Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Main Page: Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Scottish National Party - Glasgow South)Department Debates - View all Stewart Malcolm McDonald's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my colleague on the Defence Committee. I am pleased to see not one, but two Defence Ministers on the Front Bench who have come to listen to our thoughts today.
The debate is particularly relevant because this is Armed Forces Week. I hope that both Ministers will join me in using it as an opportunity to recognise and celebrate what our services do for the nation. It is a chance to give thanks to all our forces for what they do in keeping our nation safe and working with allies to protect our interests and defend our values.
When we speak of the armed forces, we mean not just our regular and reserve forces, but the cadets, our veterans and, importantly, the families and loved ones who support those who wear the uniform. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
This week is important because the bond between the armed forces and society is critical. Our volunteer forces are drawn from society. If the general public are less aware of what our forces do and the role they play in keeping us safe, fewer people will step forward and consider joining the services. As we have discussed today, we are more likely to get an increase in defence spending if the nation understands the threats. People will support our call for increased spending if we take the nation with us.
It has been said many times in this Chamber that we have arguably the most professional armed forces in the world—highly trained, well equipped, extremely professional and, consequently, revered by our allies and feared by our adversaries. As a former regular soldier and now a reservist, I have no hesitation in recommending to any school leaver a career in the armed forces. To them, I say: “You will learn things about yourself you never knew, go places you never expected, and develop skills and build confidence that will help you for the rest of your life. The first time you march off the parade square, having completed your training, you will make your mum and dad so proud.” We thank all those in the armed forces who serve and continue to serve.
Today’s debate is about defence spending. I think the Government’s integrated review paints the changing threat picture very fairly. By anybody’s calculation, the world is becoming more insecure. Authoritarianism is on the rise; extremism is active not just in the middle east, but increasingly in Africa; both Russia and China are presenting fresh security challenges that we have yet to fully address; and our international organisations are less able to uphold international standards. I would argue that our threat picture, collectively, is greater than during the cold war when defence spending was at 4%, yet today it remains at just above 2%.
Quite rightly, the integrated review calls for new capabilities to counter emerging threats, particularly from cyber and space, but it is clear that without extra funding, that has come at the expense of our conventional forces. The emergence of new threats does not mean that the old ones have disappeared, yet here we are, cutting back the Army by 10,000 troops and reducing the number of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, as well as our Typhoon and F-35 fleets and our Hercules heavy-lift aircraft.
We will also lose two Type 23 frigates. We have frigates and destroyers in the surface fleet that are global leaders in their class, but we simply do not have enough of them. Our Royal Navy is now overstretched and we need to increase its size. I certainly praise the efforts of HMS Defender in ignoring the intimidation of the Russians in the Black sea yesterday, but if we are to step forward with our allies as we should to defend and protect international waters and show a presence in the Caribbean, the Gulf, east Africa, the Mediterranean, the North sea and now the Arctic, as well as a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, as commanded in the integrated review, we will need a bigger Navy.
The Government put forward the counter-argument that we can lean on autonomous and unmanned assets. New technologies can certainly help, but they should be seen as enablers rather than as replacing manpower. We cannot replace boots on the ground.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about leaning further into autonomous weapons. As that happens more and more, does he share my concern that we are not as far advanced on the rules surrounding their use? Do we not need greater collaboration with allied countries to set the standards and rules globally?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are advancing into new terrain: even when it comes to a cyber-attack, it is unclear whether or not it is an article 5 breach. We are building resilience and capabilities, but the rules-based order, international institutions and legislation have yet to keep up. That should not prevent us from making sure—as the MOD is rightly doing—that our mission is protected as we become increasingly vulnerable and ever more reliant on the movement of data.
To go back to the point about reducing our armed forces and the footprint of our manpower, the ability to seize and hold ground, separate warring factions, deliver humanitarian aid, assist civil authorities with tasks such as tackling covid-19, win over hearts and minds, restore law and order, respond to natural disasters and carry out countless other diverse tasks—that requires people. It requires professionals—it requires our soldiers, sailors and air personnel. It is wrong to reduce those numbers.
