Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
Al Carns Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
This is my first UQ in the House, and this is a very serious topic to be discussing. Last night, as we know, Poland shot down multiple Russian drones that had entered its airspace. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are subject to a barbaric attack every evening, but this is an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace; indeed, it went deep enough for Warsaw airport to be closed. I thank the Polish and NATO air defence forces for responding rapidly and effectively to protect the alliance. The areas affected were regions on the border of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland temporarily closed its airspace and some airports, and emergency alarms were issued for the regions affected, but airspace and most airports have now reopened.
Russia’s actions are absolutely and utterly reckless, unprecedented and dangerous. This serves to remind us of President Putin’s blatant disregard for peace, and of the constant bombardment that innocent Ukrainians face every day. In response, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland will invoke NATO article 4, which allows any ally to consult others when it believes that its territorial integrity, political independence or security are threatened. The Prime Minister has been in contact with Prime Minister Tusk to make absolutely crystal clear the UK’s support for Poland, and that we will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is meeting E5 counterparts today, and will discuss what additional support we can provide, including to reinforce Ukraine and strengthen NATO. We stand in full solidarity with our ally Poland.
We condemn this action. We say to Russia: “Your aggression only strengthens the unity of NATO nations. It only strengthens our solidarity in standing with and beside Ukraine. It reminds us that a secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine.” With our allies and partners, and through UK leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life.
What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved?
On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies?
There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his response, and his bipartisan support on this really serious issue. What is NATO article 4? For clarity, article 4 is a consultation mechanism. If an ally perceives that its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, it can invoke article 4. That is what Poland has done. Discussions will then take place in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political body, in which the UK will, of course, be involved.
I mentioned the status of the attacks. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine, but that does not in any way, shape or form excuse those attacks. They are an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale.
I agree that our industrial collaboration with our allies and partners is essential, as we and NATO move forward, and as our partners and allies’ relationships move forward, to making sure that we are prepared in every way for an escalation, or an existential crisis, should it come.
In our response to Ukraine, we are doing a huge amount to lead our allies and partners. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Defence is with the E5, talking about the coalition of the willing, and he has talked to Polish representatives already. We are leading the way in that coalition—on its formation, structure and how it will deploy, should it need to, if peace ever comes to Ukraine.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is this not another example that what Russia really believes in is the complete annihilation of Ukraine? It does not care what collateral damage it does elsewhere. I believe that sending drones across into Poland was a deliberate move by the Russians. I welcome the response from Poland and NATO, but do we not need to talk about ramping up industrial co-operation for Ukraine, so that it gets more and better munitions and equipment more quickly, and ramping up sanctions? With the Budget coming up, we need to consider how we ramp up defence expenditure, and further increase it beyond the recent targets set.
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his support for defence. I completely agree that the Ukrainians are undergoing a serious violation of international law by a barbaric and reckless leader in Russia. They are experiencing bombing, drone attacks, ballistic missile attacks, which cannot be heard, subterfuge, sabotage, hostage taking, and the huge, large-scale kidnapping of children. Air raids go off every night in Ukraine, in a way that is reminiscent of world war two. The wailing of those sirens alone will have a psychological impact that will last long after any war finishes.
Why is this happening today? It is because of Putin’s barbaric, unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign state. We must continue to do the maximum to support Ukraine and encourage its allies and partners. We have done a significant amount. The House may recall that at the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, we launched a 50-day drive to deliver more for Ukraine. Fifty days on, we have 5 million rounds of munitions; 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles; 2,500 uncrewed systems; 30 vehicles; and 200 electronic warfare and defence systems. On top of that, we had a £70 million plan to provide 350 air defence missiles, and, finally, £150 million to provide air defence and artillery. We are at the leading edge, and have been for a long time, in supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to be, long into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Overnight, Poland faced down an unprecedented violation of NATO and Polish airspace—the latest act of belligerence by a Russian dictator hell-bent on recreating the Russian empire. This is a stark reminder that history cannot repeat itself. The drones were part of Russia’s latest large-scale assault on Ukraine, an assault in which 450 drones were launched. We thank the Polish air force for protecting the NATO alliance, and we stand with our allies. No matter what President Trump believes, it is clear that Putin is not stopping. He is not considering peace; he is testing NATO’s limits. A line has been crossed, and we must collectively stand up to this aggression.
