Defence Spending

Richard Drax Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point.

With these major shortcomings in our defence, it was alarming that a report by the Royal United Services Institute published this week suggests that the defence budget might be cut by 10% after the next election. Talk that Britain has the fifth largest defence budget—and the second largest in NATO—rings hollow when MOD reforms are cutting manpower, capabilities and the armed forces’ capacity to deploy force. Some estimates suggest that we rank 30th in the world in our ability to deploy force overseas, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) told us of the extent of the American concern about this issue.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. If we see defence cuts of another 10% after the election, another major concern will be the impact on our special forces. If we have an Army of 50,000 or 60,000, we will reduce the ability to recruit men into our special forces—currently probably the most respected in the world—and that will have a significant effect on our ability to project force.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a very valid point, but time is pressing and this is a popular debate, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

At the very least, the British Government should fulfil their NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Having implored fellow NATO members to reach this level at last year’s NATO summit, which we hosted, falling below this level ourselves would be a grave mistake as well as a national embarrassment. Given current levels, it would be a dangerous message to send to the Kremlin.

The past decade of questionable military interventions may have bred a reticence among the political establishment on defence. This must end. We must banish these demons and recognise the greater danger of state-on-state threats, which never really went away. It is essential that we have the capability to protect ourselves, our interests and our allies. Reassessing our defence spending should go hand in hand with a wider reappraisal of how we approach foreign policy generally. Budgets have fallen at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our key soft power institutions, such as the BBC World Service and the British Council, have suffered accordingly. This has resulted in a dilution of skills that has hindered policy making and reduced our options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Ind)]

I strongly agree with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I also pay particular tribute to the impressive and remarkable speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who explained the practical implications of our situation in a very detailed and convincing way. I shall not repeat the points that he made, because they were made so well by him.

Let me begin by emphasising that this debate is not just about defence expenditure, but something far wider. If we continue to make cuts in our defence budget of the kind that are being contemplated, we shall find that we are making a profound and irreversible change not just to our defence capability, but to the ability of the United Kingdom to conduct a global foreign policy with authority, conviction and credibility. That, in essence, is the fundamental choice that we are being asked to contemplate.

We have had these cuts over a number of years. I have not until now criticised the Government for their defence cuts over the five years of this Parliament, for several reasons. First, I have recognised—as have most of us—that in a period of great austerity it is of course impossible to remove the contribution that the Ministry of Defence, given the size of its budget, might be able to make to resolving matters. I was privileged to serve as Secretary of State for Defence, and I had to implement defence cuts myself, so I am very conscious of the pressures that exist, and the need to try to find a way of resolving them.

[Richard Drax]

May I counter that argument by saying that, with defence, if we cut ships, regiments or planes, we cannot just reinvent them when we need them? It takes months or years to bring them back.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My hon. Friend helps to take me to exactly the next point I was going to make. What also enabled me to modify my concerns—to not feel the need to speak out during those few years—was the way in which the MOD addressed the difficult decisions it had to make. To a considerable extent, it tried to preserve the major improvements to our overall capability —our carrier capability, for example, and the need to renew the Trident submarines because of our strategic requirements. A lot of the reductions were made in the areas of manpower. That is painful and difficult, but the reality is that if we had cancelled the carriers, they could never have been reintroduced. That would be gone for ever, with profound and permanent impacts on our maritime capability. When we reduce Army manpower, it is painful, but the changes can be reversed, if the resources are available and the need is there, over not too long a period. That will still be difficult, but it can be done without the implications that come from a major reduction in capability.

Perhaps the most important thing that reassured me—rightly, I hope—over the last five years was the clear assurance that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave that once we had resolved the immediate economic crisis, and had economic growth and economic development, there would be, as an absolute necessity, real-terms increases, year on year, in our defence expenditure. That was, so far as anything can seem to be a commitment, a commitment at the very highest levels of our Government five years ago, and we have been told ever since that that remains the Prime Minister’s view.

We face a most extraordinary situation. The Government say—I happen to agree with them—that the United Kingdom is going through a period of remarkable economic recovery. We are now one of the strongest economies in Europe, we are told; our economic growth is now higher than that of almost any other country in Europe, and our employment situation has improved. All these economic developments, which will rightly be very important in the forthcoming general election, are being shown as examples of how we have succeeded in our strategy, and how the UK is therefore stronger than many other countries in the western world. Yet ironically, simultaneously, precisely because our GDP is growing substantially, meeting that 2% requirement becomes that much more difficult, if not unattainable. It is a great irony that the more our economy improves, the more we seem likely to fall below the 2% requirement, when the reverse should be the case: if our economy is growing and doing well, it should be easier to find the resources required, because the revenues coming into Government will also increase considerably. That irony is not one that I have yet heard explained.

I hope that when the Minister winds up, he can reassure us on how we will benefit from the remarkable economic growth for which we are taking the credit. We certainly did not expect increases in defence spending when the economy was in a mess. Now it seems to be much healthier. I recognise that the budget deficit continues, but that is only part of the overall economic situation.

Something else worries me, too, and it has been mentioned by colleagues and those outside this House. Of course this 2% is a nominal figure, a totem, and it is the real resources that are important, but I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile a cavalier approach towards the 2% objective, which we have held for many years, with saying that overseas development is somehow untouchable, and indeed may have to be given statutory protection in the current economic circumstances. Indeed, it now has statutory protection of a kind that I find extraordinary. These are very curious situations.

The consequence of what is happening, particularly if it continues after the general election, will be not just pain for our armed forces and their capability, but an irreversible change to Britain’s ability to conduct a credible foreign policy. After the United States, our armed forces and those of France are unique around the world. We are the only other two countries that have been able to make a meaningful contribution—albeit that we come far behind the United States—to providing a global deployment of armed forces to assist with overall issues of global security. Our role and credibility in the Security Council of the United Nations as not just a member, but a permanent member, is because of our ability to contribute towards security. That is what the Security Council is all about.

Our foreign policy is conducted on the basis of three assets that we have: first, of course, our diplomatic capability, which is impressive, although it has been under considerable strain in recent years; secondly, our intelligence capability, which is strong, and I pay credit to the Government for the resources provided there; and, thirdly, our military capability. The UK’s military capability is in a serious condition, of a kind that we are all familiar with, and that has an impact on our diplomatic credibility.

I read some years ago a remark that I have used since—colleagues may have heard me use it. It is attributed to Frederick the Great: “Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.” That remains true, not because we will necessarily always wish to use our armed forces, but because if we are pursuing, with good faith, a desire to develop a political and diplomatic solution to some intractable problem—there is a perfect example in our relations with Russia and Mr Putin at present—the fact that we have as the ultimate back-stop a military capability has a significant and profound impact on the likelihood of our delivering the result that we are trying to obtain. However, if we are seen as once having had that military capability, but as having opted, as a deliberate act of Government policy, to reduce that capability so that it remains significant but is not in any profound sense impressive, we will have seriously reduced our diplomatic clout and made the ultimate problem that much greater.

It is always dangerous to draw comparisons with the 1930s, but we know perfectly well that those in Berlin who were planning aggression believed that the western democracies were incapable of providing the resources required for a strong defence, and that influenced their foreign policy. I am not saying that the threats that we face today are of that order, or that the individuals concerned are comparable to the people who led Germany at that time—of course that would be unfair—but the fundamental principle is nevertheless the same.

