11/01/2018 House of Commons

from.

I want to make sure he gets

the response he is exciting, I would

urge more values. That would be an

appropriate value to -- forum to air

his concern.

Most grateful to the

government wrap, we thank you for

his sterling service, having to

respond to a vast litany of

different enquiries, he has

performed with great dexterity, if I

may say so. We now come to the

select committee statement. The

chair of the education select

committee, the honourable general

mare gentleman number for Harlow,

will speak on this subject for up to

ten minutes, during which no

interventions may be taken. At the

conclusion of his statement, I will

call, or rather the occupant of the

chair will call members to put

questions on the subject of the

statement and call Robert Halfon

want to respond to these in turn.

Members can expect to be called only

once. Interventions should be

questions, and they should be brief,

a front bench may take part in

questions. I call the chair of the

education select committee, Robert

Halfon.

Social justice is one of the primary

executives of our committee. It is

vital young people in foster care

are able to claim the educational

ladder of opportunity as anyone

else. I want to begin by paying

tribute to previous committee in the

2015 Parliament and particularly to

its chair, the former member for

Stroud. I also want to thank the

officers of the education committee

who have done a huge amount of work

on this report. In our final session

we heard moving testimony from young

people with experience of foster

care some had tears in their eyes.

We heard from my honourable friend

the former Minister of State for

children, I hugely respect which

created an important and unique

evidence session. In our report we

wrote of the importance of valuing

the three pillars of fostering.

Valuing young people. Valuing foster

carers, valuing the care system

itself. The fact is the foster care

system in England is under

significant pressure. This must be

of national concern when it's often

the most vulnerable young people in

our society who are being failed by

a care system which does not meet

their needs. The number of looked

after children has risen by 7% since

2013. I welcome that the government

has recognised this pressure and

commissions its own review of

fostering. I understand reviews with

ministers at the moment will be

considered alongside the

recommendations of our education

committee. We begin with valuing

young people. Foster children face a

lottery of care, of frequent

placements and of the possibility of

being separated from her siblings.

We heard from young people who spoke

about the number of placements they

experienced. One young person in

foster care had been through eight

placements in four years. Another

spoke about having moved six times

in less than no time. Whilst another

had lived in 13, 13 different foster

placements and two children homes in

five years this frequency of

placement can only be damaging to

the children's well-being and

development and future prospects.

The government must redouble every

effort to ensure young people and

children don't face the prospect of

such a dizzying number of

placements. What truly shocked every

member of the committee was that

some foster children moved

placements with short notice, little

or no information and often without

any advocacy rights at all. It is

clear the guidelines intended to

tackle these issues are being

applied inconsistently, at best, and

injure mainly at worst. To give

another example we heard about young

people in foster care are being

separated from their siblings, the

figures suggest 70% of siblings are

not placed together when there is

already one in carer. A 17-year-old

who had been moved away from her

siblings told us, and I quote, "To

lose a bond with your own siblings

is sad because you are by yourself

in the world". "You're Siblings are

practically your best friend and now

you're losing them. You've lost your

parents and then your siblings. It's

like your whole world has crashed

down quite quickly." Young people

must be placed with siblings

wherever possible. Wherever it is

appropriate. If not, there has to be

greater effort by social workers and

others to facilitate regular and

meaningful contact. I urge the new

Minister for children to ensure

there is consistency and guarantees

of advocacy for all children, foster

children, of staid say one in three

children do not receive information

on their placement and that is

unacceptable. The second chapter of

the report focuses on valuing foster

carers. Foster carers have a really

important role in our society. They

provide remarkable care in difficult

circumstances. But they are often

underappreciated, undermined and

undervalued. The foster network is

to make a deficit of 7600 foster

carers. They tend to be

disproportionately female and art

ever ageing. Often they have to wade

through a trickle of bureaucracy.

They are not adequately supported

either financially or professionally

in the vital work they do. They are

status is unclear in terms of

employment and not sadly with the

Inland Revenue who treats them as if

they are employed. In our report we

press the government to ensure all

foster carers are paid the national

minimum allowance. The fostering

network found 12% of local authority

fostering services are paying below

the national minimum allowance for

at least one age bracket. 47%

allowances and five reduced rates

compared to 2016 17. Ministers need

to make sure this allowance matches

live in living costs and allows

carers to meet the needs of those

they care for. Carers must also

benefit from legal protection

against increased malicious and

unfounded allegations. The final

section of our report concerns value

end here. We recommend the

Department for Education should

establish a National college which

would work towards improving working

conditions for carers, provided

resource for training and support

and give them national voice. We do

not envisage the building but a

virtual college.

We believe a national recruitment

and awareness campaign could help

improve capacity in the system. For

too many children and young people

it's a sense of care which is done

to them, not with them. There has to

be greater involvement from foster

children on the placements and

consistency of practice to ensure

all young people can benefit from an

appropriate and positive experience

of foster care. The government

listens to representations from the

education select committee members

on extending the extra 15 hours a

week childcare entitlement to

children in foster care and I really

welcome the move is which have been

made on that. In this New Year the

education committee hopes that

ministers we truly value foster

children and value foster care.

Thank you madam did the Speaker, I

would like to thank my right

honourable friend for both making

this statement and making sure the

fostering report was finished in

this Parliament, I was a member of

the select committee and I am so

glad he shares my views on the

importance of making sure children

in care have a voice. Will he joined

me and agree with me that during the

course of that report one of the

most powerful points which came

across to the committee was the

importance of stability and

permanence in a child's life, I

child who has expend so much

disruption, will you work with me to

ensure both their voice and that

issue continue to be heard of the

house?

First of all can I put on

record my huge thanks to my

honourable friend for her support

and is getting this report to the

house. Also particularly remarkable

knowledge of children in care and

her passion for it. She is

absolutely right, stability is one

of the most important things. It's

incredible to me that children are

moved around from pillar to post

often without any knowledge of what

is going to happen, any choice or

access to advocacy and that is

something which has to be changed.

I

recommend the honourable member on

the report and the whole of the

committee, I know from my next-door

neighbours that the phenomenal love

and tenderness and care and

dedication and commitment and in

particular often in the face of

phenomenal bureaucratic obstacles. I

just wonder, he will probably know

the statistics for the number of

girls in care who go on to be

teenage mums is much higher than the

rest and in particular for those

raped as well. What can we do to

make sure that those people who are

the most vulnerable in our society

are properly protected?

I thank the

honourable gentleman for the

question, my honourable friend talks

about this, we need, the crucial

thing about this is early

prevention, to avoid the problems,

my own view is we need a wider

review into the whole issue of

vulnerable children and children in

care. He touches on points which

will no doubt be discussed in the

house and in committee.

