Keeping the Royal Marines etc, is necessary not just for warfare but for other emergencies eg hurricanes, tidal waves etc. The climate is changing in many ways. With regards to warfare as someone who spends a great deal of time in researching the past, it appears that Britain usually is unprepared when conflicts arise due to financial cutbacks. We seem to always have governments who never learn and do not listen. As a Plymothian I am aware that this would have a destructive effect in a city which struggles with little help or funding from government and which is the main city in an area which is continually overlooked and passed over.

The 2010 Defence Review was an unnecessary Disaster and here we are again. Why does the government give large amounts of cash to the EU and Foreign Aid and expect the UK public to accept continued austerity with yet more unnecessary Defence Cuts? Albion,Bulwark and the Marines provide an important military capability plus disaster relief capability. It would be foolish to assume that we could rely on the French as we had to rescue them in two world wars then which side did they support in the Falklands War ! The PM needs to sack Hammond and appoint a Chancellor who will reduce Foreign Aid from 0.7 to 0.2 with the funds released shared 50/50 between Defence and the NHS.

How important is the amphibious capability provided by the Royal Marines and Albion class ships to the UK? Amphibious capability equates directly to forces flexibility, not only in terms of sole national/military objectives but where combined international forces are required. The UK is an island and has many commonwealth protectorates that are islands also, Airfields are easily destroyed by armed forces or natural disaster therefore amphibious ability is fundamental to addressing both military and humanitarian objectives. In a world where forces are required to be highly flexible and skilled the UK should be increasing its complement of Royal Marines and ancillary ships and equipment; HMS QE cannot replace this function and neither should the Royal Marines and its ships and equipment be seen as a ready trade off for financing the former. If Politicians insist on sabre rattling on the national stage, then there at least needs to be a sabre in the scabbard to do so! What is the likely impact on unit morale and satisfaction with Service life if the reported changes and reductions are implemented? Various anecdotal, yet first hand discussions firmly indicate that current RM manning levels and particularly those of the SBS and SAS are so low that fighting capability is acutely/thinly spread across operations even as they currently stand. Further cuts will have dire consequences. As the SAS and SBS draw primarily from the Paras and RM respectively, further cuts to the RM cannot be considered logical to either conventional or SF capabilities. Increased operational requirements of the RM with reduced manpower can only lead to a continued decrease in morale and therefore retention of existing manpower, notwithstanding the impacts of Stress and PTSD as troops are rotated more quickly in operational scenarios. What is the likely impact on the communities where these capabilities are based if the reported changes and reductions are implemented? Look at the North East of England where the coal and steel industries used to be; that is what will become of the communities as the RM manpower is cut and resultant bases are mothballed or demolished. Retail and ancillary/support industries will also suffer; the Government will therefore be left looking to spend money to regenerate the same areas. Money it could have continued spending on maintaining the Royal Marines, no doubt. If as a Nation we are to protect ourselves and maintain our democracy then whatever that price is it has to be paid.

I am an Ex serving member of the Royal Navy. From my perspective our Armed Forces have been reduced to a dangerous level already. We are an Island Nation that is not self sufficient and have given away our manufacturing capability to foreign nations, our military support has been outsourced to foreign nations, in the event of a major conflict close to our shores how would the UK be able to cope. Cost is the normal Government reply, how then can we just give away 50 Billion Pounds to the EU because we are leaving.

It would be so wrong and dangerous for the UK for you to cut out the Royal Marines and do away with the UK's Amphibious capability after all the Roual marines are the best fighting force in the world. Go back through history and see which part of the Army does the UK send in first to any problem war, disaster situation any thing and its always the Royal Marines. Please don't destroy the worlds finest

How important are the Royal Marines and Albion class ships to the UK? Very important as an amphibious transport dock and for involvement in multi-national exercises - How do you think that having fewer Royal Marines since 2010 and more recent changes in numbers have affected the Corps? Increases pressure on troops and reduces moral. Proper provision of troops and good morale are both key factors in equipping troops and enabling them to be effective at providing security and defence. In my view it is short sighted to reduce numbers. - Do you think that further changes will affect supporting units within 3 Commando Brigade? Yes, it could adversely affect their opportunities for successful movement. - What do you think the impact has been of having one of the two Albion class ships at extended readiness, so that only one is available for deployment? Increased anxiety within the Corps. - What could UK Armed Forces do to match the capabilities that might be lost? Are the alternatives good enough? Nor sure if there are other options. No the alternatives are no substitute as the RM are an elite force for good reason. - Are there enough exercises and training to keep amphibious capability at high readiness? Presently but in no way should these be reduced, if anything further provision should be made for greater resources. - What do you think will happen to unit morale and satisfaction with Service life if the reported changes and reductions happen? It will drop considerably. - What do you think will happen to the communities where these capabilities are based if the reported changes and reductions happen? They will suffer as may people are employed in connection with bases.

tThe Royal Marines have proved their worth in many conflicts in over 350 years, Afghanistan being the most recent. There are many places in the world where the only practical method of landing troops and heavy equipment is by sea. Helicopter support is also vital, but without an airbase within range, support from offshore is an option it would be short sighted to ignore. Naval strength is necessary, but it should be remembered that it has always been in support of a conflict on the ground. The Royal Marines have already been reconfigured to fill in a lack of Naval manpower, reducing 3 Commando brigade to only two units instead of the three needed for a fully manned brigade.Further cuts in Britain's amphibious capability would be seen as a sign of a lack of determination to support the Falkland Islands for instance, where Argentina has not given up its ambitions. HMS Ocean was a vital base during the support of operations in Sierra Leone to give one recent example.Do not forget that the Defence review before the Falklands conflict gave Argentina the confidence to mount an invasion of British Territory, others will be critically assessing Britain's will to defend its outposts.