What I beg of the Government, or any Government who emerge after the general election, is that they do not ask the facile question, “Does this win votes? Are the public demanding it? Is this therefore something we must respond to, or it will hurt us politically?” If a Government have one justification in a democratic society, it is that they do not just follow, or seek to follow, public opinion, but occasionally recognise the need to lead public opinion, and to take decisions that may involve painful choices, and that may be difficult in terms of newspaper headlines, but may have profound and beneficial impacts on our ability to make our contribution to sorting out some of the problems of the world.

Looking around the world, there are very few countries indeed that combine strong democratic institutions, genuine respect for the rule of law, and a military capability that can help build up security, restore peace and achieve the global objectives with which this country has always been proud to be associated. Let it not be the legacy of this Government, or any Government who emerge after this election, that we can no longer say that or make that contribution, not because the public rejected the idea, but because politicians failed to provide the right level of leadership.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I commend all who have spoken, especially the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I have the privilege of being a member of the Committee but do not attend as often as I might like because of other commitments back home in Northern Ireland to do with the peace process, but what he said made a lot of sense. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), vice-Chair of the Committee, made an excellent contribution, too. It has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee during this Parliament. The work that it has done has been of real value, and when a cross-party Committee of this nature comes together and says clearly to the Government that a minimum of 2% of GDP should be allotted to defence spending, the Government should listen to the wisdom of that Committee. We look at these issues week in and week out, taking evidence and examining all the facts.

Judging by what I have heard today, there is a high degree of support for the need to get on with the task of strengthening our armed forces and the United Kingdom’s defences, especially in the light of our improved economic conditions. Other speakers have rightly said that the world around us is changing, as is the nature of the threat against the United Kingdom and our allies. That threat emerges in various locations, and our capacity is being spread and stretched. I know that there are plans to enhance and improve our armed forces, but we believe that it will be critical for the incoming Government to make a clear commitment to spending 2% of our GDP on defence.

I shall go further than that. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said about the debate not being party political, and I entirely accept that. However, the Democratic Unionists are a small regional party in this Parliament and we might have some influence over who forms the next Government. Let me therefore place clearly on record, so that there can be no doubt, and so that this does not become a bargaining chip—it will not—that we will only support a Government of this nation who make the commitment to a minimum of 2% of GDP being spent on defence. That is not a party political comment; it is simply something that we believe to be important.

We have been accused in the past of focusing our interest narrowly on Northern Ireland. It has been said that when it comes to negotiating with coalition Governments or in confidence and supply arrangements, we will always be there with the begging bowl on behalf of Northern Ireland, but that is not the case. We have spelled out today certain key areas on which we want the next Government to make commitments on national issues. We are focusing on the national need and what is in the interests of the United Kingdom, and right at the top of that list are the defence and security of this nation and the need for a commitment to 2% of our national income being spent on defence. I agree that it is not enough just to make that commitment, and that it needs to be made clear how the money will be spent. It must be spent wisely and it must be prioritised towards the areas in which it is required.

Looking at the world around us, we see that we have two aircraft carriers under construction. The Queen Elizabeth is now being fitted out and the Prince of Wales is being built. There must be certainty that both ships will be brought into service and properly equipped with airframes and aircraft. We need a credible carrier force. That will be an essential component of our defence strategy’s capacity and global reach, not only in defending this nation’s security but in providing security to our allies. That needs to be a priority.

If I may say so, one of the mistakes that this Government made was to scrap our surveillance aircraft and to cut up the Nimrod aircraft. That was frankly an act of madness. We now have Russian aircraft flying around the coastline of the United Kingdom but we do not have the capacity to deal with it properly. We need to do something about that. That is an area of our armed forces that could, with extra expenditure, be re-equipped, to enable surveillance globally but particularly around the shores of the United Kingdom. The British Isles need defending—they need watching in the most literal sense—but our maritime surveillance capabilities are currently well below par. Vladimir Putin respects force, and we need to respect it too. We need to be able to show that we as a nation have the military capacity to defend ourselves against any possible attack.

Beyond equipment, we need to get the strategy right. Many Members have already referred to the strategic defence and security review. I stated in an earlier debate that we needed to bring forward that review, but in any event it is clear that the current SDSR is not fit for purpose, because the world has changed and things have moved on. It is therefore essential that we get the next SDSR absolutely right. We will need to know why and on what the 2% of national income will be spent, and to set that in the context of our strategic needs and defence requirements. That is not just some marketing commitment to be waved around as a policy commitment during the election. We need to know exactly what the policy will mean in terms of the numbers, what the money will be spent on, and what our strategic requirements are for national defence and security.

Beyond capabilities and strategy, we have to consider the daily needs of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I get worried when I see the provision of housing and catering for our armed forces personnel, because decisions on these matters are often taken on the basis of the lowest tender that comes into the Department. I have had many complaints from members of the armed forces about the quality of the services that are put in place to support them. We need to improve on that. It should not always be about the lowest tender.

[Richard Drax]

I am listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Does he agree that we do not give sufficient consideration to the funding for treating those who have been wounded once they return to this country? Does he acknowledge how much our armed forces have to rely on charity to take care of those who have been wounded, both physically and mentally?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The military charities play an important role in supporting our veterans, but the military covenant must mean something and it must be real. I still meet too many armed forces veterans who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been abandoned after a number of years. That applies particularly to those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, as a result of Operation Banner being conducted in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years, we have a large number of ex-security force and ex-military personnel suffering from PTSD, and recent research has shown that the number is growing. The armed forces charities are really struggling to support those personnel, and more needs to be done. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that if we are going to increase our spending we should ensure that our veterans, especially those who have been injured on operational deployment, get the support, care and treatment that they need, and that they can continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, have been awestruck by what I have heard this afternoon, not least the speech we have just heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) who made a fantastic speech from the Opposition Benches.

Tribute has been paid to the armed forces this afternoon, but I do not think that we can pay high enough tribute to them. Year after year and throughout history, we in this place have sent our armed forces into harm’s way. Ultimately, we decide how to finance and nurture them, and take care of them when they come home. It is a huge responsibility.

I wish to make the point to the Ministers that any comments I make—and I know others feel the same way—are not aimed personally at them. They are both honourable men. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) well and I know that he feels very strongly about the state of our armed forces.

I find it strange that defence is a partisan subject, not just in the House but as reported by commentators and others, although there is an element of truth in that even in my own party. It is suggested that the right represent the armed forces and the left represent overseas aid. That should not be the case, and I do not believe it is. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said so eloquently, it is the collective responsibility of the whole House to ensure the defence of our island and our dependants, and the meeting in full of all the commitments that we have—not least to NATO.

Allegedly, polls show that there are no votes in defence. I would like to put any politician who claims that in front of a battalion of the Coldstream Guards that has just returned from its second or third tour of Afghanistan. I do not think that that politician would return to the House in one piece. Millions have died to defend peace, democracy and freedom throughout history, many of whom were servicemen and women. Are we saying that all that sacrifice does not get any votes? Do we really mean that? I do not think we do, but what concerns me greatly is where politics has got to. I read a very good book recently about Winston Churchill, and when he was shown the results of a poll, he threw the poll in the dustbin and did completely the opposite. Some would argue that on some occasions that is rashness, but some would call it leadership. It is on subjects that do not necessarily seem to attract the voter that parties, of all political persuasions, have to lead. If we do not lead, we will endanger our country.

