21/03/2017 House of Lords

4:43pm. Now members' business. We leave our live coverage of the

Scottish parliament. We rejoin MSPs for the rest of the debate tomorrow.

We now go to the House of Lords. To make some comments to reassure us

about the US commitment to Nato. As many members have said, many

European countries are not stepping up to the plate. It is not that they

don't have the money. As long as somebody else will do it, why

bother? The come clearly from the US that they will not carry the can any

longer and who can argue with them? I believe that colleagues in this

part of the world have got to realise you have a resurgent Russia,

international terrorism, developments taking place whether it

is in lasers are developing weapons which can be triggered from space,

to identify and damaged surface vessels, there are so many

developments taking place and the whole unmanned not only aircraft but

naval vessels are going to be a thing of the future. As less --

unless we are spending enough to protect our country, the patrol

ports and people crossing the Channel, we had three vessels. It is

ridiculous for an island nation to be in that position. I would ask the

noble Lord, the minister when he is summing up, to address some of these

things because it does mean that the free press are managers say's

governments to spend more on defence, they will have to spend

less on something else, and we all have to step up to that. It is not

going to be pleasant but those have experience in the military now it

that the price will be high, the Falklands was mentioned, and it was

to save a few quid, everyone is eating for economies, but it is

penny wise and pound foolish. I feel we have a fundamental error in the

balance between our foreign and defence policies and our aid

policies. They're very closely linked and it is important that we

get this balance right and there was a very good suggestion by Lord

Hennessy who was calling for a commission or whatever it happens to

be but I don't think we have to wait until the next defence review after

the fifth year. I think it is something we need to be getting on

with now. I would argue that unmanned vehicles of all types are

likely to be replacing the pilots and surface vessels, where does the

Minister think we are in the midst of all of that? Does he really

believe we have sufficient surface vessels to deploy simultaneously two

battlegroups with the two new carriers and at the same time meet

our international commitments and deal with the hotspots, because you

always need a contingency in reserve? To deal with an emergency.

I think we seem to be flat out and with some of the capabilities of our

surface vessels, who don't seem to be able to propel themselves

adequately. How are we going to deploy two aircraft characters with

battlegroups -- carriers, with such a small surface fleet. It is with

some trepidation I speak but I do so because in my own view with

international rules -based order is under greater and more existential

challenge than ever since our predecessors began to piece it

together amidst the ruins of two catastrophic world wars and I do so

also because those challenges and necessary responses are not be

confined to the spheres of defence and security policy, they must go

wider. To understand this and the need for a wider vision and

response, we surely need only to look at the period between the two

world wars. History does not repeat itself exactly but it does contain

plenty of lessons which we would be foolish to ignore. The world

experienced then a perfect storm in which economic, political and

military developments fused into a single mass which overwhelmed the

totally inadequate rules and international and suggestions which

had been established after the First World War. The 1929 stock market

crash led on to mass unemployment, trade protectionism and tit-for-tat

monetary devaluation. These and other factors fuelled the rise of

populace political -- populist political parties. We kind

tomography is -- we kind democracies -- democracies that were made more

week averted their eyes. Does any of this sound familiar? Their emergence

of political forces such as those that propelled Donald Trump to the

White House, and fuelling the political careers of Marine Le Pen

and guilt while there is... I would like to look at three pillars of our

rules -based order which are under threat. The open global trading

system symbolised by the WTO, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

and the functions of the UN with respect to international peace and

security. The arrival in the White House of a president and trade

policy team who seem to regard protectionism as a path to

prosperity and bilateral trade balances as something to be

eliminated by any means, including measures which would run roughshod

through WTO rules is a challenge to all of us. Particularly to this

country which has quite rightly in my view nailed its post-Brexit

colours to the mast of being a champion of free trade. That will

require more than just words. It will require standing up to the

forces of mercantilism and protectionism wherever they emerge

and defending the rules of the WTO. If we fail we will end up poorer and

less able to generate the resources we need to defend ourselves and our

allies in Nato or else we are. The end NPT -- nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty has been one of the cornerstones of our world but has

been under stress free years particularly by North Korea which

withdrew and from Iran whose nuclear programmes gave legitimate cause for

concern. The only thing that these challenges have in common is that in

neither case is a military response either sensible or to be anticipated

or planned for other than as an extremely last resort. There is no

doubt about the immediacy and reality of the challenge for North

Korea. Our own position can only be ancillary but does the Government

should the view that China must be a key player in any effective response

and that antagonising China politically or in trade policy terms

is unlikely to be the best way of securing their support? With Iran,

we have to rather oddly acronym JCPOA. Can the noble Lord come from

government policy is to remain committed to that agreement whatever

the US attitude may turn out to be? Is that policy properly understood

and Washington? Is it not time that we began thinking about globalising

and generalising the constraints in the Iran agreement as Mike thus

extending its situation, which is rather short, and ceasing to make it

so Iran specific. There are are over 1000 -- hundred thousand

peacekeepers deployed worldwide from the UN, in places like Saddam,

Democratic Republic of Congo. The only forces which are fill the

responsibilities to protect civilians. The governments decision

to strengthen commitments to UN peacekeeping in South Sudan and

Somalia are welcome. Perhaps the nobleman as could say something

about the Government medium and long-term policies on UN

peacekeeping. Is this shift in policy which we have seen in the

last year here to stay and is it built into our security strategy or

destined to play a more prominent part than in recent past? I am sure

others have covered the crucial issue of Nato and the uncertainties

over its deterrent capacity as a result of some of the things the new

president of the USA sets during his election campaign. By neglect of

that issue, is merely shows what an extremely wide scope of debate today

has offered us and our important it is to focus on all parts of it. It

is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, with his analysis I almost

