The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey) With your
permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on
defence programmes developments. I have now been Secretary of State
for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this
job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service
and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping
this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the
public. We are proud of their...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Defence ()
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a
statement on defence programmes developments.
I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an
honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff
from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally
inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often
unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their
professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.
This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence.
We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark
Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel
the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed
defence as a priority sector as part of the Government's
industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading
of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life.
Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better
defended.
We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe,
conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats.
Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see
right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there
were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative
Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been
“hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.
However, as I have told the House since taking office, the
problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was
dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden
from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans,
taxpayers' funds being wasted, and military morale down to record
lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject
investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and
kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations
for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.
First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed
the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government's
plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and
into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this
country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget
that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion
to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor
also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP
on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives'
unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into
Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on
defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are
conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the
threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future.
That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on
the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned
consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and
investing in people and future technologies.
Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our
soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated
equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult
decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we
must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from
our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military
capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are
set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up
to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in
full in defence.
Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial
statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions.
They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a
frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical
to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army
drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS
Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers
but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a
year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks,
some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of
service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea
for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than
50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I
recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and
flown in them during their deployments around the world. They
have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work
is done, and we must now look to the future. All current
personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made
redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,
“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to
make the changes required”.
Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal
Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.
These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed
to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer
and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the
chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence
reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant
dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult
decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance
that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on
the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we
look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of
GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to
work with me on this.
Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little
interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines
or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to
deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently
launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to
create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for
money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better
implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed
defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments
director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the
Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters,
operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command
the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be
central in prioritising investment and spending between the
services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department
with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure
faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability
across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.
Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting
defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a
Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention;
targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at
a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight,
but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have
awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20
years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new
£30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft
engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service.
It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January,
we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who
have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a
year for three years—12,000 troops in total.
I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a
new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK
defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion
extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving
far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed
forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure
abroad.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the shadow Defence Secretary.
2.19pm
(South Suffolk) (Con)
We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that
Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half
ago, Prime Minister's questions was taken by a Deputy Prime
Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the
renewal of Trident.
The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black
hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative
party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were
on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the
deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been
the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the
same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no
lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to
set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts
instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path
to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5%
as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the
civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that
Labour's union paymasters will not allow them to do.
The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little
interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about
, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive
decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia
invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2.
If he is talking about , he gave me his 100% backing
in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental
reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation,
and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers.
Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in
2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts
relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will
retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will
the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention
bonus? If not, why not?
The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark
and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended
readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received
assurances from the Navy's leadership that in the event of a
full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the
Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been
regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the
crews could have been found. That is what the Navy's leadership
confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing
that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the
operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role
support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least
eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still
committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure?
Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the
immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will
be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of
State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus?
As for the Conservatives' record on rotary, the Secretary of
State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by
renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I
personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On
the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should
have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the
UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the
Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the
competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new
medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service
before those Pumas are retired?
On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD's first ever
drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need
to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern
battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these
capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas,
especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most
importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic
defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British
armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I
should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR
before making today's decisions?
To conclude, whatever the Chancellor's true grasp of economics,
she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the
country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it
has undertaken the Department's much-vaunted strategic defence
review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil,
undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off
the family farm and threatening our food security, and today,
they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our
national security. The Government have made their choices, and
they own the consequences.
That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal
position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman
that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010
under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was
a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election
was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That
is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election
gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called
the plan “misleading”.
I readily pay tribute to as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked
not about defence reform, but about the decision that rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine,
so that we led the field and made sure that other countries
followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in
opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and
to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the retention
incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the
retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for
privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced
them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for
the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone
strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we
are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British
Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two
to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do
better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the
future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need.
Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review.
As I said in my statement, I made today's decisions in
consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are
aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those
ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to
go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be
taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight.
There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That
will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in
defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and
technologies.
The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw
afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his
Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence
to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit.
I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future.
These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these
changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must,
learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing
nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to
evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for
the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr (Slough) (Lab)
Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today,
because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry
of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be
retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad
to note that the plan has the full backing of our military
chiefs.
However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings
of the strategic defence review having been announced, and
obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our
people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of
things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies
or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled
and retrained, so that there are no job losses?
As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to
get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to
better implement the strategic defence review when it reports.
These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by
Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about
what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been
made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I
inform my hon. Friend's Committee. I look forward to the grilling
that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me
tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other
things.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
(Honiton and Sidmouth)
(LD)
I declare an interest in that my nephew is an aircraft engineer
with the Royal Air Force, so I shall not be commenting on the
retention payment, much as it sounds very handsome.
