-
Question
Does the Secretary of State believe that the proposed reduction in full-time personnel to 72,500 is adequate for meeting our defence commitments around the world and here at home?
Minister reply
We will have a credible force on strength with the right balance of skills. The Army’s increased deployability and technological advantage mean that fewer people can deliver greater effect.
-
Question
Given the Defence Secretary’s strong emphasis on information warfare, will he provide more details on how the RAF’s new E-7 Wedgetail aircraft and other equipment can play a role in countering such threats?
Minister reply
We are investing heavily in the development of cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. The E-7 Wedgetail is part of that investment, providing enhanced early warning and control for both UK and NATO operations.
-
Question
Given that the climate crisis is a national security threat, will the Secretary of State commit to setting out how Britain’s armed forces can contribute positively towards combating it?
Minister reply
We recognise the importance of addressing climate change as part of our national security strategy. The Defence Command Paper includes plans for enhancing resilience and adapting to new challenges presented by environmental changes.
-
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement and the White Paper. I express dismay at the pre-release of content to the media, despite warnings against it. The review is crucial as threats are growing and diversifying. The review could repeat past mistakes, such as cutting troop numbers by 10,000 to 72,500 over four years. How does the Government justify these cuts when threats are increasing? What about concerns raised by General Sir David Richards regarding military power and US/NATO relations? Will there be short-term cuts in anti-submarine warfare capabilities? How will the Ranger regiment be recruited, based, and operational? Is the funding for single living accommodation a cut or an error? The MOD’s budget is unaffordable with a black hole of up to £17 billion. How much of the extra money will fund new programmes rather than filling existing gaps? What are the consequences of real-terms cuts in revenue funding for recruitment, training, pay and family support? Why does the White Paper not address nuclear proliferation policy changes or pandemic preparedness? Finally, how does the Defence Secretary reassure NATO that Britain is not neglecting its role?
Minister reply
The right hon. Member's speech would have been the same regardless of today’s statement. The resource departmental expenditure limit over four years is flat or slightly increased (RDEL). There is no cut to the budget, despite his claims. An insert in printed Command Papers shows the accommodation figure as £1.5 billion over 10 years, not £1.3 billion. Former Labour Governments overspent by £38 billion; we are honest about our past but also responsible for ensuring soldiers have proper equipment and training. The blueprint aims to balance ambition with funding, focusing on war-fighting forces and conflict prevention/rebuilding efforts.
-
Question
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I just pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who was killed on this day four years ago? There is much to welcome in this Command Paper today, and the Defence Secretary is to be congratulated on advancing our force structure and investments in cyber, special forces and autonomous platforms, but they come at a huge price to our conventional defence posture, with dramatic cuts to our troop numbers, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and more than 100 RAF aircraft, including fast jets and heavy lift—cuts that, if tested by a parliamentary vote, I do not believe would pass.
Minister reply
Asking any Defence Secretary in history if he would like to support an increase in his budget is usually going to get only one response. The reality is that I am dealing with a budget that is incredibly generous compared with my colleagues in other Departments in the middle of this pandemic. Indeed, many people object to the increase in the defence budget. It is a defence budget big enough to allow me to fix the issues of the past and to invest in modernisation.
-
Question
Today, we face multiple complex threats to our security and our prosperity, yet our defence spend remains at a peacetime level of just 2.2%. With international rivalry increasing and western influence on the retreat, we must wake up to how dangerous the next decade will be. Is it not the time to increase the defence budget to 3%, so that these dangerous cuts to our conventional hard power can be avoided?
Minister reply
I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns, and my answer to him would be about ambition. How ambitious and how global do we wish to be? I do not believe that our security is at threat from this document. I think it provides a very good foundation for our homeland security. What comes next is how much we help our friends around the world and what ambition we have for them.
-
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the paper and his statement, and I apologise to him for the difficulties we had in trying to get each other on the phone earlier. As the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has said, on behalf of SNP Members, I acknowledge the anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman’s own bravery on that day.
Minister reply
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns both about reliance on technology and the human in the loop issue. Britain has been one of the leaders in trying to raise those discussions in places like the United Nations, to ensure that there is a standard that is acceptable—a moral standard, making sure that there is a human in the loop at nearly all times.
