The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace) With
permission, I would like to make a statement on the publication of
our refreshed defence Command Paper. It is just over two years
since we published the original Command Paper in March 2021. In
those two years, our security has been challenged in so many ways.
This is Defence’s response to a more contested and volatile world.
In the last four years that I have been Defence Secretary, I have
been consistent about...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the
publication of our refreshed defence Command Paper. It is just
over two years since we published the original Command Paper in
March 2021. In those two years, our security has been challenged
in so many ways. This is Defence’s response to a more contested
and volatile world.
In the last four years that I have been Defence Secretary, I have
been consistent about the reform I have sought to implement. I
want Defence to be threat-led—understanding and acting on the
threats facing our nation as our sole mission; not protecting
force structures, cap badges or much-loved equipment but ensuring
that we are focused on challenging threats.
I want the Ministry of Defence to be a campaigning Department,
adopting a more proactive posture, and our forces more forward
and present in the world, with a return to campaigning
assertively and constantly, pushing back those threats and our
adversaries. I want Defence to be sustainable in every sense. For
too long, Defence was hollowed out by both Labour and
Conservative Governments, leaving our forces overstretched and
underequipped. We must match our ambitions to our resources, our
equipment plans to our budget, and take care of our people to
sustain them in their duties. We must never forget the travesty
of the Snatch Land Rovers in Afghanistan.
The 2021 defence Command Paper was true to those principles and,
with some tough choices, presented an honest plan for what we can
and will achieve: a credible force, capable of protecting the
nation, ready to meet the threats of today but investing heavily
to modernise for those of the future; a force in which every
major platform would be renewed by 2035, from armoured vehicles
to Dreadnought submarines, frigates to satellites.
We did not plan on issuing a new Command Paper just two years on.
Many of the conclusions of that Command Paper remain right:
Russia was and is the greatest threat to European security, and
China’s rapid military modernisation and growing assertiveness in
the Indo-Pacific and beyond do pose an increasing challenge to us
all. However, I have always said that as the situation changes,
we must change with it. Since the first DCP was released, the
world has shifted once more, from a competitive age to a
contested and volatile world. The technology advances we
predicted materialised. The threats and challenges we feared have
manifested.
There is no more immediate threat than Russia. Its full-scale
invasion of Ukraine was not simply an assault on a proud and
sovereign nation but an attack on all our values, European
security and the open international order on which stability and
prosperity have depended for over three quarters of a century.
Right now, the people of Ukraine are suffering the tragic
consequences of President Putin’s illegal, unprovoked invasion.
His naked aggression and imperial ambitions have played out in a
tragedy of epic human suffering. The brave citizen soldiers of
the armed forces of Ukraine are protecting their own nation and
people, quite heroically taking on the once mighty Russian
forces. The whole House recognises that they fight not just for
their freedom but for ours. They are not just liberating their
homeland but defending the rules-based system.
As Defence Secretary it is important to import the lessons
learned from the conflict to our own forces. While I wish such
lessons were generated in a different war, the conflict has
become an incubator of new ways of war. They are proving the way
for warfare in the 2020s—whole of nation, internationally
partnered, innovative, digitised, operating with a tempo,
precision and range requirement and a recognition that there is a
trade-off between assurance levels and operational impact.
I am proud, too, of the role the UK is playing in supporting
Ukraine, whether providing equipment, training or political
support, or galvanising European and international allies and
industrial partners to do likewise. But the return of war to the
continent of Europe, alongside growing threats elsewhere in the
world, has meant that we must sharpen our approach. The
integrated review refresh published in March outlined how we
would do that. It would shape the global strategic environment,
increase our focus on deterrence and defence, address
vulnerabilities that leave our nation exposed and invest in the
UK’s unique strengths.
Defence is central to all those efforts. That is why, after three
decades in which all parties have continued drawing the post
cold-war peace dividend, this Prime Minister reversed that trend
and provided Defence with an additional £24 billion over four
years. He and the Chancellor have gone further since, in response
to the war in Ukraine. Next year we will spend over £50 billion
on defence for the first time in our history. That is nearly £12
billion a year more cash investment than when I became Defence
Secretary in 2019—a real-terms increase of more than 10%. This
Government have committed to increasing spending yet further over
the longer term to 2.5% of GDP, as we improve the fiscal position
and grow our economy.
Our defence plans, and the armed forces to deliver them, must be
robust and credible—not fantasy force designs, unfunded gimmicks
or top trump numbers. As Russia has so effectively proven, there
is no point having parade ground armies and massed ranks of men
and machines if they cannot be integrated as a single, full
spectrum force, sustained in the field under all the demands of
modern warfighting. That takes professional forces, well equipped
and rapidly adaptable, supported by critical enablers and vast
stockpiles of munitions. That is why in this document, hon.
Members will not find shiny new announcements, comms-led policies
driving unsustainable force designs or any major new platforms
for military enthusiasts to put up on their charts on their
bedroom wall. We stand by the Command Paper we published in 2021
but we must get there faster, doing defence differently and
getting ourselves on to a campaign footing to protect the nation
and help it prosper.
As I said standing here when DCP21 was announced, we owe it to
the men and women of our armed forces to make policy reality. The
work was just beginning. In this refresh, we have focused on how
to drive the lessons of Ukraine into our core business and on how
to recover the warfighting resilience needed to generate credible
conventional deterrence. The great advantage of having served in
Defence for some time is that my ministerial team and I have now
taken a proper look under the bonnet. Consequently, we are
clear that our strategic advantage derives from four key sources
which require urgent prioritisation.
First and foremost are our first-class people. Our men and women
are not just brave and committed, but talented and incredibly
skilled. They are our real battle-winning capability. It is our
duty to ensure they are as well supported, prepared and equipped
as possible, so we are going to invest in them. Last year, I
commissioned Richard Haythornthwaite to conduct the first review
of workforce incentivisation for almost 30 years. It is such good
work that we are incorporating the response into our Command
Paper, and today I am unveiling a new employment model and skills
framework for our armed forces. It will offer our people a
spectrum of service that allows far greater career flexibility,
making it easier for military personnel to zig-zag between
different roles, whether regular or reserve, or between the civil
service and industry.