Expenditure on defence has never been—and I suspect never will be—a popular political topic. It is, as someone said earlier, like an insurance policy. We groan as we pay the annual fee, but we do so because when the dread day comes that we shuffle off this mortal coil, our loved ones will benefit from the investment that we have made. By God, if we did not have such an insurance policy, we would rightly be attacked by members of our family, our wives or anybody else whom we have not provided with security. That is what we should bear in mind when we debate expenditure on defence.

How many times throughout our great island history have we spent less money on defence? I am an avid reader of military history—as an ex-soldier it is particularly pertinent to me—and politicians of all colours have made the same mistake that we are making today countless times. Why do we go on making the same mistake? We are told that tanks will not rumble across the plains of central Europe. I suspect they probably will not, but I would not like to bank on it. I suspect that the Poles did not bank on their country being invaded at one end by the Russians and at the other by the Germans, but it happened. It is happening again, as we know, in Ukraine. Without defence, there will be no security at all for the other subjects we have to meet and pay for.

I would like to touch, if I may, on a very delicate subject: overseas aid. How many of us in this Chamber set ourselves a target every year to give, say, £500 to charity? I bet no one does, but if, at the end of the financial year, we had spent only £300, would we then splurge £200 on any old charity? Of course we would not. We would keep that money for a better cause. That is where I think we are getting it wrong. We have to target better what few resources we have for overseas aid. We have proof that much of the money we spend does not get to where it is intended to go.

One or two hon. Members have suggested that somehow the military should be incorporated into overseas aid. There are arguments for and against, but on the whole when it works there is no one better than the British serviceman or servicewomen to deal with such predicaments. That again has proved what an honourable and fantastic task they all do. Overseas aid has been ring-fenced. Other areas have been ring-fenced. If we cannot defend our country, our people, our dependants, meet our commitments and stand together—we are never going to stand on our own; we cannot afford to—and for the Americans to publicly now say to the world that Great Britain is not meeting its commitments, that means the position is incredibly serious. I know friends who have contacts in America. Their contacts say that they really hate saying that publicly, but they do so because they are so concerned.

It is not just hon. Members in this House who are concerned. It is the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; former US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates; former British Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth); former British Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff); former NATO Secretary-General, Anders Rasmussen; current NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg; President of the United States of America, Barak Obama; US army chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno; former defence attaché to Washington, Sir Anthony Dymock; former ambassador to the United State, Sir Christopher Meyer; former UK Chief of the General Staff, Sir Peter Wall; US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power; former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West; and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. That is by no means the whole list. It is not just us who are saying that we must meet at least—at least—the 2% commitment; it is everybody else who is looking to this island for leadership to protect all the things that we hold dear.

Defence and Security Review (NATO)

Richard Drax Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

To come to a conclusion, I am giving the four reasons why we need to spend 2%. The first, which has just been pointed out by the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), is UK credibility. The UK led the push for 2% at the Wales summit only six months ago. We stood alongside the United States and went around every other country at the summit saying, “If you’re going be serious, you have to commit 2%.” We emphasised again and again that we were spending 2% of our GDP on defence and that they should spend 2% of their GDP on defence. That was very important in getting a range of countries to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence over the next five to 10 years. The first reason why we must do it is simply out of a sense of shame. The honour and credibility of the United Kingdom are bound up in this.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Select Committee is giving a fantastic analysis of the situation. May I add my concern that 2% simply is not enough for the commitments that we will inevitably have? Our forebears fought and died for freedom and democracy. What concerns me even more is that some people do not seem to appreciate that it takes years to get ships and aircraft carriers, and to get groups and battalions reformed and retrained. Once they are gone, if we are called to action we simply will not have the manpower to deal with it.

[Rory Stewart]

That is the second point that I was coming to. The second reason why we have to spend 2% of GDP or more on defence is that we have concrete tasks that we need to perform. There are some real requirements if we are to deal with the new threat. The problem with the threat assessments since the end of the cold war is that they have been done in a vacuum. Now that we can see a threat in the form of Putin, we realise that there are considerable capacities that we need to rebuild. Those capacities cost money, so we need to invest in them.

The third reason is that deterrence is about psychology. Deterrence is about will-power and confidence; it is not just about kit. The 2% is about what Putin thinks of us; it is about whether he thinks that we are serious. Often, we think that the way to deal with a Russian conventional threat is with a conventional response, and that the way to deal with a Russian unconventional threat is with an unconventional response. Of course, the Russians, particularly Gerasimov, the chief of staff, use the phrase “asymmetric warfare”, which means that they understand very well that often one should deal with a conventional threat with an unconventional response and vice versa. One of the best ways of deterring Putin from mucking around either conventionally or unconventionally is to let him see the confidence of that NATO commitment towards 2% of GDP. As he begins to see the exercises, the spending and the increasing confidence of our armed forces, that will act as the deterrent.

That brings me to my last argument for why spending 2% of GDP on defence is central: it will provide a fantastic framework of planning for our armed forces for the next five years. The fundamental problem in defence and foreign affairs is, of course, that the electoral cycles and financial cuts of modern democracies simply do not operate in sync with the realities of the world and its crises.

Service Personnel (Ukraine)

Richard Drax Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We have not taken that decision. The equipment that we have supplied is non-lethal; essentially it is to help the Ukrainian armed forces to protect themselves better and to reduce the number of casualties. We do, however, reserve the right to keep that position under review.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has assured the House that we are giving non-lethal aid—that it was asked for and that we have given it. Have we been asked for lethal aid and, if so, what was our response?

[Michael Fallon]

The Ukrainian military has identified a whole series of equipment shortfalls that it would like to fill—a lot of its equipment is east European; it is old Soviet equipment that does not fit naturally with ours—but our decision at the moment is not to supply lethal aid.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Richard Drax Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely do, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible, common-sense words. I join him in paying tribute—again—to Nicola Williams, and I think he will agree with me about Dr Atkins, too.

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I think—and hope—that there will be some debate and argument, and I was going to pay tribute to the Defence Committee for the great work it has done over a number of years in wanting to make huge changes to the role of the Service Complaints Commissioner.

I anticipate that we in this House will not necessarily agree on everything, although I would like to think we will be able to find a way of agreeing. The most important point, however, is that we agree on the principles of the Bill. We agree on what we are all seeking to achieve—apart from the thematic, which I know will separate us. We are all absolutely agreed in wanting to make sure we have an ombudsman who acts and works without fear or favour, who is rigorous in their investigation, and who puts the person—the individual—at the heart of all the work they do.

One of the great joys of the Bill is that it is not overly prescriptive, and that is very much right. We want our ombudsman to have free rein. I am told that Susan Atkins would visit units and, if she was concerned about incidents or that people felt they could not raise a grievance or a complaint, she did not hesitate in taking that up, not just with Ministers but with the chiefs of staff. She certainly had the sort of determination and brave, rigorous approach that we are all agreed on, and which we will see—I do not doubt—in Nicola Williams.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted by what the Government are doing in the Bill—it is excellent news. How can we be sure that the ombudsman will act swiftly? May I also agree with the Minister entirely on employment tribunals? Thank goodness the Government have not gone down that road. As a former soldier, I think that would be a disaster and would seriously undermine the discipline of a unit and the Army as a whole.

