PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Defence Programmes Developments - 20 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.

I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.

This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.

We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.

However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.

First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.

Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.

Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,

“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.

Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.

These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.

Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.

Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.

I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.

We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half ago, Prime Minister’s questions was taken by a Deputy Prime Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the renewal of Trident.

The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5% as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that Labour’s union paymasters will not allow them to do.

The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about Ben Wallace, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2. If he is talking about Grant Shapps, he gave me his 100% backing in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation, and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers.

Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in 2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention bonus? If not, why not?

The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received assurances from the Navy’s leadership that in the event of a full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the crews could have been found. That is what the Navy’s leadership confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure?

Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus? As for the Conservatives’ record on rotary, the Secretary of State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service before those Pumas are retired?

On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD’s first ever drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas, especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR before making today’s decisions?

To conclude, whatever the Chancellor’s true grasp of economics, she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it has undertaken the Department’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil, undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off the family farm and threatening our food security, and today, they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security. The Government have made their choices, and they own the consequences.

That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.

I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.

The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.

The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.

Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.

However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?

As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.

I declare an interest in that my nephew is an aircraft engineer with the Royal Air Force, so I shall not be commenting on the retention payment, much as it sounds very handsome.

I welcome the emphasis in the statement on defence people. A legacy of the last Conservative Government was that there was not enough emphasis on retaining brilliant people in the armed forces. With Grant Shapps, we saw a Defence Secretary who was fascinated by technology—he came to the House and made a statement about DragonFire—but missed the very important things that were slipping down the list, such as the platforms that we hear today are being decommissioned. So I welcome the pay rise for personnel, and I particularly welcome the retention payment for Army personnel who have served for more than four years, given that the legacy of Capita is an appalling one.

However, there are some alarming gaps. The new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters not coming in till 2027 leaves a very substantial gap of three years in relation to the 14 Chinooks. The new medium helicopter contract is not due to be awarded till next year. I question when the contract for the new medium helicopter will be introduced—perhaps not until the beginning of the next decade. The multi-role support ships are not due to come into service until 2033. I am alarmed at what that may do for the ability of the Royal Marines to operate in the littoral. I question that the statement said there was full backing from our service chiefs. Of course, there was: they have to salute, turn to the right and carry on. What was lacking was a statement about this being done in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. Was this statement given their full backing?

My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I am sure they would say that these are entirely the right decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I can confidently take them now, because we need to create the scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review reports.

We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government. The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old. This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new, much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other purposes.

Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon. Gentleman’s nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive payment.

Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?

The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no, which is precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight, deter and defend this country.

I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful delegation visit to Montreal later this week.

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.

Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD’s arm in future discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always with the Treasury.

I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review, it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now, and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and a proper debate”?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his advice. On the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that we should expect that in the spring.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, and the reminder to this House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra staff. I have also scrapped the Tories’ £40 million VIP helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women, which we can now do.

This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion and HMS  Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and 10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces, just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?

I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9 million a year that would have been spent under the previous plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on the future of our forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to increasing threats?

I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?

The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.

A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.

With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?

On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—

My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.

What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, America’s airfields and dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies. We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his clearing out.

The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument that the UK’s alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought and was different from that of some other countries. I have made it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of service has not yet been settled.

On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first, that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence review.

Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the decisions outlined in today’s statement will fix the foundations of our nation’s defence, spend every penny he has wisely and keep our nation safer?

My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army after four years’ service, which I have been able to announce this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer and more productive career in our armed forces.

Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.

Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?

It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.

On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?

One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.

I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he, and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before a replacement can be provided?

Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?

I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.