---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord   Drayson, on his appointment to the Ministry of Defence and say how much I enjoyed working with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble Baroness, Lady   Symons, before that. I also say how pleased I am—I know others are—that Dr Reid has become the Secretary of State for Defence. It is an appointment that will be welcomed by the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, because he has a real feel for the significant operational demands on them at present and really cares about the Armed Forces and will fight their corner. In a short speech such as this, it is hard to do justice to some of the very demanding challenges that face our Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence. That difficulty is not helped by the fact that this important debate is also about foreign affairs and international development, so there is a danger that some important defence issues will become submerged in the debate. In the short time available to me, I would like to highlight three major issues—the inadequate size of the defence budget and the continuing underfunding; Iraq and Afghanistan; and the number of soldiers being investigated for war crimes. I turn first to the defence budget and, in particular, the to underfunding of the forward equipment programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Garden, referred. Soldiers who have served in Iraq have said to me on more than one occasion that they feel that our equipment is inferior to that of the Americans, apart from the security of the Challenger 2 tank. We expect our very special soldiers, sailors and airmen to be prepared to risk their life and to die for their country. In return, the nation has a responsibility to ensure that they have first-class equipment and are properly trained and funded. In addition, we have a responsibility to ensure that they have good living accommodation, both for single men and for families. Our servicemen are honouring their side of that contract, but I am by no means convinced that we are honouring our side of that bargain. I recognise that the forward equipment programme includes some important new equipment—the aircraft carriers and the air wing that goes with them—and Eurofighter. In addition, the future rapid effects system is important for the transformation and modernisation of the Army. However, there is no doubt that the programme is inadequately funded to meet the high costs of the equipment. That will mean either cuts—money will be wasted downstream because those cuts will be made late—or the programme will be delayed from coming into service for many years. Noble Lords may think that living accommodation is a small issue, but some of the living accommodation in which we are asking our servicemen to live is not acceptable and a report by the individual training organisation has made adverse comments about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, will take the opportunity to visit not only the nice accommodation but some of the appalling accommodation in which we ask our servicemen to live. I accept that there has been a real increase in the defence budget, but it does not match by a long way the cost of the equipment improvements that are planned. I now turn to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is generally acknowledged that our servicemen in Iraq have done and are doing a fantastic job. However, the debate about the legality of the war will, in time, have implications for the morale of our servicemen and their families. I would like to see a reduction in the clamour about the legality of the war and a recognition that we are where we are in Iraq and that we have a responsibility for what we started. We should withdraw from Iraq only when we are confident that we are leaving behind a better nation than the one we invaded. Walking away prematurely would be disastrous. I mentioned Afghanistan in connection with Iraq because I understand that the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps is due to deploy to Iraq in the foreseeable future. There is a significant British contribution to the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and, understandably, there is pressure for a major part of the fighting capability to be British. However, that cannot be achieved, given the small size   of our Armed Forces, without reducing our commitment to Iraq. We need to ask ourselves the question that Clausewitz would have asked: where is our point of main effort? Where is our Schwerpunkt? Is it Iraq or Afghanistan? I would strongly argue that both are important, but the more important is Iraq. If we withdrew from Iraq too early, it could have serious implications. Iraq has put demands on the Territorial Army that were much greater than expected, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred. It is also absolutely bananas to cut four battalions from the order of battle—I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—when we are short of such forces. That does not make sense. My final point relates to the number of soldiers being investigated for war crimes. Sadly, there will always be instances when soldiers commit war crimes. They should be investigated and the offenders punished, if necessary. But the fact that British lawyers are hiking their wares in Iraq, trying to persuade Iraqis to take up cases on a ““no fee, no win”” basis, is an indication of what I am talking about. The number of cases being investigated worries me, and the case of Trooper Williams of the Second Royal Tank Regiment highlights that. Many noble Lords understand the realities of operational service, but I sense that too many people do not realise the real pressures and confusion of operational service. Soldiers are asked to make decisions about the use of lethal force in confused conditions, frequently when they are tired and frightened. I hope that lessons have been learnt from the Trooper Williams case. Briefly, the commanding officer, after legal advice, dismissed the case, but his decision was over-ruled and the case eventually went to the High Court, where it was dismissed by a judge for lack of evidence. It was also worrying that Trooper Williams had to be looked after by a team led by Sir   Anthony Walker and former members of his old regiment, the Royal Tank Regiment, to ensure that Trooper Williams’ interests were properly looked after. I hope that our nation’s decision to sign the European Convention on Human Rights, without an opt-out for our Armed Forces, has not been shown to have been a bad one. I urge the Minister to recognise the seriousness of that problem. Those investigating such cases need to understand the real pressure under which our soldiers operate and the fact that the number of cases being investigated is a cause for concern and will undoubtedly affect the morale of our Armed Forces. They are honouring their side of the unwritten contract that we have made with them; I have reservation about whether we are honouring our side of that commitment.