Strategic Defence Review

HL Deb 08 July 1998 vol 591 cc1261-77

4.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)

My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement that has recently been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. I am today publishing a White Paper [Cm 3999] setting out the conclusions of the review, and a volume of detailed supporting essays. Copies are available in the Vote Office and I have written to all honourable Members individually, enclosing copies as well.

"However, before I address that issue may I first of all apologise to you and to the House for the unauthorised and improper disclosure to some newspapers last night of the content of the White Paper. I am as angry and as outraged at this leak as any other Member of this House. I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to authorise an immediate and thorough investigation into how this came about. The person or persons responsible will be dealt with severely.

"This is a serious breach of an embargo designed to make sure that the detail of this major review was given first of all to the House of Commons. I regret very much that the House and the Ministry of Defence's own employees heard first from the media. I take full responsibility for this situation, as my office demands, and that is why I apologise to you and to my parliamentary colleagues.

"Madam Speaker, the British people are rightly proud of their Armed Forces. They want, indeed expect, the Government to provide strong defence for their country. The Strategic Defence Review does just that.

"This review is the most radical and far-reaching reshaping and modernisation of our forces for a generation—unique in three key ways. First, it has been foreign policy-led, not Treasury driven; secondly, it has been unprecedentedly open and inclusive; and, thirdly, it has the wholehearted support of all of the service chiefs.

"This review will fundamentally reshape and modernise Britain's Armed Forces, sorting the weaknesses, building on our strengths and providing a structure to deal with tomorrow's threats, not yesterday's enemies. As a result, our forces will be more mobile, better manned, better supported and equipped, and better able to act as a force for good in the world—where we can and when we choose.

"The world has changed out of all recognition since the end of the Cold War. NATO remains the basis for defence and security. But while the threat of major war in Europe is now a remote prospect, new threats confront us—terrorism, the international drugs trade, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, information warfare, ethnic rivalries, population pressures and the break-up of existing states.

"In the Cold War, we needed large forces at home and on the Continent to defend against the constant threat of massive attack from the Soviet Union. Now, instability is the new enemy and the need is increasingly to help prevent or shape crises further away—if necessary, by deploying military forces rapidly before they get out of hand. In other words, we must now be prepared to go to the crisis, rather than have the crisis come to us.

"Yet this review has demonstrated that our forces are not properly adapted to this new environment. In today's world we need to get our troops to trouble spots and crisis areas quickly and safely and make sure they are properly supported when they get there. The review, however, has highlighted the serious weaknesses we have inherited in this area—most notably in heavy transport and in our hollowed out and demoralised defence medical services.

"At the same time, increased commitments since then have taken their toll on morale, recruitment and retention and worsened the already very serious problem of undermanning in our forces.

"The review therefore proposes major new investment and new enhancements to improve the ability of our troops to deploy more rapidly to trouble spots around the world. We will acquire four additional roll-on roll-off container ships and four large C-17 aircraft or their equivalent. To support and supply our troops once they reach these trouble spots, we will enhance the Army's supporting arms so that for the first time they can undertake two operations at the same time. And because we have a solemn duty of care to our servicemen and women whom we ask to put their lives at risk, it will make new money and personnel available to revitalise the defence medical services.

"In total, I am proposing an increase in the size of the regular Army of 3,300, a change which will go a long way to restoring vital parts of our Armed Forces which have been hollowed out.

"Another key theme of the review has been a more integrated or joint service approach to defence to improve the operational effectiveness of the forces. We are therefore introducing a series of radical changes to our Armed Forces. These include bringing together all our battlefield helicopters under a single command and expanding the responsibilities of the Chief of Joint Operations; a new Joint Defence Centre to develop doctrine and other planning on a tri-service basis; and a four-star Chief of Defence Logistics who will co-ordinate and standardise our three support services properly for the first time. I am today pleased to announce that the first such chief will be Lieutenant General Sir Sam Cowan, currently the Quartermaster General.

"I am also responding to an historic proposal by the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Air Staff by developing a new Joint Force 2000 which will bring together Royal Navy and RAF Harrier jets into a single organisation able to operate equally effectively from aircraft carriers or land bases.

"But the most important of these joint initiatives is the creation of a new pool of joint rapid reaction forces. These will be the spearhead of our new modernised front line and will include all of our high readiness forces. Not only will they enable us to respond quickly and effectively to crises of all kinds, and to build up larger forces should that be necessary, but—unlike today—we will be able to mount more than one Bosnia-size operation at a time.