Dr Lewis
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend nodding his assent. Therefore, when we talk about the 2% guideline, we should bear in mind that it is not a ceiling nor a target; it is merely a floor or a minimum. Now we face a similar task regarding the increase in the cap on the size of our nuclear stockpile recently announced in the integrated review. That should be described as a ceiling, not a floor. In other words, it is a maximum and not a target for the number of warheads we will retain.
The integrated review states:
“In 2010 the Government stated an intent to reduce our overall nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling from not more than 225 to not more than 180 by the mid-2020s. However, in recognition of the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats, this is no longer possible, and the UK will move to an overall nuclear weapon stockpile of no more than 260 warheads.”
Predictably, this is being denounced as a more than 40% increase in the stockpile, on the basis that increasing a total of 180 to 260 would be an uplift of 44.4%. However, the cancellation of a reduction that has not yet been completed—if indeed it ever began—means that, at most, the total might rise from the previously declared maximum of 225 to a new maximum of 260. Were those the actual present and future totals, the increase would be only about 15.5%, a perfectly reasonable increment to ensure that advances in anti-ballistic missile technology over the 40-plus years of our next generation of Trident warheads cannot undermine our policy of minimum strategic deterrence.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman does not have to wait for the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). He knows that we disagree on this—he mentioned at the start of his speech the last vote on the nuclear deterrent, and I seem to recall that we were in agreement that there should be a vote on the nuclear deterrent. However, when the integrated review was published—he has just mentioned the change in threat and doctrines as a reason for the expansion of the new nuclear policy—it was said that this was somehow to do with things such as cyber-threats, so which computer are we aiming these nuclear weapons at? Does he agree that to say that we would use nuclear weapons in response to a cyber-attack or threat is wholly absurd?
Dr Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a friend, waits for the next part of my analysis, I hope that all will become clear. However, it is absolutely the case that nuclear weapons, as a deterrent, do not deter every sort of threat that could be ranged against us. If they did, we could abolish all the other armed forces. The truth of the matter is that they deter other weapons of mass destruction. Unless there were a development in the cyber world that could inflict destruction on a mass level comparable with a nuclear exchange, it is entirely incredible to think that nuclear weapons would be used in retaliation to an attack of that sort. I hope that satisfies him on the main point that he was making.
Minimum deterrence relies on the fact that possession of a last-resort strategic nuclear system that can be guaranteed to inflict unacceptable and unavoidable devastation in response to nuclear aggression does not require any ability to match the aggressor missile for missile or warhead for warhead. Nuclear superpowers have huge overkill capabilities that offer zero extra protection against countries with much smaller weapons of mass destruction arsenals, as long as the latter can retaliate with an unstoppable and unbearable counter-strike against any nuclear aggressor who is seeking to wipe them out. Overkill capabilities may have symbolic political value, but in the dread event of a nuclear exchange, all they can do, as was famously said, is to “make the rubble bounce”.
There may exist more up-to-date estimates, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s inventory totals for world nuclear stockpiles, published at the beginning of last year, are sufficiently instructive. China, France and the UK, with estimated totals of 320, 290 and 215 respectively, fall into the camp of minimum strategic nuclear deterrence. By contrast, the estimated totals of 5,800 for the United States and 6,375 for Russia go way beyond anything needed to pursue such a policy. The notion that, at some stage in the future, the United Kingdom might end up with 35 more warheads than its previously declared theoretical maximum does not change the fact that we are currently, and shall probably remain, fifth out of five in the size of the nuclear stockpiles held by the permanent member states of the UN Security Council. So why have the Government chosen to take the controversial step of cancelling the reduction in the ceiling of our warhead total from 225 to 180 and raising it to a new ceiling of 260 instead?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
It is a shame that the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), is no longer here, but I was with him when he said that it is to cover for the fact that we are cutting the Army by 10,000 as a sweetener to the Americans. That is what it is.
Dr Lewis
Let us see if the hon. Gentleman was right in anticipating what I have to say.
