UK Military Capability Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
(Con) 1. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
UK’s (a) number of military personnel and (b) range of military
capabilities.(904014) The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben
Wallace) The armed forces’ capabilities allow the Ministry of
Defence to meet a range of domestic and global commitments. Defence
is reorganising and re-equipping to face future threats. However,
as I...Request free trial
UK Military Capability
(Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the UK’s
(a) number of military personnel and (b) range of military
capabilities.(904014)
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
The armed forces’ capabilities allow the Ministry of Defence to
meet a range of domestic and global commitments. Defence is
reorganising and re-equipping to face future threats. However, as
I have previously stated, as the threats change, we need to
change with them. Any specific changes related to personnel
numbers or military equipment capabilities will be determined
once the update to the Defence Command Paper has concluded, which
I expect to happen in June.
Mr Speaker
I call John Baron—good to see you back.
Mr Baron
While I am conscious that my right hon. Friend has accepted the
conclusions of last year’s 1922 defence committee report in
drafting his Command Paper, I am also conscious of the fact that
there is real concern, as we are about to hear, about the
integrated review and, indeed, one-off increases. What does he
think it will take for this House to sustainably increase defence
spending, given geopolitical events?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First and foremost, we have been
sustainably increasing our defence since 2020. The Prime Minister
recognises the dangerous world we are in, and in the autumn
statement both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister recognised
the importance of increasing defence spending. The Prime Minister
has obviously talked over the weekend about defence spending.
There will be a Budget later in the week, and then I think there
will be some further discussions to have.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Of course, the former head of the British Army, , said last month:
“The planned cuts in the strength of our army must be
stopped...and fresh investment must pour into our artillery, air
defence, communications and logistic capability.”
What is the Secretary of State, who has overseen some of these
cuts, now going to do to reverse and build back the capacity
and others are calling
for?
Mr Wallace
If the hon. Member had been listening, he would know that, in our
Defence Command Paper, we are investing in air defence,
electronic warfare, signals intelligence and communications—all
the things he has just reeled off—but maybe he did not bother to
listen originally. [Interruption.] I think it is interesting that
Labour Members are heckling. We have not heard about a single
penny of their defence plans in the last few years. Even the
Royal United Services Institute speech by the shadow Secretary of
State himself could not put a finger on the money. First and
foremost, we are investing in our defence, and we have had a
record increase since 2020. That compares with the Labour
Government record: in 1997, they inherited 2.7% of GDP, which
continued to fall all the way through, and only at the very last
minute, when they had a £36 billion black hole, did they try to
rectify it.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am conscious that there is a statement to follow, but may I
just pause and say thank you to the Defence Secretary and his
team for the tireless work they have done in trying to secure
additional funding of £11 billion and an increase in defence
spending of 2.5%? It was not to be, and our military will be
affected by that, not least our land forces. However, I do
welcome the AUKUS agreement, which will secure hundreds of highly
skilled jobs up and down the country. Is any part of the £3
billion of additional funding for the nuclear enterprise part of
the £10 billion reserve for Dreadnought, or is it ringfenced for
the AUKUS procurement programme, and is any of the £5 billion
coming through subject to VAT, which would of course mean that
one fifth of it will go back to the Treasury?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the details
of the announcement. Obviously, the details will come forward in
the Budget. What I can say is that the £2 billion-plus is new
money. It is not part of the reserve or anything else, and it is
separate from the £2.3 billion for Ukraine. It also comes on top
of the £560 million of extra money for weapons and restocking
announced in the autumn statement. On the nuclear chapter, the £3
billion is a recognition of the need for increased defence
capability in that space, but also of the need to invest now in
infrastructure, which, if we do not start now, will not be fit
for purpose when AUKUS starts towards the end of the decade.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
As we understand from the press, and as the right hon. Member for
Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, we anticipate an additional
£5 billion for defence between now and 2025. The Ministry of
Defence has said that the Secretary of State is delighted with
the settlement, which represents a commitment to an upward
trajectory. Given the impact of defence inflation and the
full-scale invasion of Ukraine, what does he make of plans to
reduce the size of the Army to 72,500 by 2025?
Mr Wallace
The reduction in the size of the Army was coupled with record
investment of £24 billion in the armed forces at the same time.
It was also a recognition that the most important thing is to
ensure that we give the men and women of our armed forces,
whichever service they are in, the correct equipment at the
correct time, and create a 360° armed forces. There is no point
in playing a numbers game if we do not equip, house, care for and
deploy people properly. The hon. Gentleman might want to play a
numbers game, but I do not want to turn our soldiers into cannon
fodder.
(North Wiltshire) (Con)
The whole House will be delighted to see you back in your seat,
Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and
the entire team for the battle they have fought with the Treasury
over the past few weeks, but the £5 billion is disappointing,
particularly if £3 billion goes to AUKUS, and £1.9 billion goes
to filling up our warehouses. It actually means a cut in defence
spending, rather than an increase. Nevertheless, I was encouraged
by what the Secretary of State said a moment ago about the Budget
on Wednesday, and various other remarks that seem to indicate
that there may be more money to come. Am I being
over-optimistic?
Mr Wallace
As my hon. Friend will know, all Departments are within their
current comprehensive spending agreement, and the next
comprehensive spending review is due in 18 months to two years’
time. Although all Departments, including those of Defence,
Transport, and Health and Social Care suffer from pressures with
higher inflation, it is right to ensure that we live within the
envelope and, where possible, seek relief for a range of
challenges. That is what I have been seeking for the next two
years with the Treasury. I have also said consistently that the
most important thing is the headmark for the long-term direction
of defence spending, so that it is no longer declining, as it has
done for the past three decades, but is on an upward trajectory.
Since 2020, it has been on that upward trajectory. This grant of
extra money continues that momentum, which is incredibly
important, and I hope that the headmark will soon be announced in
detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
In November, the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee
that
“yes, the inflationary pressure on my budget for the next two
years is about £8 billion”.