"The review also introduces important new front-line capabilities. We will create a sixth deployable brigade to increase the Army's flexibility and help tackle overstretch. The parachute role of the current airborne brigade will also be transferred to the airmobile brigade, which will become a new, powerful and highly mobile air-manoeuvre brigade or "air cavalry" when the Apache attack helicopter enters service.

"And to meet our longer term needs, I am delighted to be able to tell the House that we plan to replace our current small carriers from around 2012 with two larger, more versatile, carriers—in effect, floating airfields capable of carrying a more powerful force, including a future carrier-borne aircraft to replace the Harrier the cost of which will be spread over some 20 years.

"I can also tell the House that the review confirms that the acquisition of 232 Eurofighters remains central to our long-term plans, providing a step change in the RAF's combat ability.

"But changes in the nature and scale of operations mean that we need two fewer submarines, three fewer destroyers and frigates and 36 fewer combat aircraft.

"These changes, though, will not lead to cuts in the overall strength of our regular forces since the manpower released by these reductions will be used to fill gaps in front line manning, thereby easing overstretch.

"For our reserves, there will also be important enhancements to the Royal Navy Reserve and the Reserve Air Forces.

"I am determined that the Territorial Army should become more relevant, usable and integrated with the rest of our forces. Those who wish to see it languish in an outdated Cold War role do the TA no service at all. Although its numbers will be trimmed to 40,000, it will be given a real heavyweight role in our nation's defences and called up more frequently in times of crisis. And for that we intend also that they be better trained and properly equipped.

"Unlike other recent reviews, this review is designed to put people first. That is why I am today announcing a significant new training and education initiative to boost recruitment and retention. All recruits will be given the opportunity to gain the six key skills needed by all in the workplace, and all personnel will be given the chance to achieve qualifications recognised by civilian employers.

"In addition, there will be a major new programme, the learning forces' initiative, to expand education and training opportunities for the Armed Forces through new 'learning credits', which may be claimed both during service careers and for sometime afterwards.

"These proposals will boost recruitment and retention by increasing the already considerable benefits of a service career and benefit defence by developing the skills needed for modern warfare. The economy as a whole will also benefit as better qualified personnel return to the civilian employment market after their service career.

"For our service families, we are setting up a task force to address the special problems which arise from their mobile lifestyle. And for Britain's ex-servicemen and women, we are setting up a new veterans' cell to provide an access point for guidance and advice.

"It is of course vital that our Armed Forces are properly resourced. But if defence is to command the support of the nation it must also be seen as good value for money. By 2001–2, in three years' time, we will be spending £747 million more than this year. In real terms, allowing for one-off asset sales, this will be a reduction of £685 million or about 3 per cent. in the defence budget. That compares with a reduction of over 20 per cent. in real terms in the last seven years of the previous government. We will do this primarily through increased efficiency, smarter procurement and better utilisation of assets. And because the review represents a three-year settlement, we will be able to bring a new stability to our defence planning.

"This Government believe that, in addition to caring for our people and defending our rights at home, we must also discharge our responsibilities in the world. We must therefore strengthen the effectiveness of the international community in peace support and humanitarian operations of all kinds, particularly through the United Nations. I can therefore announce that Britain will now make a larger proportion of our front line capabilities potentially available to the UN for peace support and humanitarian deployments, including all of our rapidly deployable forces.

"In what is still an uncertain and unstable world, we must, of course, be able to react quickly to crises as they develop. But we should aim to do more than that. We should aim to prevent conflict from arising in the first place. I therefore intend to elevate conflict prevention—or 'defence diplomacy' as I have called it—to one of the eight core missions which will underpin our defence planning. That commitment will be backed up by a series of practical measures, including new education and training initiatives, to help develop and promote modern, democratically accountable forces around the world.

"I would like to turn now, if I may, to the review's conclusions on our nuclear deterrent. This Government were elected on a promise that we would retain Trident. We have kept and will continue to keep that promise. All of us wish to see a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons. But while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain, our minimum deterrent remains a necessary and continuing element of our security. We have, though, conducted a rigorous re-examination of our present deterrence requirements. We have concluded that we can safely make further significant reductions form Cold War levels.

"We will, therefore, retain Trident as our sole nuclear system, but the single submarine on patrol at any one time will carry only 48 warheads. This compares with the previous government's announced ceiling of 96. And by reducing our overall stockpile to 200 operationally available warheads, we will have cut the explosive power of the deterrent by 70 per cent. since the end of the Cold War. At the same time we will press ahead with arms control and introduce much greater openness on nuclear issues, including on our stocks of fissile material. AU in all, these are sensible measures which I am sure will be widely welcomed.

