Harvey quizzes Ainsworth on the Strategic Defence Review (Green Paper)

1.56.49pm GMT Sat 6th Feb 2010

• Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): ' . . [the] AGENDA is unbalanced by the omission of one item: the replacement of Trident . . '

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and for the Green Paper, which is a well-judged attempt to frame the questions that the strategic defence review must answer. However, that agenda is unbalanced by the omission of one item: the replacement of Trident. A few minutes ago, the Prime Minister responded to a question about it by looking at the issue from a strategic security point of view, and I agree that that is the starting point, but surely the scale and the timing of any replacement of the Trident deterrent has profound opportunity cost implications for the entirety of the rest of the defence budget. A strategic defence review cannot be genuinely comprehensive if the biggest single strategic and spending decision is parked outwith its framework.

The statement rightly identified that the strategic defence review needs first to ask, what role does Britain want to play in global security? I agree with the Defence Secretary that it would not be appropriate for us to "defend from the goal line", and that we should be prepared to go to distant places in our national interests, but are we going to learn from our mistakes? In particular, the 1998 assumption that we would be quick in and quick out of some engagements has not turned out to be correct. Should we not also learn the lesson that invading Iraq without the support of many of our usual allies and with dubious legal cover made the operation a great deal more difficult to prosecute thereafter?

I strongly welcome the Defence Secretary's remarks about a greater importance for co-operation within Europe on defence matters. The Americans' strategic interests and financial resources mean that in the next few decades they will not be able to make the contribution to European defence that they have made in previous decades. It is absolutely right that the Americans remain our key strategic ally, but we can contribute more to that relationship if we better harness the efforts of Europe in its own cause.

An interesting observation in the statement was the restatement of the 1998 assumption that there is no external direct threat to the United Kingdom. The Defence Secretary went on to talk about accelerating reform and the need to be more adaptable. I entirely agree, but I urge him to be bolder and to go further not only with reform, but with making ourselves agile enough to face emerging threats. We still have troops in Germany who seem to be prepared for the unlikely eventuality of the Soviets arriving with their tanks. There is a great deal more work to be done, but I welcome the direction that the Defence Secretary has pointed out.

Finally, we still have troops in Afghanistan, and we will have for many years yet. We know that there is pressure on the defence budget, but surely we all agree that ensuring that those troops continue to have everything they need is the top priority that cannot be sacrificed to anything else.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. He takes these issues seriously and studies them, and I hope that he finds the Green Paper a useful tool for his thinking as we move towards the strategic defence review.

The reason why Trident was not included in the Green Paper was that we had to take a strategic decision in 2006 to replace the deterrent if we genuinely wanted to maintain both the skill base in Barrow and our ability to build nuclear submarines. If we had not taken that decision, the risk to our ability would have been profound, and, having done so, we see no reason to attempt to revisit or re-take it. If we did so, that would be destructive. We took the decision, and the time scales in developing nuclear submarines are considerable. That is why the decision had to be taken when it was.

The hon. Gentleman will find that the Green Paper acknowledges that the possibility of quick in, quick out was thought about and hoped for. However, we have not been able or prepared to remove ourselves from some of our operations, and we have been enduring counter-insurgency as a result. That has profound implications, because if we want to maintain our ability to conduct operations like those that we are undertaking in Afghanistan, we must address that issue, among others.

I really believe that the US contribution will continue for the foreseeable future, but I do not believe, as some-not all-Conservative Members do, that there is an alternative to an Atlantic relationship or a European relationship. Our strength in Europe enhances our position with the United States of America. I believe that the two are complementary, and we should pursue both.

Our forces are based in Germany not in anticipation of the Russians coming over, although that is the historical reason why they are there. They are there because bases were built, and that is where they are based. Over time we have reduced our footprint, and over time I should expect us to continue to do so, but that is effectively their home. I am enormously pleased that they are made welcome in Germany, and that we will continue to have a close relationship with the German authorities.

Related Link:

• Full Debate in Parliament