invariably agree, although his conclusions, a little less

invariably. I concentrate like him on the rule-based order part of the

motion we are discussing and I do so not because for one moment I

question the crucial role of a fairly funded Nato and a strong and

agile military and maritime power on a far greater extent than today but

because our defence and physical safety now rely on so many other

things in a totally transformed and disrupted world security

environment. Unlike anything that existed even five years ago, let

alone a decade. A year ago, the then Foreign

Secretary Philip Hammond observed that the distinctions between

intelligence agency capability, diplomatic capability and capacity

building through development programmes are becoming, he said,

"More blood at the edges." Other words, integrated and interrelated,

the sheer pace could be added, of digital technology. I would add the

fragmentation of states, which we have seen in the Middle East, I

would at the vast shift of power and production and capital construction

to the east and the South and away from the north and the West in the

21st century, away from the Atlantic powers and especially to Asia. And

above all the need to win and keep winning the narrative through

projection of soft power and maximum connectivity, all the time and

everywhere. It is what the Chinese call winning the discourse war or

the information battle and it is now central in the way that it wasn't

even five years ago. My Lord's, the signals for a change of gear have

been there long enough and non-Ofwat has actually happened now is -- and

long before Brexit and Donald Trump, the need for a fundamental rethink

of our position was there. First, for example, it has been obvious for

three decades that power was shifting in the world away from the

Atlantic powers of the 20th century and to high Rockies of power

generally. Major changes in the coordination and configurations of

Britain's International policies were bound to be necessary. In many

ways the whole pace of innovation and investment, the pace is being

set at the other end of the planet. Secondly, it has been equally years

the conventional military size and big spend our going to be challenged

everywhere by small and agile methods and that the whole scale of

power and influence deployment has been changed. The microchip has,

among other things, miniature rise weapons and power dramatically. The

Davids have been vast empowered against the Goliaths everywhere.

Almost any small organisation can operate a lethal drones, and

inexpensive launch missile can destroy a $100 million plane or

disabled a billion-dollar warship. Furthermore, it has been clear that

in the digital age military engagement have to accept entirely

new rules. The battle may not be on the battlefield. The total

connectivity, scale never seen before mean that great audiences

have to be persuaded. There are no clear decision points between

victors and vanquish. Trust becomes the new and essential winning

weapon. Subtle new mixtures of force and friendship have to be crafted

and assembled in permanent instability is to be overcome in any

theatre and any kind of settlement reached. As I have said, none of

this is new and indeed our own military thinkers and leaders have

responded with growing bigger over the decades. I'm a member in the

days of low intensity warfare and the practice of which I was involved

in in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, profound innovative ideas being

continuously developed by military thinkers in response to these new

conditions and new types of engagement. Yet, there seems to be

one colossal piece missing from this platter of activity and all of this

dedication to new forms of power deployment in a radically

transformed international media. The missing piece is clear motivating

purpose and cause. What exactly is it all about? What is the central

story, the truly coherent, definable strategic merit which should be the

common right across this landscape and in the minds of every service

man and woman at all levels, all the time? The central lesson from our

House of Lords soft Power report three years ago and from the many

experts who gave us evidence in that report and indeed from the current

international relations committee enquiry into the UK Middle Eastern

policy is that for our power and influence to be effective and our

interest to be well protected and promoted there have to be some

defined policy priorities and goals and these can only be derived from a

clear and overall articulation of our national purposes and direction

against a background of an increasingly confused world. We need

to be prepared for, believe in and be fighting for some definite goal.

As Lord Hennessey said earlier in this debate, we need to have a

certain idea of the United Kingdom to adapt in the new network

International landscape that has replaced the 20th-century order. So

one has to ask what is this certain idea in its British clothing, in

this age of global tunnel to be? Does the Brexit prospect and the

arrival of Donald Trump point to the answer? Brexit possibly, the Trump

event in a more negative way. I believe they do. We need to build a

partnership for European security, although not under but liberated

from the old EU treaty. This is a major opportunity for creative

leadership in the digital age. I think we can cast off the image of a

Britain of limited, downsized ambitions as some American

commentators keep saying that we are signalling. They are frankly reading

the wrong signals. Mind you they can hardly be blamed when they see that

we are spending less on our diplomacy through the foreign and

Commonwealth of this budget from about 800 million net and weep loaf,

for example, on Cavalier a disposal is the international agencies or on

subsidising carbon reduction by the most expensive conceivable means --

and we waste money. To pack a more powerful punch, the better. As for

America, it is obvious that America is finished, even if some Americans

believe otherwise -- it is clear that Pax Americana is finished.

Spending highly on defence does not win wars. I doubt that Trump is the

power he suggests he is. Our always slips in this worldwide network and

his attempt to impose trade protection are bound to fail in an

age of internationalised production. My Lords, we want something

different from the 20th century. Our story should be of a more confident

Britain, superbly placed to operate with agility in today's networked

and heavily interdependent world, making full use of its huge

experience, extensive global friendships, amazing latticework of

relationships and the trust of common understanding and connections

all across the world. This not the inspiration for a resource for

Britain wonderfully woven into the Commonwealth network of 2.3 billion

people, the same working language, the language being of course the

ultimate conveyor of complex ideas and common understanding and trust,

the default protocol of the planet. Deploying Britain's immense but

underused soft power, assets, the Commonwealth with its ready-made

trust network is the ideal forum or platform, all that there are some

back sliders. To see things through this lend towards a changed mindset

among policymakers and impose an all branches of government, civil and

military, who are charged with safeguarding Britain's security, it

Scoble business, its brand and its reputation. We are talking about

nothing less than a grand repositioning of the United Kingdom

in a world utterly transformed by the digital age. For this we need a

new strategic synthesis to work bilaterally with America, yes, as a

partner, with China to a degree and indeed closely with how European

neighbours but not permanently tied or overcommitted to any of them. The

Army speaks rightly of its core purpose but whatever form power and

deployment takes nowadays, soft power, one purpose above all others

needs to be clear, inspiration and a source of commitment at every level,

which is to uphold the nation's changing role and interests in an

age of global turmoil and provide security with a rock-solid basis.

