03/12/2015 House of Lords

watch recorded coverage of all today's business at the Lord's after

the daily politics later tonight. The success of this review will be

determined by whether that gap can be narrowed, and in that context I

welcome the outcome of last night's debate in the other place, and the

decision to authorise the extension of military operations against IS to

include its heartland in East Syria. A decision which I believe was

morally, legally and strategically the right one to take. My Lords,

it's easy to say that it's a great honour to be joining law your

Lordships. But it's difficult to say how much

it means to me. I would like to thank my supporters, my noble

friends, Lady stole and Lady Bottomley. My mentors and noble

friend Lady Brown -- Browning. I'm afraid I will continue to need her

help, having already sat on the wrong benches, and stood when I

should have been sitting, and no doubt sat when I should have been

standing. I would like to congratulate and thank the staff of

this house. I don't know how they recognise us all, but I take my hat

off to them. In my time in another place as a backbencher, as a

minister, as Chief Whip, as chairman of the Defence Select Committee, I

came to appreciate with great admiration the depth of the wisdom

and expertise that is available on a daily basis in this house. An

obvious example of that is the noble Lord, Lord Jannay, who it's a

privilege to follow. He told me a fortnight or so ago that he was an

optimist when it came to nuclear. I am not. I've been described by The

Times as making Eeyore look like a happy, copy type. And you are about

to find out why. I'm thankful I only have four minutes, limiting the

number of mistakes I can make, but time will tell. My lords, I declare

my interest in that I advise Tallis UK, pure storage, the pure storage

company, and I'm also an unpaid adviser of the electric

infrastructure security council of the United States. I welcome the

government amendment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. I suspect those of

us today would like to see more, but at a time of austerity, this is a

real achievement. There is one aspect of the review on which I will

concentrate. Since the Industrial Revolution, the developed world has

begun to rely on technology to an extent which has been increasing as

the pace of change picks up. The developed world is now completely

dependent on, for example, computers and electricity. This was the

subject of an excellent speech about a month ago in this house by the

noble Lord Harris of Haringey. Without computers, we could not

function efficiently. If we lost our electricity, we could barely

function at all. We would have no money, no communication, no chain of

command, no water, and no fuel. It would, as they say, be a really bad

day. Our reliance on electricity creates for us and existential

risk. A potential single point of failure that leaves us vulnerable as

never before. And so I particularly welcome the concentration given in

this review to the extra money provided to GCHQ, and to the

recognition by the Prime Minister of the need for exercises to protect

our energy infrastructure. I welcome the fat than when these

upon abilities were set out to the Chancellor of Exchequer and asked

for resources to deal with them, the Chancellor told him he was being

insufficiently ambitious and gave him more. I believe that reflects

well on both of them. Because throughout the developed world,

modern warfare will be fought not only on the beaches, in the fields

and on the streets, it will be fought inside our infrastructure, in

ways we will not be able to see, with no warning and with devastating

consequences. I believe the government understands this, but

there is much still to be done. I very much appreciate my noble friend

for me a special pleasure to follow for me a special pleasure to follow

my noble friend. I am sure that his experience will add lustre to this

house. Over the last five years, James and I have had many

discussions on defence and his knowledge on the subject gained over

many years was put to excellent use when he served as chairman of the

select committee for defence in the other place. Having two ancestors

who both fought at the Battle of Trafalgar, rising to add more rank

and another one a general commander at the Battle of Waterloo, his

natural interest in the Armed Forces is not surprising. When I look to

the speech I made in the defence debate, I felt it only right to

congratulate the government on the outcome on fences. We are

unquestionably in a better place than I and many others imagine six

months ago. It has been received positively and I understand our

American friends who regard us as their key partner of choice, are

pleased with the outcome, in particular looting the enhanced

Royal Navy capability. Great effort has gone into this review and I'm

sure we would all wish to thank all those involved, in particular the

many civil servants whose efforts often go totally unsung. Secondly, I

completely endorse the government's link between prosperity and

security. Indeed, I strongly suggest the Armed Forces having even greater

role to play. All three services can reinforce the government is global

prosperity ambition through their deploying footprint, utilising soft

power to exercises, visits, partnerships signalling our regional

commitments, our military strength and military technology. All this

makes the work of our industrial defence sector and that of our

diplomats a great deal more effective. We will unquestionably

help enhance our international trade and create wealth with the -- within

the UK. Having said that, I must add a strong note of practical

quotient. The work to create and indeed restore the necessary

capability has only just begun and it would take many highly motivated,

capable people many years to make it happen. Leadership and commitment to

the pace and quality of delivery is totally crucial. We must not waste a

single day as recent history clearly demonstrates events may challenge us

at any time as my friend has just mentioned, before we are ready to

respond. The core point of the 2% is at the 20% of the 2% is being spent

on new kit. It will undoubtedly be a major factor in forcing positive

change, but much of the new equipment will not be delivered and

operational until 2025 and beyond, 20 years after the 2010 as our

future force planned structure and the world looks far more dangerous

and in a sense we will see a window of bomb ability over the next

decade. In the round, we may not achieve the full strength of our

military capability in 2030. Three times the length of World War II and

three parliaments from now. In my view, everything that can be done to

pull forward this programme will not only give to much greater efficiency

and cost game but will motivate innovation and the time gain could

be of crucial importance to the UK's security. The next two or three

years will be more than exacting for our armed services as the budget now

includes the cost for rapidly enhancing our cyber intelligence

capability. In times of crisis, I'm sure government would find another

billion pounds to accelerate this very positive change programme. Do

we need to wait for a crisis? It's excellent news that we now have

clear political will to engage from strength and I would and to

re-engage from strength, and I would hope our government would be

prepared to consider going the extra mile, which in my view would be both

splendid for morale and the United Nations. I would ask my noble friend

the Minister to consider my request to go the extra mile and if I may

say, I took very careful note of the very powerful speech by the noble

and gallant peer Lord Stirrup and I would personally like to look

forward to the time when allocation to defence will be at least 3%.