We are transforming our forces’ overall employment offer by
adopting a total reward approach to provide a much more
compelling and competitive incentivisation package. Since all our
armed forces personnel deserve the best quality accommodation, we
are injecting a further £400 million to improve our service
accommodation in the next two years. Many of us over Christmas
will have been frustrated by the poor support our service
personnel and their families received from those tasked with
looking after their accommodation. It is for that reason that I
have withheld their profit and used the money to freeze for one
year only the rent increases our personnel were due to pay. Taken
together alongside such initiatives as wraparound childcare, they
are intended to enrich careers and enhance the ability of our
most talented people to keep protecting the British people, and
to ensure they are rewarded and fulfilled while they do so.
Our second priority is further strengthening our scientific and
technological base. We are already world leaders in specific
areas, but to continue outmatching our adversaries we must stay
ahead of the curve in digital, data and emerging scientific
fields. In 2021, we said we would invest £6.6 billion in advanced
research and development. In fact, we are now investing
significantly more to stay ahead in the technologies proving
themselves vital on the battlefields of Ukraine, such as AI,
quantum and robotics. We are enabling a culture of innovation
across Defence, pulling through those R&D breakthroughs to
the frontline. Following in Ukraine’s footsteps, we are
increasingly sourcing the £100 solutions that can stop £100
million threats in their tracks, winning both the kinetic and
economic exchanges of modern warfare.
Of course, our ability to do that depends on the quality of our
relationship with the industry, which is our third priority. I am
pushing the Ministry of Defence to form a closer alliance with
our industrial partners. A genuine partnership to sustain our
defence will mean doing things differently. Ukraine reminds us
that time waits for no one. It is no good holding out for the
100% solution that is obsolete by the time it is launched. Often,
80% is good enough, especially if it means swiftly putting kit
into the hands of our service personnel. Capabilities can be
rapidly upgraded, spirally developed, for the relentless cycles
of battlefield adaptation to win the innovation battle. Instead
of sticking to acquisition programmes that drag on for decades,
we are setting maximum delivery periods of five years for
hardware and three years for digital programmes.
Our fourth priority is productivity and campaigning. To face this
increasingly contested and volatile world, we need to make major
changes to the machinery of the Department and its methods. We
are emphasising an ethos focused ruthlessly on the delivery of
real-world effect, increasing the bang for buck in everything we
do. This approach reaches into every part of the Defence
enterprise, from the front line to the back office, and involves
a major redesign of the Department. We must shift our whole
organisational culture away from the previous peacetime mentality
to one where we live and operate as we would fight, focusing more
on outputs than inputs and achieving a better balance between
risk and reward. That means empowering people to live and operate
alongside partners, and sometimes to be enabled by them when in
lower threat environments. That means ensuring our equipment,
whether Type 31, Challenger 3, or Typhoons, has the
infrastructure and supplies needed to sustain operations more of
the time and to deliver real-world effect wherever and whenever
it is needed. And it means working with the relevant regulatory
authorities, for example the Military Aviation Authority, to
accelerate the experimentation, testing and innovating of new
technologies, while remaining within legal bounds.
I want to emphasise one final aspect of the Command Paper
refresh, namely the development of a global campaigning approach.
We started with a review of our head office, where we broke out
campaign delivery from policy formation and established
integrated campaign teams. They have adversary focuses, not
geographic, and will drive our enduring campaigns in the same way
operational commanders lead our forces on deployed operations.
The indivisibility of operational theatres in today’s world means
Defence must be constantly ready to respond globally to safeguard
our interests and those of our allies. Sometimes it will be to
evacuate our citizens in moments of crisis, such as in Sudan.
Other times it will be to deter an adversary or reassure a
friend. As we have shown through our support for Ukraine, the UK
Government have the political will, but that only matters if it
is matched by our military agility. Today, we are establishing a
defence global response force. Ready, integrated and lethal, it
will better cohere existing forces from across land, sea, air,
space and cyber, to get there first in response to unpredictable
events around the world.
Crucially, today’s paper also recognises that it is in the
interconnected world and that the UK is unlikely to act alone.
Partnerships are critical to our security and prosperity. In
future, we will be allied by design and national by exception.
Our support for NATO will remain iron-clad, but we will continue
to prioritise our core relationships. We will invest in deepening
relationships with our new partners. It is why we have invested
to expand our global defence network, improving communications,
and co-ordinating defence attachés within our intelligence
functions. None of that is headline-grabbing stuff, but it is the
fine details that make the difference to our national
security.
To conclude, the paper is the result of having several years in
the Department to understand where it needs most attention. That
continuity in office is improving and I am incredibly grateful to
the long-serving Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend
the Member for Wells (), whose experience in uniform
and public office provided the basis for this paper. We are
grateful to the hundreds of individuals and groups who
contributed to the first challenge phase of its drafting, from
academics to serving personnel and industry representatives, not
to mention the many Members of this House. Most of what we
learned from them is encapsulated in the document.
This is likely to be one of my last appearances at the Dispatch
Box. It has been the greatest privilege to serve as Secretary of
State for Defence for the last four years. I thank my team, civil
servants, special advisers and Members for their support and
their challenge. All of us here have the common interest of
defending this fine country, its values and its freedoms. Of all
the many functions of Government, Defence is the most important
and is more important than ever, as the next 10 years will be
more unstable and insecure. The men and women of our armed forces
are second to none and Britain’s place in the world is anchored
in their professionalism and sacrifice. I believe we will
increasingly call on them in the years ahead. We must ensure that
they are ready to answer that call. I wish them and whomever
replaces me well. I commend the statement to the House.
13:48:00
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the advance draft copy of his
statement and welcome some elements he announced today that were
not in that draft copy, such as the improved childcare package
and the rent freeze for armed forces personnel.