The overall reductions in defence spending are reducing the defence capability of the UK to a parlous state which is comparable to the position in the 1930s. The country's response to current threats would be totally inadequate. As a maritime nation, the requirement for amphibious capability is as important as ever particularly in small localised conflicts and in the context of the worldwide terrorist threat. UK needs more, not less specialist, highly trained first response forces and the Royal Marines with their specialist amphibious ships are essential to that. I urge you to support their maintenance.

- How important are the Royal Marines and Albion class ships to the UK? The Royal Marines and Albion class ships are considered ‘specialist’ for a reason. Their importance has been demonstrated recently in a civil capacity where they were used for Caribbean humanitarian relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. These ships were the first in to the areas with beach landings, bringing supplies and then establishing communications and basic utilities for our British island nations. Lord Burnett, former Royal Marines commando, who now sits in the House of Lords said that “Amphibious warfare is not an occupation for amateurs: it requires a deep knowledge, great experience, expertise and skill,”. “From all-out combat to humanitarian operations, teamwork and experience are essential. Only HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion have the necessary command and control capabilities, and only those ships have the necessary landing craft to deal with heavy loads.” In the past 15 years the UK has also used amphibious ships in combat situations in Iraq and in Sierra Leone for peace-keeping efforts. It is clear the Royal Marines, the vessels and their crews serve an important part of the UK’s Defence. The proposal to cut 1,000 Royal Marines and sell off the two Devonport-based warships would completely lose that expertise and capability to assist in such efforts across the world. - How do you think that having fewer Royal Marines since 2010 and more recent changes in numbers have affected the Corps? It appears from the many various news reports and statements from the government that the UK’s defence and security strategy is partly to tackle a £20billion funding black hole at the Ministry of Defence rather than it being strategy. It doesn’t seem strategic to spend £90million on an upgrade programme to HMS Albion then several months later to propose it to be scrapped. Stop with the expansion of the EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) and start planning strategically for post-Brexit and fund UK Defence. The government must divert to UK Defence some of the approx. £14 billion pa UK Foreign Aid Budget to fund this accounting ‘black hole’. At a time when the world is in a precarious position with security threats it is folly to downsize our military capabilities. The Foreogn Aid budget may be enshrined in law but it needs to be reversed by parliament and adjusted to cope with changing domestic circumstances. - Do you think that further changes will affect supporting units within 3 Commando Brigade? I don’t have the level of knowledge to answer this question. - What do you think the impact has been of having one of the two Albion class ships at extended readiness, so that only one is available for deployment? I don’t have the level of knowledge to answer this question. - What could UK Armed Forces do to match the capabilities that might be lost? Are the alternatives good enough? I don’t have the level of knowledge to answer these questions. - Are there enough exercises and training to keep amphibious capability at high readiness? I don’t have the level of knowledge to answer this question. - What do you think will happen to unit morale and satisfaction with Service life if the reported changes and reductions happen? The government branded 2017 as "the year of the Royal Navy". The Royal Navy has already lost one of its Admirals, Rear Admiral Alex Burton, over this funding issue. The recent Autumn Budget made no mention of UK Defence. That has to be tremendously disappointing for the military personnel. Young people will be dissuaded from joining because it will be known as a sub-standard and under-financed, ill-equipped military. Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach said: “I would be absolutely wrong to say we don’t have an issue with recruiting.” The proposed Defence cuts also were not mentioned in the Autumn budget in terms of the financial and social care impact 1000 job losses will have on the people targeted for redundancy. - What do you think will happen to the communities where these capabilities are based if the reported changes and reductions happen? HMNB Devonport is the largest naval base in Western Europe and employs approx. 2500 people according to the Royal Navy website. The proposed changes will have an extraordinary effect on these communities and have a ripple effect to local businesses and economy.

I served in HM Royal Marines for 9 years, 1960-1969 with the rank of Sergeant. I was with 40, Commando, RM based in Singapore when in 1967 we went to the Aden area to cover the withdrawal of British Land Forces from Aden. This involved two separate trips of about three months on both HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The ships were fully laden with the capability of being able to land in Helicopters or landing Craft. There were several other ships there in a supporting capacity including a Submarine. History shows we did not have to land in Aden but the capability was there if needed. We are an Island nation and need a Royal Navy capable of protecting our territory including the British Commonwealth around the world. Another classic example of this ability was the conflict in the Falkland Islands. We also need to be able to support the other countries in NATO. To be able to do this both the Royal Navy and Royal Marines need to be maintained in a capacity able to fight anywhere in the World. The Royal Marines have proved to be an excellent professional force capable of fighting in any environment in the World and need to be supported and maintained in an effective size. They need to have the support ships capable of effectively being able to provide the movement of such troops and getting them as close as possible to be able to land. Also to be able to supply such a force with ammunition and medical provisions too. If these two ships were to be removed from service then the UK`s ability to provide such a force would be finished. We would not be able to fulfil our commitments to the British people and our Countries commitments to our Commonwealth and NATO. It is vital for us as a Nation to maintain or improve this ability. I am now 73 years of age but have the ability to be able to debate this matter.