While I welcome and congratulate all our speakers today, I want to

particularly welcome and congratulate my noble friend Lord

Haim. As has already been suggested, his campaigning history goes back a

very long way and is still active today. I can recall first meeting

him on campaign visit to Scotland in the 1980s, when as a young teacher I

used to do the homework of his son who would come with him for the

visit for the weekend. It's terrific to be sitting beside him here today

and to welcome here. I welcome much of the content of the new national

security strategy but I want to focus particularly on the stability

of element of the topic for debate, and the new policy statement on UK

aid tackling global aid challenges in the national interest. Much of

this national security strategy is framed in the right terminology, it

does recognise the critical links as has already been said between

development, diplomacy and defence. But in too many instances within the

strategy, the rhetoric does not always match the content. The

section on the United Nations refers to UN peacekeeping but does not

reference UN peace building or the work that is being done to build

greater collaboration between the United Nations, the World Bank and

other multicultural institutions to ensure greater success in

post-conflict reconstruction. The section on the European Union is far

too cautious, does not reference the potential of the external action

service to make a real difference in the world, to the stability that we

all seek. The section on migration, I have to say I was shocked to find

only one paragraph, four sentences, the first talks about a

comprehensive strategy, the other three makes three there is no such

thing and as migration is a driver of so much conflict in the world

today, surely that should have greater recognition in this

strategy. I was also surprised given the key role of the United Kingdom

in ensuring that goal 16 of the new sustainable development goals

references peace and justice and the importance of those two development

at the section on the sustainable development goals does not make

specific mention of that particular challenge. However, I do welcome the

fact that the new policy commits 50% of our aid resources to fragile

states and regions. I believe this is long overdue and focusing of our

overseas aid on places that need it most and I also welcome the new ?1

billion fund for conflicts, security and stability. However, I think even

now the descriptions of purpose for these new-founds, the priority is

being established, the strategies being used are far from clear. I

would specifically asked today that the government consider allocating

specific time in the New Year to debate the strategies behind these

two critical new commitments. We know that the development goals will

not be met by the 31st of December this year in any conflict affected

state in the world and not only will they not be met as a whole, but not

one end BG will be met in anyone fragile state. There can be no peace

without development but there can also be no development without peace

and if we are aiming for international stability as well as

British security, I think we need to give greater priority to that within

the detail of our strategy in the coming years. In conclusion, can I

say one other thing and that is that I welcome the strong commitment

given by the government to defence spending and development spending,

but to do that at the same time as we are cutting back on a diplomatic

effort and so many important places and the detail of the diplomatic

analysis and our research strength and committed knowledge over the

years, I think that is a backward step and I think development and

defence hand in important but development, defence and diplomacy

have to go together if we are going to have the international security

and stability that we seek. I am delighted to follow Lord McConnell

and I agreed with much of what he said. I have to say I never dream to

that when I stood in the election that I would rise today as a

membership in this house. I want to thank everyone who has made my

arrival here such an enjoyable experience. I am genuinely grateful

for all the guidance and help I have received at all levels and from my

sponsors. The doorkeepers, the attendance and catering staff are

incessantly cheerful, helpful and friendly and not just to me but to

my friends and family and my demanding children and

grandchildren. I have the honour to represent a constituency for 32

years. It is not a place, is the heartland of the Gordon family, his

study headed by the Duke's of Gordon and the 18th-century duchess who

recruited soldiers into the Gordon Highlanders with the kids. It also

produced a Prime Minister. She ended herself to Timmy went after one

election she said, Malcolm, I am so pleased you got back. I worried you

might lose. I was so worried in fact, I very nearly voted for you. A

colleague said to me that if you are going to be a long serving MP, you

need to reinvent yourself and I certainly have carried out many

different roles. Including leading my party in Scotland and working

with others in the Constitutional Convention to lay the foundation for

the restoration of the Scottish Parliament. I am more committed than

ever to the case for a federal United Kingdom that can secure the

wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland to be self-governing

within the UK rather than leaving it. But I am particularly proud of

the role of which I was entrusted by the House of Commons for ten years

as chair of the International development committee. This gave me

a privileged and unique insight into the work of the UK's aid and

development activities by government and world-class development and

humanitarian NGOs and charities and international and global players and

it is on the basis of this experience that I choose to make my

short intervention into this debate. I do understand the common's aim of

demonstrating how our official development assistance serves the

national interests that has to be done according to the committee

guidelines. I am pleased the aid review continues to highlight the

focus on poverty reduction as a key objective as it must be in the post

objectives of eliminating absolute poverty by 2030 is to be realised. I

also note this house's report and assert my own view that tackling the

challenges of poverty, humanitarian disasters, migration requires the

governments involvement. I would express caution that while we retain

flexibility, we do not chop and change priorities to quickly and too

often and in particular in our desire to adjust the current refugee

crisis and I've visited refugees in Lebanon and Jordan,. I welcome the

fact the government's National Security strategy and defence review

maintain the commitment to tackling conflict and building stability

overseas and I watch with interest how the increase in the fund will be

prioritised and in what ways the government will deliver annually 50%

of DFID's budget in fragile regions. I hope I will have further

opportunities to address these matters and that my past

experiences, I will be able to contribute truthfully.

In a debate with four maiden speakers, it gives me great pleasure

of having congratulated the noble Lord Bruce on his excellent maiden

speech in such an important debate. We come from opposite corners of

Scotland, but I'm reassured to note we have both experienced in

campaigning for similar issues in the form of health and transport.

His considerable experience, not only as deputy leader of his party,

but also Shadow Secretary of State for multiple departments and

Scotland. I'm sure we will look forward to the benefit of his

experience in the coming months. His speech has given a very different

view on defence and international security and stability from the

perspective of the international development committee. The

constituency of Gordon has benefited from his experience for 32 years,

and I'm sure all sides of this house can look forward to his

contributions based on his wide experience. I believe

overlook the developing threat and contribute far too much on cost

saving. The threat has evolved massively over the last 30 years,

particularly in the fields of cyber attacks, electronic surveillance and

terrorism internationally on a larger scale. I'm a firm believer in

nuclear deterrence. Russia seems to be restarting what was carefully

dismantled 30 years ago, and there are nuclear threats from other

nations. I agree the concept is awful, but deterrence is effective.

The whole scenario of warfare has changed and appears to have settled

into a pattern of multinational approach, rather than solo campaigns

such as those fought in the Falklands in the South Atlantic, and

I welcome the strategy of working with partners. I'm pleased the

government has confirmed expenditure will remain at the agreed 2% of GDP,

and look forward to this being maintained in all future budgets.

More than ever before is a guaranteed expenditure necessary.