[Anna Soubry]

It is always difficult when, on one side of the argument, some people are not quite convinced by the Bill and, on the other side, other people are also not convinced by it. We are in the middle, and I am convinced that we have got the balance right. The chain of command need not think that they have anything to fear or that they will be undermined by the creation of the ombudsman and the new system. Equally, we have satisfied those who want a more rigorous approach to ensure that genuine grievances, which cannot be raised in the normal way by virtue of service, will be properly dealt with, and that if they are not—when maladministration is alleged—they will be properly investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome the introduction of the armed forces ombudsman. The current Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces was introduced by the Labour Government as part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which came into effect in January 2008. I should tell the Minister that that was no easy task. Other hon. Members and I—a few in the Chamber served on the Defence Committee at the time—did a year-long comprehensive report on the armed forces duty of care. They know that some of the arguments put up against the further extension in the Bill were put up against the 2006 Act. It was said that somehow the earth would stop if we interfered with the chain of command and had external scrutiny of the armed forces.

We have been proved right in terms of how the Service Complaints Commissioner has worked. I pay tribute to Dr Susan Atkins, who has been so successful because she has pushed the boundaries effectively and ensured that her remit is listened to. The commissioner was introduced after the Deepcut tragedy and Lord Justice Blake’s report. The report was not only thorough but made some very good recommendations on armed forces discipline and dealing with complaints. In particular, it dealt with matters for the families of those who committed suicide. I put on record my thanks to Lynn Farr from Daniel’s Trust, who over many years, and in the tragic circumstance of her son’s death in service, not only campaigned to ensure that the system is more transparent and open but made real progress. I also pay tribute to Geoff Gray and Yvonne Collinson for their work on the deaths at Deepcut. I am on record as having said this before, but no matter what happens now we cannot bring those individuals back, and I doubt whether we can get to the truth of what happened at Deepcut. However, the work that those individuals have done has changed how the chain of command and the Government deal with young people in our armed services.

The Service Complaints Commissioner was a step forward. It was the first time that independent oversight was introduced to our armed forces. I remember at the time Conservative Opposition Members arguing that that would be the end of world, and that somehow the world would stop if there was independent oversight or if the chain of command was questioned. The world has not stopped. As the Minister rightly said, the chiefs have accepted that the commissioner has been a major step forward and has helped to increase and enhance the armed forces’ reputation, not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of those who serve. If the Bill is tightened up through some of the amendments that we will table in Committee, it can enhance that process. No one in the chain of command has anything to fear from the Bill.

The Service Complaints Commissioner drew attention to the efficiency with which complaints are dealt with and the fact that individuals can complain if they feel that something has gone wrong. There is a culture not of complaining for the sake of it, but of questioning behaviour that is not acceptable, no matter whose behaviour it is. In 2013 the armed forces attitudes survey reported that 10% of servicemen and women felt that they had been subject to discrimination, harassment or bullying in service environments in the previous 12 months. That would not be accepted in any other walk of life, and it should not be accepted for members of our armed forces.

[Richard Drax]

Having been in the armed forces myself, I know that there is always a concern about politicians getting too involved in a service in which ultimately people have to go and kill the enemy, so a different mentality is required from that in civilian life. A balance must be sought, and I hope the ombudsman will seek it and will not undermine the armed services’ discipline and readiness, in the worst situation, to kill somebody. That would undermine the unique brand that makes our armed services so special and respected around the world. It is a fine balance.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to see that the dinosaur tendency of the Conservative party is still alive and kicking on the Back Benches. Exactly the same arguments were made against the introduction of the armed forces complaints commissioner. This is not about making the training or the discipline less rigorous; it is about behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Justice Blake’s report and the Select Committee report that went alongside it to see whether he can justify some of the things that went wrong then. I accept that, as the Minister says, things have moved a long way since then, but the type of behaviour that we saw was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, the armed forces Act—I cannot remember which one, having dealt with so many over the years—helped by streamlining the three service Acts, because there had previously been a lot of inconsistency across the three services. I think things are now much clearer, especially as we now have joint operations, so the equal and correct interpretation of military law, rather than the silo system we had previously, with three different service Acts, has helped.

Ultimately, we are asking servicemen and women to do very dangerous things on our behalf—I am not suggesting for one minute that the Service Complaints Commissioner should be on the front line telling generals what they should and should not do—but that does not mean that the general things that we and the current service chiefs certainly accept should be best practice in the three services should not be scrutinised and that there should not be support for individuals who find that the high standards that we all expect are not being met.

[Richard Drax]

I have great respect for the shadow Minister and am sorry that he resorted to personal slights, which I think was totally unnecessary. For the record, I do not agree with harassment or bullying in the armed services—I never have and never would. Of course those in the armed services should be respected and their rights should be looked after, but ultimately they are being trained to kill. That is the point I was making. As I have said, I welcome the Bill, which I think is a good step forward, and am entirely behind it. I just wanted to put the record straight.

[Mr Jones]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been proud to be labelled a dinosaur in the present Tory party! I am not criticising him in any way; all I am saying is that some of the arguments made for not doing these things are the same as those that were made 10 years ago, and they have clearly been proved wrong.

Another important aspect is that this is not only about the scrutiny of complaints, but about how many people make complaints. Only 8% of cases involved a formal written complaint. I think that once the Bill is in place, it will ensure that people in the armed forces know how to complain and what redress that they can have. We need a system that encourages people to come forward, not with frivolous or vexatious cases but with cases of harassment, discrimination, bullying or malpractice, which can then be investigated properly by the chain of command. If not, there should be independent scrutiny to ensure that the highest systems and checks are in place—zero tolerance, as the Minister said.

We ask servicemen and women to do things that most of us would never be capable of, so there is a unique difference between them and the general public. However, there are some modern working practices and standards that we would expect in all walks of life, including in the armed forces, and that is why we support the Bill.

We will be calling for the Bill to be strengthened in a number of ways. I hope that in Committee we will be able to discuss some of its aspects in more detail, which will not only provide another opportunity to discuss the role of our armed forces and the pride that we rightly take in them, but ensures that men and women from all our constituencies who join the armed forces get the protection that they would expect in any other workplace.

I turn to the remit of the ombudsman and the range and scope of the powers that the Bill grants. Under the Bill, the ombudsman will not be able to look at the complaint itself but only at whether maladministration occurred in the handling of the complaint. Many in the House will agree that that is a very narrow scope. It leaves us in a rather perverse situation whereby the central piece of the system will be entirely removed from the issues that regularly affect members of the armed forces. The ombudsman will be powerless to deliver the protection and oversight that are needed in such circumstances.

The Minister will probably tell us that it would be going too far to give the ombudsman such a remit, but, as I said, the same arguments were made when we brought in the Service Complaints Commissioner. It is not unusual for an ombudsman to have such powers. The public services ombudsman, the local government ombudsman of England and the prisons ombudsman all have statutory powers to investigate service failures in addition to maladministration. There is no reason why such a principle cannot be applied with regard to serious complaints brought forward by men and women who serve in our armed forces.

Many Members have expressed the view—we will no doubt hear it again in their speeches—that we need to leave it to the chain of command alone to decide on these issues. I do not accept that. The system is one of partnership. One of the great things that Susan Atkins has done is to work very effectively with the chain of command, not only to educate but to change ways of doing things and move the agenda forward. It is important that the Service Complaints Commissioner does have these powers. The Defence Committee agrees that the ombudsman needs wider powers to investigate the substantial complaints.

Another feature missing from the Bill is an ability for the ombudsman to undertake thematic inquiries of their own. That ability would have been very important in, for example, the inquiry into the events at Deepcut. I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s faith that these issues are just for the coroners. Certainly, the idea that one would have any faith in the Middlesbrough coroner to undertake a vigorous investigation of a service death—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is right, if ambitious, but who could argue that the world is a safer place now than in the cold war years? I think it is far less safe because we live in a multi-polar world. Mutually assured destruction brought us, curiously, some stability.

