Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to show me his draft deal, and there is a very good reason for that: this deal, this treaty and this Bill improve on that deal.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions of those judgments affect the operations of the base—that is what is important here. It is also about the extension of the judgments, because other powers could be used on the basis of those judgments. That is the reason that the Conservatives started the negotiations. [Interruption.] If they would like to explain that there was a better reason that they started the negotiations—if it was not to ensure the security of this vital base—they are welcome to do so.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why the Conservatives started the negotiations, I am happy to give way.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I welcome him to his new position. He keeps saying “could”, “if” and that things “might” have happened. Will he accept that the legal judgments that have been cast down, which he is using as evidence, are not binding? Does he accept that when he talks about our deal—in other words, the last Government’s deal—he is actually being a bit duplicitous? There was no deal, because we ended the negotiations.

[Luke Pollard]

I think the Opposition have got their attack line sorted, but not the reasons why they started the negotiations.

[Paul Holmes]

We ended them!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not like the word “duplicitous”, and I definitely did not like the carrying on afterwards. I am sure that “duplicitous” will not be said again today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is concerned about the cost of the deal, but does she also share my concern about the way in which the deal was negotiated? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that only the Prime Ministers of our respective countries were in the room; officials were asked to leave the room, so there are no records of what was discussed. Is that how a responsible, democratic Government should show transparency when negotiating on the international stage?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; at the heart of this is transparency about negotiations, including fiscal negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. During an intervention on the Minister for Defence Procurement, I said that he was acting in a “duplicitous” way. I have already been rebuked by Mr Speaker, so you do not have to step in, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say that I misspoke when I said that the Minister was not being genuine. I apologise to him—I never play the man; I always play the ball. It is a shame that he is not present to hear that apology.

However, I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement—he is a good friend of mine, and I look forward to him serving in that position—but I will say that that career has not started well. The first moment that he appears before the House in charge of defence procurement in this country, he single-handedly starts by advocating disposing of a vital piece of defence infrastructure, which is not only relevant but essential to the national security of the country. He stood here to try to defend the indefensible. I suggest to the Whips Office that they might want to look at some of his decisions in future, if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country, because so far he has only been successful at getting rid of vital infrastructure. I hope that he does better.

The first job and the first duty of any Government that serve the great people of this great country is to keep their people and themselves safe. I never thought that I would come to this House on a day like today to see a Government, this Government, creating the biggest act of self-sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elected Houses in the history of our nation. The Government are harming not only our security, but the strategic interests of our people and the security of this country.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

If the deal is harming our strategic interests, why is it backed by our allies, the United States and NATO?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to show up for the entire debate—I think that he has only just arrived in the Chamber—then he would have heard the answer to those questions in excellent speeches given by hon. Members from across the House. In response to his question, why is the deal also backed by so many counties that have malign influences towards the interests of the United Kingdom, such as Russia, China and Iran? If he stays for the rest of the debate, he might hear some answers to those questions too. It is easy for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber and read a Labour party briefing, thinking that if they say things time and again, they must be true, and that people outside the Chamber will expect what they say will be true.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. He said to Foreign Office officials at that time that the negotiations that had started and were being explored went past his red line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was Foreign Secretary when some of the negotiations happened, said to his Foreign Office officials, “As the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.” Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron—I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations—so I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that just because negotiations and conversations have started, we do not have to accept a conclusion that we do not want.

[Graeme Downie]

As we have heard already in the debate, apparently we cannot hear a negotiating position, so will the hon. Gentleman describe in detail exactly what those red lines were?

[Paul Holmes]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what one of those red lines was: not paying £35 billion to another country. In case he wants to read his Labour party briefing again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that another red line for the last Foreign Secretary was that he clearly did not accept unilaterally that the sovereignty of the Chagos islands fell with Mauritius. That is a key difference between the last Government and this Government.

This is a bad deal for Britain: it will cost £35 billion, while the Government tax and spend and make people in this country poorer, and in an ever-changing international security situation, this country is unilaterally giving up a strategically important defence base, in an area of the world where we are seeing more geopolitical uncertainty. I cannot put into words how bad this Bill is, except to say that it is an act of self-sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected Government for generations.