I draw

attention to the members register. I

welcome the support and hope it will

be taken seriously by the Department

in tandem with the report which has

been submitted and I entirely

recognise the problems which is

committee has flagged up in terms of

the sorted of supply of foster

carers, too many foster children

being moved or in too often and too

many well out of the area of placing

authority and too many sibling

groups being broken up. On the

question of foster carers what

examples of good practice of

recruitment and retention by local

authorities was his committee able

to see and what lessons can be

learned from some of the work done

on adoption, encouraging them to

come forward, offering the rules

adoption support services to make

the job of those services so much

easier and make those placements

much more sustainable which is still

not happening to extent for foster

children.

I thank the honourable

gentleman for his question and

welcome his new look beard. He

raises important

issues there is good practice and we

need to learn from good practice,

that is why I was suggesting that

the report suggests we have a

national college for foster carers

which shares best practice whether

it's for adoption as my honourable

friend mentioned or whether it is

from good local authorities. I think

we need national improvement

campaigns in terms of foster carers.

I think they need much more of an

identity. I think there should be

much more the professionals that

they are.

We now come to the

backbench emotion on defence, Vernon

Coaker to move.

Thank you very much

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start, I

want to declare an interest in the

fact my son-in-law is an active

member of Her Majesty 's reserves so

I just wanted to put that on the

record and we are all as a family

very proud of him as no doubt many

other honourable members will be

proud of individual members of their

family. I also want to start by

thanking the backbench business

committee for supporting this

application and all the members of

the house who have supported me

achieving this debate including the

chair of the Defence Select

Committee and my honourable friend

of Stoke-on-Trent North, Barnsley

Central and the member for

Strangford. Can I start by saying

this, nobody questions the desire of

any member of this Parliament to

defend our country against any

threat. By saying loudly and clearly

that no one either questions

Parliament's pride or belief in the

professionalism and immense

dedication to duty of our Armed

Forces. I think it's a really

important point to savour those who

are watching this debate that there

will be challenges to the government

and this Parliament quite rightly

will challenge and hold the

government to account. All of us,

whether on that side of the house or

this side of the house are united in

terms of wanting to defend our

country and hold with immense pride

the dedication and professionalism

of all of our Armed Forces.

So, as I say, mud and Deputy

Speaker, nobody questions that, but

I do think that Parliament sometimes

as to ask the question, in starting

those debates, is that enough? We

are here today at a time when as a

country we face real challenges in

terms of matching our rhetoric with

the reality of the threat that we

face. The government will know, all

of us in this house, and what has

prompted so many to ask for the

debate, is the constant media

speculation and headlines flashes

that we have seen about cuts to the

capabilities and various

capabilities of our Armed Forces.

And it is vital, as I say, that our

defence budget, whatever that is,

ensures the Armed Forces are

properly equipped for the challenges

we will face in the future. And it

is certainly abundantly clear that

our Armed Forces, and this is one of

the themes, certainly what I say,

but of many other members of the

house as well, that our Armed

Forces, Madame Deputy Speaker, need

resources that are over and above

what is currently planned for,

particularly in light of the

increasing threats we face as a

country.

Can I first of all

congratulate him for securing this

debate and for his commitment to

defence, is it also the case, what

we have not seen from the government

is setting out a provision about how

we as a country meet the threats

that we face.

That goes to the heart

of all of the select committees, all

the various debates we read, the

desire of all of those committees,

and this Parliament, and all of us

that take an interest in defence,

for us to identify, and I will say a

bit more about the point made,

honourable friend in a minute, for

us to identify what are the

strategic threats we face as a

country and then mould and adapt

Armed Forces and security and

intelligence services to meet those

threats. Only yesterday, general Sir

Nick Carter, head of the British

Army, said on the today programme,

and I quote, threats have never been

greater in my 20 year career. And in

evidence to the joint committee on

the national security strategy, Mark

Sedwill, the national security

adviser, confirmed that in the last

two years we have seen an

intensification of threats we face,

and indeed, the former Defence

Secretary himself talked at another

evidence session of an

intensification of the risks that

our country faces. We can all named

those risks. We have seen the

various adventures, the various

things that Russia has been involved

with. We have seen China and North

Korea, we have seen the terrible

terrorist incidents that have taken

place in our country. We have seen

the identification of risks around

new technologies, around cyber,

around artificial intelligence and

wherever that is going to take us,

and the undermining of the rules

based international order. Now, all

of those threats, Madame Deputy

Speaker, are not threats made up,

they are very real assessments of

what our country faces, along with

its allies and those that stand with

us. And this Parliament has a

responsibility and a duty to debate

how we are going to meet those

threats, and that is something that

I believe the public of this country

would expect us to do.

Hear hear,

well said.

Whatever the rights or

wrongs of this, this has all been

motivated by Brexit, which has

caused us as a nation to reflect on

our place in the world and what it

actually is and I believe, and I say

this quite strongly, two people in

this Parliament, looking around,

many would agree, this Parliament

should once again send a clear

message to our allies and to the

rest of the world that as a senior

member of Nato, and as a permanent

member of the United Nations

Security Council and the leader of

the Commonwealth, that we will not

turn inwards, and we will not flinch

from our historic role as a promoter

of democracy and a defender of human

rights, as well as ensuring that our

own interests are fully protected.

Can I thank my honourable friend for

giving way, and he mentioned the

situation in Korea. Is it not the

case that the actions of the North

Korean regime are a massive threat

to the international rules based

order, doesn't that need to have

higher priority in the thinking of

not just our own government but also

other allies.

My honourable friend

makes a very good point, and let me

say this, I think the broader point

to make is of course, North Korea

and China are threatening some of

the rules based international law,

particularly as my honourable friend

says North Korea. And, we have two

meet that threat and part of that

debate is how we do that and what we

do about it. I would say as well

though, part of the reason for this

debate is this argument must be one

again with the British public. The

British public have to understand,

or, if you like, be persuaded, or

not, because they can say that they

do not agree with us, but as a

parliament we have to make the case

again for why it is important

sometimes for us to be concerned

about actions that are taking place

thousands upon thousands of miles

away, and why that impacts on our

own interests and security here at

home. It cannot be enough anymore to

assert a problem, we have two once

again make the case as to why these

matters, such as North Korea, are

important. Madame Deputy Speaker, he

we are, two years after the

strategic defence and Security

review of 2015, in the midst of

another review, led by Mark Sedwill.