The list of new equipment promised is encouraging. Properly equipped

aircraft carriers will be essential for us to fulfil the obligations we

have on a worldwide theatre along with helicopters. It only takes one

very good shot to lose that asset. I hope plans are in place to ensure

there are adequate resources to ensure the security and protection

for future deployments. This is a long review and I want to focus on

two subjects. I'm saddened that would be increased that and greater

demands on defence resources, and following reviews of cuts, there is

only a small increase in the numbers of personnel, and if the Army is to

maintain that 82,000 including reservists, I assume. I hope for an

increase to cover cyber threats, but I hope there is enough to cover

defence Force requirements, particularly with the expectation of

Billy twice as many forces being used for peacekeeping and other

international roles. I appreciate the use of remote analogy in modern

equipment can replace personnel as well. Previous reviews have cut

manpower to a point that when I've had various conversations with

serving personnel, it's become a significant issue. Long operational

deployments, short home-based time, before training and the next

deployment has a wearing effect on morale and family life. This is

particularly noticeable in the specialist sectors like Ed events

and support arms where skilled operators in specific roles are very

much in demand. I fear the human factor of the service men and women

is not being given as high priority as it should. Secondly, I can see no

provision for a greater reliance of resources for training. The

shortfall of personnel means an operational demand is likely to

absorb training time and resources and be cut as well. The provision of

shiny new equipment appears to be just sufficient to fulfil the role

expected. Can the Minister, in summing up, give me some assurance I

have miss read the review, and as well as new equipment there will be

adequate time and resource for human training and that manning levels of

also visit will be regularly monitored and increased if

necessary. Even before we reach the halfway point of this debate, a

range of significant and important range of significant and important

matters has been raised. Some merit much more substantial

consideration. Among them, international partnerships and

relationships, the deliverability of counterterrorism and cyber terrorism

agendas. The huge importance of diplomatic presence and influence,

and to them, I might add, the projected development of the

delegated model. I look forward to further opportunities to discuss

these and many issues before us today, as we considered the SDS R. I

restrict myself this afternoon to three specific, and I hope six sink

tip comments. -- hope synced comments. First, noting the small

increase in numbers, 400 for the Navy and 300 for the air force, in

the defence review. What steps, I asked the Minister, will the

Minister of defence be taking to adjust the equally important matter

of skills in balance is in the services? The instance, the

challenge for the Navy in the recruitment of engineers. Existing

commitments and equipment and new hardware for not just any soldiers,

but properly skilled and trained at spearing 's men and women. --

experienced men and women. If, as I expect, the military demand greater

numbers, if they argued they needed, let's say, 2000 more, does the

government now accept responsibility if one or other of the forces can't

deliver what the government asks and expects of them? Second, in chapter

four of the White Paper, paragraphs 60 and 61 amounted to just three

sentences. Three tendencies announcing a 30% reduction in

defence civil servants. -- three sentences. There is no detail there.

The lack of it makes me quizzical, perhaps anxious, about whether there

is clarity within the proposal. I ask, is there some percentage of

this already anticipated, for instance in withdrawal from Germany

or outsourcing or privatising plans already in place? What does this

reduction mean? It might seem to imply, for instance, that further

civilian eyes Asian of tasks is not possible. By contrast, and

worryingly, the present task done by civil servants might be transferred

to the armed services, further stretching their people resources.

Thirdly and finally, in the Royal Navy and in Portsmouth, there is

relief that the news that the one new carrier operational at any one

time will have 24 aircraft. Can the Minister tell us what decisions have

been made about the attribution of these aircraft? If not, when will

these crucial decisions be made? For well over 50 is, I have been a

silent attender at the deliberations of this house. Initially, on the

steps of the throne, and later at the bar of the house. I have always

been immensely impressed by the importance that this house plays in

the working of the British constitution. Therefore, for me,

it's a huge river jammed pleasure to have the opportunity of addressing

your Lordships directly from these benches. Inevitably one is conscious

of those who have been before. If you forgive me a personal

observation, when I look at the Privy Council bench occupied by

three of my noble friends, who I have known for a long time, I'm

conscious of my father and father-in-law who used to sit there

together, mostly in harmony, and very often conflict, about the

shortcomings of the government spokesman. May I also say that I'm

very touched to see the noble Baroness, my wife, on the

crossbenchers. This is not an Oscar ceremony, and I issued the emotional

stuff, but it was very brave of her to marry a respected politician.

Very resilient of her, to attend his maiden speech. She's heard a lot of

the other ones! And frankly, I wouldn't have survived the political

course without her. May I also say that I'm extremely grateful for the

noble Lords who did me the honour of introducing me to this place. We go

back an awful long way, back to 1979, to the government

backbenches, to the government whips office. And to the Foreign Office.

Where we had the privilege of serving under the noble Lord, who to

my mind was one of the most distinguished Foreign Secretary is

this country has had since the war. May I also say that I'm deeply

touched by the kind reception I have received from so many of your

Lordships, and from the staff of this house. In return, may I say

that I'm very conscious of the qualities you expect of a member of

this place, and they are very different from the qualities you

expect from a member from that place down the corridor. In particular, a

more collegiate and less partisan approach. Also, a certain self

restraint in the frequency and length of 1's interventions. It is

in that spirit... LAUGHTER It is in that spirit that I respond

to the motion so well moved by my noble mentor, the Lord Attlee, first

the defence review is to be welcomed. Especially as regards

equipment, and the recognition for nimbleness and flexibility. The

Chancellor is to be congratulated on making the resources available. But

our forces are lean. In a crisis we may not have the opportunity to

repair the deficiencies. I hope that the government will be very

sensitive to the need to accelerate some of the programmes. In that

context, may I make the point about Paris... Our security forces are

well used to dealing with prolonged sieges and with terrorists who are

anxious to escape with their lives. But we face something different

now. Namely, suicidal killers intent upon widespread and immediate

murder. In respect of them, I hope our services are properly armed,

properly equipped, and properly trained. The second point I want to

make relates to keeping your word. One needs to be very cautious about

giving assurances and very cautious about uttering threats. But once

done, they must be honoured. Otherwise policy-making loses all

credibility. The third point I want to make relates to Russia. Putin's

Russia is never going to be a comfortable neighbour. But we now

have real issues in common. I hope that we can come to some common

cause. True, it will be at a price, the annexation of Crimea will not be

reversed. The displacement of President Assad will not be the

first priority. That I do think that we can come to an agreement.

Lastly, on Isil, I speak as one of those who voted against the second

Gulf War. I assisted with the drafting of that motion, but I think

the House of Lords made the Holyrood decision yesterday. I don't believe

bombing specific targets in Syria is going to defeat that organisation,

but not to play our part will diminish our standing among those

already engaged. I also think it would display a shaming degree of

disengagement. The moral and ethical basis for such action exists. The

recent Security Council revolution gives explicit legal authority.

Incidentally, that was following long existing principles of

deterrence and self defence. Precisely those principles justified

the use of lethal force against individuals such as Jihadi John who

have committed heinous crimes. For they have made themselves outlaws in

the true sense of the word. In that by putting themselves outside the

reach of the law, they have also put themselves outside the protection of

the law. My Lords, those are the four points that I ventured to place

before your lordship's house for your consideration.