[Richard Drax]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reports in The Sunday Telegraph that after the election the Royal Marines will be next in line for the target is one step too far?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

rose—

Trident Renewal

Richard Drax Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I agree with the hon. Lady, but, interestingly, the Government do not, and I will address that point, too.

So what do the true believers say Trident renewal is for? Three threat scenarios are usually advanced: the re-emergence of a major nuclear threat, which is code for Russia; new states acquiring nuclear capability, which is code for Iran; and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Russia is behaving badly, it is modernising its nuclear arsenals and it is threatening Ukraine, but why would Russia specifically target Britain for a nuclear attack? We have to ask the same question of Iran, surrounded as it is by nuclear-armed Pakistan on one side and nuclear-armed Israel on the other: what would be the motivation for an attack on the UK? Is it not clear that, however unpalatable, painstaking diplomatic negotiation with this regime aimed at preventing its acquisition of nuclear weapons is more likely to succeed than military threats?

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

On the Ukraine example, the nuclear deterrent is going to ensure, as it has done for many years, that any war—God forbid we have one—is conventional, not nuclear. Ukraine could turn nasty, as Mr Gorbachev was warning only the other day, so we need the ultimate deterrent to fight a war—if we ever need to—at a conventional level, not a nuclear one.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

All the hon. Gentleman is advocating, of course, is conventional war, which can kill hundreds of thousands of people, as we see in Iraq. He is not making an argument. We need to look at where the real threats are and where real security lies. I will argue that real security lies in nuclear disarmament.

It is on the third scenario, state-sponsored nuclear terrorism, where nuclear deterrence is least credible. The UK has promised—this is official policy—a proportionate response to a state that sponsored a nuclear attack, and a mechanism is in place to trace the perpetrators. The nuclear material will be sent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston for analysis before a retaliatory attack is ordered. Can anyone imagine what might happen in those hours or days when analysis was under way? When that is concluded, would the Secretary of State, in the cold light of day, give the order to fire even a single Trident missile? Of course, if he did so, he would immediately be charged with a crime against humanity, but he does not even have that power. He conveniently forgets, as he did throughout his speech today, that Trident is not independent and is assigned to NATO; it is the United States that would call the shots. So why is it, when 47 out of 50 sovereign European states feel more secure without nuclear weapons than with them, that this country remains so blinkered?

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Richard Drax Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We are not going to be dragged into front-line involvement, as I have made clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the previous Iraqi Government did not enjoy the full support of all parts of Iraq, which is why the army did not command the loyalty of all parts of Iraq and why it crumbled in the face of the ISIL onslaught. The new Government are, I believe, genuinely representative, comprising Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish Ministers, and the reforms we have seen so far show, I think, that the Government understand the need to be wholly inclusive of all the different elements of Iraq. It is early days and there is a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman said, in that these divisions still remain. It is up to us to help the new Government of Iraq to overcome them.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Given that the only strategy to beat ISIL is probably a large ground offensive involving tens of thousands of troops, does my right hon. Friend believe that such a resolution will ever by executed by the Iraqi and Kurdish forces?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do have confidence that ISIL can be pushed back if we are able to help re-equip and retrain the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. We have had some significant offers of support in principle from other coalition partners: the Australians are offering up to 400 personnel; the Germans about 100; the Spanish 300; the Italians 280; the Danes 120. A number of countries are coming together to offer the sort of training and support that they are each able to offer individually in overall support for those ground forces.

Reserve Recruitment

Richard Drax Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a total figure. I do not recognise the figure he quotes, but I will write to him. Most of the Capita programme is directed towards the regular forces. It has had some difficulties, some around software, which has been a feature of Governments of all complexions. It is in the process of a considerable set of improvements, most of which are now in place.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on all the efforts he is making in this regard, but may I make one small point? According to the sources I speak to, the smaller the Army gets, the more professional it needs to be in order to be more flexible in dealing with a greatly changing world, so the proportion should stay at 80:20 and not move to 70:30. Can we therefore go back the other way and have a smaller Army, yes, but one that is more professional, not less so? I am not saying that the part timers are not professional—they are—but a smaller full-time Army has the necessary flexibility.

[Mr Brazier]

I hear my hon. and gallant Friend with respect. However, if he visits, as I am sure he does from time to time, the Royal Wessex Yeomanry in his own constituency, he will see just how good that unit is and how much it can achieve. The size of the Regular Army came out of the very difficult decisions that we had to make in the strategic defence and security review. We have to be clear that if we want to have a framework to expand a small professional Army, and if we want to keep connections between that small professional Army and the wider civilian community, we need a substantial reserve.

Defence Spending

Richard Drax Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The first responsibility of any Government, as every Member of this House will agree, is the security of their citizens. In order to provide security for our citizens, we need to work in partnership with our allies. The reason for that is that none of us in NATO, with the possible exception of the United States, has armed forces that are strong enough on their own to deter all the external risks we face and, if necessary, defend our countries against them. Even the United States would not want to go it alone, because it is in a stronger position when deploying military assets jointly with allies than when doing so alone.

To illustrate that point, we need only look at our defence assets and capabilities and compare them with those of the alliance as a whole. We have 19 surface warships, as we heard from the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—my notes said 18, but I bow to his expertise—but the alliance as a whole has 283. We have 330 combat aircraft, but the alliance has 6,531. We have 227 main battle tanks, but the alliance has 13,730. We spend around $60 billion overall on defence, or £33 billion, compared with expenditure across the alliance of $924 billion. Now, £33 billion might sound like an awful lot of money, but it is very much less than we spend on social security, health or education. It makes perhaps one twentieth of all Government expenditure. It is also much less than this country spent in the not-too-distant past.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said about the Prime Minister’s commitment on 2%. I asked him a similar question after his G7 statement last week, to which he replied:

“We are, of course, still meeting the 2% that NATO countries are meant to meet”.—[Official Report, 11 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 556.]

We need him to go further and make it clear to the House that he will not go below 2%. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay that we need to spend rather more on defence than we do at the moment.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is dangerous to pursue targets—2% is the minimum target, I know—because surely our duty as a country is to have the armed forces we need to protect our people and dependants and to meet our responsibilities in the event that we have to go it alone? The Falklands war is a classic case. We could not retake the Falklands now, for example.

[Hugh Bayley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, with which I agree, in relation to the Falklands. I certainly agree that one should not pluck a figure out of the air and say, “This is the target.” We need to look at the security risks we face and then at how we, perhaps on our own in certain circumstances but more usually in combination with allies, would deploy military force to counter those risks.

Are we spending enough? In the early 1990s, when I was first elected to this House, we spent considerably more on defence—4.2% on average between 1990 and 1994. It is perfectly possible for a Government, with all the pressures for public expenditure in a wide range of important and necessary fields, to spend more than we currently do if they believe that the security risks demand it. Of course, security risks constantly change. The question is whether we and our allies are spending enough, given the security environment that we now face. It is important to talk also about our NATO allies because, through article 5 of the Washington treaty, we have made a fundamental commitment: if we are attacked, they come to our defence, and if any of them are attacked, we come to their defence.