-
Question
Turning to the armed forces, it has rightly been mentioned—and I suspect we will hear it again during this statement—that the Secretary of State will have some convincing to do here in Parliament that he will be able to retire the old, bring in the new and not have such a big gap in the middle. On numbers, what will be the impact of the reduction in numbers on the Scottish footprint in 2025?
Minister reply
On AI and data, Britain leads within NATO on cyber. It pushed NATO to examine cyber, but not in being a cyber nation—Estonia is probably one of the greatest cyber nations, although there is a data issue that I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s party would disagree with about relying on data that much. But fundamentally it is incredibly important, and Britain’s work alongside some of its allies in NATO has pushed NATO to look at both hybrid threats and cyber and to start making sure that it reforms and modernises to address that.
-
Question
When will we see something on terms and conditions for the armed forces? We want to see a pay increase for members of the armed forces. We know that four in 10 serving personnel do not believe their pay properly reflects their work.
Minister reply
I understand the concerns about troops and personnel in Scotland. There are over 28,000 people currently in Scotland who rely directly on defence: that is the civil servants, the regulars, the reserves and in industry. When we send the E-7 Wedgetails up to Lossiemouth there will be an increase of a few hundred people to work in that part of the world, which is to be welcomed.
-
Question
I welcome the clarity of my right hon. Friend’s statement today and I look forward to the publication tomorrow of the defence and security industrial strategy alongside it, which will provide, I hope, a degree of coherence that will be very welcome to all those involved in supporting our armed forces. In light of the necessary decision to proceed with upgrading the warhead for the strategic deterrent, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House the rationale for increasing the number of warheads during the transition from one system to the next? Will the cost in developing the strategic deterrent absorb any of the welcome £6.6 billion R&D programme that has been announced?
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend laid the foundations for linking prosperity in a much more deliberate and thoughtful manner into defence and defence procurement. The rationale of the deterrent cannot be taken from a one-sided view; we have to look at our adversary, Russia, and see the investments it has made as well as its plans to break the intermediate nuclear treaty and invest in new weapon systems and missile defence. Regarding the R&D budget, I am not aware that the £6.6 billion is anything to do with the nuclear warhead programme.
-
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Question
Neither I nor my party can agree with the proposal to increase the number of nuclear warheads. We also have grave doubts about some of the spending decisions the Government are making within the context of the defence budget. May I turn the Secretary of State’s attention to something that is close to both our hearts? What he has said about the cadet force is welcome; will the cadet force be supported in outlying parts of the UK, such as Wick and Thurso in my constituency?
Minister reply
The Reserve Forces 2030 review on the next iteration of reserves will report to Parliament very soon. On the cadets, we have exceeded our target of providing opportunities for 130,000 cadets in state secondary schools across the UK and are going further by investing in the cadet expansion programme.
-
Question
The Government’s vision of a global Britain that does not simply watch from the sidelines is absolutely right, so I welcome today’s commitment to a more persistent global engagement. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what this more active approach will mean for our gallant armed forces personnel?
Minister reply
It means more opportunities for them to train abroad in countries such as Somalia and Kenya, provide reassurance and resilience, and prevent conflict.
-
Question
I welcome the recognition of the defence procurement footprint in Northern Ireland and the suggestion that we are well placed for future investment. On the balancing of new technologies with old footprint, will the Secretary of State commit today to the sustained continuance of the Northern Ireland garrison, and in particular 2 Rifles at Thiepval barracks in Lisburn?
Minister reply
Yes, there will be no change to that. We continue to invest in Northern Ireland equipment and engineering; recently, we signed a £96 million contract for very short-range anti-air missiles in Belfast.
-
Question
Last week’s integrated review made it clear that the threats our country faces are changing rapidly and that adversaries are increasingly operating in the grey zone, where they perceive the risks of repercussions to be far lower. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced today will give us the ability to respond to such threats in a far more meaningful way?
Minister reply
We can deploy either in support of partner host nations or by improving their training and sometimes supply or co-train in respect of key enabling, as we do in Kenya with the bomb disposal college.
-
Question
Our strategic threats are from China, which grows stronger each day from manufacturing trade, and Russia, which is threatened by China and relies on fossil fuel exports. Instead of focusing on cutting one in eight soldiers and stockpiling nuclear weapons, what discussions has the Secretary of State had across Government about using COP26 to put a carbon tax on trade, in order to check Chinese power and help transition Russia from fossil fuels towards a wood economy for construction?