That is the unambiguous message which our society and its leading

voices need to send to all three branches of our armed services so

that they can perform at their best with a clear sense of direction. We

owe them nothing less. I'd like to thank, start by thanking the noble

Lord the Minister for introducing this debate and I'd like to

interpret in that also his support for it taking place because it

indeed would be a foolish Chief Whip you listed to a debate without the

Minister saying let's go for it. I would like to thank him for that. I

would also like to say how pleased I am that Lord Astor is back with us

debating defence issues. This House has been blessed in the last ten

years with having two front bench ministers as defence spokespeople

who we have respected and certainly find most helpful in the work that

we are trying to do. I declare an interest, I chair the House of Lords

defence study group, an informal grouping of 60 members comprising of

former military experienced members, politicians who worked in defence

and the MOD and also lay members like myself who was not working in

either of those areas have had some experience. I was chairman of the

Armed Forces review body and I will carry with me for the rest of my

life a huge debt and recognition of that we owe as a nation to our Armed

Forces, young men and women, day in and day out, year in and year out,

often without being thanked for it. My Lords, possibly one of the oldest

members of that group, not in years but service, was Lord Lyell and I

think this is the first main defence debate we have had since his passing

and I would just like on behalf of the group to pay our respect and

thanks to him for the work he did over many years. In the government's

assessment in 2015, strategic defence and Security review, they

said that they had concluded that the threat to our nation had not

significantly changed. I think that's a view many would challenge

and indeed it has been strongly challenged in this debate today. A

number of Lord's have dealt with it quite factually about how actually

the threat has increased and indeed the noble nor the Minister I think

alluded to it, even if it wasn't blunt about it. I do suggest that

apart from the suggestion of the destruction of the media with Brexit

day in and day out we would actually be seeing our security issues much

more in the front page of the press that we are at the moment. The noble

Lord the Minister in introducing the debate referred to the 2%

contribution to Nato, as indeed a number of other noble Lords have,

too. One of our House of Lords study group members, who is absent, and a

number have written to me apologising for not taking place, to

express regret, what in fact Lord Richards, recently chief of defence

staff as we all know and he said, and I quote, "I am sorry to report I

am abroad until the 24th of March and therefore will not be able to

take part. What I would have emphasised is that while hitting the

2% target is a good thing, it has become a veil behind which Her

Majesty's government is skewering the true state of the UK's defence

capability. In itself, the 2% target means little if a country's

ambitions or the perceived threat requires more, as would appear to be

so in the case of the UK." I think it is a view many of us would

certainly agree with. Now, another noble Lord said he did not agree

with the 2%, we shouldn't have it there, we should pay what we need

to. I actually do agree with the 2% as a base, as a minimum entry, if

you like to Nato, because certainly we need to pay more. My friend the

noble Lord in his excellent opening address said, I quote, "The most

valuable asset is the people. " And obviously I agree with that having

chaired the Armed Forces review body. Two days after the strategic

defence and Security review in 2015, the government announced in its

spending review and Autumn Statement that it had included in that

statement a decision to spend on defence ?11 billion in new

abilities, innovation and defence state.

Where is the money coming from? 7.2 billion was from efficiency savings

including military and civilian pay. That is in restraint which is still

continuing. 1% maximum and yet other areas of public service, including

MPs, were not limited to it. It also included a civilian cut in headcount

of 30% in the MOD. I question how can it be extra expenditure when it

is just shifting the deck chairs on the deck? And the people who are

paying for it are the least able to pay for it. At a time when as a

nation we are facing a higher security check. It is no wonder that

the Armed Forces review body in its last report talked about dropping

morale and that has been mentioned in this debate. I am not surprised

about that. They see the statements that are made and what they are

experiencing themselves in the Armed Forces. The reality is that we have

probably been too small-minded and we need to spend more because of the

state of the world today. The chairman of the select events

committee who was with us until a short while ago called for a 3%

expenditure. He reminded us that when we were last in a period of

major terrorism and security threat, the 1980s, it has been referred to

in this debate, defence expenditure varied between 4.3 and 5%. Another

member of our group called for 2.5%. On nearly 40 billion of expenditure

is not insignificant. It is about what we need for the security of

this nation and how we properly resource our defence capability in a

world which is probably less secure and now than it has been for many

decades. Between 2010 and 2016 defence spending reduced in real

terms by 6.9%. There was a negative impact on MoD budget of ?700

million. I would hope the Minister can confirm that will come out of

the set budget that the Treasury will find that money. Is the

Minister able to inform the House how progress is being made about an

issue which is very topical short while ago but has gone quiet

recently, the recruitment of reserves? Up to the 35,000 talked

about. Many members have taken part in the debate today. I respect

hugely their expertise and their experience. I would just said to the

Minister as gently as I can that there has not been one voice in this

debate denying we are in a more insecure world and that we need to

look at our defence budget and that has been irrespective of what party.

Please can you pass that message back? I hope there is a similar

debate in the House of Commons because only by raising our voices

in this Crosshouse we will we stand a chance of being listened to. We

are not warmongers or people who are calling for expenditure because it

is politically convenient to have a go at the Government. If we had a

Labour minister on those benches now answering this debate, my

contribution would be exactly the same as it is now. I hope that

message can be carried back to the Government. It is a pleasure to

follow the noble Baroness. I would also like to pay compliments to the

noble Lord forever efforts that he was next to promote the importance

of defence in Wales, where he does a great job. I would also like to

declare my interest as chairman of General dynamics in the UK. At a

time when there is so much uncertainty in international

relations both in Europe and in the wider world are thoughts must always

turned towards our defence to ensure that the nation is well protected.