That's quite a speech and I am glad there were not eight points. It's a

very great joy to follow my noble friend and Lincolnshire neighbour,

the Right Honourable Hailsham. He is a considerable figure and he has

made a considerable speech. I kept thinking of that description

Churchill gave, that is not a maiden speech, that is a brazen Hussey of

the speech. A very robust speech, robust elite delivered and I look

forward to many more. I have known my noble friend for many years. I

knew him when he was the most dogmatic of government whips,

lecturing the 1922 committee on how we should behave. I saw him as a

very splendid Minister of agriculture when he came to stay at

our home and spoke in my constituency accompanied by his bag

carrier, one of George Osborne. I also knew him when he became the

gamekeeper turned poacher because in 1997, when we were somewhat reduced

in numbers in our party in the other house, he became the Harrier of the

government. Never giving them quarter, keeping at them day and

night, in fact, at night so much that they brought in programme

motion so he could not carry on doing it. He is invisible addition

to your lordship's house. I am delighted he is here and it is a

privilege to congratulate him on a notable speech. I am very conscious

of the fact that this defence review is a significant improvement on the

one we had in 2010 and the number of you have made that point during the

course of the debate. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord

Sterling of plaster when he urged the government to try and exonerate

the timetable is little because we really do need them to do that.

Yesterday's debate and the decision, and, my lords, what a

brilliant speech, yesterday's debate brought into sharp focus the need

for our defences to be kept up. What we must do is to identify and is --

distinguish between enemies and irritants and I was very glad that

my noble friend, in his speech, talked about Russia, because of

course many of us have been irritated, but we do have a common

cause and we must remember that it is not possible easily to fight wars

on two fronts and what we have got to do is to give real priority to

identifying and eliminating the worst enemy we have had for many

generations, and to make common cause with the great power of Russia

and it is a great power. We need to have a broad alliance with those

with whom we have much in common and I would urge through my noble

friend, who will respond to the debate, I would urge the government

to have real recognition of that fact and in consequence, to have

determination of priorities which will indeed serve the nation well.

The review is a good blueprint, it maps out a strategic direction which

needs to be followed, but as Lord Sterling said, rather more quickly

than the review itself indicates. My lords, I wish the government well in

what they are doing. I congratulate my noble friend on a splendid debut

and look forward to the rest of the debate. I would like to add my own

congratulations to the four maiden speeches this evening we have heard.

All four of the maiden speakers are not only well-known to me, they have

been colleagues and friends of mine for decades and I would commend them

to the house as ideal candidates for coming to this place because they

are men of great integrity. They are all people of very considerable

experience and knowledge of the world and have always been committed

and will remain committed here and we will have valuable contributions

from them for a very long time. I don't want to say much about the

review. I agreed with the brilliant analysis delivered by my noble

friend Lord West and the Lord Lord Stirrup on that subject. I just want

to add one thought which I might repeat from time to time. That is

that although I am delighted of the purchase of the P eights, the

government would have saved money and avoided risk if they kept the

Nimrods and it was a great mistake to cut those aircraft up when they

came to power in 2010. I think I have a good announcement to the

house and I think we have solved the long-standing problem of the black

hole, the alleged deficit in the MoD's programme which it said the

Labour government left to its successor. I have can ducted

correspondent -- correspondence and it tells us that what the government

did was to go through our programme which was based on the resources

they increased and the what would happen if the resources were only

increased in no real terms at all. Of course, they come up with a

deficit and that deficit with even greater than the 19 billion in the

equipment programme which was in the letter to me. I wanted to put all

our correspondent in the library of the house. When I try to do so, I

discovered that backbenchers could not. I would invite the goal to put

our correspondence in the house but I hope we won't need to speak about

it any more because this particular myth will be put to rest. My Lords,

I want to just say a little bit about Russia which the last two

speakers have done. I think Mr Putin must be congratulating himself at

having carried out a brilliant coup. He has succeeded in getting and

changing frontiers by force and he has succeeded in getting away with

ensuring that Ukraine can never join either Nato or the EU, partially

because we have always said since the Cyprus problem that we would not

have another state in that organisation which was split and

partially because it is difficult to extend an Article five guaranteed to

a country that is occupied. He has guaranteed the future of the Ukraine

is very difficult, unstable and therefore the great poverty of the

country will continue indefinitely and I'm sure Putin things that that

in itself would lead to the poor Ukraine population giving up and

voting a pro-Russian government, and the other that the West will give up

and the West will do a shameful thing. The West will tear up its

commitments to the Ukraine both in Nato and the EU, will do some deal

involving other parts of the deal -- wild. -- wild. The result of that

would be a devastating blow to the B of Nato and the EU and particularly

of Eastern European countries. It is something we will regret for decades

and perhaps centuries and my final thought is we need to think quite

carefully of how we can avoid that scenario. The way we can avoid that

is how we can focus and discuss with our allies. I join others in

thanking the Lord for initiating this debate and in warmly applauding

the four meeting deliberately maiden speeches. My Lords, the review was

accompanied by the National Security strategy and although that is not

name checked in the title of this debate, its security in the broadest

sense rather than defence that I want to focus on. One priority in

the National Security strategy according to the government is to

help strengthen the rules -based international order and its

institutions and to that end, the UK would work to promote stability,

good governance and human rights. And then there is a high-level

objective in the document which is to project our global influence,

which covers means such as expanding our world leading soft power,

investing more in alliances and building stronger partnerships. I

fully support both the overall priority and these enumerate it

objectives. What I struggle with is matching the government's words with

its actions. How does the pledge to abolish the Human Rights Act

threatening our deterrence to the European convention on human rights

comply with the aspirations of strengthening the rules -based

international order, upholding our values and promoting human rights?

If we cannot do it on a European front, how can we do it

internationally? Under the rubric of protecting our people, the national

security strategy pledged to work with allies through responding to

threats and challenges yet as the noble Lord McConnell said, there is

no mention of European cooperation in the response to the migration

challenge and while there is a commitment to strengthen our

capabilities to disrupt serious and organised crime, and the Prime

Minister's own forward vows to cancer Thai counter threats that

recognise no borders, this is contradicted by this government 's

refusal to... The Prime Minister said in his recent speech that the

EU matters for national security, so is he not endangering our security

by repeating his periodic claim not least in the Daily Telegraph today,

that they might recommend a Bracks said, the EU as such is hardly

mentioned in the national security review document. Another example of

contradiction is the reported permission from the ministerial code

to uphold international law. That cuts across a pledge to a rules

-based international order. Indeed, the constant sniping that we hear

against judges and courts have -- of all kinds strikes a contradiction

the note if the government is attached to cool. Too many in the UK

even in the government seem not to be at ease with our international

European role. They want to pull up the drawbridge and retreat. We

should capitalise on our strengths in democracy, human rights and law.