And I would like to say, other

members have mentioned this, I know

the Defence Secretary is trying to

pull away the defence part of the

capability and give it a longer time

to reflect and I hope he is

successful in doing that but as it

stands, we have a review, a review

which I believe is shrouded in

uncertainty and which we are now

told is to be delayed. But let's

look at one particular theme that

was said at that particular

committee. -- thing. Which I think

is completely wrong, as to be

changed by the government. Mr said

well said, and I quote, this

exercise was commissioned by the

council as fiscally neutral. -- Mark

Sedwill. Fiscally neutral?! How can

you come to such a conclusion,

before all the strands of the review

are finished.

Here here.

Surely this

is about matching resources to

threats, not the other way around.

So let this be the line in the sand,

that ensures that this principle is

at the heart of the decisions we

take as we now move forward. As I

say, Madame Deputy Speaker, we see

story after story appearing,

speculating as to which capability

may or may not be cut. Why does this

speculation abound? Why aren't their

statements to Parliament? Why is

there no explanation of what is

actually going on? To be fair to the

Minister, I know that he will be

concerned about some of this but it

is not good enough, I don't think,

for these potential or possible

capability cuts to be dismissed by

the government as mere speculation.

We do not comment on leaks... No

decisions have been made... I tell

you what I don't want, I'm sure

every single member of this house

does not want in three months' time

a statement to be made to the house

telling us what is going to be done.

Rather than this house having

debated it and discussed it and come

to a view itself as to where we

should go. As I say, Madame Deputy

Speaker, I don't believe this

Parliament does not want to wait for

a set of decisions to be presented

to us as a fait accompli. That is

not good enough. Our country

deserves better, the public and

Parliament need to be properly

informed. I am certain that

colleagues across this house

believes that it is for this

Parliament to debate the issues, to

inform the decisions, and to play

our full part in the choices we make

as to how to defend the country and

its freedoms. According to the

permanent private secretary, a

hearing of the Defence Select

Committee at the end of last year,

it appears, and it is a view our

sins, but I will ask the Minister to

inform us, the Secretary of State as

yet has given no explicit request

for additional funding from the

Chancellor. Then I specifically

asked the minister, if he could

confirm or tell us where the

discussions that have been reported

in the media have got to, as to what

the Defence Secretary is now saying

to the Chancellor and where it has

got to or not. And whether there is

to be any additional funding,

whether he has demanded additional

funding, and indeed, whether the

defence aspect of the capabilities

review as I mentioned earlier has

been delayed or not.

I thank the

right honourable member for giving

way, I think he will probably be

astonished to learn that the

national security adviser, Sir Mark

Sedwill, as he now is, wrote to me

on the 23rd of October, and said, "

because the main decisions on

defence were taken through the 2015

STS are, this review is not defence

focused. Defence capability is one

of several projects within the

review." We have a situation where

we are finding difficulty bringing

the national security adviser to the

defence committee because he says

that it is not defence focus. --

SDSR. And yet the first thing we

will know about the review is when

they tell us what major defence

capabilities are going to be cut.

I

could not agree more with the chair

of the Defence Select Committee, is

absolutely right, and right to point

out that what is going to happen,

Mark Sedwill says it is not defence

related but he then says to the

committee, if I remember correctly,

or certainly it has been reported as

being said in the media somewhere

that of course, there is a need for

us to increase spending on cyber

intelligence capabilities and

because it is fiscally neutral,

where will that come from, and that

is why you get speculation about

cuts in defence capabilities, to

which the right honourable gentleman

refers, because it is this clinical,

taking money from that, to pay for

that. The thrust of the argument I

am making, the whole thrust, is to

say, if that is a threat, and that

is a threat, and not rob that to pay

for that.

I agree entirely with what my

honourable friend has said there, it

is also the that many the

commitments made in STS are 2015 and

the amount of money needed to

deliver all of those does not match

up with what has been allocated to

defence in the budget statements

that receive. -- SDSR 2015. A lot of

commitments have been promised that

do not bear a relationship to the

amount of money currently allocated

to defence.

I agree. That is right, I will talk

about affordability in a little

while.

I'm grateful to you for

giving way, I congratulate him on

his debate and on his speech, every

single word of which would be agreed

upon by the house, and the motion

before the house is one upon which

we cannot possibly agree with one

exception, I think it is

exceptionally disappointing that

what the honourable gentleman called

for is offence expenditure to be

maintained at current levels,

actually, it should be increased

substantially. I think he has got

the wording of the motion wrong.

Thank you for his advice on that. If

the honourable member... I'm sure he

has read the whole thing, it does

say at least, at current levels. And

this is partly the problem I have,

trying to be conciliatory, and

having something that everybody

agrees with, I try to put something

together that everybody would agree

with, rather than perhaps I should

have been a bit stronger, so I take

the admonishment, but it does say at

least, which hopefully answers some

of the points. I will, and then I

will make some progress.

Thank you

for giving way. The issue of

maintaining a fiscally neutral

position on defence spending but

would he recognised that defence

spending in average has been 3.9%,

back then, it was 0.3%, every year

we see a huge erosion of the defence

budget every year, the purchasing

power, that is changing our

capacity.

The honourable member will

know from his own background, in the

defence industry, the importance of

the point he has just made. Not just

the headline inflation figure, it is

the real inflation rate, that people

are facing, needs to be addressed in

any spending decisions, so that is a

point well made. If I move on, just

for another few minutes, we find

ourselves in incredibly serious

situation, a defence minister is

reported to have threatened to

resign if army numbers were to be

reduced any further. Will the

government as part of this reduced

role out any further reductions in

troop numbers below the 82,000

figure. The army is already 4000

below that figure, recruitment and

retention in the Armed Forces as a

whole is at crisis point, the

current deficit against the number

of service personnel is at 5.6%. I

would say to the Minister, I know

the government have made some

noises, lifting the 1% public pay

cap for the Armed Forces and

insuring that something is done

about that as soon as possible. And

what about cuts to training that we

will read about as well, the

government has confirmed a number of

training exercises have already been

Council for 2018, largely due to

costs, including, according to a

Parliamentary question I saw an

answer, exercise black horse, jungle

training as well. Have we now

abandoned the foolish idea of

cutting the Marines by 1000, and

getting rid of HMS Albion and HMS

Bulwark, which would mean we do not

have the ability to mount beach

landings.

The Government says this is

speculation, but the minister has

the opportunity to rule these things

out and say they are speculation and

they are not going to happen, this

Government will not let them happen.