The Government must take tangible action. Will the Minister take forward the Liberal Democrat proposals to end the import of products using Russian oil that have been processed in third countries; stop UK companies shipping or insuring Russian liquefied natural gas; and push for a further cut to the oil price cap? As Tusk said this morning,
“Actions speak louder than words.”
The strongest action we could take would be to seize the frozen Russian assets across the UK. Will the Minister commit to doing that today?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and for her support for defence. She brought up a really valuable point: those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. This was an unprecedented attack, and an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace. We are working exceptionally hard with the Polish to ensure that they, and indeed our broader NATO alliance, have everything they need. We already have significant sanctions on Russia. There is work going on between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office looking at how we can move those forward. We will update the House in due course.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The appalling attack on Ukraine and the violation of Polish airspace yesterday simply highlight the increasing and devastating use of drones in modern warfare. I have been contacted by Hartlepool constituents today, expressing their anxiety and fear about what this might mean for our shores. Will the Minister share the Government’s plans to ensure that the UK’s drone and air defence capabilities meet the challenge of the changes we are seeing in modern warfare?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He will know that I am passionate about the need for us to increase our uncrewed systems portfolio. We have already committed, in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, to create an uncrewed centre of excellence. That will help us to rewrite our doctrine and concept, but also to integrate drones back into the military and ensure we have a high-low mix of fifth and sixth generation capability, massed with low-end uncrewed systems. Every night, night on night, we have seen an increase in drone attacks on Kyiv and other cities, from Dnipro to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and back again. They are increasing on an unprecedented scale. Some could argue that Putin has been emboldened recently, but we are seeing an increase and we must do everything we possibly can to support the Ukrainians.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so.
May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his stalwart support on both defence and foreign affairs. Our sanctions programme has been pretty impressive to date. I can almost guarantee that when the US President comes over, there will be discussions on a whole range of topics and that Ukraine will probably be central, alongside other issues within the UK.
Imposing a penalty on Russia is exactly what we have done in a bipartisan way. When the previous Government were in office, we led the way on equipment going into Ukraine. We are continuing to do that. We have seen a huge uplift in the amount of resources going to Ukraine, financially and in terms of weapons, but also, importantly, in industrial build across Europe. That is not just in the UK, but across all our European nations. Industry is required to maintain the pace and scale of the conflict, which I think has caught people out in the past.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Following on from the question by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the reality is that Putin has become emboldened since he met President Trump. No longer is there pressure for an immediate ceasefire, only that we get to a long-term, distant peace arrangement that, as we all know, will never happen. The threat of further sanctions from the US, which Putin was really frightened about, has now apparently been taken off the table. When President Trump comes over here, will my hon. Friend engage with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to put pressure on President Trump to say we should recognise that the one thing that can be done to get President Putin to back off and properly look at a ceasefire is further sanctions from the US, to marry those put on by ourselves and our European colleagues?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is the third person to speak about sanctions; it absolutely has sunk in, and we will discuss it with our cross-Government colleagues in due course. I would not underestimate the ability of the Americans to act—it is down to the American people and the American Government to decide, but I would not underestimate that ability over the short, medium or long term. One of the key points of having a US visit of such a level is that it will give us the opportunity to discuss these issues in person and to really highlight what is important to us. It speaks to the importance of being in the tent to have those discussions for us as a Government, and for everybody and every party in this wonderful place.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences?
Al Carns
The intelligence agencies will be able to provide the best analysis of this attack, so I will not jump to conclusions on the intentions behind it. It has, however, been clear for several years now that there has been consistent testing of NATO as a whole, whether that is 20,000 cyber-attacks from hostile states in the past two years or the use of chemical or radiological weapons on UK soil, to name just two of the litany of incidents. I fully support the Ukrainian strategy of fight and talk to keep the pressure on the Russians to ensure that they come to the table. I fully support a US-led peace process, but the Ukrainians’ view must be central, and they must lead it from their perspective.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to hear the Minister’s resolve and, indeed, the whole House’s united condemnation and shock at these outrageous attacks. The UK must stand firm with NATO, with Poland and with Europe, and we must increase our support for Ukraine and its neighbours including Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and elsewhere. Following on from the previous question, what steps has the Minister taken to review our defences in the light of recent events?
