Member News
By Ned Simons - 12th November 2010
Those people serving on National Security Council must have been asleep for the last dozen years or so
Lord Boyce
Former military chiefs from all three services savaged the government's defence review this afternoon, with one branding the plans a "desperate expression of hope over bitter experience".
Former chief of the defence staff Lord Boyce said David Cameron's insistence that the security of the country was the first duty of government rang "very hollow" given the outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
And Lord Craig of Radley warned ministers are close to "aping the position of the 1930s", while former Labour defence secretary Lord Hutton said it is a "profound mistake" to scrap one of the new aircraft carriers.
Saving money
Speaking during the debate on defence in the House of Lords, Lord Boyce said there was "no security justification" for the planned cuts to the military and said aim was "pure and simple to save money".
"The government should have courage to say so and admit the enormous gamble it has taken," he said.
Last month the prime minister unveiled a series of cuts to Britain's defence capability which he said had been necessary to tackle the "biggest budget deficit in post war history" and a £38bn "black hole" in the defence budget inherited from Labour.
Among the controversial measures was a decision to build two hugely expensive new aircraft carriers but mothball one soon after its completion. The government said it would cost more to cancel one of the carriers ordered by the previous government than it would be to complete construction.
As well as attacking the prime minister, Lord Boyce took a swipe at George Osborne, telling peers that the Treasury's "empathy and understanding" of defence matters was revealed when the chancellor referred to aircraft carriers as "those things" during a recent television interview.
Hope over experience
The former Admiral said the government's expectation that the military would not need a carrier strike capability for 10 years was a "desperate expression of hope over bitter experience".
"Those people serving on National Security Council must have been asleep for the last dozen years or so," he said.
And he warned that recent events had shown Britain could not rely on its allies to provide it with land bases or the overflight rights necessary for operations.
"Some so-called friends and allies prevaricated or even denied us overflying rights," he said. "We can't even fly direct from Cyprus to Kandahar today."
Lord Boyce said the Royal Navy would be "too depleted to deliver what history has shown might be needed and too depleted to meet aspirations of global influence".
"Fewer ships should mean fewer tasks, not least because the fleet is already overstretched," he said.
He also attacked the decision to scrap the Harrier jets, which does not "stand up to any serious analysis or judgement of history".
Soft option
Lord Craig of Radley said defence had once again been seen as a "soft option for belt tightening" and warned the government was close to "aping the position of the 1930s" before the outbreak of the Second World War.
The former Marshal of the Royal Air Force and chief of the defence staff said the withdrawal of HMS Ark Royal and the Harriers from service "squandered" the Fleet Air Arm's future.
He warned: "Scrapping the Nimrods, even before they had entered service, and reducing frigates and destroyers, collectively blows an enormous hole in our national maritime capability."
Unpredictable
Also contributing to the debate, Lord Inge, who was chief of defence staff between 1994 and 1997, warned it is a mistake to leave the country without a carrier strike capability for 10 years as it is impossible to predict what might happen.
The former head of the British Army said: "We didn't predict the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands, we didn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union, we didn't predict the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait."
"It is extraordinary that if the carrier is so critical to the future of our defence capability that Her Majesty's Government is prepared to get rid of our present capability and wait 10 years for its replacement," he added.
"Ten years is a long time in this unstable world."
Profound mistake
The debate also saw interventions from three former Labour defence secretaries, including Lord Hutton who was making his maiden speech in the House.
Lord Hutton, who served as defence secretary under Gordon Brown during 2008 and 2009, warned against reducing defence spending simply in response to a worsening fiscal environment.
"Spending less on defence does not make those threats we face any less serious," he said. "Unfortunately it simply makes us less able to deal with them."
The Blairite former MP said it was a "profound mistake" to scrap one of the new aircraft carriers, adding that leaving them without aircraft for a decade is "not a sensible strategy".
Missed opportunity
Lord Robertson, who was Tony Blair's first defence secretary and later became secretary general of NATO, said the SDSR was "not strategic" and was a "wasted opportunity".
And while acknowledging the government faces severe financial constraints, he warned the defence secretary against succumbing to a "predatory Treasury".
"It looks and it indeed it is an interim report driven mainly by the desire of the Treasury for cuts," he said.
And Lord Reid, who was defence secretary under Tony Blair between 2005 and 2006, commended current defence secretary Liam Fox for putting his "principles above career prospects" by standing up to the chancellor.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.