:00:00. > :00:00.4:43pm. Now members' business. We leave our live coverage of the
:00:00. > :00:13.Scottish parliament. We rejoin MSPs for the rest of the debate tomorrow.
:00:14. > :00:21.We now go to the House of Lords. To make some comments to reassure us
:00:22. > :00:25.about the US commitment to Nato. As many members have said, many
:00:26. > :00:29.European countries are not stepping up to the plate. It is not that they
:00:30. > :00:34.don't have the money. As long as somebody else will do it, why
:00:35. > :00:40.bother? The come clearly from the US that they will not carry the can any
:00:41. > :00:45.longer and who can argue with them? I believe that colleagues in this
:00:46. > :00:50.part of the world have got to realise you have a resurgent Russia,
:00:51. > :01:00.international terrorism, developments taking place whether it
:01:01. > :01:07.is in lasers are developing weapons which can be triggered from space,
:01:08. > :01:09.to identify and damaged surface vessels, there are so many
:01:10. > :01:18.developments taking place and the whole unmanned not only aircraft but
:01:19. > :01:28.naval vessels are going to be a thing of the future. As less --
:01:29. > :01:34.unless we are spending enough to protect our country, the patrol
:01:35. > :01:39.ports and people crossing the Channel, we had three vessels. It is
:01:40. > :01:46.ridiculous for an island nation to be in that position. I would ask the
:01:47. > :01:52.noble Lord, the minister when he is summing up, to address some of these
:01:53. > :01:56.things because it does mean that the free press are managers say's
:01:57. > :02:01.governments to spend more on defence, they will have to spend
:02:02. > :02:10.less on something else, and we all have to step up to that. It is not
:02:11. > :02:16.going to be pleasant but those have experience in the military now it
:02:17. > :02:22.that the price will be high, the Falklands was mentioned, and it was
:02:23. > :02:30.to save a few quid, everyone is eating for economies, but it is
:02:31. > :02:36.penny wise and pound foolish. I feel we have a fundamental error in the
:02:37. > :02:41.balance between our foreign and defence policies and our aid
:02:42. > :02:45.policies. They're very closely linked and it is important that we
:02:46. > :02:52.get this balance right and there was a very good suggestion by Lord
:02:53. > :02:58.Hennessy who was calling for a commission or whatever it happens to
:02:59. > :03:02.be but I don't think we have to wait until the next defence review after
:03:03. > :03:11.the fifth year. I think it is something we need to be getting on
:03:12. > :03:16.with now. I would argue that unmanned vehicles of all types are
:03:17. > :03:22.likely to be replacing the pilots and surface vessels, where does the
:03:23. > :03:30.Minister think we are in the midst of all of that? Does he really
:03:31. > :03:37.believe we have sufficient surface vessels to deploy simultaneously two
:03:38. > :03:42.battlegroups with the two new carriers and at the same time meet
:03:43. > :03:46.our international commitments and deal with the hotspots, because you
:03:47. > :03:53.always need a contingency in reserve? To deal with an emergency.
:03:54. > :03:59.I think we seem to be flat out and with some of the capabilities of our
:04:00. > :04:05.surface vessels, who don't seem to be able to propel themselves
:04:06. > :04:12.adequately. How are we going to deploy two aircraft characters with
:04:13. > :04:20.battlegroups -- carriers, with such a small surface fleet. It is with
:04:21. > :04:27.some trepidation I speak but I do so because in my own view with
:04:28. > :04:31.international rules -based order is under greater and more existential
:04:32. > :04:39.challenge than ever since our predecessors began to piece it
:04:40. > :04:44.together amidst the ruins of two catastrophic world wars and I do so
:04:45. > :04:50.also because those challenges and necessary responses are not be
:04:51. > :04:56.confined to the spheres of defence and security policy, they must go
:04:57. > :05:01.wider. To understand this and the need for a wider vision and
:05:02. > :05:05.response, we surely need only to look at the period between the two
:05:06. > :05:11.world wars. History does not repeat itself exactly but it does contain
:05:12. > :05:19.plenty of lessons which we would be foolish to ignore. The world
:05:20. > :05:21.experienced then a perfect storm in which economic, political and
:05:22. > :05:29.military developments fused into a single mass which overwhelmed the
:05:30. > :05:31.totally inadequate rules and international and suggestions which
:05:32. > :05:37.had been established after the First World War. The 1929 stock market
:05:38. > :05:43.crash led on to mass unemployment, trade protectionism and tit-for-tat
:05:44. > :05:51.monetary devaluation. These and other factors fuelled the rise of
:05:52. > :05:59.populace political -- populist political parties. We kind
:06:00. > :06:09.tomography is -- we kind democracies -- democracies that were made more
:06:10. > :06:15.week averted their eyes. Does any of this sound familiar? Their emergence
:06:16. > :06:26.of political forces such as those that propelled Donald Trump to the
:06:27. > :06:32.White House, and fuelling the political careers of Marine Le Pen
:06:33. > :06:40.and guilt while there is... I would like to look at three pillars of our
:06:41. > :06:47.rules -based order which are under threat. The open global trading
:06:48. > :06:51.system symbolised by the WTO, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
:06:52. > :06:55.and the functions of the UN with respect to international peace and
:06:56. > :07:01.security. The arrival in the White House of a president and trade
:07:02. > :07:05.policy team who seem to regard protectionism as a path to
:07:06. > :07:10.prosperity and bilateral trade balances as something to be
:07:11. > :07:14.eliminated by any means, including measures which would run roughshod
:07:15. > :07:19.through WTO rules is a challenge to all of us. Particularly to this
:07:20. > :07:25.country which has quite rightly in my view nailed its post-Brexit
:07:26. > :07:29.colours to the mast of being a champion of free trade. That will
:07:30. > :07:34.require more than just words. It will require standing up to the
:07:35. > :07:40.forces of mercantilism and protectionism wherever they emerge
:07:41. > :07:44.and defending the rules of the WTO. If we fail we will end up poorer and
:07:45. > :07:58.less able to generate the resources we need to defend ourselves and our
:07:59. > :08:02.allies in Nato or else we are. The end NPT -- nuclear Non-Proliferation
:08:03. > :08:06.Treaty has been one of the cornerstones of our world but has
:08:07. > :08:14.been under stress free years particularly by North Korea which
:08:15. > :08:19.withdrew and from Iran whose nuclear programmes gave legitimate cause for
:08:20. > :08:22.concern. The only thing that these challenges have in common is that in
:08:23. > :08:30.neither case is a military response either sensible or to be anticipated
:08:31. > :08:37.or planned for other than as an extremely last resort. There is no
:08:38. > :08:43.doubt about the immediacy and reality of the challenge for North
:08:44. > :08:48.Korea. Our own position can only be ancillary but does the Government
:08:49. > :08:55.should the view that China must be a key player in any effective response
:08:56. > :08:58.and that antagonising China politically or in trade policy terms
:08:59. > :09:10.is unlikely to be the best way of securing their support? With Iran,
:09:11. > :09:15.we have to rather oddly acronym JCPOA. Can the noble Lord come from
:09:16. > :09:22.government policy is to remain committed to that agreement whatever
:09:23. > :09:27.the US attitude may turn out to be? Is that policy properly understood
:09:28. > :09:33.and Washington? Is it not time that we began thinking about globalising
:09:34. > :09:37.and generalising the constraints in the Iran agreement as Mike thus
:09:38. > :09:53.extending its situation, which is rather short, and ceasing to make it
:09:54. > :09:57.so Iran specific. There are are over 1000 -- hundred thousand
:09:58. > :10:05.peacekeepers deployed worldwide from the UN, in places like Saddam,
:10:06. > :10:11.Democratic Republic of Congo. The only forces which are fill the
:10:12. > :10:18.responsibilities to protect civilians. The governments decision
:10:19. > :10:24.to strengthen commitments to UN peacekeeping in South Sudan and
:10:25. > :10:27.Somalia are welcome. Perhaps the nobleman as could say something
:10:28. > :10:33.about the Government medium and long-term policies on UN
:10:34. > :10:42.peacekeeping. Is this shift in policy which we have seen in the
:10:43. > :10:46.last year here to stay and is it built into our security strategy or
:10:47. > :10:53.destined to play a more prominent part than in recent past? I am sure
:10:54. > :10:58.others have covered the crucial issue of Nato and the uncertainties
:10:59. > :11:03.over its deterrent capacity as a result of some of the things the new
:11:04. > :11:11.president of the USA sets during his election campaign. By neglect of
:11:12. > :11:14.that issue, is merely shows what an extremely wide scope of debate today
:11:15. > :11:26.has offered us and our important it is to focus on all parts of it. It
:11:27. > :11:36.is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, with his analysis I almost
:11:37. > :11:41.invariably agree, although his conclusions, a little less
:11:42. > :11:44.invariably. I concentrate like him on the rule-based order part of the
:11:45. > :11:50.motion we are discussing and I do so not because for one moment I
:11:51. > :11:54.question the crucial role of a fairly funded Nato and a strong and