During the course of the debate this afternoon with so many distinguished

contributors, we are learning much of how our Armed Forces and others

are properly prepared. For those Armed Forces to be prepared that

preparation can be only the most effective when they are supplied

with the best equipment in body in the latest technology. The task of

procuring equipment is undertaken by the defence equivalent and support

division staffed by both serving officers and civilians. That

division has for years been all too often the subject of an informed

criticism centred on perceived delays or excessive cost. We are

very often -- very often a full examination reveals a different

picture. Defence procurement around the world always gives rise to such

feelings and different countries have different approaches to deal

with it. Recently Lord West asked a question relating to defence

industrial policy. I was at pains to say I did not believe we should

revert to an approach of national champions which failed some years

ago. I would like to speak this afternoon about how we go about

procuring equipment for the Armed Forces and the organisation

responsible for that task. It is a task for which some 30 years ago I

had responsibility and, having been asked more recently by successive

Defence Secretary is to oversee a process which was known as defence

reform I think my perception in this area is relatively up-to-date.

Defence procurement requires a thorough understanding of the

interaction between technology production and commercial realism. I

have argued for a long time that this was not necessarily very

different from imperatives in other industries and in my view the

process should be led by an experienced businessman who

understood both development and commercial imperatives. In my

opinion and at long last the Government have managed to recruit

an outstanding individual to head the organisation. Tony Douglas, the

man who previously ran the Abu Dhabi airport authority which you will

understand is no mean feat. This man is used to getting complex projects

completed on time and on cost. Precisely what is needed in the post

in the MOD, which he now holds. To give further credit to those making

his appointment it was also decided earlier to appoint a nonexecutive

chairman to oversee the division and an inspired choice was made in

choosing Paul Skinner, a man his reputation precedes him from his

time spent at both Shell and RTZ. In my view, the top of the organisation

is now in place. We should be able to deliver what we need now on time

and on cost. So far, so good, you may think. But like any other

efficient organisation, it requires a clear line of control. In my view,

it requires the chief executive to have authority and control over all

the parts of his organisation. So I have been greatly concerned to look

at the way in which the acquisition of the nuclear submarine successor

programme is being largely hived off to a separate procurement

organisation over which the DENS will have reduced influence. It

maybe that was influenced by the Treasurer and their understanding of

procurement has been in the past less than perfect. It has taken

years to find the right person to run DENS but now the MOD is looking

for another person to run the submarine programme. I believe that

is fundamentally wrong. I know what has driven it but I don't agree with

it and I hope it is not too late for the Minister to discuss this with

his colleagues to see whether a more suitable arrangement can be arrived

at. The nuclear submarine programme is a very complex one involving

design, development and construction for the most modern vessels. From my

past experience, this interface is complex and needs to be closely

connected with the rest of our defence procurement programme.

Separation is wrong and I believe it will not live without, we really

need. I hope you are chips may concern we have extremely dedicated

people working both on the military and civilian side in procurement who

rarely attract praise but very frequently are blamed often for

faults that do not really exist or have been misinterpreted. We need

the very best equipment which can be procured and the best people to

enable us to achieve this and those people deserve our absolute support.

I am sure this debate has been immensely enhanced by the

contribution of the noble Lord who has just sat down, whose huge

experience is of massive value to all of us. I must begin by reminding

the House that for many years I have been a member of the delegation to

the Nato Parliamentary assembly where I am currently chairman of one

of their committees. It is only seven weeks or so since we had our

last defence debate and I think it is timely in view of continued

tensions which confront us that we have another one today and I pay

tribute to my noble friend the Minister for that. Especially when

one contemplates what I describe as the arc of trouble which stretches

from the Baltic states in the north through the Middle East and North

Africa to the Atlantic Ocean where Nigeria continues to struggle with

Boko Haram. Much, not all but much of this tension which has increased

in recent times stems from Russia's increasing posturing and provocation

and it is on Russia I want to concentrate most of my remarks. This

increased provocation by Russia despite a faltering economy which

has been compared in scale, we should remind our selves, to that of

Spain. Its faltering mainly as a consequence of crude oil prices in

the $50 per barrel range but with burgeoning defence spending,

admittedly from a comparative low base, when we remind ourselves that

the Russian defence expenditure only four years ago was less than that of

the United Kingdombut what we have seen is an intensification of

Moscow's military build-up throughout the entire region from

the Arctic through to the Mediterranean and we have seen new

evidence of their tinkering in Libya in recent times our allies in Nato

and the East continue to feel threatened by the hard power

imbalance in their neighbourhoods. Russia has the ability rapidly to

amass significant forces on its border and continues to mount

anti-access and area denial capabilities in the Baltics, the

Black Sea and the Mediterranean regions. They have threatened

nuclear strikes against Nato allies and have withdrawn from or violated

key arms control agreements. As well, very importantly, they have

developed a highly sophisticated propaganda and disinformation

campaign often blatantly distorting facts and the truth, which is a

matter I shall return to in a few moments.

