← Back to House of Commons Debates
Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces
14 April 2021
Lead MP
John Healey
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Defence
Other Contributors: 38
At a Glance
John Healey raised concerns about strength of the uk’s armed forces in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Calls on the Government to rethink its plan to reduce key defence capabilities and reduce the strength of the Armed Forces, citing concerns about growing global threats. The motion seeks a statement from the Prime Minister by June 30, 2021, regarding these plans.
John Healey
Lab
Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
The debate focuses on the threat assessment in the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. The Government's plan to reduce defence capabilities is criticised for cutting troop numbers, ships, and aircraft at a time when threats are increasing. Healey argues against further cuts citing concerns over resilience, readiness, renewal, and reputation.
James Heappey
Con
Newbury
Stresses the importance of adapting to technological advancements and not clinging to outdated military structures. Highlights significant investments in naval, air, and ground forces, including new carriers, destroyers, submarines, F-35 fighters, Ajax vehicles, and Boxer armoured fighting vehicles. Emphasises the role of special operations-capable rangers for training partner forces globally.
Asks about the future of British troops in Afghanistan following US withdrawal.
Questions the minister's dismissal of traditional vehicles and enquires about massing forces on Ukraine’s borders as a challenge to NATO.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Requests assurances for extra recruitment and places for Northern Ireland in the Territorial Army, noting current high levels of recruitment.
Expresses concern over cuts to forces necessary for limited operations, counter-insurgency, peacekeeping, and peace-making despite preparation for an all-out war scenario.
Stewart McDonald
SNP
Glasgow South
McDonald pays tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh and expresses concern about the Government's decision to cut up to 10,000 places in the armed forces. He highlights the inconsistency between promises made by the government before elections and their actions after winning those elections. McDonald emphasises that such cuts undermine trust in Scotland and questions why the government is framing opponents as outdated when they support modern threats but also value conventional capabilities. He also points out the significant impact of cyber threats and calls for a comprehensive strategy on how to lead efforts internationally regarding these issues.
Tony Lloyd
Lab
Rochdale
Lloyd criticises the Minister for posing the question as technology versus the size of armed forces, arguing that both are essential. He highlights the importance of adequate numbers in the armed forces based on past experiences and expresses concerns about the impact of significant reductions in personnel on operational capabilities.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Lewis endorses Lloyd's comments and discusses the need for a balanced approach to defence spending, acknowledging both the importance of advanced technologies and conventional forces. He stresses that even with increased investment, current spending levels remain insufficient compared to historical standards.
Russia is the most serious threat to British and European security with its military strength, cyber capabilities, and territorial ambitions. The increase in nuclear warheads to 260 is necessary for a credible deterrent against Russia's aggressive actions and cyber-attacks. Russia's interference includes vaccine research thefts, undersea cable threats, and support for the Assad regime in Syria. Urgent action must be taken with allies to stop Russian aggression towards Ukraine before it escalates further.
The debate should acknowledge Ernest Bevin's contributions to NATO, the Marshall Plan, and Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. The current Secretary of State's responses have been seen as petulant rather than reasoned. In light of Russia's aggressive military activities near Ukraine, it is crucial not to undermine defence by cutting troop numbers and other platforms. Previous Conservative Governments also made mistakes in reducing defence during interwar periods and under Options for Change. Dealing with cyber challenges should not come at the expense of conventional military capability or upgrades.
Eleanor Laing
Con
Laing announces that Marie Rimmer will speak next, but due to sound quality issues, her speech is not heard clearly.
Marie Rimmer
Lab
St Helens South and Whiston
Rimmer's speech is inaudible due to poor sound quality.
Alun Cairns
Con
Pembrokekemeys
Cairns discusses the importance of securing the future of the St Athan base in Wales and requests Labour Members to influence their colleagues in the Welsh Government to support MOD plans for housing a major Army unit at the site. He expresses concern about the precarious situation of the base due to the Welsh Government's refusal to extend the lease.
Dan Jarvis
Lab
Barnsley North
Jarvis criticises the reduction in the number of service personnel despite maintaining military commitments. He argues that technology is no substitute for people and emphasises the importance of retaining talent rather than recruiting it.
Emma Lewell
Lab
South Shields
It is galling that time and again we hear from the Secretary of State and his Ministers that our people—our forces personnel—are our best asset, yet when there is an opportunity to look after them, the Government cut and freeze their pay, deplete their numbers, and neglect their mental and physical health needs as well as their housing and welfare needs. The cuts to our Army, Navy and Air Force come at a time of increasing global instability, emerging threats and increasing risks on the back of a decade of decline.
I welcome today’s debate, but I want Members in this Chamber, particularly on the Opposition Benches, to remember that it was the Labour party—MPs sat on the Opposition Benches, including the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition—that wanted to make the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) Prime Minister, so no doubt those Members supported his world view. I pay tribute to the hard work of our armed forces, which keep us safe every day. We must consider not only the threat of newly emerging powers, requiring nuclear weapons, but that of non-state actors, who have shown their intention to cause atrocities on our streets. We welcome this Government’s commitment to spend £188 billion on defence over the next four years.
In 1962, Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, said: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.” In the maritime space, for example, we have a situation where global Britain is going to be projected by only 19 capital ships, and possibly fewer than that, throughout the mid-2020s. We cannot do that without resources and without the people to do that. Given this Government’s track record in coalition and in Government, the integrated review did not come from a standing start; it was from a start that has seen cuts to the defence budget that mean it is 5% lower than it was in real terms in 2010.