"This is a truly radical review which builds on the strengths and successes of our forces. It rectifies the weaknesses we inherited and it modernises our forces to deal with tomorrow's threats rather than yesterday's enemies. It places the skilled, brave and versatile people on whom our defence depends firmly at the centre of our planning and it gives them a clear sense of direction into the next century. Above all, it delivers the modern forces Britain needs for the modern world. This is a good deal for defence and a good deal for the country. I commend it to the House."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5.8 p.m.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. At the same time I thank him for giving me a copy of the White Paper and of the Statement itself. I must emphasise that my brown envelope was a legitimate one. However, when I said in the defence debate last December that the then forthcoming review was not leaking, I had no conception of the degree to which it would leak thereafter, culminating in what we have seen in today's papers. It really is not acceptable that Peers and MPs in another place should read the Strategic Defence Review in the Daily Telegraph before it is put before Members of both Houses. The remarks with which the Secretary of State's Statement begins are very welcome.

It is essential that this House has a full opportunity of debating the White Paper. I am well aware of the pressure of government business, but it is essential that this House should have at least a full day's debate as soon as possible. It should be before the House rises at the end of this month, or whenever that may be. If this proves impossible—and I do not see why it should be—we must have time in the spill-over period. It is likely that there will be a Scotland Bill-like number of noble Lords wanting to speak and we really need two days for it.

We have been told that the review has been foreign-policy based, but there can be no doubt that the dead hand of the Treasury has been on it. The Government have never published the foreign policy baseline which would have led them to try to match capabilities to commitments. The White Paper certainly does not do that.

I suppose we should be grateful to the Secretary of State and his advisers that the cuts, amounting to £915 million, have been kept down to that figure. I suppose that is the figure but the White Paper is remarkably light on finance (and incidentally on timing). But however the figures are presented and however the leaks are spin-doctored, there can be no doubt that as a result of this Strategic Defence Review Britain's forces will have fewer men, (in spite of the Regular Army increases), fewer ships and less money.

All the leaks have told us that the review will be foreign-policy led, but the document contains no foreign policy baseline. It says that we cannot predict the crises we will face. While this is self-evident, little has been done about it and the broad benchmarks referred to in the White Paper are very broad indeed. The saving statement is that we must retain the ability to build a bigger force. If that is in the plan, it is well hidden.

The result of this has been to leave plans for the future in an indeterminate state. An indication of this lies in the references to the two new large aircraft carriers which, with Eurofighter, can probably be considered to be the kingplanks of the review. Each time the aircraft carriers are referred to the document says, "we plan to" and this phrase was repeated in the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon. Never does it say, "We will build the aircraft carriers", and the cynics will claim there is too much of a let out if the Chancellor suddenly had a victory and in the light of a changing economic situation, or for any other reason, demanded a major saving.

Because of the leaks, which we have all heard, the contents of the review are well known. This is not the time to go over them in detail, but certain points should be touched on in advance of a full-scale debate in this House. First and most importantly, the timetable seems to be remarkably vague. The Statement seems impeccable but nowhere, with the sole exception of the gloomy figure of 2012 for the completion of the aircraft carriers, is there anything resembling a timetable. There are, as the Statement says, many radical proposals. The costs will very greatly depend on the recruitment of army personnel; the TA cuts; disposal of assets; payments for jointery and a number of other factors. Done quickly they will probably be more expensive but more efficient; done slowly, costs will probably be lower but there will be many other disadvantages.

The discussion of details of the review must await the debate, but there are one or two matters on which I must touch. The Territorial Army is one. Morale is low because of the uncertainty and there is still no indication, even in the White Paper, from where the 19,000 manpower saving is to come. Which units are affected? Which TA centres are to be closed? The Duke of York Barracks have been mentioned. That is an obvious target because of the great value of the land on which the barracks stand, but has full consideration been given to the fact that that will tear the heart out of the TA in London? The TA infantry battalions are a genuine general reserve. The review acknowledges there could be a crisis where existing regular forces are not adequate. Has it acknowledged the fact that replacements will be harder to get hold of?

Three armoured regiments are to be brought back from Germany. But where are they to be trained, particularly in the light of the fact that it may be more difficult in future to do this in Scotland or Wales? Can the department successfully deal with the troublesome environmentalists who do not like bangs and force units to carry a Portaloo rather than dig a hole in the ground?