I can't help feeling that with the mounting threat from Russia that the

Nato allies are relatively sleeping through all of this. It is not

helped by the continued uncertainty which comes from Washington and I

say that not only from the wild and sometimes contradictory tweets from

the President himself but it is this period of uncertainty in the

formation of a new administration in the United States. In the past it

has often taken up to June before all the political appointments are

made but last week in the international relations select

committee upstairs, which might noble friend Lord Howell is

chairman, we heard evidence that the current appointments in the United

States are proceeding very slowly and still some of the most senior

Pentagon political offices remain unfilled. Perhaps one of the few

firm messages, though, to come from Washington recently is President

Trump's dissatisfaction at the poor response to the Nato Welsh summit's

target of moving towards that 2% of GDP going to defence. The noble

Lord, Lord Howell when he opened the debate referred to the five states

whose defence spending comes to less than 1% and the noble Lord Stirrup

in his earlier speech talked about the need to name and shame those who

don't even spend 1% but unfortunately Mr Stirrup did not

name them and therefore I will. It has been implied in the past that it

is bad manners and not very friendly to name the backsliders but it is

Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Slovenia and Hungary who currently spend less

than 1% and I think that is a disgrace, particularly that some of

those countries are extremely wealthy and really ought to be

moving towards the Welsh summit's target, indeed some of them,

particularly Belgium, seem to be spending less each year, which again

I would have thought is indefensible. It has been referred

to before when I -- but I repeat it. It is a sad reflection of our

European friends and I speak as one who was not in favour of Brexit that

after Brexit 80% of Nato's partners will be expending on Nato's defence

will come from non-members of the European union. 80% coming from

non-European members. That also is a disgrace. But I believe one

constructive praiseworthy development in recent times has been

the decision to deploy battle troops in the three old state and Poland --

the three Baltic states and Poland. I have expressed concerns in the

past about the delay to their deployment and I am very relieved

that the first of the United Kingdom led contingent has already arrived

in Estonia. I have felt for some time that these months, which we are

in the middle of now, covered a dangerous period of change and

uncertainty which could have encouraged President Putin to make

another provocative incursion is one way or another. I have two

particular questions to ask my noble friend the Minister. First of all,

will he tell us when the Estonian deployment of UK troops will be

complete? Will he also tell us when it is expected that the other

deployments, I am thinking of the Canada led one in Latvia, the German

led one in Lithuania and the United States one in Poland, when those

deployments also will be complete? These deployments will, although

small in size, will provide an essential effect which will warn

Moscow that to engage with them would have immediate article five

implications. Finally, I did not refer earlier to the propaganda and

misinformation programme, which the Russians are so good at and finally

I ask the Minister to confirm that all preparations have been made

alongside our Estonian battle group deployment to have adequate back-up

for Russian speakers and media facilities to counter the inevitable

sniping and vilification which we can be assured the Russians are

bound to spray over them in the months and years ahead. This is an

important debate about the very serious international situation

facing the UK in terms of its capacity to defend itself in

collaboration with its allies. I declare an interest as a scientific

consultant to a defence contractor working for the MOD and I am

consultant with a university in France working on new wings for

Airbus facilities, some of which are important for the UK. When I was

head of the Met office I also saw a bit of how MOD works, some of which

will make your hair stand on end about how it all works, but it also

enabled focusing on, during this period, the ability of the Met

office to forecast the atmosphere and oceans greatly improved. But I

do have two declare that when I was a professor at Cambridge one of my

research students used our research techniques in Cambridge to the right

very high-tech shelters for all the women protesting on the Commons.

Since this is a debate on politics of defence I should begin by asking

HMG whether it is satisfied with the understanding and support of the

British people for the main aspects of UK defence strategy. The first

point of controversy has been about the size of the Armed Forces, which

is now smaller in total than for many years and significantly lower

than is needed to confront the main opponent to the UK and its allies in

Asia and the Middle East especially. This is a technical and financial

question depending on the choice of strategic goals but we should learn

more about arguments. The second major controversy, which is much

more political, concerns whether the UK armaments should continue to

depend on nuclear weapons systems. I believe this is essential and it is,

of course, the official Labour macro policy as mentioned earlier this

afternoon. Of course, there are members of the Labour and the

Liberal Democrats continue to be split about this, with many members

inside and outside Parliament being opposed. Also of course many

countries in the Nato alliance are opposed to the use of these weapons.

