Defence Minister Luke Pollard has defended the UK’s ongoing military presence in the Middle East following criticism in the House of Commons over the recent security breach at RAF Brize Norton.
SNP MP Graham Leadbitter raised concerns that “years of under-investment” had compromised security at UK bases, warning that last week’s break-in by the activist group Palestine Action had left armed forces personnel and their families feeling alarmed. Leadbitter, who represents Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey—a constituency home to three military installations—questioned how the Government could justify further overseas operations in the Middle East given domestic vulnerabilities.
“The actions of Palestine Action at Brize Norton last week were utterly reprehensible and will have caused fear and alarm for military personnel and their families across the country,” he said. “At the same time, though, the UK Government are not ruling out engaging in further military conflict in the Middle East… How can the UK Government seriously be considering engaging in further military intervention abroad, given that years of under-investment has diminished security at bases right here in the UK?”
In response, Pollard reiterated the purpose of the UK’s forward deployments and rejected any suggestion that overseas operations were undermining domestic base security.
“The deployment of UK military force in the Middle East is to defend our people and our bases,” he said. “It is worth reminding ourselves why we have a UK military presence in the Middle East: to support regional stability and to undertake counter-Daesh operations in Iraq and Syria. They are the same operations that help keep the streets of Britain safe from terrorists.”
He acknowledged Leadbitter’s concerns for personnel safety but argued that the defence of UK bases abroad is a necessary extension of the country’s broader security posture.
“That is the reason we have a presence in the Middle East—securing our allies—and it is why the Prime Minister flowed forward additional jets to provide cover and support for our armed forces personnel,” Pollard said. “As we assess what is taking place currently, we reserve the right to make further military changes to ensure that our people are kept safe.”
His remarks come amid growing political pressure over both the domestic security implications of the Brize Norton incursion and the UK’s role in the volatile regional climate following Israeli airstrikes on Iran and retaliatory missile launches.
The Government has so far confirmed that while no UK assets were used in the Israeli strikes, additional forces, including 14 RAF Typhoons based in Akrotiri, remain ready for potential reinforcement.
A blatant attempt to masquerade an attack on ME deployments as one on base security. The SNP being pathetic once again.
In order to be taken seriously Government need a robust attitude towards military deployments. They should not be swayed by minority groups.
Base security and the security of important assets is essntial – especially as tentions mount. It is not rocket science.
OT – at the Nato press conference, Starmer just announce 4.1% of GDP for defence by 2027 with target of 5% by 2035
2.6% by 2027 already announced, including the extra 0.1% on security. The 1.5% is the resillience and control budget, which is just shuffling things like Border Force into a new accounting bucket. There’s no new expenditure for that. So 1.5% plus 2.6% is 4.1%.
I think he’s just announced no new Defence spending!
thanks was typing as you replied
that said with that vague 1.5% which is part of the NATO 5%, i expect 4.1% in 2027 is really the 2.7% previously announced + that vague 1.5%
2.7 + 1.5 doesn’t equal 4.1, so let’s not get distracted by the 1.5% — it’s just bollocks.
From here on, let’s focus on the 3.5%. That’s what really matters. The key is not just whether we get there, but what we do with it.
What really matters is the part of the 3.5% (currently 2.3%) that’s going to be spent on UK conventional defence capability.
UK = not Ukraine
conventional = not nuclear
defence = not security
capability = not pensions nor operations.
Currently it’s probably running at less than 1.4% and is the bit we need to massively increase if we want to deter war. If it was running at only 1% of GDP it wouldn’t surprise me. It would also be helpful if we looked at how much was spent in the UK.
That’s a good point. I read earlier that the UK’s 2.3% figure has effectively been downgraded to around 2.1% under NATO’s new standard for what counts as “core spending.”
I’m at work at the moment, so I haven’t had a chance to look into it. was the update on the new rules for defining core military spending announced today?
Most NATO leaders tell Trump whatever he wants to satisfy him, as bad parents do with spoiled kids. Difference is that he will go 3 years before we see the reality of today’s commitments.
“will go 3 IN years”
Most kids act out from time to time and don’t want to do their chores. But eventually, “Daddy” steps in, everyone falls in line, and the household returns to calm and order again.
Who on earth believe Belgium or Portugal Will spend 5%?
Spin.
The belgian prime minister is already giving up the 5% in local Press….
Anyone talking about the announcement of 12 F35A’s for UK Nuclear deterrence?
yes there is ukjd article on it already
Bloody Hell so there is. I didnt see it on first scan. Its been a busy defence day!
I’ll go first. These are not ‘new’ jets. They are part of what was the 27 Jet F35B follow-on order, now 12 F35A and 15 F35B. So no increase in total aircraft but as least the bean counters have saved some money as i believe the F35A unit cost is cheaper? Sigh….
Yes, interesting. But if we put US bombs on them, we can only use them with US consent. A trickier matter than it used to be. Could we not make some more WE177, so that we would have complete control ?
Tldr: no. I suggest you look at the comments section to the relevant article.
Some sort of attempt for tactical nukes to not be zero vs Trident Armagedoon?
Typhoons are really spread thin theses days .Starmer now saying we’ll spend 4.1% on defence by 2027 ? What happened to only going up two 2.5% I for one don’t believe a word of it .For F35As that’s good news but like one poster said this will probably mean no more F35B for the Carriers .Or in my view a possible cut in Typhoons . Let’s wait and see 👀 🤔
12 F35A and 15 more F35B’s. I can see now the logic with the change they have made when it comes to the second tranche of 27 F35’s. So 12 F35A’s for the training squadron/OCU – That then allows the F35B’s that are currently used for training to be used for front line carrier operations. So slightly less F35B’s but balanced out by the fact the F35A will be doing the training and they will have a reserve function of carrying the B61 US tactical nuclear bomb or for conventional use. Will be interesting to see what happens over the future years when it comes to F35 orders, will see.
Airfield security?
Those 14 Typhoons in Cyprus are housed in an ad hoc set up of inflatable hangers with revetments around the wider area. A real “cardboard city” type of arrangement.
Instead of proper HAS, with CBRN features, GBAD, and lines of barbed wire around the site, which itself is surrounded by the station proper.
There was a RAF guy there who accidentally burst that inflatable hanger.
He was brought to the CO and bollocked for not only letting himself down, but also letting the base down.
😁