From the media briefing at the weekend, we know he has a welcome
£5 billion earmarked for stockpiles and the UK’s nuclear
programme, but the armed forces will see that funding as a defeat
for the MOD in Government. There is no new money for pressures on
the core defence budget or to help deal with capability gaps, or
even to deal with that inflation. The National Audit Office has
already said that the MOD cannot afford the capabilities needed
in the 2021 integrated review, so how will the Secretary of State
ensure that precisely the same does not happen again with today’s
2023 integrated review?
Mr Wallace
What I am going to do, which the right hon. Gentleman’s
Government failed to do, is ensure that the Defence Command Paper
reflects the budget I have. I have always been consistent that
the Government’s ambition should match their stomach, and match
the money. If we do not get that in tandem, we will discover that
black holes grow over the years. The right hon. Gentleman’s
Government was part of that last time, as were previous
Conservative Governments. I have come to this House consistently
to take responsibility for what our Governments have done in the
past, and I would be interested to see whether he will.
In 2010 when Labour left government, we were spending 2.5% of GDP
on defence—a level that has been nowhere near matched in any of
the 13 years since. The Secretary of State is now the
Conservative party’s longest serving Defence Secretary, which
means he has a track record of his own. He has cut the Army to
76,000 with more cuts to come. The Ajax armoured vehicle is six
years late, with still no in-service date. He has cut and delayed
new Wedgetail and Sentry planes, and he has growing doubts from
allies about Britain meeting its NATO obligations in full. Last
month he admitted to the House that forces have been hollowed out
and underfunded with Conservative Governments. Will he accept
that his extra defence funding today can only mean more of the
same?
Mr Wallace
If people came to this House with real, genuine honesty about the
track record of the Governments they were part of, the armed
forces might be in a better position. What we should strive for
is for the men and women of the armed forces to know that their
political leaders are prepared to be clear about past mistakes
and to talk about the future with some honesty. The National
Audit Office report gave a view on the Labour party’s governance
of defence. I have it here, because Labour Members often forget
it. It said that the Department’s poor financial management had
led to a severe funding shortfall of up to £36 billion in defence
spending over the next 10 years.
(North Durham) (Lab)
Not true.
Mr Wallace
So what the National Audit Office says is not true, Madam Deputy
Speaker—it made it up. It said that when the Department signed
the contract for the aircraft carriers, it was aware that the
overall defence budget was unaffordable. Labour Members were
party to the crime at the time, but they will not come to the
House now and be honest about their role in it and the things
that need to be done to fix it in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. We will not have interventions from people who are sitting
down. There are plenty of opportunities to ask questions when you
are standing up.
(South Dorset) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say how nice it is to see you back in
your place? It is a very great pleasure.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his
excellent Front Bench team, because I know for a fact that they
are fighting for every single penny they can get. However, as has
been said, and I must agree, £5 billion is not sufficient to
ensure that our core armed forces are properly equipped and
prepared for—God forbid—something we all dread, as the world
potentially totters towards world war three. What on earth is
going through the minds of Treasury officials?
Mr Wallace
In defence of my colleagues in the Treasury, the Treasury is
trying to balance an economic situation post covid that means we
have to make sure that we cut our cloth and return to an economic
credibility that is so important for growing our tax receipts and
our income. One role I can play is to come to the House and be
honest about the state of our armed forces. I can be honest about
what caused the 30 years of challenge that both my hon. Friend
and I experienced serving in the armed forces, and honest about
what we can do to fix things. That is the first thing. The
Defence Command Paper will ensure that we are very clear on where
we will spend the money to make sure that the future is secure
for the men and women of the armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the SNP spokesman.
(Angus) (SNP)
On military personnel, what is the Secretary of State’s
understanding of the recruitment crisis in defence, with the Army
in particular and especially in the Royal Regiment of Scotland?
The 4th Battalion the Highlanders satisfies almost 20% of its
vacancies from the Commonwealth. Is it the poor service
accommodation, mediocre pay, lack of career opportunities or
substandard equipment that is driving young Scots away from a
career in the British Army?
Mr Wallace
As an officer in a Scottish regiment, I remember distinctly not
being allowed to recruit in towns or schools where SNP
councillors ran those schools. I distinctly remember that the SNP
was so unwelcoming to members of the armed forces it was having a
detrimental effect on recruitment. I would be very interested to
know if the SNP has now changed its tone. It certainly has on
NATO membership. We remember that it used to not want to be part
of NATO; it now does. I do not see the Army categorised as the
hon. Member has just described it. If he carries on talking the
armed forces down like that, no wonder people are not that keen
to join. There has been a recruitment challenge for the infantry
for as long as I was serving in the Army. That is over many, many
years under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We have to
ensure that the offer is improved. That is one reason why we did
wraparound childcare to reflect how people live, and why we are
investing in both married and single accommodation.
The Secretary of State says that he does not recognise the
characterisation, but it is based in fact. Sticking to reality,
where Germany allocates an extra €100 billion in response to
Ukraine, the UK allocates an extra £5 billion. The United States
is frustrated that the British Army is no longer a top-level
fighting force. The RAF takes 10 years to train a pilot in
combat, Army procurement could not order a pizza and get it
delivered on time and on budget, and the Navy barely has enough
F-35s for one aircraft carrier much less two. Is it not the case,
to the great frustration of men and women in uniform, that this
Tory Government over the last 13 years have created an ornamental
defence force—nice to look at; don’t ask it to do very much or
sustain it for very long?