And of course, following on from my

honourable friend's point, all of

this takes place against the

backdrop of continuing financial

pressures on the MOD's 178 billion

equipment plan. The national audit

of this has said that the risks to

the affordability of the MOD

equipment plan are greater than at

any point since reporting began in

2012. Surely they are right. The

plan is heavily reliant on

efficiency plans. The MOD's

permanent secretary stated the need

to save 30 billion over a ten-year

period. The plan does have amazing

new equipment for our Armed Forces,

frigates, planes, the Ajax fighting

vehicle, and our defence companies

provide mass of employment

opportunities, including

apprenticeships, and many areas

depend on this military spending,

and businesses such

as Raytheon needs certainty in their

orders to maintain the skill base,

and the questions relate, crazed by

the select committee on efficiency

savings cannot just be dismissed.

The defence industrial strategy must

be something which makes a tangible

difference. Of course.

I thank the

member. I strongly agree with

everything that the right honourable

member has indicated. We must

support our great men and women in

the Armed Forces in every way that

we can, particularly to equip them

in a sufficient way. I know that the

honourable member would also agree

with me that supporting our armed

for so is after they leave, and

properly resourcing that support, is

critical. -- Armed Forces. One part

of the United Kingdom does not have

the full and -- full in the

meditation of the covenant, and that

is Northern Ireland, there should be

full increment Asian in Northern

Ireland as soon as possible. --

implementation.

It is crucially

important that all of our veterans,

wherever they are, are supported and

that arrangements are put in place

to do that. Exactly how that is done

in Northern Ireland will need to be

a matter for discussion, but let me

say that it is clear that

arrangements have to be put in place

and should be put in place to

support our veterans. Madam Deputy

Speaker, a couple more minutes, I

just was talking about the equipment

plan. Let me put before the house

something which highlights the

problems for them. Let me ask the

minister if he could be more

specific, for example, about the

cost of the F-35 fighter plane. This

is crucial, because we don't know

how much these are going to cost,

what is the impact going to be on

the other parts of the equipment

budget? And the Defence Select

Committee report, which I thought

was brilliant, if I might say to the

honourable gentleman, and the

questioning from others, including

his honourable friend and many

others, but the total estimate, and

what I find really frustrating is

the committee and the members of

this house use the Government's

figures and then told, well... Let

me say this, the total estimated

cost for 2026-7 is 9.1 billion, June

which time we will purchase 48

aircraft. -- during. The Government

cannot say how much the aircraft

will cost and disputes the 9.1

billion, says it includes this and

that, then get a different figure.

So what is the figure for them? If

you can't divide 9.1 billion by 48,

which would give 100

you can't divide 9.1 billion by 48,

which would give 100, what is the

figure that the Government was using

to make sure that this adds up? If

we don't say what is affordable, we

won't know what the impacts on other

capabilities will be. Let me

conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, by

saying this. The stark choices

before us, I thought, have been

recently spoken of quite starkly by

three very English former Armed

Forces commanders who spoke of their

concerns and observations about the

national security capability review.

General Sir Richard Dalton next

barons said, and I quote, if you do

not put this money back into defence

and paid the bridge and four STS are

2015, you will be responsible, and

this is us, you will be responsible

for tipping the Armed Forces into

institutional failure. That will be

a failure of government, not of the

Armed Forces. The Air Vice-Marshal

said the Government needed to fund

the corrections of 2015, and Admiral

Georges ambulance said, I cannot add

value to the strategic comments of

my comments. Madam Deputy Speaker,

this debate gives this parliament

the opportunity to speak for the

country, to give our Armed Forces

there is also a need to meet the

threat that this country faces. Our

Armed Forces deserve it, our country

deserves it, and our allies are

looking for us to provide it as

well.

The question is as on the

order paper, octave Julian Lewis. --

Dr Julian Lewis.

Me I pay tribute to

the right honourable member, not for

the first time he has given great

service to the cause of defence, an

outstandingly good Shadow Defence

Secretary, and as long as there are

people like him in the ranks of the

Labour Party, the prospects for a

bipartisan approach to defence

remain excellent. And I must extend

that praise to all the members, all

11 members of the four parties

represented on the Defence Select

Committee, every one of whom is

strongly committed to the defence of

this country. And until recent

years, little attention has been

paid to a possible threat from post

comment as Russia, because for a

long time after 9/11,

counterinsurgency campaigns in third

world countries were thought to be

the principle role of the Armed

Forces. However, now we are spending

just £400 million on operations of

that type out of an annual defence

budget of about £36 billion. Now,

according to the 2015 SDSR, that

budget should fund, by 2020, 80 2000

soldiers, more than 30,000 sailors

and marines, and almost 32,000 RAF

personnel, plus another 35,000

reservists. To these must be added

some 41,000 civilians, many of whom,

like those who serve in the Royal

Fleet Auxiliary, our service

personnel in all but name. Finally,

there are special forces, as well as

new units that have been created to

deal with cyber security and counter

propaganda. Then there is all the

equipment currently comprising over

4000 army vehicles, including tanks

and artillery, about 75 Royal Navy

ships and submarines, including the

nuclear deterrent, and over a

thousand RAF fixed wing and rotary

aircraft. And as a portent of things

to come, the services also operate a

mixture of large and small

surveillance Trojans and ten

unmanned hunter killer aerial attack

vehicles. -- surveillance drones. So

all in all, a fairly full spectrum

of military capability, and in

absolute terms, as I am sure we

would all except, £36 billion a year

is a considerable sum. But set in

historical perspective, this level

of investment in defence falls far

below the efforts that we have

traditionally made when confronted

with danger internationally. Now,

the defence committee published its

own report on defence expenditure in

April 2016, entitled Shifting The

Goalposts, attracting attention for

highlighting the inclusion of costly

items like war pensions and MOD

civilian pensions at a time when

Prime Minister Cameron and

Chancellor Osborne were scrambling

to meet the 2% of GDP benchmark,

which, as we all know, has been set

by Nato as a minimum - not a target,

for all its members. Now, the

Government was entitled to include

such items towards its 2%

calculation is, but we'd never

chosen to do so previously, and so

it was clear that by resorting to a

form of creative accountancy, we

were no longer strictly come pairing

like with like in overall

expenditure terms. However, our

report was especially revealing in

its tables and graphs, well

researched by committee staff,

showing UK defence expenditure as a

percentage of GDP year by year from

the mid 1950s to the present day,

and then comparing this data with

the corresponding figures for

welfare for education and for

health. Now, what we found, Madam

Deputy Speaker, was this - in 1963,

we spent a similar sums, about 6% of

GDP, both on welfare and on defence.

Now we spend six times on welfare

what we spend on defence. In the mid

1980s, the last time we faced a

simultaneous threat from an

assertive Soviet Union, as it then

was, and a major terrorist threat in

Northern Ireland, we spend similar

sums, about 5% of GDP, on education,

on health, and on defence. Now we

spend two and a half times on

education and nearly four times on

health and what we spend on defence.