:11:55. > :12:01.agile military and maritime power on a far greater extent than today but
:12:02. > :12:06.because our defence and physical safety now rely on so many other
:12:07. > :12:10.things in a totally transformed and disrupted world security
:12:11. > :12:12.environment. Unlike anything that existed even five years ago, let
:12:13. > :12:24.alone a decade. A year ago, the then Foreign
:12:25. > :12:30.Secretary Philip Hammond observed that the distinctions between
:12:31. > :12:33.intelligence agency capability, diplomatic capability and capacity
:12:34. > :12:38.building through development programmes are becoming, he said,
:12:39. > :12:49."More blood at the edges." Other words, integrated and interrelated,
:12:50. > :12:54.the sheer pace could be added, of digital technology. I would add the
:12:55. > :12:59.fragmentation of states, which we have seen in the Middle East, I
:13:00. > :13:01.would at the vast shift of power and production and capital construction
:13:02. > :13:07.to the east and the South and away from the north and the West in the
:13:08. > :13:12.21st century, away from the Atlantic powers and especially to Asia. And
:13:13. > :13:20.above all the need to win and keep winning the narrative through
:13:21. > :13:22.projection of soft power and maximum connectivity, all the time and
:13:23. > :13:27.everywhere. It is what the Chinese call winning the discourse war or
:13:28. > :13:32.the information battle and it is now central in the way that it wasn't
:13:33. > :13:38.even five years ago. My Lord's, the signals for a change of gear have
:13:39. > :13:45.been there long enough and non-Ofwat has actually happened now is -- and
:13:46. > :13:50.long before Brexit and Donald Trump, the need for a fundamental rethink
:13:51. > :13:54.of our position was there. First, for example, it has been obvious for
:13:55. > :14:01.three decades that power was shifting in the world away from the
:14:02. > :14:06.Atlantic powers of the 20th century and to high Rockies of power
:14:07. > :14:09.generally. Major changes in the coordination and configurations of
:14:10. > :14:12.Britain's International policies were bound to be necessary. In many
:14:13. > :14:18.ways the whole pace of innovation and investment, the pace is being
:14:19. > :14:22.set at the other end of the planet. Secondly, it has been equally years
:14:23. > :14:28.the conventional military size and big spend our going to be challenged
:14:29. > :14:31.everywhere by small and agile methods and that the whole scale of
:14:32. > :14:36.power and influence deployment has been changed. The microchip has,
:14:37. > :14:45.among other things, miniature rise weapons and power dramatically. The
:14:46. > :14:48.Davids have been vast empowered against the Goliaths everywhere.
:14:49. > :14:54.Almost any small organisation can operate a lethal drones, and
:14:55. > :14:57.inexpensive launch missile can destroy a $100 million plane or
:14:58. > :15:01.disabled a billion-dollar warship. Furthermore, it has been clear that
:15:02. > :15:06.in the digital age military engagement have to accept entirely
:15:07. > :15:14.new rules. The battle may not be on the battlefield. The total
:15:15. > :15:17.connectivity, scale never seen before mean that great audiences
:15:18. > :15:22.have to be persuaded. There are no clear decision points between
:15:23. > :15:27.victors and vanquish. Trust becomes the new and essential winning
:15:28. > :15:30.weapon. Subtle new mixtures of force and friendship have to be crafted
:15:31. > :15:33.and assembled in permanent instability is to be overcome in any
:15:34. > :15:38.theatre and any kind of settlement reached. As I have said, none of
:15:39. > :15:41.this is new and indeed our own military thinkers and leaders have
:15:42. > :15:46.responded with growing bigger over the decades. I'm a member in the
:15:47. > :15:52.days of low intensity warfare and the practice of which I was involved
:15:53. > :15:58.in in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, profound innovative ideas being
:15:59. > :16:01.continuously developed by military thinkers in response to these new
:16:02. > :16:07.conditions and new types of engagement. Yet, there seems to be
:16:08. > :16:12.one colossal piece missing from this platter of activity and all of this
:16:13. > :16:15.dedication to new forms of power deployment in a radically
:16:16. > :16:22.transformed international media. The missing piece is clear motivating
:16:23. > :16:27.purpose and cause. What exactly is it all about? What is the central
:16:28. > :16:33.story, the truly coherent, definable strategic merit which should be the
:16:34. > :16:36.common right across this landscape and in the minds of every service
:16:37. > :16:44.man and woman at all levels, all the time? The central lesson from our
:16:45. > :16:51.House of Lords soft Power report three years ago and from the many
:16:52. > :16:54.experts who gave us evidence in that report and indeed from the current
:16:55. > :16:58.international relations committee enquiry into the UK Middle Eastern
:16:59. > :17:02.policy is that for our power and influence to be effective and our
:17:03. > :17:06.interest to be well protected and promoted there have to be some
:17:07. > :17:10.defined policy priorities and goals and these can only be derived from a
:17:11. > :17:16.clear and overall articulation of our national purposes and direction
:17:17. > :17:20.against a background of an increasingly confused world. We need
:17:21. > :17:26.to be prepared for, believe in and be fighting for some definite goal.
:17:27. > :17:31.As Lord Hennessey said earlier in this debate, we need to have a
:17:32. > :17:37.certain idea of the United Kingdom to adapt in the new network
:17:38. > :17:42.International landscape that has replaced the 20th-century order. So
:17:43. > :17:50.one has to ask what is this certain idea in its British clothing, in
:17:51. > :17:55.this age of global tunnel to be? Does the Brexit prospect and the
:17:56. > :18:02.arrival of Donald Trump point to the answer? Brexit possibly, the Trump
:18:03. > :18:06.event in a more negative way. I believe they do. We need to build a
:18:07. > :18:12.partnership for European security, although not under but liberated
:18:13. > :18:15.from the old EU treaty. This is a major opportunity for creative
:18:16. > :18:20.leadership in the digital age. I think we can cast off the image of a
:18:21. > :18:23.Britain of limited, downsized ambitions as some American
:18:24. > :18:28.commentators keep saying that we are signalling. They are frankly reading
:18:29. > :18:31.the wrong signals. Mind you they can hardly be blamed when they see that
:18:32. > :18:35.we are spending less on our diplomacy through the foreign and
:18:36. > :18:42.Commonwealth of this budget from about 800 million net and weep loaf,
:18:43. > :18:45.for example, on Cavalier a disposal is the international agencies or on
:18:46. > :18:56.subsidising carbon reduction by the most expensive conceivable means --
:18:57. > :19:02.and we waste money. To pack a more powerful punch, the better. As for
:19:03. > :19:13.America, it is obvious that America is finished, even if some Americans
:19:14. > :19:18.believe otherwise -- it is clear that Pax Americana is finished.
:19:19. > :19:24.Spending highly on defence does not win wars. I doubt that Trump is the
:19:25. > :19:31.power he suggests he is. Our always slips in this worldwide network and
:19:32. > :19:35.his attempt to impose trade protection are bound to fail in an
:19:36. > :19:46.age of internationalised production. My Lords, we want something
:19:47. > :19:50.different from the 20th century. Our story should be of a more confident
:19:51. > :19:53.Britain, superbly placed to operate with agility in today's networked
:19:54. > :19:58.and heavily interdependent world, making full use of its huge
:19:59. > :20:01.experience, extensive global friendships, amazing latticework of
:20:02. > :20:06.relationships and the trust of common understanding and connections
:20:07. > :20:10.all across the world. This not the inspiration for a resource for
:20:11. > :20:14.Britain wonderfully woven into the Commonwealth network of 2.3 billion
:20:15. > :20:17.people, the same working language, the language being of course the
:20:18. > :20:24.ultimate conveyor of complex ideas and common understanding and trust,
:20:25. > :20:29.the default protocol of the planet. Deploying Britain's immense but
:20:30. > :20:32.underused soft power, assets, the Commonwealth with its ready-made
:20:33. > :20:36.trust network is the ideal forum or platform, all that there are some
:20:37. > :20:43.back sliders. To see things through this lend towards a changed mindset
:20:44. > :20:46.among policymakers and impose an all branches of government, civil and
:20:47. > :20:49.military, who are charged with safeguarding Britain's security, it
:20:50. > :20:53.Scoble business, its brand and its reputation. We are talking about
:20:54. > :20:57.nothing less than a grand repositioning of the United Kingdom
:20:58. > :21:03.in a world utterly transformed by the digital age. For this we need a
:21:04. > :21:08.new strategic synthesis to work bilaterally with America, yes, as a
:21:09. > :21:11.partner, with China to a degree and indeed closely with how European
:21:12. > :21:16.neighbours but not permanently tied or overcommitted to any of them. The
:21:17. > :21:24.Army speaks rightly of its core purpose but whatever form power and
:21:25. > :21:28.deployment takes nowadays, soft power, one purpose above all others
:21:29. > :21:33.needs to be clear, inspiration and a source of commitment at every level,
:21:34. > :21:36.which is to uphold the nation's changing role and interests in an
:21:37. > :21:41.age of global turmoil and provide security with a rock-solid basis.
