← Back to House of Commons Debates
Defence Programmes Developments
20 November 2024
Lead MP
John Healey
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
UkraineDefenceEconomyTaxation
Other Contributors: 29
At a Glance
John Healey raised concerns about defence programmes developments in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
The Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, announced significant investments in the UK's defence sector. Given a £22 billion black hole discovered by the Chancellor, Healey highlighted that the new government is providing an additional £3 billion to defence next year and committing to set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. The statement includes reforms within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) such as reducing consultancy spending and introducing tight financial controls. Six outdated military capabilities are being decommissioned, expected to save up to £500 million over five years, which will be reinvested in defence. Healey also announced retention payments for military personnel: a new £30,000 payment for aircraft engineers signing up for an additional three years of service and a £8,000 payment for Army personnel who have served four years. The statement concluded with reforms to create a stronger UK defence centre and ensure better value for money in future strategic decisions.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Question
Will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, RAF personnel, and Navy personnel as well? What will be the impact of permanently scrapping landing ships on the Royal Marines' operational effectiveness?
Minister reply
The minister acknowledged the need for further discussion on extending retention payments beyond aircraft engineers. He also committed to maintaining support for multi-role support ships (MRSS) but did not specify the exact number to be procured.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Question
What is the operational impact of decommissioning Puma and Chinook helicopters, and what will be the cost of commercial solutions for filling capability gaps? Will the new medium helicopter come into service before those Pumas are retired?
Minister reply
The minister responded by emphasising the need to ensure that decommissioning decisions do not compromise operational effectiveness. He committed to maintaining a strong focus on skilled rotary work in the UK and retaining exportability.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Question
Will older Chinooks or Pumas be gifted to Ukraine, especially given recent developments? What does this mean for the strategic defence review?
Minister reply
The minister confirmed that decisions were made in consultation with service chiefs and strategic defence reviewers, but he did not specify whether older equipment would be gifted to Ukraine. He emphasised the need for reforming the MOD to address increasing and diversifying threats.
James Cartlidge
Con
South Suffolk
Question
The MP questioned the Minister's claim that Labour is the party of defence, citing previous Conservative government spending levels. He also raised concerns about cuts to naval capabilities and their impact on Royal Marines' operational effectiveness. Additionally, he asked about retention payments for non-aircraft engineers and the procurement timeline for new medium helicopters.
Minister reply
The Minister defended his actions by pointing out that the Labour Government spent 2.5% of GDP on defence in 2010, while the current government's plan was unfunded and a pre-election gimmick. He confirmed retention incentives for aircraft engineers starting from January and acknowledged the impact of mothballing ships but stated there are alternative capabilities to cover these gaps.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
Question
The MP welcomed the reform efforts while questioning how unrequired kit will be disposed of, either through sale or donation to allies like Ukraine. He also asked about reskilling and retraining for personnel affected by these changes.
Minister reply
The Minister responded that decisions on what to do with decommissioned equipment have not yet been made but assured the MP he would inform him and his Committee of any future decisions. He emphasised that the decisions were overdue and supported by military chiefs.
Richard Foord
Lib Dem
Honiton and Sidmouth
Question
Welcoming the emphasis on defence personnel, MP Foord expressed concern about gaps in equipment replacement timelines such as the new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters coming only in 2027. He also questioned whether the statement had full backing from strategic defence reviewers.
Minister reply
The minister clarified that decisions were made after consulting with strategic defence reviewers and not solely relying on their endorsement. He stated that decommissioning the oldest Chinooks will allow for a smoother transition to new, more capable helicopters while saving money for other purposes.
Derek Twigg
Lab
Widnes and Halewood
Question
Acknowledging the need for reform in the MOD due to its current state, MP Twigg asked whether the MOD is fit for purpose to face modern threats.
Minister reply
The minister responded affirmatively that the MOD is not currently fit for purpose but stated that far-reaching reforms have been initiated and will continue during his tenure. He committed to making the forces ready for future threats.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Question
Suggesting a wait-and-see approach until the strategic defence review is completed, MP Duncan Smith questioned whether it was wise to decommission ships before the review.
Minister reply
The minister stated that savings from six decommissioning decisions will remain within defence and not be diverted to the Treasury. He emphasised that the Prime Minister has set a timeline for the strategic defence review before discussions on increasing defence spending.
Chris Evans
Lab Co-op
Caerphilly
Question
Congratulating the minister on his efforts to reform MOD waste, MP Evans asked if he would commission an NAO report on MOD waste and commit to updating this House regularly.
Minister reply
The minister confirmed that he has already reduced consultancy spend by £300 million and scrapped a VIP helicopter contract worth £40 million. He committed to further reforms based on the internal audit of waste.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
Describing it as a 'black day' for Royal Marines, MP Lewis questioned whether scrapping amphibious assault ships was militarily illiterate.
