Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Armed Forces Capability: Future Security Threats

Monday 21 September 2020 · 9 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 3 Partly answered 4 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministry of Defence is conducting an integrated review to ensure armed forces capability meets future security threats.
  • Minister committed to working with the Treasury to support the defence industry in economic recovery.
  • Defence Intelligence assesses threats using its staff and international collaboration, feeding into future defence planning.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Joy Morrissey Con Beaconsfield
Context

The MP is concerned about the adequacy of armed forces capability to tackle future security threats.

Question

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that armed forces capability is adequate to tackle future security threats?

Answer from Ben Wallace

The Ministry of Defence is examining its capability requirements through the integrated review, guided by Defence Intelligence's understanding of the threats we face now and in the future. We are examining the evolving doctrines, structures and capabilities of our adversaries to ensure that we develop the capabilities required to deliver the operations of tomorrow.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Gagan Mohindra Con South West Hertfordshire
Context

The MP highlights the importance of defence industry for economic recovery, employment, and skills base.

Question

Will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to ensure that the defence industry is central to plans for our economic recovery and that an ambitious strategy is reflected in the integrated review?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I am always happy to work with the Treasury on any number of subjects. Defence's multibillion-pound investment in the UK powers the skills, innovation and capabilities that keep this country safe, secure and competitive. As a Lancashire MP, Mr Speaker, you will recognise how important the industry is to the skills base in our constituencies. Defence is leading a review of the defence and security industrial strategy to identify steps to ensure a competitive and world-class industrial base that delivers investment, employment and prosperity across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Joy Morrissey Con Beaconsfield
Context

The MP seeks to understand the role of Defence Intelligence in assessing threats and countermeasures.

Question

Following recent media reports, what more can my right hon. Friend say on the role that Defence Intelligence plays in assessing threats and our ability to counter them? Will he consider meeting me about an issue concerning a former MOD intelligence training site in Beaconsfield?

Answer from Ben Wallace

Defence Intelligence uses its 4,500 exceptionally talented staff to collect, analyse and exploit intelligence. By working internationally and with other Departments, it is able to judge today's threat and tomorrow's and ensure that that feeds into the future design under the integrated review.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The questioner also asked about meeting regarding an issue concerning a former MOD intelligence training site in Beaconsfield. This aspect was not directly addressed.

How: Deflection

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Context

The MP pays tribute to forces aiding in the covid crisis and questions the Secretary of State on avoiding mistakes from past reviews.

Question

May I start by paying tribute to the forces men and women who are working to help the country through the covid crisis? We may soon need to turn to them again, in the face of this renewed pandemic threat. On the integrated review, I recognise that the cycle of defence decisions does not match the cycle of political elections. Britain still benefits from the skills, technologies and capabilities at the heart of Labour's Drayson review 15 years ago. The Opposition want the Government to get this integrated review right, but when this is the third Conservative review in just 10 years, how will the Defence Secretary avoid making the big mistakes of the last two?

Answer from Ben Wallace

The mistake of all the defence reviews—including the 1998 one, which was exceptionally good, and Lord Drayson's review—was that they were not matched by funding. The Labour party had exactly the same problem at its last review, which is why in 2010 we inherited a black hole of billions of pounds, and indeed, there is a black hole now, identified by the National Audit Office. This is not unique to any political party. Selective picking of the last two reviews, when I could probably talk about the last five, makes no difference. The key is to ensure that our review is driven by threat. The threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home, and the ambition defines how far we wish to go. All that then needs to be matched with Treasury funding. If we are over-ambitious, underfunded or both, we will in a few years' time end up in the position we are in today and have been in the past. It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces the shadow Secretary of State talks about by making sure that we give them something we can afford and tailoring our ambition to match our pocket.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Context

The MP discusses the Labour government's investment in defence, criticising the Secretary of State for over-promising and under-delivering.

