More of the same will not do

The new Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made an important visit to Afghanistan last week. From my own experience having visited the country there is no better way of learning about the lives and sacrifices of our Forces or the intricacies and challenges of the mission. Labour has consistently made clear that we support the Government’s efforts on Afghanistan and we therefore welcome the new Defence Secretary’s commitment to an inclusive political settlement and a lasting role for the international community in securing sustainable stability.

It was extremely disappointing, however, to hear the Defence Secretary choose to indulge in a partisan attack on Remembrance Sunday. This was inappropriate on a day when politicians should reflect the families and communities who united in remembrance and respect. I didn’t respond yesterday because that would have been as wrong as the Defence Secretary’s behaviour. But twenty four hours later I’m certain he wished he had been more considered with his timing and more careful to not undermine his own argument or his own party’s economic message. Yesterday the Secretary of State repeated claims of Labour profligacy on defence spending and within seconds accused Labour of not spending enough. Which is it? Even the Government knows that both can’t be true.

Mr Hammond said that Labour failed to equip our Forces sufficiently when in government. This is simply incorrect. The Labour Government met every request for equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan. We almost doubled the number of helicopters and improved body armour. We increased our military numbers in Afghanistan progressively, meeting the requests of the then head of the Army General Sir David Richards. Labour increased the Defence budget by 10% in real terms. In January 2010 the then Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup said the equipment our troops were using was “frankly the best that they’ve ever had”.

I remember these announcements being made, just as I remember how Tories cheered them. And we should not forget that the Conservative Party demanded more spending each step of the way. In opposition David Cameron called for an increase in the number of helicopters to Afghanistan and a bigger Army.

There is no logic in suggesting that Labour did not spend enough on our troops. This is not a credible argument to make when the Tories simultaneously claim that Labour’s supposed overspending justifies the unprecedented and dramatic cuts he is now overseeing. Both positions cannot possibly be valid. Arguing that Labour overspent and forced cuts but failed our Forces by underspending is as incoherent as it is disingenuous.

Mr Hammond, like his predecessor, uses the “£38 billion blackhole” catchphrase to deny responsibility for his decisions. But the MOD hasn’t been willing to produce any calculations that match Ministers’ maths. The 2009 MoD Major Projects Report from which this figure appears to be taken actually said that the size of any gap in the projected procurement budget over ten years was far, far smaller. In fact the only way to get to this number is if you assume that there will be no increase to Britain’s defence budget until 2021. That was never going to be the case under a Labour government and is not even the case now. The Defence Secretary needs to be more upfront about the fact that his Government’s Treasury-led position to frontload spending reductions, not Labour’s record, is driving decision-making. Despite those pledges in Opposition, the SDSR announced that the Army will be reduced by around 7,000 and the Chinook order has been cut from 22 to 14: these are current Ministers’ choices and their cuts.

We saw an example of the potential human cost of these choices when we learnt that cuts to the Army could include wounded soldiers. Mr Hammond said no-one would be made redundant ‘while undergoing treatment’, but this still means those seriously injured defending the country could be part of forthcoming waves of compulsory redundancies after rehabilitation. We need clearer answers from the Government, just as we need full clarity on the scale of the cuts to the Army that are planned. The fallout from the SDSR is clearly having a corrosive effect on morale.

No-one can or should deny the clear need for spending cuts. We have been clear that some of the problems which plagued all governments continued with Labour. That is why we have undertaken a bold study on procurement reform and why we have repeated that we agree with some of the cuts being made, for example to tanks, heavy artillery and reform of the defence estate. But there are choices to be made about the pace and depth of deficit reduction just as there are about the shape and size of our Services. The responsibility inherent to government can be both a burden and a deep honour, but it cannot be avoided. The current Defence Secretary, like all of his colleagues, will be judged on their actions and not the consistency of their recriminations. More of the same from the past 18 months will not do.