I welcome the emphasis in the statement on defence people. A
legacy of the last Conservative Government was that there was not
enough emphasis on retaining brilliant people in the armed
forces. With , we saw a Defence Secretary
who was fascinated by technology—he came to the House and made a
statement about DragonFire—but missed the very important things
that were slipping down the list, such as the platforms that we
hear today are being decommissioned. So I welcome the pay rise
for personnel, and I particularly welcome the retention payment
for Army personnel who have served for more than four years,
given that the legacy of Capita is an appalling one.
However, there are some alarming gaps. The new Chinook heavy-lift
helicopters not coming in till 2027 leaves a very substantial gap
of three years in relation to the 14 Chinooks. The new medium
helicopter contract is not due to be awarded till next year. I
question when the contract for the new medium helicopter will be
introduced—perhaps not until the beginning of the next decade.
The multi-role support ships are not due to come into service
until 2033. I am alarmed at what that may do for the ability of
the Royal Marines to operate in the littoral. I question that the
statement said there was full backing from our service chiefs. Of
course, there was: they have to salute, turn to the right and
carry on. What was lacking was a statement about this being done
in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. Was this
statement given their full backing?
My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in
consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for
them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I
am sure they would say that these are entirely the right
decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they
start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions
are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I
can confidently take them now, because we need to create the
scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review
reports.
We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the
finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of
their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a
fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old.
This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when
they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not
happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new,
much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that
we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other
purposes.
Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon.
Gentleman's nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive
payment.
(Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the
armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by
the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative
majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State's statement,
particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key
people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence
reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in
the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and
adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?
The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, which is
precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have
begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire
time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and
radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to
fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight,
deter and defend this country.
I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on
defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the
previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer
Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate
him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK
parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members
involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful
delegation visit to Montreal later this week.
Sir Iain Duncan (Chingford and Woodford Green)
(Con)
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he
will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer
him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one
undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.
Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all
want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on
whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous
world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The
Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic
defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and
it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this
report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD's arm in future
discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always
with the Treasury.
I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he
feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review,
it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in
them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the
Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he
rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now,
and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and
a proper debate”?
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's tone and his advice. On
the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six
decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in
defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the
strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been
clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the
strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second,
and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that
we should expect that in the spring.
(Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a
Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and
branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his
mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition.
It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers' money had
been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report,
to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste,
and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the
Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to
update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?
I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments, and the reminder to this
House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on
together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I
have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not
waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the
consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a
ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra
staff. I have also scrapped the Tories' £40 million VIP
helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around
the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women,
which we can now do.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence
Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report,
“Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the
Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping
our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party
Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with
strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion
and HMS Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and
10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a
landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces,
just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and
Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the
absence of that capability for the next decade will be an
incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He
led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was
six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this
statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by
the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and
HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out
of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given
the state they are in and decisions taken by the last
Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in
practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been
willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA
Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the
amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9
million a year that would have been spent under the previous
plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the
multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater
capability and a broader range of ability for the future.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State's focus on the future of our
forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly
welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and
Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing
the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of
State confirm that this Government will work closely with the
defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our
forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to
increasing threats?
I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The
best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army's
plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is
a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone
technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows
what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It
knows how it will focus its efforts for the future.
Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to
do that.
(Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and I recognise and
appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world.
Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and
HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the
Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government
that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the
strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the
House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of
the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK's
commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?
The statement means no change to the available amphibious
capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been
mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for
them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a
decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more
quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will
need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on
becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he
is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this
matter further.
(Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of
Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and
be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited
budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that
we have to let some things go.
With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017
on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding
operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the
Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was
conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has
remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You
will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew
that at the time, so can we be honest?
On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS
Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may
I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected?
With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk
about the investment in Plymouth required—
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or
Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken.
The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We
do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do
not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can
do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and
Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been
unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about
that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and
Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in
government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a
case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of
the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.
Sir (Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic
defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that
old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member
for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan ) said, America's airfields and
dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies.
We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission
because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is
telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he
not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old
cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that
the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his
clearing out.
The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in
defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument
that the UK's alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and
commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought
and was different from that of some other countries. I have made
it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions
have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of
service has not yet been settled.
On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and
announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first,
that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and
secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating
pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence
review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an
increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions
I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in
the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence
review.
(Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning
up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of
State agree that the decisions outlined in today's statement will
fix the foundations of our nation's defence, spend every penny he
has wisely and keep our nation safer?
My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we
want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources
on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle
that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service
aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army
after four years' service, which I have been able to announce
this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained
them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer
and more productive career in our armed forces.
(Angus and Perthshire Glens)
(SNP)
Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the
Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic
and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the
last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the
situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.
Given the Secretary of State's announcement today, and with one
more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and
frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement
project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available?
What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this
Government moving at a snail's pace, as the last Government did,
on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31
rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet
Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world?
What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that
situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants,
but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend
will be now in the MOD?
It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The
decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the
availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship
was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned,
could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also
behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters
is under way and continues.