I am certain that defence spending should be on the agenda at the NATO summit in September. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I discussed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its destabilisation of eastern Ukraine and President Putin’s threat to other countries in the neighbourhood with Russian-speaking minorities—the Baltic states and Poland—that he reserves the right to intervene if he in the Kremlin believes that the interests of those Russian speakers are under threat. The action in Ukraine follows the war between Russia and Georgia and, to my mind, tells us that a pattern of action is being established. A Russian foreign policy is being laid down that reserves to Russia the right to intervene and take territory from neighbouring sovereign states if Russia believes that it is in its interests so to do.

I believe that President Putin is testing us. He is biting off a bit of territory and seeing how we respond—whether he can go further or whether he needs to back-pedal a bit. As an alliance, we have to strengthen our position so that we deter further adventurous actions by Russia or anybody else.

It is 25 years since the fall of the Berlin wall. During that period, the west has put out the hand of friendship to Russia, helping it to modernise its economy, build stock exchanges and join the World Trade Organisation. As far as we have been able to, we have provided reassurance to Russia that we do not see it any longer as posing a military threat to us elsewhere in Europe. We have to reassess that now. We have to ask why President Putin feels that he can with impunity occupy the territory of neighbouring states. It is partly because his financial means are growing as a result of a petro-fuelled economy and partly because some European countries are not responding as robustly as they otherwise would, as they are too dependent on Russia for oil and gas. Europe as a whole, through the European Union, needs to address that by improving the diversity of our sources of energy.

President Putin may also feel that way because the United States has signalled that it is rebalancing its defence posture to pay more attention to the Pacific—it needs to, as there are real risks there, but the implication is less attention to Europe. There are also the defence cuts that so many alliance countries, including ours, have made since the banking crisis in the late noughties. Putin has also probably recognised a decline in public appetite or support for military action in many alliance countries.

Since 2008, Russia’s defence spending has increased by more than 10% each year—more than 50% over the five-year period. As we heard from the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, China is significantly increasing its real-terms defence spending too. Over the same period, defence spending by NATO’s European allies has been cut by almost 10%. According to the UK MOD defence budget plans, the departmental expenditure limit has fallen from £34.2 billion in 2010-11 to £30.7 billion in 2015-16—a fall of 8.2%. I asked the Library to deliver figures about defence expenditure rather than budgets, and those figures show a rather greater reduction. According to the public expenditure statistical analysis, our defence spending has fallen in real terms, at 2012-13 prices, from £39.1 billion in 2009-10 to a projected £30.7 billion in 2015-16—a fall of just over 18%.

It is absolutely essential that defence spending is on the agenda for the NATO summit. It is also essential that the Government give a commitment before the summit not only that our spending is at 2% but that it will remain at 2%. As some Members have pointed out, far too many of our allies spend considerably less than 2%. We need to persuade them to spend more, but we are in a weak position to do so if we are cutting our own expenditure. We would be in a much stronger position if we said: “We have reassessed the risks we face. We in the UK will spend more, particularly as a growth dividend enables the Government to spend more, and we expect others in Europe to do the same.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for helping in that regard.

I pay my thanks to, and express my huge respect and admiration for, our armed forces, who continue, as they always have, to serve this country with courage and dignity.

There is one thing worse than weak armed forces, and that is a weak economy, because without a strong economy we cannot have strong armed forces. I realise that, and it would be foolish not to. I pay my respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister, who I know does not like sitting here listening to Back Benchers, certainly those on the Government Benches, talking about our armed forces—no Ministers do, because they, like us, want to support our armed forces. I am sure that, in their hearts, they would like to spend more money on them.

Expenditure on our armed forces must surely be a matter of priority. The priority for us in this House is the defence of our country, our island, our dependants, our people and our many responsibilities around the world. I will raise the elephant in the room—or one of them—which is expenditure on overseas aid. I totally support help for the third world and everything that it implies. Unfortunately, by setting targets for those things we tie ourselves to perhaps unreasonable expectations, particularly when our own country is suffering economically.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with evidence given to the Defence Committee yesterday by a former distinguished military leader in this country who said that overseas aid assisted Britain’s defence commitments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Yes, I have heard that and I am sure there is an element of truth to it. I argue, however—I do not want to go too far down this road—that if a country cannot grow crops, for example, we should send them not billions of pounds but a farmer: we teach them how to do it. That is the way to help people help themselves. If we give them billions or millions of pounds, the money tends to disappear down a plughole or, worse, into some despot’s back pocket and a new fleet of Mercedes-Benz.

I wonder whether some politicians in the House—dare I say, perhaps the more modern politicians—really understand what our armed forces are about. I mean no disrespect to them, but they have not served. I do not say that because I and other Members of the House have served that we are any better, or even any better informed, but I believe we have an instinct—a gut feeling—that the armed forces in our country are the very backbone of the United Kingdom because of our history, and we ignore our history at our peril.

When I was serving in the 1980s we had the Falklands war. Many of my friends went down there and served with great distinction, as did they all. Expenditure then was more than 5% of GDP, and I understand we had more than 60 warships. Expenditure is now 2% of GDP, and we have 19 warships. I do not understand what has changed in the intervening years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Technology.

[Richard Drax]

The shadow Minister says technology, and I agree that technology has changed. However, if we have one superb aircraft carrier and 10 Chinese submarines, and those submarines sink our superb aircraft carrier, we have nothing left. Technology is great, but it can be in only one place at one time, although it has a role to play.

Let me mention the list of responsibilities and wars that we have been involved in—I just literally scribbled them down. I asked what has changed, and my answer is “nothing”. The list contains Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Russia—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), Russia is flexing its muscles, not least in the northern approaches with its submarine fleet and in the air—as well as piracy on the high seas and the Pacific. We as a country have other responsibilities. Northern Ireland has not gone away, and—God forbid it ever happens again—let us not forget that we had 35,000 troops at the height of the troubles. The list goes on: Malta, Gibraltar, Cyprus, the Falklands, Belize, and now Kenya and getting our citizens out of that country if it implodes. We also have NATO commitments, aid to the third world and disaster relief. Those are just some of the vast array of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities.

We are a tiny country with a small budget compared with many others, but we have had and still have huge responsibilities because we stand up—as we have always done—for freedom, democracy and the rule of law. To do that we need some muscle behind us in the event it all goes wrong. As sure as eggs are eggs and history is history it does go wrong, and the Falklands war is a classic case in point. As I have said, we would be pushed to retake those islands were they to be taken now, with no aircraft carrier and no air cover.

I also wish to touch on rumoured reports on the cuts and expenditure. A report of 15 June commissioned from within the British armed forces shows that UK spending will fall to 1.9% in 2017, and 1.6% in 2024-25. Will the Minister assure me that that is not the case?

My father and grandfather served in the Royal Navy with great distinction. My grandfather would be turning in his grave. My father is not in his—a long way from it, God bless him—but he is certainly not a happy man. As Admiral Lord West said, the state of our Royal Navy now is a national disgrace. Freedom comes at a price and we must be prepared to pay it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Defence Reform Bill

Richard Drax Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

The point that I make to my hon. Friend is that Government Members have come to the conclusion that we want an Army of 112,000 people, made up of 82,000 regulars and 30,000 Reserves. There has been no proposal from any part of the House, including from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to change those figures. That is a decision that the House has taken. I have heard no serious challenge to that this afternoon, given the financial situation that the country finds itself in. The issue before the House is: how do we all get behind the plan and make sure that it works, giving it proper scrutiny, but fully backing and supporting it?