Mr Wallace
I am getting lessons from the SNP on procurement, when Ferguson
shipyard is clinging on by its fingernails. When push comes to
shove, Scotland buys its ferries from Turkey, not from Scotland,
when it has a perfectly good Clyde in which to build them. The
hon. Gentleman goes on about all the things that he thinks are
wrong with the armed forces, yet he will campaign to break
Scotland away from the UK, reduce the Scottish armed forces to a
rubber dinghy and tell everyone else that it is all the fault of
the English. The reality is that Scotland is a proud contributor
to our armed forces—it has been in history and is today. Also,
the accommodation, the experience and the equipment that the
soldiers have today are far better than many of us had in the
early ’90s. It would be nice if, once in a while, the SNP in
Scotland did more than stand in front of ceremonial troops, and
instead got out there and helped to recruit soldiers and helped
the schools to talk about what is important about defence, rather
than always talk it down.
NATO Obligations
(Ogmore) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure that the UK meets its
obligations to NATO. (904015)
(City of Chester) (Lab)
12. What steps he is taking to ensure that the UK meets its
obligations to NATO. (904026)
The Minister for Armed Forces ()
Our commitment to NATO and Euro-Atlantic security is
unconditional. In response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we
have enhanced our force posture in Estonia and have sent warships
and fighter aircraft to south-east Europe and the Mediterranean.
We contribute to every NATO mission and declare the UK’s nuclear
deterrent to NATO. The UK is committed to remaining NATO’s
leading European ally.
A recent report by the Defence Committee raised concerns about
the UK’s lack of ammunition reserves. The Committee said that the
inability to restock our supplies puts at great risk our own
defence, along with our commitments to supporting Ukraine. The
Minister will say that the Department is announcing today that
there are £2 billion-worth of stockpiles, but he cannot magic up
munitions off the shelf—they can take years to be created. What
assurance can he provide to me and the House that the shortage
will not impact our domestic abilities and our wider commitments
to NATO?
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The Select Committee’s
report is being read at the moment and will be responded to as
would be expected. There is an important distinction to make:
only a small proportion of the equipment and stockpiles that we
are providing to the Ukrainians come from the current active
inventory and stockpiles of the UK military. A very large
proportion of the ammunition is at or slightly beyond the date by
which we would normally seek to dispose of it, and an even larger
proportion of it—the majority—is sourced or manufactured from
stockpiles or manufacturing capabilities overseas.
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s earlier unwillingness to
play a numbers game, the reality is that Ministers plan to cut
the size of the Army to 73,000 by 2025, at a time that NATO has
agreed to increase its high readiness forces to 300,000. Will the
updated integrated review halt cuts to Army numbers?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear all
along that if the facts change, so will our approach to force
structure. It is important to note that force size and readiness
are not necessarily directly connected. A future force may
require fewer people because of automation and artificial
intelligence, or it may not. We are studying the lessons from
Ukraine carefully. We came to a clear judgment in the last IR. As
we work towards the publication of a refresh of the defence
Command Paper, we will look at whether the assumptions of the
last Command Paper are still sound.
(Beckenham) (Con)
Could I ask my very good friend the Minister whether the
additional money for defence will allow us to provide more teeth
arm units, plus the support arm units—enablers—to NATO?
It may do. The reality is that we are still providing a large
number of frontline units to NATO, particularly in the maritime
and air domains, but my hon. and gallant Friend’s principal
concern will be about land forces. Even there, the UK continues
to provide the most credible high readiness formations to the
alliance. He made an important point that we can have as many
fighting units as we wish, but without the logistics and the
strategic enablers that get them to the front line, they are not
worth having. The Secretary of State, Front-Bench colleagues and
I have been clear for years that what urgently needs reinvestment
is not a regrowth of our fighting echelon but a re-fleshing out
of the logistics and the enablers, which—for good reasons—over
the last 20 years have not been needed, but now so desperately
are.
(Witney) (Con)
On the point about logistics and enablers mentioned by my right
hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (), when we look at our obligations to NATO and to
Ukraine, particularly on stockpiling and ammunition, are
Ministers looking at what procurement can be done commonly with
NATO allies?
Absolutely. As the House might imagine, the UK is not alone in
rediscovering the importance of stockpiles and strategic enablers
over the last year. It is also not alone in finding out that
industrial capacity cannot be turned on just like that, so
working with allies around the alliance, both through the
alliance itself and bilaterally, is clearly a very attractive
option.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
(Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In this weekend’s newspapers, a senior British military officer
raised doubts about whether the UK could still claim to be a
leading NATO member, because of the hollowing out of the Army’s
war-fighting capabilities. The Minister has so far evaded the
question, but with today’s funding announcement limited to
nuclear enterprise and stockpiles, can he confirm whether it is
still his Department’s policy to cut troop numbers by 10%, to cut
the reserves and to provide no additional funding to plug the
gaps in Britain’s war-fighting capability?
As the representative of a naval constituency, the shadow
Minister does our armed forces a huge disservice in focusing on
simply the Army when looking at our contribution to NATO. The UK
is the only country to commit its entire nuclear deterrent to
NATO; in any given year, the UK commits a number of maritime task
groups to NATO—more than almost any other NATO ally; the UK
commits handsomely to air policing and other air deployments;
and, through the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, the 3rd (United
Kingdom) Division and the various high-readiness Army formations,
the UK contributes prominently in the land domain as well.
Veterans’ Welfare
(Keighley) (Con)
3. What assessment his Department has made of progress on
improving veterans’ welfare. (904016)
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
10. What assessment his Department has made of progress on
improving veterans’ welfare. (904024)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families
( )
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to see you
back? I declare my interest as a veteran.
On 2 March, I jointly commissioned with the Minister for
Veterans’ Affairs a review into the role and scope of Government
welfare provision and services for veterans. This will include
provision by the Ministry of Defence under Veterans UK. The
review will focus on examining the effectiveness and efficiency
of welfare services for veterans, and help it to do better as
part of a programme of continual improvement.