Minister reply
Climate change poses a security threat because it could deliver instability, poverty and problems in other parts of the world that would drive migrant flows and increase friction over precious resources. Defence will play its part in both trying to solve its own emissions and making sure that it provides stability in some of the poorest countries.
-
Question
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to innovation, to the economy and to generating great high-skilled jobs right across the UK, such as those at Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope in County Durham, where we make the tracks for all Britain’s armoured vehicles. I would really like the Secretary of State to visit to see some of the innovative work being done there.
Minister reply
I would be delighted to visit and keen to come to see how the engineering is done on upgrading our Challengers and Ajax.
-
Question
The Government have frequently confirmed their commitment to the non-proliferation treaty, which they recognise plays an unparalleled role in curtailing the nuclear arms race and keeping the world safe. But this Government are now feeding, not ameliorating, nuclear risk. Will the Secretary of State publish the detail of the Attorney General’s advice to explain why he is seeking to break yet another international agreement?
Minister reply
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that Governments do not publish the Attorney General’s advice. We do not believe in any way that we are breaking the nuclear proliferation treaty and what we really need to do is make sure that we maintain a credible deterrent.
-
Question
I thank my right hon. Friend for his Defence Command Paper, which I broadly welcome, in particular the integrated review, which looks forward to the modern threats we face and embraces the capabilities we need to develop to meet those threats. When it comes to the nuclear deterrent, we must remember that this is a bipartisan policy that has been supported by both sides of the House until now and that we want to maintain that consensus.
Minister reply
Obviously, detail around development, use and, indeed, deployment of nuclear warheads is a very sensitive subject. However, I will see what I can do to provide further briefing to Members and to specific Committees, if that is a better way to furnish more detail in a secure environment.
-
Question
As the UK Government announce billions more for Trident, while my constituents have been forced to turn to food banks, another poll—this time by BMG Research —has found that the majority of Scots want independence. Does the Secretary of State really think that prioritising yet more weapons of mass destruction, on top of the billions already being spent on them, is doing the so-called Union any favours, when the salaries of NHS workers and service personnel are either stagnant or being cut?
Minister reply
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Lady now belongs to a party that does want to belong to NATO or does not. If it does want to belong to NATO, which I think is its current position this week, it is, of course, a nuclear alliance and therefore she is tacitly accepting the existence of the defence provided by nuclear weapons. So there is a sort of sleight of hand there. She should also know that, despite the polls, in the last actual vote on being a member of the United Kingdom, the people in Scotland who wanted to stay in the United Kingdom won and the quote was “not for another generation”.
-
Question
On the threats from Russia and communist China, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that conflict in the grey zone is the modern equivalent of the old cold war—in both cases, hostile moves were deliberately kept below the threshold for open warfare? So does he accept that those who warn against cold war containment policies should seriously reflect and reconsider their position?
Minister reply
I think my right hon. Friend is very right about a lot of these things. A number of activities take place below the threshold of “violence” or “overt”. They are unacceptable. They are carried out by China, Iran and other countries against this country and other countries. People cannot sweep that under the carpet and we must take action against it. Sometimes we take it in an overt space or through the Foreign Office calling out or attributing certain events, such as cyber and other things, but also that is why we are taking the capabilities to hand where we, too, can reject or repel such actions in the grey zone.
-
Question
First, can I say to the Secretary of State that he should actually read the National Audit Office report of 2010 on the deficit in 2010, because it said it would be between £6 billion and £36 billion if you had flat cash—we did not have that because in 2010 and onwards the defence budget was cut by 16%? Can I ask about the F-35? The Command Paper commits the Government to the 48 jets we have already purchased but there are no commitments for any further—there is just an aspiration. The Defence Secretary knows that we need four aircraft to provide one operational. At the current rate there will be 12 aircraft available—six on each carrier, or 12 on one and none on the other. I do not think that will be a great threat to the people’s liberation army. But could he say when the numbers are going to be increased and at what cost, or is it the case that we will be able to deploy our carriers only if we do so with the US marine corps?