To reiterate, not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every nation that is malign to our national interest, including China, Russia and Iran. Last week, at an international summit, those countries were actively advocating some of the malign influences about which this Government and the last Government spoke about, and they are actively backing this deal. I challenge Labour Members to look Opposition Members or any of their constituents in the eye and say that a deal that is successful for this country should be backed by Iran, China and Russia.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to work within the confines of parliamentary etiquette, but I have to say that there is something deeply concerning about the way that this Government have chosen to negotiate the terms of the agreement. We have to look at the close links between the key people who negotiated this deal with the Mauritian Government and the links—private links—to the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said in the Mauritian Parliament that officials were asked to leave the room while private negotiations were going ahead. I have never known a responsible Government who are trying to hand over sovereignty of a British overseas territory to ask officials, who are there to protect the integrity and the transparency of the of decisions that Ministers take, to leave the room so that a negotiation can go on. Why have the Government hidden the cost of the deal? Why have they refused to give this House a solid and sustainable way to scrutinise the decisions of the Government? They have avoided scrutiny at every turn.

[Sir John Hayes]

Perhaps I can invite my hon. Friend to be helpful to the Minister. He clearly holds him in some regard, and he is right that he has got himself into something of a mess. By far the best way for the Government to proceed from hereon would be to make much more available either to this House or, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would clarify the terms of this trade—why it happened and the assessments that were made that led up to it—in a way that the House would be able to either legitimise what the Minister claims or refute it. A lack of transparency is half the Minister’s problem.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee had the Minister in front of us to discuss the deal, so there has been parliamentary scrutiny on this, including by other Committees, just not by the Defence Committee. On the costs, as the PPS to Lord Cameron, maybe he can say a little bit about what the cost was of the deal they negotiated at the end of those 11 rounds—whether it was higher or lower than the deal we have reached now.

[Paul Holmes]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman. Let me say it very clearly and very slowly, because I know that hon. Members have written their speeches before the debate started: zero. Zero is less than the deal the Minister is choosing. Let me repeat it very slowly for the hon. Gentleman and for Members across the House: the deal was ended. There was no deal. The negotiations stopped. There were no negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will in a second. I just want to emphasise the point so we do not hear it again. There were no negotiations. There was no deal. [Interruption.] The negotiations were stopped. There was no deal on offer, and no money was being offered. I hope that Members will scratch that bit out of their speeches as they go forward.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called the Mauritian Prime Minister on 22 February 2024 and reassured him that

“the UK remains committed to a mutually beneficial outcome…and their teams look forward to continuing to work on this.”

Will he comment on that?

[Paul Holmes]

Yes, I absolutely can. I am not a lawyer, but I would say it is crystal clear in the sentence the hon. Gentleman has just read: “mutually beneficial”. What the democratically elected Government of the day decided, through Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who I said—if the hon. Gentleman was in the debate earlier, he would have heard it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he has other things to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that if he thinks this is very important, he should have been here for the whole debate and not just intervene on a debate that I think is about national security. I repeat the point to him: the Foreign Secretary at the time ended the negotiations because, as the then Prime Minister said, “mutually beneficial” was deemed not to have been the case.

I want to touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Government about hiding behind international law. I cannot do it justice like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is clear that the Government keep hiding behind judgments that they have to follow. I remind the Minister again that it is not a binding judgment. If the Government had chosen to challenge that non-binding judgment, he would have had the support of those of us on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided not to do that and have accepted a non-binding judgment and fast-tracked the capitulation and surrender of a British overseas territory for the first time in a long time. The Minister could have challenged that decision, because it was non-binding. I shall let the record stand with the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who went through the numerous international structures that this Government have signed up to and set out how we did not have to follow that.

Lastly, clause 2 is absolutely disastrous. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) spoke of the historical context here. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech; he is an incredibly brave and principled man who stands up for his constituents. Under clause 2, this Government have decided unilaterally to recognise that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. I remind the House and the Government that Mauritius has never in the historical context of the Chagos islands had sovereignty, and that this Government have chosen to give sovereignty over the islands to a country that has never had it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will in a second.

Some, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said that we want to “return” the islands. I say that is impossible, because it is not possible to return sovereignty to a country that never had sovereignty in the first place. This is a decision and a negotiation undertaken by this Government, and they should hang their heads in shame over the way they have done it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The agreement that was reached between the British and Mauritian Governments in 1965 was to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius. Decolonisation processes of the UN and all others have confirmed that it should never have happened, and that they should never have been separated. If they had never been separated, we would not even be having this debate today.

[Paul Holmes]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by.

This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that.

This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that.

This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories.