Al Carns
First, we are fully in support of our NATO allies and, of course, our Baltic allies. The last time article 4 was invoked was 2022, when it was invoked by many of our Baltic allies on the invasion of Ukraine. It has been invoked eight times, with the most recent instance, obviously, being this morning. I am not going to give the details of our air defence operational capabilities here, but we do have a suite of capabilities. If Members read the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, they will see that there is a large proportion on industrial rebuild here in the UK and supporting our allies with joint ventures and partnerships to re-establish the military industrial base of Europe in these unprecedented times, and central to that will be air defence.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I understand that Ukraine holds approximately €190 billion in frozen Russian assets. Press reports today suggest that there is a level of flexibility in the stance on releasing them, as long as there are some legal guarantees from the European Union around the risks that may be faced. Are the Government supporting the European Union to unlock this opportunity, which could help to support efforts in Ukraine?
Al Carns
We support the ability to get resources into Ukraine in any way, shape or form. I will raise that specific matter with the Home Office and our cross-Government colleagues and get back to the hon. Gentleman on the answer.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Our constituents with links to Poland will understandably be terrified by last night’s development, but they will also be reassured that the Polish people, like the Ukrainian people, do not stand alone. NATO’s supreme headquarters confirmed that last night’s mission involved not just Polish air defence, but Dutch F-35s, German Patriot batteries and Italian early warning aircraft. The EU High Representative has talked about increasing its involvement in the East Shield project, which we are already part of. Will the Minister update this House on his conversations with our European counterparts about last night and on what more we will do to stand with the Polish and Ukrainian people?
Al Carns
First, I would like to thank both Polish and NATO air defence forces for disrupting the attack that took place yesterday. As Members will know, the Defence Secretary is with the E5 at the moment, and they have discussed this specific issue. Looking forward, we are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with the Polish.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I recently visited the Royal Air Force in Poland during its recent deployment in NATO’s enhanced air policing mission during Op Chessman, where I saw at first hand RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept a Russian signals intelligence Coot-A—Poland feels the threat from Russia much more keenly than I think we appreciate in this House. In the drones debate last week, I raised with the Minister that we have a paucity of counter-UAS capability. While we obviously do not face the risk that Poland does or have plans such as the East Shield, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our own territory, critical infrastructure and military bases—both here and overseas—possess an organic capability that can be brought to bear?
Al Carns
We absolutely need to have an integrated air defence system with our European and NATO allies, and we must look after our critical national infrastructure; that is why the SDR and the defence industrial strategy really have a focus on industrial rebuild, part of which is air defence. We are also working with our Ukrainian allies to learn best practice from them and pull that back to the UK.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only is the shocking escalation of hostilities by Russia a deliberately provocative act, but it threatens all NATO states, and an iron-clad response is now required. Will the Ministry, with our NATO partners, be unequivocal in reminding Russian and Belarusian counterparts of NATO article 5, and that an attack on Poland is an attack on all NATO partners, including the United Kingdom?
Al Carns
We will absolutely do that. It is worth noting that articles 4 and 5 are not linked; nevertheless, we will be going all out to remind all our allies and partners of the severity of the situation and, of course, the continuing barbaric nature of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to highlight and explain to the citizens of our country what our obligations are to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and all our NATO allies under article 5, and the role played by the joint expeditionary force, with the Baltic three, the Nordic five, the Netherlands and the UK?
Al Carns
The hon. Member raises a really important point. One of the biggest impacts on the cost of living across this country is the war between Ukraine and Russia—it is having a second and third-order effect that is affecting everyone in the country. It is really worthwhile reminding our citizens of that, and that if article 5 is invoked, we will have an obligation to defend. That is so important when we look at our foreign policy and where we need to prioritise our resource.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The UK and Poland have a very close defence and security relationship; Poland is, of course, one of our most important European allies. What plans does the Minister have to strengthen this relationship and those with our other allies? Does he agree that we need to do all we can to calmly make clear to our population that the defence of the free world is being tested, and that we need collectively to be resolute in our response?
