An additional £470 million over four years will go into protecting defence sites, with security strengthened across the estate following the incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth and work under way to extend restricted airspace protections around military bases, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Andrew Rosindell, the Reform UK member for Romford, asked what steps the Secretary of State has taken to ensure the security of military bases.
Louise Sandher-Jones, the Minister for the Armed Forces, said: “We remain highly vigilant to threats against Defence sites and have strengthened security across the estate following the incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth. Recent arrests demonstrate that those who seek to compromise the security of Defence sites can expect a robust security and police response. Where criminal offences are suspected, we won’t hesitate to use the full range of powers available, including the National Security Act.
“The Defence Investment Plan provides an additional £470 million over four years to enhance site protection and reduce legacy underspending. Defence has invested in surveillance and counter-drone capabilities and is working to extend Restricted Airspace protections around Defence sites.”
Counter terrorism police arrested two Latvian nationals inside the perimeter at RAF Molesworth earlier this month, at a site in Cambridgeshire that houses American and NATO intelligence functions, and the pair were later bailed. The Fairford incident involved the Gloucestershire base that hosts United States Air Force bomber deployments to Europe and has been used for B-2 and B-52 rotations.
Perimeter fencing, lighting, access control and surveillance across hundreds of sites have competed for funding against front line equipment for years, and the new money corrects an underspend that built up over that period. Spread across four years and the whole estate, £470 million is modest.
‘…working to extend Restricted Airspace protections around Defence sites.’
I wounder that that means tot he GA community.
“Inside the perimeter at RAF Molesworth.”
I have some sympathy in some of these cases, as that doesn’t mean access to critical areas, some of these sites have extremely long perimeters, nowhere near either the Admin site or Operational side of a facility. RAF airfields being prime examples.
The sensitive bits of Molesworth are within additional inner fenced areas, same goes for many of our installations as well.
And Sandher-Jones mentioning robust security and police response, those recently I don’t think were MoD Police, they were I understand CT Police officers, so that hardly inspires more confidence in our own in house security, surely the first line of defence at any MoD site.
And as the MDP has been cut to bits like so much else, and critical sites left without MDP cover, not great beyond the words.
All the high tech gizmos are all very well and of course welcome but surely you need assets to respond to events, how does one do that if the nearest MDP are 30 miles away?
And I understand the MDP OSUs North and South, that did have a more mobile response role, were cut.
There is also the MPGS inside the wire.
I shouldn’t worry too much about lack of security at RAF bases, worry more about the lack of surface fleet ships, submarines of various types, support vessels, fighter planes for both land and carriers, Missiles for both defence and attack, MBT’s, Infantry vehicles, Drones, Manpower………the list is endless!!