:21:42. > :21:46.That is the unambiguous message which our society and its leading
:21:47. > :21:51.voices need to send to all three branches of our armed services so
:21:52. > :22:00.that they can perform at their best with a clear sense of direction. We
:22:01. > :22:04.owe them nothing less. I'd like to thank, start by thanking the noble
:22:05. > :22:10.Lord the Minister for introducing this debate and I'd like to
:22:11. > :22:13.interpret in that also his support for it taking place because it
:22:14. > :22:18.indeed would be a foolish Chief Whip you listed to a debate without the
:22:19. > :22:23.Minister saying let's go for it. I would like to thank him for that. I
:22:24. > :22:29.would also like to say how pleased I am that Lord Astor is back with us
:22:30. > :22:35.debating defence issues. This House has been blessed in the last ten
:22:36. > :22:41.years with having two front bench ministers as defence spokespeople
:22:42. > :22:46.who we have respected and certainly find most helpful in the work that
:22:47. > :22:54.we are trying to do. I declare an interest, I chair the House of Lords
:22:55. > :22:57.defence study group, an informal grouping of 60 members comprising of
:22:58. > :23:02.former military experienced members, politicians who worked in defence
:23:03. > :23:08.and the MOD and also lay members like myself who was not working in
:23:09. > :23:12.either of those areas have had some experience. I was chairman of the
:23:13. > :23:18.Armed Forces review body and I will carry with me for the rest of my
:23:19. > :23:24.life a huge debt and recognition of that we owe as a nation to our Armed
:23:25. > :23:29.Forces, young men and women, day in and day out, year in and year out,
:23:30. > :23:38.often without being thanked for it. My Lords, possibly one of the oldest
:23:39. > :23:41.members of that group, not in years but service, was Lord Lyell and I
:23:42. > :23:45.think this is the first main defence debate we have had since his passing
:23:46. > :23:49.and I would just like on behalf of the group to pay our respect and
:23:50. > :23:56.thanks to him for the work he did over many years. In the government's
:23:57. > :24:02.assessment in 2015, strategic defence and Security review, they
:24:03. > :24:11.said that they had concluded that the threat to our nation had not
:24:12. > :24:14.significantly changed. I think that's a view many would challenge
:24:15. > :24:19.and indeed it has been strongly challenged in this debate today. A
:24:20. > :24:24.number of Lord's have dealt with it quite factually about how actually
:24:25. > :24:30.the threat has increased and indeed the noble nor the Minister I think
:24:31. > :24:34.alluded to it, even if it wasn't blunt about it. I do suggest that
:24:35. > :24:38.apart from the suggestion of the destruction of the media with Brexit
:24:39. > :24:42.day in and day out we would actually be seeing our security issues much
:24:43. > :24:48.more in the front page of the press that we are at the moment. The noble
:24:49. > :24:54.Lord the Minister in introducing the debate referred to the 2%
:24:55. > :24:59.contribution to Nato, as indeed a number of other noble Lords have,
:25:00. > :25:02.too. One of our House of Lords study group members, who is absent, and a
:25:03. > :25:08.number have written to me apologising for not taking place, to
:25:09. > :25:14.express regret, what in fact Lord Richards, recently chief of defence
:25:15. > :25:20.staff as we all know and he said, and I quote, "I am sorry to report I
:25:21. > :25:24.am abroad until the 24th of March and therefore will not be able to
:25:25. > :25:30.take part. What I would have emphasised is that while hitting the
:25:31. > :25:35.2% target is a good thing, it has become a veil behind which Her
:25:36. > :25:43.Majesty's government is skewering the true state of the UK's defence
:25:44. > :25:46.capability. In itself, the 2% target means little if a country's
:25:47. > :25:54.ambitions or the perceived threat requires more, as would appear to be
:25:55. > :26:00.so in the case of the UK." I think it is a view many of us would
:26:01. > :26:07.certainly agree with. Now, another noble Lord said he did not agree
:26:08. > :26:10.with the 2%, we shouldn't have it there, we should pay what we need
:26:11. > :26:17.to. I actually do agree with the 2% as a base, as a minimum entry, if
:26:18. > :26:24.you like to Nato, because certainly we need to pay more. My friend the
:26:25. > :26:34.noble Lord in his excellent opening address said, I quote, "The most
:26:35. > :26:38.valuable asset is the people. " And obviously I agree with that having
:26:39. > :26:44.chaired the Armed Forces review body. Two days after the strategic
:26:45. > :26:46.defence and Security review in 2015, the government announced in its
:26:47. > :26:53.spending review and Autumn Statement that it had included in that
:26:54. > :26:58.statement a decision to spend on defence ?11 billion in new
:26:59. > :27:05.abilities, innovation and defence state.
:27:06. > :27:18.Where is the money coming from? 7.2 billion was from efficiency savings
:27:19. > :27:23.including military and civilian pay. That is in restraint which is still
:27:24. > :27:29.continuing. 1% maximum and yet other areas of public service, including
:27:30. > :27:40.MPs, were not limited to it. It also included a civilian cut in headcount
:27:41. > :27:44.of 30% in the MOD. I question how can it be extra expenditure when it
:27:45. > :27:51.is just shifting the deck chairs on the deck? And the people who are
:27:52. > :27:58.paying for it are the least able to pay for it. At a time when as a
:27:59. > :28:01.nation we are facing a higher security check. It is no wonder that
:28:02. > :28:08.the Armed Forces review body in its last report talked about dropping
:28:09. > :28:14.morale and that has been mentioned in this debate. I am not surprised
:28:15. > :28:18.about that. They see the statements that are made and what they are
:28:19. > :28:28.experiencing themselves in the Armed Forces. The reality is that we have
:28:29. > :28:39.probably been too small-minded and we need to spend more because of the
:28:40. > :28:44.state of the world today. The chairman of the select events
:28:45. > :28:52.committee who was with us until a short while ago called for a 3%
:28:53. > :28:56.expenditure. He reminded us that when we were last in a period of
:28:57. > :29:04.major terrorism and security threat, the 1980s, it has been referred to
:29:05. > :29:15.in this debate, defence expenditure varied between 4.3 and 5%. Another
:29:16. > :29:27.member of our group called for 2.5%. On nearly 40 billion of expenditure
:29:28. > :29:32.is not insignificant. It is about what we need for the security of
:29:33. > :29:37.this nation and how we properly resource our defence capability in a
:29:38. > :29:48.world which is probably less secure and now than it has been for many
:29:49. > :30:06.decades. Between 2010 and 2016 defence spending reduced in real
:30:07. > :30:11.terms by 6.9%. There was a negative impact on MoD budget of ?700
:30:12. > :30:15.million. I would hope the Minister can confirm that will come out of
:30:16. > :30:24.the set budget that the Treasury will find that money. Is the
:30:25. > :30:28.Minister able to inform the House how progress is being made about an
:30:29. > :30:31.issue which is very topical short while ago but has gone quiet
:30:32. > :30:40.recently, the recruitment of reserves? Up to the 35,000 talked
:30:41. > :30:44.about. Many members have taken part in the debate today. I respect
:30:45. > :30:51.hugely their expertise and their experience. I would just said to the
:30:52. > :30:59.Minister as gently as I can that there has not been one voice in this
:31:00. > :31:07.debate denying we are in a more insecure world and that we need to
:31:08. > :31:11.look at our defence budget and that has been irrespective of what party.
:31:12. > :31:16.Please can you pass that message back? I hope there is a similar
:31:17. > :31:24.debate in the House of Commons because only by raising our voices
:31:25. > :31:28.in this Crosshouse we will we stand a chance of being listened to. We
:31:29. > :31:33.are not warmongers or people who are calling for expenditure because it
:31:34. > :31:39.is politically convenient to have a go at the Government. If we had a
:31:40. > :31:41.Labour minister on those benches now answering this debate, my
:31:42. > :31:46.contribution would be exactly the same as it is now. I hope that
:31:47. > :32:05.message can be carried back to the Government. It is a pleasure to
:32:06. > :32:10.follow the noble Baroness. I would also like to pay compliments to the
:32:11. > :32:17.noble Lord forever efforts that he was next to promote the importance
:32:18. > :32:25.of defence in Wales, where he does a great job. I would also like to
:32:26. > :32:31.declare my interest as chairman of General dynamics in the UK. At a
:32:32. > :32:35.time when there is so much uncertainty in international
:32:36. > :32:40.relations both in Europe and in the wider world are thoughts must always
:32:41. > :32:45.turned towards our defence to ensure that the nation is well protected.
