---

UK Worldwide Interests

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by so many different parts of the United Kingdom community, both governmental and non-governmental, to the promotion of our interests abroad. I also welcome the fact that we will be able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, make his important maiden speech in this House. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I shall concentrate my remarks on the first of the noble and learned Lord’s Ds—defence and the work of the British military—first, to recognise the extraordinary contribution that our Armed Forces make around the world; and, secondly, to express concerns about the extent to which they will be able to continue this work in the future. During the Strategic Defence Review, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, made defence diplomacy one of the eight core tasks for the Armed Forces. I was included in the study for that review, specifically looking at defence diplomacy, and I have subsequently done research work at King’s College London for the Ministry of Defence on measuring effectiveness in this area. As we conducted field trips to look at training teams, at loan service personnel and at graduates of British military courses, I was surprised, as were my academic colleagues, at the sheer range of influence which the United Kingdom gains for remarkably small investment. Within the field of defence diplomacy, the training of international students within the United Kingdom also plays an important part, as I know from my time as commandant at the Royal College of Defence Studies. That extends beyond senior military personnel to foreign government officials, who move on to leadership posts in their countries. The long-term pay-offs to British interests can be very high indeed. I particularly welcome the developing co-operation that has grown between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DfID, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, has just said about problems between the Foreign Office and DfID. This has happened since the establishment of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and the similar pool focused on sub-Saharan Africa. The arrangement has encouraged the departments to work together to seek the best joint way of promoting stability in difficult areas of the world. Success in this can bring great dividends for British influence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, the money allocated remains relatively small in defence terms, and the problems of the Middle East are diverting a disproportionate amount of even those small resources. Your Lordships have often talked about the overstretch of British forces as they undertake the operational tasks in Iraq, increasingly in Afghanistan, still in the Balkans and elsewhere, and also have to cope with the downsizing of all three services. When priorities must be chosen, it is not surprising if the immediate operational tasks get preference. Yet influence and trust overseas can be built only over a period of years. A training team in a difficult country will gain access only as it demonstrates continuing, sustained commitment. The operational overstretch makes it more difficult for the services to provide people for training teams, loan service, advisory posts, and even to leaven the international courses with British military officers at places such as the Royal College of Defence Studies. Disaster relief has also, unhappily, become a more frequent requirement for British foreign action. Rapid and generous help to devastated regions builds friends in those regions and increases the United Kingdom’s standing both locally and internationally. Yet we have recurring problems with the mechanics of deploying defence assets in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed. Air transport, both fixed-wing and helicopter, remain the key to rapid and effective relief operations. I am not making a plea for an increase in the defence budget: it has seen a marginal real increase in funds in recent years. Yet that money is not going towards these sorts of operations. Transport helicopters are already in short supply and have been in constant use for operational reasons. When I asked the Defence Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, about plans for increasing transport helicopter numbers, his Written Answer on 24 October made it clear that there will be no more transport helicopters over the next five years. The money is going to attack and reconnaissance helicopters. Given the role that transport helicopters have in every aspect of modern military operations, this is a very surprising state of affairs and one which affects the good that we can do around the world. In that respect, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by three Royal Air Force Chinooks deployed to help with the Pakistan earthquake. It is clear from the reports that have come back that they have achieved an enormous amount. It is not just the lifting capacity of the Chinook, it is the military organisation that supports it. Loads are used efficiently and sorties are not wasted, because re-supply is what the crews and their Army and RAF support teams are trained for. In 28 days, those three helicopters moved 1,700 tonnes of food, shelter and medical supplies to inaccessible places. However, I had to look deep on the DfID website to find out that they ceased operations on the 25 November 2005, after just 28 days. There was no fanfare of trumpets for them coming home. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate why they have been withdrawn. Have all the problems gone away? Do they no longer need helicopters in the region? In the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world, these sorts of contributions are beyond price. The British military are but one resource that the UK has available to promote its interests around the world. Democracy is more likely to grow from our efforts in sustained security sector reform than in quick, offensive military operations. The Foreign Office and the Department for International Development should take a keen interest in the MoD equipment programme, and make their future needs clear. The £5.5 billion that the Iraq adventure has cost the UK so far could have bought much greater influence throughout the world than has been the case. Let us learn from our mistakes.