Al Carns
In 24 years in the military, I have never seen it as fractious or fragile as it is, particularly today. It is on all of us to make sure that the population understands the risk to the geopolitical environment that surrounds us and gives us the standard of living we have in the UK. We are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with Poland, which will deepen ties, and an industrial partnership.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I believe that this was a deliberate attack by Putin to test the resolve and resources of NATO and that we will see more in the coming weeks, months and years. Russia was very quick to put out disinformation by pumping the airwaves in the cyber-space. Can we ensure that we are providing all resources to counter disinformation, which is a battlespace on its own, and that we are ramping up against the current threat that Russia is pushing out across NATO countries?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his contribution and support for defence affairs. Some can be quite disparaging about it, but it is worth reminding ourselves that NATO is the most effective military alliance ever seen in history. Its numbers and capacity far outweigh some of our adversaries. One area it has fantastic command capability in is information operations, and as Members of Parliament we can all play our part in that by taking away the messages we have heard today and making sure that our nation and constituents understand the second and third-order effects of potential escalation.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
For many years Banbury has been home to thousands of Polish citizens, who will understandably be very concerned at events over the past 24 hours. Can the Minister reassure them not only that our relationship with Poland is steadfast but that this Government are taking steps to strengthen it in spite of Putin?
Al Carns
Putin’s actions pull NATO together and forge alliances and partnerships, and they focus us in on the barbaric nature of Russia’s aggression. I have worked with the Polish in the past, and we have a great relationship with them. They are increasing defence spending, and there are industrial opportunities there. We also have great cultural ties with Poland. The Polish served in the Air Force in the second world war and all the way through to the latter years. We are fully behind Poland, our allies and partners.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I congratulate and salute the brave aircrew who intercepted this flagrant breach not just of Poland’s airspace but of the international rules-based order. I do not believe for one second that this was some inadvertent mistake. This is classic Russian playbook. Russia was probing NATO in that attack and will continue to probe until it comes up against the resistance that it deems worthy of a change in policy. Russia responds in two ways: one is strength and the other is weakness, and if it sees weakness it will continue. Can the Minister help the House understand what the robust response to this flagrant attack will look like?
Al Carns
As I mentioned earlier, when these incidents take place, it forges and focuses the alliance and takes away any friction, because we create unity of effort, so it is a mismove by Putin to think that it does not make NATO stronger. If we are looking at deterrence, whether by punishment or denial, we see that Ukraine is holding back one of the biggest militaries in the world and that there have been a million casualties, and that the denial is greater NATO unity and focus on the aggressor that is Putin.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
This attack by Vladimir Putin on a NATO member that has been a leader in resisting Russian aggression and supplying Ukraine is a clear escalation and an attempt, as others have said, to probe NATO defences and intimidate the alliance. Can the Minister assure me that the UK and NATO will not be intimidated and that the Government are considering robust military options to stand up to this bully in Moscow? Closer to home, can he assure me that the attacks will confirm the urgency to escalate and accelerate our development of the Type 83 destroyer and the future air defence system so that our country is fully protected in the future?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to defence. He is a stalwart champion of Ukraine and defence as a whole. I have never been intimidated in my life. We as a country will not be intimidated, and neither will NATO. I reiterate that our defence industrial strategy is absolutely critical. Giving weapons to Ukraine is one thing, but building industrial capacity to generate mass is how countries win wars should they be caught up in one. That is why the strategic defence review’s first 70 pages are all about industry.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
In the Minister’s excellent response, he talked about the geopolitical situation. During my time in office, I saw more and more co-operation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He talked about the emboldening of Putin. Does he share my concern that the recent show of unity at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in China may well have emboldened Putin? That should be a wake-up call for all western democracies to stand together in defence of their mutual values?
Al Carns
I absolutely agree that we must stand together for those mutual values, whether that is the right to independence, to self-determination, to collective security and so on. Yes, Putin may feel emboldened, but I would argue that his actions today have strengthened and galvanised the alliance. I can guarantee that the discussions with the E5 and NATO that take place will be absolutely focused on Russia, and that drives economic growth and spending on defence, so I would argue that it is not just a shot across the border but a shot in the foot from Putin.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for moving around. Poland is one of our closest European allies, with a long, shared history. In my region of the east midlands, that is embodied in our large British Polish community, whose roots go back over 80 years. In the light of last night’s attack, what are the Government’s plans to strengthen our deterrence on NATO’s north-eastern flank?