Minister reply
I have read the NAO report. In fact, I usually bring it to every parliamentary questions because the good thing about it is that it shows that in the final year of the Labour Government they spent £3 billion without any idea whatsoever where they were going to get it from—it says it quite clearly in the executive summary. That is a record not to be proud of. We do not recognise the 4:1 ratio the right hon. Gentleman talks about in respect of the F-35s. We will deliver the 48 F-35s to our forces by 2025 and, as it says in the paper, we will go beyond that number.
-
Question
I welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend intends to grow the UK fleet of frigates and destroyers so that Britannia will once again rule the waves. What impact does he expect this to have on the Royal Navy’s operational outputs and on the UK shipbuilding industry? Will those ships be built with good, strong Sheffield steel?
Minister reply
First and foremost, the key thing about our ships is to make sure that they are available to use. As the Secretary of State for Defence, I want them on the seas, able to project power and supporting our allies and friends. One of the problems in the past, which goes back to the issue of overambition and underfunding, was that we had lots on paper but if you went to Portsmouth you found a number of them—you still do—tied up in a sorry state. This Command Paper will ensure that the new ships, and indeed the existing Type 45s and some of the Type 23s, will be more available, more deployed and more ready to help Britain. The new ships are going to be made on the Clyde and in Rosyth, part of the United Kingdom where, together, collective defence provides jobs for thousands of people, and, where possible, we will use as many British parts and as much British equipment as we can.
-
Question
As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am under no illusion about the evolving nature of the security threats that we face, but could I ask the Secretary of State about the reduction in the number of members of the Army? At the Conservative party manifesto launch in 2019, the Prime Minister, in response to the journalist Tom Newton Dunn, said: “We will not be cutting our armed forces in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed forces because we are increasing funding for them”. After the announcement today, does the Secretary of State regret the Prime Minister promising this to the British people at the last general election?
Minister reply
No, I do not. If the hon. Lady wants to know one of the reasons that we have taken a slightly different position, it is Operation Spring Shield, which relates to the Turkish incursion into north-west Syria. As she is a member of the ISC, perhaps she should look at the impact of that type of change in tactics and use of technology on a conventional armoured force. It became blatantly clear that unless we modernised and updated our land forces in a proper way, they would be deeply vulnerable to those types of attacks. That is the responsibility I have to protect the men and women operating that equipment so that I can deploy them, and I will not take it lightly. If I have to have a few less people to make sure they are better protected, better equipped and better deployable, but also more lethal, that is a decision I would take, and I am sure that most Members in this House would.
-
Question
There is much to welcome in this statement. My only concern relates to some of the cuts in our conventional forces, because quantity still has a quality all of its own. For example, no matter how potent a naval vessel might be, it cannot be in two places at once. May I turn my right hon. Friend’s attention to the importance of soft power in helping to avoid conflict in the first place? I know that this is something he agrees with. What plans are there in the integrated review and the Command Paper to increase resource investment in defence diplomacy as a means of increasing our soft power capabilities?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend and I completely agree on this matter. We are going to invest in and increase the number of defence attachés around the world. We are going to invest in better comms for them, and we have already started the process of improving their curriculum, so that they are better trained and more knowledgeable. I have also instructed the director of defence people to make a separate career stream for those people, so that they can start at junior level and follow it all the way through to become a professional in a certain part of the world, speaking the language, understanding the importance of inter-regional actions and therefore really adding value and being able to complement the UK’s diplomatic effort and potentially other efforts around the world to provide stability. In that way, we can hopefully get in early and not end up in a place where we have to go and fight a conflict when things have failed.
-
Question
The Defence Secretary has justified the decision to cut troop numbers because of evolving threats, but there is a hole in that logic. If the threat has changed so much, so quickly, what is there to say it will not change again? Given the uncertainty, it seems unwise to cut the one thing that, above all else, gives us our edge: our people. I ask the Secretary of State to think again.
Minister reply
I know that the hon. Gentleman comes with good experience of the armed forces, and he will also know the real balance that I have to strike, both as a leader and now in this job as Secretary State for Defence. Yes, people are our most important asset, but protecting them is our most important duty, and we have to get that balance right. It is no good being over-ambitious in deploying them if we cannot support them. Yes, the threat can change—absolutely it can change. In 2035, I will not be in this job, but the person who is should be able to come to this House and increase the size of the armed forces, should that be required. They should be free to make that decision, and I would certainly support anyone who did that, if they demonstrated what the threat was. Threat goes up and threat evolves, and in the past we have been too slow to follow the threat because we have been following either more shallow arguments or promises that were never kept.