Armed forces breakfast clubs provide vital support and social
opportunities for veterans and serving armed forces personnel. We
have one in Keighley and we are hoping to get one off the ground
in Ilkley. Will the Minister join me in praising those who are
involved in organising them and set out what additional support
the Government can provide for these fantastic veteran-led
organisations?
Dr Murrison
I am really grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is
absolutely right that armed forces and veterans breakfast clubs
are an excellent initiative that have taken root across 14
countries, with 150,000 members. They provide a sense of
belonging and community to many who have served our country. On a
personal level, I like a good Yorkshire breakfast and, if the
opportunity arises, I would love to visit his breakfast club.
My constituent Steve Graham served in our armed forces for over
20 years, travelling the world and finally settling overseas, at
the site of his last posting. Despite being a UK taxpayer, with a
UK home, when he sought to retrain he was required to pay the
full overseas rate and treated as a foreign student in order to
re-educate himself for his post-services life. Will my right hon.
Friend meet me to discuss the case of Mr Graham and other people
who may seek to retrain following long service in our armed
forces, but find themselves facing significant financial barriers
to do so?
Dr Murrison
I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, and of course
I will meet him. At the moment, for an adult to be eligible for
funding for further education, they must ordinarily be resident
in England on the first day of the first academic year of the
course, and throughout the three years immediately preceding that
date. The matter is primarily one for the Department for
Education, as he will know, but I am happy to discuss it with him
and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to
see what we can do on this matter.
(Midlothian) (SNP)
What efforts will be made through the recently announced review
of veterans’ experiences? Following the excellent work of the
survey carried out by the all-party parliamentary group on
veterans, of which I am a vice-chair, what attention will be paid
to the different experiences of veterans in the four nations to
ensure the best possible outcomes? Sadly, they appear in many
cases to have been overlooked and ignored.
Dr Murrison
I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman and his co-chairs
later this week, I think, when we can discuss the matter in some
depth. I am absolutely sympathetic to the notion that we need to
do more for veterans, of course, which is one reason why I have
instituted the review to which I have referred. We need to be
consciously aware of the lived experience in each one of the four
nations of this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
(Luton South) (Lab)
A review of veteran welfare services is long overdue, but I might
remind the Minister that it is his Government who have been
responsible for worsening veterans services over the past 13
years. Veterans’ mental health waiting times are a week longer
than last year, veterans are having to rely on charitable support
just to get by, and veteran ID cards are nowhere to be seen for
many. Action is needed now to fix these failures, so will the
Minister tell the House when we can expect the review to be
completed and its findings to be published?
Dr Murrison
We are recruiting a person to run the review right now. I
anticipate the review being completed within three months, if
that gives the hon. Lady an idea of timelines. Just so that there
is no misunderstanding, may I give an indication of the
appreciation or otherwise for the services provided by Vets UK?
There were 122 complaints since April last year, versus 1,715
thank you letters. To be clear, the people at Norcross who are
working on behalf of veterans—I have visited them; she probably
has not—are doing a sterling job and are highly committed to what
they do.
Ukraine: NATO Allies
(Putney) (Lab)
5. What steps the Government are taking to support NATO allies in
responding to the invasion of Ukraine. (904018)
(Blaydon) (Lab)
7. What steps the Government are taking to support NATO allies in
responding to the invasion of Ukraine. (904021)
The Minister for Armed Forces ()
The UK has provided substantial support to our NATO allies as we
continue a united response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
Over the past 12 months, the Royal Air Force has been deployed in
Romania and Lithuania and across the Mediterranean and has
completed patrols over the Black sea. We continue to contribute
to NATO air activity across Europe. The Army has been deployed in
Bulgaria, Romania and Estonia, where we have our enhanced forward
presence battle groups. The Royal Navy has completed a major
European deployment from the North sea to the Mediterranean. Our
UK armed forces continue to strengthen interoperability with
Finland and Sweden in anticipation of their accession to NATO.
Beyond the US armed forces, no nation has contributed more.
Are the Government working with NATO allies to set up a full 2023
action plan for Ukraine specifically—for military, economic,
diplomatic and humanitarian support to help to give Ukraine
confidence in a sustained stream of future supplies, to urgently
ramp up our own industry, to encourage allies to do more across
NATO and to make it clear to Putin that things will get worse,
not better, for Russia?
The hon. Lady asks an excellent question, but I hope that she
will not mind if I draw an important distinction. NATO is not
involved in the planning of or in direct support of the Ukrainian
war effort. That is a really important point, because Putin
claims the exact opposite to the Russian public and is entirely
wrong to do so. Those who support Ukraine do so as an alliance of
friends of Ukraine outwith NATO, but of course NATO is invariably
supportive of the work that we are doing.
The hon. Lady is right to observe that NATO has a job of work to
do to strengthen its eastern flank, to provide wider deterrence
against any sort of growth or escalation in the conflict and to
make sure that the lessons of modern peer-on-peer war fighting in
Ukraine are learned by the entire alliance, and learned
quickly.
Labour has fully backed moves to bolster NATO allies in response
to the illegal invasion of Ukraine. What steps is the UK taking
to ensure that our NATO obligations in respect of enhanced
forward presence are completely fulfilled?
In the immediate response to Russia’s illegal invasion of
Ukraine, we doubled the size of the battle group in Estonia as a
further show of support for the Estonian Government and
recognition of the importance of the enhanced forward presence
category. We have also contributed to EFP battlegroups in Poland
and Romania in the last 12 months. What will change, and what was
announced at the summit in Madrid, is that there will be a new
NATO regional defence plan, which will be an evolution of the
in-place EFP battlegroups, alongside national defence plans. Of
course the UK will be very supportive of the plan in the region
that NATO assigns to us, but that is very much under review, and
the UK looks forward to hearing the details from NATO once it has
finished its work.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Following the very successful Franco-British summit at the end of
last week—which was the fruit of an enormous cross-Government
effort—does the Minister agree that renewing the bilateral
defence partnership with France, the second largest European
contributor to NATO, is an important part of not just
strengthening the NATO alliance but enhancing European security,
particularly in the east?
