International Relations and Defence Committee
Tuesday 16th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:19
11:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That it peaks around 2030. So our job in the NATO alliance has got to be. How do we talk about this?Is that that that risk from Russia grows and they feel. Do as much as we can to deter Russia from doing something daft in that time frame. So that's the the logic, I think, that the Defence Secretary is setting out. It's not it's not about absolute risk. It's not a guarantee that they're going to going to attack NATO.
It's that that risk and threat grows as a consequence of the situation in Russia, the position in Ukraine. But there are many things that will influence that, particularly the ending of the conflict in Ukraine will be a big part of it. But we recognise that that that trend in that threat is growing. And that's the point I have made publicly on a number of occasions.
It's that that risk and threat grows as a consequence of the situation in Russia, the position in Ukraine. But there are many things that will influence that, particularly the ending of the conflict in Ukraine will be a big part of it. But we recognise that that that trend in that threat is growing. And that's the point I have made publicly on a number of occasions.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I wonder if I could ask you about modern modernising the defence spending, that you have some involvement and responsibility for. Um it seems to be generally agreed that the nature of warfare is changing somewhat, and we are moving into much more cyber warfare need for large numbers of drones and perhaps less need for old style conventional warfare, whether weaponry or boots on the ground. So could you tell the committee what kind of savings you might be able to make from conventional warfare in order to spend more on the new kinds of warfare, where there is a need for some increases?
11:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think you're right to guess that what we're learning from the war in Ukraine and and the Middle East, and also, as I referenced, Nagorno-Karabakh as well, is that the emergence of technology, much of which has come from the commercial sector, is changing the character of conflict. It is allowing nations to exploit cheaper. Drones that provide great levels of precision and are relatively cheap. The. Consistent view across um Western. Nations and actually in Russia and. And China is that the future will be a blend of these cheaper drones that deliver, mass.
We talk about large scale along. Side the more complex and more expensive assets. And if you want an example of, of, of why those are still relevant, you'll note that President Zelensky, when he was here a couple of Sundays ago, was still talking about the UK providing storm shadow cruise missiles. They are more sophisticated than drones. They travel longer distances and have special capabilities that are particularly. I think we will see a blend of those things. But if you look, for example, at.
Um, sorry. And where I think what I think we will see is that the capability that we have today in, for example, ships or fast jet aircraft will be augmented, added to by these. Cheaper. Less sophisticated. Uncrewed systems. And those will be how we will increase the survivability of of the crew platform and the lethality. I was talking to the Supreme Allied Command transformation yesterday and yesterday evening about the examples of the work that he's doing and work we're doing in the UK.
And one of the things their experiments have shown is that actually, if you take a an attack helicopter that has with it flying a set of drones, that improves the mission success quite dramatically than it would do if you just had the drones or just had the crude platform. So I think what we're going to see is a blend. The your question was specifically about where could we save money?Um, my, my, there will inevitably be opportunities to change the profile of commitments we have made to, to long term, uh, conventional programs in order to create the space to buy, uh, more modern technology drones, maybe invest more in areas like cyber or space.
But ultimately what I foresee is, is adding to that capability. And I know there's been a lot of commentary about the availability of ships, but over the last number of years, um, the number of ships, capital ships that the UK has has declined. They're going to be replaced by in frigates by type 26, which is world class by the Canadians are buying it. That's why the Australians are buying it. It's why the Norwegians are buying it. Um and type 31.
But what we will do is augment those ships with autonomous systems to help with surveillance, to help potentially with, uh. Pushing forward weapons to target our adversary. So it's going to be this, this mix. And I don't foresee right now huge, uh. Savings in the conventional force because we are at a, at a level where actually what we need to do is enhance that and we enhance that through investment in some of these more modern technologies that you, you describe just on cyber.
If I, if I, if I may, um, that's been a very significant investments that since the previous integrated review in 2020, what we've learned, I think from the experience of watching Ukraine is that and Russia attacking Ukraine is that cyber is a is a critical part of any kind of campaign. But it's not in itself decisive. I think what we are seeing and my my perspective on this is it's about how we combine the capabilities in space, in cyber space, on the land, at sea, under the sea and in the air.
And it's the combination of those things that are delivering the, the really decisive effects in operations. And actually that is something the UK and the West is really sophisticated at, something Russia really struggles with. So that's an area where we need to focus our energies and efforts.
We talk about large scale along. Side the more complex and more expensive assets. And if you want an example of, of, of why those are still relevant, you'll note that President Zelensky, when he was here a couple of Sundays ago, was still talking about the UK providing storm shadow cruise missiles. They are more sophisticated than drones. They travel longer distances and have special capabilities that are particularly. I think we will see a blend of those things. But if you look, for example, at.
Um, sorry. And where I think what I think we will see is that the capability that we have today in, for example, ships or fast jet aircraft will be augmented, added to by these. Cheaper. Less sophisticated. Uncrewed systems. And those will be how we will increase the survivability of of the crew platform and the lethality. I was talking to the Supreme Allied Command transformation yesterday and yesterday evening about the examples of the work that he's doing and work we're doing in the UK.
And one of the things their experiments have shown is that actually, if you take a an attack helicopter that has with it flying a set of drones, that improves the mission success quite dramatically than it would do if you just had the drones or just had the crude platform. So I think what we're going to see is a blend. The your question was specifically about where could we save money?Um, my, my, there will inevitably be opportunities to change the profile of commitments we have made to, to long term, uh, conventional programs in order to create the space to buy, uh, more modern technology drones, maybe invest more in areas like cyber or space.
But ultimately what I foresee is, is adding to that capability. And I know there's been a lot of commentary about the availability of ships, but over the last number of years, um, the number of ships, capital ships that the UK has has declined. They're going to be replaced by in frigates by type 26, which is world class by the Canadians are buying it. That's why the Australians are buying it. It's why the Norwegians are buying it. Um and type 31.
But what we will do is augment those ships with autonomous systems to help with surveillance, to help potentially with, uh. Pushing forward weapons to target our adversary. So it's going to be this, this mix. And I don't foresee right now huge, uh. Savings in the conventional force because we are at a, at a level where actually what we need to do is enhance that and we enhance that through investment in some of these more modern technologies that you, you describe just on cyber.
If I, if I, if I may, um, that's been a very significant investments that since the previous integrated review in 2020, what we've learned, I think from the experience of watching Ukraine is that and Russia attacking Ukraine is that cyber is a is a critical part of any kind of campaign. But it's not in itself decisive. I think what we are seeing and my my perspective on this is it's about how we combine the capabilities in space, in cyber space, on the land, at sea, under the sea and in the air.
And it's the combination of those things that are delivering the, the really decisive effects in operations. And actually that is something the UK and the West is really sophisticated at, something Russia really struggles with. So that's an area where we need to focus our energies and efforts.
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Uh, so I want to leave room for the Defence Secretary to to examine these things. But if you look at if you've already bought a thing. Recent money. So you're not going to save it. Uh, at that stage, if it's things that you are planning to buy in the future, you can choose, particularly if you've got a production line that is open exactly when you will buy it. And that that provides the Defence Secretary with some choice over exactly how he will create some space to invest in some of these more modern.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
First of all, thank you. And it's good to see you, Sir Richard, and I declare, um, for purposes that I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office at the time of last Integrated Review. Um both the Defence Secretary when they resigned and Al Kearns in particular as Minister of State, uh, said that certainly in Elkins's case that he did not see the Defence Investment plan until it was almost a fait accompli. The Defence Secretary on resigning, also said that the Prime Minister was unable and the Treasury unwilling in terms of the resources that were needed, you as the practitioner, delivering the outcome of whatever the defence investment plan is, do you feel at what point were you involved initially in the process of setting priorities, and do you feel, with the resignation of the Defence Secretary that this refresh or relook that's happening, that you're fully integrated and involved?Thank you.
11:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I can tell you, my Lord, I have been very intimately involved since I started in this role in on the 2nd of September last year. I have lost count of the probably hundreds of hours I have spent involved in that. One of the things that we did as chiefs right at the start was to ask ourselves the question, how should we fight?What is it that will. What is it that the UK can do that offers the greatest contribution to NATO and its NATO plans at the heart of the Strategic Defence Review, as Lord Robertson knows, is this commitment to being NATO first and that means us meeting our NATO targets and delivering against the NATO plan that requires us to spend 3.5% of GDP.
And. But it clearly we are not at 3.5% today. So what we need to understand is what what would make the most difference?And how might that inform how we sequenced the investment and growth in, in capability. And so we thought about the things that the UK can do. Conversations, we sometimes forget about the quality of our people, quality of the equipment that we have, and the exceptional ability contribution that we are able to make to NATO, which leads to that to that ability for the UK to lead and the credibility that we have.
