Asked by Baroness Goldie To ask His Majesty's Government whether
they have made any decisions to pause expenditure on Ministry of
Defence programmes; and, if so, on which programmes. The Minister
of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab) Work continues on
our programmes within existing allocated funding as the strategic
review progresses. This review will consider the threats Britain
faces, the capabilities needed to meet them, the state of the UK
Armed...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have made any
decisions to pause expenditure on Ministry of Defence programmes;
and, if so, on which programmes.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence () (Lab)
Work continues on our programmes within existing allocated
funding as the strategic review progresses. This review will
consider the threats Britain faces, the capabilities needed to
meet them, the state of the UK Armed Forces and the resources
available. It will set out a deliverable and affordable plan for
defence.
(Con)
I thank the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment, and
welcome him to the Front Bench. My Question was predicated on an
already stretched defence budget and government opaqueness about
the future. The commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP is very welcome,
but we do not know when—it is jam for an uncertain tomorrow. The
Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady of Basildon, said to this Chamber on Tuesday evening,
referring to the strategic defence review, expected to report
early next year, that it
“will inform how the amount is reached[”.—[Official Report,
23/7/24; col.
424.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=424&House=2&ExternalId=C2A3A0FF-5021-46DB-B0BF-532C7EC08A5F)
The noble Lord, , is deserving of much
admiration, but his expertise is defence, not macroeconomics and
certainly not Treasury fiscal wizardry. This is the Government's
most important responsibility; we have to stop pussyfooting
around. How can there be any informed strategic defence review
when the chief reviewer has not been told what the budget he is
working on is?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome to the post; it is an
honour to follow her, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Minto. We
have made a clear commitment to 2.5%, and the timetable for that
will be announced at a future fiscal event. Alongside that, as
the noble Baroness will know, the noble Lord, , is conducting the review.
As we think is important, the noble Lord will come forward with
the capabilities needed to meet the threats of the future, and
then we will know what we should be spending the money on, rather
than just flying blind, without any idea as to the threats we
will face and the capabilities needed to meet them.
of Spithead (Lab)
On a much narrower point, where do we stand on the order for the
fleet solid support ships, bearing in mind the dreadful financial
position of Harland & Wolff?
(Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the situation with respect to the
Belfast shipyard and Harland & Wolff is a difficult one. Our
expectation is that those ships will be able to be built.
Clearly, the company is looking for a private sector business to
support it, and we will look to do what we can to support it in
that.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister able to reassure the House, and perhaps
the noble Lord, , that this is intended to be
a defence-led review, not a Treasury-led review? If the noble
Lord, , and his colleagues in the
review find that expenditure needs to be not a vague 2.5% at a
certain point but 3% or more, would His Majesty's Government be
willing to spend whatever is necessary?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I think she slightly
gets in front of herself. We have made a commitment to 2.5%, and
that is a cast-iron guarantee. The noble Lord, , is in his place and has
heard the points she has made. We look forward to a deliverable,
affordable plan that will meet the threats we will face in the
future—not the threats now or in the past, but in the future.
That is why the review of the noble Lord, , is so important. The money
that we spend has to be spent to deliver the capabilities needed
to meet those threats. That is the fundamental principle that
underlies what we are doing, and it will be maintained.
(CB)
My Lords, we are still awaiting the outcome of the review, and in
the light of the undoubted financial pressures it faces, can the
Minister assure the House that his department will not view as
easy options for in-year savings levels of training upon which
military capability so crucially depends, and the adequate
maintenance of infrastructure, which is already in a poor
condition and is an important factor in the retention of
experienced personnel?
(Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an important point. Of course
there are competing pressures on any budget, whatever its size,
but infrastructure—the hangars, runways and accommodation—is an
important consideration. He also makes a point about the level of
skills training. He will know, as will many Members in this
House, that there are serious skills shortages in all the Armed
Forces, and we face a challenge to meet the requirements we have
because of that skills shortage. Skills training, accommodation
and infrastructure will play an important part in any review that
the noble Lord, , conducts.
(Con)
My Lords, the Minister does his job extremely well. Can he
clarify whether the Government are still fully behind the Storm
Shadow missile programme? Will he use this opportunity to clarify
whether those Storm Shadow missiles will be deployable within
Russia?
(Lab)
We are of course committed to the Storm Shadow programme. As the
Prime Minister has made clear, under Article 51 of the UN charter
Ukraine has a clear right of self-defence against Russia's
illegal attacks. That does not preclude striking military targets
inside Russia, provided strikes comply with the law of armed
conflict and international humanitarian law. As the Prime
Minister said, it would be inappropriate to go into the
operational detail of how Ukraine uses UK-provided systems. I
should say to the noble Lord that that is exactly the same policy
that the previous Government pursued.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that we need a proper plan so that
we do not end up having aircraft carriers without planes? Is it
not about time that we plan for the future, rather than wait for
it to happen?
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his important question. Whether it is
aircraft carriers and planes, the number of soldiers, technology
or other capabilities, you have to have the capability you need
to meet the threat that you face. My noble friend is right to
point that out. That is the fundamental principle that underlies
the review of the noble Lord, , and why he will be working
closely with others. I say to all noble Lords that it is an open
review and anyone is welcome to contribute to it.
(CB)
Does the Minister agree that, at this moment, the Government
should remain open-minded on all areas of discretionary defence
spending that do not directly contribute to keeping Ukraine in
the fight and restoring the credibility of deterrence in
Europe?
(Lab)
Of course we should remain open to any capability that is
necessary. The noble and gallant Lord makes a very important
point. We are open to all these considerations and factors in the
defence of Ukraine, but also in the wider security picture that
we face across the globe. No doubt that will be something that
the review takes forward. I would welcome the noble and gallant
Lord's contribution to that review, to make the very point that
he has just made.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.
The Public Accounts Committee identified a black hole of some
£16.9 billion in our capital programme. That sounds a lot, but
over 10 years it is actually less than 5% of the programme and
manageable. However, as night follows day, there will be
deferrals or cancellations of capital projects within the MoD.
Normally, it is the smaller, short-term projects that are
deferred or cancelled, as opposed to larger, long-term projects.
In order to meet the Chief of the General Staff's aim of doubling
the lethality of the British Army in the next three years, it is
these very short-term, small projects that are required. When it
comes to the balance of investments, will this desire be taken
into account?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all the work he
does in his position outside this House. He makes an important
point. For me, it is not whether it is a small capital project or
a large capital project; the important point is how it
contributes to the lethality of our forces and how it contributes
to us defending not only our country but freedom and democracy
across the world. Whether it is a small project, a medium-sized
project or a large project, its utility should be decided on that
basis. The noble Lord makes a very important point, and I will
make sure it is taken into consideration.
(Con)
My Lords, the change of Government has already resulted in a
delay to the announcement of the location of the joint government
headquarters for the trilateral British, Japanese and Italian
fighter jet project, GCAP. Is it true that this project is now
dependent on the result of the strategic defence review, or has
the Minister been able to give reassurance to the visitors at the
Farnborough airshow this week, including the Japanese Defence
Minister, that it will go ahead regardless?
(Lab)
The noble Lord will have heard what I said. Not only did I give
reassurance to Italy and Japan and our defence companies at
Farnborough, I hosted a reception for all those partners last
night in your Lordships' House. It was very well received. We
reassured people that work continues on that project, alongside
the fact that the noble Lord, , is conducting a review that
will look at the defence programme across the piece. They were
very pleased with what I had to say, and I spent my time
reassuring them, here in your Lordships' House.
|