Following the Defence Secretary’s decision to stand down, I want
to start by paying tribute to his time in this House. He is a
political survivor. I remember that his first job in 2010 was as
Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ken Clarke, and for the last
four years he has been a dedicated Defence Secretary. In
particular, I want to recognise his work on Ukraine, and that of
the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells
(). His decisions on sending
military support to Ukraine, getting other nations to do more and
declassifying intelligence have all been beneficial for Ukraine
and for Britain.
Today, the Defence Secretary is presenting his plan for the
future of the British armed forces at a time when, as he told the
House this afternoon, we have
“the return of war to the continent of Europe, alongside growing
threats elsewhere in the world”.
As his own future is now short, how long is the shelf-life of his
plan? Industry and military leaders cannot be sure that his
successor will agree with his decisions, will accept his cuts,
will act on his approach; and they cannot be sure how the
strategic defence review plan of both his party and mine after
the next election will reboot defence planning.
It did not have to be this way. Labour wanted this to be the
nation’s defence plan, not the plan of current Conservative
Defence Ministers. We offered to work with the Government on a
plan to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This is
not such a plan. It is not a good enough response to war in
Europe. It is not enough to accelerate support for Ukraine, to
fulfil in full our NATO obligations, to halt the hollowing out of
our forces, and to renew the nation’s moral contract with those
who serve and the families who support them.
Why has this defence plan been so delayed? It is 510 days since
Putin shattered European security. Since then, 26 other NATO
nations have rebooted defence plans and budgets. In the time it
has taken the Defence Secretary to produce this long-trailed new
defence strategy, Finland has carried out its own review,
overturned decades of non-alignment, increased defence spending
by 36%, applied to join NATO, and seen its application approved
by 30 Parliaments before last week’s NATO summit in Vilnius. That
successful NATO summit has made the alliance stronger and support
for Ukraine greater. We fully back NATO’s new regional plans and
the G7 long-term security commitments to Ukraine, and if UK
military aid is accelerated in the coming days, that too will
have Labour’s fullest support.
There is a welcome “back to basics” element in this plan—a focus
on stockpiles, training, service conditions and more
combat-readiness—but it is clear that the plan is driven by
costs, not by threats. It is driven by the real cut in day-to-day
resource departmental expenditure limits spending that the
Defence Secretary agreed in November 2020, and by the failure to
secure the £8 billion extra that he said was needed in the spring
Budget just to cover inflation. Where is the halt in further cuts
in the Army, while NATO plans an eightfold increase in its high
readiness forces? Where is the commitment to fulfil in full our
NATO obligations? Where is the action plan for military support
to Ukraine, first promised by the Defence Secretary in August
last year? Where is the programme to reverse record low levels of
satisfaction with service life? Where is the full-scale reform of
a “broken” defence procurement system for which the Defence
Committee called on the very day the Defence Secretary announced
that he was stepping down? In fact, it is hard to tell from his
announcement today what has changed. The £6.6 billion for defence
research and development was promised in the 2021 integrated
review, the “global response force” and force level cuts were
announced in the Secretary of State’s defence Command Paper 2021,
and the “strategic reserve” was recommended by Lord Lancaster in
2021.
As the right hon. Gentleman steps down as the Conservatives’
longest-serving Defence Secretary, will he accept that many of
the biggest challenges are being left to the next Defence
Secretary, and to the next Government? Finally, as we may not see
him again at the Dispatch Box, may I, on behalf of Members in all
parts of the House, wish him well in his post-parliamentary
career?
Mr Wallace
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
Unfortunately for him, I will, however, be here again tomorrow,
delivering my very last statement.
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but this is
the refresh of the defence Command Paper. It is not a complete
redrawing of a strategic defence and security review. We have
done those, periodically, so many times, and so many times they
have been published under Governments of both parties, and so
many times they have not had real funding attached to them. So
many times we have reached the end of the SDSR period, under
Labour and Conservative Governments, with black holes, with
unspent money and overspends. It has happened time and again. But
this is a report to make us match-fit: to ensure that, whether we
have 3%, 2.5%, 2% of GDP, we have the reforms that, in my view
and, I hope, that of my successor, will help us to deal with the
growing threats that we face in the decade ahead, and will also
reflect the lessons that we have seen in Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Finland’s defence review. He
will know that Finland and Sweden periodically conduct a fixed
in-Parliament, in-schedule review. That is how it will always be.
Those countries ask a parliamentary committee to carry out the
review, and then hand it to their Defence Ministries to
implement. That is their process. Finland’s review was not
triggered by anything specific, and the fact that it produced
that review before I did this refresh is not a benchmark; it has
been predicted and profiled. I will say, however, that long
before Sweden and Finland joined NATO, I was the architect of
last January’s security pact between the UK and those countries.
That was because I recognised that they were our friends and our
allies, and while they were not in NATO, it was inconceivable
that we, as Britain, would never come to their aid should a more
aggressive Putin attack them. That was the beginning of the
process of developing our strong relationship with them.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about defence procurement. I have
read the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I thank him for it. Many
of the things in it we are now doing. I give credit to him,
obviously, for his report, but some of its observations have also
been mine—observations about SROs, about 75% and 50%, about a
spiral development cost; observations that the House has heard
from this Dispatch Box about gold-plating and the over-speccing
that has too often driven prices through the roof, and is a
cumbersome thing. [Interruption.]
Let me say this to the Opposition Members who are heckling, and
who have been Ministers in this Department. They will know that
of all the Departments to serve in, this is not one that moves at
the greatest speed of reform. The process of reform takes time,
and Members need only look at the records of every single former
Minister to know how hard it is. That does not undermine their
contribution, and it does not make any of them less of a
Minister, but this Department of 220,000 people, a Department
that seeks every authority through a ministerial chair, is
not—and I have served in a number of Departments—the quickest to
change. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, if he succeeds in his
ambition to be the next Defence Secretary or the one after next,
will learn that all too well. What I promise him, as I will
promise my successor, is that I will not come to this House and
pretend that the problems with which my successor is dealing were
made the week before. They were made 20, 10, 15 years before.