At the height of the East - West

confrontation, in every year from

1981 until 1987, we spend between

4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence.

Then, between the fall of the Berlin

Wall in 1989 and the failure of the

Moscow coup in 1991, the Cold War

came to an end. Consequently, and

predictably, a reduction in defence

expenditure followed. This was known

as the peace dividend. Yet, and this

is the key point, even after the

peace dividend had been taken,

indeed as late as the financial year

1995-6, we were still spending not

2% of GDP, the Nato minimum, but

fully 3% of GDP, and that was

without the accounting adjustments

used to scrape over 2% lines in the

past few years. So to sum up, from

1988, when the Cold War began to

evaporate, until 2014, when we

pulled back from Afghanistan,

defence spending almost halved as a

proportion of GDP. Now that we face

a newly assertive Russia and a

global terrorist threat, the

decision to set 3% of GDP as our

defence expenditure target can no

longer be delayed. Quite rightly,

the right panel member, oh, I will

give way.

I'm very grateful to the

honourable gentleman for giving way.

I have looked at the same statistic

that he is looking at, and he is

absolutely right about the creative

accounting, but even taking that

into account, it seems impossible to

reach the conclusion that we have

ever spent as little as we currently

are in comparison to GDP on defence.

That is absolutely right. I mean, it

is a measure of how far down with

our expectations were managed in the

course of the reductions in

percentage GDP spent on defence and

both the Blair and Cameron coalition

governments that it was regarded as

a cause for triumph and

congratulation when it was finally

confirmed that we wouldn't be

dropping below 2%. It had never been

a matter to be in any question at

all prior to that particular period.

I thank my right honourable friend

forgiving way. It is a pleasure to

serve under his stout chairmanship

of the defence select committee. I

mean stout in personality! Can I

just offer the thought that in some

ways the situation is even more

challenging than he has laid out,

because he has quite rightly given

the figures in terms of GDP. But in

recent years the MOD, as we heard

testimony from the permanent

undersecretary, was also signed a up

to a additional sets of efficiency

savings, now totalling some £30

billion overtime. And so not only

does it have a constricted budget,

but it is having to find those

efficiency savings as well, making

the situation even more challenging.

My right honourable friend speaks

with great experience as a former

Armed Forces Minister himself, and

made a considerable input to the

report we just did, which we called

gambling on efficiency, making that

very point. The right honourable

member for Gedling emphasised the

process that is going on at the

moment with the National security

capability review, and he focused on

this question of fiscal neutrality,

which the national Security adviser

says he has been told to observe.

When I challenged him with this on

the 18th of December, when he

appeared before the joint committee

on the national Security strategy,

he said, well it's not as if the

defence budget is not growing, its

fiscal neutrality within a growing

budget. He then did something else

as well, which is indicative of a

very worrying trend. He then lumped

together the 36 billion that we are

spending avowedly on defence, with

all the other money that we spend on

everything else that is related to

security, and started talking about

a £56 billion budget. And it is this

lumping together of money for

Security and Intelligence services,

money for counterterrorism, money

for even those relevant aspects of

policing with the defence budget,

which is a form of a slate of hand

which is causing me concern. This is

what I want to address in the second

half of my remarks. We have got a

real problem in this country. The

problem is that the tried and tested

system for a strategic

decision-making has broken down. In

my years as a student, my area of

study was the way in which Britain

planned towards the end of the

Second World War and in the early

years after the Second World War, as

to what form of strategy we would

have to have to deal with future

threats. And I was struck by the way

in which there was a huge argument

between 1944 and 1946, between

clever officials in the Foreign

Office who wanted to make the Anglo

Soviet alliance of 1942 into the

cornerstone of our post-war foreign

policy, and the chiefs of staff who

wanted to prepare their assessments

of what Britain might have to face

militarily on alternative

assumptions that that alliance might

well continue, in which case all

would be well, but that it might

well break down. There was a

tremendous stand-off until 1946,

when finally, the iron curtain

descended and it became clear that

the chiefs of staff, looking at it

in theoretical terms and saying, it

could work but it might not work,

Warren writes to be cautious, and

the Foreign Office, wanted to put

all their eggs in the one basket,

had been wrong. I was very struck

with the very systematic way in

which these strategic arguments were

hammered out. And at the centre of

it all was the chiefs of staff

committee, and the chiefs of staff

committee, as we all know, is made

up of the heads of the three

services. These shocking thing I

have to say to the House today is

that you can now become chief of

Staff of any of the three armed

services. You can become head of the

Royal Navy, you can become head of

the army, head of the Royal Air

Force, and yet have no direct input

into the strategic planning process.

This is all part of this lumping

together of military strategic

planning with national security

strategies that are vague and

amorphous, and above all, primarily,

in the hands of civil servants. Now

if the civil servants themselves

were steeped, as they used to be, in

the subject matter of their

departments, that would be less of a

problem than it is today. But some

years ago it was decided that the

senior levels of the civil service,

which are peopled by clever and able

individuals, that is not in dispute,

but that those senior civil servants

should be able to hop from one

department to another. So you might

be at a senior level in one

department at over the top job in

another department, including, for

example, the Ministry for defence.

What we have a combination were

formally specialist civil servants

have become generalists and the

professional military advisers have

become more like business managers

who are serving as chief executives

with an allocated budget to

administer to their services. And

all their thoughts about strategy,

they just get fed through one single

individual, the Chief of the Defence

Staff, who then has to represent all

their views on the national Security

Council. And it is this melding

together, this mishmash of the

military, the security and the

civilian, which is undermining the

way that we need to have, which is a

clear-headed and systematic approach

to the strategic challenges facing

this country.

I am most grateful to my honourable

friend, who is making an extremely

important point about the structure.

Willie agree that he has not

mentioned an important part of that,

ministers? He hasn't discussed

ministers' role. When Sir Mark

Sedwill appeared in front of the

joint committee the other day, he

let us know that this review is

currently being undertaken by his

department and was commissioned

during the general election

campaign, when presumably ministers

had their eyes on something else. I

don't know who commissioned this

strategy at that time.

