(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberThe RFA provides a crucial service for the Royal Navy and our operations across the region and the world. My noble friend is right to point out the importance of that crew. We continue to discuss with them, their unions and their crews how we can support them in respect of their welfare, because we recognise the significance and importance of those crews.
My Lords, I used to deal with mines a little, in clearance and so on. What is it that we cannot do now that we used to be able to do? Can we not just clear mines as we used to do, or is that too difficult?
That is an interesting question. I will talk about the way in which the Royal Navy is developing. It used to be that the provision of a mine-hunting ship was the way in which mine-hunting activity was conducted. In looking for an expression of power and symbolism, a mine-hunter still has a role to play, and we still have mine-hunting ship capability. However, as you can see with the development of RFA “Lyme Bay” and the protection that HMS “Dragon” provides for it, should that permissive environment come forward, RFA “Lyme Bay” is the future of providing the mine-hunting capability that the noble Lord rightly points to. We have a big platform upon which there are numerous uncrewed systems, weapons and so on that we can use above, on or under the water. In this case, they provide a real, modern capability and capacity, working with our friends and allies, to deal with mines and to help in respect of the mine clearance.
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of GCAP and how it offers a sixth-generation option for us after 2040, when Typhoon is expected to go out of service. There is money in the defence investment plan for the upgrade of Typhoon to ensure that it has the capability that it needs until 2040. Regarding other partners in GCAP, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are open to discussions with anybody who comes to us with proposals or desires to join that programme, but that will be a matter for international negotiation between ourselves, Italy and Japan, although we are not opposed to looking at having further partners as part of that scheme.
My Lords, may I say that this is a disappointment, to put it mildly? I am on the same side as the Minister on this. This, I assume, was what led John Healey to resign—I suspect that it was the same document. Given that, does he think that any other Minister should resign, given the appalling lack of money in the Statement?
There is an additional £1.5 billion, and there are also some changes with respect to the way in which there is a greater emphasis in this document on autonomy, AI and the transformation of the Armed Forces to have more new types of aircraft, vessels and capabilities. For me, that is as important as the amount of money, compared with not spending on new capabilities. But I would just say to the noble Lord that it requires difficult decisions to do that. On replacing the Type 45, we have scrapped the plans that we had in the document in favour of replacing them with new, uncrewed vessels. That requires us to make really big decisions, and there are a number of those sorts of decisions all through the document. Of course there is a debate about the amount of money, which is why I have talked about the 2027 spending review, but it is also about the type of capabilities that we need. The document shows that we are not afraid to make big decisions around that to give us the capabilities that we need in the future as well.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord’s fundamental point is a good one. That is why the Government have consistently said that they will act in accordance with international law—and we call on all states to act in accordance with international law. I know that sometimes people find this frustrating, but what moral status would we have, when calling other nations to respect and to co-operate according to international law, if we ourselves do not respect it? This is the point that we are making: we will always act in accordance with international law, and we expect all other countries to do the same, not only in the Strait of Hormuz but anywhere in the world.
Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, agree with me that this is a very dire situation? I am not necessarily laying any blame at this Government’s door, but it is an awful situation where we do not have a single ship in the Middle East and we do not have any ships to send there. We are actually a rather sad Navy.
The noble Lord has made his point about the Navy and the words he used will have been heard by everyone. The point that I am making in response is that, as we move forward, the question will be about not only the number of ships but the types of capabilities that we have to deal with the threats that we face. The Navy of the future will not be the Navy of today or of the past. That is why the conversion of RFA “Lyme Bay”—although I stress again that no decision has been taken to deploy it—in order for it to operate as a mothership for drones flying above, on or beneath the water, is a significant development. The noble Lord will see that the Navy of the future will include not only ships, submarines and other similar vessels but these types of developments—that is an important point that we all ought to grasp.
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI thank my noble friend for the question. We are trying to do a whole range of different things. He will know that, as well as the measures that I have talked about against the “Yantar”, we have Operation Baltic Sentry—in the Baltic Sea, obviously—which is NATO monitoring, run from Northwood, to track what is going on there. We have Nordic Warden, which is a JEF operation as well, with maritime capabilities, alongside P-8s. There is a whole range of different things that are taking place. The defence investment plan will be published this year; let us see what is in that in terms of the increase in capability to deal with this threat.
My Lords, I understand the difficulty of the Minister; I am not trying to stir things up, I assure him. But supposing a laser had brought down the aircraft by disabling the pilot, what would we consider that? Would we consider it an act of war?
To be clear, I am not in any difficulty answering the question from the noble Lord, but I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about what we would do if this or that happened. The noble Lord has much more experience in military matters than I do, so he will recognise how serious it would be if I misspoke in answer to his question. So I am not evading the question but, in the interest of the country, it is sometimes best to have these discussions in private.
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI will look at the specific example that my noble friend has raised about the awarding of that contract. As well as that example, I could give others of where we have been successful in ensuring that shipbuilding is seeing something of a renaissance in our country, not least the recent winning of the contract from Norway for Type 26 frigates on the Clyde. That was an enormous boost to British shipbuilding and to that part of Scotland. That is the sort of example that we want to build on, but I will look at the example that my noble friend raised.
My Lords, those who know about defence procurement—as the Minister does; I am encouraged by much of what he says—know that it is incredibly bureaucratic. That slows down any decisions —I do not know whether it has affected this decision—for UK-made kit rather than buying stuff off the shelf. Can the Minister please look carefully at how we can get rid of some of the bureaucracy surrounding defence procurement?
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberI thank the noble and gallant Lord his question. He will know that one of the parameters of my noble friend Lord Robertson’s defence review is to look at the threats and at the capabilities needed within the envelope of 2.5%. Any country would have to determine what it believes it can afford and is necessary. The defence review will come forward with the threat assessment, and then it will be for the Government to determine, with the defence panel, how we meet those threats going forward.
My Lords, I have a high regard for the Minister—that may damn his career—and he will know that I was not entirely supportive of the previous Government’s defence spending. However, the time is now: the war is raging in Ukraine and, as he knows, it is getting worse and worse. Furthermore, as was just pointed out, the arbitrary figure of 2.5% of GDP is not nearly enough. We need to prioritise defence spending and to really up it—perhaps double it, for goodness’ sake—to where we were back in the Cold War, when we held the deterrent to keep Russia at bay.
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberI thank my noble friend for his question. As he knows, we can say to the President of the United States that we will meet the cast-iron 2.5% commitment and will set that out in due course. We understand that European countries need to increase their defence spending; 23 of the NATO nations are now spending 2.5%, so that is a very real commitment. The American President will also be pleased to hear that this country is leading a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific—as we know, China is of particular interest to the incoming President as well as the current one. We will work with them to deliver that capability.
My Lords, there is already a bloody war being waged on the continent of Europe. Putin is waging war on us through cyberattacks and Litvinenko, the Skripals, et cetera. Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, agree that 2.5% is not enough?
The Government have made a commitment to 2.5%; the previous Government made a commitment to 2.5% by 2030. We will see what happens, but we commit to look at the 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. We also want to ensure that we have the capability to meet the threats we face. Let us be clear about this: the UK is the leading nation in Europe, along with the United States and our European allies, standing up against Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The message needs to come from this Chamber that this country will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to deter Russian aggression.