:32:46. > :32:50.During the course of the debate this afternoon with so many distinguished
:32:51. > :32:56.contributors, we are learning much of how our Armed Forces and others
:32:57. > :33:04.are properly prepared. For those Armed Forces to be prepared that
:33:05. > :33:08.preparation can be only the most effective when they are supplied
:33:09. > :33:14.with the best equipment in body in the latest technology. The task of
:33:15. > :33:23.procuring equipment is undertaken by the defence equivalent and support
:33:24. > :33:31.division staffed by both serving officers and civilians. That
:33:32. > :33:36.division has for years been all too often the subject of an informed
:33:37. > :33:45.criticism centred on perceived delays or excessive cost. We are
:33:46. > :33:50.very often -- very often a full examination reveals a different
:33:51. > :33:54.picture. Defence procurement around the world always gives rise to such
:33:55. > :34:01.feelings and different countries have different approaches to deal
:34:02. > :34:07.with it. Recently Lord West asked a question relating to defence
:34:08. > :34:13.industrial policy. I was at pains to say I did not believe we should
:34:14. > :34:17.revert to an approach of national champions which failed some years
:34:18. > :34:24.ago. I would like to speak this afternoon about how we go about
:34:25. > :34:29.procuring equipment for the Armed Forces and the organisation
:34:30. > :34:35.responsible for that task. It is a task for which some 30 years ago I
:34:36. > :34:38.had responsibility and, having been asked more recently by successive
:34:39. > :34:44.Defence Secretary is to oversee a process which was known as defence
:34:45. > :34:51.reform I think my perception in this area is relatively up-to-date.
:34:52. > :34:53.Defence procurement requires a thorough understanding of the
:34:54. > :34:58.interaction between technology production and commercial realism. I
:34:59. > :35:03.have argued for a long time that this was not necessarily very
:35:04. > :35:08.different from imperatives in other industries and in my view the
:35:09. > :35:12.process should be led by an experienced businessman who
:35:13. > :35:17.understood both development and commercial imperatives. In my
:35:18. > :35:21.opinion and at long last the Government have managed to recruit
:35:22. > :35:28.an outstanding individual to head the organisation. Tony Douglas, the
:35:29. > :35:36.man who previously ran the Abu Dhabi airport authority which you will
:35:37. > :35:43.understand is no mean feat. This man is used to getting complex projects
:35:44. > :35:48.completed on time and on cost. Precisely what is needed in the post
:35:49. > :35:55.in the MOD, which he now holds. To give further credit to those making
:35:56. > :36:01.his appointment it was also decided earlier to appoint a nonexecutive
:36:02. > :36:06.chairman to oversee the division and an inspired choice was made in
:36:07. > :36:14.choosing Paul Skinner, a man his reputation precedes him from his
:36:15. > :36:20.time spent at both Shell and RTZ. In my view, the top of the organisation
:36:21. > :36:26.is now in place. We should be able to deliver what we need now on time
:36:27. > :36:34.and on cost. So far, so good, you may think. But like any other
:36:35. > :36:41.efficient organisation, it requires a clear line of control. In my view,
:36:42. > :36:48.it requires the chief executive to have authority and control over all
:36:49. > :36:53.the parts of his organisation. So I have been greatly concerned to look
:36:54. > :36:58.at the way in which the acquisition of the nuclear submarine successor
:36:59. > :37:08.programme is being largely hived off to a separate procurement
:37:09. > :37:19.organisation over which the DENS will have reduced influence. It
:37:20. > :37:22.maybe that was influenced by the Treasurer and their understanding of
:37:23. > :37:27.procurement has been in the past less than perfect. It has taken
:37:28. > :37:30.years to find the right person to run DENS but now the MOD is looking
:37:31. > :37:36.for another person to run the submarine programme. I believe that
:37:37. > :37:40.is fundamentally wrong. I know what has driven it but I don't agree with
:37:41. > :37:45.it and I hope it is not too late for the Minister to discuss this with
:37:46. > :37:49.his colleagues to see whether a more suitable arrangement can be arrived
:37:50. > :37:56.at. The nuclear submarine programme is a very complex one involving
:37:57. > :38:05.design, development and construction for the most modern vessels. From my
:38:06. > :38:08.past experience, this interface is complex and needs to be closely
:38:09. > :38:12.connected with the rest of our defence procurement programme.
:38:13. > :38:19.Separation is wrong and I believe it will not live without, we really
:38:20. > :38:23.need. I hope you are chips may concern we have extremely dedicated
:38:24. > :38:28.people working both on the military and civilian side in procurement who
:38:29. > :38:33.rarely attract praise but very frequently are blamed often for
:38:34. > :38:40.faults that do not really exist or have been misinterpreted. We need
:38:41. > :38:43.the very best equipment which can be procured and the best people to
:38:44. > :38:53.enable us to achieve this and those people deserve our absolute support.
:38:54. > :38:59.I am sure this debate has been immensely enhanced by the
:39:00. > :39:07.contribution of the noble Lord who has just sat down, whose huge
:39:08. > :39:13.experience is of massive value to all of us. I must begin by reminding
:39:14. > :39:20.the House that for many years I have been a member of the delegation to
:39:21. > :39:25.the Nato Parliamentary assembly where I am currently chairman of one
:39:26. > :39:29.of their committees. It is only seven weeks or so since we had our
:39:30. > :39:37.last defence debate and I think it is timely in view of continued
:39:38. > :39:42.tensions which confront us that we have another one today and I pay
:39:43. > :39:50.tribute to my noble friend the Minister for that. Especially when
:39:51. > :39:56.one contemplates what I describe as the arc of trouble which stretches
:39:57. > :40:02.from the Baltic states in the north through the Middle East and North
:40:03. > :40:09.Africa to the Atlantic Ocean where Nigeria continues to struggle with
:40:10. > :40:20.Boko Haram. Much, not all but much of this tension which has increased
:40:21. > :40:25.in recent times stems from Russia's increasing posturing and provocation
:40:26. > :40:34.and it is on Russia I want to concentrate most of my remarks. This
:40:35. > :40:42.increased provocation by Russia despite a faltering economy which
:40:43. > :40:48.has been compared in scale, we should remind our selves, to that of
:40:49. > :40:56.Spain. Its faltering mainly as a consequence of crude oil prices in
:40:57. > :41:02.the $50 per barrel range but with burgeoning defence spending,
:41:03. > :41:06.admittedly from a comparative low base, when we remind ourselves that
:41:07. > :41:16.the Russian defence expenditure only four years ago was less than that of
:41:17. > :41:19.the United Kingdombut what we have seen is an intensification of
:41:20. > :41:25.Moscow's military build-up throughout the entire region from
:41:26. > :41:32.the Arctic through to the Mediterranean and we have seen new
:41:33. > :41:42.evidence of their tinkering in Libya in recent times our allies in Nato
:41:43. > :41:45.and the East continue to feel threatened by the hard power
:41:46. > :41:52.imbalance in their neighbourhoods. Russia has the ability rapidly to
:41:53. > :42:00.amass significant forces on its border and continues to mount
:42:01. > :42:02.anti-access and area denial capabilities in the Baltics, the
:42:03. > :42:12.Black Sea and the Mediterranean regions. They have threatened
:42:13. > :42:21.nuclear strikes against Nato allies and have withdrawn from or violated
:42:22. > :42:26.key arms control agreements. As well, very importantly, they have
:42:27. > :42:31.developed a highly sophisticated propaganda and disinformation
:42:32. > :42:38.campaign often blatantly distorting facts and the truth, which is a
:42:39. > :42:43.matter I shall return to in a few moments.