The review and the Statement seem to skate carefully—a difficult task for a Labour Government—with regard to the difficult nuclear issue. The Secretary of State is to be very much congratulated on what is said in the Statement on that. I hope that the Minister will underline the point made that nuclear disarmament would greatly increase the costs of a conventional non-nuclear defence programme.

Recruitment, retention and education are rightly singled out. Retention is particularly important as trained men are at present dropping out of the back as fast as untrained men come in the front. If airlines are having to be bribed not to take on RAF pilots, we are in a desperate position and the ministry is right to do everything it can to keep service personnel and their families happy. The intentions, as set out in the review, are estimable. Let us hope they will be backed up by a fact or two.

Rightly in his Statement the Secretary of State talks about overstretch and undermanning. The plans for welfare and education are designed to help with that, but it will be a slow process. Where is the Army to get the extra 3,500 men for which it is looking? Unless confidence in the Armed Forces as a career can be rebuilt, that will not be easy.

Clearly, an immense amount of work has been done on smart procurement and defence logistics. This is most welcome, as is the news of closer co-operation between the services, particularly the Navy and the RAF. We are to have a four-star Chief of Defence Logistics. Where is he to fit into the service hierarchy? And will he be a logistician or an ordinary high grade quartermaster? We know that the first incumbent is to be Sir Sam Cowan, the existing QMG. I would advise him that the first bit of equipment that he should procure is a shield for his back.

The Strategic Defence Review is planned to cover the defence of this country for the next 15 years. Let us hope that it is successful. Some of the wording worries me and I implore the Government not to fall into the 10-year rule trap of the 1920s and 1930s. Above all, having made their decisions, will the Government now get on with it? Indecision in the past has led to a major loss of morale which in turn has affected service recruiting, retention and the efficiency of the fighting services themselves. That must be put right, even if the plans are not perfect. They are not, of course, but service Ministers have been under a great deal of pressure and will continue to be so. I hope that they continue to fight.

5.18 p.m.

Lord Newby

My Lords, in rising to respond from these Benches, I do so first with an apology from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire who is currently chairing Sub-Committee F of the Select Committee on the European Communities, which is taking evidence from the Minister of State at the Home Office. My noble friend hopes to be able to rejoin our discussions before we conclude them.

In welcoming the Statement, I support the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for a full debate on the issues raised as soon as possible. By its own admission, this is a very comprehensive document. It marks a number of radical departures in defence policy and it is difficult to do justice to them in the short time available to us this afternoon.

I welcome a number of the review's components. I welcome first the Government's commitment to "jointery"—a new word to me at least, but a powerful one. To those of us who are not imbued with experience of military matters, the distinctions and the degree of rivalry between the forces comes as something of a shock and a surprise. We are pleased to see that the Government are tackling that in a range of ways. It is slightly surprising to hear the fact that two lots of Harrier aircraft are being brought together described as an historic proposal. To many of us, that seems a sensible and long overdue proposal. We wish all strength to the Government's arm in bringing the forces together where that makes for efficiency and sense.

Secondly, we welcome the rebalancing of the land forces and the decision to create an extra armed brigade. We are pleased that the Government are, in a sense, getting a grip on providing a sensible role for the Territorial Army and ensuring that it is better trained and equipped.

The TA has been in a bit of a limbo. It has been undermanned against targets in many areas and sometimes its equipment has woefully reminded one of a scene from "Dad's Army". While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that further details are required, the concept that the TA will be properly equipped and trained for today's rather than yesterday's tasks is a welcome change.

We welcome the reduction in the number of Trident warheads. Clearly, that is long overdue and the new level better reflects current realities. We also welcome the introduction of more commercial procurement systems for the Armed Forces. This is a vast raft of public expenditure and it is extremely important that value for money is maintained and enhanced by the introduction of more commercial systems.

It is remarkable that a foreign policy-led Statement makes not a single reference to our European partners or to the US. The words "Europe" and "US" do not appear anywhere in the Statement. There is only one reference to NATO. It is almost as though in many respects we are considering our international and global role on its own. It is in that area that I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, NATO is already committed to the development of a European security and defence identity within the alliance. Can the Minister explain how that development fits in with the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review?