We have had proper scrutiny this afternoon from pretty much every Member who has spoken. Even the most enthusiastic advocate of the reserve forces in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, was excoriating about the recruitment process run in recent months by the Regular Army to try to increase the Army Reserve. He is a shining example of someone giving proper parliamentary scrutiny to the process that we are considering because he wants it to work. He is doing that in a way that shows that he is committed to making the proposal a success, and that is the difference. That is why I am pleased that new clause 1 is being accepted by the Government, and why I think that it would be damaging, divisive and unnecessary to support new clause 3.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate; I have listened very carefully to it all afternoon. I find myself in a very difficult place, particularly being a Conservative MP, for two reasons. First, in my view, the cuts to our armed forces have gone far too far. Secondly, I believe that the ratio of regulars to reserves is wrong. Rather than going for 70:30, we should be looking at 90:10.

[Andrew Selous]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom’s reserve proportion would, under the proposals, rise to 25%, while in Australia it is 36%, in Canada it is 51%, and in the USA it is 55%? We would have less than half the reserve proportion of some of our major NATO allies.

[Richard Drax]

I hear my hon. Friend, and I respect him hugely for his opinion, but it is slightly dangerous to look at other countries and think that we can meet their expectations. I remember when an American general came to speak to a few of us upstairs about reserves. He had served under President Clinton and then President Obama. He was an interesting and very decorated man who had fought in Vietnam. We asked him about the reserves that America has. He made a rather salutary comment: “In America, having a high proportion of reserves works, because we have the money to fund them. We have airstrips with Hercules aircraft lined up on them, just waiting for commercial pilots to step out of their 747s into them, and to go off to trouble spots or wars around the world.” We cannot begin to meet that level of expenditure; that is what really worries me. We are pushed to fund the regulars.

We have two aircraft carriers, but I bet my bottom dollar that we will not have enough men and resources to man and protect one, with frigates and destroyers around, submarines underneath, and aircraft above. It is a hugely expensive commitment that I do not think has really been considered.

[Mr Brazier]

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend enjoyed the presentation by Dave McGinnis, one of my oldest friends, but his point was that because in America reserve manpower is less than a quarter of the cost, America is able to afford, whatever size its budget—it is obviously larger than ours—a much larger range of capabilities, and more boots on the ground, albeit that some of them are at lower readiness, by having such a high proportion of reservists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Again, I have huge respect for my hon. and gallant Friend, but it is dangerous to compare one country with another. I stand my ground on that.

I shall not speak for more than another minute as I know that others want to follow and I have not got much more to add. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I will support him, although I do not like the element of delay. Why does not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State conduct the assessment now, while the Bill is going through Parliament, as has already been suggested? That is perfectly possible. An assessment could be made without delay, and I would be grateful if that could be dealt with in the winding-up speeches.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I noticed the Secretary of State commenting under his breath as my hon. Friend was making that point. It might be opportune, especially in the light of the votes that some of us will cast this afternoon, if the Secretary of State could reply to my hon. Friend’s point. If he did so now, we would not have to wait for another Minister to respond to the debate.

[Richard Drax]

I agree. I look forward to hearing whether that point is dealt with in the winding-up speeches.

Many hon. Members have said that wars have changed and perhaps there is no need for battalions of infantry. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said that there was no longer a need for the number of battalions that we used to have. May I give three examples where boots on the ground would be needed, quite apart from any conventional war that we might have to fight? First, God forbid that the Northern Ireland troubles ever rose from the ashes again. We had 32,500 men and women in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. With a professional Army of 82,000 men—a large majority of whom are not bayonets, to use the Army lingo; many are back-up forces—we would be pushed to man that one commitment.

Secondly, the Falklands has been mentioned so many times. Baroness Thatcher was looking at cutting our armed forces just before the war broke out—I think my historical facts are right—and, as I understand it, afterwards she said, “Never again am I going to take our armed forces for granted.” Thirdly, for a big evacuation, potentially from a friendly country—let us say Kenya—we would need, without aircraft carriers, boots on the ground to secure an area around which our citizens could be extracted. This takes huge resources, immediate resources, professional resources.

I say to all those who work in the reserves, alongside whom I have worked, that I have enormous respect for them. This is not a question of denigrating the reservists. I have a huge amount of respect for them all and thank them from the bottom of my heart, as does the nation, for what they do. All I am saying is that the ratio of 70:30 should be reviewed and it should be 90:10 instead. Finally, my military sources tell me that senior officers say one thing in public, but that a very different message is given in private.

[Mr Ellwood]

It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate. I wish we had more such debates in the House of Commons and more regularly. It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour down in Dorset, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), as it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), whom I congratulate on his Defence Committee appointment, and my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

This has been a powerful debate. I congratulate, as others have done, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—he says not to do so, but I will anyway—on the work that he has done. I congratulate also General Sir Graeme Lamb, with whom I know my hon. Friend worked closely in his work on the armed forces. New clause 1 is welcome, providing for an annual independent assessment of what the reserves are doing and, I hope, for an annual debate in the House on the reserve forces as we move forward.

New clause 3 is a little mischievous. It calls for further implementation of the plans to be halted, which means that things stop and we drop tools at this point. We do not know the time scale. That has not been clarified by the debate. I was a little concerned when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said that we should not be doing this in the first place if it is the wish of the House to go against the Government. That really worries me, because what is the genesis of new clause 3?

I am also concerned about Labour’s position. Labour Members were supportive on Second Reading and in the Committee, on which I served, but today they suddenly changed their tune. On their watch the MOD had to be put in special measures, because they burnt a £38 billion black hole in the budget.

Defence Reforms

Richard Drax Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in your place. I support the comments of my colleagues.

I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his persistence in raising these questions. As has been said, the Government plan to more than double the size of the TA to 38,000. That figure has not been used yet, but as I understand it, that is the target figure, of which 30,000 will be potentially on call. At the same time the number of regulars will be reduced by 20,000. The motion

“notes concerns”

about whether these reforms

“will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability”.

My sympathies are with the members of the Government Front-Bench team, whom I know reasonably well after three years here. I know that none of them wishes to be in this position.

During my nine years in the Army, I worked alongside many reservists. They were capable, professional and dedicated. Their magnificent contribution to many recent operations from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya leaves us in no doubt of their valour or significance. However, reservists have other priorities in their lives, and that is even more pertinent in today’s tough and competitive world. For these reasons and others, their numbers must be kept to a sensible and manageable proportion of the whole. No military commander I have spoken to, serving or retired, agrees that the increase in the proportion of reservists to regulars is correct. Today’s conflicts require well trained, professional, regular troops to hit the ground running, so if we are to cut our armed services, the proportion of regulars to reservists must be higher, not lower.

Twenty thousand fully trained and experienced regulars are leaving the Army, creating what I and many other campaigners and commentators would consider a yawning capability gap. The Government argue that they inherited a multibillion pound hole in the defence budget, which was unsustainable. Although I accept that premise, I do not agree with the conclusion that we should cut the armed services to the extent that we are planning, and certainly not before plan B has proved sustainable.

To me, this is all about priorities. We are happy to strike a moral pose and devote many billions of pounds to overseas aid, much of which is unaccountable, while starving of cash the very organisations that defend our country. I have no problem with giving money to overseas aid, but it should be better targeted, and I think that a statutory target is incorrect. Furthermore, projects such as HS2, which is very controversial, will cost billions of pounds, and, dare I say it, there is the old elephant in the room, the EU. Charity starts at home, especially in austere times.

