---

Armed Forces

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Finmeccanica (UK) and as non-executive chairman of Selex (S&AS) SpA. This is my first speech on defence matters since ceasing to be Minister for Defence Procurement some 22 months ago. It was an enormous privilege to be a Minister within the Ministry of Defence for almost four years, particularly at a time when, whatever else could be said, defence was at the very centre of events. I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for introducing this debate and congratulate him on speaking from the Back-Benches this year on a Motion that he has instigated. If no one else understands what I am referring to, I know that the noble Lord will. Over the past 10 years, my party in government has proved its credentials as seriously committed to defence, and we continue to do so. Our political opponents have tried hard to persuade the British people on three separate occasions that we could not be trusted with something as crucial as the nation's defence. They failed three times. At a time when we have been addressing decades of underinvestment elsewhere in our public services and in our national infrastructure, the Government have done well in increasing the level of defence spending. I remind the House that the last spending review added another £3.7 billion to the defence budget, a real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent per year, resulting in the longest sustained increase in defence spending for20 years. In this debate, there will be many and varied criticisms by a number of noble and gallant Lords with a lifetime’s experience in the defence field, whose great advantage is that they are not party political animals. I believe, as I always have, that the Government should take a great deal of notice of their comments and proposals. I hope that I always did that when serving as a Defence Minister, and I know that my noble friend the Minister pays special attention to what they have to say. The traditions of this House mean much to me, but I must confess that I have never really understood one of them. Why is it that, while Government and Ministers are fair game, criticisms of the record of opposition parties when in government and those of ex-Secretaries of State are somehow considered not good form? I say this because, in life, it is always important to look at what someone has done when considering how seriously to take their criticism. By way of example, the Options for Change policy of the early 1990s resulted in savage cuts for our Armed Forces, and thus for our defence capability. It was almost entirely premised on a false view of history, best described by Fukuyama as ““The end of history””. In short: the false notion that, because the Soviet empire had fallen, we could somehow be less troubled about defending ourselves since liberal democracy had won. So, ““peace dividend”” proposals were put forward by the Government of the day, and carried out—in spite of constant and dire warnings from, among others, the House of Commons Defence Committee. Of course, we now know that these policies did a great disservice to the UK Armed Forces and British defence policy. We feel their consequences even today. In its 1991 and 1992 reports, the Defence Committee found, despite repeated denials from Ministers, "““a pervasive sense throughout the Options for Change exercise that financial constraints have at times overridden purely military considerations””." It worried whether the size of the new Army proposed would be adequate to deal with future crises, and whether the Army’s peacetime commitments couldbe met without unacceptable strain. It reported in July 1996 that, "““at the present time, the RAF is just about meeting its commitments””," and expressed the hope that, "““this year’s Statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means””." My advice to the Government would be: do not be oversensitive to attacks from those whose own record, to put it mildly, is less than satisfactory.