My honourable

friend is right. He made a useful

contribution to the questioning of

Mark Sedwill. Ministers don't seem

to be having much of a role in this

either. The problem is, and what I

didn't say because I didn't want to

dwell too long on it, was the way

that stand-off between the chiefs of

staff and the Foreign Office in 1944

was finally resolved, was that went

all the way to Churchill, who

finally gave the chiefs of staff

permission to continue doing the

contingency planning for a possible

hostile Soviet Union that the --

that they wanted to do, that the

Foreign Office didn't want them to

do. The reality is that there has

been a loss of focus. There is no

proper machinery other than this

rather woolly concept of a National

Security Council, served by a

secretariat Marana effectively by

the Cabinet office. And in

conclusion, what I really want to

say is this. Constitutionally we

know what is right because

constitutionally, and this was

confirmed when we spoke to the

former Secretary of State for

Defence in the Defence Commitee, and

he was attended by a senior MoD

official, and we asked him, is it

still the case that the chiefs of

staff, the heads of the Armed

Forces, retain the right to go

directly to Number 10 if they think

the danger to the country is such

that they have to make direct

representations? The answer was, yes

it is. But what is the point of them

having that right if they are not

actually allowed to do the job of

planning the strategies and giving

what they used to do as a committee,

which was serving as military

advisers to the government. The

government ultimately, as my

honourable friend says, has always

got the right to reject or accept

such military advice as they get

from the Service Chiefs. But the

Service Chiefs ought to be in a

position to give that advice. To

conclude, I just say that it may

suit civil servants to sideline the

military professionals, to reduce

the uniformed... Of course.

Madam

Deputy Speaker, my right honourable

friend is coming to his conclusion

and I did want to, if I may, go back

to his initial point, if I can bear

your patients, Madam Deputy Speaker,

the important point raised by the

Right Honourable gentleman who

raised this debate... The comparison

between health, education and

defence going back a couple of

decades. We have had the demise of

the Cold War. But I would recommend

honourable members read the Prime

Minister's speech at the Guildhall

in November, which talks about what

is coming around. I put the question

that as we try to passionately make

the case for the necessary funding

for the Armed Forces, would it be

easier for that case to be made if

the passion and enthusiasm on the

doorstep as we go about general

elections and so forth, was

compatible with health and education

along with our Armed Forces? I think

there is a role for all of us to

make in confirming what the status

of the Armed Forces should be in the

future.

I'm grateful to the Minister

for making the point in that way. No

one could be doing more than he is

doing within the constraints of his

office to try and make the case. We

all know that. The reality of it is,

of course, that defence is always

difficult to get funded in peace

time because it is analogous to

paying the premiums on an insurance

policy. People are always reluctant

to pay the premiums. They are glad

they have paid them when the time

comes to calling on the policy

because something adverts has

occurred.

I will, but I keen to

conclude. I thank my right

honourable friend and chairman of

the committee forgiving way. But

surely this is the role of

ministers? It is the role of the

Prime Minister, the Chancellor and

the secretary of defence to provide

that leadership, setting out the

strategic division, and therefore

the reason for that expenditure.

That is where the leadership has to

come from.

I agree but I think it is

something more important than that,

which is to say they have to have a

proper strategic planning machine at

their service. Otherwise they are

just a bunch of individuals giving

their personal opinions. As I was

saying, it may suit civil servants

to sideline the military

professionals, to reduce the

uniformed contribution to strategic

planning to the input of one

individual, the chief of defence

staff. It may suit them as well to

sideline the Ministry of Defence and

reduce its contribution to a single

strand of the simple national

security strategy. But it does not

suit the national interest to have

inadequate specialist admitted --

military push back against

politicians, with poor strategic

grasp and a political be in their

bonnet. That is how disastrous on

goals like the Libya fiasco come to

be inflicted upon us despite the

warnings of the then chief of

defence staff against overthrowing

the Libyan regime. A single military

adviser, no matter how capable,

cannot have the same impact as the

combined contribution of a joint

committee of the heads of the Armed

Forces. So it's not enough just to

set ourselves a 3% target for

defence expenditure, as indeed we

must. It is vital also to recognise

that our tried and tested machinery

for making military strategy has

been largely dismantled. The chiefs

of staff must once again be more

than budget managers stuck on the

sidelines while politicians and

officials call the shots and as

often as not call the shots

incorrectly.

Order. I have given a lot of leeway

do the honourable member who

proposed the motion and to the

chairman of the select committee,

who both took a lot of

interventions. That is good for

rounded debate. But it will be

obvious to the house that a great

many people want to speak this

afternoon. We have plenty of time.

But that time will run out and it

would be fair to everyone if

individual members speak for much

more than ten minutes. As an

advisory amount, ten minutes would

be just about right and if people

speak for much more than that, I

will have to impose a time limit,

which stunts the debate. It is much

better if everybody behaves in an

honourable fashion.

Dan Jarvis. Thank you, Madam Deputy

Speaker. It is a privilege to be

called to speak in this debate and I

want to begin by congratulating my

honourable friend, the member for

Gedling, for securing it.

He has been a tireless champion of

our Armed Forces and has done us a

great service today

by allowing us

to debate this most important

matters, and I will seek to do so in

the most constructive way possible,

because I believe that we all have

an absolute responsibility to hold

the Government to account, and my

remarks and my concern is that I

will express today not about

securing any short-term political

advantage but ensuring that our

nation is properly defended. Madam

Deputy Speaker, throughout my time

in the Armed Forces and in this

place, I have come to believe that

every Government's policy on defence

should be underpinned by two

promises. The first is the promised

to maintain the freedom and

integrity of the UK, its overseas

territories, and its people, and it

is rooted in its recognition that

this is its primary duty. The second

is termed the Armed Forces Covenant

and is a promise from the Cup on

behalf of the nation that those who

serve or have served and their

families are treated fairly. For

reasons of time, I will not talk

about the military covenant today,

but like all honourable members

present, I am constantly inspired by

the incredible level of skill and

commitment that our service men and

women demonstrate. Often in the most

difficult of circumstances. It is

just that today it is the risk to

our defensive capability where my

emphasis will be. When thinking

about this speech, I looked at UK

defence doctrine to see what it says

about the role of defence. It says

that our national security

encompasses the safety of our state

and protecting it from external and

internal threats, and requires us to

endeavour to preserve the security

of UK nationals living overseas.

That same document goes on to talk

about the many varied potential

users of our Armed Forces, from

enhancing soft power influence, to

the evacuation of non-competence, to

the application of force, to

responding to natural disasters. But

my concern is that this is not a

publication that is read very much!

At least not by those who seem to be

making the decisions on the future

of our Armed Forces. I am thinking

particularly of some of those within

the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

Instead, some of them seem to be

labouring under the misapprehension

that, in an age of information

conflict, the need for our Armed

Forces is decreasing. This could not

be further from the truth.

Mitigating threats to our security

is not a zero-sum game. Now, in

recent years and months, the eyes of

Westminster and Whitehall have

become increasingly focused on

Russia's activity in the UK's

information domain, our critical

national information and structure,

and the broader concepts of soft and

security. This is commendable, but

it is worth remembering that in 2015

the SDSR identified four primary

threats to UK national security.