That is the truth of many of the policies and procurement
challenges with which we deal in this Department.
I believe that the Command paper will stand the test of time
because it is about facing the threat—and that is the answer to
the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne ().
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
For the record, we are about to lose one of the best Defence
Secretaries we have ever had. He will be sorely missed in this
House, and in the Department. He knows that we have discussed
what is wrong with defence procurement on many occasions, and he
knows that the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence
Committee have published a number of reports saying that it is
broken. The most recent, entitled “It is broke—and it’s time to
fix it” was published only last Sunday, and on Tuesday we see the
DCP refresh, whose acquisition strategy has effectively accepted
some of the 22 recommendations in our report within 48 hours. I
humbly submit that that is some kind of world record for a Select
Committee report.
However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let me, in
all seriousness, encourage the Defence Secretary, when he does
his handover to whoever succeeds him—accompanied by his excellent
team of junior Ministers—to impress on his successor the fact
that we really do need to bring about this reform, not just for
industry and not just for our armed forces, but for the whole
security and defence of the realm. And with that, we wish him
well.
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on the report and for
his campaigning. Let me also say, however, that procurement has
started to improve. In 2009-10, the average time delay on a
project was 28%; it is now 15%. The average cost overrun was 15%
on a project in 2009-10; it is now 4%. The direction of travel is
improving. The number of civil servants at DE&S went from
24,000 to 11,000, so we are cutting away the bureaucracy and the
direction of travel is improving. In my time as Secretary of
State for Defence, I was also determined to put to bed some of
the problem projects that we were all inheriting. I am pleased to
say that, as I speak, Ajax is back on track and starting to be
delivered to the units. The units are starting to train in it
now. We could all have a discussion about whether we would have
chosen Ajax all those years ago, but fundamentally it has not
cost the taxpayer any more money and it is being delivered to our
frontline. I was determined to put that right, or take other
steps to deal with it. That should always be the case.
The other thing that I have always tried to do, which is not in
the document but which I recommend in defence procurement, is to
never defer—either delete or deliver. If you defer, it costs
hundreds of millions of pounds. Deferring the aircraft carrier
cost £1 billion under the Labour Government. Deferring the F-35
cost £500 million. Deferrals create the black holes. Delete or
deliver, but don’t defer.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Midlothian) (SNP)
I too thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of a draft
statement, albeit that there were one or two additions on
delivery. I also, perhaps pre-emptively, join in wishing him well
in whatever comes next. Although I have not directly shadowed
him, I certainly pass on those thoughts from my hon. Friend the
Member for Angus (), who has worked closely with
him over a period now.
I will start on a positive note. I welcome a number of the points
made. I very much welcome the fact that people are put front and
centre. That is absolutely critical in anything we do in defence.
People are what make it work, and if we are not supporting the
men and women of the forces, what are we doing at all? There is
probably that more we can do, even beyond this. While it will not
surprise Ministers to hear me say that we need to support those
serving, we also need to continue to look at what we are doing to
support our veterans. I know that the Minister is working on
that, but it is an area in which we need to try to do more.
I also welcome the recognition of some of the accommodation
conditions. I welcome the fact that steps are being taken and
matters looked at, but that needs to be moved forward at a
greater pace.
I note that the Secretary of State says we are going to spend
over £50 billion for the first time next year. I wonder whether
he can tell us how much of that is simply down to inflation
created by this Government. I am not trying to be awkward, but
that is clearly quite a significant factor.
We have also heard of the ongoing and long-lasting issues around
procurement, with reports showing that roughly £2 billion is
wasted each year in failed equipment programmes and cancelled
procurement contracts. Is the Ministry of Defence making the
necessary reforms to make its procedures better, and will they
deliver value for money?
Recruitment and retention issues have been flagged up; the
Haythornthwaite review clearly highlighted those. Is the right
hon. Gentleman confident that the steps being taken now on the
skills agenda will be the necessary actions to address
recruitment and retention issues?
Finally, the Haythornthwaite review highlighted cyber capability
as a major issue. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the
steps being taken and outlined today will do enough to deliver
that capability in the way that we all want to see?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and grateful for his party’s
support on Ukraine.
On the Haythornthwaite review and skills, right across Europe and
the west we are seeing recruitment challenges in the military. I
was with my New Zealand counterpart recently, and my Canadian
counterpart, and they too have a challenge. The skills shortage
across society is big, and it is no different in the armed
forces, which is why we have to adapt rapidly and tackle some of
the challenges.
On procurement, as I said, the figures have started to improve.
Yes, there are challenges, and we could spend a whole day
debating the reasons for those challenges. Complex procurement is
not as straightforward as many people think, and the hon.
Gentleman will know from the Scottish Government’s procurement
issues that it is not straightforward to deal with. I certainly
believe that if we invest in the people and are prepared to
invest in continuity—if instead of having the senior responsible
owners who help manage our projects here today and gone tomorrow,
we ensure that they are there for the long term and link their
incentives to success, and help them manage our projects—we will
have a better chance of delivering better value for money.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
May I express my admiration for my right hon. Friend’s dedicated
and distinguished service as Defence Secretary? It is a sad
commentary on the state of the special relationship that our
American ally did not recognise his suitability to be the next
Secretary-General of NATO.
My right hon. Friend will remember that successive Defence
Committees, well before the invasion of Ukraine, argued that
defence expenditure should never have been allowed to fall below
3% of GDP. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was
standing for the leadership in 2019, even expressed the wish that
it should be at 4% of GDP, which would have taken us back to the
cold war percentage of between 4% and 5.1% of GDP spent on
defence. In what way does this refresh allow defence the
potential to expand quickly if that extra money is belatedly made
available?
Mr Wallace
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Long before I was
doing this job, he was campaigning for defence to be properly
apportioned the funding it deserved to keep this country safe,
and I pay tribute to him for that. He has fought for that for
many years.
