Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Strategic Defence Review: Timescale

Monday 2 November 2020 · 7 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 6 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Government will conduct a one-year spending review for 2021-22.
  • The Government is considering the implications of the spending review for the integrated review.
  • An update on the review's timeline will be provided to Parliament once decisions are made.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Alec Shelbrooke Con Wetherby and Easingwold
Defence
Context

The MP inquired about the timeline for conducting a strategic defence review.

Question

What is his proposed timescale for the next strategic defence review?

Answer from Ben Wallace

The Government announced on 21 October that they will conduct a one-year spending review for 2021-22. The implications of that decision for the integrated review are currently being considered. The Government will provide an update to Parliament once this has been decided.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Providing a specific timescale

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q2 Alec Shelbrooke Con Wetherby and Easingwold
Defence
Context

In 2019, a report by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly highlighted the growing maritime threat from Russia. The MP requested to meet with relevant officials to feed into naval demands for the future.

Question

Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other members of the Assembly so that we may feed into the review of forward and ongoing naval demands for the foreseeable future?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in leading the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The UK, along with NATO allies, takes the maritime threat from Russia very seriously. This tempo and assertiveness of our operational output will continue for as long as Russia continues to pose a threat and challenge to freedom of navigation. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues to discuss it further.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Arranging specific meeting details

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q3 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Defence
Context

The MP acknowledged the armed forces' role during the second national lockdown and asked for a timeline of the integrated review.

Question

When will it be published?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the armed forces... We are thinking through the impact of the Treasury's announcement that there will be a one-year spending settlement. Once we have thought through those consequences and worked through the implications, I will report straight to the House on what that means.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Publication date for the integrated review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q4 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Defence
Context

The MP criticized the Chancellor's decision to conduct a one-year spending review, arguing it hinders future defence planning.

Question

A fully fledged, fully funded strategic defence and security review is needed now more than ever. What does he say about the failure to deliver on that?

Answer from Ben Wallace

I think the right hon. Gentleman delivered the speech for a potential future statement... I respectfully suggest that he waits until we have thought through the implications. Then we can have that discussion in Parliament.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific criticisms and failures to deliver

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q5 Stewart McDonald SNP
Defence
Context

The MP expressed concerns about the postponement of a multi-year spending settlement and its impact on future nuclear warhead systems.

Question

Can he tell us what the consequences of the postponement are for the future nuclear warheads system and, in particular, the W93?

Answer from Ben Wallace

As I said to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the first thing is to wait until we have worked through the consequences of the one-year spending announcement by the Treasury... I, or indeed the Prime Minister, will then be happy to come and update the House about what that means for the integrated review and the consequences that follow.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific implications on nuclear systems

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q6 Stewart McDonald SNP
Defence
Context

The question stems from a letter sent by the Secretary of State to members of Congress in April stating that support for the W93 program is critical. Concerns have been raised about potential funding issues following an election outcome.

Question

Support to the W93 programme in this budget cycle is critical, as stated by the Secretary of State. Given press reports and his Department's alarm over a possible Democratic victory impacting US support for this programme, does he agree with Tom McTague's assessment that Britain's strategy itself may be an existential challenge?

Answer from Ben Wallace

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands; the UK will maintain a £41 billion defence budget, one of Europe's largest. The nuclear deterrent and submarines are not under threat despite any single-year funding settlement. Steps will be taken to address financial challenges but this does not mean an end to our strategic goals or commitments.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific concern about the existential challenge of Britain's strategy due to US election outcomes was not directly addressed.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q7 Tobias Ellwood Con
Defence
Context

The Prime Minister previously assured that the integrated review would not be delayed. This review is seen as crucial for establishing a robust defence posture to support foreign policy ambitions.

Question

A one-year funding settlement will render the integrated review nearly meaningless. The Prime Minister promised no delay in its publication, which sets out full spending commitments and supports 'global Britain'. Delaying it could question our justification for a UN Security Council seat. I urge the Defence Secretary to complete this review as scheduled or with multi-year funding if necessary.

Answer from Ben Wallace

My right hon. Friend raises valid points. However, it is premature to speculate without seeing the implications of the Treasury's one-year funding settlement announcement. He may address his concerns at future Treasury questions.

Not addressed: The specific request for completing the review on schedule was not directly addressed.

How: Speculation Is Just Speculation

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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