MoD: Shock Royal Navy cuts to HMS Albion, Bulwark and Northumberland addressed by Strategic Defence reviewers

The decommissioning of HMS Albion, Bulwark, Northumberland and other vessels announced in the House of Commons came as a shock, with no capability decisions expected to be made while the review was being carried out. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, lead reviewer, and General Sir Richard Barrons KCB CBE, were quizzed at a Select Defence Committee meeting in parliament today (December 2).

Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Labour MP for South Shields, asked the panel if the review was impacted by defence secretary John Healey’s announcement on November 20. She added: “How have these impacted on the review and are you worried that future announcements might prejudge your findings?” In response, Lord Robertson revealed they did not object to the cuts announced by defence secretary John Healey.

Lord Robertson responded: “The defence secretary and the ministers are keeping us informed all the time of what they’re doing. They’re trying to not make decisions that would pre-empt the outcome of the review, but they’ve got to continue to run the department as it stands at the moment.

“This is a strategic defence review, so we’re looking forward, but at the same time, the ministers are determined that they won’t pre-empt our conclusions by taking decisions. In the meantime, they’ve got to take decisions about equipment that isn’t necessary, that is redundant, more expensive to maintain than prolong, and we expect that to take place.”

Mr Healey announced in the House of Commons that HMS Northumberland, HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and two Wave-class tankers were to be decommissioned and removed from the fleet, with other aging assets also being shelved. The Labour MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough said this would save £150m over the next two years, and up to £500m over the next five years - with funds remaining in defence. Opposition leaders criticised the move, seeing it as slashing the country’s defence capabilities while the government has not yet committed to a specific timeframe for when military spending will increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP. Mr Healey previously said the decision was made with input from top military brass.

Ms Lewell-Buck asked the panel: “Could your findings be at odds with some of the changes they are making? Could you say you disagree with them in your upcoming review.” Lord Robertson responded: “If we were to disagree, which we haven’t, we would disagree before they took the decision. They’re very conscious. We’re doing it with the Ministry of Defence and not to it. Although we’re independent reviewers, at the same time, we’re conscious of what ministers have as responsibilities.”

Earlier in the meeting, Lord Robertson described the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) as novel and interesting, with the reviewers being rigorous in the costing of recommendations while looking at future developments and the defence industry as a whole, rather than just the frontline. General Barrons added that every previous review he’s been a part of have fallen by the wayside in two years because they haven’t predicted what will happen in the world, with the 2010 defence review leaving a large gap between ambition and resourcing, and the presumption that massive efficiencies would close that gap.

“Our objective has to be as least wrong as possible in terms of how we design a formula for the future,” he said. The general later added: “We're absolutely dealing with the transition to a new era. It’s a harder world which will have to be treated from a defence perspective with a different formula than the one used during the Post Cold War era. That treatment will include being really transformative, because we're in the digital age and not about filling in holes the armed forces may have had since the end of The Cold War, that would be the wrong thing to do. This review is profoundly different because we’re looking at the entire defence enterprise.”