Should there be an increase in funding for defence—and I
seriously hope that there will be, based on our Prime Minister’s
2.5% pledge—and if we invest in our specialties and our skills,
we can expand our armed forces when the threat increases. Finding
a way to hold those skills on the books even if they are rarely
used, is why it is important to develop a single armed forces
Act. Currently we have legislation that says that if you want to
join the reserves from the regulars, you have to leave the
regulars and join a separate legal entity—the reserves. That
prevents soldiers from going backwards and forwards and people
from being mobilised in the way we want. We want to introduce a
single armed forces Act. We think this will help us do that.
Skills are at the core.
The second thing is the investment in rapid procurement—the
ability to keep headroom in the budget to respond to the latest
threat as the adversary changes. The third is making sure that we
invest in sustainability and enablers, because there is no point
in having all the frontline vehicles if you cannot get
anywhere.
(Warley) (Lab)
I know it is considered bad form to speak ill of the dead, even
the politically dead, but frankly the Secretary of State’s
contribution was pretty thin and full of clichés, and
fundamentally an admission of failure—of 13 years of continual
cuts by this Government.
Let me take just one example, which is touched on in the report.
It was clear from allied exercises that in any major conflict we
would run out of artillery munitions within a week, and the
Ukraine invasion reinforced that. So why has it taken until this
month for the Secretary of State to sign the contract to replace
those artillery shells?
Mr Wallace
It is very clear. First, the right hon. Gentleman might actually
understand that sometimes the supply chain has to be
reinvigorated. When we placed an order for the NLAW—the next
generation light anti-tank weapon—it turned out that the optics
had stopped being made 10 years before. You can ring up all you
like and try to place an order the next day, but until the
manufacturers source the supply chain, it is not going to happen.
But what I did was ensure that I placed the order in the United
Kingdom—in the north of England and in Wales. That factory will
start producing 155 mm shells. I have given it a long-term
contract of half a billion pounds to start supplying our forces.
By the way, the stockpiles of our ammunition started depleting
around about 1997.
(Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his clarity, his calmness, his
wisdom and his fortitude. We will miss him.
It is clear that the tectonic plates of geopolitics have shifted
and made the world a much more dangerous place for countries such
as the United Kingdom and others that believe in freedom and
democracy. How will his new global response force help us and our
allies be able to react more quickly and nimbly when crises
arise? Because we know that they will.
Mr Wallace
An important lesson from Ukraine is to make sure it is digitally
glued together, and to make sure its command and control is not
as vulnerable as it used to be. It should have a lot in the rear,
a long way away—perhaps thousands of miles away—with only its
headquarters forward. We should make sure we invest in the
enablers to move it around the world, the continent or wherever
it needs to be. That will help. At the moment, the provisional
layout of the global response force is a light brigade and 16 Air
Assault Brigade, supported by a logistical support brigade. This
will give us a whole range of opportunities, including meeting
our NATO commitments. Should we wish to do something else with
it, we will be able to deliver.
(Belfast East) (DUP)
As defence spokesperson and deputy leader of the DUP, I thank the
right hon. Gentleman for his honourable and gallant service to
our armed forces. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast East, I
thank him for reinvigorating shipbuilding in our country and for
supporting Harland & Wolff. I thank him for his commitment to
Thales and NLAW, and to the utility it has proven in Ukraine.
As a member of the Defence Committee, I thank the right hon.
Gentleman for using our Sub-Committee’s report on soft power and
for the benefits I see in his statement on engaging defence
attachés more thoroughly and appropriately with the intelligence
network.
We can see that the document before us builds on and augments the
refresh. In recognising the right hon. Gentleman’s four years
well served, may I ask him whether he believes this document will
not only give our armed forces the best chance to embrace the
future but will ensure that his positive contribution leaves a
lasting legacy?
Mr Wallace
This is about making sure the framework is match fit for any
expansion and for the future. It is also about investing in holes
such as re-stockpiling, and making sure that, over time, we spend
£2 billion, and then another £2 billion, to make sure our
stockpiles are back where they should be—in fact, even more money
to do that. That will be good news for the likes of Thales and
NLAW in Belfast, for the 155 mm shell factories in Washington and
north Wales, and for our industrial base such as MBDA in
Stevenage and Bolton. It will all be about investing in our
sovereign supply chain while, at the same time, making sure we
sometimes make a difference not in the obvious things but in the
behind-the-scenes that makes our armed forces so ready.
(Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his service and dedication as
Secretary of State, and I wish him well for the future. As a
fellow infantryman, he will know there is sometimes no substitute
for boots on the ground if one wants to command that ground.
Given that the 1922 defence committee submitted a paper to the
defence Command Paper refresh expressing concern about hollowing
out, can he assure us that this hollowing out will stop and that
cuts to the Army, in particular, will stop? What assurance can he
give that not only will it stop but we will have scope to build
on those numbers? Ultimately, an Army of 72,000 and falling is
simply not large enough, given our commitments.
Mr Wallace
We can argue about size, but we have to make sure that whatever
we put in the field is properly equipped and enabled, and is
effectively 360°. That is really important. We therefore have to
be honest about the size of our defence budget envelope. There is
no point pretending that we can have huge numbers without a
defence budget to match. I have been determined throughout my
tenure that this is not purely a numbers game, and I know my hon.
Friend gets that. Many of his suggestions were incorporated into
this Command Paper, because the lessons of Ukraine show that,
yes, we need infantry and tanks, but also that we can sometimes
dominate the ground without even being there.
The proliferation of cheap drones and the use of highly accurate
artillery allow fewer people to cover or dominate more area. I
went to see a frontline corps commander in Ukraine, and he had
nearly 1,000 cheap unmanned aircraft systems at his disposal
every day. At any one time, he might have 80 or 90 up in the air,
which gives him the ability to dominate ground without
necessarily having mass. I get that, ultimately, the ground has
to be taken, but let us make sure the people who take the ground
are properly protected and equipped so they can hold it,
otherwise Russian forces will take the ground and kill them.