A lesser but more recent controversy about the UK's defence is to what

extent they should be used to support government is in the Middle

East and Africa where Civil War is taking place. Or there are outbreaks

of disease and civil emergencies such as the breakdown of government

systems in Libya and elsewhere and Lord Howell in his introductory

speech commented about how our defence forces are used for these

civil issues and very effectively, too. Though there is I think very

little political controversy about the use of UK's world-class

defensive capability inside and security services to protect the UK

and our allies. I should like to make a suggestion that the

government needs to build up support of its defence policies amongst all

parts of society, including schools, universities, industry, trade unions

and so on in order to have support for its defence forces and their

infrastructure within government and also the understanding about the

role of the private sector. I believe new approaches are

necessary. I came to this conclusion when, with my grandson, I was

visiting the excellent Royal Air Force Base the. I have told Lord

Howell about this story. The technical and scientific aspects of

the IDF over the last century were well displayed and I assumed there

will be some centennial celebrations of this museum in a year or two --

of the RAF. But there needs to be more emphasis on current operational

policies. As well as the developing technologies. The existence of

nuclear weapons in UK defence should not be ignored. It is also important

in museums and other places providing public information to

explain why the UK has defence forces in 2017, giving information

about countries which are the UK's allies and controversially which

countries are not our allies. In some schools, I am afraid to say,

the governors prevent school visits to defence facilities. BR AF Museum

provides information about our former enemies. Surely there should

now be considerable emphasis in all such information displayed on how

these former enemies are now our allies. There is great

misunderstanding by many young people on these issues. So, I look

forward to the Minister's response to this question. Demonstrations,

museums, videos about modern defence forces and their infrastructure

should also include displays and information about their use of

technology and scientific development, including systems

collaborating with our allies. An example is the large air bus

transport plane I have mentioned, one of which is used by the UK Prime

Minister now who I am glad to say no longer goes on a Boeing. It is not

realistic to pretend that our forces only depend on UK industry and

technical products. For example, the Met office provides world-class

meteorology and environmental data and forecasts for the UK forces in

from information provided through Nato from other forces but also

provides its information to Allied forces such as the weather

forecasting, which is now used by the US Air Force. It is important

that technical defence collaboration between Nato forces should not be

impeded by the UK withdrawing from the current EU technological

projects, which other noble peers have mentioned. That may happen

without considerable diplomacy. Perhaps the Minister could say how

this issue is also being addressed. Finally, I would like to say that

there should be greater collaboration between UK defence

scientists and those of our allies. When I was at the Met office,

perhaps it has changed now, there were no army defence scientific

advisory committee. I hope that may have changed by now. In contrast to

the large number of qualifications and interest which many noble Lords

have professed, I can only profess to having been a submarine commander

in the Cold War but I have the interests of the service at heart. I

thank the noble Lord the Minister for this debate, which has given us

the opportunity to revisit and examine the entire defence area. We

have heard the challenges to the order this did by many. They

include, amongst others, famine both food and water, nuclear

proliferation, which we have included, but also perhaps we should

say the new US regime. In times of peace, military expenditure tends to

be the Cinderella of government spending. Large parts of the

population see it as neither necessary nor desirable and it

forces Parliament to persuade -- it to persuade the voting public to

respect defence in so many areas called to their attention. History

will tell us that although we are seldom prepared for converts when it

arises we do occasionally get it right. -- seldom prepared for

defence. Henry VIII regularly ran out of money to maintain its waters.

The only began was when he received a new injection of cash. Elizabeth

the first's expenditure on warfare was a markedly modest but it cost

the king of Spain two thirds of the entire revenues of the Spanish

Empire in 1585 to build the Spanish Armada.

A sordid three years before the date was to set sail. -- he started three

years. Spending on the Royal Navy consumed the largest share of

government revenues at one point. I assume that most of us come from an

era when the Napoleonic Wars still formed a part of the history

curriculum. The British National budget was ?66 million in the last

year of the Napoleonic wars. The Army spent 40 million, 10 million

was spent on mercenaries from Austria and Prussia. Post 1815 and

during the Hundred years or so of Pax Britannica we were probably the

most confident country on the planet and confidence has been mentioned in

certain contexts. Defence expenditure fell steadily as a

percentage of GDP because of the vast rise of GDP itself. In 1900 it

was just under four percent. The arrival of Admiral Jackie Fisher saw

a complete change in defence thinking. He was convinced that war

with Germany was inevitable and set about modernising the Navy and

preparing it for war with enormous enthusiasm. He retired in 1911 for

the first time with the job done and so effectively that the defence

spending at 3% of GDP was lower than when he had arrived due to the

massive efficiencies and savings he had been able to make whilst

completely renewing the battleship fleet. He had the public on his

side. He was such a popular figure that as he believed Parliament into

supporting his new building programmes, the public calling to

the phrase we want it and we won't wait referring to dread knots.

Defence spending at 3.15% of GDP was a magic quality of this figure

three, popping up time and again. From 19221935 spending remained

steady at around 3%. The arguments of Churchill and others surrounding

the process of rearmament in 1936 to not need rehearsing but suffice to

say they were highly controversial at the time. I apologise for

reciting all this history but I hope that my point is clear. We ignore

the lessons of the past at our peril. Fischer managed to revitalise

the Navy in ten years but it continues in an age far less

technologically advanced than today. Churchill managed to get the ball

rolling in 1936 although we were far from ready when the war started. In

more recent times we entered the Cold War in the 50s with defence

expenditure at 6% of GDP and it was still at 4% by the early 90s. Since

then the so-called Cold War dividend has had the psychological effect of

lolling the country and false sense of which is now 25 years on starkly

apparent. Other speakers will no doubt, and have detailed the effects

of the obvious lack of mass, ie numbers, manpower shortages,

reduction in the procurement of stocks of weapons and equipment and

the scrapping of useful equipment because maintenance or manning

cannot be funded. We must start to think of you have two unthinkable

casting aside some of the 21st-century expectations of

politics. Real spending as a percentage of GDP and figures that

are not widely understood by the public includes a following figures.

Pensions, 8%, health, 7.4%, welfare, 6%. Add them together and you get a

quarter of the entire GDP. Education, 4.4%, defence, 1.76

defence. Pure defence spending and point to 5% of other things

creatively accounted into the calculation. We do not have ten

years or even free to prepare for the next conflict which may be

forced upon us. Despite the rapid advance of technologies development

times have lengthened. Fisher built the dreadnought in a year and her

successor will probably take 15 years. It did ten years from project

site to launch the first day in class destroyer. The type 26 frigate

began in 2010 and the first vessel has yet to be ordered. The numbers

of both these projects have halved since inception. The type 31 frigate

is still a figment of the collective imagination. I could start on the

astute class submarine programme but embarrassment for mild service

forbids further comment. Most would agree this is only right and proper

but I would argue the balance has been dangerously upset by the

post-Cold War loll in military need and the 2015 SDS are as possibly

already reached itself by date and another seriously as to be taken at

our defence needs rather than looking through the other end of the

telescope that what we can afford when all the other budgetary

considerations have... It fails to address personnel recruitment and

attention to any great extent. The court Secretary State for defence,

nothing is more important than defending our country and protecting

our people. Another quotation, I think from the Prime Minister, the

first duty of government is defence of the people. I would point out

that while we aim to spent to depend -- 2% of GDP on defence, Russia

spends 5.4, the US 2.3% from 1.9% and Saudi Arabia 13.7%. A final

question. What consideration has been given to the cost of building

operating and maintaining the strategic defence budget? The main

issue out of all that which seems to come across as being that of morale

and recruitment, the hollowing out of the personnel of the services.