Secondly, to what extent do the Government envisage that the expeditionary capacity will be exercised independently, or will it provide a contribution to combined forces? If so, with whom and in what circumstances do the Government envisage that occurring in the foreseeable future? In particular, do the Government envisage the expeditionary capacity being used beyond the Mediterranean and the Middle East? For example, can they really envisage joining action in the Indian Ocean or the South China Seas some 30 years after the end of our east of Suez policy?

To return to Europe, given that only the UK and France have a residual power projection capability, has the UK had discussions with the French Government about these plans, in particular the development of a possible joint European capability? Is the reality that the UK intends to follow the US lead even if that conflicts with the views of our European partners?

The Government have made much about this being a foreign policy-based strategy. I hope that the Minister will be able further to clarify the foreign policy objectives that underlie this strategy, not least for the generation of young people for whom full-scale European and global conflict is something to be read about in the history books and for whom "Cool Britannia" has a much greater resonance than "Rule Britannia".

5.22 p.m.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his generally very helpful remarks—I hope that that does not embarrass him too much—and his endorsement of the comments of the Secretary of State about the scandal of this leak, which mortifies all of us. As the noble Lord has said, it is totally unacceptable.

The noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Newby, whom I welcome to defence debates in this place, asked me about the possibility of a debate on this review. I am certain that we shall have a debate, but as to when that takes place is not within my gift. I relish having such a debate, and the sooner the better, as I shall inform the Chief Whip when I have a chance. But this House is also due a debate on NATO enlargement. That has not been forgotten. I hope that both debates can take place no later than Christmas. I should like them to take place as early as the noble Lord has said, but both he and I are aware of the exigencies of other business.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, gently mocked the proposition that this review had not been Treasury-led. I wish only that the noble Lord and other noble Lords had been with me a couple of hours ago when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave a press conference. At the end of his statement he invited the Chief of the Defence Staff to make some remarks. The Chief of the Defence Staff informed the assembled journalists of what we all knew: namely, that the Ministry of Defence had completed its work on the Strategic Defence Review about three months ago. Since then, the review has quite properly been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny by all the other departments which compete for public funds. It has received the most stringent scrutiny by the Treasury as noble Lords would expect.

The Chief of the Defence Staff confirmed that the package which left the Ministry of Defence in March was identical to that announced by my right honourable friend this afternoon in another place. The Ministry of Defence began by trying to make greater savings than the Treasury had asked for because it was aware, to quote a commentator on the scene, that, There is money to be saved in the MoD. Of course it has been through Frontline First and 'defence cost studies' but, as in the private sector, so in government the process of improving performance has to be continuous". Those remarks were made in an article entitled "The Case For Defence" in the Parliamentary Monitor of autumn 1997 written by Mr. Michael Portillo. Therefore, we recognised that there were savings to be made. From those savings and the sale of assets that are no longer necessary for the defence estate, we hope to finance the huge enhancements that we are making in capability alongside the much more modest reductions in capability.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, complained about the absence of a foreign policy baseline. It is an unfortunate accident of politics that he was not engaged in his present responsibilities when the Strategic Defence Review started and therefore was not invited, as were many Members of this House, to a series of seminars hosted by my right honourable friend on the way in which the review should be conducted. The noble Lord's predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave us the benefit of his thoughts on these matters.

I can inform the noble Lord and the House that the Secretary of State has been scrupulous in seeking the opinions of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Permanent Secretaries, members of the Armed Forces and many noble Lords in this House, some of whom I have had the pleasure to entertain, in the course of the past 14 months in an attempt to obtain the widest possible range of opinions as to how the foreign policy review should be conducted, what its foreign policy baseline should be and what kinds of resources and assets would be required to implement its conclusions.

I noted one slip in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. He observed that there would be fewer men in the services. I regret to say that the noble Lord is not well informed. He could not have been listening to the particular passage in the Statement of my right honourable friend. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force strengths will remain unchanged and the Army's strength will be increased by 3,300. Far from having fewer service personnel, there will be more men and women when we have finally succeeded in implementing the decisions of the review.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that I said "with the exception of the increase in the Armed Services". I was taking into account the Territorial Army.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, so be it. The noble Lord asked me whether or not I was prepared to say that we would build the carriers. I am prepared to say that we will build the carriers. That is the commitment of the whole of this Government, and that also involves Treasury approval. We expect the very earliest expenditure on the longest lead items of research work for the carriers in the next couple of years.

The noble Lord, quite fairly, asked me which Territorial Army units and centres will be closed. I cannot answer that question today because the process of working out the implications for individual units has only just started. Noble Lords will wish to know that in principle we are hoping to enhance the roles of the specialist Territorial Army members. We will make the most modern equipment available for them for the first time for their training.

