STEPHEN GLOVER: Guarding our nation's waters is not a luxury, it is a necessity

By Stephen Glover

Last updated at 10:03 AM on 3rd November 2011

When you go to sleep at night you may imagine that somewhere out there in British waters there will be one or more warships flying the flag, and keeping an eye on possible dangers to our national security. Indeed, there usually is, and has been for as long as anyone can remember.

And yet since the beginning of October there hasn’t been a single British frigate or destroyer fulfilling this task. The Royal Navy, once the mightiest in the world, could not muster even one vessel to protect our shores.

The reason is that, following last year’s Strategic Defence Review, the number of frigates and destroyers has been reduced from 23 to 19. This came after a succession of previous cuts. It wasn’t very long ago that some Tory MPs were insisting that a 40-ship Navy was the absolute bare minimum.

Safeguarding our shores: The Royal Navy, once the mightiest in the world, could not muster even one vessel to protect our coastlines

Safeguarding our shores: The Royal Navy, once the mightiest in the world, could not muster even one vessel to protect our coastlines

Even so, one ship out of the 19 would have been found had it not been for the Libyan escapade. It was the deployment of ten warships in the Mediterranean that left our own waters unprotected. It is true that most of them are now on their way back, but the episode has illustrated how dangerously depleted our defences have become.

Now, you may say that it hardly matters if for a few weeks there wasn’t one ship on emergency stand-by — known as a Fleet Ready Escort. So far as we know, no country is planning to invade us. We’re not expecting enemies to land on the East Anglian coast in the middle of the night.

But the presence of a frigate or destroyer is normally thought necessary in case of a terrorist or other serious incident in British waters. Naval sources have sought to play down the affair, saying that having a ship ready to fulfil the role of Fleet Ready Escort is a ‘luxury’.

The presence of a frigate or destroyer is normally thought necessary in case of a terrorist incident in British waters

The presence of a frigate or destroyer is normally thought necessary in case of a terrorist incident in British waters

If it is a luxury, one wonders why the Navy has for so long insisted that the role of Fleet Ready Escort be carried out — and why it will still dispatch a ship to fulfil these duties as soon as one is available.

The truth is, that the Government has so reduced Britain’s naval and military resources that we can no longer play the part of even a minor world power. And yet that is exactly what it expects us to do. In June, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, warned that the Royal Navy would become overstretched if operations in Libya went on beyond September.

Sir Mark was summoned to No 10 for a dressing-down by the Prime Minister, who declared in the Commons that the First Sea Lord had seen the error of his ways, and now accepted that our intervention could go on for as long as was necessary. It is now clear that Sir Mark was right, and Mr Cameron was wrong.

Imagine the hullabaloo if the Prime Minister had been forced to admit at the time that as a result of the Libyan operation British waters would be unprotected for a month. It was precisely such an eventuality that Sir Mark foresaw, and yet he was publicly slapped down for his pains.

I wonder what further foreign entanglements the Government has in mind for the Navy. Of course, there is the lurking problem of the Falklands. In the view of Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, who commanded the task force that re-took the islands in 1982, it would be well-nigh impossible to defend them now that the Government has got rid of our two aircraft carriers.

Concern: Since the beginning of October there hasn't been a single British frigate or destroyer protecting British waters

Concern: Since the beginning of October there hasn't been a single British frigate or destroyer protecting British waters

Admittedly the Falklands represent a challenge which Mr Cameron inherited, and is not of his making. Nonetheless, Argentina has been making menacing noises. The defence cuts leave us barely able to fulfil our historic responsibilities to the islanders. An Argentinian invasion would be a catastrophe for them — and, politically speaking, not much better for Mr Cameron.

Who could have dreamt that as a result of the Strategic Defence Review we would be left unable not only to defend our kith and kin 8,000 miles away in the Falklands, but also our own waters? The lapse may have been shrugged off by Navy PR people, but I can assure Mr Cameron that it will have been noted by those who may not wish us well.

In Beijing and Moscow — and in Buenos Aires — there will have been much incredulous shaking of heads and tut-tutting. A country that can’t properly police its own waters is not going to be taken very seriously by determined powers which know what they want. There is something shamingly amateurish and third-rate about our performance.

Blame: Liam Fox knew that the defence cuts went too deep, and rendered Britain incapable of meeting its defence commitments

Blame: Liam Fox knew that the defence cuts went too deep, and rendered Britain incapable of meeting its defence commitments

One man I blame — apart from the Prime Minister and Chancellor, George Osborne — is the late, unlamented Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. He knew that the defence cuts went too deep, and rendered Britain incapable of meeting both existing and potential defence commitments.

Dr Fox went on about the £38 billion ‘black hole’ supposedly left in the defence budget by the Labour government, as though that somehow justified swingeing cuts. A more honourable man would have resigned rather than preside over what he knew was unworkable. At least he would have retained his honour. Now he has nothing.

And, of course, the defence cuts are doubly or trebly hard to swallow in view of the ballooning aid budget, which is set to increase by 37 per cent to £11.5 billion by 2014/15. I support targeted aid that goes to the poor people for whom it is intended, and isn’t creamed off by corrupt Third World politicians.

What cannot be defended by any stretch of the imagination is the £1 billion in aid going to India over three years — a country whose economy is probably already bigger than ours (and growing ten times faster) and which has a large and ever increasing defence budget, as well as a space programme costing £1.5 billion a year.

Believe it or not, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is controlled by the Department for International Development, also invests hundreds of millions of pounds in China — the same China which is being asked to bail out the eurozone. Incidentally, I discovered the other day that our foreign aid to China includes a start-up grant for a series of Chinese cuisine restaurants.

The idiocy of all this is scarcely conceivable, and in a Tory-led Government mind-boggling. How can Mr Cameron put aid to India above the proper defence of the realm? I don’t understand it.

I suppose I have almost given up hope that in our present dire economic circumstances this Government will reverse any of the defence cuts, let alone consider moving funds from the overseas aid budget.

And yet I do still hope that the shame of being unable to find a vessel to protect our own waters might serve as a warning. It is a sad thing to be a third-rate power, but a dangerous thing to cut the defence budget to the detriment of our existing obligations — while cheerily taking on new ones. There may be much bigger humiliations ahead.

Comments (37)

View all

God help us!

Click to rate Rating 1

Report abuse

someone talked about the nimrod maritime patrol planes. the nimrod was over budget and failed tests.so we were spending billions on planes that do not work. we will have to buy some new maritime patrol planes in the future. we have bought some boeing RC - 135 rivet planes from america to replace the reconnaissance nimrod

Click to rate Rating 1

Report abuse

because the buffoon Cameron is giving all our money away to bankers and countries that hate us?

Click to rate Rating 2

Report abuse

I am still trying to decide why 'Call me Dave' has done his utmost to dismantle our armed forces. When I put forward my opinion yesterday, it was immediately deleted (presumably at the behest of someone at Conservative Central Office, who monitor these sites constantly). Does anyone else want to try and put their view and see what happens to their comment?

Click to rate Rating 6

Report abuse

I think military staff should not be dictated to by politicians who know nothing of defence matters. If the military thinks that a frigate is needed then the government should do everything in its power to get one for them and stop making excuses. How cameron thinks he can talk to the military the way he did is disgraceful. No respect for their knowledge and experience at all.

Click to rate Rating 6

Report abuse

Oh Michael it's really easy. our duly elected representatives have one job and one job only. and that is to help the rich get richer and damn everything else.

Click to rate Rating 8

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.