(Burton and Uttoxeter)
(Lab)
On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with
the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon
Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families
and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by
everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more
about the support that this Government are giving to service
personnel, veterans and their families?
One of the most important things that this House—never mind the
Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is
to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed
Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who
will improve service life and will be there for those who serve
and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon.
Friend's contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on
becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which
is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences
and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in
this House.
Dr (South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this
statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes
significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these
will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to
make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he,
and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of
the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that
means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable
blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he
also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since
the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before
a replacement can be provided?
Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines
at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this
afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the
complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the
SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced
today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that
somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are
entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the
reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon.
Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid
particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to
undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific,
where it will have validation exercises with some important
allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our
hard power and our soft power in future.
(Dunfermline and Dollar)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear
both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the
previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence
spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that
Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been
spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across
the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure
that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees
can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?
I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in
Scotland. I want Britain's warships to be built in Britain. My
hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the
Government's industrial strategy with the defence sector one of
those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces
for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create
fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a
bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.
Sir (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the
ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he
told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He
simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in
the end. What message will be received from this statement in
Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?
The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to
take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should
have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and
our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and
weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in
future.
(Stevenage) (Lab)
I very much welcome today's statement from the Secretary of
State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about
cuts, when the previous Government's biggest cut was to our armed
forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars.
In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of
our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the
retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed
personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those
who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a
career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future
if they serve?
The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career:
a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who
wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up
for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about
Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we
are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the
first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut
defence by £2 billion.
Sir (Stone, Great Wyrley and
Penkridge) (Con)
If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan )—now that the Secretary of State's
Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak
more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with
the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces
really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have
been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House
that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at
least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in
any way at all?
Given the right hon. Gentleman's experience in this very job, I
will take that as an early representation on the future decisions
I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is
decommissioned.
(Boston and Skegness)
(Reform)
The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform.
One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment,
which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not
billions, of pounds of taxpayers' cash. Will he commit to also
reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces?
Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to
Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?
The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first
focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence,
but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment,
I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove
almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being
recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid
turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I
hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those
who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our
national security.
(South East Cornwall)
(Lab)
With close social and economic ties between communities on both
sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people
in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of
State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the
future?
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to
see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to
arrange that soon.
(Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier
today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the
Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he
has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the
defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future
capabilities that our armed forces will require?
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the
heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and
diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and
nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for
the future and the sort of forces we require for the future.
Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the
moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I
expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around
Devonport's surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a
proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide,
as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches,
an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and
in particular Plymouth and Devonport's role in refitting the
Royal Navy's submarines going forward. As a member of that
south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has
already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically
looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting
plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are
joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that
the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider
south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy
to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting
to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to
deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start
with me, then that is what we can do.
(Halesowen) (Lab)
As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I
really welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the Royal
Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member
for Plymouth Moor View (), I served on HMS Albion, but
that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the
battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the
financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On
reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes
are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the
Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the
failures we saw under the previous Government can never be
repeated?
My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major
Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major
defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means
that the Department is not delivering effectively for the
taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far
reaching and deep, is required.
Mr (Leeds South West and Morley)
(Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today. It is really
good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term
decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I
particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by
today's decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first
month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit
that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to
that 2.5% target. Given that this today's final question, will he
take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but
also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our
armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at
home and strong abroad?
My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the
statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the
announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The
purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make
Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly
what this Government are determined to do.
Points of Order
3.08pm
(South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are now
widespread reports in the media of Storm Shadow missiles being
used in Russian territory for the first time. To be clear, I
entirely sympathise with the Secretary of State in his reluctance
to provide an operational running commentary, but equally he will
appreciate that once these matters are being reported in the
media there may be an expectation among colleagues that we will
hear more in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given
any representations about a possible statement on these matters
by the Ministry of Defence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms )
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of
order. As he will, I believe, be aware, I have been given no
indication that the Secretary of State will be making such a
statement, but the Secretary of State is obviously here and
taking note of what is being said, and if he wishes to comment
either now or later, he has the opportunity to do so.
The Secretary of State for Defence ()
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have
seen, over recent weeks, a significant change in the action and
in the rhetoric on Ukraine, and Ukraine's action on the
battlefield speaks for itself. We, as a nation and as a
Government, are doubling down on our support for Ukraine, and are
determined to do more. When I discussed this with Minister Umerov
in a call yesterday, he talked about Ukraine's robust response to
recent Russian escalations—the escalation in the attacks on
Ukrainian cities and children, the escalation in the attacks on
the energy system, and the escalation that involves deploying
10,000 North Korean troops in combat positions on the frontline.
We also discussed our plans, as the UK, to support the Ukrainians
throughout 2025.
I remain committed to keeping Parliament as fully informed as
possible. The hon. Member for South Suffolk () and the House will, I
think, understand the reasons why, at this point, I am not able
to go into any further operational details.
|