(North Durham) (Lab)
May I first thank the Secretary of State for his service? We have
known each other for 20-plus years, and he has always been a
strong advocate for defence. He said in his statement that in
2019 he got a 10% increase for the defence budget. He failed to
tell the House that one of the problems he faces is the 16% cut,
from 2010 to 2019, in the defence budget. The Command Paper says
that the first priority is homeland defence and our NATO
commitments. It also announces a new global response force. How
can we commit to doing both well without substantially increasing
the defence budget?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. We both
went to Washington in 2006 to lobby for a waiver from the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations and we are very close
to getting it. That is my point, if you think this Department is
quick and easy. I had hair back then. If we get the ITAR waiver
over the line, it will be one of the things I will be proud
of.
It is possible to have a global response force and to dedicate it
to NATO. We allocate our NATO forces by giving them to the
Supreme Allied Commander Europe, but those forces are able to be
used elsewhere, unless he calls on them. That is often how we do
it, so it is perfectly possible to have a global response force,
with elements of it elsewhere if it is not called upon by the
Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Of course, if NATO calls on the
force under article 5 or something else, that will be the
priority. Our forces, more often than not, are absolutely
dedicated to NATO and the security of Europe.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his impressive, no-nonsense
leadership. It is always great to see a Minister who knows his
brief so well.
It has been 12 years since the Levene report gave greater powers
to single services, but we are now moving in the opposite
direction, with greater integration, full-spectrum effects,
hybrid war, joint effects—call it what you will—linking up the
military but also the military and other tools of state power.
Does the Secretary of State think Levene is still fit for
purpose? What would he recommend that this House and his
Department do about it?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important observation about Levene. I do
not think Levene is fit for today. Parts of Levene have not
worked. I do not see the TLBs, or the Army, Navy and Air Force
take the responsibility we hoped they would take when their
programmes do not work. Examining whether joint force design
should move back to the centre, where these things will be at the
core of the MOD, will be important. On other parts of Levene, it
is important to make sure that the centre has a role in holding
our armed forces to account. The Command Paper has a commitment
to start reviewing that process.
(Halton) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his service. Where I have
agreed with him, I have said so, not least on his work to support
Ukraine, but perhaps his biggest legacy is that he agreed to and
oversaw a huge cut of 10,000 in the Army, which I believe
seriously weakens our armed forces.
I want to test whether this document is more than warm words.
Page 89 says
“we will step up our efforts to deliver an Integrated Air and
Missile Defence approach.”
When will that happen?
Mr Wallace
I am just looking up page 89, which says that, to counter these
threats,
“we will step up our efforts to deliver an Integrated Air and
Missile Defence approach.”
We are doing that across NATO, integrated with NATO, and working
with the Germans and the French. We are already starting that. We
have signed up to the process. [Interruption.] We are starting it
now. Last month, we started to examine what Europe and NATO need
to have the right integrated air defence to protect its
territory. The starting point is to find out what we need. There
is no point in us rushing out and buying long-range air defence
missiles if the long range can be done from a ship in the
channel. There is no point rushing out and buying very short
range if we are not deploying from our bases in Tidworth.
So, first, we have already started doing the overall survey of
what needs to be done. Secondly, we have started investing in our
next generation of GBAD—ground-based air defence—our medium-range
air defence capability. And we have recognised that we are short
of our long-range air defence capability by
investing—[Interruption.] We are already doing it. I do not know
where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past two years. If he
actually paid attention to this, he would realise that we have
started investing in the extended-range missile for the Type 45;
we have started increasing the number of batteries of our GBAD;
and we have managed to export our GBAD to Poland in a £2 billion
export deal. So we have started this, but the first thing to do
is recognise that we put together the right profile of air
defence because, as he will know, it is layered, so we have to
get the right layers. If we do not get the right layers, we look
like some of those countries such as Russia, which just buy big
profile things that cannot talk to each other and then they get
whacked.
(Filton and Bradley Stoke)
(Con)
May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for his service and
leadership? Does anything in this Command Paper address the
barriers and bureaucracy that are hindering Ukrainian defence
manufacturers and British defence manufacturers from
collaborating effectively together? Such collaboration would help
the Ukrainians to liberate their country and enhance our own
capability and supply chain.
Mr Wallace
There is certainly an odd thing that I observe in the Department:
I cannot understand why the procurement speed and delivery in our
Kindred, our operation to gift and support Ukraine, cannot be
normal for us. I see our procurement in parallel. Some of that is
about assurances. If we are going to fly drones over people in
this country, we require much higher levels of assurances; the
Civil Aviation Authority and so on absolutely require that. When
you are in war, some of those levels can drop. Some of it is
simply about that, but in other areas it is one lesson we are
looking at through Defence Equipment and Support to understand
how we can bring that into our main procurement and delivery.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State knows that I am not a defence expert,
although I have a great interest in it. I was born in the same
week as the worst bombing of London, which took place not far
from here, close to the day on which this place was bombed, and
my father served in the last war. I have watched the Secretary of
State over the years he has been in this House and I have a lot
of regard for him. We have become quite good friends, which we
are still allowed to be across parties in this House. He is not
perfect. I have been a consistent critic of our going below
100,000 men in our Army—I have a long track record on that—but he
is a better Secretary of State for Defence than many I have seen
on those Benches. Does he realise that we are not daft on this
issue? How could a Prime Minister and a Government allow a man of
his stature as Defence Secretary to go at the critical time, when
there is a war in Europe? All hell is breaking out on our planet
and we lose a good Defence Secretary. What has happened with the
Prime Minister and the little clique around him?
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I have always
liked both sparring and discussing defence with him. Importantly,
many of us across the House understand that defence is a core
function of a Government. It is not a discretionary spend stuck
on the end; it is ultimately the core responsibility of a
Government. I know that come the next election the battleground
between these two Front-Bench teams will probably not see defence
in it. We all know that. Many of us around this House who have
campaigned for more defence will know that the election will come
down to schools, hospitals, transport and everything else. The
casualty of that is often defence, and we stop making the case to
our citizens and our constituents as to why it is important. I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who always reminds people on this
side of the House and, certainly under the previous leadership,
in his party of the importance of defence.
