HL Deb 13 September 2004 vol 664 cc896-8

3.5 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:

How long a "demanding … large scale operation", as described in Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities (Cm 6269), can be sustained concurrently with standing military commitments and an enduring small-scale peace support operation, without overstretching the Armed Forces.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)

My Lords, we acknowledge, as we have always done, that the most demanding, large-scale operations could be carried out only by breaking what we call our "harmony guidelines"; that is, the amount of time our personnel spend on operations or on exercise, compared to the time they spend at home. Our planning assumes that a large-scale operation would be an infrequent, one-off commitment that lasts up to six months, thereafter drawing down to medium scale.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Assumptions that we will win, and win quickly, any large-scale symmetric operation and that our allies will then relieve us is dangerously questionable. Is it not vital at a time of overstretch, and with little time for our Armed Forces to rest and train, that provision to rotate them is built into planning assumptions for the war-fighting duration and follow-through periods?

Lord Bach

My Lords, of course we have to bear that consideration in mind. But defence planning assumes large-scale operations similar in size to Operation TELIC, which became a medium-sized operation well within the six-month period, will occur infrequently. That is our experience over the past 50 years. Of course we realise that our Armed Forces require a period of recuperation prior to being ready to conduct another similar-sized operation. The length of time required to recuperate will depend on the choices we make in prioritising activities and resources.

Lord Garden

My Lords, on which month of which year does the Minister expect to have the necessary people, equipment and training completed to be able to fill all the annex requirements for concurrency in Command Paper 6269? Will it be longer or shorter than the six years the Armed Forces waited for a similar promise to be delivered in the Strategic Defence Review?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the exact month or the exact date. He of course was playing a leading role in the Ministry of Defence at the time the Strategic Defence Review came out so will no doubt have the answer to his question.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, in view of the current situation, to which reference has been made, will the Government defer their proposals concerned with the infantry arrangements?

Lord Bach

My Lords, no, we will not defer those decisions. Those decisions are not ready yet in any event. The Army Board will be meeting later this year to decide on them and one should not expect final decisions to be announced before the New Year. I would recommend to the noble Lord that he look at an article by the Chief of the General Staff in the Spectator magazine of 11 September this year, in which he deals very clearly with the issue. I hope that I will be forgiven if I quote briefly from it. He said: The Army Board's duty is to ensure our Army's capability and ethos up to some two decades ahead. It is my duty to lead the board in so doing. That process involves change, inevitably an uncomfortable process, but one which if not grasped would indeed lead to a grave threat to the Army's war-fighting capability. Standing still is likely to realise that threat".

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, apart from the technicalities, in which I am not at all well versed, are the Government satisfied that, given the present commitments of the Army, soldiers are able to spend enough time at home?

Lord Bach

My Lords, it has been an extraordinarily busy period—I think that that is the noble Baroness's point. It is true that during the height of Operation TELIC, we were not satisfied with the amount of time that our soldiers were able to spend at home, but the position has improved greatly since then.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, does the Treasury see the present operation in Iraq as a medium-term commitment? If so, will all the money that is needed for that operation be drawn from within the MoD budget, so that the MoD will not go to the Treasury for further funds, or will the MoD have to go to the Treasury to fund the operation in Iraq?

Lord Bach

My Lords, from the very start of the operation in Iraq—whether during the course of the conflict or now, in the peace support part of the operation—the Treasury has always made sure that the Ministry of Defence is financed in order that it can meet its requirements.

Lord Selsdon

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proportion of our Armed Forces is currently located outside the United Kingdom and whether he expects that the proportion to increase or decrease?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I fear that I do not have the figures with me, but I will of course write to the noble Lord with them. I am not sure that I am prepared to offer an opinion as to which of the two options that he sets me is correct.

Baroness Strange

My Lords, can the Minister tell us why we still need three battalions in the Parachute Regiment?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I very much look forward to answering the noble Baroness's Starred Question tomorrow. It relates, in a small way, to the question that she has just raised. The Parachute Regiment is very different from those that I think that she has in mind in relation to this question. The Parachute Regiment has a proud history, as do the other regiments that she has in mind, and is vital given the increased necessity for expeditionary exercises, which is what we have been involved with much more in the past few years than previously.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, the strategic review only glanced at the issue of asymmetric threats and the need for troops here. We also have unexpected events such as, the press says, seven ships having to be held back for a possible fire fighting operation. In the past, 19,000 soldiers have been required for a fire fighting operation. Given that, is there any reason why numbers should not remain as they are until it is much clearer what the needs will be? I am not talking about change; I am talking about numbers.

Lord Bach

My Lords, to move to change, which is what we need to do, it is important to recognise that decisions are vital to ensure that our future capability is, frankly, aimed not at the old threats but at what we see as future threats. As is highlighted in the paper to which the noble Lord referred in his Question, in certain areas we judge our current capability to be disproportionately high now for the actual level of threat. By way of example only, I mention antisubmarine warfare and air defence in particular. That judgment is not dependent on new capabilities that we will be obtaining. We also identify the capabilities in which we need to invest. It is therefore prudent to reduce some capabilities now, tough as that is, while restructuring and investing in our priority areas.