One, the increasing threat posed by

terrorism, extremism and

instability. Two, the resurgence of

state based threats. Three, the

impact of technological change,

especially cyber threats. And four,

the erosion of a rules based

international order. Threats that

our Armed Forces are absolutely

critical in mitigating. Since then,

we have heard some members of the

Government repeatedly tell us that

the threats identified have

intensified, and that there is a

need to strengthen our defences, yet

the growth in threat has not been

matched by a growth in was also is.

Indeed, the previous Secretary of

State for Defence told the right

honourable gentleman's defence

committee that the mismatch between

intensifying threats and the

capabilities available was, in fact,

being exacerbated. As he put it, the

challenge of inflation, cost growth

in some of our more complex

programmes, and the ambitious

efficiency targets, yet the ongoing

capability review appears to have no

intention of addressing this

underfunding. Unlike the full SDSR

in 2015, it is not taking place at

the same time as a Spending Review,

and in the budget for the MOD has

been fixed until 2021. So my first

question to the Minister is, and I

know he thinks very carefully about

these things, what is the purpose of

a review that make include there is

a need for more capability if there

is no chance of the Government

providing it? Surely, such a move

will only highlights to our

adversaries both the paucity of our

ambition and the degradation of our

capabilities. Now, Madam Deputy

Speaker, the past few years have not

been good ones for defence. Too much

influence has been seeded to people

who do not understand or value our

Armed Forces. This has resulted in

the mismanagement of the defence

budget, the delayed delivery of

crucial equipment, and created holes

in both our strategic and

operational capabilities. Now, as

the national security capability

review runs the risk of channelling

funds away from our Armed Forces in

favour of a focus on cyber security,

the Government runs the risk of

making matters worse. Now, I could

speak at length about the capability

areas damaged and in danger, but

today I just want to touch on our

amphibious capability, joint force

2025, and the importance of training

to them both. First, our amphibious

capability. I have had the privilege

of serving with Royal Marines, and

although I would not necessarily

have said it to them whilst I was

serving alongside them, I know how

important they and their enabling

capabilities really are. It is for

this reason that I hope that the

continued rumours regarding their

future and specifically the selling

off of HMS Ocean, the cutting of HMS

Bulwark and HMS Albion, and the

reduction of the Royal Marines by up

to 1000 not true. A cyber capability

cannot do what they do, and what

they do remains absolutely crucial,

be it at the application of force,

crisis relief, or the evacuation of

noncombatants. Our amphibious

capability is a critical national

asset. In 2005, General Rupert Smith

said that the future of warfare was

war amongst the people. He was

right, and when you can consider

that, presently, over 40% of the

world's population lives within 100

kilometres off the coast, it is as

certain that we should even be

talking about cuts to our amphibious

capability or pretend that Queen

Elizabeth class or bay class ships

offer similar functionality.

Crossing the littoral foundry is

essential to our ability to deploy

troops in future scenarios but is

also hugely important to the UK's

humanitarian work around the world,

and cutting it would signal that we

are stepping back from both our

global responsibilities and our

responsibilities to UK nationals

overseas. The real world importance

of these capabilities was

demonstrated By the military

response to Hurricane Irma and

continues to be illustrated by the

fact that at the joint force

headquarters in northward, two of

the highest priorities for planning

are South Korea and Lebanon. As

such, we must acknowledge that any

decision to reduce this capability

would not come as part of a wider

strategy about the UK's role the

world, but as a misguided attempt to

get the budget under control. So I

would ask the Minister specifically

today whether he can confirm that

neither Albion nor Bulwark will be

scrapped as part of the NSCR, and

can he also confirmed there will be

no cuts to our regular manpower for

the Royal Marines? Madam Deputy

Speaker, I am similarly concerned

about the current threats to my own

old service, the Army. We have seen

numerous services affecting

manpower, equipment and the

structure of the Army, the most

recent, Joint Force 2025, was

initiated by SDSR 2015 and is

rightly focused not on equipment and

platforms but an output and effect.

The planned reforms were intended to

deliver an Armed Forces that was

more agile and reactive, and to

prepare the Army to deal with

growing threats from state

adversaries. This kind of

development and evolution is

critical to our national defence.

But modernisation like this is

predicated on harnessing emerging

technologies, and as such requires

investment in research and

development, capital expenditure on

new equipment, and the right number

of well trained personnel. All of

this was to be underpinned by

greater cohesion and cooperation

between the regulars and the

reserves, and paid for by efficiency

savings by the MOD. But now I fear

that neither is happening, and joint

force to the 25 is, as a result, and

the thread. -- Joint Force 2025. I

want to ask the Minister three

further questions. First, is the MOD

still on track to deliver Joint

Force 2025 as planned? Second, how

are the MOD ensuring that the

outcomes of the capability review,

in relation to defence, do not

similarly rest on a false

assumptions and overly optimistic

promises? And third, and I say this

slightly ingest, should regular

reserves, like my parliamentary

assistant and myself, and I suspect

perhaps the Minister as well, really

be included in the whole force

figures? I say that slightly ingest,

but it highlights an important point

- that our Armed Forces, and the

land environment in particular,

capability is not just a question of

numbers. Personnel have to be

correctly equipped, trained and

accustomed to operating in

deployable structures. Too often,

training is seen as an overhead

which can be cut back. This ignores

the importance of training in

ensuring that our armed for so is

already to respond and demonstrating

capability to allies and adversaries

alike. -- our Armed Forces. So as

threats diversify and intensify, our

training must adapt. Madam Deputy

Speaker, I will give way.

He has

spoken eloquently about training. Is

it not just as important to look at

accommodation for our Armed Forces?

We have seen the pay gap, but we

have seen rents rise, and we have

had forces being written to, saying

that civilians are going to be

allocated forces accommodation.

Capability and training programmes

aside, isn't it good that we have

accommodation at the right brace and

in good condition?

I think my

honourable friend makes a very

important point. For purposes of

time today, I have not got into

discussing the issue of the Armed

Forces Covenant, but that is

critical in terms of ensuring that

we have people who continue to wish

to serve our country and the Armed

Forces, and looking further into the

future, those young people who, in a

very competitive job market, will

enter into our Armed Forces, and

being able to demonstrate to them

that we, as a country, as a

government, as a House of Commons,

are absolutely committed to ensuring

that the circumstances under which

they serve, which includes ensuring

they have rewarding professional

opportunities, which is why training

is such an important element of that

debate, but also, as my honourable

friend has said, making sure that

they will be properly looked that

day, as will our families, and

accommodation is a critically

important part of that debate. Madam

Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I

believe that this debate has come at

a crucial time for our Armed Forces.