The noble Lord did not mention this point, but my right honourable friend has made it clear that there will be an increase, albeit a modest one, in the resources available for the Army Cadet Force.

The noble Lord quite rightly said that we needed confidence building within the armed services. I quite agree with him. Had he attended the press conference earlier today to which I have referred he would have heard the Chief of the Defence Staff welcoming, unambiguously, the three-year commitment from the Treasury as giving stability for the future of the services. To quote the Chief of the Defence Staff, it will enable security planning to be carried out, in a way unprecedented in the past". The noble Lord asked whether the Government will now get on with it. That is quite right; that is the test. Although we have sweated a fair amount of blood over the past year or so in producing this review, the acid test will be whether the Government succeed in implementing it, and that will be a matter for your Lordships' scrutiny as the months roll by.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, paid a compliment to our proposals in "jointery". I should like to pay tribute to the role played by the First Sea Lord personally and the Chief of Air Staff in overcoming old habits, customs and prejudices in both their services. I know that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are intensely grateful to these two distinguished officers and the other military chiefs for their role in helping us to reach the conclusions we did in the defence review and for selling those conclusions to the individual men and women in their services.

I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the new armoured brigade which we consider will produce a punch that the British Army has never had. I am also glad to hear his welcome for our radical overhaul of our procurement systems which I personally hope will very much increase the reliability of the equipment we buy and the sustainability of our forces. However, these matters take a long time to germinate and I can foresee many adverse reports from the National Audit Office in future years, although I hope that the background noise from it will be gradually muted as we feel the benefits of smart procurement feeding into the system.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about Europe, the United States and NATO. All our NATO partners were consulted on many occasions in the course of this review. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government's to develop the European security and defence identity so long as it is clearly understood that our primary security rests with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The main thrust of this review, in addition to its developed "jointery", has been to give our forces an expeditionary capability that they have not previously enjoyed. The noble Lord asked whether this would be used independently or with combined forces. We anticipate that overwhelmingly it will be used with other countries in combined forces. He asked whether it is likely to be used beyond the Mediterranean and the Gulf. It is not for me to predict where our forces will be deployed or where the next crisis will arise. However, we have exercised with five power defence agreement countries. We had a magnificent exercise out of the Pacific last year, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware.

In relation to the discussion with the French on joint nuclear capability, I know that my right honourable friend frequently talks with his French colleague and from time to time they no doubt discuss "nuclear questions". But these matters are conducted above my pay grade and I am sure that if I did know about them the noble Lord would not expect me to disclose the details.

5.35 p.m.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, I should like, in the face of that interesting, positive and imaginative Statement, to congratulate Ministers on their brave, effective and apparently successful attempt to conduct this review largely from the top downwards, based on foreign policy commitments and required capability, and not, as so often in the past, from the bottom, regulated almost from the outset on the basis of the resources deemed by the Treasury to be necessary.

Of course it is early days, and there has been no opportunity to study the review. Obviously, not everything in it will satisfy everyone and no doubt some parts of it are better than others. However, the review, commendably, appears to have maintained in our Armed Forces a modern up-to-date combat capability for the kind of commitments, both expected and unexpected, which may well confront us as we move into the 20th century and play our appropriate part in international affairs. It has remembered our historic maritime role and has maintained a modem amphibious capability, which I have always considered to be important. It appears to be tackling our logistic sustainability, Army manpower and the medical services, which should never have been allowed to get into that state in the first place. I lose no sleep over the small reduction in our nuclear capability.

However, I ask for three points of clarification. Does the £600 million to be saved annually by 2001 include the amount received from the immense sales of the defence estate? If it does, it seems to me that, after a major review like this, to have held the line at that figure represents a considerable achievement.

Can the Minister enlighten us further on one area that still gives great cause for concern, and that is the substantial reduction, for very small financial reward, of our virtually irreplaceable Army reserve forces? Can he say how much of the reduced figure of 40,000 will be available for combat units of the Territorial Army infantry and yeomanry after the numbers required and earmarked for sustainability and logistic backing have been taken away; and does that figure include the University Training Corps regiments? The former point is important because if too many combat units, which represent the heart and spirit of the Territorial Army as well as the nationwide umbilical cord into the civilian population and the support for cadets, are removed the whole stuffing will go out of the reserve forces.

