---

Debate on the Address

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to her new ministerial office. She hails, as I do, from the north-west. I think that I am right in saying that Bolton, from where she hails originally, is twinned with Le Mans. Perhaps it is fitting that she takes over the driving seat from the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. I have to say that the handover was speedy and somewhat unexpected. Indeed, there may be a stewards’ inquiry, but we on these Benches wish the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, well in his motor racing career—or whatever career he wishes to pursue in the future. He was generous to me in my early days in this role. This is my first wind-up speech in a Queen’s Speech debate, but 26 years ago, thanks to the invitation from the then Patronage Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, I was honoured to second the Queen’s Speech in the other place—which is a great privilege for a young Back-Bencher. I suspect that it is unlikely that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will follow me in my political journey, although I notice that he has a tendency to sit very close to these Benches. Today, our world is neither equal nor safe. My noble friend Lord Wallace talked of these Benches being instinctively internationalist. I am proud that three of my noble friends, Lady Northover and Lords Avebury and Jones, raised humanitarian issues of poverty, AIDS and water in Africa. They were joined in that by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Last week, we observed the excesses of an opulent entourage. I contrast that with the alleyways of Gaza and the miserable and impoverished lives of many Palestinians there. Their conditions were referred to earlier by my noble friend Lady Williams, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Symons, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Let us hope that real progress is made at Annapolis. Failure to find a permanent peaceful solution in the Middle East lies at the heart of much mistrust, bitterness and terrorism that we experience today. If the United States had been more sensitive and even-handed in the Middle East, things might have been very different. America, as the superpower, has done much good in the world, but it has made many mistakes—Vietnam, the Middle East, backing many unpleasant right-wing regimes in South America and, more recently, its policy in Iraq. Thankfully, things seem marginally to be improving there. We now face a very dangerous situation in Iran, which was referred to a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. We all pray that a peaceful solution will be achieved. The United States had an opportunity for dialogue some years ago, but spurned it. Iran is pursuing not only nuclear ambitions, but appears to be quartermaster to a wide range of insurgent activity. But we must remember that President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs do not represent all Iranians in a complex Islamic state. There is a significant reformist movement in Iran. More than 100 publications have been closed since 1997. Recently, 170 journalists released an open letter to the managing directors of newspapers, urging them to maintain professional ethics and to resist the regime’s pressures and illegal demands in news coverage. It is vital that we in the West talk and communicate with a wider Iran, parallel to more formal discussions with its Government. It is particularly good news that the BBC has obtained funding for a Farsi TV channel, which should be operational next year. The necessary staff are being trained. I only wish that this had been up and running somewhat earlier. I hope that President Bush consults a wider range of advisers on the Iranian issue than he normally does and looks for advice outside his usual inner circle of neo-cons and the Almighty. On Afghanistan, there is cross-party consensus that the deployment is in Britain's security interests and is a tough but necessary mission. Everyone agrees that our forces are doing a magnificent job given their numbers and circumstances. Clearly there are insufficient troops for operations in such a vast country. With some honourable exceptions, too many countries have failed to deliver and too many have caveats about what they will do and where they will go. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to 37 countries. Numerically that is correct, but one would wish that they were all pulling together and contributing in equal numbers. Similarly, if the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, of NATO and Europe coming together were to be achieved, that would be extremely helpful. It is intolerable for our troops to take positions after fierce fighting only to know that, with too few troops to hold them, they are likely to have to retake them again in the future. I welcome the improvement in equipment, but as the Defence Select Committee said in its 7 July report, the United Kingdom helicopter operations in Afghanistan are not sustainable at present intensity. My noble friend Lord Ashdown recently pointed out in an article that we are putting one twenty-fifth of the troop numbers and one fiftieth of the amount of aid per head of population into Afghanistan than we put into Bosnia and Kosovo. The state of emergency and the crisis in Pakistan, referred to by a number of noble Lords, is extremely worrying. It makes the anti-Taliban operations in the border and tribal areas of that country much more difficult and uncertain. It is quite clear that, at present, we have no clear policy on how to tackle opium production. If the Minister can contradict that I would be very grateful. When we debated the subject a fortnight ago the policy was not clear to me. I also ask the Minister where the Government stand on the appointment of a high-profile individual to co-ordinate the international effort, called for repeatedly, not least by the Defence Select Committee and many others. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have talked on Europe. My noble friend Lord Wallace set out our position. On these Benches we have been consistently the most pro-European party. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked of the Official Opposition as having been ““very good Europeans””. He did smile slightly. That is not the vision that I recognised in the mid to late-1990s when Conservative anti-European attitudes were one of the prime reasons for me bidding them farewell. I have always favoured the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with his progressive European policy. I want to focus my later remarks on the overstretch of our forces. Currently, we cannot go on as we are. The nation has to match commitments to resources. The noble Lord, Lord Drayson, said in July: "““The sustained operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan test our ability to maintain this level of operations over a period and I accept that this is beyond the planning assumptions””.—[Official Report, 25/7/07; col. 845.]" The think tank Demos reported extensively in this Monday’s media that the Armed Forces are ““running on empty””. They need, "““a sustained period of time—perhaps a decade—to recover from the intensity of operations undertaken since 2000””." The Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, has warned of painful spending decisions. The reality must be appreciated across the political divide: it is that we have reduced our defence expenditure—which is now just over 2.4 per cent of GDP—and our Armed Forces just too far. About 70 countries now spend a greater proportion of their GDP on defence than we do. The policy was started by the previous Government and was continued by the present one, but it cannot go on. I recall that when I was a defence Minister more than 20 years ago, I spent hours trying to defend the size of the Navy against Opposition and many Conservative MPs, and deciding whether we should say that the running fleet was ““approximately 50”” or ““broadly 50”” or ““about 50””. We searched for a form of words to put the best interpretation on the situation, and I am sad to say that there has been a steady decline since then. Let us look at some examples of overstretch. The majority of United Kingdom troops do not currently benefit from the Army standard two-year tour interval between each six-month tour. In 2006-07, 10 per cent of training events were cancelled, some on the grounds of cost. The number of helicopters is virtually the same as it was in 1997, and many helicopter crews are below strength. A number of people have suggested to me that had helicopters been under the control of the Army rather than the Royal Air Force—I am ignoring naval helicopters in this—they would have been given far greater priority. There is currently great concern about the safety of our Nimrod fleet, and a number of articles have been written about it. It is flying well beyond the original expectations. We have only 15 per cent of Harrier GR7 flying instructors we need, 20 per cent of the radiologists, less than 50 per cent of the surgeons and 65 per cent of the nurses. There is widespread speculation that the MoD is facing a shortfall of £1 billion over the next three years. There has been a 1.5 per cent rise in the budget, but equipment and manpower costs are increasing at a much higher rate. The former Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord King, passionately questioned the commitment of this Government to defence, and he was right. There are rumours of RAF cuts—a quarter of its front-line bomber force and the closure of two bases—and of naval cuts—all four Type 22 frigates and one destroyer. It was interesting that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, questioned the need for the two new carriers. I muse about whether the go-ahead for the carriers would have been given had the Prime Minister not represented a constituency fairly close to Rosyth. Now there are suggestions that within the overall defence budget there should be adjustments and reallocation with equipment amounting to about 40 per cent of the budget. Demos, the think tank I referred to earlier, suggests diverting expenditure on high-tech equipment from antisubmarine warfare and high-level interceptors to the forces themselves. My noble friend Lord Addington in his excellent, passionate speech spoke of the military covenant and our need to do so much more for our Armed Forces. He was supported equally forcefully by the noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Rogan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I have a specific question for the Minister about US missile defences, which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Williams. Was the United Kingdom consulted before negotiations on placing US missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic started? I would be grateful for a specific answer to that question. By all means let us have another defence review, but we must always be ready to deal with the unexpected. In this dangerous and uncertain world, our international responsibilities are unlikely to diminish. We cannot ignore the threats that international terrorism and, possibly, Iran pose, nor can we ignore the significant increases in Chinese and Russian defence expenditure. In a changing world, we have to recognise that the role of our Armed Forces also has to change. There are increasing peacekeeping, humanitarian and rescue roles. Perhaps we should consider broadening the title of Ministry of Defence, maybe to something like Ministry of Defence and Rescue, or Ministry of Defence and Humanitarian Relief, or Ministry of Defence and Peacekeeping. Similarly, we should look at how we in the Palace of Westminster acknowledge and recognise the achievements and bravery of our service personnel. Perhaps we should consider an annual Armed Forces day at Westminster where both Houses debate defence policy and MPs and Peers host representatives of the units which have returned from conflict and operations overseas. It is time for greater resource and greater recognition for those who defend us.