Andrew Selous
Con
Varsity
The strength of our armed forces relies on the skills, dedication and experience of military personnel. Service families face numerous challenges including separation, relocation, poor accommodation, disrupted education for children, and health service issues due to frequent moves. These difficulties often lead to high attrition rates among experienced personnel. The report “Living in our Shoes” provides 110 recommendations aimed at improving the lives of armed forces families which have been largely accepted by the Government.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
The armed forces played a crucial role during the pandemic, doing valuable work in testing and vaccination. This type of deployment can be very satisfying for military personnel and indirectly saves other government departments money. Reducing the size of the armed forces could negatively impact recruitment by reducing its perceived importance and attractiveness to potential recruits.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Andrew Bowie
Con
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
While the motion is thoughtful, it incorrectly suggests that the Government’s plans to reduce armed forces manpower will also reduce capability. The £24.1 billion investment in defence spending and new technologies should be welcomed as they maintain or enhance military capabilities. This includes investments that benefit Scotland's shipyards, Leonardo in Edinburgh, and other defence industries.
Mohammad Yasin
Lab
Bedford
The cancellation of the Warrior capability sustainment programme is a significant mistake as it risks putting our armed forces at risk by replacing them with foreign-manufactured vehicles. This decision could lead to substantial job losses and economic damage in key manufacturing regions. The UK should invest in its own defence industry to ensure both military readiness and domestic economic growth.
Mr Sunderland argued against the concept of 'strength' being solely related to size or numbers. He pointed out historical reductions under both Labour and Conservative governments, noting that despite such cuts, military capability can still be potent. He welcomed recent significant investment in defence but expressed caution about the current Regular Army size, suggesting it may need an establishment of 82,000 to effectively mobilise a strength of 72,000.
James Wild
Con
North West Norfolk
Mr Wild welcomed Labour's shift towards enhancing armed forces but criticised their previous government for leaving behind a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. He praised the current government's commitment to modernising and adapting the forces through major investments across five domains, despite changes from initial plans. Mr Wild highlighted the need for choices due to limited resources and stressed the importance of focusing on technological advantage over sheer numbers.
Clarkson criticises Labour's recent stance on military issues as insincere, noting past abstentions from voting on protections for service personnel. He argues that the nature of warfare has changed since the Cold War era and thus requires a different approach to military configuration. Clarkson highlights the Government’s commitment to ensuring adequate support for military personnel in terms of training, equipment, logistics, and legal protection through the enshrining of the armed forces covenant into law.
Warrington North
Nichols acknowledges positive advances made towards recognising obligations to service members but criticises proposed real-term pay cuts for military personnel and further reductions in capability. She expresses disappointment at the reduction in Army size, which she considers contrary to the Prime Minister's promise not to cut armed services. Nichols questions whether new technologies can fully address current strategic threats like climate change impacts and pandemics.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
Hardy thanks local military personnel for their service, especially during the pandemic, but expresses disappointment over the announced cut to armed forces personnel. She discusses the closure of BAE's historic aircraft manufacturing site in Brough on Christmas Eve 2020 and credits Unite the trade union for mitigating redundancies. Hardy urges the Government to explore remote working opportunities as a means to bring high-skilled jobs back to Hull.
Kate Osborne
Lab
Jarrow and Gateshead East
The Conservative Government has broken its election promise with a cut of 10,000 in the size of the Army, following previous cuts since 2010. Forces personnel have received below-inflation pay rises while living in substandard accommodation. Hidden within the plans is a 2.7% cut in day-to-day spending over the next four years. The Government must produce a long-term plan to boost Britain’s foundation industries as national assets and address the disparity between what they say and do.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
While understanding the need for modern warfare strategies, significant cuts such as reducing the Army by 12% are concerning. There is a disconnect in prioritising grey-zone warfare over traditional capabilities like tanks and infantry battalions, especially when considering historical operations that required ground soldiers. The cutting of the regiment he commanded in Bosnia without prior notice hits him personally.
High Peak
The threats to national security have evolved with a real grey zone, requiring an agile and smaller deployment approach. The Army ranger regiment, National Cyber Force, and Tempest combat aircraft are new capabilities that deserve credit. While there has been talk of cuts, the integrated review introduces significant new capabilities addressing modern warfare needs such as cyber and artificial intelligence.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Expressed concerns about the decline in recruitment numbers within UK forces, comparing the size of the British Army to US special forces. Stressed the importance of maintaining existing forces while integrating new technologies.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Highlighted fears over cuts to armed forces capability and expressed concern about reductions in logistics and supply capacity within the Air Force. Emphasised the critical role of trained personnel in Northern Ireland's stability.
Bury South
Acknowledged evolving nature of warfare and the importance of adapting to technological advancements while prioritising the safety of armed forces. Advocated for maintaining international aid as part of soft power strategy.
We must never treat service people as stupid; claiming everything under Labour was okay and that the Conservative Government slashed and burned is fundamentally untrue. Our reforms in the integrated review will enhance military strength to meet future threats, deploying faster and with greater global reach than before. Fewer individuals can achieve more now. The idea of cuts is misleading; we operate within our budget envelope.
On a point of order regarding whether it was in order to call another Member 'disingenuous'.
Johnny Mercer
Con
Central Devon
Emphasised the importance of understanding the Defence Review through direct engagement with military personnel. He highlighted that the review prioritises attracting and retaining talent by focusing on opportunities in cyber, space, technical training, and mental health care. He acknowledged varied views but maintained that the current armed forces remain a top career choice for young people.
Nigel Evans
Con
Darwen
Called for voting to commence after the conclusion of contributions, indicating readiness to proceed with a vote based on member reactions.
▸
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.