If this review represents, as is claimed, the most sweeping, radical and most complete review our Armed Forces have ever had, can the Minister give an assurance that uncertainty will now be removed and that they can be left to get on with their professional job, to recruit up to their maximum numbers and to build up their morale? It would be intolerable if, after all that has happened over the past eight to nine years, they were to find themselves next year or the year after going round this buoy all over again on some contrived pretext of value for money. I am sure a statement that there are to be no more reviews either in this Parliament or the next would do a great deal to restore flagging morale and to enhance recruitment.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, whom I hold in great respect and affection, as he knows, for his kind and generous remarks about our review. He is right. Our expeditionary capability and our amphibious capability lie at the heart of our proposals. I am delighted to be able to put them in front of your Lordships.

It might be of interest to your Lordships to have a few more details of what we propose for the Defence Medical Services. We propose to procure, as a matter of urgency, a 200-bed primary casualty receiving ship, with a second one in the longer term; 800 more field beds across all three field hospitals will be brought to a higher state of readiness; the Army's regular ambulance evacuation capability will be enhanced; and an additional regular RAF aero-medical evacuation flight and 18 air escort flights will be established. We hope to recruit some 200 specialists and other medical staff into the Defence Medical Services. Within about three years we expect to be spending an additional £40 million a year on the Defence Medical Services.

The noble and gallant Lord asked me about the £600 million. That £600 million will have to be found by efficiencies, and we are confident that it can be found. The chiefs of staff thought that it could be found out of our budgets. That excludes the sales of defence assets. I cannot give him a precise figure of how much of the TA will be available for combat, but I can assure him that it will be much more than at present. I shall have to look into the point about the university training corps regiments, I confess, and I shall write to the noble and gallant Lord as soon as I possibly can.

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that it is crucial that uncertainty be removed. I can assure him that it is not the intention of anyone at the MoD, or anywhere else in government as far as I know, to have another review in this Parliament, and I hope not in the next one either.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, with the exception of the noble and gallant Lord whose expertise the House values, I shall be firm with subsequent speakers.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, my noble friend must be aware that it is a great relief that he and the Secretary of State did not have to contend with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Labour's Action for Peace, the Tribune Group, and the national executive, because this has been a peaceful review. For most of us in the Labour Party there is not a lot for us to quarrel about.

The review has revealed a major change in strategy, including the prospect of airborne military fire brigades, in liaison with our allies, to dampen down trouble spots beyond our shores. It includes of course within the rapid reaction forces, the development of integrated, inter-service Harrier forces, and I am pleased about that.

I am pleased that we have maintained a nuclear capability, and that it is to continue. Is there any timescale? Does my noble friend foresee any fresh nuclear missile developments within the force? I am disappointed at the cut-back in the Terriers. I think that we have gone too far, but there is some consolation in the fact that the Army Cadet Force will increase. I noticed in the press—there is a hint in the White Paper—a reference to private sponsorship. Will my noble friend explain? However, I congratulate my noble friend on his well-conducted foreign policy, led by and shared with the Foreign Office. I think that it has been a good government operation.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am of course immensely obliged to my noble friend who of course occupied a position senior to mine at the MoD for many years with great distinction. I take great comfort from what he said. He and I have a certain amount of experience of wrestling with those within my own party who disagreed with us on things nuclear. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to be able to make the announcements that we have made today.

I shall answer just one of his points, and I hope that he will forgive me for being brief. So far as concerns the nuclear force's future, I can assure him that when it comes to considering—it is not yet time to do so—a successor for Trident, we have taken no decision that would in any way make it impossible for us to contemplate a successor system.

Lord Renton

My Lords, will the Minister tell us how the TA is to be reduced by 30 per cent. (19,000 men)? Is it to be done by dismissing a large number or by merely stopping recruiting, in which case it will take a long time? What will be the financial saving from that reduction?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, it is unlikely that substantial numbers of people will be dismissed. Such is the rate of turnover in the territorial forces that I hope the process can be handled with the greatest of tact and the minimum of disruption to individual people's lives. Of course, at the end of the day, it is possible that certain units will have to be closed. We shall be taking account of regional loyalties, the need to spread the remaining units across the community as a whole, and to sustaining the bonds that those territorial units have with their local communities. I can assure the noble Lord that all those matters are at the forefront of the mind of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I have taken part in many discussions on those points.