Al Carns
Poland is one of our strongest allies and, interestingly, is building one of the biggest land forces in Europe. Its recapitalisation programme is of a significant scale, because it has a large land border. From my perspective, working with Poland towards a bilateral defence and security treaty is absolutely essential due to the industrial and bilateral benefits it will bring. We stand side by side with the Polish—no questions, no doubts—and we stand absolutely at the centre of NATO defence policy.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituency also has a large Polish community, who have been alarmed to see Russian drones violating Polish airspace. We all know that if Ukraine were to fall to Putin’s aggression, Poland would be next in his sights. How are the Government intending to support Poland in defending its sovereignty, and what steps are the Government taking to strengthen our own security?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I thank the Polish members of her constituency for supporting Poland during these times. We have a multitude of different capabilities in Poland that have rotated through. For example, as mentioned by the Opposition, our NATO enhanced joint air policing stopped just a couple of months ago and was rotated. We also have a light cavalry squadron there working with the Polish and the US. Poland is also a central pillar of the coalition of the willing as we move forward. Everything is done by, with and alongside our Polish allies.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I join the Minister in his condemnation of this clear escalation against our Polish allies. He will know that my constituency has a large Polish diaspora, who are extremely concerned about their country and fearful of further Russian attacks. What assurances can he give the Polish community in my constituency and across the country, and what work will he do across Government to support the Polish community at this difficult time?
Al Carns
The assurance we can give is that NATO is the most effective military alliance of all time, and Poland, the UK and our allies sit central to that. The centrality of the alliance is the best form of deterrence and, therefore, the best form of assurance to both my hon. Friend’s constituents and people across the whole NATO alliance, and it is central to our defence policy as we move forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky?
Al Carns
I have met President Zelensky several times, and I am a keen observer of the conflict as it has moved forward—a million Russian casualties and a 40 km dead zone on the frontline that would reflect any battlefront or frontline from the first world war to the second world war. What is happening there is absolutely atrocious. I am always really clear: deterrence, yes and peace, yes, but appeasement? No.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), I was part of the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Operation Chessman in Poland earlier this year. I also saw the scrambling of our RAF Typhoon jet and it going up in the sky to check out suspicious Russian air activity. That was a surprise to me, but from speaking to our RAF personnel, I found that it was quite common at the time. From speaking later on to our Polish counterparts, I know that that is what they are facing in Poland; the public there are well aware of the Russian threat. Here in this country, I am not so sure that the British public get quite how serious the threat is. In Poland, they are on the physical frontline, and people in Ukraine are paying the horrible price of Putin’s aggression. Will the Minister reassure the House and the public that the Government are doing all they can to deal with the Russian threat of cyber-attacks and grey warfare on Europe and, indeed, this country?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend brings us to a really important point. We must not alarm the nation and we must not scare the nation, but we must be honest with the nation as to the risks and threats posed towards our defence and, indeed, the citizens of this country. We need to be clear about that. That is why in the strategic defence review we see talk of military intelligence and the review that is going on, because if we are to explain to the population why we are spending more on defence, we must ensure that it is related to those threats. We will explain it clearly—the SDR has stated it—and then we will double down on investment in the defence industry to ensure that we can provide the assurance that we can contribute to NATO in an absolutely above-and-beyond meaningful way.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In November 2022, the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and I were in Ukraine with the Defence Committee when there was an onslaught of rockets fired into that country, one of which errantly fell into Poland and killed two Polish nationals. On that day, Poland considered triggering article 4, and today it has clearly done so. In the intervening period of almost three years, there has been a growing reluctance to equip Ukraine to defend its skies and, importantly, to do so from the skies, so while this article 4 meeting of member states will consider how we protect the skies of NATO, will the Minister confirm that he is willing to extend that conversation to how we appropriately and effectively defend the skies of Ukraine?
Al Carns
That is a great question from the right hon. Member, who I know is a stalwart supporter of defence. As we move forward with the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy, we must ensure that we revitalise our defence industry so that we produce that important mix of high-end systems—high-end air defence—and low-end systems that can be used in an economic mismatch between cheap and high-end systems. Getting that mix right is complicated, but in the defence industrial strategy and the SDR we are intent on ensuring that our British military is equipped with that high and low-end mix of fifth and sixth-generation and mass-produced hardware in due course.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his continued support for defence. The United States has been really clear that it would like European nations to spend more on defence. It obviously has a multitude of different threats that it has to deal with. When the US President comes to the UK—we are in the tent—we are going to sit down with him and discuss these issues in detail.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I put on record my respect for the bravery of the Ukrainian children Vladyslav, Valeriia and Roman who came to Parliament last night to share their stories as survivors of Putin’s war of aggression. Putin’s action over Polish airspace last night was a deliberate move to test NATO’s reaction, and the response must match the moment. Will the Minister please push for a cohesive plan to seize frozen Russian assets and funnel them to the humanitarian mission to support Ukraine’s incredible and inspiring future generation?