-
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a lot of uninformed hysteria in reaction to the announcement that we are increasing the cap on our number of warheads? If we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it must be credible. I appreciate the sensitivity of the subject, but with a number of warheads always having to be serviced, a cap of 180 is not credible. That is especially true if we see the debate in context: the French have around 300 warheads; the United States 3,800; and the Russians 6,800. More than half the nuclear weapons in the world are Russian at a time when Russia has shown its aggressive intent on other countries.
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing in what he has said that I disagree with. Let us put it in context. Of the declared nuclear powers, we have the lowest stockpile. We need to keep it credible. I fully respect people who do not want a nuclear deterrent or who are in favour of unilateral disarmament, but if people believe that a nuclear deterrent has helped to keep peace in this country and around Europe for 50 years, then we must make sure that it is credible. Not to do so is to make a laughing stock of the whole thing.
-
Question
What exactly is the new threat that requires a stockpile of 260 warheads instead of 180, and how does this align with disarmament commitments?
Minister reply
Disarmament can only be achieved when both sides offer credible terms. A reduction in credibility would allow adversaries to exploit this imbalance.
-
Question
Does the Secretary of State agree that modern warfare is more complex and requires understanding of emerging threats, including technology proliferation?
Minister reply
Modern warfare involves high-tech weaponry and unconventional tactics. The briefing by the Chief of Defence Intelligence outlines these challenges.
-
Question
What engagement has there been with Career Transition Partnership regarding resettlement services for service personnel affected by recent changes?
Minister reply
No redundancies related to these reductions will affect service personnel, and full support on the resettlement journey is guaranteed.
-
Question
How will maintaining the quality of special forces recruits be ensured despite a reduced Army size?
Minister reply
Modernisation and technological advancements often require fewer personnel, enhancing lethality. The development of Ranger battalion and future commando force training will improve recruitment.
-
Question
Does the Secretary of State recognise procurement inefficiencies as a significant issue within MOD?
Minister reply
Procurement challenges are acknowledged, but decisions like committing to Boxer vehicle development demonstrate progress towards necessary modernisation.
-
Question
What is the Secretary of State's view on the stability and adequacy of current defence numbers compared to Russian perceptions?
Minister reply
The UK will invest in deep fires, ballistic missile defence, surveillance capabilities and counteracting sub-threshold threats, demonstrating readiness against adversaries.
-
Question
How does the focus on expeditionary capabilities impact operations east of Suez?
Minister reply
The UK will project influence through presence and enablers like signallers, logistics support, enhancing partnerships with allies in the Pacific.
-
Question
At a time when the Government say there is no money for a proper pay rise for NHS workers, they are going to give the military the biggest financial boost since the cold war and waste billions more increasing the number of UK nuclear weapons by 40%. Each UK nuclear warhead has an explosive power eight times that of the nuclear bomb barbarically dropped on Hiroshima at the end of the second world war, killing over 140,000 civilians. If we are going to spend billions more increasing the number of nuclear weapons, what is to stop others doing the same, in a new global arms race?
Minister reply
We are not going to spend billions increasing the number of nuclear weapons. In 2016, the House voted collectively for a nuclear deterrent—I am sure the hon. Member did not, and certainly the leader he used to follow did not either.
-
Question
I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The review specifically refers to a more productive integration of the reserve forces. Will he give a bit more detail on that and confirm that the reserves have to remain a vital part of our whole force structure?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that they are really important; they are more important than they have ever been. Looking across the three services, some services embrace them well and some could do a lot more.
-
Question
I would like to hear a little more about how the reduction in troop numbers is going to be managed. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no redundancies? In the past, a shortage of personnel has meant an increased workload for those who remain. How will he ensure that personnel are able to maintain a good work-life balance if they are having to carry out the work of more people?
Minister reply
First of all, there will not be any redundancies. This process can be managed over the next five years by reducing inflow on recruitment. Secondly, to ensure that people are not overburdened, we are going to apply intelligent recruiting.