In the absence, at present at any rate, of any briefing on the issue, classified or otherwise, from my parliamentary colleagues on the Defence ministerial team, here are the four possible explanations that occur to me. Explanation 1—most probably, as already stated—is that it is an insurance policy to prevent a potential aggressor from calculating that advances in anti-ballistic missile systems have reduced our retaliatory capability to a point where our response to an attack becomes bearable or even avoidable. Explanation 2—quite probably—is that it is to give more headroom for the time, in the late 2030s or early 2040s, when we are due to exchange our current stockpile of warheads for next-generation nuclear warheads, while at the same time preventing disruption of our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. Explanation 3— possibly—is that it is to send a signal internationally that the UK is determined to keep nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them and remains committed to doing whatever is required to maintain their invulnerability. And—here it comes—explanation 4, conceivably, is that it is also tailored for a domestic audience worried about cuts in the size of the Army, in order to offer reassurance, or at least to divert some attention from those reductions.
What seems most unlikely is an intention to invest in additional warheads of the existing design. We are certainly cancelling their reduction from a theoretical maximum of 225 to one of only 180 for any or all of the four reasons listed, particularly the first explanation. Raising the maximum from 225 to 260 to provide extra headroom for the eventual transition from current warheads to their replacements is a sensible explanation, though not a conclusive one, given that the changeover is not due to happen for well over a decade.
Despite the imposition of a dedicated supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as the Leader of the Opposition in 2015, hon. and right hon. Labour Members ensured that their party’s policy remained multilateralist. Previously, on 14 March 2007, Parliament had voted by 409 to 161 in favour of proceeding with the initial gate for renewal of the Trident submarine fleet. Even that huge majority was eclipsed on 18 July 2016, when it rose to 355 after MPs voted for the decisive main gate stage to proceed by 472 to only 117.
There is nothing in article VI of the non-proliferation treaty that requires any country already in possession of a recognised nuclear arsenal to get rid of it and to achieve a nuclear-free world prior to a state of grace when general and complete conventional disarmament—also referred to in the non-proliferation treaty, but seldom cited by those who quote it selectively—can be guaranteed. There is a very good reason for this, because if we were to abandon all nuclear weapons in an unreformed world, that would be a recipe for disaster. In a conventional war taking place in a nuclear-free world, the former nuclear powers would immediately race to reacquire the bomb. The first to succeed would then use its monopoly, as occurred in 1945. If the treaty’s vision of general and complete conventional disarmament ever becomes reality, then nuclear weapons can indeed also safely be declared redundant; but, until that day dawns, the United Kingdom is perfectly capable of changing the size of its warhead stockpile without breaching the non-proliferation treaty in order to maintain indefinitely the credibility of its strategic minimum deterrence policy.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to have you join us in the Chair this afternoon.
It has been a good debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing it. He opened it and intervened several times, with the customary authority and knowledge that we have all become used to. It is good to see the Minister for the Armed Forces in his place. He is a good Minister, a conscientious Minister, but those of us in the Chamber who have been taking part in these defence spending debates for the past few years—indeed, I think you might have, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you went back into the Chair—will note that this is another such debate in which we have failed to get a Treasury Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. I am hopeful that when we inevitably have the next one, we will be able to use our collective imagination to force that to happen.
Like other hon. Members, I too, on behalf of the Scottish National party, want to put on the record our thanks to the men and women of the armed forces, particularly for the past year, as has been mentioned several times. I particularly want to thank them for the job that they have done in Glasgow, with the setting up of the NHS Louisa Jordan, but also the job that they have done in many other areas of the pandemic and beyond. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer with us, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), the pandemic has shown us that the debate on security and the role of the armed forces is way wider than perhaps we would have thought pre-covid. That is something that requires debate, discussion and, yes, public consent and buy-in.
It is also important—I am sure that the Minister will do this in his remarks—to refer to yesterday’s events in the Black sea. The Scottish National party stands four-square behind international law. International law, challenging and challenged though it is, is important to defend, is important to protect. In that, the crew members of HMS Defender have our support. We recognise that that is not easy, and I back the assessment of others: we understand that the Royal Navy was there not to pick a fight, but to make a point. Those are international waters and, indeed, there are no Russian waters there; they are Ukrainian sovereign waters—to reinforce that point, you will have noticed the Ukrainian national colours on my tie, Mr Deputy Speaker.