And through that analysis, to use that to inform the decisions around what was in the current plan and what we would need to adapt and add to, to, to the plan. And so that's how we have been engaged through through that, through that process. It's been one that was led very, very firmly by the former defence secretary, John John Healey, and those those close to him. But yes, as the chief of. The Defence staff and with the service chiefs, who we meet every two weeks, I would be pressed to find a meeting in the last nine months where this issue has not been discussed by by the Chiefs.
And. But it clearly we are not at 3.5% today. So what we need to understand is what what would make the most difference?And how might that inform how we sequenced the investment and growth in, in capability. And so we thought about the things that the UK can do. Conversations, we sometimes forget about the quality of our people, quality of the equipment that we have, and the exceptional ability contribution that we are able to make to NATO, which leads to that to that ability for the UK to lead and the credibility that we have.
And through that analysis, to use that to inform the decisions around what was in the current plan and what we would need to adapt and add to, to, to the plan. And so that's how we have been engaged through through that, through that process. It's been one that was led very, very firmly by the former defence secretary, John John Healey, and those those close to him. But yes, as the chief of. The Defence staff and with the service chiefs, who we meet every two weeks, I would be pressed to find a meeting in the last nine months where this issue has not been discussed by by the Chiefs.
11:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Again a final. Brief question from Lord Horton. Yes. Good morning Richard. Very good to see you. Can I just declare some commercially related interests with Blackstone, Drake and Defence Holdings secure Cloud Plus and targets. Um, it seems to me I think we can probably agree that wherever this dip lands in the next couple of weeks, it's probably going to disappoint in terms of the money that we would have liked and the speed at which we can rebuild, as it were.
Um. The national Army director who's coming along tomorrow, he's sometimes explained this in passing as as much a matter of timing as it is a matter of money, because by 2035, if we've got 3.5%, we're going to have plenty of money, but we haven't got the money to spend now. And there has been some noises off about, um. Um, is a solution to this is borrowing either through bonds or through private equity or those sorts of things to take some of these big problems away.
For example, the, the married quarter, estate modernisation and all that is there within the discussions of the Ministry of Defence. Once the dip is closed and that's all out, and we're faced with some of the challenges. Is there a strategic thought about how more spending can be accelerated in novel ways to get over the problem at the moment, not enough and not quickly enough, I.
Um. The national Army director who's coming along tomorrow, he's sometimes explained this in passing as as much a matter of timing as it is a matter of money, because by 2035, if we've got 3.5%, we're going to have plenty of money, but we haven't got the money to spend now. And there has been some noises off about, um. Um, is a solution to this is borrowing either through bonds or through private equity or those sorts of things to take some of these big problems away.
For example, the, the married quarter, estate modernisation and all that is there within the discussions of the Ministry of Defence. Once the dip is closed and that's all out, and we're faced with some of the challenges. Is there a strategic thought about how more spending can be accelerated in novel ways to get over the problem at the moment, not enough and not quickly enough, I.
11:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The short answer is yes. That we recognise the context. So I am in a position that none of my predecessors. Over the last 30 odd years have been in, which is. I am looking forward to an increase in defence spending throughout my tenure and beyond. Um, and that is not a position that we have enjoyed over many years. And that is a recognition that this government and the previous government made of the that changing threat environment.
So it is important that we recognise that. But you're right that the. The trend, the rate at which we increase defence spending matters. I've made that point already. One of the options may be to enter into novel mechanisms by which we are able to access private sector capital, and I'm told regularly. By people who have healthy portfolios like yours, uh, of, of that there is private capital out there ready to invest because they can see that right across the Western world, certainly across NATO defense is growing rapidly.
And so there is a market and an opportunity there. And some of the technology is changing, which is opening up the market to new entrants. And, uh, you'll. You probably have heard the commentary about the multilateral defence mechanism, which is a, something that the Chancellor is championing. There was some commentary over the weekend about, the defence, Security and Resilience Bank. These are clever mechanisms to provide access to additional funds from from the private sector, either for industry or in the context of MDM, potentially for for us.
And if we can get that right, that it allows us to be off balance sheet. It enables us to procure with our with our allies, that could be really beneficial. I'll be honest with you. Um, that is not an area of expertise. And when the National Armament director comes tomorrow, I'm sure he'll be able to talk to you about it in a bit more detail. But. But the short answer is yes, those there are opportunities to do that.
And Rupert is really good on that.
So it is important that we recognise that. But you're right that the. The trend, the rate at which we increase defence spending matters. I've made that point already. One of the options may be to enter into novel mechanisms by which we are able to access private sector capital, and I'm told regularly. By people who have healthy portfolios like yours, uh, of, of that there is private capital out there ready to invest because they can see that right across the Western world, certainly across NATO defense is growing rapidly.
And so there is a market and an opportunity there. And some of the technology is changing, which is opening up the market to new entrants. And, uh, you'll. You probably have heard the commentary about the multilateral defence mechanism, which is a, something that the Chancellor is championing. There was some commentary over the weekend about, the defence, Security and Resilience Bank. These are clever mechanisms to provide access to additional funds from from the private sector, either for industry or in the context of MDM, potentially for for us.
And if we can get that right, that it allows us to be off balance sheet. It enables us to procure with our with our allies, that could be really beneficial. I'll be honest with you. Um, that is not an area of expertise. And when the National Armament director comes tomorrow, I'm sure he'll be able to talk to you about it in a bit more detail. But. But the short answer is yes, those there are opportunities to do that.
And Rupert is really good on that.
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
On the current situation and we will see what, uh, what gets quoted, uh, outside. Uh, can we now move to, uh, to talking about the strategic defence review and the progress this committee is committed to, to, to looking at the recommendations, the 62 recommendations to see how they are that they are going. Um, so how would you assess the progress that has been made with implementing the recommendations?Where have you been pleased with the progress and where have you been unhappy.
11:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think I would describe it as good, steady progress of the 62 recommendations, 1 or 2 of which were, as you know, slightly idiosyncratic. There's 19 that were due to be delivered by the end of May. 17 of them have been delivered. There was another eight that didn't have a specific date on which have been delivered, and eight more that have been partially delivered. So I think, um, there's been clear progress. I can tell you that from inside the department.
It was an absolute focus for the previous defence secretary. He gave a specific responsibility to junior ministers for specific recommendations. Also, members of the so-called quad, the CDS, the PM set, the national armament director and director for the nuclear for the Nuclear enterprise. The Chief of Defence. Nuclear. Um, we all were given specific recommendations that we are accountable for. It was reviewed at the Defence Board. There was a secretariat within the strategy hub within defence that tracks it and provides the management information to, to tell us so.
So I think I would say steady progress against those recommendations. I think the most significant issue is the one we've just talked about, though, which is the defence investment plan, because that's what gives life to some of the big decisions that will need to be taken. And whilst a lot of progress is made, I'm told that since summer 24, there's been 4000 contracts let over 1300 of them for for more than £1 million. So. So work continues to deliver and you only have to look at what happened over the weekend, what's happened in the Middle East.
The carrier deployment, the soldiers in in Estonia, defence continues to deliver. And we should be proud of that. And one of the things I always said in, in these conversations with ministers is we must remember the SDR is not everything that defence does. It's about some of the changes. And we should definitely get after that. That's what governments asked us to do. And I think we've made. I say good and steady progress, but generating the armed forces, making sure the men and women of our armed forces are trained and ready.
That's the principal responsibility, and I think we continue to do that. Alongside these changes.
It was an absolute focus for the previous defence secretary. He gave a specific responsibility to junior ministers for specific recommendations. Also, members of the so-called quad, the CDS, the PM set, the national armament director and director for the nuclear for the Nuclear enterprise. The Chief of Defence. Nuclear. Um, we all were given specific recommendations that we are accountable for. It was reviewed at the Defence Board. There was a secretariat within the strategy hub within defence that tracks it and provides the management information to, to tell us so.
So I think I would say steady progress against those recommendations. I think the most significant issue is the one we've just talked about, though, which is the defence investment plan, because that's what gives life to some of the big decisions that will need to be taken. And whilst a lot of progress is made, I'm told that since summer 24, there's been 4000 contracts let over 1300 of them for for more than £1 million. So. So work continues to deliver and you only have to look at what happened over the weekend, what's happened in the Middle East.
The carrier deployment, the soldiers in in Estonia, defence continues to deliver. And we should be proud of that. And one of the things I always said in, in these conversations with ministers is we must remember the SDR is not everything that defence does. It's about some of the changes. And we should definitely get after that. That's what governments asked us to do. And I think we've made. I say good and steady progress, but generating the armed forces, making sure the men and women of our armed forces are trained and ready.
That's the principal responsibility, and I think we continue to do that. Alongside these changes.