Equipment can be built and will be built and budgets will create that

but we must create an attractive enough to form for recruitment to

benefit and bring enough people into the services to create the kind of

task forces and numbers we have been talking about. It is a pleasure to

follow him. He brings a nautical experience to our discussions and I

bring more of an army bias. He is also a relative newcomer to the

House. As a relative new boy myself, could I see the logic's houses taken

a bit of the kicking in the press that having sat through most of this

debate I have been impressed by some of the excellent speeches.

Interesting, well-informed and informative. I will mention Lord

Hennessy and Lord Stewart. I am glad to see the Secretary of State and

chairman of the Select Committee from the House of Commons are both

listening to them. I hope I can live up to the high standard but I rather

doubt it and I shall make two points. The first is on the Armed

Forces and the second is the current global situation. Centring of the

Armed Forces, -- standing of the Armed Forces, it is a shame to say

they are highly regarded. When I was in the MOD, they were more highly

regarded them in my lifetime. I recall the United States Army after

Vietnam and a friend of mine told me he flew back into Los Angeles

airport and he was spat at. We have never got to that stage and I hope

we never do. In the same vein, it was about 12 years ago there was an

election to the US Senate and it was said that no Senator was elected had

a child that was serving in the Armed Forces. I mention that because

actually in contrast on the benches here and down the other end is not

only do you have people who have served in Armed Forces but also they

continue to have connections through children and relations that serve

and I think that means we are closer in many ways to our Armed Forces

than in some other places. It remains a respected career to the

end of Armed Forces and attract a high quality of both officers and

men. It remains a profession of which to be proud and where parents

can be proud if their children join Armed Forces. And women indeed. It

is academic. It is a profession of which one can be proud of their

children joining. When my son announced he was sinking of joining

the Armed Forces, his mother said over my dead body. She has changed

her mind now. It isn't by chance we have respected professionals in the

Armed Forces. It is important to keep it in the public eye. We have

seen a reduction in the arm forces. Good barracks are being sold. The

point about this is actually if you can sign your Armed Forces personnel

to the back of an industrial estate, the respect they are afforded is

less. Messes being contracted out, what used to be regarded as a home

for officers is no longer such. Pay and conditions have continuously

been eroded for many years. We have heard about morale and I think it is

a bit of an amorphous thing and if you listen to some people it is

always lower. Ice think of soldiers weren't complaining about something

then they probably weren't happy. But recruitment and retention are

not good at the moment. We are not cut it to the 82,000 target and I

would urge the Government to look at the situation. It is not about

people pitching poor soldiers who have seen awful things in

Afghanistan or Iraq -- pitying. They do not want that, they want to be

respected. It is not about political correctness or diversity of all that

is important too. It is not bad conditions, although that too is

important. But actually it is about feeling valued and respected by the

society that one serves and being challenged by adventure and

excitement at seeing a future career and lifestyle that can offer a

decent life for one and one's family. It means seeing the value in

some things rather than just looking at the cost. The second point is the

current international situation and our response. I was impressed by the

tour de force of their noble minister about the strategic threats

we face also backed up by the noble Lord. I know my noble friend the

Minister is in a difficult position today but we all value his support

for defence as well. I was part of the SDS are 2010 with my friends and

the Lord is absolutely right that it was driven by costs. Some tried to

deny it but it was about cutting costs. I would say to the three

Labour ministers who have spoken so far today, in 2010, the situation we

inherited across public finances was dire. There is no point in arguing.

In defence, there were unfunded secure and programmes going forward

which we estimated perhaps some 30 - ?60 billion. Nobody could tell us

what the funding was because it was so chaotic. The last government,

coalition government, under Philip Hammond for whom I worked, brought

defence spending under proper control and should be congratulated.

With the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. I see the noble Lord

Wallace. I have to say we need to go a lot

further. My noble friend Lord Jopling talked about Russia and I

won't cover other strategic threats but let's just hone in on Russia.

Nobody has been held to account for the murder of not miles from here

ten years ago Livenenko. Moby has been held to -- nobody has been held

to account for the downing of a plane by Russian missiles. The

Baltic states have a joke and if I get it right it is visit Russia but

for -- before Russia visits you. They are worried with good concern.

You're have the other thread which is closely linked Russia, which is

cyber attacks. -- the other threat. We have heard about what has

happened in the US elections, we have heard about the Montenegrin.

They are nonstop attacks, they are asymmetric and they will grow. The

situation has changed. When I joined the Army in 1974 we had 150,000 or

so, the 5000 sitting in West Germany, tanks, missiles, tactical

nuclear weapons, aircraft facing the East. We spent about 5% of our GDP

on defence throughout the 1980s. Now it is around 2%. I went well on how

that is accounted for. We only have a vested left. We don't expect

invasion forces crossing Europe but asymmetric warfare as it is called,

V8 Little Green men that we saw in Crimea and Ukraine -- be it little

green men or undermining the Baltic states through winding up their

Russian minorities, we should remember the Baltic states are

guaranteed by Article five, an attack on one is an attack on all so

I have to say we need as a country a bigger stick, as updated as well.

Much of the heard about Nato's spending, of course they're spending

should rise. We need to up our spending as well stop I pay tribute

to the government on actually, it may not seem like it, and especially

current defence ministers. I know what they think but we need to go

further. The Chancellor, who had a bad week last week, I believe

understands the need to spend more in defence. But we need to educate

our public, our politicians and government ministers that defence is

the first duty of government. There is always a danger of old men and

there's quite a few in this place to look back through rose tinted

spectacles that the good old days but we also need a balance and to

understand the history. We could draw analogies with the 1930s. Has

been referred to by both Lord Hanning and Lord King and actually

there is some validity. Disarmament, isolationism, aggression, invasion

of small parts of countries and I urge my government to up defence

spending so that the Armed Forces feel valued, it becomes an

attractive career for young men and women and most of all to ensure that

British interests are safe in this deteriorating world situation. The

first duty of government has always been defence of the realm and we all

need to remember that. I think he is absolutely right to draw attention

to the non-accountability of the Russians for some or actions. I was

for some years on the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya

and one of the things that drove me into despair was the brutal

behaviour and the way in which they were recruiting for extremists

because people were driven into the arms of extremists by their

behaviour. My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate and I think