Minister reply
The minister responded that the statement signals a brighter future for the Royal Marines. He explained that HMS Albion and Bulwark had effectively been taken out of service due to their state, allowing savings while maintaining current capabilities with other ships.
Johanna Baxter
Lab
Paisley and Renfrewshire South
Question
Welcoming the focus on future forces, MP Baxter asked if the Government would work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies.
Minister reply
The minister confirmed that the Government will work closely with the defence industry. He highlighted the rapid replacement of outdated drone technology as an example.
Mike Martin
Lib Dem
Tunbridge Wells
Question
Clarification sought on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The future of Royal Marines was questioned, specifically about UK’s commitment to NATO in defending the high north.
Minister reply
No change to available amphibious capability as HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion had been mothballed for years with no plans for them to sail again until being decommissioned. This position allows focusing on more modern, flexible capabilities needed for the future.
Fred Thomas
Lab
Plymouth Moor View
Question
Discussion about honesty in defence modernisation and budget limitations. Concerns raised over jobs and workers protection in Plymouth with new submarine investments.
Minister reply
Agreed that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament not fully informed; Bulwark was ineffective for training as it could not sail. Strong supporter of Team Barrow transformation approach, considering similar model for Plymouth.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Question
What this announcement tells about the strategic defence review? Concerns over old kit disposal and whether less money is available now.
Minister reply
Acknowledged Bernard Jenkin’s expertise; decisions reflect people at heart of future plans, technology changing pace. Strategic defence review reflects integrated force approach from Ukraine lesson.
Gregor Poynton
Lab
Livingston
Question
Questions if the statement will fix foundations of nation's defence, spend wisely and keep nation safer.
Minister reply
Agrees that decisions outlined are wise use of resources; announced retention payments for tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals after four years' service.
Dave Doogan
SNP
Angus and Perthshire Glens
Question
Servicemen despairing over defence underfunding. Inquiry into escorts and frigates available, medium-lift helicopter project progress.
Minister reply
No change to Royal Navy ships availability as HMS Northumberland was not capable; process for new medium-lift helicopters continues.
Jacob Collier
Lab
Burton and Uttoxeter
Question
Support given by Government to service personnel, veterans and families.
Minister reply
Emphasised the importance of Armed Forces Commissioner Bill for improving service life and supporting those who serve and their families.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Question
Statement making mockery of SDR process, removing contingent capabilities. Inquiry into future carriers and Royal Marines.
Minister reply
Decisions are consistent with SDR; one carrier to undertake the Indo-Pacific voyage for validation exercises.
Graeme Downie
Lab
Dunfermline and Dollar
Question
Steps taken to ensure future programmes will be spent in UK, guarantees to support shipbuilding.
Minister reply
Proud of tradition of UK shipbuilding; committed to Government’s industrial strategy with defence sector as priority.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in the end. What message will be received from this statement in Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?
Minister reply
The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in future.
Kevin Bonavia
Lab
Stevenage
Question
I very much welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about cuts, when the previous Government’s biggest cut was to our armed forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars. In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future if they serve?
Minister reply
The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career: a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut defence by £2 billion.
Gavin Williamson
Con
Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
Question
If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—now that the Secretary of State’s Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in any way at all?
Minister reply
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in this very job, I will take that as an early representation on the future decisions I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is decommissioned.
Richard Tice
Reform
Boston and Skegness
Question
The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform. One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment, which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. Will he commit to also reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces? Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence, but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment, I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our national security.
Anna Gelderd
Lab
South East Cornwall
Question
With close social and economic ties between communities on both sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the future?
Minister reply
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.
Tim Roca
Lab
Macclesfield
Question
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca Smith
Con
South West Devon
Question
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
Minister reply
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Question
As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.
Mark Sewards
Lab
Leeds South West and Morley
Question
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. It is really good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by today’s decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to that 2.5% target. Given that this today’s final question, will he take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at home and strong abroad?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly what this Government are determined to do.
Shadow Comment
James Cartlidge
Shadow Comment
The shadow Minister criticised the Labour government's approach, highlighting that when they took office in July, the deficit was already significantly lower than it had been in 2010. He accused Labour of refusing to set a pathway to 2.5% defence spending and claimed their path was merely a gimmick. Cartlidge praised previous Conservative Defence Secretaries for delivering significant reforms, such as providing battlefield weapons to Ukraine before the invasion and initiating modernisation procurement models like the integrated procurement model. The shadow Minister questioned specific decisions made by Healey, including decommissioning certain naval vessels and rotary aircraft, raising concerns about operational effectiveness and impact on the Royal Marines. Cartlidge also inquired about future drone capabilities for British armed forces and criticised the government's actions before the strategic defence review.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.