11:37
11:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I feel that. It is very strong. We have had just over six months now of all four of us in post. And Adam McTernan as chief of Defence nuclear was already in post. I came in in September and then we've had Jeremy Pocklington as the permanent secretary, and Rupert come in towards the end of the year. That's given us a firm foundation. What's very clear to me, it's clear to me, is my time as chief of the air staff and as a more junior officer.
Is that in big, complex organisations like defence, nothing gets delivered in a single stovepipe. You only deliver anything that is meaningful that makes a difference. If you're able to work across those different organisations, what what the defence reform model and the establishment of these four heads has done is given very clear accountability and responsibility for narrow things. So my responsibility is absolutely is about the readiness of our armed forces. But I can't do that without the support of Rupert as the national armament director, who lays the contracts to generate the the servicing and maintenance that's required for for our ships or tanks or aircraft.
Um, and I am really. Confident that if we spoke to any of us, we would say the same thing is we're clear about our accountabilities, but also clear that to make defence work effectively, we have to work closely together. So we meet weekly. We have the executive Committee of Defence is the body we sit on with others like vice chief and chief information officer, and also the. Finance director. And that's how we run defence. Um, but we I say we meet, we meet routinely and are very clear on our accountabilities, but also the need for us to work closely together.
Is that in big, complex organisations like defence, nothing gets delivered in a single stovepipe. You only deliver anything that is meaningful that makes a difference. If you're able to work across those different organisations, what what the defence reform model and the establishment of these four heads has done is given very clear accountability and responsibility for narrow things. So my responsibility is absolutely is about the readiness of our armed forces. But I can't do that without the support of Rupert as the national armament director, who lays the contracts to generate the the servicing and maintenance that's required for for our ships or tanks or aircraft.
Um, and I am really. Confident that if we spoke to any of us, we would say the same thing is we're clear about our accountabilities, but also clear that to make defence work effectively, we have to work closely together. So we meet weekly. We have the executive Committee of Defence is the body we sit on with others like vice chief and chief information officer, and also the. Finance director. And that's how we run defence. Um, but we I say we meet, we meet routinely and are very clear on our accountabilities, but also the need for us to work closely together.
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um. So I think it's, it is a significant change, the budget flowing through the Chief of Defence Staff and then into the commands. It enables us to, to make clear prioritisation decisions across all four of the commands. And it is part of the way in which we will implement the integrated force model that's set out in chapter 4.1 of the of the SDR. I'll be honest with you. Right now, there is a mismatch between the budget and the plan.
And as long as that is the case, you can't really exercise the the benefits and opportunities that come with that. So the Defence Investment plan will close that gap when the funding is settled and the plan is is agreed. And I think that will then allow me alongside the chiefs, to exploit the the benefits and opportunities that come with that that clarity and make sure that we are getting the most out of the resources that we have and focusing it in the areas that are most important to me as the chief of the defence staff, as the principal advisor to the Prime Minister, but but more importantly, to to the nation.
And as long as that is the case, you can't really exercise the the benefits and opportunities that come with that. So the Defence Investment plan will close that gap when the funding is settled and the plan is is agreed. And I think that will then allow me alongside the chiefs, to exploit the the benefits and opportunities that come with that that clarity and make sure that we are getting the most out of the resources that we have and focusing it in the areas that are most important to me as the chief of the defence staff, as the principal advisor to the Prime Minister, but but more importantly, to to the nation.
11:40
11:41
11:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That's a really excellent question. Um you you'll know that I have spoken on this topic a number of times. It was with my Royal United Services Institute lecture prior to Christmas, and Lord Robertson and I shared the stage on Thursday last week where we talked about national resilience and the national, conversation. Um, the, the progress that. Is made. Is set out in some of the polling data that, that we, we have. In preparing for this, I refresh my memory on the topic.
Um, just a couple of data points for you that might, might be helpful. Today the polling says that 50% of those polled believe that spending on defence should increase. That's a 33% increase from the position in the mid 1990s. Um, and 78% think that, uh, we need strong armed Don't think that we need strong armed forces. And if you look at the history of this over the last 2 or 3 years, you've seen a steady. Rise in that perspective from society.
Think we have quite a lot more to do in order to. Engage society more broadly in this conversation. And you'll probably know that when I was giving evidence earlier this year, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, I talked about the need for this to be led. At a political level, for it to be cross-government and for it to be supported by people like me who can talk about the threat, can talk about what the armed forces are doing to raise that, um, that level of awareness.
My personal view is that this becomes real when you do practical things. I was talking to my Dutch counterparts a few weeks ago, and I visited him in The Hague, and one of the things they have done is they now he now they now write to every 17 year old in the country. When they turn 17 about the armed forces, about the opportunities and seeking their information, their information from each of those people. And that has had a really big impact. That means many households in the country get the letter.
It means those in the household are thinking about this thing. And actually, what he told me was over a period of less than two years, it had led to a net increase in the armed forces in in the Dutch armed forces of 5000. So it's these practical steps that I think are are critical. It's like the Swedes with their. I think it's annual. Booklet that comes out about resilience. It talks about flooding and lack of power and loss of mobile phone signal, but does also include armed attack on Sweden.
So I think that for me is, is how we will continue to develop that thinking. The other observation I would make is that. There's a real opportunity at a local level. So I was speaking at an event. I live in Cambridge. I was speaking at an event there, and there was a real appetite from those in the community to know more about the issues and the risks and what they could do about it, and these local resilience fora that have been established, often actually chaired by the fire service, because they're very close to some of these, these natural disasters, is a route, I think, into the local community.
And we intend in the summer to start conducting war games and engaging these, uh, these, these local. Fora to build an understanding and develop that awareness. Of, of the risks and what can be done at a local level. And I have a. Quite, I'm quite optimistic about the benefit that will come through through that that route and some of those practical steps that I describe. But as Lord Robertson know, I have said to him that, you know, politicians, you all know.
It's about how you speak to society. You are the experts in this. And we need your help to do that as well. I don't think it's just about the government of the day. I think it's a broader conversation, um, that you that I would ask for your support and help with.
Um, just a couple of data points for you that might, might be helpful. Today the polling says that 50% of those polled believe that spending on defence should increase. That's a 33% increase from the position in the mid 1990s. Um, and 78% think that, uh, we need strong armed Don't think that we need strong armed forces. And if you look at the history of this over the last 2 or 3 years, you've seen a steady. Rise in that perspective from society.
Think we have quite a lot more to do in order to. Engage society more broadly in this conversation. And you'll probably know that when I was giving evidence earlier this year, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, I talked about the need for this to be led. At a political level, for it to be cross-government and for it to be supported by people like me who can talk about the threat, can talk about what the armed forces are doing to raise that, um, that level of awareness.
My personal view is that this becomes real when you do practical things. I was talking to my Dutch counterparts a few weeks ago, and I visited him in The Hague, and one of the things they have done is they now he now they now write to every 17 year old in the country. When they turn 17 about the armed forces, about the opportunities and seeking their information, their information from each of those people. And that has had a really big impact. That means many households in the country get the letter.
It means those in the household are thinking about this thing. And actually, what he told me was over a period of less than two years, it had led to a net increase in the armed forces in in the Dutch armed forces of 5000. So it's these practical steps that I think are are critical. It's like the Swedes with their. I think it's annual. Booklet that comes out about resilience. It talks about flooding and lack of power and loss of mobile phone signal, but does also include armed attack on Sweden.
So I think that for me is, is how we will continue to develop that thinking. The other observation I would make is that. There's a real opportunity at a local level. So I was speaking at an event. I live in Cambridge. I was speaking at an event there, and there was a real appetite from those in the community to know more about the issues and the risks and what they could do about it, and these local resilience fora that have been established, often actually chaired by the fire service, because they're very close to some of these, these natural disasters, is a route, I think, into the local community.
And we intend in the summer to start conducting war games and engaging these, uh, these, these local. Fora to build an understanding and develop that awareness. Of, of the risks and what can be done at a local level. And I have a. Quite, I'm quite optimistic about the benefit that will come through through that that route and some of those practical steps that I describe. But as Lord Robertson know, I have said to him that, you know, politicians, you all know.
It's about how you speak to society. You are the experts in this. And we need your help to do that as well. I don't think it's just about the government of the day. I think it's a broader conversation, um, that you that I would ask for your support and help with.
11:46
11:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, very much so. So this is actually led out of the Cabinet Office. And I think it's the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister who has the key lead on this defence, has clearly got a significant part to play. But so does the the Home Office. Uh, sits as a part to play. So, so it's a very broad swathe of government that's got a role to play in this. And it's the Cabinet Office that that that have the overall responsibility.
And we're playing our part as defence.
And we're playing our part as defence.
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um just following on from Baroness Prussia's conversation, I you talked about political leadership. I remember in my own party, a former leader, Michael Howard, once saying to be representative, you have to be a party for all Britons. Now survey upon survey continues to show a trust deficit between particularly minority communities within the United Kingdom. And that's also perhaps reflective on recruitment. What specific measures are you taking in both making the message through the national conversation, but also ensuring our armed forces reflect the proud traditions of what Britain is.
