Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with
the update to the 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence,
Development and Foreign Policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence () (Con)
My Lords, Defence is supporting the refresh of the integrated
review. We must ensure that the UK remains ready to deter
adversaries in the new era of strategic competition. Taking
lessons learned from the past year, we will continue to
modernise, build resilience and promote prosperity both
domestically and across our global partner network. Any specific
policy changes will be determined once the update to the
integrated review is concluded. We expect this work to be
completed ahead of the Treasury’s Spring Statement.
(Lab)
My Lords, at the weekend a senior US general said that the
British Army was no longer a top-tier fighting force. Yesterday
the Defence Secretary said:
“I am happy to say that we have hollowed out and underfunded”
—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 18.]
in reference to troop and spending cuts. Does the Minister agree
with the Secretary of State? Is that really a summary of the
Government’s policy? Will the update of the integrated review see
an end to this policy, or will it continue?
(Con)
The 2021 integrated review and defence Command Paper highlighted
that we must focus on capabilities rather than troop numbers per
se. Through Future Soldier, the Army will have a whole focus of
over 100,000, comprising 73,000 regular service personnel and
30,100 Army Reserve. However, the noble Lord made an important
point about hollowness. Over time and under successive
Governments, there has been underinvestment in our land
capability requirements. We have recognised that and set out a
plan. Future Soldier is part of that. We have published an
equipment plan of £242 billion over 10 years, and the Army’s
proportion of that is £41 billion, covering, for example,
Challenger 3, Boxer and Ajax.
I remind the noble Lord that this Government were responsible for
a record-breaking finance settlement for defence—the biggest
since the Cold War—and it should be acknowledged that we have
made a serious attempt to try to redress the hollowing-out
process over many years.
(CB)
My Lords, whatever the fresh defence Command Paper has to say, it
will be of value only if the Government strike an appropriate
balance between ambition and resource. The Minister keeps
referring to the largest spending increase on defence since the
Cold War. Since virtually all spending reviews since the Cold War
have meant a reduction in defence expenditure, that is not a very
high bar to clear. Will the forthcoming spending review support
the defence Command Paper or undermine it?
(Con)
The noble and gallant Lord may consider that it is not a very
high bar, but it is higher than any of the other bars that have
been set, and the facts speak for themselves. He will be aware
that the challenge for defence is that we have to balance the
operational and remote resource demands of today with the
overarching vision to modernise to meet the demands of tomorrow.
In the MoD, we are confident that we can reconcile these
conflicting tensions.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend go back to the department and tell
our right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the
Minister for the Armed Forces that it is very welcome that they
have expressed the views they have in the last couple of days,
realising what a sad state the Army is in. I hate agreeing with
the Labour side, but we do know that a great deal more money
needs to be spent on defence.
(Con)
My noble friend will have heard me say to the noble Lord, , that neither I nor my
ministerial colleagues deny that a challenge has confronted our
land capability—a challenge spread over many years and created
under successive Governments. We are cognisant of that and are
doing what we can within the MoD to address it.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following a theme that has been echoing around the
Chamber, will the Minister say what assessment the MoD and His
Majesty’s Government have made of the fact that the IMF is
predicting a recession in the United Kingdom? Given the nature of
inflation and the unpredictability of the exchange rate, what
impact is there likely to be on defence capabilities? In the
light of all those things, is it not time to move beyond
percentages of GDP as targets for defence expenditure and towards
a real focus on actual capability and what the UK can deliver?
(Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that a percentage of GDP is the
model that has been adopted increasingly by other states in
consequence of the approach that the United Kingdom has taken to
defence expenditure. In relation to current expenditure, the
noble Baroness is right that we face challenges of inflation and
fluctuating currency, but we have been able to make greater use
of index-linked fixed price contracts, and we use pricing
mechanisms where inflation risk sits with suppliers. Indeed, that
has prevented higher prices being passed on. We also have forward
purchasing of fuels, utilities and foreign exchange—all of which
mitigates the corrosive impact of inflationary pressures.
(Lab)
My Lords, no matter how it is dressed up, it is quite clear,
because even the Government have admitted it—the Secretary of
State has admitted it—that we have underfunded our Armed Forces
and they are hollowed out. Will we ensure that all three services
have an increase in spend? For example, although there is a lot
of talk about the Army, when one looks at undersea cables and the
huge growth in the Russian submarine force, there is no doubt
that there is a maritime threat as well. All three services must
be looked at, and there is an absolute need to invest now.
(Con)
I hold the noble Lord in very high regard, but I do not hold the
purse strings of government. However, he sends a consistent
message, and I am sure that it is resonating beyond this Chamber.
(Con)
My Lords, the integrated review quite rightly makes the point
that international agreements are key, and we are a member of the
Five Eyes. As we make a greater tilt to the Far East, can the
Minister assure us that there is some consideration of increasing
the Five Eyes to include Japan?
(Con)
I say to my noble friend that I obviously cannot be specific.
Five Eyes is a very important collaboration, and it is relevant
to our activity in the Indo-Pacific area. My noble friend makes
an interesting suggestion. We already have a good bilateral
defence and diplomatic relationship with Japan, but I listen with
interest to what he says.
(CB)
My Lords, there is a legitimate focus on land capabilities, but I
return to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord West. We
are a maritime power, and it has been our ambition to be a
world-leading one. We should not overlook the threat in the
Baltic and North Atlantic, which contribute to the security not
just of the UK but of northern Europe.
(Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness by referring her to the ambitious
shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy. We are watching with
interest the emerging development of the Type 26 on the Clyde and
the Type 31 at Rosyth. Of course, the fleet solid support ships
were recently announced; they will involve Harland & Wolff
and will be built principally in Belfast. But the noble Baroness
is quite correct: we are a maritime nation, we realise that and I
think she will agree that there has been a very healthy
investment in our maritime capability.
(LD)
My Lords, are the Government not embarrassed that they have had
to admit to our closest ally, the United States, that the British
Army can no longer put a fully equipped armoured division in the
field? If they are not embarrassed, they should be.
(Con)
The noble Lord will understand that, in this day and age, we
cannot look at one aspect of capability on its own—that is not
how we deal with and address threats now. The key to how we
operate is, first, co-operation with allies; it is also agility
in how we respond and making sure that we have the technology and
equipment to respond. Although there is no denying—and I have not
attempted to deny—that we have seen a hollowing out of our land
capability over some decades, it would be quite wrong to give the
impression that MoD in the UK does not have a very solid
capability: we do. It is important, particularly having regard to
the instability in other parts of the world, that we do not talk
down our Armed Forces, not least for the morale of the men and
women who serve so bravely in them.
(Lab)
My Lords, since publication two years ago, surely there has been
a major global change—namely, the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Is
not one of the lessons of those two years that we should
concentrate more on European defence and give up the illusion of
a greater tilt to the Indo-Pacific?
(Con)
We do concentrate on Euro-Atlantic security, and the swiftness
with which we responded—indeed, led the response—to the illegal
invasion of Ukraine is tangible evidence of that. But I agree
with the noble Lord: the threats that we face nowadays are
multifaceted, and it is important that we devise a capability
that can respond to the character of that new threat. The noble
Lord will be aware that we are dealing not just with traditional
land, sea and air domains; we now deal with space, cyber and
electro- magnetic domains. It is a complicated world in which we
live.