I think there is no doubt that the

UK is under a greater level of

threat than at any time since the

Cold War. Yet I fear that, as well

as there being serious questions

about how the 2% target is being

spent, our government runs the risk

of being seen to have no coherent

strategy for security and defence.

And furthermore, the national

security capability review risks

channelling more funds away from our

Armed Forces in favour of a focus on

cyber security. It seems to believe

that the emergence of information

threats have somehow resulted in the

decline of conventional threats.

They haven't, and they won't, and

the opening up of new France does

not mean the closing down of old

ones, and the unprecedented

hollowing out of our Armed Forces

must come to an end. -- new fronts.

Madam Deputy Speaker, rarely in a

debate in this chamber in the past

can any force bigger in a debate,

have been faced with such a major

challenge as following three such

well-informed, all-encompassing,

brilliant speeches as from the

honourable gentleman, the right

honourable gentleman, my right

honourable friend, people who know

what they are talking about, and it

is actually quite a challenge to

think of something new to say after

those outstanding speeches! I agree

with all of them, and I agree very

strongly with the motion.

It would be entirely

uncharacteristic nonetheless if I

was to simply say I agree and then

sit down. Can I very much welcome

the fact that this debate has been

called, but regret the fact it had

to be called under the rules of the

backbench business committee. Back

when I came here we had five

debates, including two

underspending. That was then changed

in 1998 to being five to debates,

five set piece, Major, full-scale

government debate in government

time, entitled under a range of

subjects from defence policy,

personnel and procurement. Those

debates were opened by the Secretary

of State. There were packed -- there

was a packed house. A lot of people

following it. That has now been

replaced. For several years there

were no debates on defence at all

under the backbench business

committee. It has been replaced by

to debate a year called by a

backbencher choosing to do so. I

think that is actually wrong. I

think the government should return

to the way we were and say that we

should expect to see at least five

debates on defence during the year

and they must find time in their

programme to do that. Allocating it

to compete with such important

matters as live animals and circuses

seems to me to be just wrong, and

seems to be downplaying defence to

the nation. It may be symptomatic

nonetheless. I think we are

downplaying defence and downplaying

the threat to us. There is a degree

of war weariness, of course, after

Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of

it. People would like to see our

troops coming home and no more wars

anywhere in the world but that will

not happen. The world is an

extraordinarily dangerous place. I

think we are guilty of a degree of

complacency in this house over the

threats to the nation. That

complacency has spread around the

nation. Our voters don't realise

what a dangerous place we live in.

If you ask people should we spend

the money on defence or other

things, defence would come lowdown

in the priorities. That is why we

need to highlight the threat facing

us today. I won't repeat what other

speakers have said about those

threats. Of course, expansionist

Russia, North Korea, the South China

Sea, terrorism throughout the Middle

East. These things are worse than

they have been before. I personally

am extremely concerned about Russian

ambitions in the high North and the

Arctic and the north Atlantic. I'm

grateful to the honourable lady for

Bridgend, who has taken up the

cudgels of the Defence committee

looking into what the Russians are

planning to do. At the moment Nato

are to some degree ignoring it. It

is right that we should remind

people that Russians have spent

billions of on building a new

military stations along the Arctic

coast. They have substantially

increased submarine activity in the

North Atlantic. They are threatening

our lines of supply to the United

States. All of this is happening

under our noses and we're not doing

anything about it. It is right that

we should remind the nation and

remind our colleagues that these

very real threat happening on our

doorsteps. I think the reason party

for that failure to address these

real threat comes from what might

sound like a rather technical

machinery of government matter,

which my right honourable friend for

New Forest East touched on earlier.

In 1998 the last time we had a

proper defence review, I pay tribute

to the then defence Minister. I

think there is one of them sitting

in the back row opposite. It was a

first-class defence review. It was

foreign policy led. Here is what we

as a Ministry of Defence must do to

carry out, to protect the country

from threats. The whole process has

become more modelled and obscured

and complicated. Nobody now quite

understands who it is that decides

what the threats are to this nation.

Nobody quite knows who decides what

we must do about those threats. And

nobody knows where we are going to

get the money to do that. It used to

be for example that the SDR would

happen at the same time as the

national Spending Review. That seems

extremely important. What is the

important if having -- of having a

defence review if you know that at

the end of the matter what you

conclude, there is no money to

change it? If we reach the

conclusion we had a vast Russian or

cyber threat against us and most

significantly increase our army Air

Force, the Treasury would say, I'm

glad you had that review, very

interested to read it, you make some

important points and we will review

the budget two years from now,

therefore no matter what you said in

your review, we can do nothing about

it. It seems to me to be extremely

odd to be mixing this defence review

with the security review, which

leads to some Mark Sedwill, a

distinguished fellow, saying we need

to spend more money on cyber. He is

right. But every single penny on

cyber that we spend comes away from

other budgets. And if we double our

cyber budget, which may be a good

thing to do, that will mean that

things like the cuts might have to

come about in order to pay for a

cyber. If it is any comfort to the

honourable gentleman, if there were

to be any of those cuts, if Ball

were caught to go, if the word to be

a thousand people cuts in the Royal

Marines, he can be certain that I

and I think many people on our side

of the house would not support a

government that proposed to do that.

Let me make that very plain. We

would not go along with that. Having

many are my friends in the Ministry

of Defence probably agree. -- I

think many of my friends in the

Ministry of Defence would probably

agree. When we identify the risk,

... Those conclusions then go to the

Ministry of defence. The Ministry of

Defence should be the people who

say, those are the threats to the

nation and here's what we are going

to do about it. Subsequent to that

the Treasury should say, fine, here

is how we will find money. To have a

national security review mixed in

with a national Spending Review at

the time that is not contingent with

the national Spending Review, seems

to be absolutely pointless and

substantially misleading. We are

misleading ourselves that somehow we

are looking at these things

properly. I would like to see the

defence part of the review separated

out. It should be happening in the

autumn of this year, the same time

as the budget. If we need more money

to do at the Foreign Office says we

should be doing, that is the time

that we ought to be doing that.

Madine Deputy Speaker, I think that

is all I really want to add to what

the other people have said. I think

we face incredibly dangerous times,

incredibly worrying times. This

nation is under threat. There are

real threats to our people's

security and safety. If we don't

address it strategically and in a

way that I have described, bringing

in the ability to spend more money

on defence, if we don't find some

way of increasing our defence

spending towards the 3% that many of

us believe it should be, I fear that

we're not doing our duty. Are not

doing what are people sent us here