And I think a history lesson, which often I give to colleagues when they talk about ethnic minorities is Britain. Let's not forget the services of different communities during both the two great wars, the First World War and the Second World War.
And I think a history lesson, which often I give to colleagues when they talk about ethnic minorities is Britain. Let's not forget the services of different communities during both the two great wars, the First World War and the Second World War.
11:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I strongly agree with that. That that final point. We have a proud tradition in the armed forces of people from many nations and many ethnic backgrounds, serving with great courage and great bravery. And many of the battles and successes that we we are proud of are, are partly as a consequence of the service of people from those those communities. I'm afraid I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but this is a topic I've particularly focused on as the chief of the air staff and as the Chief of Defence Staff, I look more broadly across the armed services.
If you look at the the the recruitment statistics, we are seeing a steady increase and have seen a steady increase over more than a. Decade, as I recall, of the percentage of those joining the armed forces who come from ethnic minorities that. That are non-white. And that is a trend that I expect to continue and is the result of, I think, conscious effort to ensure that as we try to increase the. Size of the armed forces, get back the strength to the requirement following the the exodus that happened, the exits that happened after Covid.
We need to make sure that all of society recognises the value of. Of service and I think the outreach that is conducted by the three services, the overall campaigns around how we. Uh, increase awareness amongst young people of service in the armed forces is manifested in some of those increases that we are seeing. Um, I don't think it's right that the national conversation should be about recruitment, but if we get it right where people recognise the value of working in the armed forces, the skills that they learn, the contribution that they make to society, then I think that will have the happy effect of enhancing the our ability to recruit from areas of the community that that traditionally haven't joined the armed forces.
It's a thing that we need to continue to, to focus on, and I think it will be a very positive byproduct of, of a national conversation and a raising of awareness of the armed forces.
If you look at the the the recruitment statistics, we are seeing a steady increase and have seen a steady increase over more than a. Decade, as I recall, of the percentage of those joining the armed forces who come from ethnic minorities that. That are non-white. And that is a trend that I expect to continue and is the result of, I think, conscious effort to ensure that as we try to increase the. Size of the armed forces, get back the strength to the requirement following the the exodus that happened, the exits that happened after Covid.
We need to make sure that all of society recognises the value of. Of service and I think the outreach that is conducted by the three services, the overall campaigns around how we. Uh, increase awareness amongst young people of service in the armed forces is manifested in some of those increases that we are seeing. Um, I don't think it's right that the national conversation should be about recruitment, but if we get it right where people recognise the value of working in the armed forces, the skills that they learn, the contribution that they make to society, then I think that will have the happy effect of enhancing the our ability to recruit from areas of the community that that traditionally haven't joined the armed forces.
It's a thing that we need to continue to, to focus on, and I think it will be a very positive byproduct of, of a national conversation and a raising of awareness of the armed forces.
11:49
11:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So one of the things that I've talked about in public before is that what we need is a set of armed forces where people are able, irrespective of their background or their gender, to. To fulfil their potential and to be the best they can be. What I want is the strongest possible armed forces that we can have for the nation, and that requires us to select the very best people and promote the very best people, irrespective of their background. And so for me, it's not about it's not just about gender, it's not about ethnic ethnic background.
It is about the very best people being able to do the very best that they are able to do for the good of the nation. And that's about the totality of the environment and culture that we set in the armed forces.
It is about the very best people being able to do the very best that they are able to do for the good of the nation. And that's about the totality of the environment and culture that we set in the armed forces.
11:50
11:50
11:51
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yes, really a partly an observation. Um, on earlier exchanges that, um, uh, I, I very much like the idea of a national conversation on defence, but I'd be slightly wary of opinion polls about what the public think about these things, because I dare say they'd be fairly positive, uh, if they were asked about a national conversation on education, health or any of the other major areas of government activity. Uh, but what I am quite clear about is that the public tend to become engaged rather like the media circus following wars, if you like.
They become engaged when something significant has happened. Uh, and is leading the news. And in that sense, you'll never have a more fertile period to engage the public than at present. I wouldn't think, because so much attention has been given to it. Quite rightly, we are there is a war in Europe. Uh, and if that didn't engage people, nothing, nothing would. So I suppose my question really, uh, is, uh, is the need for this to be a structured and continuing debate, which isn't entirely dependent on where the television cameras are?
They become engaged when something significant has happened. Uh, and is leading the news. And in that sense, you'll never have a more fertile period to engage the public than at present. I wouldn't think, because so much attention has been given to it. Quite rightly, we are there is a war in Europe. Uh, and if that didn't engage people, nothing, nothing would. So I suppose my question really, uh, is, uh, is the need for this to be a structured and continuing debate, which isn't entirely dependent on where the television cameras are?
11:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You, my Lord, I really strongly agree with that. This has to be something that endures, not something that is focused just following events in the Middle East or the war in Ukraine. The the trajectory of the threats is upwards. And that's what demands change in in the armed forces. And what is leading to increasing demands on the armed forces. And I don't foresee that changing in the next three, four, five, six years. And so this conversation needs to endure irrespective of the specific events in in Ukraine or the Middle East, as an example.
So I strongly agree with your observation.
So I strongly agree with your observation.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Lord Chairman and Sir Richard, welcome today and thank you for your time. Um, this committee, um, a year and a bit ago wrote a report on lessons from Ukraine, the wake up call. And one of the things that came out was not only the importance of mass, but also the ability of the Ukrainians to mobilise and deploy, um, effective reserve forces. And I'm really concerned by your points about the pressures on the Adele funding. Um, on, on the progress for the implementation and for the strengthening of the reserve forces, I have to declare an interest.
My daughter is a serving reservist officer. Um, you know, your, your focus is on operational activity. And my question really is what progress is being made for the reserves and are they trained and ready?Um.
My daughter is a serving reservist officer. Um, you know, your, your focus is on operational activity. And my question really is what progress is being made for the reserves and are they trained and ready?Um.
11:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm delighted that your, your daughter is one of our people and she is serving um. The reserve is a critical part of the way in which we will deter our adversaries from, uh. I say doing something daft, but but from, uh, trying to challenge, uh. The reserve and the structure of the reserve we have today was born out of the future reserve 20 work that Lord Horton led when he was the vice chief of Defence staff, and it was constructed and configured around the threats and risks and opportunities of the day.
And those have changed. They've shifted, and we need to adjust and change the structure and roles of the reserves within that, as part of our work to. Be more war fighting ready, we need to and are doing the work to to understand precisely what role the. The regular reserve, which is your daughter is part of, should play both before war starts. And in that transition to war. Um, right now we have amazing people who do incredible things. And I'm always struck when I meet the reserves and reservists about they're doing two jobs to support us and have the utmost respect for them, but we owe it to them to make sure that we're giving them the right training, the right equipment for the task that we want them to, to undertake.
And I think that that task is changing and will change. Some of that is about how we, uh. Use the expertise and skills that, that the reservists have in the, their civilian jobs or the private sector to contribute to increasing mass and scale in, um, in wartime. There are experts in cyber defence in the private sector that we can't possibly hope to hold at those numbers, but they're ever so keen to be part of the. The model that will defend our networks should things should things change.
So as we go through this year and we are refining and developing our. The war books as it's sometimes described, and our plan for that transition to war from that will emerge further details about how the reserve will need to change. And we have a new, uh, Assistant chief. Chief of Defence staff for Reserve Forces and cadets who you will know, Lord Lancaster coming to join us this month, I think, uh, a key part of his role is to, to oversee that and make sure, make sure that we are ready.
But I'm very clear that that the reserve are play a critical role in what we do. The the experience of Ukraine goes beyond the position, though, that I have described, where war has started. And it become clear it's going to be prolonged. And that requires us to think about how do we mobilize the population and how do we mobilize those who are ex regulars now in civilian jobs or even retired, and how we mobilize them and get them back into, uh, into uniform?And that's what we call the strategic reserve.
And one of the things that the ministers had directed us to do is, is for a major exercise. We are running with NATO in 27, 2027. Steadfast defender is to exercise the call up of elements of that strategic reserve. And then the final component to it is the current commander of our Joint Homeland Command. Uh, Lieutenant General Griffiths, part of his task, part of his his his role is to develop the plan for how he would organize the armed forces that we have in order to train and grow the number of armed forces that we might need in wartime.
My objective is never to need to do that. Our focus has to be on how we deter our adversary by persuading the adversary that that if they were to try something, they wouldn't succeed, or it would be so painful for them. The cost would be so high that they choose not to do it. But part of the way we do that is demonstrating that we have regular and reserve forces that are strong and capable and ready. And so that's my principal focus.
