To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future defence capability following the recently announced increases in defence spending.
My Lords, the strategic defence review is well under way and has been considering all aspects of defence, including the capabilities required by UK defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the 21st century. The recently announced accelerated programme to increase defence spending is considered a critical step in realising the review's ambition to transform our Armed Forces for this new era. The review will place NATO first and strengthen our alliances and partnerships while making defence central to the security, economic growth and prosperity of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. Can he say something about the preparedness of the Armed Forces in all their guises when it comes to the threat from one of the most evil and fascistic regimes in the world? I am talking about the regime in Iran and its proxies who spread their poison and terror across the globe, bearing in mind that one of those proxies was responsible for the most deadly massacre of Jewish people since 1945?
My noble friend raises an extremely important point about Iran and its proxies. We will continue to work with our international partners to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity, the things that it has done in the Middle East and, indeed, the threats it poses on UK soil. To do that, the increased defence spending that we have announced today will help us to deal with this very real threat. Let Iran make no mistake: we will both deter and respond to any threat that it or its proxies pose to us. I thank my noble friend again for his question.
My Lords, the Government’s focus on defence and the further clarification of intended funding, as evident from the Chancellor’s Statement this morning, are welcome. While further detail about the additional funding and the phasing of the route to 2.5% by 2027 is needed, it is equally important to understand what liabilities may fall on defence; otherwise, we cannot make sense of the overall picture. Can the Minister say whether the cost of the Chagos deal is going to paid for by defence?
The Chagos deal is extremely important for our own security and that of the US. When the deal is finalised, it will be put before Parliament with the costings and then Parliament can debate it. The future of the base at Diego Garcia, which is crucial to us and our allies, is secured, and that is the important point of any deal that is finalised.
My Lords, the Minister said the ministry will put “NATO first”. NATO, through SACEUR, has defined the force structure it believes necessary if the alliance is to deter Russian aggression. It has also set out the contribution it wishes the UK to make to that force structure. What action has the Ministry of Defence taken to cost NATO’s request, and how does it compare to our currently available military capabilities?
My understanding is that discussions have taken place between ourselves and NATO and SACEUR about the capabilities that they would expect from us. We are currently looking at both the cost and our ability to provide the capabilities. It is my understanding that those negotiations are still under way. If that is incorrect, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord.
My Lords, in the context of additional defence funding, what is now the Government’s dominant policy consideration about how that funding should be spent? Is it to make good our deterrent capability against Russia, or to make good the potential deficit caused by the abandonment of European security guarantees by the United States of America?
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. The fundamental thrust of the Government’s policy is the “NATO first” policy, which obviously deals with the threat from Russia but also our security. We have seen that not only our own country but many countries across Europe are now stepping up their defence spending to provide the security assistance that may be needed, in the short term with respect to Ukraine and in the longer term across the whole of Europe. The important point is that the “NATO first” policy does not mean “NATO only”; it means that we will also accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere. The defence review seeks to balance that and see what capabilities we will need to do so.
My Lords, do the Government now agree with the opinion that President Macron has held for some years, that the European arm of NATO must be made stronger and credible, and eventually an equal partner with the US in the NATO alliance? It will take at least until the 2030s for us to achieve that desirable aim. Meanwhile, we are being excluded from the arrangements in Europe for defence procurement, and we are not fully aligned with them. No one voted for Brexit because they wanted us to cease to have defence and security alliances with our European neighbours. Will the Government press hard for the closest possible integration of our defence policy with that of our European allies, so we can tell the Americans there really is a self-sufficient, credible European armed alliance?
The noble Lord asked a number of questions. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, the US-UK relationship is absolutely fundamental to the future security of Europe and across the globe, and we look to maintain it. As far as Europe is concerned, we are looking to reset the EU-UK relationship in terms of defence and security, and work is ongoing. Specifically with respect to industry, of course we are looking for greater collaboration and co-operation across Europe with respect to a European defence industrial strategy, and those negotiations continue. In many respects, both at European and bilateral levels, we are seeing increased co-operation, and that is essential for our European security and to demonstrate to the Americans that Europe is taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should.
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the special transatlantic relationship is laudable, but if from the other side of the Atlantic the relationship is not seen as so important, what are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to ensure that we in the United Kingdom have the military and security capabilities that we need? The Vice-President and others in the United States do not seem to be taking the UK very seriously at the moment.
I will deal with that in two parts. First, we are increasing UK defence spending, as many other countries across Europe are doing, recognising the increased threats but also the need for us all to demonstrate to the Americans that we are doing what we should with respect to our various responsibilities, both in Europe and beyond. Secondly, whatever the noise around the UK and the US, and what the US President and those associated with him are or are not saying, I cannot stress enough how important it is that the US and UK stand together, work together and tackle common challenges together. There may be a lot of noise, but let the noise from this Chamber be that we see the US-UK relationship as absolutely fundamental, and we will do all that we can to maintain it.
My Lords, I very much welcome the announcement by the Minister’s right honourable friend the Chancellor today around a new defence growth board, which she says will maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers’ money. Given that is the case, will he take the opportunity to say that that supply chain should go right across the United Kingdom, and—of course, I would say, would I not—with that to include Northern Ireland with its very good defence firms?
Indeed, that is the whole point of the growth agenda. The noble Baroness may have had the opportunity to read the Chancellor’s speech earlier today, which specifically talked about the defence industry, the growth agenda and the importance of that going across the whole of the UK. She has been an advocate, as many noble Lords have been, for Northern Ireland industry, and the £1.6 billion-worth of money to Thales in Belfast and also the drone capacity and capability of Spirit in Northern Ireland are examples. I also know that all of the Northern Ireland representatives with the Government there are seeking to ensure that it is not only big business that benefits but that small and medium-sized businesses benefit as well.
My Lords, our armed services, I am afraid, are in a parlous state—it is no good pretending otherwise. They have been seriously hollowed out and they are nowhere near the capabilities that our nation thought they would have. Thank goodness we are now putting some money into defence, but there is a need to think in the short-term as well as the long-term. Are we making sure that we put money in rapidly to the areas that need to be resolved quickly, in case we are at war within the next couple of years, as well as just looking ahead to the way we would like to structure our forces for the future? This is what the SDR was going to do.