Question

Of course, the Labour Government invested in defence at a higher rate each year than that of the previous 10 years, but the Secretary of State is right about the big aims and challenges. He has previously described the 2015 review as over-ambitious and underfunded, and to over-promise and under-deliver has become something of a hallmark of this Government, but that most recent review left Britain with a £7 billion black hole for military equipment; 8,000 fewer soldiers than Ministers pledged as the minimum; and multibillion-pound contracts placed abroad when we could build in Britain. Of course, there is also a pandemic disease, which was confirmed as a tier 1 threat but no Government action was taken to prepare for it. For all the Secretary of State's talk of the grand picture and grand strategy, does he accept that the British public and the Opposition will judge the Government by these tests?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I think that I misheard. I thought the shadow Secretary of State was talking about the position that we inherited in 2010, which was underfunded and over-ambitious—indeed, there was an equipment hole so big that many of the tanks could be driven through it. He could also point out that our men and women in the armed forces have been ready: they have delivered an excellent covid response and have not been found wanting in any way. That is partly because of the investment we have put into them, but also because of expert leadership through the officers and the civil servants in the Department and across the Government. I assure the shadow Secretary of State that the best way to avoid the pitfalls of the past is to make sure that our ambition is matched by our pockets and what we put into the review. That is fundamentally the best thing we can do for all our forces. I would be delighted to hear the Labour party's ambition on foreign policy and security; the previous Labour party leadership's ambition for foreign policy was surrender.

Not addressed: The questioner also questioned past reviews' outcomes, but the answerer criticised the opposition's past policies instead of addressing specific issues from the review.

How: Attack

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

The Scottish National Party criticises the UK government for failing to meet promises on defence infrastructure in Scotland, referencing a promised frigate factory that was not delivered.

Question

I echo comments about armed forces and current crisis. We know all about over-ambition and under-delivery when it comes to MoD: six years ago we were promised a frigate factory but promise broken; 12,500 regular troops in Scotland promised but number never hit 10,000. Is it time for multi-year defence agreements to prevent £13 billion equipment-plan black hole?

Answer from Ben Wallace

Of course he may have missed Type 31 frigate and Type 26 ships being made in Scotland; Faslane base recently basing P-8s in Kinloss. There will be more investment and units placed in Scotland, because we believe UK is best union for security of all citizens. We do not believe in separation or borders between our countries. We are stronger when together.

Not addressed: The question about multi-year defence agreements was ignored; instead the answer focused on the benefits of the United Kingdom union.

How: Changes Subject, Discusses Broader Political Stance

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

The SNP criticises defence promises not met in Scotland, mentioning Denmark's approach of multi-year agreements as a model.

Question

Government promised 12,500 troops but never hit 10,000; also missed delivering frigate factory. Why does Secretary of State not answer question? Let us move to multi-year defence agreements: will we see progress when integrated review published next month?

Answer from Ben Wallace

We are having multi-year integrated review that sets course for next few years. SNP always resorts to saving regiments rather than discussing threats to Scotland; Treasury has talked about four-year spending settlement in next comprehensive spending review, so it is based on multiple years.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about adopting a multi-year approach was not directly addressed; instead the answer focused on reviewing over multiple years generally.

How: Discusses General Principles

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

Concerns about the capacity of government to manage a second wave or other crisis, suggesting use of senior armed forces.

Question

When will integrated review be published? Following briefings on covid-19 rise, arguably biggest threat facing nation. Encourages greater use of senior armed forces for strategic thinking, planning and delivery as they are trained for crisis management.

Answer from Ben Wallace

Review will report hopefully in October/November; timed to coincide with comprehensive spending review. On covid, Defence helped thicken response across government by command and control, strengthened logistics supply chain in NHS, provided mobile testing.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about encouraging the use of senior armed forces was not directly addressed; instead the answer focused on past successes in managing the first wave of covid-19.

How: Discusses Previous Actions

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

Operation Arbacia has exposed international terror links from Iran to Ireland, including Hezbollah and Real IRA.

Question

When will Government be in position to proscribe framework operation of organisation—namely Muslim Brotherhood—and put it out of business?

Answer from Ben Wallace

Hezbollah is proscribed—the political wing as well as military wing. Real, New and Continuity IRA are also proscribed; we should point to facts that show adversaries link up around world.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about proscribing the Muslim Brotherhood was not directly addressed; instead the answer focused on existing proscriptions of Hezbollah and other groups.

How: Discusses Related Issues

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)