The Earl of Carlisle

My Lords, I welcome the emphasis that Her Majesty's Government have placed on defence diplomacy. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in her place. There is a cut in the number of destroyers and frigates from 35 to 32 and an increasing need to have frigates available for humanitarian tasks. Does the Minister feel that that weakness in the strategic review needs to be corrected?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, if you asked me, I should like to double the amount of money spent on defence in almost every direction. I think that I am on record as being the only Member of the other place who voted for an increase in defence expenditure and voted against the Defence Estimates on the ground that they were too low. But we have to be realistic. We have to balance expenditure on defence against other demands on the public purse. So far as concerns the destroyers and frigates, we no longer face a situation, as we did in the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, where we might have been contemplating blue-water operations against powerful Warsaw Pact naval forces. The situation has changed greatly.

One of the reasons that we took the decisions that we did, which are endorsed by the First Sea Lord—I do not say that he welcomed them, but he thought that it was an acceptable solution—was that we looked at the possibility of submarine warfare, the size of submarine fleets of other navies around the world, where they were, and their capabilities, and we decided that we were not going to need nearly the investment that we have had in the past in the anti-submarine capability. It is as simple as that.

5.49 p.m.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I speak for myself, which is all that I can do from these Benches. Like my noble and gallant friend, I welcome this constructive, imaginative and forward-looking Statement. In parenthesis, perhaps I may express the hope that the Government will not consider this leak business to be too tragic. Of course it has been a leak, but it is not a revelation to be placed alongside the Apocalypse. We have known for some time largely what the review was going to contain, because the Government have conducted widespread consultations on it.

What is important is the content. Here, in deference to the need for brevity, I shall make just one point. The continued commitment to an effective nuclear deterrent is an extremely welcome development, and one which I hope will continue. Have serious strategic calculations been made about the nuclear threat from rogue states and possibly from our former enemies and the ability of possible enemies to protect themselves against nuclear strikes? Were all those taken into account in arriving at the new level of armament for the Trident force?

We shall need an answer to that. We shall need answers to many other questions in the future. However, I conclude by saying that at least for those of us who take defence seriously, it is encouraging to note that the Government also are doing just that.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, once again I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord whom I have known for many years and regard highly for his remarks on these subjects. He will know what enormous pleasure it brings me to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and confirm that we shall always have a Trident submarine out there 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It was a commitment I was unable to give the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—unfortunately he is not in his place this afternoon—when he asked me about the matter some months ago in your Lordships' House.

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his recognition that the Government take defence very seriously indeed. It should also be taken into account that while we have reduced the number of warheads, and have announced the number of warheads we shall deploy, those should not be compared closely with the previous government's disclosed figure because that was a ceiling figure. The previous government—I do not quarrel with their judgment—saw fit never to disclose the number of warheads being deployed at sea at any one time. I hope that that meets the noble Lord's point.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place. However, I fail to detect in it any realisation whatever that the world is in grave peril unless something is done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our civilisation is in peril, even conceivably the life of humanity itself. Under those circumstances, it is with great regret that I regard the speech which my noble friend was obliged to repeat in this House as inadequate in that respect, if in no other.

I shall confine myself to this single point. We are told that the review—I have it in my hand—was Foreign Office led. The words "nuclear elimination" are popular in the Foreign Office. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Symons—I am glad to see her in her seat—will confirm that. I understand that those words are not popular in the Ministry of Defence. That was confirmed by the fact that I did not hear my noble friend mention the words "nuclear elimination". Although I have not been able to read it fully, I was unable to discover any mention of those words in the Statement. That is all I have to say. I shall make further comments in the debate to which we all look forward. In the meantime, I ask my noble friend to confirm that the policy of nuclear elimination is not only the policy of the Foreign Office but also of the Ministry of Defence and the Government.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, it will always be difficult for me to find forms of words which will make my noble friend Lord Jenkins happy on matters nuclear. However, I can confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work towards a nuclear-free world. I also hope that we work towards a world that does not have bombs, bayonets, machine guns and other rather unpleasant instruments in it. I merely point out to my noble friend that far more people have been killed by conventional means in the past 50 years than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

Baroness Fookes

My Lords, will the Minister assist my memory? If one adds to this review the cuts in costs from the previous review, what is the total cut in the Armed Forces over the past eight years or so?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, the noble Baroness tempts me. It is a sad story. I was not going to mention such figures because I did not want to bring grief to noble Lords sitting opposite. The fact is that in the last seven years of the previous government defence expenditure in this country was cut by 23.5 per cent. That is why I voted against the Defence Estimates at that time. If one adds to that what my right honourable friend proposes, it represents another modest 3 per cent. over the next three years.