And those have changed. They've shifted, and we need to adjust and change the structure and roles of the reserves within that, as part of our work to. Be more war fighting ready, we need to and are doing the work to to understand precisely what role the. The regular reserve, which is your daughter is part of, should play both before war starts. And in that transition to war. Um, right now we have amazing people who do incredible things. And I'm always struck when I meet the reserves and reservists about they're doing two jobs to support us and have the utmost respect for them, but we owe it to them to make sure that we're giving them the right training, the right equipment for the task that we want them to, to undertake.
And I think that that task is changing and will change. Some of that is about how we, uh. Use the expertise and skills that, that the reservists have in the, their civilian jobs or the private sector to contribute to increasing mass and scale in, um, in wartime. There are experts in cyber defence in the private sector that we can't possibly hope to hold at those numbers, but they're ever so keen to be part of the. The model that will defend our networks should things should things change.
So as we go through this year and we are refining and developing our. The war books as it's sometimes described, and our plan for that transition to war from that will emerge further details about how the reserve will need to change. And we have a new, uh, Assistant chief. Chief of Defence staff for Reserve Forces and cadets who you will know, Lord Lancaster coming to join us this month, I think, uh, a key part of his role is to, to oversee that and make sure, make sure that we are ready.
But I'm very clear that that the reserve are play a critical role in what we do. The the experience of Ukraine goes beyond the position, though, that I have described, where war has started. And it become clear it's going to be prolonged. And that requires us to think about how do we mobilize the population and how do we mobilize those who are ex regulars now in civilian jobs or even retired, and how we mobilize them and get them back into, uh, into uniform?And that's what we call the strategic reserve.
And one of the things that the ministers had directed us to do is, is for a major exercise. We are running with NATO in 27, 2027. Steadfast defender is to exercise the call up of elements of that strategic reserve. And then the final component to it is the current commander of our Joint Homeland Command. Uh, Lieutenant General Griffiths, part of his task, part of his his his role is to develop the plan for how he would organize the armed forces that we have in order to train and grow the number of armed forces that we might need in wartime.
My objective is never to need to do that. Our focus has to be on how we deter our adversary by persuading the adversary that that if they were to try something, they wouldn't succeed, or it would be so painful for them. The cost would be so high that they choose not to do it. But part of the way we do that is demonstrating that we have regular and reserve forces that are strong and capable and ready. And so that's my principal focus.
11:58
11:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. I'm not certain whether or not I should be, uh, wildly excited or a bit afeared that the integrated force appears to be, if you like, this star's alchemy for making certain that we can get away with less money. And historically, there have been alchemies that have been doctrinal or efficiency or modernisation. And now we've embarked on the idea of an integrated force, which is demands a huge sophistication of our digital conversion of a defence kill web of effectors and sensors linked. And and when you put alongside it, the relative, um, relatively small amounts of money that we actually invest in R&D and technical superiority.
When you look at our own experience with defence digital that are sort of laboured for a while in joint forces command and now has moved across to the NAD and it appears to have spent huge amounts of money not getting very far with the with the sort of the, the, the digital spine of the integrated force. And all this. Do you actually think that we are running the risk of, again, submitting to a delusion?Because after all, our enemy has a vote, we can't, can we genuinely suggest that we can have a situation of permanent technological advantage in terms of an integrated force which acts as, as it were, this thing that gives us a special edge, and the chief of the General Staff certainly is, you know, in some ways, is it nine times the lethality of the previous force?So to what extent do you genuinely think that both strategically, in terms of a deterrent posture, the integrated force is realisable?
When you look at our own experience with defence digital that are sort of laboured for a while in joint forces command and now has moved across to the NAD and it appears to have spent huge amounts of money not getting very far with the with the sort of the, the, the digital spine of the integrated force. And all this. Do you actually think that we are running the risk of, again, submitting to a delusion?Because after all, our enemy has a vote, we can't, can we genuinely suggest that we can have a situation of permanent technological advantage in terms of an integrated force which acts as, as it were, this thing that gives us a special edge, and the chief of the General Staff certainly is, you know, in some ways, is it nine times the lethality of the previous force?So to what extent do you genuinely think that both strategically, in terms of a deterrent posture, the integrated force is realisable?
12:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Uh, wow. There's a lot in that. Um, on the. First point, there is absolutely no intent that this is alchemy or is in some way about how you can get away with doing less super clear and you spend 3.5% of GDP to meet the NATO targets. And I think to deliver the totality of what's committed in in the Strategic Defence review, um. The strategic perspective. On the strategic purpose of the integrated force model was. Was the top down design of the total force, not the aggregation of the individual domain forces in a joint operation.
That was the big idea. And that the authors had. And the benefit, if you get that right, is that you've then got a force that is best able to maximise. Its capability and its capacity by joining it up in a, in a way that removes the inefficiencies and frictions. So I think strategically that that makes a lot of sense. You'll notice in the chapter that chapter in the Strategic Defence Review, it also reflects the fact that actually NATO doesn't fight like that.
NATO fights by joint force command region, and it fights by domain. And what the SDR authors recognised was you need to be able to switch between those two things. What?I was in Ukraine last month, and it's the fourth time I've been this since I started. What you can see in Ukraine very clearly is the value and importance of data, your ability to understand what your adversary is doing and to apply force either from the land or from the air or from the sea or cyberspace or space.
In an integrated way that delivers the effect that you're trying to achieve. My, my view is that if we are going to. If we're going to win in the future, this is essential for us to be able to do it. One of the reasons why Russia's invasion of Ukraine was was so hapless was because they were unable to do joint all arms manoeuvre. They were unable to integrate air and land battle effectively, and that enabled the Ukrainians to blunt their attack and outmaneuver them.
And I said in a speech last week at the AI conference, they were able to move their air defence assets so that Russia couldn't target them and then preserve them. And that then enabled them to to gain some kind of control of the air and certainly hold Russia back. So, so it's it's definitely not about how you save money. It's about how do you make the force more effective. It has to be, I think. The forces have to be able to operate inside NATO, which operates in a different structure.
But Chris Donahue is the land component commander for NATO, was over in London a couple of weeks ago. And it's very clear when you look at how he is going to achieve his mission, he's going to achieve his mission through, uh. Using drones, one way effectors, uh, launched from the land, uh, integrating fires from missiles fired from, uh, submarines or from, uh. F-35 or typhoon is going to need some kind of localized cyber capability, and he's going to need space assets to be able to help him.
So, so even though it's a land battle. He is going to have to exploit all of the components to deliver overwhelming force and effect on Russia. And so, and the integrated force model is about trying to ensure that the force is able to do that. A critical enabler to that is that digital backbone. And the so-called digital targeting web. And I would challenge a bit your characterization of large amount of money spent with not a lot of impact.
I think that the. Uh, chief digital information, data and information officer who just retired, who's been with defence for eight years or so, has in many respects transformed the the. The position we find ourselves in. But he would acknowledge and I would acknowledge, that there is more to be done from an operational perspective. What the digital targeting web is doing in its first, first iterations and focus. And there's a commitment in SDR to to have a minimum viable product in 2026.
And I'm very confident that that we'll will do that is to. Drive a much faster. And larger scale targeting enterprise. And I was talking to the air Vice marshal who's running it. Um, and he said to me, there is already been a 900% increase in the permanent joint headquarters target management capacity. And that's as a consequence of applying tools that already exist to data that we already have to enable us to do these things much faster. And there's much more to come on this.
But but it's an essential component of our effectiveness, not about making us cheaper or more efficient. And without it, I'm not sure that I would be confident that we are going to win in a future fight. And I want us to to win overwhelmingly and to Russia to know.
That was the big idea. And that the authors had. And the benefit, if you get that right, is that you've then got a force that is best able to maximise. Its capability and its capacity by joining it up in a, in a way that removes the inefficiencies and frictions. So I think strategically that that makes a lot of sense. You'll notice in the chapter that chapter in the Strategic Defence Review, it also reflects the fact that actually NATO doesn't fight like that.
NATO fights by joint force command region, and it fights by domain. And what the SDR authors recognised was you need to be able to switch between those two things. What?I was in Ukraine last month, and it's the fourth time I've been this since I started. What you can see in Ukraine very clearly is the value and importance of data, your ability to understand what your adversary is doing and to apply force either from the land or from the air or from the sea or cyberspace or space.
In an integrated way that delivers the effect that you're trying to achieve. My, my view is that if we are going to. If we're going to win in the future, this is essential for us to be able to do it. One of the reasons why Russia's invasion of Ukraine was was so hapless was because they were unable to do joint all arms manoeuvre. They were unable to integrate air and land battle effectively, and that enabled the Ukrainians to blunt their attack and outmaneuver them.