That, however, is where our consensus may start to come to an end, I am afraid. This is a debate on spending, and spending has never been the Ministry of Defence’s strongest suit, no matter how much money it may throw at the problem. Indeed, when the announcements were made when the defence Command Paper and the integrated review were published earlier this year, we welcomed many things, but let us not forget—we could be forgiven for forgetting, could we not—that that was about capital spending. Day-to-day spending has not changed, and the pay and the terms and conditions of the members of the armed forces—whom we have all praised this afternoon—have not changed. But I will come back to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) spoke with authority and knowledge on many issues of procurement, which he knows all about, having worked in that field for many years. He correctly set out the disparity in spending not just between Scotland and the south-west of England, but in other parts of the UK as well. It is not parochial, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) seemed to suggest, to point that out. Those are just facts that I would have thought any Unionist Member of Parliament would wish to see changed.
We also have to come to the black hole that exists in the Ministry of Defence procurement plan, which the right hon. Member for North Durham mentioned several times when he opened the debate. The multi-year defence agreements, long called for by those on the SNP Benches and others, are welcome, but there is still some way to go. All we have to look at is the National Audit Office report, which came out only this morning, and all those big projects where waste is the fashion of the day—we might almost think that money is going out of fashion in the Ministry of Defence.
The amazing thing, in all the many years of waste under Conservative or Labour Governments, is that nobody has ever lost their job over any of this stuff. Is it not fantastically amazing that hundreds of millions of pounds—into the billions—of public money can be wasted over all those years, and nobody gets so much as a demotion? What is that all about? That is where we need to see greater transparency and accountability on how the money is spent or, rather, how the money is misspent.
What do we get in return? Housing that I would not put a dangerous dog into, housing where hundreds and hundreds of complaints are about the basic things that we all take for granted—the heating does not work, the water does not run, or the hot water does not work. Those are basic repairs that, if we really valued members of the armed forces, would not go unanswered but would be fixed and invested in with a sense of urgency. Is it any wonder that the satisfaction or, rather, the dissatisfaction levels are where they are? Is it any wonder that the retention issues are what they are?
I value the work that those in the armed forces do—I believe we all value it—but the political choices being made are the wrong ones. We need to invest heavily in accommodation services, in getting the armed forces personnel good equipment and in ensuring that they are not having to go to Amazon to supplement the equipment that they have got for themselves. You understand this, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not think that that is all that much to ask.
We then come to an issue that has been mentioned several times: fleet solid support ships. There is nothing new for me to say on this, other than to support Opposition and Government Members when they say that those ships should be made here. Let us not fall for the canard advanced by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—sadly, no longer with us in the Chamber—when he said that, somehow, the European Union was the bogeyman holding us back. That is, of course, false. It was interesting that, following the many interventions from the right hon. Member for North Durham and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is just scurrying back into the Chamber now, he was unable to rebut that when it was put to him.
I have to come to the issue of the cut in the size of the Army—a cut of 10,000. I will sound like a broken record here, but I make no apologies for revisiting the promises made to voters in Scotland about the size of the armed forces during the 2014 independence referendum campaign. A commitment was given to voters by this Government that 12,500 regulars would be stationed in Scotland. Even if we overlook the fact that they have never come close to that target, the Government have still not been able to tell us, given that they are now going to cut the size of the Army by 10,000, what the new footprint will eventually look like and when they will get to that point. That is before we come to the other issue of the frigate factory that was promised. Quite often, we hear Members say, “Oh, we’re building more ships and there is the frigate factory.” I rather suspect that they know that they are being slightly casual with the facts. The frigate factory that was promised was never built.