:42:44. > :42:51.I can't help feeling that with the mounting threat from Russia that the
:42:52. > :42:58.Nato allies are relatively sleeping through all of this. It is not
:42:59. > :43:06.helped by the continued uncertainty which comes from Washington and I
:43:07. > :43:14.say that not only from the wild and sometimes contradictory tweets from
:43:15. > :43:18.the President himself but it is this period of uncertainty in the
:43:19. > :43:25.formation of a new administration in the United States. In the past it
:43:26. > :43:32.has often taken up to June before all the political appointments are
:43:33. > :43:34.made but last week in the international relations select
:43:35. > :43:41.committee upstairs, which might noble friend Lord Howell is
:43:42. > :43:45.chairman, we heard evidence that the current appointments in the United
:43:46. > :43:54.States are proceeding very slowly and still some of the most senior
:43:55. > :43:59.Pentagon political offices remain unfilled. Perhaps one of the few
:44:00. > :44:09.firm messages, though, to come from Washington recently is President
:44:10. > :44:17.Trump's dissatisfaction at the poor response to the Nato Welsh summit's
:44:18. > :44:25.target of moving towards that 2% of GDP going to defence. The noble
:44:26. > :44:35.Lord, Lord Howell when he opened the debate referred to the five states
:44:36. > :44:41.whose defence spending comes to less than 1% and the noble Lord Stirrup
:44:42. > :44:51.in his earlier speech talked about the need to name and shame those who
:44:52. > :45:00.don't even spend 1% but unfortunately Mr Stirrup did not
:45:01. > :45:05.name them and therefore I will. It has been implied in the past that it
:45:06. > :45:11.is bad manners and not very friendly to name the backsliders but it is
:45:12. > :45:19.Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Slovenia and Hungary who currently spend less
:45:20. > :45:23.than 1% and I think that is a disgrace, particularly that some of
:45:24. > :45:32.those countries are extremely wealthy and really ought to be
:45:33. > :45:36.moving towards the Welsh summit's target, indeed some of them,
:45:37. > :45:41.particularly Belgium, seem to be spending less each year, which again
:45:42. > :45:52.I would have thought is indefensible. It has been referred
:45:53. > :45:58.to before when I -- but I repeat it. It is a sad reflection of our
:45:59. > :46:06.European friends and I speak as one who was not in favour of Brexit that
:46:07. > :46:18.after Brexit 80% of Nato's partners will be expending on Nato's defence
:46:19. > :46:26.will come from non-members of the European union. 80% coming from
:46:27. > :46:31.non-European members. That also is a disgrace. But I believe one
:46:32. > :46:38.constructive praiseworthy development in recent times has been
:46:39. > :46:46.the decision to deploy battle troops in the three old state and Poland --
:46:47. > :46:50.the three Baltic states and Poland. I have expressed concerns in the
:46:51. > :46:53.past about the delay to their deployment and I am very relieved
:46:54. > :46:59.that the first of the United Kingdom led contingent has already arrived
:47:00. > :47:06.in Estonia. I have felt for some time that these months, which we are
:47:07. > :47:10.in the middle of now, covered a dangerous period of change and
:47:11. > :47:15.uncertainty which could have encouraged President Putin to make
:47:16. > :47:21.another provocative incursion is one way or another. I have two
:47:22. > :47:28.particular questions to ask my noble friend the Minister. First of all,
:47:29. > :47:34.will he tell us when the Estonian deployment of UK troops will be
:47:35. > :47:41.complete? Will he also tell us when it is expected that the other
:47:42. > :47:46.deployments, I am thinking of the Canada led one in Latvia, the German
:47:47. > :47:52.led one in Lithuania and the United States one in Poland, when those
:47:53. > :48:01.deployments also will be complete? These deployments will, although
:48:02. > :48:06.small in size, will provide an essential effect which will warn
:48:07. > :48:11.Moscow that to engage with them would have immediate article five
:48:12. > :48:16.implications. Finally, I did not refer earlier to the propaganda and
:48:17. > :48:24.misinformation programme, which the Russians are so good at and finally
:48:25. > :48:29.I ask the Minister to confirm that all preparations have been made
:48:30. > :48:36.alongside our Estonian battle group deployment to have adequate back-up
:48:37. > :48:41.for Russian speakers and media facilities to counter the inevitable
:48:42. > :48:48.sniping and vilification which we can be assured the Russians are
:48:49. > :48:57.bound to spray over them in the months and years ahead. This is an
:48:58. > :49:01.important debate about the very serious international situation
:49:02. > :49:07.facing the UK in terms of its capacity to defend itself in
:49:08. > :49:10.collaboration with its allies. I declare an interest as a scientific
:49:11. > :49:16.consultant to a defence contractor working for the MOD and I am
:49:17. > :49:22.consultant with a university in France working on new wings for
:49:23. > :49:26.Airbus facilities, some of which are important for the UK. When I was
:49:27. > :49:34.head of the Met office I also saw a bit of how MOD works, some of which
:49:35. > :49:40.will make your hair stand on end about how it all works, but it also
:49:41. > :49:43.enabled focusing on, during this period, the ability of the Met
:49:44. > :49:50.office to forecast the atmosphere and oceans greatly improved. But I
:49:51. > :49:54.do have two declare that when I was a professor at Cambridge one of my
:49:55. > :49:58.research students used our research techniques in Cambridge to the right
:49:59. > :50:05.very high-tech shelters for all the women protesting on the Commons.
:50:06. > :50:09.Since this is a debate on politics of defence I should begin by asking
:50:10. > :50:16.HMG whether it is satisfied with the understanding and support of the
:50:17. > :50:20.British people for the main aspects of UK defence strategy. The first
:50:21. > :50:25.point of controversy has been about the size of the Armed Forces, which
:50:26. > :50:31.is now smaller in total than for many years and significantly lower
:50:32. > :50:35.than is needed to confront the main opponent to the UK and its allies in
:50:36. > :50:40.Asia and the Middle East especially. This is a technical and financial
:50:41. > :50:47.question depending on the choice of strategic goals but we should learn
:50:48. > :50:52.more about arguments. The second major controversy, which is much
:50:53. > :50:56.more political, concerns whether the UK armaments should continue to
:50:57. > :51:03.depend on nuclear weapons systems. I believe this is essential and it is,
:51:04. > :51:08.of course, the official Labour macro policy as mentioned earlier this
:51:09. > :51:12.afternoon. Of course, there are members of the Labour and the
:51:13. > :51:18.Liberal Democrats continue to be split about this, with many members
:51:19. > :51:21.inside and outside Parliament being opposed. Also of course many
:51:22. > :51:31.countries in the Nato alliance are opposed to the use of these weapons.
:51:32. > :51:35.A lesser but more recent controversy about the UK's defence is to what
:51:36. > :51:38.extent they should be used to support government is in the Middle
:51:39. > :51:43.East and Africa where Civil War is taking place. Or there are outbreaks
:51:44. > :51:48.of disease and civil emergencies such as the breakdown of government
:51:49. > :51:51.systems in Libya and elsewhere and Lord Howell in his introductory
:51:52. > :51:56.speech commented about how our defence forces are used for these
:51:57. > :52:02.civil issues and very effectively, too. Though there is I think very
:52:03. > :52:05.little political controversy about the use of UK's world-class
:52:06. > :52:11.defensive capability inside and security services to protect the UK
:52:12. > :52:16.and our allies. I should like to make a suggestion that the
:52:17. > :52:22.government needs to build up support of its defence policies amongst all
:52:23. > :52:28.parts of society, including schools, universities, industry, trade unions
:52:29. > :52:33.and so on in order to have support for its defence forces and their
:52:34. > :52:36.infrastructure within government and also the understanding about the
:52:37. > :52:42.role of the private sector. I believe new approaches are
:52:43. > :52:45.necessary. I came to this conclusion when, with my grandson, I was
:52:46. > :52:52.visiting the excellent Royal Air Force Base the. I have told Lord
:52:53. > :52:55.Howell about this story. The technical and scientific aspects of
:52:56. > :53:00.the IDF over the last century were well displayed and I assumed there
:53:01. > :53:05.will be some centennial celebrations of this museum in a year or two --
:53:06. > :53:10.of the RAF. But there needs to be more emphasis on current operational
:53:11. > :53:13.policies. As well as the developing technologies. The existence of
:53:14. > :53:20.nuclear weapons in UK defence should not be ignored. It is also important
:53:21. > :53:24.in museums and other places providing public information to
:53:25. > :53:31.explain why the UK has defence forces in 2017, giving information
:53:32. > :53:35.about countries which are the UK's allies and controversially which
:53:36. > :53:41.countries are not our allies. In some schools, I am afraid to say,
:53:42. > :53:44.the governors prevent school visits to defence facilities. BR AF Museum
:53:45. > :53:50.provides information about our former enemies. Surely there should
:53:51. > :53:52.now be considerable emphasis in all such information displayed on how
:53:53. > :54:01.these former enemies are now our allies. There is great
:54:02. > :54:05.misunderstanding by many young people on these issues. So, I look
:54:06. > :54:11.forward to the Minister's response to this question. Demonstrations,
:54:12. > :54:17.museums, videos about modern defence forces and their infrastructure
:54:18. > :54:21.should also include displays and information about their use of
:54:22. > :54:26.technology and scientific development, including systems
:54:27. > :54:29.collaborating with our allies. An example is the large air bus
:54:30. > :54:33.transport plane I have mentioned, one of which is used by the UK Prime
:54:34. > :54:38.Minister now who I am glad to say no longer goes on a Boeing. It is not
:54:39. > :54:44.realistic to pretend that our forces only depend on UK industry and
:54:45. > :54:45.technical products. For example, the Met office provides world-class
:54:46. > :54:50.meteorology and environmental data and forecasts for the UK forces in
:54:51. > :54:56.from information provided through Nato from other forces but also
:54:57. > :54:59.provides its information to Allied forces such as the weather
:55:00. > :55:04.forecasting, which is now used by the US Air Force. It is important
:55:05. > :55:08.that technical defence collaboration between Nato forces should not be
:55:09. > :55:14.impeded by the UK withdrawing from the current EU technological
:55:15. > :55:18.projects, which other noble peers have mentioned. That may happen
:55:19. > :55:21.without considerable diplomacy. Perhaps the Minister could say how
:55:22. > :55:27.this issue is also being addressed. Finally, I would like to say that
:55:28. > :55:30.there should be greater collaboration between UK defence
:55:31. > :55:34.scientists and those of our allies. When I was at the Met office,
:55:35. > :55:37.perhaps it has changed now, there were no army defence scientific
:55:38. > :55:47.advisory committee. I hope that may have changed by now. In contrast to
:55:48. > :55:52.the large number of qualifications and interest which many noble Lords
:55:53. > :55:57.have professed, I can only profess to having been a submarine commander
:55:58. > :56:03.in the Cold War but I have the interests of the service at heart. I
:56:04. > :56:07.thank the noble Lord the Minister for this debate, which has given us
:56:08. > :56:14.the opportunity to revisit and examine the entire defence area. We
:56:15. > :56:23.have heard the challenges to the order this did by many. They
:56:24. > :56:29.include, amongst others, famine both food and water, nuclear
:56:30. > :56:36.proliferation, which we have included, but also perhaps we should
:56:37. > :56:41.say the new US regime. In times of peace, military expenditure tends to
:56:42. > :56:44.be the Cinderella of government spending. Large parts of the
:56:45. > :56:49.population see it as neither necessary nor desirable and it
:56:50. > :56:56.forces Parliament to persuade -- it to persuade the voting public to
:56:57. > :56:59.respect defence in so many areas called to their attention. History
:57:00. > :57:02.will tell us that although we are seldom prepared for converts when it
:57:03. > :57:07.arises we do occasionally get it right. -- seldom prepared for
:57:08. > :57:12.defence. Henry VIII regularly ran out of money to maintain its waters.