I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before we move on to the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is not in order to impute false or unavowed motives to any other individual hon. Members in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I remind the hon. Member of two things. First, talking and signing are two very different things. Secondly, some of us on the Conservative Benches remember that no deal is better than a bad deal.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has omitted some of the quote, because he was proven wrong before. He has failed to say that the former Prime Minister said “mutually beneficial”. Some of the gain that came out of that discussion was the fact that it was not mutually beneficial for this country, and we stopped the negotiations.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If Labour Members had spent a little more time actually listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, they would perhaps understand things a little more. I will come back to that point shortly.

Before I turn to the substance, I wish to pay tribute to colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have spoken powerfully about the sheer folly of this deal. They have rightly highlighted its staggering costs, the accounting methods used, the reckless security implications, the lack of transparency and the way in which it sadly sidelines the Chagossian community.

There have been a number of contributions, but I very briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. He has not just demonstrated his extensive legal knowledge and expertise in this area, but questioned the legal uncertainty that Ministers are relying on. He has taken the time to explain and to remind this place of the issues relating to article 298 of UNCLOS, which is very relevant to today’s debate. He highlighted some key unanswered questions. Quite frankly, I urge every Member of this House to have a read of Hansard before they go into the voting Lobby this evening.

Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) highlighted and reinforced the important point about article 298 of UNCLOS. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) reminded Labour Members of the red lines put in place by Lord Cameron, who stopped negotiations—it quite clearly seems that they needed to be reminded that talking and signing are two very different things. My right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) talked about strategic issues and the costs of the deal. There were valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

One thing that is very obvious is that we need clarity. To give just one example, the Government claim that we may have problems with spectrum if we do not agree a deal, but other parts of the Government have indicated that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to intervene now. These are not passing political points; they are hard truths about the dangers that this deal poses to Britain’s security and standing. Before I move on, though, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his wise and brave words today, and for standing firm as a constituency MP and standing up for members of his community.

Turning to the Liberal Democrats, I have to say that I struggle a little to understand their position. They say that they oppose the Bill, but they did not vote against the treaty in the House of Lords—in fact, they chose to prop up Labour, rather than defend Britain and the rights of the British Chagossians.

Strategic Defence Review

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

In many ways, my hon. Friend is doing exactly that in the House by reinforcing the importance of the deterrent at the heart of our security and its importance to jobs, technology, businesses, the supply chain and the strength of economic growth. She is making the case that defence investment can drive economic growth, and we will ensure that it does.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can I push the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about HMS Collingwood? My constituents will look for reassurance that it will have a long-term place in the defence estate.

I also ask the Secretary of State about recommendation 40, which says:

“The Royal Navy should explore alternative approaches to augmenting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to deliver a balanced, cost-effective fleet that maximises the UK’s warfighting capabilities.”

The RFA is already stretched; I have been on visits to the RFA where it has told me that it is stretched with the operational requirements placed on it. It sounds to me like this is a loss of operational independence. Will the Secretary of State commit to an expansion of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary consisting of ships managed purely by the Royal Navy under the defence estate?

[John Healey]

We are proud of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It increasingly does tough jobs that in the past we would have expected the Royal Navy to undertake. Its role and contribution is under-recognised, and I am keen to see its role reinforced and for it to have greater recognition. We will ensure that we do that as we pursue the SDR’s vision.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Abby Dryden, CEO of the Defence Medical Welfare Service. We have until 2.20 pm for this panel. Before I ask Abby to introduce herself, are there any declarations of interest?

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.

Examination of Witness

Abby Dryden gave evidence.

[The Chair]

Q56 Abby, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?

Abby Dryden: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Abby Dryden. I am the chief executive of the Defence Medical Welfare Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

20. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

23. What steps his Department is taking to support veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on the Bill, which should properly be called the Millar Bill. I recently met VAPC chairs to discuss next steps, and we will ensure that the MOD engages with representatives from VAPCs in a series of working groups to set the direction for secondary legislation that will clarify their future role.

[Paul Holmes]

Can the Minister give some more detail on how the Department intends to take forward the recommendation from the Veteran Welfare Service review, and can he outline any timescales to which he intends to work on that review?

[Dr Murrison]

Our response to the independent review of welfare services for veterans accepts the principle and intended outcome of all the recommendations, and we will shortly publish our response to the recommendations of the armed forces compensation scheme quinquennial review. The reviews will inform a programme of improvements in the way we deliver the compensation scheme and how we provide welfare support to ensure a consistently high level of service. The responses will set out our commitment and high-level plans, in particular how we will make our services less adversarial and more user-friendly.