It is a sobering thought that at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland we had nearly 30,500 troops serving there. In my day it took about six men to put one man in the field. Working on that basis, if—God forbids it ever happens again—Northern Ireland flares up, we would be pushed to meet that commitment, let alone retake the Falklands if Argentina were ever in a position to launch an attack.

Ministers tell us that this reduction is

“to make best use of the resources available”

and to

“harness better the talents of the country”.

It sounds good, but does it deliver? According to a leaked document from the MOD, it does not. I would be grateful if Ministers would confirm what percentage of GDP is spent on our armed forces. I am told that it is now below 2%, the minimum that our membership of NATO demands. In my day, it was above 5% —money that was needed not only to maintain our commitment to NATO, but for the defence of our dependants and of course to safeguard the realm, which is the most solemn duty of this House.

Yet today more redundancies loom and more reliance will be placed on reservists, who are not rallying to the MOD’s bugle call to the extent that we were led to expect. Those who do respond will receive 40 training days a year. Will that be enough to give a reservist confidence when his or her boots hit the ground? Will the already overstretched training facilities be able to cope with the increase in demand? Will the new arrangements be to the reservist’s detriment? As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has said, the statistics show that reservists are 50% more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder than their regular counterparts.

I question whether the £1.8 billion investment over the next 10 years will be adequate. The Government’s target is a total Army Reserve strength of 38,000 by 2020, but it is reckoned that this will give us 30,000 trained reservists. I question whether that will be achievable, and certainly the statistics we have heard today indicate that it probably will not be.

As a humble Back Bencher, I urge the Government to stop dismembering our armed services before it is too late and at least ensure that plan B is in place and working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend. If I may, I would put it even more strongly. My hon. Friend mentioned hope. I would say to the Minister that, if there is even an element of doubt about the recruitment of reservists, the Government should put these plans on hold and look again at the whole question of disbanding the regular battalions. In saying that, let me make it absolutely clear that I mean no disrespect at all to the excellent individuals who serve in our Territorial Army and to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude, not least for the way in which they have performed in Afghanistan.

This is simply a question of whether the implementation of the plans as they stand will give us the capability that we require. I very much hope that it will not be part of the Government’s thinking or policy to say, “Here we have a plan which should meet our capability needs, and will also save us costs, but even if it doesn’t meet our capability needs we will go ahead with it none the less.” That is not a position in which a Conservative-led Government should find themselves, and I am sure that they will not under the watchful custodianship of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Let me say a few words about our Navy, which is also encompassed by the defence reforms. The previous Government’s strategic defence review in the late 1990s concluded that Britain required a fleet of 32 surface ships, destroyers and frigates, in order to fulfil its capability needs. Now we have a fleet of 19 surface ships in the form of frigates and destroyers. I know that these ships have greater capability than ever before, but I would be surprised if they had acquired a capability proportionate to the loss of numbers that has been experienced since the defence review in the late 1990s. Even as an amateur strategist, I can understand that, as the noble Lord West, a former Sea Lord, has helpfully pointed out, a ship can only be in one place at one time. I doubt that there are fewer threats in the world today than there were in the late 1990s and that the world has become a much safer place since the turn of the last century. While other nations are responding to the world as it is by increasing the number and capability of their surface fleet, we are seeing a diminution in ours.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned Waterloo. Helpfully, next Monday is Trafalgar day, which used to be celebrated nationally and is still celebrated in our Navy. I was interested to find out how many warships the British Navy had at the time of the battle of Trafalgar, and my rather amateur research unearthed a figure of 950 warships in 1805, so we may not have had a very big Army, as the hon. Gentleman said, but we certainly had a very good Navy.

[Richard Drax]

Bearing in mind that 85% of our trade comes by sea, would it not be foolish if we did not have the Royal Navy to protect, not least, our trade routes? My hon. Friend may recall that one man tried to cut us off before, not too long ago.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right. Who knows what we may be called on to deal with through our Royal Navy? At the time of the Falklands conflict we had 60 frigates and destroyers. Recently our Navy played a very important role in the conflict in Libya. Four of the ships that we used in that conflict have since been decommissioned or are on their way to being decommissioned. Let me put this into further context by saying that, on the eve of the second world war, a conflict that tells us all we need to know about the need for military preparedness, Britain had 272 surface warships and the largest Navy in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot. I will keep going for the last few seconds of my time.

Obviously, not every regiment can last for ever, but tradition is a priceless, incorporeal thing that takes centuries to build and yet can be destroyed in an instant. We must again remember Admiral Cunningham, who was criticised for the heavy losses his Navy ships suffered when they were exposed to German air assault as he protected the Army. He said:

“It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition.”

The tradition of our Regular Army is a real thing that we still have in this country. The reforms seek to replace that with a continental-style citizen army, and to do so stealthily without properly saying so. It may take only 40 days of a year to train a reservist, but we may lose centuries of tradition if the reforms are implemented in the wrong way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

In the Royal Navy. That’s our side, Bob.

I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that I have not read his paper on carriers, which I think was published by the Royal United Services Institute, but having heard his speech today, I promise him that I will.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond for the Government in this important debate, and I would like to remind the House why we are making these changes. On 3 July, we published the White Paper, “Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued”, setting out our vision for the reserve forces and the detail of how we would make reserve service more attractive. It also confirmed our intention to change the name of the Territorial Army to the Army Reserve to better reflect their future role.

With this new approach, the UK is not breaking entirely new ground. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who arguably knows more about the reserves than the rest of the House put together, pointed out, it will bring us into line with our principal allies and partners, who currently rely more heavily on reserves than we do. Currently, reserves represent about 17% of our total armed forces, and that is scheduled to rise to 25% under our proposals. This compares to 36% in Australia, 51% in Canada—that is the figure I have—and 55% in the US.

Since the original Haldane reforms in the last century, the reserves have always made an essential contribution to national security. In world war two, eight of the 13 infantry divisions that went out in the British expeditionary force were from the Territorial Army. That shows the scale of the contribution it has made historically.

[Richard Drax]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am told that I must finish by 3 pm, so his might have to be the only one.

[Richard Drax]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although the reserves were bigger in those days, more resources were put into them. The big question is whether we will have sufficient resources to put into an increasing number of reserves. My fear is that we will not and that the regulars will suffer as a consequence.

[Mr Francois]

I understand my hon. Friend’s question. I believe that we will—we are devoting £1.8 billion to our programme of reserve expansion, which is a significant amount, given all the challenges in the budget.

Reservists have made a significant contribution to recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, with in excess of 25,000 mobilised for tours on Operations Telic and Herrick. Just as we were told earlier that the United States National Guard takes its responsibilities seriously and is taken seriously, I would respectfully suggest that our 25,000 men and women who served in those theatres were taking their responsibilities pretty seriously as well. Between them, those reservists have gained more than 70 gallantry awards in those campaigns. I would also humbly remind the House that 24 reservists made the ultimate sacrifice in combat during those operations.

We are establishing greater links with the national health service to enhance our medical units. Many of the lessons learned in combat, including at Camp Bastion—for instance, in treating haemorrhaging and bleeding—have now been fed back into the NHS. We are also setting up a new cyber-reserve unit—although I can scotch the rumour this afternoon that it has anything to do with attacking 38 Degrees. It is true that reserves can in some cases be more expensive than regular forces when deployed on operations, but they are significantly cheaper when held as a contingency.