I really do. It is noteworthy that while relations elsewhere in
Government may have been slightly more fraught, within the UK and
French Defence Ministries the relationship has remained very
tight, and necessarily so. The interdependence between the UK and
France is very obvious. Our industrial collaboration is
widespread, and will grow as a consequence of last week’s
summit—and it is not just in the far east that the UK and France
can work together, but in west Africa, where our interests are
also very keenly aligned.
Defence Procurement
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the
defence procurement system. (904019)
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
We are driving the delivery of capability in the frontline. Most
of our programmes are delivering on time and on budget. For the
second year in a row under my stewardship, the Ministry of
Defence has set out an affordable 10-year equipment plan to
ensure that our armed forces are being given what they need while
living within their means.
Defence procurement is essential to the success of a domestic
steel industry, but, as the Secretary of State will know, the UK
is currently the only country in the G20 in which steel
production is declining. Given that steel is a vital industry of
national security importance, will the Secretary of State ensure
that we do not see a repetition of what happened with the fleet
solid support contract, under which an overseas lead contractor
had no obligation to use UK steel in the construction of UK Navy
ships?
Mr Wallace
We always try to use as much UK steel as possible where we can,
and when we do not, it is often because we do not manufacture the
type of steel that needs to be used in a certain type of product.
As for the fleet solid support ships, whether Navantia is part of
the consortium or not, the hon. Gentleman should not listen to
the union briefing. He will find that across the provision of
those ships there will be plenty of British components—in fact,
they will be in the majority—and the full integration of the
ships will take place in a yard in Northern Ireland.
(Ludlow) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State update the House on the status of the
Ajax procurement programme? I understand that the supply chain is
being geared up to produce 589 vehicles.
Mr Wallace
As my right hon. Friend will know, the Ajax was decided on in, I
think, March 2010, under a Labour Government. As I have often
said, it has been a troubled programme. Since I have taken over
this office, we have sought to rectify the issue on almost a
weekly basis, and with the determination of both the former
Minister for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Horsham (), and the current Minister, my
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (). The vehicle has passed its
user validation trials and is now undergoing its basic field
trials. It is doing extremely well, and I am given a weekly
update.
Although the programme is being delayed—and we are doing our best
to rectify that—overall it has not cost a single extra penny,
because the contract, which was agreed under the Conservative
Government after the selection of the vehicle by the Labour
party, involved a fixed price. Yes, the programme is being
delayed, but we are fixing it, and it is showing good
progress.
(North Durham) (Lab)
May I say first that if the Secretary of State is going to quote
the National Audit Office, he should read the entire statement
rather than doing so selectively?
In large, multibillion-pound contracts in the private sector, a
project lead with expertise is usually put in place for a number
of years. In defence procurement, well-meaning and committed
individuals with very little expertise in project management are
there for a short period. Is it not time to look at the ways in
which we project-manage these large multi-year contracts, and to
move from what appears to some to be an amateur approach to a
more professional one?
Mr Wallace
I do not disagree with some of the right hon. Gentleman’s
observations. Consistency in these programmes is incredibly
important. As he will know, some of them, even when on track, can
be 20-year programmes, and consistency is important. It is not
just about the senior responsible owners, by whom those
programmes are led, but he is right to suggest that we are
seeking to see whether we can have more longer-term or permanent
SROs. They are accompanied by programme deliverers from Defence
Equipment and Support in Bristol, who are more permanent.
There are lots of lessons to be learned about procurement, some
of which are within our gift to fix. Some of them, sadly, have
been observed as problems for decades, and we only have to the
read numerous reports from the last Labour Government and my
Government to know that they have not always been rectified. Some
are out of our control owing to inflation, change of threat or
changing technology, or because they involve an international
consortium in which we have less control when we start. An
example is the Typhoon, which is a four-nation project. Sometimes
it is harder to control those projects. Overall, in my experience
the key is that we have to manage expectations, get our pricing
right, seek consistency of skills and reward that skills base for
the long term. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely on
that.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that defence procurement is a
complex issue but not the total disaster that it is often
presented as? When compared with the naval procurement of some of
our closest allies—for example, the United States ended up
spending $5 billion per destroyer in the Zumwalt class and the
Canadians took over 30 years to procure a ship—the MOD produces
Type 26s, Type 31s, aircraft carriers, hunter-killer submarines
and more under a fixed price, showing that it tries to do its
best in always tight financial circumstances.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who served with me in the
Department. I miss his time in the Department. One of the biggest
drivers of cost overruns is a decision by the Government of the
day to defer decisions about whether they should cut or delete
something. Deferring the aircraft carrier under the Labour
Government cost £1 billion. Deferring the F-35 buy under this
Government cost about £500 million. If we defer things, they cost
more in the long run. That is always the battle that the MOD has
with the Treasury and others. That is one of the fundamental
challenges and one of the cost drivers. However, many other
projects are delivered on time and successfully and our men and
women in the armed forces have some of the world-leading
equipment they need to do their job.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister, .
(Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
May I join the other voices welcoming you back to your position,
Madam Deputy Speaker? I think I speak on behalf of everyone when
I say that the House has missed your ability to turn people to
stone with just a few words when they fall foul of the rules in
this place.
Much of the innovation in the defence industry comes from the
small and medium-sized enterprise sector. However, many SMEs tell
me that there are real barriers to entry and to gaining access to
Government contracts, and that when they do gain that access,
they find that some primes are slow to pay, especially when
projects are delayed. This leaves them demotivated and
demoralised and with a poor experience of working with the
Ministry of Defence. How will the Secretary of State ensure that
SMEs have better access and are encouraged to be involved in a
thriving British defence industry?