On our position at the intersection of so many networks, the EU, the

Commonwealth, United Nations, the transatlantic relationship and Nato

to contribute with confidence to Europe and the world. We should take

our cue as a country from the contribution that all those British

individuals that we furnished to European and international

institutions do, most recently the noble lady Baroness Scotland, the

new Secretary General of the Commonwealth. We should follow their

example as a country. There is a four-minute limit because otherwise

we will be cutting into the Minister's reply. The review starts

with a vision that has secured a prosperous UK. 2% Nato of GDP

spending on defence has been agreed by the government. Thank you very

much. An increase in defence budget in Filton every year. Commitment to

increasing, not to decrease the army and to increase the RAF and Navy by

700 people. Thank you. Spending 178 billion on equipment, support, this

is all excellent news. The nuclear deterrent being maintained.

Increasing resources for counterterrorism, police and

security intelligence agencies to pursue terrorists. Doubling spending

on aviation security. This is marvellous. The Prime Minister spoke

of three joint defence exercises between the UK and India already in

one year. This is marvellous. We should continue this. Dedicating one

of the budget to science and technology, establishing a defence

exaggerate, turning ideas into innovative equipment. This is

brilliant. Use it to my ears. I thank Lord Attlee for initiating

this debate and I congratulate all the maiden speakers. The Economist

has gone so far to save the review allows Britain to reassert itself as

a serious military power and will allow Britain to regain some of its

respect it lost in Washington. Given the debate yesterday, there is every

possibility we will have to put boots on the ground in order to

fight the spread of anarchy in Syria and Iraq. The expertise in this

house was demonstrated yesterday and is 100 times that of the other

place. Yet, we did not get to vote yesterday at all. It shows how

important it is that we look ahead and we recognise the effects of the

so-called black swans, the Prime Minister said we must expect the

unexpected. Earlier this year I was privileged to lead the debate in

this house on the anniversary of the Gurkhas contribution. Lord Holt

spoke about soft power, said a competition of Howard Powell and

soft power gives you smart power. The review of 2010 was not smart, it

was done. It was negligent. With the noble Lord agree there has been a

30% reduction in military capabilities since 2010? I have been

very outspoken of my criticism of 2010 and courts to troops. 80,000

cannot fill Wembley Stadium. I was privileged to show the chief

of the Indian army from the fifth Gurkhas around Parliament, and that

the noble Minister confirm and reassure us that there will be no

further cuts to the Gurkhas? Former chief of the Indian army said that

if a man says he's not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he's

Agarkar. -- he's a Gurkha. We have seen the evil of Isis, Isil, Daesh,

whatever these monsters call themselves, we decided to engage in

Syria yesterday, where as last year we decided only to intervene in Iraq

will stop with the noble Minister agree that it was a mistake and we

should have been in Iraq and Syria a year ago? I conclude that without

doubt the defence of the realm is the most important role of

government. We are a tiny nation with 1% of the world's population,

but thanks to hard power and soft power giving us one of the most

powerful defence forces in the world, so powerful that the world

knows this power emanates from a country that is respected for and

fought for freedom, fairness, justice and liberty for centuries. I

fear I may be flying under false colours in this debate, because it

makes direct reference to international security and stability

and my concerns over any direct reference to our domestic internal

security and stability, which I think is a shameful lack of close

address in this report. We are going to be able to take -- we are not

going to be able to take any role in our international community sector

if we have not made our own internal security reliable. Where are the

issues to deal with that in a changing world? We have the horrible

example of what went on in France, and we should stop and think about

what that means. It's a new form of warfare for which we have no

ready-made defence. It's also hugely geared towards being television

sensational. Therefore we should be putting everything in place he can

of limiting anybody's possibility of limiting the media of putting on

this sort of television spectacular like they did in France. We should

seriously consider banning all television coverage of any terrorist

incident which occurs, because the lifeblood of which they feed. The

most I would go along with is having some embedded tele- journalist go

with our own internal teams, but we really need to have some internal

rapid response units which have got to be created very specially with a

capability, particularly, of addressing the other great

deficiency this report counts on, where are the defences of our

greatest border of all, the sea? There is nothing. I live on the

south coast and we have 140 miles of coastline with two tiny coastguard

vessels which would not look out of place on around pond in Kensington

Gardens. Nothing else at all. How is anybody going to have a rapid

response to any seaborne attack coming in, the easiest and most

vulnerable target for us. I think this report should be addressing the

possibility of creating two very intensive rapid response units. I

suggest one at Northolt and one at Catterick. They should be equipped

with a minimum of seven or eight helicopters each to give them reach

anywhere in the country and have a dedicated combination accessing the

police, most emphatically, the fire brigade if necessary, the SAS

emphatically should have a permanent, always on guard, on duty

presents in each of those camps, and should be at liberty to go where

ever. In the French episodes, the first news we got came in at 22

minutes past nine on the Friday evening. By the next morning, this

was television permanently on the subject. We have got to make sure

that in our case, anything that occurs here will be completely wiped

out as an attack before television cameras, on by the morning.

Otherwise, once it goes that far, there is no holding it. This report

gives no address whatever to an adequate rapid response unit and it

is shameful. I hope very much that the noble Lord, his minister and

team, we'll look back to see what they can do. It will not be very

cost intensive, because if we are not making war abroad, our own

resources and be reshaped and reallocated to make these response

units. For God's sake, give some viable craft to patrol our

shorelines, please. I think about half a minute, and I want to address

it to the noble Lord Hain, but he has just gone out. Lord Hain was the

other man in the first great romance of my life, but he probably never

met the lady concerned, but he thought he was a combination of

Jesus Christ and Trotsky. She got herself arrested every Sunday

afternoon. I appeared in court on Monday morning to pay her finds for

years in a row. I was dearly bankrupt. I was very glad to see the

noble Lord here. He owes me an apology and quite a lot of money.

LAUGHTER All four of the speakers of the

House of Commons will make great contribution. I considered inviting

Lord Hain to invite a tree in my constituency years ago, but we were

worried that once he first got the turf, he would know where to stop

and could lay waste to the whole of Shepherd's Bush Green.