:57:13. > :57:16.The only began was when he received a new injection of cash. Elizabeth
:57:17. > :57:20.the first's expenditure on warfare was a markedly modest but it cost
:57:21. > :57:24.the king of Spain two thirds of the entire revenues of the Spanish
:57:25. > :57:27.Empire in 1585 to build the Spanish Armada.
:57:28. > :57:44.A sordid three years before the date was to set sail. -- he started three
:57:45. > :57:56.years. Spending on the Royal Navy consumed the largest share of
:57:57. > :58:01.government revenues at one point. I assume that most of us come from an
:58:02. > :58:09.era when the Napoleonic Wars still formed a part of the history
:58:10. > :58:19.curriculum. The British National budget was ?66 million in the last
:58:20. > :58:22.year of the Napoleonic wars. The Army spent 40 million, 10 million
:58:23. > :58:29.was spent on mercenaries from Austria and Prussia. Post 1815 and
:58:30. > :58:34.during the Hundred years or so of Pax Britannica we were probably the
:58:35. > :58:43.most confident country on the planet and confidence has been mentioned in
:58:44. > :58:48.certain contexts. Defence expenditure fell steadily as a
:58:49. > :58:58.percentage of GDP because of the vast rise of GDP itself. In 1900 it
:58:59. > :59:02.was just under four percent. The arrival of Admiral Jackie Fisher saw
:59:03. > :59:08.a complete change in defence thinking. He was convinced that war
:59:09. > :59:11.with Germany was inevitable and set about modernising the Navy and
:59:12. > :59:19.preparing it for war with enormous enthusiasm. He retired in 1911 for
:59:20. > :59:23.the first time with the job done and so effectively that the defence
:59:24. > :59:27.spending at 3% of GDP was lower than when he had arrived due to the
:59:28. > :59:30.massive efficiencies and savings he had been able to make whilst
:59:31. > :59:37.completely renewing the battleship fleet. He had the public on his
:59:38. > :59:42.side. He was such a popular figure that as he believed Parliament into
:59:43. > :59:48.supporting his new building programmes, the public calling to
:59:49. > :00:01.the phrase we want it and we won't wait referring to dread knots.
:00:02. > :00:08.Defence spending at 3.15% of GDP was a magic quality of this figure
:00:09. > :00:11.three, popping up time and again. From 19221935 spending remained
:00:12. > :00:18.steady at around 3%. The arguments of Churchill and others surrounding
:00:19. > :00:21.the process of rearmament in 1936 to not need rehearsing but suffice to
:00:22. > :00:27.say they were highly controversial at the time. I apologise for
:00:28. > :00:31.reciting all this history but I hope that my point is clear. We ignore
:00:32. > :00:36.the lessons of the past at our peril. Fischer managed to revitalise
:00:37. > :00:43.the Navy in ten years but it continues in an age far less
:00:44. > :00:47.technologically advanced than today. Churchill managed to get the ball
:00:48. > :00:53.rolling in 1936 although we were far from ready when the war started. In
:00:54. > :00:58.more recent times we entered the Cold War in the 50s with defence
:00:59. > :01:05.expenditure at 6% of GDP and it was still at 4% by the early 90s. Since
:01:06. > :01:08.then the so-called Cold War dividend has had the psychological effect of
:01:09. > :01:14.lolling the country and false sense of which is now 25 years on starkly
:01:15. > :01:21.apparent. Other speakers will no doubt, and have detailed the effects
:01:22. > :01:24.of the obvious lack of mass, ie numbers, manpower shortages,
:01:25. > :01:29.reduction in the procurement of stocks of weapons and equipment and
:01:30. > :01:32.the scrapping of useful equipment because maintenance or manning
:01:33. > :01:38.cannot be funded. We must start to think of you have two unthinkable
:01:39. > :01:42.casting aside some of the 21st-century expectations of
:01:43. > :01:47.politics. Real spending as a percentage of GDP and figures that
:01:48. > :01:56.are not widely understood by the public includes a following figures.
:01:57. > :02:01.Pensions, 8%, health, 7.4%, welfare, 6%. Add them together and you get a
:02:02. > :02:11.quarter of the entire GDP. Education, 4.4%, defence, 1.76
:02:12. > :02:13.defence. Pure defence spending and point to 5% of other things
:02:14. > :02:17.creatively accounted into the calculation. We do not have ten
:02:18. > :02:23.years or even free to prepare for the next conflict which may be
:02:24. > :02:29.forced upon us. Despite the rapid advance of technologies development
:02:30. > :02:38.times have lengthened. Fisher built the dreadnought in a year and her
:02:39. > :02:43.successor will probably take 15 years. It did ten years from project
:02:44. > :02:47.site to launch the first day in class destroyer. The type 26 frigate
:02:48. > :02:51.began in 2010 and the first vessel has yet to be ordered. The numbers
:02:52. > :02:58.of both these projects have halved since inception. The type 31 frigate
:02:59. > :03:05.is still a figment of the collective imagination. I could start on the
:03:06. > :03:12.astute class submarine programme but embarrassment for mild service
:03:13. > :03:16.forbids further comment. Most would agree this is only right and proper
:03:17. > :03:22.but I would argue the balance has been dangerously upset by the
:03:23. > :03:28.post-Cold War loll in military need and the 2015 SDS are as possibly
:03:29. > :03:31.already reached itself by date and another seriously as to be taken at
:03:32. > :03:36.our defence needs rather than looking through the other end of the
:03:37. > :03:45.telescope that what we can afford when all the other budgetary
:03:46. > :03:50.considerations have... It fails to address personnel recruitment and
:03:51. > :03:53.attention to any great extent. The court Secretary State for defence,
:03:54. > :04:00.nothing is more important than defending our country and protecting
:04:01. > :04:03.our people. Another quotation, I think from the Prime Minister, the
:04:04. > :04:13.first duty of government is defence of the people. I would point out
:04:14. > :04:20.that while we aim to spent to depend -- 2% of GDP on defence, Russia
:04:21. > :04:31.spends 5.4, the US 2.3% from 1.9% and Saudi Arabia 13.7%. A final
:04:32. > :04:41.question. What consideration has been given to the cost of building
:04:42. > :04:47.operating and maintaining the strategic defence budget? The main
:04:48. > :04:54.issue out of all that which seems to come across as being that of morale
:04:55. > :05:00.and recruitment, the hollowing out of the personnel of the services.