Mr Wallace
I recognise some of those characteristics of SMEs. For decades
they have said that there is a challenge in engaging with wider
Government procurement, whether it is in defence or anything
else. I also recognise, as the guardian of the taxpayer, that one
of the challenges is that risk is involved. If we commission an
SME to build something large, the amount of risk it takes in
relation to infrastructure is a challenge; we cannot get halfway
through a project and then have the SME fail.
However, I think that changes to the battlefield will open the
aperture much wider for SMEs to engage with Defence. What we have
seen in Ukraine through Operation Kindred is that the winners are
the SMEs. The ability for us to cut through the regulations that
normally govern procurement, because we are procuring for someone
else in a warzone, has enabled us to effectively go straight to
the marketplace and straight to SMEs, and some of the big winners
have been SMEs in innovation and space. We will know the results
and whether they work when they get to Ukraine.
I think this is an exciting time. I recognise the narrative that
the hon. Gentleman mentions, which has been around since I worked
in the aerospace sector, but of course we should and must do
more. When we have a big exciting project, such as the next
generation of fighter aircraft—the global combat air programme—or
the carrier alliance, it is important that something sits over
the top of it to ensure that SMEs are forced in if the primes get
in the way.
Veterans’ Welfare
(Nottingham North)
(Lab/Co-op)
8. What recent steps Veterans UK has taken to support veterans
and their families. (904022)
Dame (Wallasey) (Lab)
9. What recent steps Veterans UK has taken to support veterans
and their families. (904023)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families
( )
I look forward to the outcome of the review of welfare services,
which was cited earlier. In the meantime, the Ministry of Defence
is investing more than £40 million in digitising old paper-based
practices, improving processes and creating a single entry point
for pensions and compensation by the end of 2024. We have
successfully launched a new digital claims service for
compensation and pension schemes, making it easier for our people
to process their claims. Over time, this will make a very big
difference.
The Minister says the review is under way. Of course, a review is
already under way on the armed forces compensation scheme, with
its initial findings stating that the processes are burdensome
and even distressing for claimants, which is especially
concerning as there has been a fall in the proportion of
successful claims from 66% to 47%. Can the Minister confirm that
the review is still ongoing, when it might report and what he
thinks is happening?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is correct that the final report will be
delivered within, I hope, a few weeks. He will have to await the
Government’s response, of course, but it ties in with some of the
findings of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, which
we discussed earlier. I am concerned about any reports that the
service is not as good as it ought to be. I will take that review
and the APPG’s findings extremely seriously, but I am bound to
cite the fact that there were 122 complaints versus 1,715 thank
you letters, which I find persuasive in forming a conclusion that
the people working for Veterans UK are working hard and doing
their very best in quite difficult circumstances in the interests
of people who serve or have served our country.
Dame
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
My constituents have had similar problems trying to engage with
the quinquennial review of the armed forces compensation scheme.
They find it slow to make decisions, difficult to engage with and
not user-friendly. When the Minister publishes the review’s
findings, I hope he will come back to the House to explain how he
will make the system much easier for veterans to engage with, as
my constituents have told me it is very difficult indeed.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I said earlier, I cannot
overstate how important it is that we are increasingly digitising
the service. When people go to Norcross and see the mountains of
paperwork that Veterans UK is having to cope with, they begin to
understand how vital it is that we properly digitise the service
and bring it into the 21st century, which is our intention.
The hon. Lady might like to know, because it is a barometer or
litmus test of how the service is doing, that the proportion of
armed forces compensation scheme cases going to tribunal has been
falling since 2014-15, which balances some of the remarks we have
heard about Veterans UK not being up to scratch. We need to
review it, which is what we are doing, but I am convinced that
the service will be better than it is at the moment, if that is
of any reassurance.
Topical Questions
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities.(904040)
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
Today’s questions have rightly focused on support for our friends
in Ukraine, but it is important to remember that threats are
growing elsewhere in the world. The middle east continues to
harbour terrorism, which is why the UK still supports the
Government of Iraq as part of the global coalition against
Daesh.
I want to update the House on a strike that took place a few
weeks ago, as is our agreement on strikes under Operation Shader.
In late December, an RAF Reaper remotely piloted aircraft
conducted a strike against a leading Daesh member in al-Bab,
northern Syria. The individual’s activity was related to chemical
and biological weapons. The Reaper’s crew minimised potential
risk to civilians before firing two Hellfire missiles, both of
which struck the target accurately. These actions are vital to
degrading such terrorist threats, protecting British citizens and
supporting our international partners.
Mr Carmichael
I think we can all accept that there is a legitimate role for the
security services in combating disinformation campaigns from
foreign, hostile states. However, a recent report from the
campaign group Big Brother Watch showed that in 2020 a number of
British citizens had their social media posts featured in
monitoring reports produced for the Cabinet Office by the British
Army’s 77th Brigade. Will the Secretary of State tell the House:
is the 77th Brigade still monitoring social media posts of
British citizens, and, if so, for what purpose and under what
authority?
Mr Wallace
One part of the 77th Brigade’s role is to challenge
disinformation, not opinion—its role is not to monitor or counter
opinion, as that is about the freedom we all enjoy in our
society. The 77th Brigade is on the lookout for media
manipulation of misinformation or lies from abroad, and where
that is found, it is flagged to the appropriate authorities. I am
happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with fuller details
about what legal authorities it functions under, but I assure him
that if at any stage I have seen anything that I think crosses
that line, I have, in writing, made sure that is known and it is
stopped.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
T3. Welcome back, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is great to see you.I
was going to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
the statistics that he has heard many times about proportions of
GDP spent on defence both during and after the cold war—they are
a lot higher than those of the present day. May I instead ask him
to bear in mind when negotiating with the Treasury that any
investment made in defence now for the purposes of conventional
deterrence will be miniscule compared with what we would have to
spend if, heaven forbid, the war in Ukraine escalated into a war
with NATO? Such spending is an investment; it is not expenditure
that should be lightly considered. It is essential for our future
security.(904041)
Mr Wallace
I completely concur with my right hon. Friend. Defence is not a
discretionary spend and not an add-on; it is a core function of
any state and especially of this Government. I have been very
grateful since 2020 that we have turned the corner on this and
started to rebuild that momentum. The extra money that I have got
for this week is continuing that momentum, but he is right to say
that the important thing here is that deterrence is cheaper than
having to go to fight the war if it goes wrong, as we see when we
look at the cost to the people of Ukraine and to their economy.