Al Carns
My heart goes out to those children and to everyone in Ukraine who is going through this—they have been going through this for several years. I guarantee the hon. Member that discussions are ongoing now about how we can push the system more to pressure Russia into coming towards the peace table.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations?
Al Carns
I do not have the detail on that industrial partnership; I can write back to the hon. Member in due course. Air defence is critical, as is making sure that we can secure our oceans, subsurface and, of course, land.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is good that there is universal recognition across the House that last night was an attack not just on Polish airspace but on NATO airspace. In terms of the response, may I bring the Minister back to sanctions? We have sanctions on Russian crude oil, although sadly there is at least one NATO country that does not implement them. With regard to refined oil, are we in this country not importing considerable quantities of Russian crude oil that has been refined down? In the recent trade deal with India, was there any attempt to put any restraint on that?
Al Carns
On the latter point, I will engage with my colleagues across Government and look into the detail. Putting pressure on Russia is absolutely our priority to bring it to the peace table in due course, and we are working exceptionally hard to deliver that.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister was quite right to describe this violation of Polish airspace as unprecedented, but I am sure he would agree that it is not isolated; in fact, it represents the latest escalation in Russia’s campaign of attacks on central and eastern European NATO allies. Just last year, shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw were set on fire, and the leaders of those countries pointed the finger firmly at Russian military intelligence. Just last week, a jet carrying the President of the European Commission suffered a cyber-attack that was initiated by Russia. Russia is clearly not deterred by the current measures in place. Will the Minister outline what we can do as a leading military power in Europe and in NATO to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of our NATO allies who are on the frontline of the confrontation with Russia?
Al Carns
We are doing that right now. The defence industrial strategy, the strategic defence review and the industrial rebuild will ensure that we have the right arms—and enough of them—to reinforce the deterrence and, if called to, to fight and win.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Russian drones over Poland suggest that Putin is testing NATO’s resolve to support its members. Will the Minister push the Prime Minister to urge President Trump and the members of the G7 to produce a cohesive plan to seize the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in their countries and funnel that money to the frontline in Ukraine? That money would transform Zelensky’s efforts to repel Putin’s illegal war machine. Will the Government commit to doing that?
Al Carns
The United States is one of our most critical allies, and when the President of the United States visits the UK there will be a multitude of discussions, particularly focused on Ukraine, European security and, of course, NATO.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that we need to take stronger steps to deter Putin? That starts with seizing billions in frozen Russian assets across the UK and using them to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, because Putin has shown that if we give him an inch, he will take a mile.
Al Carns
As mentioned previously, we have to continue to push and pressure Putin to bring him to the peace table, through a whole suite of different capabilities, from providing arms to Ukraine all the way through to sanctions. We will continue to do that.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Russian drones over Poland were tracked by Polish aircraft but also by Dutch aircraft stationed in Poland. That reminds us that four years ago Putin sought a roll-back in NATO deployments from central and eastern Europe. In 2021 Russia outrageously demanded that NATO allies deploy no forces in countries that joined the alliance after 1997. Does the Minister agree that had the US acceded to those demands, we might be seeing devastating consequences in Poland today?
Al Carns
It is so interesting when we talk about deterrence. There are huge multinational NATO exercises that take place every year. I was the chief of staff of the carrier strike group in 2021, on the date the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That was called Cold Response, which was the biggest naval exercise to the High North in several years. We demonstrate to Russia on multiple different occasions how effective the NATO alliance is and, if called to, how it will fight and win.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
May I give my thanks to the Polish and Dutch air crews who were involved in the defence of Poland’s airspace last night? The seats in their jets may have been manufactured and tested in my constituency, at Chalgrove airfield, but that airfield could be demolished thanks to proposals by Homes England to build a new town there. Will the Minister meet me to urgently address that threat to UK national security?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Minister on his elevation, which is well deserved, an on the comment he made about not be intimidated. He speaks for us all in that regard—indeed, I almost feel a poster campaign coming, about standing firm. The incursion of Russian drones into a NATO member nation is a slap in the face for the very idea of NATO and must be dealt with effectively and immediately. What collective discussions will be held within NATO to determine a robust response to the testing of our borders and the resolution to stand fast against Russia?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his support for defence. Discussions in the E5 are ongoing as we speak, and the NAC has sat and will continue to discuss this issue. I can guarantee him that the UK will be at the very centre of those discussions and no one will intimidate this great isle at all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Al Carns Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Travelling the country and speaking to veterans, our postcode lottery for veteran support across the nation is not lost on me. Veterans have to repeat their stories between six and nine times to land on the support that they deserve. That is why the Government have taken the unprecedented step of investing £50 million over three years to set up Valour—three big chunks across the strategic, regional and local level to redesign our support mechanism for veterans. That will increase the headquarters size, it will allow liaison officers into our regional councils and, at the local level, it will take the best hubs to provide wraparound welfare and services for veterans. It will give our veterans the deal that they deserve.