Veterans Update

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The true barometer will be how we implement all 49 recommendations. Yes, financial awards will be part of it but, for some, the restoration and the valuing of these people is just as important.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not a single other Member has talked about party politics or political parties. My point about the overall culpability of society is that my party opposed lifting the ban and his party opposed lifting the ban. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against them and forced them to do it. I came to this House in the spirit of honesty and openness about the culpability of society. Let us not make it party political.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I welcome the apology, which will go some way towards correcting the hurt that our veterans faced. As a proud member of the Royal Navy branch of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the vital role of our LGBT personnel. What efforts is the Secretary of State making to ask the service chiefs to redouble their efforts to make our armed forces even more welcoming in the recruitment of LGBT people?

[Mr Wallace]

We have a strong and dynamic D&I plan to make sure we talk about it. We are sometimes criticised, and it is not an easy line to follow, as we saw with the RAF’s issue in promoting the recruitment of women. We are guided by the Equality Act 2010, but we are also guided by the desperate need and importance of having the whole of society in our armed forces.

I would not appoint a Chief of the General Staff, First Sea Lord or Chief of the Air Staff who did not wholeheartedly believe in having a diverse armed forces community. They would not get past me in the appointments process. As I finish this job, I have appointed all the armed forces chiefs. Every single one of them embraces that requirement and actions it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I can do, by helping the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the resilience of the whole of government is supported by the MOD. There are definitely lessons to be learned, and I will ensure that they are taken away and shared across Government.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department has taken to support defence exports to global allies.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

24. What steps his Department has taken to support defence exports to global allies.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

The UK scores highly in the global rankings for defence exports, which create jobs and prosperity across the country, building the industrial resilience and capacity we need for our national security. Through the defence and security industrial strategy, we and the industry are strengthening our position by diversifying our exports and target markets, and by collaborating more closely.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Department’s announcement that both Germany and the United Kingdom will work together on the development of advanced armour-piercing tank ammunition. Given that these new rounds will be able to be fired from both British and German tanks, supporting compatibility within NATO, what export potential does this new capability have?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight this important collaboration with one of our major allies. Enhanced kinetic energy munitions are a key part of the Challenger 3 and Leopard 2 main battle tanks programmes, and will deliver battle-winning capabilities to UK and German armed forces. I am confident that their advanced performance will be recognised as world-leading, and their export potential to NATO and other allies will be promoted by the MOD, as ever in close partnership with the Department for Business and Trade.

Ukraine: UK Military Support

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will know that weapons and military equipment can only be used if troops are trained effectively to use them, so can he outline what avenues he is exploring to continue to provide the military training necessary for Ukrainian troops to counter Russian attacks, as they have been doing so admirably?

[Leo Docherty]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Those discussions are ongoing. We will be guided by what the Ukrainians themselves want, but I think we are all encouraged by the legacy of close co-operation born out of Operation Orbital, running since 2014 and training some 25,000 Ukrainian troops. So I foresee a very bright future for very close operational and training working between ourselves and the magnificent and courageous Ukrainian armed forces.

Army Restructuring: Future Soldier

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady tempts me to get ahead of the report I have to give first to the Defence Committee. I would not want to eat their sandwiches for them, so all I would say is that I agree with many of her observations and we do have steps in place, but I will let the Committee criticise my attempts when it gets to them.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Can he confirm that Army numbers will stay above 100,000 personnel including reserve forces, and will he outline how the greater agility and flexibility he has described as being created will improve our deployment capabilities when required?

[Mr Wallace]

One way we want to use the hubs is to have longer tours in places, rather than just a few weeks. In some of our overseas exercises we used to go there, get off the plane, do the exercise and then get back on the plane; we might as well have gone no further than around the corner. We had no influence in the region and learned nothing about it. Now we will see much more exercising in places like Oman and Kenya to enable us to be forward and present. Over the past five years we have had an armoured battle group in Estonia, permanently really—it rotates through every six months, but in fact it is a permanent location. Our presence there is deterring Russia as an adversary, and we are part of a multinational battle group; there are four or five such groups in that part of the world. I am determined that one of the premiums we get from being forward—just being in the area—is deterrence. It also makes us more ready, and if we are more ready, we are more productive when something happens.