I have a fantastic team and there are plenty of amazing civil
servants, military leaders and everyone else who will do just
fine without me in this job. I believe it was President Lincoln
who said, “The cemetery is full of indispensable men.”
(Meon Valley) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. I am extremely
disappointed that he is stepping down because he has been an
excellent Defence Secretary. As he says, people are at the centre
of our armed forces, so this refresh, with its focus on people,
is welcome. Rick Haythornthwaite’s report makes some excellent
recommendations, so I am pleased that the defence Command Paper
reflects that. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that
accommodation is an absolute priority because that is the biggest
thing that every member of the armed forces brings up when we go
to visit?
Mr Wallace
It absolutely is. The House has heard me say that I have taken
the profit from those companies; I have nationalised more things
than any previous Defence Secretary, so perhaps I am putting up a
job interview for the opposite side—[Laughter.] This is
absolutely about looking after our people. I was determined to do
so: if these companies could not provide the service, why should
our people take the hit? There is an extra £400 million to go
into that. Some of us will have seen the legal test we have tried
on Annington Homes to make sure that we re-enfranchise this. It
is all very important. If we cannot give the people who work for
us the skills, future and lifestyle they deserve, they will not
be joining us.
(North Down) (Alliance)
I want to start by recognising the Secretary of State’s
leadership on Ukraine and the wider threat from Russia. He made
reference to the growing range of threats across the globe and
how the UK often has to respond to those. May I invite him to go
a step further, reflect on how the MOD can work with other
Departments in Whitehall and how the UK can work with its
international partners on early intervention and prevention,
understand the drivers of conflicts—for example, gross human
rights abuses, climate change and lack of international aid—and
see how we can get ahead of the curve in some situations?
Mr Wallace
The original defence Command Paper absolutely built on that. On
the resilience building of nations such as, sadly, Mali, if we
can get in early enough and help those countries with security,
complement aid and complement work on counter-radicalisation,
education and poverty prevention, we can help prevent those
conflicts. One message I give the Treasury is, “That small amount
of investment saves us a lot of money further along.” The
conflict, stability and security fund—the Foreign Office and MOD
funding—is a really good piece of work, where we often fund a
range of issues that deal with that. I am happy to write to the
hon. Gentleman to give him details of that fund.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his regular visits to David
Brown Santasalo Gears in Huddersfield, in my constituency, which
is in the supply chain for the Type 26 frigates and for our
submarines. It also provides world-leading gearboxes for our
armoured vehicles and tanks. Does he agree that it is important
to have resilient regional supply chains to deliver the equipment
we need to tackle changing global threats?
Mr Wallace
Yes, absolutely. I was delighted to visit David Brown—it is the
famous David Brown of the Aston Martin David Brown in
Huddersfield. When one goes there, one realises the importance of
not only keeping the skill base going, but making sure that we
have a clear pipeline of orders and pathways to incentivise those
companies to invest in the next generation of machinery. If they
do not feel incentivised, they will not invest and when we need
them at a time of war, there simply will not be anything there.
As I said about some of the rearming of our stockpiles,
restimulating the supply chain takes years and it is incredibly
important. It is also important to recognise that the aerospace
industry is pan-United Kingdom; it goes across the UK and is
everywhere. People do not often realise that it is not just in
Lancashire, part of which I represent; it is in mill towns, in
Scotland and in Wales—it is all over the place. The defence pound
really does help the British economy and secures British jobs
across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.
(Islington North) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is a thoughtful man, and today he has
announced that we are going to be spending £50 billion on
defence, at a time when every other Government Department is
under financial pressure. He has also said that he predicts that
this country will be at war within seven years. Does he have any
idea or process to bring about more peace and rapprochement in
the world, and less military threat? Or are we going to go on,
year by year, increasing expenditure on defence and potentially
being involved in more and more military conflicts? Does he have
any idea different from that?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman knows me fairly well. We once spent a
nice week in Iran together, with the then Member for Blackburn—I
was the most pro-European of the three, I remember.
I am not out looking for war. We are all out here trying to
defend our nation by avoiding war, but we do not avoid war by not
investing in deterrence. Sometimes we have to invest in hard
power, to complement soft power. We do not want to use it and we
do not go looking for it. I know the right hon. Gentleman mixes
with some people who always think this is about warmongering; it
is not. But if countries are not taken seriously by their
adversaries, that is one of the quickest ways to provoke a
war.
(Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an extraordinary four
years as Secretary of State for Defence, in which he has done his
duty above and beyond. He will be sorely missed. I welcome this
refresh, particularly the points he makes about the global
campaign and how it might complement aid. With regard to our
service personnel, who do so much for us in the field of
conflict, how might we recognise them in terms of campaigning,
when they are away for extended periods of time? What is the
Ministry of Defence going to do to ensure that they are
recognised for the extraordinary service that they provide?
Mr Wallace
Our men and women are motivated by lots of things. The state
often shows its appreciation, not only when they are serving, by
the x-factor—the wraparound—but also by medallic recognition. One
of the things that has taken quite a long time in my tenure is
the creation of the wider campaign medal. I am still waiting for
the final approval by those medal committees, but it will
recognise people’s contribution to a campaign that keeps us safe.
A good example of that could be the continuous at-sea deterrent,
which is an enduring campaign. Campaigns that reflect modern war
mean that not everyone is on the frontline. People hundreds of
miles away are contributing to keeping us safe, and they
sometimes need to be recognised, not just the person pulling the
trigger or storming the bunker; it goes all the way back. In
today’s military, the pyramid is very big and very deep, and
hopefully a wider campaign medal will recognise that.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
I pay my own tribute to the Secretary of State for his service
and thank him for the personal courtesies that he and his
officials have shown me on a number of occasions. He has rightly
been focused on the major geopolitical threats and risks to our
own security and that of our allies, but he will also know the
importance of watching the flanks and rears. Whether it is the
western Balkans, the Sahel, which he mentioned, space, the polar
regions or the non-geographical domains—in cyber, artificial
intelligence and those issues—he knows that the range and
diversity of threats is increasing. Given that, is he convinced
that we have the number of personnel right? I have no doubt about
the commitment of our troops in all those areas and capacities,
but the numbers are simply not there to deliver on that diversity
and range of threats.