We need to make people change this culture that we have got used
to since probably the early 1990s where somehow defence is
discretionary—it is not. I am pleased that the Prime Minister
recognises that, as he did when he was Chancellor in 2020, and we
need to continue on that trajectory.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
The House will be thankful and grateful to the Defence Secretary
for updating it on the latest Op Shader activity. If there are
any questions that cannot be raised this afternoon, we will
return to them. On tonight’s AUKUS announcement in San Diego,
does the Defence Secretary recognise that this has Labour’s
fullest support? We want Britain to play the biggest possible
role in building the new Australian submarines. But beyond the
subs, how will he develop the pillar 2 collaboration on
artificial intelligence, cyber and hypersonic missiles?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for
AUKUS, which is a decades-long commitment. People talk about
procurement challenges, and when we start this journey on
submarines that will be delivered in the 2030s and 2040s, with
some going on to the 2050s, it is not a journey we can stop
halfway along or stop for a break in. To go back to the comments
made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir
), let me say that sometimes
parts of the Treasury struggle with that concept, so I am
grateful for the extra money. AUKUS pillar 2 is incredibly
important. It is about the next generation’s technology. One of
the most important works we are doing—and we met in the Pentagon
in December—is clearing away the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations challenges that for so many years have held us back
in being able to share our own technology with the United States
or to collaborate properly to make a step change to give us the
strategic advantage we need. We are going to be working on that,
and I am happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman in detail on the
future of the pillar 2.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
T5. France is our closest security partner other than the United
States, so can my right hon. Friend update the House on his
meeting with his French counterpart? How will we continue to
ensure that our historic defence partnership is ready to take on
the threats of the future?(904043)
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is incredibly right to point out how important
France is to us. It is our main partner in Europe. It has
similar-sized armed forces, with a similar expeditionary status
and ambition. I speak to my colleague almost every two
weeks—sometimes every week. I spoke to him twice last week,
including my visit at the beginning of the week. A partnership on
which we worked was more of the CJEF—the Combined Joint
Expeditionary Force—where we work with them, training and
exercising together; there is more work on complex weapons
through MBDA, which is a great international consortium with
factories in Bolton and Stevenage; and we are working together to
make sure that we have the same requirements in shared
operations, where we can work together in areas such as West
Africa, where British, French and European interests are under
threat from the likes of Wagner.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving such thorough
answers, which I am sure the House appreciates, but I ask him to
be a little quicker, because it would be good if we managed to
get everybody in. I call .
(Newport West) (Lab)
T4. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you back
in your rightful place.Labour’s dossier of waste in the MOD has
found that at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money has been
wasted since 2010, so can the Minister explain to people in my
constituency of Newport West why this Tory Government have failed
to get a grip of the defence procurement process and have failed
to secure value for money for the taxes that they
pay?(904042)
Mr Wallace
I would point the hon. Lady’s constituents to the 2010 National
Audit Office report on her Government which gave some really
interesting clues about why procurement was so bad. It said that
the Department under her Government contracted for aircraft
carriers when it knew that that was not affordable. Or perhaps I
could point her to the Public Accounts Committee, then chaired by
the right hon. Member for Barking ( ), who said:
“Delays and cancellations to programmes”—
this is about the land systems under her Government—
“have resulted in gaps in armoured vehicle capability that will
not be filled until 2025.”
There are lots of clues for the hon. Lady’s constituents—she
should direct them to those reports.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
T8. May I, too, say that it is great to see you back in your
place, Madam Deputy Speaker?I will try to keep this brief for the
Secretary of State. The Clive Sheldon KC review of management
information surrounding Ajax has been with the Department for
over a month, I think. Given its importance, can the Minister
guarantee, first, that it will be published by the Easter recess,
and secondly, that it will be published fully
unredacted?(904046)
The Minister for Defence Procurement ()
I thank my right hon. Friend for his proper concern about this
issue. The Sheldon review was and is entirely independent of
Government, and it provided an initial draft to the MOD at the
end of January. Since then, Mr Sheldon has been conducting a
fact-checking and Maxwellisation exercise as part of the final
stages of drafting. The timeframe, in an independent review, is
not a matter for the Department. Once received, however, I can
say that it will be published with all expedition, accompanied by
a statement to the House.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
T6. It is good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.The
Prime Minister spoke to journalists earlier today about the
integrated review refresh, so we know that there is no target for
reaching the 2.5% of GDP for defence spending and that the Army
will not get the £3 billion that it needs to avoid making further
cuts. Is this a good deal for Defence?(904044)
Mr Wallace
First, I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets that we will
not get the 3% to avoid the cuts. At the moment, it will be a
decision on the balance of investments. He will see in the
Command Paper how we apportion any savings that we have to make
as a result of inflation, but overall, as I have said, our
equipment programme and, indeed, our envelope are on track,
subject to inflation pressures and extra operational commitments
that we have made. He will also be aware that we have had an
extra £560 million on top of that for restocking ammunition, and
we have also had commitments from the Treasury on new for old and
much of the gifting. I believe that the Army will be in a good
state throughout this process, and I will make sure that when it
comes to the Defence Command Paper, he gets a full read-out of
why and how we make those decisions.
