Contribution
My Lords, I shall raise two issues that were not covered in what is otherwise a thoroughly convincing and comprehensive review. The first is soft power. Perhaps the terms of reference were too tightly drawn or too narrowly interpreted, but defence is not just about weapons and Armed Forces—the hard power—and I do not in any case want to diminish at all the importance of what the review says about that. But defence is also about prevention and deterrence in the broadest possible sense.
A potential aggressor is less likely to attack you if you share a significant degree of intercultural knowledge, understanding and experience. To be “strong abroad”, as the review puts it, the UK must be appreciated, respected and even enjoyed abroad. Our soft power comes in many forms, including the World Service, the British Council, universities, the Royal Family, the Premier League and overseas aid.
It is also very sobering to note that Russia makes no such distinction between soft and hard power. Leaping into the vacuum to occupy radio frequencies given up for cost reasons by the World Service, as Russia has done in Lebanon, is just one example of Russian aggression on what I would call a seamless continuum of what we might call soft and hard power, which Russia just calls power.
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that soft power should be acknowledged as one important element within the broad sweep of defence, on the basis that prevention is better than cure? If he does, will he also agree that the Government need to take a strategic and generous view of the financial support that they give to the World Service, the British Council, higher education and the aid budget?
The second issue that I want to raise, which is missing in the review’s discussion of training, education and preparedness, is the importance of language training for the Armed Forces. The Defence Academy at Shrivenham, which I have visited, provides pre-deployment training in 40 languages for members of the Armed Forces. A report by the British Academy pointed out that the role of military linguists is particularly key to ground operations, is a vital component of defence diplomacy and is also essential for peacekeeping work and conflict prevention. As the BA report put it:
“The ability of military officers and patrols to communicate with local communities during ground operations can help not only with local engagement but might also mean the difference between life and death”.
Crucially, the MoD language training uses the NATO standardisation agreement 6001, which is a common framework for assessing language proficiency for military personnel and ensures that all member nations can communicate effectively in a military context, which is vital for interoperability in joint exercises and operations. Can the Minister reassure me that the SDR recommendation that:
“Defence should only run training and education itself when it cannot be obtained externally at suitable quality and cost”
will not apply to the language training currently provided by the Defence Academy? It is very difficult to imagine how local FE colleges could replicate the NATO standards or engage teaching staff qualified in both the military contexts and terminology, as well as all 40 of the languages currently offered. Will the Minister guarantee that the budget for the Defence Centre for Languages and Culture will not be subject to any cuts?
Finally on the subject of language skills, I have to say that I was alarmed two weeks ago at the closure without notice of the ARAP scheme and the ACRS. Since then, of course, we have also had the revelation of the ARR scheme, also now closed. All this will impact critically on the Afghan interpreters who worked with the UK’s Armed Forces and are still vulnerable from Taliban oppression. I have been told that no interpreters were included in the secret ARR scheme, as they were not thought to be at a high enough level of risk to qualify. Yet the Government’s own Explanatory Memorandum for its sudden withdrawal of ARAP admits that
“there is a risk that eligible individuals will remain at risk, or will seek to use irregular routes, including small boats, following the closure of ARAP”.
Is this really the way to treat those who have already risked their lives for us? The numbers are not vast, but these people are the very definition of a special case, and I ask the Minister to ensure that all the remaining interpreters have a viable option to relocate to the UK, subject of course to the relevant security checks.