I can tell him that the Army have said to me to spread this, that they

appreciate the opportunity to convey to people the importance of

recognising the whole force concept, not just nurses and doctors, but

also the people they recruit from the NHS to take out to danger zones

in order to provide assistance. It's important, however briefly, in a

debate of this nature where time is limited, to put on record that we

sometimes don't recognise enough the memorials, the need for memorials to

people in and around the armed services, not just service

personnel, but those they recruit and employee in other areas. I very

much hope this memorial garden which is proposed will meet and unmet need

in the country. I know we all appreciate it. The minister might be

slightly worried because charities keep ringing me up asking me how

much money is left in the Libor fund. One lady said, if it runs out,

we could slap another fine on them. The only other point I want to make

in this inevitably short debate, is one about the naval base at Bahrain.

I led a delegation to Bahrain last year. I know there is criticism of

the government there at times, often justified, but that very small

country is struggling to develop the rule of law and a democratic

structure. We sometimes underestimate how difficult that is

for countries. It's particularly difficult when just a short way down

the causeway you have Saudi Arabia, and directly across the gulf you

have Iran. It's an unenviable position for a tiny nation to be in.

The naval base, and the US one does lend stability to that country. It's

very important. I think it's in paragraph 557 where the minister

commits the government to building a new naval base and I very much want

to see that happen. I think this statement puts rights of the things

we got wrong in the last statement, which I do think was a poor one.

Sometimes I do feel the wording is better than the LT might turn out.

The final point is one which Lord McConnell was making about the

crucial importance in this day and age of linking up foreign policy

with defence policy with development policy. Using one example, Libya. I

supported the Libyan uprising. I was still worried, as with all these

interventions, as to whether we would get the post-conflict

situation right. Generally speaking I'm in favour of interventions.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state under George Bush, said the

big mistake that the West made in the post-war years was to give too

much sympathy to dictators. When these brutal dictators fall, Saddam

Hussein, Getafe, Assad in Syria, the consequences are enormous. --

Colonel Gaddafi. The country is wrecked and has very little

structure, so we need to do better than we have done so far. It's not

easy to get it right, it's not be taken as criticism, particularly to

our staff in Libya who are putting their lives on the line at times,

but it's profoundly important we linked up these three areas of

policy and make sure we make the extra effort in a post-conflict

situation. I congratulate my noble friend, Lord

Bruce, on his excellent and informative maiden speech. His

expertise on international development is obvious. But his

knowledge and experience go much wider. During the coalition he was

always a source of wise and generous council, and also one of the most

articulate advocates on the media for the role of the Liberal

Democrats in the coalition, a job I confess we did not always make easy

for him. I'll so congratulate all the noble lords who have made

compelling maiden speeches. I spent a number of years working in South

Africa where Lord Hain's name is not surprisingly held in very high

regard. I want to focus on the government strategy for

international development assistance which was published alongside the

SDSR. In particular, on the key role of economic development as part of

the international aid effort, and the strengthening of tax collection

systems and element of those resources. First I want to address

the tone of the document. It describes the approach of the

government is a fundamental shift in how we use our 0.7% which will show

reducing poverty, and serving national interest are intrinsically

linked. I'm not sure how that marks a fundamental shift. The coalition

strongly believed these issues worst intrinsically linked. We supported

economically developing. It was committed to helping the world's

most vulnerable. The fact that the strategy was published under the

Emperor mature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes me slightly

uneasy. We are now used to George Osborne's omnipresence, if not his

miss eons, but in my experience, if George gets involved there's always

a trick to out for. We will need to scrutinise carefully those

departments that will now spend to check the chance hasn't just found a

way to fund departments that he's otherwise cutting.

I strongly support the offices both of the Coalition Government and the

current government on economic development as part of its aid

strategy. The purpose of our aid budget must be to assist countries

where development can be driven from their own resources. I am proud that

the coalition met the 0.7% target but the provision of aid is not a

demonstration of success. It is the opposite. Our objective must be to

provide aid in the mostly tangent and effective manner, to release the

economic potential of the countries to which we provide so that they no

longer require our support. Stimulating private sector growth is

critical but we must be clear about our objectives. The government is

keen to stress the opportunity for British business arising out of our

aid strategy. If that means out of economic development the rise in

demand, I support it but our development strategy has to be about

creating an environment where indigenous business can grow, where

an educated populace can provide a skilled workforce and economic

activity can fund social development. It cannot be about

flogging British goods and services or about multinationals exploiting

developmental -- developing nations. How governments can strengthen their

ability to get hold of their own resources through strength and tax

collection systems. As was told to us this morning, the solution for

Africa is not more aid but is using eight effectively to release

domestic resources. A tax taking Africa's half the world averages. In

conclusion I welcome the emphasis on strategy, on tackling tax evasion

and avoidance and on improving tax systems in the developing world.

That is closely tied to tackling corruption for those of the formal

tax tape is low in many developing countries, the informal tax woven

from corruption can make the cost of business prohibitive. We have been

beset... We have been beset by a number of violent attacks. Some of

these have been primarily murders of individuals as was the case of the

anarchists of the early 20th century and the IRA in the 1960s and 70s.

The bombing campaigns of the Germans in the first and Second World War 's

were indiscriminate attacks that disrupt and kill, but he did not

target individuals. From the 1920s onwards, and after 1945, we were

beset by the revolutionaries Bolshevik regime whose interests

were to subvert Western civilisation by all means short of war and it is

very satisfactory to think that era has come to an end. Russia has

become a nation rather than a crusade. I echo the words of the

American ambassador to Russia in 1962, the Falklands War inspired a

war of course, but Argentina never threatened the silence. We respond

now to the new subversion of Isil. It's a movement with as many names

as Chinese emperors. Their aim seems to be to kill indiscriminately,

unlike the anarchists of the IRA, but to shock the world by what the

anarchists called the propaganda of the deed and force the Western

Christianity out of the entire Middle East. There have been similar

violent movements in the Middle East in the past, such as the assassins

themselves, but the difference is there an hour suicide bombers which

is a new development. Since we need to be in the Middle East for our

commercial interests, and because we have after all friends and allies,

the UN has agreed to react and encourages us to do so in strength.