it is due in large part to the very thoughtful and wise speech by the

Minister, the noble Earl, and indeed by the very firm and perhaps

trenchant speech by my noble friend. I think we should in debates of this

kind always take some time to pay the warmest unlimited tributes to

the men and women of our armed services of the security services

and the police, who carry so much responsibility in such demanding and

exacting circumstances are now -- on our behalf. I start my thinking

about defence, perhaps I should clear and interest, I had a short

service stint during the Cold War. I was subsequently the Minister and

defence responsible for the Navy when we still had service ministers

and I found that despite the awful circumstances I found that a very

enjoyable role. Surely the first thing we should do in debating

defence is to define and examine the threats. We shouldn't start by

talking about percentages of expenditure, we should say what is

the real threat. Which faces us. What should we be doing to respond

to that threat? What does that demand of us? How much is it the

responsibility is essential to pay in responding to that risk and I

think we sometimes forego that debate and that leads to a great

deal of misunderstanding. What is the threat? And for those ordinary

people in their lives, one of the biggest threats is of course

terrorism and extremism. And what does that demand of us? It demands

extremely good, highly qualified security services to which, for

which we are deeply grateful for all they do on our behalf. It also

requires a great deal of support and work by the police. But if we are

talking about terrorism and extremism we do have to ask

ourselves what leads people into extremist positions? And that's why

we have two remember all the time that we are in a battle for hearts

and minds and that this does demand and it can at times be extremely

exacting, demand the highest conduct in terms of the values we proclaim.

Because if we slip from both values, we play into the hands of the

recruiters for the extremists. I get very worried by some of Donald

Trump's language when he starts advocating waterboarding again and

talks loosely in his Twitter about the acceptability of torture. I get

extremely worried because I think how many new recruits for extremism

has he made by those few ill judged remarks? And it seems to me that we

have a great responsibility as long-standing allies of the United

States to stand absolutely firm in our own position on this and not

yield an inch and in doing that I know from my long-standing

involvement with many people in the United States that there will be

many, many people in the US who rejoice at what we are doing and the

way we are doing it. My Lords, the minister was absolutely right to

emphasise the unpredictable nature of the situation, the complexity.

This is not necessary to go through all the places in the world which

have been listed several times in this debate but I am also glad that

we have talked about migration, refugees and displaced people, that

we have also talked about climate change. These two factors taken

together may make anything we are facing at the moment seem like

child's play by comparison. We have also, I think, begun to touch on the

issue of moving from and ordered approach to world trade to moving

into a phase of perhaps aggressive free markets without that moderating

influence and that of course is in itself becomes threatening. But I

think there is one other point and on this I would congratulate the

noble Lord having raised it, I think we do have to ask ourselves very

seriously whether the carriers as we have now got them and polite wrists

as it now stands -- Polaris as it now stands is not distorting in

overall expenditure to the overall defence budget and the real needs

and the real threats that we are going to face and the action that we

may need to be able to take to contain such threats. I am not and

never have been somebody who was a unilateralist. I have always been a

multilateralist on disarmament. But I do think we need to ask that

question because it would be unfortunate if we end up

muscle-bound because we are unable to respond to the real situations

and the demands that are being made of us. The Minister emphasised

working with others. That is going to be desperately important, of

course it is. I can think of very few situations in which we will be

able or even contemplate doing something on our own. All of it,

including, of course, terrorism demands international collaboration

and therefore working out new ways of collaborating with the European

Union to continuing our collaboration with France and others

and to playing our role within Nato is, of course, crucial. But before I

conclude I would also like to mention one other point on which I

am totally convinced. I think that if we are going to talk about

effective defence policy we have the see the relationship of arms control

and regulation of arms trade as absolutely central. Because I think

in the situation in which we are operating with, as I have

emphasised, extremism and terrorism as a factor, we can't afford

situations in which there is any danger whatsoever of lethal weapons

ending up in the wrong hands. Or indeed weapons being used in a way

that actually recruits for the extremists. We have got to be very

certain about the end use of arms that are being exported. We need to

be very certain about accountability. And I don't think

this is a sortable talented. It is something absolutely central to the

defence programme itself, how are we actually insuring that we are

recognising the danger and the significance of armaments and

ensuring that we are not inadvertently playing into the hands

of people who actually are going to exacerbate the terrifying issues

with which we are confronted. As we have heard from many of the noble

lords and ladies who have spoken today, we're living in a very

troubled and insecure world, militarily, politically, economic B,

socially, every key themes to be in turmoil. It doesn't matter where you

look, the landscape is littered with issues that governments and

international institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to

handle. Whilst in this chamber we pray, daily, for peace and

tranquillity in the realm, we are clearly not doing enough. So what

does all this mean for our military in the first, second decade of the

21st century? The most pressing item on people's agenda is Brexit. At

first sight it seems to us that Brexit itself is unlikely to have a

vast impact on our Armed Forces, certainly on their roles and tasks

because we are firmly attached to Nato and we expect to be able to

continue to cooperate with our European allies. But of course, more

indirectly there are big unknowns. What will happen within and to our

defence industries? How will it change in the value of the exchange

rates of the power and affect our ability to fund the ever increasing

costs and procurement of military equipment and manpower? And to add

to this there is the spectre of the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Should it become a reality? There will presumably be a requirement to

give Scotland her chair of the combat units and vehicles, aircraft

squadrons, warships, maintenance assets and to sort out our nuclear

base. That will all take some doing. Subtitles will resume

on Tuesday In Parliament at 11pm.