And I said in a speech last week at the AI conference, they were able to move their air defence assets so that Russia couldn't target them and then preserve them. And that then enabled them to to gain some kind of control of the air and certainly hold Russia back. So, so it's it's definitely not about how you save money. It's about how do you make the force more effective. It has to be, I think. The forces have to be able to operate inside NATO, which operates in a different structure.
But Chris Donahue is the land component commander for NATO, was over in London a couple of weeks ago. And it's very clear when you look at how he is going to achieve his mission, he's going to achieve his mission through, uh. Using drones, one way effectors, uh, launched from the land, uh, integrating fires from missiles fired from, uh, submarines or from, uh. F-35 or typhoon is going to need some kind of localized cyber capability, and he's going to need space assets to be able to help him.
So, so even though it's a land battle. He is going to have to exploit all of the components to deliver overwhelming force and effect on Russia. And so, and the integrated force model is about trying to ensure that the force is able to do that. A critical enabler to that is that digital backbone. And the so-called digital targeting web. And I would challenge a bit your characterization of large amount of money spent with not a lot of impact.
I think that the. Uh, chief digital information, data and information officer who just retired, who's been with defence for eight years or so, has in many respects transformed the the. The position we find ourselves in. But he would acknowledge and I would acknowledge, that there is more to be done from an operational perspective. What the digital targeting web is doing in its first, first iterations and focus. And there's a commitment in SDR to to have a minimum viable product in 2026.
And I'm very confident that that we'll will do that is to. Drive a much faster. And larger scale targeting enterprise. And I was talking to the air Vice marshal who's running it. Um, and he said to me, there is already been a 900% increase in the permanent joint headquarters target management capacity. And that's as a consequence of applying tools that already exist to data that we already have to enable us to do these things much faster. And there's much more to come on this.
But but it's an essential component of our effectiveness, not about making us cheaper or more efficient. And without it, I'm not sure that I would be confident that we are going to win in a future fight. And I want us to to win overwhelmingly and to Russia to know.
12:07
12:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um. Yes. The reason I pause slightly is the integrated force is the force, uh, the, the smart bit is about how we design it and then how we make sure it's joined up effectively. And that requires us to update our doctrine. It requires us to update our professional military education. Uh, I was at the advanced command and staff course recently talking to the students there about how, how NATO nuclear and an integrated force thinking is being imbued in them already.
But it is a really critical part of our ability to succeed in the fight that we face in the future. I was looking at my notes. You also asked about R&D. Um. This is an area I've spent quite a bit of my my career in. We have exceptional scientists in the defence Science and technology lab. We have exceptional engineers who are able to, to use those things. And we still have capability that our allies, even the most powerful nation on earth, the US, really value.
The plan to invest more in R&D is something I strongly welcome, and that will help us retain that credibility, retain that advantage. But we also have to recognise that 50 years ago, most of this technology was coming out of government and military laboratories. Today, a lot of this technology is coming from the commercial sector, cloud computing, artificial intelligence. The trick for us. That's why I made this speech last week at the AI conference, is how do we exploit that technology to deliver things like the digital targeting web so we can make faster, better decisions than our adversaries and keep us on the front foot?
But it is a really critical part of our ability to succeed in the fight that we face in the future. I was looking at my notes. You also asked about R&D. Um. This is an area I've spent quite a bit of my my career in. We have exceptional scientists in the defence Science and technology lab. We have exceptional engineers who are able to, to use those things. And we still have capability that our allies, even the most powerful nation on earth, the US, really value.
The plan to invest more in R&D is something I strongly welcome, and that will help us retain that credibility, retain that advantage. But we also have to recognise that 50 years ago, most of this technology was coming out of government and military laboratories. Today, a lot of this technology is coming from the commercial sector, cloud computing, artificial intelligence. The trick for us. That's why I made this speech last week at the AI conference, is how do we exploit that technology to deliver things like the digital targeting web so we can make faster, better decisions than our adversaries and keep us on the front foot?
12:09
12:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Um, you said earlier that the UK is the third largest cash producer from a defence point of view within NATO, and therefore has an important leadership role. And I'd like to explore that a bit with you. Um, but as an aside, but an important aside, of course, the combined GDP of all NATO members is hugely greater than that of Russia by many times. So that might lead to some skeptics saying, is it realistic or even necessary to go as far as 3.5% increase by 2035?But that's not what I want to talk about.
Well, I want to talk about is the the problem of fragmentation. That money is fragmented within NATO. So can you tell us a bit about interoperability, which was, of course, recommended by the SDF?Um, and what progress we're really beginning to make on interoperability within NATO. So it can be much more effective than it is at the moment.
Well, I want to talk about is the the problem of fragmentation. That money is fragmented within NATO. So can you tell us a bit about interoperability, which was, of course, recommended by the SDF?Um, and what progress we're really beginning to make on interoperability within NATO. So it can be much more effective than it is at the moment.
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Um, I mentioned that I was with the Supreme Allied Commander transformation yesterday. And this is a key focus for him. We have developed our own roadmap as in line with the recommendations made in the SDR that. Has to dock into a wider NATO process. Give you an example of the role that we're playing. The UK is playing a really critical role in establishing the standard standards as they are known for the exchange of digital information and partly through our work with the digital targeting web.
One of the things that my fellow chiefs around the NATO are. Chod, chief Chiefs of Defence Committee, worry about is the fragmentation that. You describe and the limited capacity that there currently is in the defence industrial base across Europe and understandably for many governments, they're spending a lot of their taxpayer's money on enhancing defence capability. And they want to spend that in their own nation. If we stick to that approach in a highly doctrinaire way, we will continue to get less value from that money than we would do if we were able to coordinate more effectively across NATO.
And there's two parts to that. One is about joint procurement. So we're very clear on where our our requirements overlap. And we go into those procurements collectively. The second I think is in making. Sure that. Or making sure it. The second is in. Acknowledging. At a strategic and political level that. The good of the. For the good of the Alliance, we will have to buy capability from nations other other than our own, and I think the best argument for that is to demonstrate the value for money, but also to allow nations to really.
Develop capability where they've got got expertise. And one of the advantages of modern technology, these drones that we describe is that they. Facilities and capability required to produce them are less. Sophisticated than they are, for example, to build a fighter plane or a ship. And what we're going to need if the war starts is an ability to ramp that up quickly. And so we will need across NATO to understand where that capacity might come from, how we can turn a mobile phone factory, for example, into one that's able to manufacture drones or harnesses for, um, for vehicles.
And it's, it's, it's that. Deliberate and conscious act of thinking through that, that I think will be important. And this is definitely something you should pick up with Rupert tomorrow when, when he comes in. Because as a national director, part of his responsibility is to build the national arsenal, to build the capacity and capability that that the nation needs. But I strongly believe that we have to do that with our allies, and that will require some compromises, and accepting that we will buy some weapons from Germany or the US in order to get the most efficient and effective capability into the hands of our of of the men and women in our armed forces.
One of the things that my fellow chiefs around the NATO are. Chod, chief Chiefs of Defence Committee, worry about is the fragmentation that. You describe and the limited capacity that there currently is in the defence industrial base across Europe and understandably for many governments, they're spending a lot of their taxpayer's money on enhancing defence capability. And they want to spend that in their own nation. If we stick to that approach in a highly doctrinaire way, we will continue to get less value from that money than we would do if we were able to coordinate more effectively across NATO.
And there's two parts to that. One is about joint procurement. So we're very clear on where our our requirements overlap. And we go into those procurements collectively. The second I think is in making. Sure that. Or making sure it. The second is in. Acknowledging. At a strategic and political level that. The good of the. For the good of the Alliance, we will have to buy capability from nations other other than our own, and I think the best argument for that is to demonstrate the value for money, but also to allow nations to really.
Develop capability where they've got got expertise. And one of the advantages of modern technology, these drones that we describe is that they. Facilities and capability required to produce them are less. Sophisticated than they are, for example, to build a fighter plane or a ship. And what we're going to need if the war starts is an ability to ramp that up quickly. And so we will need across NATO to understand where that capacity might come from, how we can turn a mobile phone factory, for example, into one that's able to manufacture drones or harnesses for, um, for vehicles.
And it's, it's, it's that. Deliberate and conscious act of thinking through that, that I think will be important. And this is definitely something you should pick up with Rupert tomorrow when, when he comes in. Because as a national director, part of his responsibility is to build the national arsenal, to build the capacity and capability that that the nation needs. But I strongly believe that we have to do that with our allies, and that will require some compromises, and accepting that we will buy some weapons from Germany or the US in order to get the most efficient and effective capability into the hands of our of of the men and women in our armed forces.
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Right. Can I just ask you, in terms of NATO, if you take the nuclear deterrent out of our budget and it gets no credit whatsoever in NATO, actually, the amount that we spend on conventional defence is very close to what Portugal and Spain are actually spending in terms of proportion of GNP. Does that not weaken our role within NATO?
12:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think that if you look at the nuclear enterprise that includes the attack submarines, uh, all the infrastructure, the new bombers, the new, um. Warhead that that whole enterprise, some of which does contribute directly to NATO targets like the submarines. It's about a quarter of the defence budget is being spent on that, that nuclear enterprise that's gone up quite significantly over the last few years, because we are having to replace our strategic bomber, the submarine, the dreadnought. We are having to invest in a new warhead.
All of the infrastructure associated with that is decades old. And we've also committed to a programme to replace our astute attack submarines. So taken together, that's a significant chunk of of our defence investment. Of our defence spending. And that means there is definitely less available to spend on the conventional force. But that's part of the reason why we started this session. I was very clear that we need to spend 3.5% of GDP to to deliver our NATO capability targets and to deliver that, reverse the hollowness, improve our readiness, and do.
Ensure that we are ready for war fighting.
All of the infrastructure associated with that is decades old. And we've also committed to a programme to replace our astute attack submarines. So taken together, that's a significant chunk of of our defence investment. Of our defence spending. And that means there is definitely less available to spend on the conventional force. But that's part of the reason why we started this session. I was very clear that we need to spend 3.5% of GDP to to deliver our NATO capability targets and to deliver that, reverse the hollowness, improve our readiness, and do.
Ensure that we are ready for war fighting.
12:16
12:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I said right at the start of this session, is that that is not going to happen overnight. Um, my experience with my German colleagues demonstrates that. You need to increase that investment steadily in order to enable industry and the private capital to respond to that, to build the capacity. So I don't think it's realistic that we would step up and spend 3.5% next year. But the quicker we get to that, the faster we will reverse the hollowing out that you talked about in your report.
The readier that we will be. And, um, the. The more. The, the quicker we'll be able to accelerate the modernisation and transformation of the force in the way we've discussed.
The readier that we will be. And, um, the. The more. The, the quicker we'll be able to accelerate the modernisation and transformation of the force in the way we've discussed.
12:17
12:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think I'll go back to what the Prime Minister said on Friday. He sees that what he has had to do is increase spending on defence. Outside of a spending review, what he committed to on Friday was to make defence the number one priority at the next spending review and to chart that course to the 3.5% that he he has committed to. My role in this is, as I've talked to you, is about, is to lead the armed forces, but also to offer very clear, very robust advice on the implications.
And I do that in private on the implications of whatever resources ministers plan to or decide to invest in defence. And we've been through the risks and the challenges and the things that I'm most worried about earlier in the session.
And I do that in private on the implications of whatever resources ministers plan to or decide to invest in defence. And we've been through the risks and the challenges and the things that I'm most worried about earlier in the session.
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, so to your to your second question, emphatically yes, the UK is keeping up its end of the bargain. So GCap it's the UK that just uh is. Committed to investing more in the programme than our than our other partners right now. So we are leading that. We're leading it from a technology perspective, from an engineering perspective. And this programme started in the UK with the future Combat Air strategy in 2018, and the work. I set it up in 2014.
Um, so it has a long history in the UK is absolutely holding up its end of the bargain on Aukus. I would say exactly the same. The same thing. The UK has got a critical role to play in the design of the submarine and the industrial capacity in the UK is is how this programme will start. Clearly it's being built up in in Australia, but it can't happen overnight. Um, in terms of pillar two, I was with the Defence Secretary and with Secretary Hesketh, um and the Australian Defence Secretary in Singapore at their most recent meeting where they made their announcement about the first step of a pillar two project that's directly associated with the underwater to battle.
And they committed at that, uh, to examine other options. And so there is more to come beyond that.
Um, so it has a long history in the UK is absolutely holding up its end of the bargain on Aukus. I would say exactly the same. The same thing. The UK has got a critical role to play in the design of the submarine and the industrial capacity in the UK is is how this programme will start. Clearly it's being built up in in Australia, but it can't happen overnight. Um, in terms of pillar two, I was with the Defence Secretary and with Secretary Hesketh, um and the Australian Defence Secretary in Singapore at their most recent meeting where they made their announcement about the first step of a pillar two project that's directly associated with the underwater to battle.
And they committed at that, uh, to examine other options. And so there is more to come beyond that.
12:21
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
It was just interesting as a comment we were in, Lord Bruce and I were in Australia recently, and Aukus is far more higher up. The profile there than it is here. And there's a, I would say we picked up a nervousness that they, the Australians need need to, to ratchet up their skills that they're relying on us to support. And there was a nervousness on that.
12:21
12:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That publishing the defence investment plan will be very helpful. It will it will set the plan and we can get on and execute it. Um, just just on Australia. I was at the meeting, which is the Foreign Secretary of Defence Secretary joint meeting last last week. Um this is a really big programme for Australia and. They haven't had a nuclear submarine before. It was a big political decision. They took a few few years ago.
It's in recognition of the requirement and the threat in their region. And this is really, really hard designing, building, assembling nuclear submarines is difficult. Uh, I think I'm right in saying that there may have. Been only one or maybe no nuclear engineering master's degree available in Australia before Aukus started. So there's a lot to do to build up those skills. But part of the reason HMS Anson visited Australia in March was to allow them to. To understand what how these submarines are maintained and operated.
We've got. Australian Navy personnel on our own submarines and on US submarines. I mean, it's very impressive to see the progress that has been made. But but it is a very tough road ahead in what are big, complex and expensive programs.
It's in recognition of the requirement and the threat in their region. And this is really, really hard designing, building, assembling nuclear submarines is difficult. Uh, I think I'm right in saying that there may have. Been only one or maybe no nuclear engineering master's degree available in Australia before Aukus started. So there's a lot to do to build up those skills. But part of the reason HMS Anson visited Australia in March was to allow them to. To understand what how these submarines are maintained and operated.
We've got. Australian Navy personnel on our own submarines and on US submarines. I mean, it's very impressive to see the progress that has been made. But but it is a very tough road ahead in what are big, complex and expensive programs.
12:23
12:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Lord chairman, you've indicated that part of your role is providing advice to the Prime Minister and and his colleagues on the kind of risks that lie ahead, the challenges, the difficulties. You've also indicated that within NATO, because everybody can't do everything that we have to parcel out some expertise. One of the large areas of expertise is that of the United States. Mhm. This committee has recently produced a report on the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States, and indicated a substantial degree of potential risk there.
Of the United States not being an entirely dependable ally in the future. Is this part of your risk assessment?Is this part of the risk that you transmit to the Prime Minister and his colleagues?
Of the United States not being an entirely dependable ally in the future. Is this part of your risk assessment?Is this part of the risk that you transmit to the Prime Minister and his colleagues?
12:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Worth starting when we. When these questions come up with how it feels today, and I can tell you that on a military to military personal basis, the relationship that I have with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the Supreme Allied commander. Europe, and a whole range of US four stars, is as good as I have known it. So I have every confidence in. The strength and quality of that relationship, and I would want to reassure the committee around it.
But it is true that the US has signalled and has been signalling for some time. You remember Barack Obama talked about the pivot to the Far East, has been signalling for some time that its focus is broader than simply the Euro-Atlantic and NATO. And the most recent announcements. Which are have been reported in in the media, have not been released publicly because they're classified. But those recent announcements have been a. Infestation of the National Defence Strategy and this shift.
And it's. The US recognising that if there were to be a conflict in the Far East that NATO should not rely on US's ability to to put those assets into Europe. And so the Prime Minister has talked about a stronger European. NATO, and that actually delivers a stronger, a stronger NATO. And so part of our thinking about how we evolve and develop our capability and our allies in NATO evolve and develop their capability, is to think about what are the the gaps that might be produced.
And the most recent conversations the US has asked us and other nations to identify those assets that we have that are not currently declared to NATO, that we could declare to NATO in order to bolster the capacity. Now, actually, the UK is a leading light in what it attributes to NATO. Almost everything that we have is attributed to NATO. So we are leading the way in that. But as. The situation in and US policy settles and becomes clearer, then.
That is definitely a factor that we must consider. And I think the defence ministerial meeting, which is due to happen in Brussels on Wednesday and at Ankara. This will be a key part of those those conversations. And it's a. It reinforces the importance of that increase in defence spending that the Prime Minister has committed to.
But it is true that the US has signalled and has been signalling for some time. You remember Barack Obama talked about the pivot to the Far East, has been signalling for some time that its focus is broader than simply the Euro-Atlantic and NATO. And the most recent announcements. Which are have been reported in in the media, have not been released publicly because they're classified. But those recent announcements have been a. Infestation of the National Defence Strategy and this shift.