It is hard to imagine as a historian of military matters, it is hard for

me to imagine how to defeat this new enemy without some form of ground

campaign. Those 70,000 Syrian soldiers of liberty in whom the

Prime Minister urges us to have faith may turn out to be less

reliable allies than the Kurds who success nevertheless will not be the

recipe for peace in the Middle East in general because of Turkey. The

great medieval Kurdish general who conquered Jerusalem from the

Crusaders would have been delighted to hear that statement in this

house. If you want to know more, I recommend reading the Talisman by

Sir Walter Scott. The novel is the best revival, the best investigation

of the Crusades. I have one minutes more and I would just like to say

how much I agree with the noble Lord James of Blackheath when he talked

about control of the media, but it is a very difficult matter which he

has raised. It requires a great deal of strength and intelligence to do

so. It is not a question of asking a newspaper editor to shut down

critical cartoons, as was the case during the course of the war during

the era of Sir Herbert Mandelson. My Lords, unlike the four admirable

maiden speeches today, this is not my maiden speech because I first did

that 36 years ago when I was 23. But this is the first time I have spoken

for several years, following a short in voluntary absence since 1999. But

I am very honoured to be back. I would like to first thank my noble

friends on this side of the house, those of them that voted for me and

I hope to be able to repay their trust. I would also like to declare

two interests in this debate. First, I am the co-founder and chairman of

a private security company and secondly, I am a senior executive

with one of the worlds leading tanker shipping companies, which is

also owned by the Russian property fund. It is only right I declare

this. I would also like to thank the Lord Attlee for his kind remarks in

relation to me and in relation to Russia and I hope to contribute to

the subject of Russia in the future. In particular, I would like to prove

the statement to paragraph 322, that Her Majesty 's government will seek

ways of core operating and engaging with Russia on a range of global

security issues, including Isil, and that to me seems a pretty practical

approach but also keeping in mind Lord Palmerston's famous maxim that

we have no eternal enemies or perpetual friends. We only have our

eternal interests. Turning to review itself, and keeping an eye on the

clock, I would like to commend the government on its clarity and

impressive vision. And also like to single out three particular

ambitions that they mention in their review. First, that all strategic

reach and a particular reference to the incoming carriers and F 35 's.

Secondly, it is paramount to maintain our position at the top

table in Nato and other international strategic alliances

and thirdly, that we should ensure that servicemen and women and their

families are properly looked after them their loved ones are broad. --

or abroad. But, haven't spoken with current and former soldiers,

including special forces soldiers recently, I would like to ask the

government how their impressive vision is going to sit with the

current and especially funding realities? Is one of them recently

said, this time, not another time -- fudge please. I would also like to

ask three questions - is Nato to old, too old-fashioned and

cumbersome for purpose? We need a Nato spearhead force able to be

mobilised and deployed at short notice. Can the British Army really

deploy a fighting division and is our reserve structure able to

respond quickly in a crisis? I would also like to support the point made

yesterday about the tension between, they expressed desire to

recruit more soldiers from a smaller Jean Paul and finally, one original

point, I would like to adopt the suggestion promoted by CGS at the

moment in relation to his new chaser initiative, namely aligning the UK's

commercial and military objectives while abroad as does the US and

France rather aggressively and I think it will do well for us to

adopt the same in order to bridge the obvious funding gap. My Lords,

could I start by thanking my noble friend, Lord Attlee, for giving us

the chance today to look at the paper and the special defence review

in front of us. We go back quite a long way from bouncing like a pea in

a pod in a poor harbour when he and I were in the defence groups gorge

on and also, my noble friend, where we became entangled with both the

Swedish and Finnish brigade who were attached to our own brigade out

there. It has been valuable help and I do assure him and my noble friend

the Minister that the House of Lords defence group have not gone away.

The noble Baroness Lady Dean is not with us for some reason today, but

Lord Astor is taking short leave, but could I say to the Minister that

we do have always relished the enormous and tight relationship

between the Ministry of Defence and backbench members of the lordship's

house, who in various times of their lives, perhaps got their needs met.

Could I direct the attention to the paper in front of us today and above

all, paragraph 440, which were refers to the Brigades and the

numbers of 50,000. I wonder if the Minister will recall his remarks

today on the mix on the 50,000? That is possibly the number but there

will be all sorts of arms of capabilities and capacities. Indeed

they are very valuable pictorial illustrations on page 28. I am

particularly interested to see land war fighting divisions from and the

intelligence surveillance and the reconnaissance symbol. Could I

direct your attention to paragraph 445 and 446, detailing the special

forces. I think in any defence debate war in many matters, the less

said about the defence of the special forces, the better. We are

deleted when they get these later but one particular aspect of

paragraph 46 does concern me. It says, we will buy advanced

communications equipment. I say Cobblers to that. We won the best

and only the best will do, particularly with special forces not

just for them themselves but for men and women also occupied with them.

If we come to paragraph 448, I would be interested to know, perhaps they

can enlighten me, the term of the limited Brigades. I am quite

interested into what the mix will be. Come to paragraph 449 and the

typhoons, could you let me know what will be the mix in the numbers? I

understand there to the 138 F 35 lightning aircraft at some stage.

Ritchie advise which of the F 35s, what the mixture is likely to be as

we will see what will be necessary? One more thing mentioned by the

noble all, it's about accommodation. This is one particular aspect that

has concerned the lordship's defence group. Accommodation, but I am

delighted to see this will be one of the major projects. I see, I am just

about to sit down. But if he could just glance at four 50 free, it will

reassure me greatly. It's been good to see that this SDSR

has arrested the decline in the defence budget over the last five

years and made some attempt to redress some of the woefully short

sighted decisions made in 2010. It has been particularly encouraging to

see in the Prime Minister's forward review, his recognition to see that

the ceilings need to remain opening and for the arteries of global

commerce to remain free flowing. For this, maritime security, moving the

Royal Navy back to where it should be at centre place of the defence

strategy. As consequence of keeping the sea lines open, I have two

particular concerns. Firstly, safe navigation is fundamental. You will

be aware of the vulnerability of the global manifestation satellite

system to interruption and jamming. -- global navigation. There is a

safe back-up in this eventuality. I declare an interest as an elder

brother of Sinn teahouse. Will the Minister care to comment on what the

mid-'s intentions are as regard a reliable and robust alternative to

GNSS when the back-up is terminated later this year when the French

shutdown their station, a station without which this back-up cannot

function. A national resilience component to this as well. Not just

safe navigation, with regards the GNSS precision, navigation and

timing PMT signals, on which key elements of much of our national

infrastructure depends. Secondly, on safe sea lanes, and as I have

mentioned in the debate following the statement on the SDSR in the

house last week, we should be concerned about the current small

number of the size of the current destroyer frigate force. These are

the workhorses of the fleet, and on whom we depend to keep the ceilings

open. The noble minister said in reply to my comment, as regards the

sufficiency of ships, we are advised by the Chief of Naval staff that

they 19 destroyer frigate fleet, capable of operating on a global

scale, is what's required. That may be what the Chief of Naval staff has

said, but that's only because the number of tax we have to digitally

and quite properly undertaken have been cut in order to accommodate the

paucity of escorts. -- been above tasks. -- the number of tasks.