-
Question
I welcome this thoughtful defence Command Paper, particularly the new investment in space, cyber, autonomous vehicles, defence intelligence and defence science. But is it not the case that there is still a need for metal on the ground? I welcome the new investment in the Boxer vehicle programme and the Challenger 3 programme. Those programmes are very welcome throughout the west midlands, but will the Secretary of State tell the House what they will mean for Shropshire in particular? Finally, may I put in an early bid for the new special operations brigade to come and reside in Shropshire, near to Hereford—the SAS—and to the Welsh training mountains?
Minister reply
There is the first bid, from my hon. Friend’s constituency. My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for his constituents. He has consistently asked me to ensure that upgrades to the Boxer and Challenger vehicles happen.
-
Question
I see that units of Government press officers have been on manoeuvres this past week, but unfortunately they have been spinning on cuts to our Army. The regular Army will have shrunk from 113,000 to 72,000 under Conservative Governments since 2010, so why does the Secretary of State not accept that reducing the size of our forces makes our country less agile and less secure?
Minister reply
I do not think it does. When the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, it did not reverse the reductions from the time that I was in the Army.
-
Question
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s words from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, especially his commitment to more than 20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the next decade, but I was slightly concerned by the vague reference to the new automatic mine-hunting system, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes. My right hon. Friend knows that these two classes do far more than just hunt mines; they are a great deterrent and deliver a presence in supporting our allies around the world. Will he give us more detail on what this new automatic mine-hunting capability is, and on whether the Sandown and Hunt classes will be replaced like for like?
Minister reply
If my hon. Friend would like me to, I would be delighted to get him a briefing on the exact progress of that system.
-
Question
Last week, the Prime Minister was unable to state how the Government’s commitment to international law fitted with breaching article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Defence Secretary has since said that the raising of the cap on the nuclear warhead stockpile is to ensure the UK has a credible nuclear deterrent in response to Russia and others, and that we will still have one of the lowest stockpiles. Will he explain for exactly how long our deterrent has not been credible? How does this increase—below others—make it now credible?
Minister reply
I am afraid that I cannot, at the Dispatch Box, tell people about the credibility of our nuclear deterrent in detail, because to do so would undermine its security.
-
Question
The detail of the announcement, wide-ranging and important as it is, will be chewed over over the coming days, and there will be some good bits and some bad bits. However, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the honesty, the directness and the detail that is in this Command Paper, which is very refreshing indeed.
I welcome the concentration on climate change in the integrated review. The Secretary of State will know very well that the worrying rate of retreating ice in the Arctic presents commercial opportunities as well as threats, yet at the same time, the Russians have increased their submarine and above-surface capabilities in the Arctic very considerably in recent years. What does the Secretary of State intend to do with regard to safeguarding our commercial vehicles, which may well be making use of the northern sea route, in years to come?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the challenges and opportunities around the high north, and indeed the growing activities of the Russian navy’s northern fleet.
-
Question
Our brave and highly trained military servicemen and servicewomen are, as the Defence Secretary himself stated a short while ago, our finest defence asset. However, while talking tough on defence, the Conservative Government have eroded their morale and strength by cutting over 45,000 personnel during this decade of decline, made worse still by today’s manifesto-breaking commitment to reduce the Army’s size to a mere 72,500, to the extent that our smaller Army is now a cause for serious concern for our global allies. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff that the ability to field a warfighting division is the standard by which the UK Army will be judged as credible by its allies?
Minister reply
First of all, yes, and we can. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to know what is morale-sapping, it is something I experienced under his Government and, indeed, the Conservative Government: sitting in the back of something that is unprotected and vulnerable to the people who want to kill you.
-
Question
Welcomes the defence review but raises concerns about NATO's reliability, especially with article 42 of the Lisbon treaty. Asks if there will be capability to react quickly and upgrade naval forces if needed.
Minister reply
Emphasises that NATO is the primary guarantor of European security. Notes a process of verification and accountability through the national readiness initiative started by the United States, ensuring delivery of commitments. Affirms UK's capabilities as the second-largest spender in NATO.
-
Question
Cites Admiral Mike Mullen's concerns about the size of UK forces relative to US special forces, questioning how future conflicts can be won with limited boots on the ground.
Minister reply
Argues that early conflict prevention and state-building are more effective than putting troops on the ground. Acknowledges the Chief of the Defence Staff's support for the review.
-
Question
Welcomes the formation of the Ranger regiment, asking about its operational timeline.
Minister reply
Confirms that initial funding is secured and equipping will start soon. Training time for new discipline addition will be required.