:05:01. > :05:03.Equipment can be built and will be built and budgets will create that
:05:04. > :05:09.but we must create an attractive enough to form for recruitment to
:05:10. > :05:15.benefit and bring enough people into the services to create the kind of
:05:16. > :05:25.task forces and numbers we have been talking about. It is a pleasure to
:05:26. > :05:31.follow him. He brings a nautical experience to our discussions and I
:05:32. > :05:35.bring more of an army bias. He is also a relative newcomer to the
:05:36. > :05:41.House. As a relative new boy myself, could I see the logic's houses taken
:05:42. > :05:44.a bit of the kicking in the press that having sat through most of this
:05:45. > :05:50.debate I have been impressed by some of the excellent speeches.
:05:51. > :05:57.Interesting, well-informed and informative. I will mention Lord
:05:58. > :06:02.Hennessy and Lord Stewart. I am glad to see the Secretary of State and
:06:03. > :06:07.chairman of the Select Committee from the House of Commons are both
:06:08. > :06:10.listening to them. I hope I can live up to the high standard but I rather
:06:11. > :06:22.doubt it and I shall make two points. The first is on the Armed
:06:23. > :06:32.Forces and the second is the current global situation. Centring of the
:06:33. > :06:38.Armed Forces, -- standing of the Armed Forces, it is a shame to say
:06:39. > :06:45.they are highly regarded. When I was in the MOD, they were more highly
:06:46. > :06:50.regarded them in my lifetime. I recall the United States Army after
:06:51. > :06:57.Vietnam and a friend of mine told me he flew back into Los Angeles
:06:58. > :07:02.airport and he was spat at. We have never got to that stage and I hope
:07:03. > :07:07.we never do. In the same vein, it was about 12 years ago there was an
:07:08. > :07:12.election to the US Senate and it was said that no Senator was elected had
:07:13. > :07:21.a child that was serving in the Armed Forces. I mention that because
:07:22. > :07:24.actually in contrast on the benches here and down the other end is not
:07:25. > :07:29.only do you have people who have served in Armed Forces but also they
:07:30. > :07:32.continue to have connections through children and relations that serve
:07:33. > :07:39.and I think that means we are closer in many ways to our Armed Forces
:07:40. > :07:42.than in some other places. It remains a respected career to the
:07:43. > :07:47.end of Armed Forces and attract a high quality of both officers and
:07:48. > :07:50.men. It remains a profession of which to be proud and where parents
:07:51. > :08:07.can be proud if their children join Armed Forces. And women indeed. It
:08:08. > :08:14.is academic. It is a profession of which one can be proud of their
:08:15. > :08:18.children joining. When my son announced he was sinking of joining
:08:19. > :08:21.the Armed Forces, his mother said over my dead body. She has changed
:08:22. > :08:30.her mind now. It isn't by chance we have respected professionals in the
:08:31. > :08:39.Armed Forces. It is important to keep it in the public eye. We have
:08:40. > :08:48.seen a reduction in the arm forces. Good barracks are being sold. The
:08:49. > :08:56.point about this is actually if you can sign your Armed Forces personnel
:08:57. > :09:02.to the back of an industrial estate, the respect they are afforded is
:09:03. > :09:08.less. Messes being contracted out, what used to be regarded as a home
:09:09. > :09:11.for officers is no longer such. Pay and conditions have continuously
:09:12. > :09:17.been eroded for many years. We have heard about morale and I think it is
:09:18. > :09:22.a bit of an amorphous thing and if you listen to some people it is
:09:23. > :09:26.always lower. Ice think of soldiers weren't complaining about something
:09:27. > :09:31.then they probably weren't happy. But recruitment and retention are
:09:32. > :09:35.not good at the moment. We are not cut it to the 82,000 target and I
:09:36. > :09:40.would urge the Government to look at the situation. It is not about
:09:41. > :09:45.people pitching poor soldiers who have seen awful things in
:09:46. > :09:52.Afghanistan or Iraq -- pitying. They do not want that, they want to be
:09:53. > :09:56.respected. It is not about political correctness or diversity of all that
:09:57. > :10:01.is important too. It is not bad conditions, although that too is
:10:02. > :10:07.important. But actually it is about feeling valued and respected by the
:10:08. > :10:09.society that one serves and being challenged by adventure and
:10:10. > :10:16.excitement at seeing a future career and lifestyle that can offer a
:10:17. > :10:24.decent life for one and one's family. It means seeing the value in
:10:25. > :10:29.some things rather than just looking at the cost. The second point is the
:10:30. > :10:36.current international situation and our response. I was impressed by the
:10:37. > :10:39.tour de force of their noble minister about the strategic threats
:10:40. > :10:45.we face also backed up by the noble Lord. I know my noble friend the
:10:46. > :10:54.Minister is in a difficult position today but we all value his support
:10:55. > :11:04.for defence as well. I was part of the SDS are 2010 with my friends and
:11:05. > :11:08.the Lord is absolutely right that it was driven by costs. Some tried to
:11:09. > :11:13.deny it but it was about cutting costs. I would say to the three
:11:14. > :11:18.Labour ministers who have spoken so far today, in 2010, the situation we
:11:19. > :11:26.inherited across public finances was dire. There is no point in arguing.
:11:27. > :11:36.In defence, there were unfunded secure and programmes going forward
:11:37. > :11:42.which we estimated perhaps some 30 - ?60 billion. Nobody could tell us
:11:43. > :11:47.what the funding was because it was so chaotic. The last government,
:11:48. > :11:51.coalition government, under Philip Hammond for whom I worked, brought
:11:52. > :11:55.defence spending under proper control and should be congratulated.
:11:56. > :11:59.With the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. I see the noble Lord
:12:00. > :12:16.Wallace. I have to say we need to go a lot
:12:17. > :12:21.further. My noble friend Lord Jopling talked about Russia and I
:12:22. > :12:25.won't cover other strategic threats but let's just hone in on Russia.
:12:26. > :12:36.Nobody has been held to account for the murder of not miles from here
:12:37. > :12:42.ten years ago Livenenko. Moby has been held to -- nobody has been held
:12:43. > :12:46.to account for the downing of a plane by Russian missiles. The
:12:47. > :12:51.Baltic states have a joke and if I get it right it is visit Russia but
:12:52. > :12:54.for -- before Russia visits you. They are worried with good concern.
:12:55. > :12:59.You're have the other thread which is closely linked Russia, which is
:13:00. > :13:02.cyber attacks. -- the other threat. We have heard about what has
:13:03. > :13:06.happened in the US elections, we have heard about the Montenegrin.
:13:07. > :13:10.They are nonstop attacks, they are asymmetric and they will grow. The
:13:11. > :13:15.situation has changed. When I joined the Army in 1974 we had 150,000 or
:13:16. > :13:20.so, the 5000 sitting in West Germany, tanks, missiles, tactical
:13:21. > :13:29.nuclear weapons, aircraft facing the East. We spent about 5% of our GDP
:13:30. > :13:34.on defence throughout the 1980s. Now it is around 2%. I went well on how
:13:35. > :13:41.that is accounted for. We only have a vested left. We don't expect
:13:42. > :13:46.invasion forces crossing Europe but asymmetric warfare as it is called,
:13:47. > :13:53.V8 Little Green men that we saw in Crimea and Ukraine -- be it little
:13:54. > :13:56.green men or undermining the Baltic states through winding up their
:13:57. > :14:00.Russian minorities, we should remember the Baltic states are
:14:01. > :14:05.guaranteed by Article five, an attack on one is an attack on all so
:14:06. > :14:09.I have to say we need as a country a bigger stick, as updated as well.