Mr Wallace
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as the threat rises, we
should respond and design our forces to meet whatever is the
threat of the day. Do I think 73,000 is enough to meet today’s
threats? I do. Do I think defence needs a greater share of public
spending? Yes, and that is what the Chancellor said in the autumn
statement. Do I think we need 2.5% of GDP? Yes, that is what I
have campaigned for and what I have achieved. I do not have a
timeline, but I know that is the direction. Should we get the
extra money, what is important about it is that it will prepare
us to have a range of choices, depending on the threat of the
moment.
The Army will still be over 100,000 people. My hon. Friend the
Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) raised the
challenge. I have instructed that the Army’s modernisation
requires us to protect its budget until it is modernised. It is
behind the other two services and we will continue to modernise
it. I think the Army has currently configured a size, but do I
never say never about making it bigger? We should always be
prepared to change our courses if the threat changes.
(Bracknell) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary for his
statement and for his fantastic service over many years. Given
the current tempo of commitments faced by HM forces worldwide, I
am clear, as a former capability planner, that quantity has a
quality of its own. It is also incumbent upon the MOD to fulfil
all the expectations placed upon it, both by our NATO allies and
our own defence tasks. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that,
post refresh, the MOD remains committed to a fully deployable,
scalable and sustainable armoured division at readiness?
Mr Wallace
Yes, we are committed to that, but we have also been honest about
the time needed to get to being able to do that.
(Gower) (Lab)
Our forces families are made to live in damp, mouldy service
accommodation, with broken boilers. In his statement, the
Secretary of State spoke about rent freezes, but well over 4,300
troops already do not pay rent because their accommodation is so
bad. He said that there would be no unfunded gimmicks, so is the
£400 million in two years for service accommodation new money or
is it from existing budgets and commitments?
Mr Wallace
Having listened to the hon. Lady, for example, we have taken
money that was allocated elsewhere and decided that making sure
those houses are in a better state is more of a priority. We have
housing stock that goes back many years and is a challenge. One
of the challenges I have is that I unfortunately have to pay
almost £20,000 a house to a private finance initiative that
signed us up to, even when
those houses are empty.
(Blackpool South) (Ind)
I commend the leadership of the Secretary of State over the last
four years, not just in our response to the war in Ukraine, but
in securing a record financial settlement from the Treasury. I
welcome the new employment model and skills framework. Will he
outline how that will further facilitate collaboration with
employers, such as BAE Systems on the Fylde coast, and offer new
opportunities for recruitment and retention?
Mr Wallace
The Ministry of Defence recognises, as does the defence industry,
that skills are important. About two weeks ago, I spent a great
afternoon at the National Cyber Force, up at Samlesbury, with
further education colleges from around Lancashire, including
Blackburn and Bolton, and Greater Manchester, which came to bring
young people amazing opportunities. We recognise that if we
invest young, we will get the skills we need. It is absolutely
the case that without the skills, defence will be starved of the
oxygen we need to do our jobs.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, wish the Secretary of State well and thank him for all
that he has done. While I welcome the £2.5 billion additional
investment in stockpiles and the improvements to readiness, he
will know that unless we have highly trained service personnel in
place to use them, then they are useless.
The refresh document says:
“People: our most important asset.”
In relation to people, the UK now has the lowest number of
soldiers since the Napoleonic wars, which I think is quite
dramatic. Will the Secretary of State strategise to increase our
strength in numbers, to recruit young and capable people who want
to defend this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland? On the plane, I sat next to a guy from
Belfast who is 20 years old. He has signed up to the Army for 25
years. He wants a future—can we give him that?
Mr Wallace
That young man will have an excellent future in the armed forces,
for as long as he wishes to stay. The Army is still recruiting;
we have not all stopped everything. It is important to remember
that we need to embrace our reserves. We have talked about that
for a long time, but we have not done it. A single armed forces
Act would help us do that. The Army will be over 100,000 people,
of whom 73,000 will be regulars, but I believe the reforms in
today’s refresh will make sure we are scalable should we wish to
increase it. Whatever we do and whatever parties in this House
come with pledges in the next election, we must ask ourselves
whether it is just about funding people or will we be funding
their equipment, vehicles, houses and barracks to go along with
them. We cannot just have people without any of that, or we
condemn them to a pretty miserable time, unprotected on the
battlefield.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has been an
outstanding Defence Secretary and I wish him all the best for the
future.
I am aware that, under the new defence Command Paper, soldiers
should soon be able easily to transfer between each of the three
services as well as into the civil service. What steps are
Ministers taking to ensure that the civil service is a more
attractive option than the private sector for talented
personnel?
Mr Wallace
The military could definitely take a leaf out of the civil
service’s book. I look at how senior civil servants can flex, do
step-ups and step-downs, take breaks or sabbaticals, and I think,
“Why can’t we do that for our military?” Why can people, if their
life circumstances change, not step up or step down? That is what
we are trying to do with these changes in the Haythornthwaite
regime. If we do that, we will match the demands of generation Z.
The younger generation want more and more different things. It is
not just whether they work in defence, but whether they work in
the civil service or in the private sector. All employers face
the challenge of how they will do that and keep people longer, so
that they get investment both ways—into their businesses or
whatever.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I believe that
he said he might be returning here tomorrow. As I have a number
of Ministers here, I wish to take the opportunity to say how
important it is that no announcements are made in statements that
have not previously been given to the Opposition.
Just in case I am not in the Chair tomorrow, I will take this
opportunity to wish the Secretary of State well in whatever he
decides to do next.
|