Safari is the Royal Navy's contribution to the core task of

defence engagement is concerned, we need more ships to cover the

necessary footprint. Although we might be able to draw some comfort

about the announcement of the concept of designing and building a

new class of light, flexible general-purpose frigates, it's

simply too long to have to wait until the 2030s to see them. In the

upcoming new national shipbuilding strategy, may I implore the

government to see what can be done to bring forward those ships'

introduction to service. These will benefit the industry by having a

better shipbuilding drumbeat, generate earlier foreign sales

potential where other navies like to see the Royal Navy use their class

of Chip -- class of ship before they buy into it, and improve the United

Kingdom's role in international security industry in light of SDSR.

I congratulate the four maiden speakers and make three brief

reflections. First, a consensus that the SDSR is valuable and welcome,

certainly an improvement by its 2010 cost to exercise predecessor. I

question whether the pace of change has been fully taken into account.

There must be concern about the time frame given the many uncertainties,

the contingents, the unknowns, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall,

9/11, the Arab Spring, and mass migration to Europe, all of which

stand as a corrective to long-term planning. There is a need for

flexibility, agility in doctrine and procurement. With a lead time such

as the new strike brigades, again the vanguard for placement seems to

be stretched incredibly from 2004-2028, and now to the early

2030s. Surely the case for adaptable platforms, capable for modification

as the latent threat changes, has to be made. The history of the

submarine is instructive. Planned in the early 80s, abandoned in the

early 90s, and eventually sold cheaply to Canada. I concede part of

the reason was cost-cutting, but the key consideration was that the role

as a barrier to Soviet incursions in the North Sea have become redundant.

Thus, even five-year projections can be swiftly undermined by events. For

example, if Scotland had become independent, with an anti-Trident

government, we would need the massive rethink of strategy. We need

to learn from overseas examples. Previous knowledge of the health

reef, I ask the noble Earl whether he was confident if there was

sufficient spare capacity in our London hospitals to cope with a

major terrorist attack, as Paris hospitals appeared to have coped. Is

the planning for this contingency adequate? Also, the SDSR has a

welcome emphasis on departmental is at home and cooperation with

alliances abroad, certainly compared with the predecessor. Are their

boundaries between the MOD and other organisations still to start, as

Lord Howell himself said. Should the three departments not be seen as

three legs of a Trident, but two of the three legs, have a guaranteed

budget, so the FCO has to take the strain. Is the balance correct? Are

the boundaries of these budgets sufficient and flexible? For

example, military contribution to tackle it Ebola was temporarily. We

advise those who sought its wisdom to know thyself. Yes, we are

pre-eminent in self power, but have we reached a true understanding of

our role in the world. Do I detect a certain bravado in the tone of the

view? The Prime Minister said exotically that Britain is back.

Have we made a root and branch examination of our own capabilities?

The Falklands, the last of our unilateral campaigns, could not now

be repeated. The review should be read in parallel with the review

already cited. Thus, having fully adjusted to our proper role in the

alliances with increased specialisation in procurement and

regional market share. Is then our case for a new treaty to add Germany

to the Franco - English Alliance? Will we in the UK have the full

spectrum of capability? I'm not confident that these and other

questions have been adequately answered in the review. In

congratulating the four very good maiden speeches, may I introduce the

referred to Lord Hailsham, who was introduce the same day as me last

month, and I think you will agree he will contribute greatly to this

house, and he made excellent points, and his timekeeping, keeping in self

on the four minutes, must be congratulated. We are picking up

where we left off yesterday. In my particular case I was the 64th

speaker yesterday, and I'm now the 28th. I suppose I have been

promoted. I welcome much in SDSR. Concentrating briefly on the Army

today, I walked down to the Royal Gallery earlier and saw the names on

the panels of those who died in the service from this house will stop

many would have been volunteers in the first two world wars, and many

will have had careers in the Army. We should ask whether the army

remains an attractive career. Accommodation was extremely

important. Primarily, young men want excitement and adventure, they want

job satisfaction and a challenge. I'm afraid they may be less bothered

about our suite facilities. 82,000 troops in the Army is too few. In

the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan we created a much more

professional force than the one I joined. If we are to retain those

professional people, we have to offer them a continual challenge. I

spoke to young officers on Tuesday night. One had been 20 man, Jordan

and Belize in the last year, pretty interesting, but they clever young

men, and in their late 20s they might be looking at the force and

thinking their careers are not going anywhere. There are too few numbers.

There are too few to deal with infrastructure attacks, as my noble

friend mentioned in his maiden speech. To turn to those boots on

the ground of which we hear so much, in the first Gulf War we deployed a

division. In the second we deployed something similar but both were

pretty difficult. Now it would be very difficult. And the Falklands

would be impossible, as mentioned, because we have very few boots to

stick on the ground. This document, the SDSR, has great aspirations, but

we need more troops. I told the Prime Minister this five years ago

when I was a minister in the MOD. I survived for a few years at least. I

turn again to the special forces. If they are to be elite and special,

they have to undergo a rigorous selection process. Often that

process is rather unfair and good people fail to get through, but we

are totally reliant on the quality and capability of the personnel and

individuals. Our special forces are extremely busy and very good at

their job, but you cannot create larger special forces on a whim. The

Americans tried it in Vietnam and it did not work. Equipment is

important, but you need to select and keep good people. The size of

the Army, by being reduced by half from what role years ago, has shrunk

the pool from which we recruit. In 1986, hardly anybody had heard of

the SAS, but the embassy siege brought them into focus. It has to

be a small and elite force. I remember a training Sergeant Major,

formerly of the Welsh Guards, running selection in 1981 is saying

there were no supermen here, we can't perform miracles and walk on

water, but we have to have excellent people, keep them, and select from a

much larger pool. I welcome the direction of the SDSR, but I have

highlighted three concerns I have about our depleted army. It's too

small, I'm concerned it doesn't offer attractive enough careers to

keep people in, and we should not assume and cannot expect that elite

special forces can do everything people seem to think they can. I

would like to thank the noble Earl for tabling this debate. We have had

an interesting few hours. I congratulate the government for its

full spectrum of security taken in SDSR. The complexity of every danger

we face means we must take a more strategic approach to using

military. Intelligence, diplomacy, international aid, to contribute

with other like-minded states to national security. Others on my

benches, more expert than me, have addressed the issues of aid and

diplomacy, and I would like to welcome my noble friend, Lord Bruce

and his maiden speech. He will be a welcome and great addition to our

benches.