(Filton and Bradley Stoke)
(Con)
T10. What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to
support small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector
that are adversely affected by the application of environmental,
social and governance criteria, making it very difficult for them
to raise capital to invest in their business and
expand?(904048)
My hon. Friend is a champion of SMEs, and rightly so: they are at
the heart of a vibrant and flexible UK defence industry. That is
why this Department helps to find and fund exploitable ideas from
SMEs. To his point, however, there is nothing contradictory
between the principles of ESG and the defence industry. On the
contrary, strong national defence is the ultimate guarantor of
the freedoms that all too often are taken for granted—human
rights, democracy and the international rules-based order.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
T7. It is good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Thousands of retired Gurkha soldiers who left the Army before
1997 live in considerable poverty, many of them in my
constituency. I understand that there are ongoing negotiations
between the Ministry and the Government of Nepal, and I would be
grateful if the Secretary of State or a Minister could update me
on this important issue.(904045)
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families
( )
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I recently set up a joint
committee, chaired by me and the Nepalese ambassador, to consider
outstanding Gurkha welfare issues. I must tell him that
retrospective pension changes in respect of the Gurkhas have been
through the system several times, including the High Court, the
Supreme Court and the European judicial institutions, and the
long-standing position of the UK Government has been upheld.
However, I am keen to see that we do everything in our power to
ensure that we give Gurkhas and Gurkha veterans living in the UK
and in Nepal the very best we reasonably can to support their
welfare.
(Devizes) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Government are committing £2
billion to resupply the armed forces for the munitions and
equipment sent to Ukraine. That is very positive news. What my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the
importance of investing in Army accommodation will also be very
welcome news to my constituents in Tidworth, Bulford and
Larkhill. In the spirit of honesty that he spoke about, can he
tell us what he thinks it would take to convince the Treasury
that we must do more than simply resupply our armed forces, and
that we need a bigger Army, not a smaller one?
Mr Wallace
I do not need to do much more to convince the Treasury; the
Chancellor and the Prime Minister said at the autumn statement
that they recognised that Defence would need more spending. They
have crossed that line, and in fact they already knew that: the
Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, gave us the extra £24
billion, and hon. Members will remember that the current
Chancellor stood on a platform for a greater percentage of GDP
when he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party. The
key is now to ensure that we lock that spending in to get a long
timeframe, so that we can start the investment and planning that
will be required at the next comprehensive spending review and
beyond.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
T9. It is great to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy
Speaker. To be fair to the Defence Secretary, he has been very
candid that 13 years of this Government have, in his words,
“hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces, but why should
anyone believe that, in their final gasps, the exhausted
Government who underfunded them over 13 years will actually put
right the hollowing-out they have put in place in that
time?(904047)
Mr Wallace
Maybe the hon. Gentleman cannot hear: I did not say “13”; I said
there had been “30” years of hollowing out, which includes his
last Government, a Government I served under as a soldier. His
Government spent a lot of money going to war in the middle east,
which hollowed us out too, because we were not properly refunded.
If he wants to come to this House and start a debate about
Defence, I would appreciate it if he did so with a bit of candour
about his own Government’s role in it. We have done that—I have
had the courage to do that—so maybe he might.
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(Con)
I thank Carshalton and Wallington residents who have opened their
homes to Ukrainians. Can my right hon. Friend give me some
assurance that the kit we are sending to Ukraine will indeed come
with the specialist support and training needed to operate
it?
Mr Wallace
In the UK, we have thousands of British armed forces, joined by
Canadians, Norwegians, Dutch, Swedish, Lithuanians, Australians
and New Zealanders—endless numbers of people—helping the
Ukrainians with that training. We ensure that not only do they
train there, but when they go to somewhere such as Germany they
get combined arms training. It is important that training
accompanies equipment and, where we have had feedback, we have
corrected the training as well.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have really missed you. Can I ask the
Secretary of State what he makes of what President Xi has been
saying over the past few days? I urge him today not to do what
people are rumouring that he might do—that, given the present
situation, he might be thinking about resigning. Will he stay
with us, but fight for more money for our armed forces?
Mr Wallace
As a Tory, you think about resigning most of the time—over the
years. I am interested in trying to deliver for the men and women
of our armed forces. I went into politics because the men and
women of the armed forces needed and deserved better, and I am
determined to try to stick that through. But I am also worried
about the direction of threat for this country and for the world:
not only what we have seen in China, as I think has been
quoted—equipping for war, as they announced last week—but we have
seen 83.4% enriched uranium being discovered, as the
International Energy Agency has published in its report. That is
weeks away from 90%, weapons-grade, should that be a decision. I
have seen a growing problem with Russia and its violent extremism
spreading across Africa. The threat is going up across the world,
and we are more anxious and more unstable. I think that means
long-term investment from whoever the Governments are over the
next 10 to 15 years.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call to ask the final
question.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is lovely to see
you back. As a former chair of the south-east region for the
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, I have seen at first
hand the long shelves at Norcross where Veterans UK is based. Can
the Minister assure me that the digitalisation of veterans’
records will proceed quickly, so that veterans can get quick
decisions on their welfare and their welfare claims?
Dr Murrison
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s service with the VAPC. Like me,
she has been to Norcross and seen the extraordinary files of
paperwork. There is no way that we can provide the 21st-century
service that our veterans deserve while things are in that state,
so the £40 million digitalisation—though it may sound banal—will
most certainly make a huge difference. Where we can, we will also
address the other things that delay claims; I am thinking
particularly of the difficulties we often have with our medical
advisers getting reports from GPs in the NHS. I am afraid that
that is one of the major hurdles to getting these things dealt
with in a timely way, but I am resolved that we should do our
level best to make sure things are better going forward.
|
