Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Future Soldier Programme

Monday 28 March 2022 · 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 1 Partly answered 6 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Future Soldier programme will transform the British Army to be more integrated, agile, and lethal.
  • The Army is monitoring the situation in Ukraine to ensure the Future Soldier programme keeps pace with emerging threats.
  • Plans include 25 million of capital investment in single living accommodation at Kinloss barracks before 2025.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Douglas Ross Con
Defence
Context

The MP is concerned about the assessment of the effectiveness of a major military programme.

Question

What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Army's Future Soldier programme?

Answer from James Heappey

Future Soldier will see the largest transformation of the British Army in more than 20 years. This change, which is only just beginning, will create an Army that is more integrated, agile and lethal; a modern force fit to face up to current and future threats.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The effectiveness of the programme was not directly assessed or evaluated with specific metrics or benchmarks.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q2 James Sunderland
Defence
Context

The MP is concerned about the Army Future Soldier programme's ability to keep up with emerging threats from Ukraine.

Question

Can the Minister please assure me that the Army Future Soldier programme will keep pace with any emerging doctrinal lessons from Ukraine, and that the British Army will be structured and equipped to meet associated threats?

Answer from James Heappey

I certainly can. The integrated review was based on operational analysis of the land campaigns in northern Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. We are keenly watching the operational analysis as it comes in with regard to what is going on in Ukraine. At the moment, I think we would reflect that the nature of the land battle is exactly as we expected it to be, but clearly if the threat changes, the policy changes.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The programme's responsiveness to new threats was not directly assured with specific actions or timelines.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q3 Douglas Ross Con
Defence
Context

The MP is interested in the future of Kinloss barracks, which has benefited from UK Government investment.

Question

The Army Future Soldier programme was great news for Moray, an area that has benefited significantly from UK Government investment at RAF Lossiemouth. The Future Soldier programme confirmed that Kinloss barracks will not only be retained, but expanded. Will the Minister outline what plans he and the Government have for Kinloss barracks, working with 39 Engineer Regiment?

Answer from James Heappey

My hon. Friend will be delighted at the £25 million of capital investment in the single living accommodation at Kinloss before 2025, which is a reflection of just how important the base is to the Army going forward. 39 Engineer Regiment will remain at Kinloss and continue to play a key role in the Moray community. As part of the Future Soldier order of battle, it will remain in its current role as a force support air engineer regiment.

Answered

Not addressed: null

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q4 Nick Smith Lab Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney
Defence
Context

The MP is concerned about potential cuts to the infantry force.

Question

The infantry are the core of our Army, so why will most of the cuts in the Department's plans fall on the infantry?

Answer from James Heappey

As a former infanteer, I agree vigorously with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The infantry are at the core of the fighting force—they are—but the reality is that we need to change our force design. The premium now is on dispersal and being able to operate effectively in a dispersed way. “Hide to survive” is the tag coming out of many war games and from what we are seeing in real life in Ukraine. The vision is for a more agile, more lethal infantry that is able to disperse and bring effect on to the enemy.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific impact on the infantry was not addressed with concrete details or timelines.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q5 Martin Docherty SNP
Defence
Context

The MP is interested in the level of consultation with serving personnel on the future soldier programme.

Question

I wonder if the Minister could advise the House on how extensively the Department is consulting through the ranks on the programme. Specifically, are serving personnel able to make recommendations or express opinions outwith the rank structure?

Answer from James Heappey

I am not sure I agree with the afterthought to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I know that the Chief of the General Staff and his team were vigorous in the way that the Future Army plans were communicated to the Army and that the Army chain of command had an opportunity to contribute to them.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The extent of consultation with serving personnel was not detailed, nor were mechanisms for feedback outside rank structure mentioned.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q6 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Ukraine Defence
Context

The MP is concerned about the impact of the future soldier plans on UK's ability to defend against Russian aggression.

Question

Mr Speaker, we are proud to receive the letter, which you read out, from the Ukrainian Speaker, and we are proud that President Zelensky said last night: “Britain is definitely on our side.” The Government have Labour's full support for the UK's military help to Ukraine. Putin's brutal invasion surely reminds us that the Army's primary role must be to reinforce Europe's deterrence and defence against Russian aggression, so why do the Minister's Future Soldier plans risk leaving the British Army too small, too thinly spread and too poorly equipped to deal with the threats that the UK and our NATO allies face?

Answer from James Heappey

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman and I have been looking at different sets of plans, because I see an Army that ends up being better equipped, more lethal and more integrated. The choice that was made to introduce the deep recce strike capability into the third armoured division is absolutely game changing, and it is what is required.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific risks mentioned were not directly addressed with concrete assurances or details.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q7 John Healey Lab Rawmarsh and Conisbrough
Defence
Context

The MP is concerned about the delivery timeline of a modernised war-fighting third division.

Question

The heart of our UK commitment to NATO is indeed a fully capable war-fighting division, which the former Chief of the Defence Staff has described as “the standard whereby a credible army is judged.” Why will this modernised war-fighting third division not be delivered until 2030? Why did Ministers decide it would be built around Ajax when they knew about the deep-seated problems? Why, when it took the German Chancellor just three days to overturn decades of defence policy and boost defence spending by €100 billion, does the National Audit Office say that UK Ministers could take another nine months even to decide whether to stick with or scrap Ajax?

Answer from James Heappey

The right hon. Gentleman knows that candour is the name of the game whenever I am speaking. I think there are reasons why both sides of the House could reflect on quite why our Army has the age of kit that it has.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific reasons for delays and decision-making processes were not detailed, nor were comparisons with other countries addressed concretely.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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