In the context of all of this—I thought the Chairman of the Defence Committee opened on this rather well—we need to think about where the threats of the future lie. My party does not believe in the need to raise the nuclear stockpile. We do not believe in that project at all, but where we can get some consensus is on the threats of the future. However, the debate is lacking here. I have mentioned this to the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and discussed it previously. As we move into artificial intelligence, crypto currencies and all this new autonomous weaponry that we will be able to deploy, where are the rules surrounding this? This goes to the heart of ensuring that, when we engage our forces or our equipment in whatever form, we do so properly and with maximum transparency, in as much as one would be able to expect. What is important is that we answer the question: who gets to write these rules? As these challenges are presented to countries such as the UK, G7 or NATO countries, they also become opportunities for those who would rather write the rules on their terms, which might not be favourable to open and liberal societies. That is where this House needs to whip itself into shape and have this discussion. I accept that all these new challenges, and perhaps new opportunities, will not go away—indeed, they will increase —so we need to have a discussion about transparency and the rules around them.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire was absolutely right when he made the point that national security is not just about the hard equipment we have or the defence budget—the pandemic has shown us exactly that. But what is crucial is that the public understand this so that, when the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee achieves the 7% of GDP target on defence spending, which he often wants—[Interruption.] Oh, 3%. He has downgraded it somewhat. If we are to achieve that, and I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him there, that needs to have not just public understanding, but public buy-in.
When I took on this role as defence spokesman for my party four years ago, a Labour colleague—I will not say who it was—said to me, “The thing you must understand is that defence will never win you any votes, but it can lose you votes if you are seen to not get it right.” We all have differing views on what getting it right means, but I have found that, when we engage the public on it, they are quite keen to have that conversation. As new threats and new challenges present themselves in different ways, if we do not have the public onside, there will be an amazing opportunity for a hostile disinformation campaign, as we saw just yesterday in the Black sea. Imagine if it happened to be about a Russian warship off the north coast of Scotland, for example, or any of the other challenges to sea and air that we often see from the Russian Federation. There is a challenge for us all to better explain the threat picture and why we do what we do—why we believe what we believe. Fundamental to all that—how we meet that threat—is the money that we spend.
We have had a good debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham on securing it, but let us not lull ourselves into a false sense of security. There is still some way to go in keeping the public on board and in ensuring that we have good, robust rules and treaties for the new technologies and threats that we will face. I am up for that debate and I know that the Minister is, too. Let us make sure that it happens robustly.
James Heappey
As we heard at length when I was answering the urgent question yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said in the Select Committee meeting thereafter, when we made the case to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for jabs for missions that we felt could not be administered in line with age priorities, we were given them without question and we are grateful for that support. However, the judgment was made that we should not be prioritising fit, healthy young men and women in the armed forces at the expense of more elderly and vulnerable people and communities across the country. As I said many times yesterday, and as the Secretary of State said, we in the ministerial team stand behind that decision.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The challenge that the Minister is setting is that he will get things right for the people, as opposed to focusing just on the platforms. That is good. There is currently a £1.5 billion backlog of repairs in armed forces accommodation. Will he commit to a quarterly update on where that figure stands, to give a level of transparency that we do not currently have and to ensure that he delivers on the promises he is making at the Dispatch Box?
James Heappey
There is a term popular among those of us who have served in the military: volunteering a mucker for the guardroom. The Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) will, I am certain, have heard that request and he will no doubt write to the hon. Gentleman in due course to agree with him a mechanism for ensuring that progress is reported to him.
It is not enough to spend money wisely now; we must manage our money for the long term. In the past, over-ambitious and underfunded reviews led to successive years of short-term settlements, followed by short-term savings measures, funding pressures deferred and poor value for money for the taxpayer. However, by agreeing to a long-term multi-year settlement, we are redressing the balance. We are carving out space to deliver capability and drive commercial outcomes, commit investment in cash, fund transmissional activities and set a clear headmark for policy. We can at last tackle the root causes of some of the endemic and systemic problems faced by Defence, such as unwieldy procurement, and we can start to develop a sustainable plan for equipment.
Spending on defence is no different from any other large organisation. We must learn to live within our means. That is why the Department has taken the hard decisions to balance our spending plans, rationalise the estate and reduce operating costs as we modernise our equipment. That is also why we have been busy strengthening our financial capabilities. We are currently three years into a five-year programme to enhance the skills of our finance staff, improve cost forecasting and adopt a more realistic approach to risk. But our plan is not just about what we do internally. It is also about augmenting our relationship with industry.