mr Tusk’s comments on Mr Trump. He said that we should now see the United States as one of the risks faced by Europe. That is a dangerously unwise statement to make, but where it is true is that there is a problem about the relationship now between the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. We need to think that through in other areas. My strong view is that we need a settlement where Britain comes out of the European Union—I do not think that there is any going back on that in the near future; some people may disagree—but it does not come out of Europe. We must recognise that we need, and Europe needs, a very close relationship—indeed, a special relationship—between the EU and the UK. One way to do that—and it is not discussed in the present debate about Brexit—is via our expertise and our contribution in defence and international relations. Europe needs that as much as we do. In the current situation, we need to do more than just step up to the plate; we need to take a lead on defence and international relations in a way that not only reassures Europe that we are not walking away from it but helps cement what will have to become a special relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

For all those reasons—and I recognise the economic priorities around—we need to increase the spending, not to get back to Cold War proportions but to recognise the threat from President Putin and the threats in the rest of world. I would also make a special plea for paying a bit more attention to how all the nations within NATO account for the money they provide. It is not sufficient to say that it is all right to use it for pensions and United Nations peacekeeping. If we allow that philosophy to go any further, let us not be surprised if other countries use it, too. That is a seriously bad idea for all of us.