And it's. The US recognising that if there were to be a conflict in the Far East that NATO should not rely on US's ability to to put those assets into Europe. And so the Prime Minister has talked about a stronger European. NATO, and that actually delivers a stronger, a stronger NATO. And so part of our thinking about how we evolve and develop our capability and our allies in NATO evolve and develop their capability, is to think about what are the the gaps that might be produced.
And the most recent conversations the US has asked us and other nations to identify those assets that we have that are not currently declared to NATO, that we could declare to NATO in order to bolster the capacity. Now, actually, the UK is a leading light in what it attributes to NATO. Almost everything that we have is attributed to NATO. So we are leading the way in that. But as. The situation in and US policy settles and becomes clearer, then.
That is definitely a factor that we must consider. And I think the defence ministerial meeting, which is due to happen in Brussels on Wednesday and at Ankara. This will be a key part of those those conversations. And it's a. It reinforces the importance of that increase in defence spending that the Prime Minister has committed to.
12:27
12:27
12:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Just a quick one on Aukus. I'm signed in 2021. One of the key deliverables on pillar one was about new advanced submarine capacity. There's also been delays in Barrow in Furness in terms of the infrastructure support. Again, going back to the Defence Investment plan. And Lord Ruth's question also on GCap, do you think there is enough?And you talked and started rightly on del C del comparisons. Are those shortcomings being incorporated into the defence investment plan, particularly in terms of infrastructure capacity?
12:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, absolutely. I was at Barrow recently. Um it. Is remarkable. The progress that is made has been made there over the last few years. And the rate of work and production is really significant. So I can you can go there and see the dreadnought submarines being assembled. Several thousand more workers now in the programme than there were two years ago. So very, very impressive. Um, it's very clear that to stay on schedule as close to schedule as you can, you need to invest in enablers of which infrastructure is a key, key part of that.
And. One of the key announcements around the Strategic Defence review was increasing the capacity at Barrow to enable there to be an overlap between, uh, the dread. Nought production and the SSN Aukus production and that that will be fundamental. And that is a key part of it. And it's part of the reason why the expenditure on nuclear is so much higher than it was ten years ago, because you've got all these things coming at once. New bomber, new warhead, new infrastructure, new attack submarine.
That's a real challenge for industry. But I was I was really impressed when I went up to Barrow recently. Thank you.
And. One of the key announcements around the Strategic Defence review was increasing the capacity at Barrow to enable there to be an overlap between, uh, the dread. Nought production and the SSN Aukus production and that that will be fundamental. And that is a key part of it. And it's part of the reason why the expenditure on nuclear is so much higher than it was ten years ago, because you've got all these things coming at once. New bomber, new warhead, new infrastructure, new attack submarine.
That's a real challenge for industry. But I was I was really impressed when I went up to Barrow recently. Thank you.
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Um sir Richard's very good to see you. And thank you very much for your plain speaking. You said in answer to one of the earlier questions that it was all about the the quality of the people as well as the equipment and the platforms. And um, my question is on one of the major, um, cross themes, uh, of the SDR, which is the need for cultural change, continuing need for cultural change in defence. And in that sense, it's linked to the national conversation.
So as, um, CDs, how do you go about driving that cultural change?Uh, in issues such as negative behaviors?When I was a defence whip, you know, a thousand years ago, um, the, for instance, for women in, in, in the military, it was a toxic place for a lot of them. I'm sure things have improved enormously. Uh, but for going back to Lord Ahmed's question, but for, um, minority. Ethnic communities, for the LGBT community, for women, what, uh, what has changed as far as those toxic behaviours are concerned?And how do you get cultural, uh, innovation and how do you get.
Uh, a. NATO first interoperability and, uh, how, how do you get people to operate with each other and, um, partnership with each other culturally, uh, in, in those areas.
So as, um, CDs, how do you go about driving that cultural change?Uh, in issues such as negative behaviors?When I was a defence whip, you know, a thousand years ago, um, the, for instance, for women in, in, in the military, it was a toxic place for a lot of them. I'm sure things have improved enormously. Uh, but for going back to Lord Ahmed's question, but for, um, minority. Ethnic communities, for the LGBT community, for women, what, uh, what has changed as far as those toxic behaviours are concerned?And how do you get cultural, uh, innovation and how do you get.
Uh, a. NATO first interoperability and, uh, how, how do you get people to operate with each other and, um, partnership with each other culturally, uh, in, in those areas.
12:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, again, another question with a lot in there. Um, one level culture change. Sounds easy because it's, it's just the way we do things around here. So if you set the right example, you put in place the right standards, processes, changes, uh, educate. People. Re-educate them when they get it wrong and ultimately throw them out if they, if they fall below the standards. So it sounds easy, but we know from all of our experiences that these are hard.
And the survey results from, uh. The work that we've done in the mod. And we are the only department that has surveyed around some of these sexual behaviours demonstrate that we still have a problem. And as I said to Lord Ahmed, my objective is to is to have. An organisation where irrespective of your background, your colour, your sex, your um. Your gender, you are able to. Do the very best you can do that. You'll feel valued.
You feel cared for and feel safe in, in the environment. And it hurts me that some of our people don't feel that. We have a real benefit inside the armed forces because when people join from society, we have them for several weeks or we can develop them, set the standards, train them, educate them. That's the purpose of that training. We have, through the Raising our Standards programme, which is a cross departmental programme, a big part for the Chiefs and me to play in in leading that in the armed forces, but it applies right across the armed forces.
Worked on ensuring that we have good data so we know what's going on. We're very clear about the standards we've set that we have common education process and that we take action when people fall below the standards that we expect. Um, and I was with the general who's our head. Of the defence Academy and the work that they have done on establishing a common leadership system called Leadership Edge for the whole of defence, not just for those of us in uniform, for the whole of defence is a critical part of how we will do that.
And the data that we are gathering that will tell us the progress we are making. And then there are a whole lot of steps we need to take to ensure that we standardize our approach to. Responding to unacceptable behaviours across the services, making sure that we are able to tell people what has happened. One of the benefits of this military strategic headquarters of the new model is that that all comes together with me. And so me and the chiefs of of the the three services and all four commands and Vice-Chief, we can set those standards together and drive those things together.
But I'll be very honest, it's not where I want it to be. It's not as good as I would want it to be. And I, in my 3 or 4 years in this job, I will. I know that this will be a thing that I need to continue to work on throughout the time to create that environment where people feel valued, feel safe, and able to do the very best that they can do because we we need that for the nation. We need that to ensure that we're able to protect our interests and our citizens and our country.
And the survey results from, uh. The work that we've done in the mod. And we are the only department that has surveyed around some of these sexual behaviours demonstrate that we still have a problem. And as I said to Lord Ahmed, my objective is to is to have. An organisation where irrespective of your background, your colour, your sex, your um. Your gender, you are able to. Do the very best you can do that. You'll feel valued.
You feel cared for and feel safe in, in the environment. And it hurts me that some of our people don't feel that. We have a real benefit inside the armed forces because when people join from society, we have them for several weeks or we can develop them, set the standards, train them, educate them. That's the purpose of that training. We have, through the Raising our Standards programme, which is a cross departmental programme, a big part for the Chiefs and me to play in in leading that in the armed forces, but it applies right across the armed forces.
Worked on ensuring that we have good data so we know what's going on. We're very clear about the standards we've set that we have common education process and that we take action when people fall below the standards that we expect. Um, and I was with the general who's our head. Of the defence Academy and the work that they have done on establishing a common leadership system called Leadership Edge for the whole of defence, not just for those of us in uniform, for the whole of defence is a critical part of how we will do that.
And the data that we are gathering that will tell us the progress we are making. And then there are a whole lot of steps we need to take to ensure that we standardize our approach to. Responding to unacceptable behaviours across the services, making sure that we are able to tell people what has happened. One of the benefits of this military strategic headquarters of the new model is that that all comes together with me. And so me and the chiefs of of the the three services and all four commands and Vice-Chief, we can set those standards together and drive those things together.
But I'll be very honest, it's not where I want it to be. It's not as good as I would want it to be. And I, in my 3 or 4 years in this job, I will. I know that this will be a thing that I need to continue to work on throughout the time to create that environment where people feel valued, feel safe, and able to do the very best that they can do because we we need that for the nation. We need that to ensure that we're able to protect our interests and our citizens and our country.
12:35
12:35
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. You'll be reassured by the fact that, um, the new ministerial team includes a former RAF officer among among the number, uh, which. Uh, you'll be, you'll be facing. Anyway, you've given us a lot of time, uh, at a very important point. Uh, indeed. And we are very, very grateful to you for spending your time with us this morning. And we'll let you go back now to educate the new ministerial team, uh, on on what is ahead of them as well.
But we are enormously grateful to you for spending so much time and arguing and, and answering in such a candid and open way as well. And we wish you well. Thank you.
But we are enormously grateful to you for spending so much time and arguing and, and answering in such a candid and open way as well. And we wish you well. Thank you.