:14:10. > :14:12.Much of the heard about Nato's spending, of course they're spending
:14:13. > :14:15.should rise. We need to up our spending as well stop I pay tribute
:14:16. > :14:19.to the government on actually, it may not seem like it, and especially
:14:20. > :14:23.current defence ministers. I know what they think but we need to go
:14:24. > :14:27.further. The Chancellor, who had a bad week last week, I believe
:14:28. > :14:30.understands the need to spend more in defence. But we need to educate
:14:31. > :14:35.our public, our politicians and government ministers that defence is
:14:36. > :14:39.the first duty of government. There is always a danger of old men and
:14:40. > :14:46.there's quite a few in this place to look back through rose tinted
:14:47. > :14:49.spectacles that the good old days but we also need a balance and to
:14:50. > :14:53.understand the history. We could draw analogies with the 1930s. Has
:14:54. > :15:01.been referred to by both Lord Hanning and Lord King and actually
:15:02. > :15:05.there is some validity. Disarmament, isolationism, aggression, invasion
:15:06. > :15:11.of small parts of countries and I urge my government to up defence
:15:12. > :15:15.spending so that the Armed Forces feel valued, it becomes an
:15:16. > :15:20.attractive career for young men and women and most of all to ensure that
:15:21. > :15:25.British interests are safe in this deteriorating world situation. The
:15:26. > :15:33.first duty of government has always been defence of the realm and we all
:15:34. > :15:37.need to remember that. I think he is absolutely right to draw attention
:15:38. > :15:42.to the non-accountability of the Russians for some or actions. I was
:15:43. > :15:47.for some years on the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya
:15:48. > :15:51.and one of the things that drove me into despair was the brutal
:15:52. > :15:57.behaviour and the way in which they were recruiting for extremists
:15:58. > :16:03.because people were driven into the arms of extremists by their
:16:04. > :16:09.behaviour. My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate and I think
:16:10. > :16:14.it is due in large part to the very thoughtful and wise speech by the
:16:15. > :16:26.Minister, the noble Earl, and indeed by the very firm and perhaps
:16:27. > :16:30.trenchant speech by my noble friend. I think we should in debates of this
:16:31. > :16:36.kind always take some time to pay the warmest unlimited tributes to
:16:37. > :16:40.the men and women of our armed services of the security services
:16:41. > :16:48.and the police, who carry so much responsibility in such demanding and
:16:49. > :16:54.exacting circumstances are now -- on our behalf. I start my thinking
:16:55. > :17:02.about defence, perhaps I should clear and interest, I had a short
:17:03. > :17:08.service stint during the Cold War. I was subsequently the Minister and
:17:09. > :17:14.defence responsible for the Navy when we still had service ministers
:17:15. > :17:24.and I found that despite the awful circumstances I found that a very
:17:25. > :17:30.enjoyable role. Surely the first thing we should do in debating
:17:31. > :17:36.defence is to define and examine the threats. We shouldn't start by
:17:37. > :17:43.talking about percentages of expenditure, we should say what is
:17:44. > :17:48.the real threat. Which faces us. What should we be doing to respond
:17:49. > :17:58.to that threat? What does that demand of us? How much is it the
:17:59. > :18:06.responsibility is essential to pay in responding to that risk and I
:18:07. > :18:14.think we sometimes forego that debate and that leads to a great
:18:15. > :18:18.deal of misunderstanding. What is the threat? And for those ordinary
:18:19. > :18:26.people in their lives, one of the biggest threats is of course
:18:27. > :18:30.terrorism and extremism. And what does that demand of us? It demands
:18:31. > :18:40.extremely good, highly qualified security services to which, for
:18:41. > :18:47.which we are deeply grateful for all they do on our behalf. It also
:18:48. > :19:00.requires a great deal of support and work by the police. But if we are
:19:01. > :19:07.talking about terrorism and extremism we do have to ask
:19:08. > :19:13.ourselves what leads people into extremist positions? And that's why
:19:14. > :19:20.we have two remember all the time that we are in a battle for hearts
:19:21. > :19:26.and minds and that this does demand and it can at times be extremely
:19:27. > :19:32.exacting, demand the highest conduct in terms of the values we proclaim.
:19:33. > :19:39.Because if we slip from both values, we play into the hands of the
:19:40. > :19:46.recruiters for the extremists. I get very worried by some of Donald
:19:47. > :19:54.Trump's language when he starts advocating waterboarding again and
:19:55. > :19:59.talks loosely in his Twitter about the acceptability of torture. I get
:20:00. > :20:07.extremely worried because I think how many new recruits for extremism
:20:08. > :20:17.has he made by those few ill judged remarks? And it seems to me that we
:20:18. > :20:20.have a great responsibility as long-standing allies of the United
:20:21. > :20:26.States to stand absolutely firm in our own position on this and not
:20:27. > :20:32.yield an inch and in doing that I know from my long-standing
:20:33. > :20:39.involvement with many people in the United States that there will be
:20:40. > :20:49.many, many people in the US who rejoice at what we are doing and the
:20:50. > :20:56.way we are doing it. My Lords, the minister was absolutely right to
:20:57. > :21:04.emphasise the unpredictable nature of the situation, the complexity.
:21:05. > :21:07.This is not necessary to go through all the places in the world which
:21:08. > :21:12.have been listed several times in this debate but I am also glad that
:21:13. > :21:20.we have talked about migration, refugees and displaced people, that
:21:21. > :21:24.we have also talked about climate change. These two factors taken
:21:25. > :21:31.together may make anything we are facing at the moment seem like
:21:32. > :21:37.child's play by comparison. We have also, I think, begun to touch on the
:21:38. > :21:45.issue of moving from and ordered approach to world trade to moving
:21:46. > :21:54.into a phase of perhaps aggressive free markets without that moderating
:21:55. > :22:00.influence and that of course is in itself becomes threatening. But I
:22:01. > :22:06.think there is one other point and on this I would congratulate the
:22:07. > :22:11.noble Lord having raised it, I think we do have to ask ourselves very
:22:12. > :22:23.seriously whether the carriers as we have now got them and polite wrists
:22:24. > :22:26.as it now stands -- Polaris as it now stands is not distorting in
:22:27. > :22:30.overall expenditure to the overall defence budget and the real needs
:22:31. > :22:34.and the real threats that we are going to face and the action that we
:22:35. > :22:44.may need to be able to take to contain such threats. I am not and
:22:45. > :22:50.never have been somebody who was a unilateralist. I have always been a
:22:51. > :22:53.multilateralist on disarmament. But I do think we need to ask that
:22:54. > :22:59.question because it would be unfortunate if we end up
:23:00. > :23:03.muscle-bound because we are unable to respond to the real situations
:23:04. > :23:15.and the demands that are being made of us. The Minister emphasised
:23:16. > :23:18.working with others. That is going to be desperately important, of
:23:19. > :23:22.course it is. I can think of very few situations in which we will be
:23:23. > :23:29.able or even contemplate doing something on our own. All of it,
:23:30. > :23:34.including, of course, terrorism demands international collaboration
:23:35. > :23:39.and therefore working out new ways of collaborating with the European
:23:40. > :23:46.Union to continuing our collaboration with France and others
:23:47. > :23:52.and to playing our role within Nato is, of course, crucial. But before I
:23:53. > :23:56.conclude I would also like to mention one other point on which I
:23:57. > :24:04.am totally convinced. I think that if we are going to talk about
:24:05. > :24:14.effective defence policy we have the see the relationship of arms control
:24:15. > :24:22.and regulation of arms trade as absolutely central. Because I think
:24:23. > :24:27.in the situation in which we are operating with, as I have
:24:28. > :24:34.emphasised, extremism and terrorism as a factor, we can't afford
:24:35. > :24:40.situations in which there is any danger whatsoever of lethal weapons
:24:41. > :24:50.ending up in the wrong hands. Or indeed weapons being used in a way
:24:51. > :24:57.that actually recruits for the extremists. We have got to be very
:24:58. > :25:02.certain about the end use of arms that are being exported. We need to
:25:03. > :25:09.be very certain about accountability. And I don't think
:25:10. > :25:13.this is a sortable talented. It is something absolutely central to the
:25:14. > :25:21.defence programme itself, how are we actually insuring that we are
:25:22. > :25:24.recognising the danger and the significance of armaments and
:25:25. > :25:33.ensuring that we are not inadvertently playing into the hands
:25:34. > :25:42.of people who actually are going to exacerbate the terrifying issues
:25:43. > :25:47.with which we are confronted. As we have heard from many of the noble
:25:48. > :25:53.lords and ladies who have spoken today, we're living in a very
:25:54. > :25:56.troubled and insecure world, militarily, politically, economic B,
:25:57. > :26:00.socially, every key themes to be in turmoil. It doesn't matter where you
:26:01. > :26:04.look, the landscape is littered with issues that governments and
:26:05. > :26:09.international institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to
:26:10. > :26:13.handle. Whilst in this chamber we pray, daily, for peace and
:26:14. > :26:16.tranquillity in the realm, we are clearly not doing enough. So what
:26:17. > :26:22.does all this mean for our military in the first, second decade of the
:26:23. > :26:26.21st century? The most pressing item on people's agenda is Brexit. At
:26:27. > :26:32.first sight it seems to us that Brexit itself is unlikely to have a
:26:33. > :26:37.vast impact on our Armed Forces, certainly on their roles and tasks
:26:38. > :26:41.because we are firmly attached to Nato and we expect to be able to
:26:42. > :26:46.continue to cooperate with our European allies. But of course, more
:26:47. > :26:53.indirectly there are big unknowns. What will happen within and to our
:26:54. > :26:59.defence industries? How will it change in the value of the exchange
:27:00. > :27:02.rates of the power and affect our ability to fund the ever increasing
:27:03. > :27:06.costs and procurement of military equipment and manpower? And to add
:27:07. > :27:11.to this there is the spectre of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
:27:12. > :27:15.Should it become a reality? There will presumably be a requirement to
:27:16. > :27:21.give Scotland her chair of the combat units and vehicles, aircraft
:27:22. > :27:25.squadrons, warships, maintenance assets and to sort out our nuclear
:27:26. > :27:59.base. That will all take some doing. Subtitles will resume
:28:00. > :28:09.on Tuesday In Parliament at 11pm.