David Chadwick
For more than two centuries, Gurkha veterans have served our country with extraordinary loyalty and bravery. Many of them and their families have strong ties to my constituency in Brecon. Yet to the shock of many, thousands who retired before 1997, despite fighting shoulder to shoulder with their British comrades, often suffering injuries and wounds in the process, remain on inferior pensions, leaving too many in poverty. Does the Minister agree that that injustice cannot be allowed to stand? Will he commit to ensuring that all Gurkha veterans receive fair and equal pensions in recognition of their service?
Al Carns
We have a proud and distinguished history of Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army and across defence. I served with them in Afghanistan and across many other conflicts. The Bilateral Gurkha Veteran Welfare Committee sat most recently in June of this year, and it continues to ensure that the needs of Gurkha veterans are met and understood fully. It is also worth noting that even among British service personnel from in and around that era, some did not qualify for a pension, so in some cases there is parity across the board. The Gurkha welfare advice centres provide handling support for a wide variety of welfare-related inquiries, alongside the Gurkha Brigade Association. I have also met the Nepalese ambassador and will do so again soon to discuss the issues.
Sarah Bool
From my proud support of the National Transition Event held annually at Silverstone in my constituency, I am aware of the work of Mission Community, a service charity tasked with the delivery of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs’ veterans industry engagement programme, which is designed to advocate for our veterans by working with industry trade bodies. What sectors will the Government focus on in their work so that veterans and their families feel the benefit, as well as that having a positive impact on our economy?
Al Carns
Veterans not only defended the nation while in service, but they go on to deliver the second mission of Government, which is to help us prosper. I have met representatives from Mission Community, which does a fantastic job, several times. It is worth noting that veterans who engage with our career transition pathway on transitioning to become civilians have an 88% success rate in going straight into employment. Op Ascend, which we launched at the National Transition Event, has seen thousands of families and veterans connected up with industry to move that collaboration forward. I will write the hon. Lady with details about specific industries in due course.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
This Government are resetting the relationship between those who serve and those who served. The Government’s response to the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the armed forces covenant was positive. Will the Minister provide an update on the work that is being to strengthen the covenant?
Al Carns
When we came into Government, the covenant covered three different Departments. We have made a pledge to armed forces service personnel, those who have served, their families and, indeed, those who have been bereaved that we will open that covenant—that duty—to 14 different Departments. Over time, that commitment will result in a step change in the Government’s relationship with those who have served, and it is a commitment that we will deliver.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
More than 200 service families lost loved ones during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister set out how the forthcoming legislation will enable closure for those families, who have had their wounds continually reopened for too long?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question. It is not lost on me that during the troubles there were major explosions in key cities all over the country. From Brighton to Brimingham, individuals from both sides of the House had to take the precaution of checking under their beds and their cars, and ensuring that the lights were on before they went into certain rooms, because the chance of close-quarter assassination by terrorists was ever present. Some service personnel who were deployed to secure the peace paid the ultimate sacrifice and 200 families lost loved ones. That means that mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters had the truth denied to them as soon as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into place. As a service person, I would always want my family to know what happened to me if I were to be killed in a conflict. Repealing and replacing the legacy Act will enable that, but we must ensure that the process does not come with punishment for veterans. We will ensure that protections are in place to allow us to get to the truth, and to ensure that no one can rewrite history or make veterans suffer any more.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Nearly a fifth of a million people have now signed the parliamentary petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution, in opposition to Labour’s proposals for two-tier justice. Surely Ministers must understand that facilitating lawfare against our Army veterans, none of whom received letters of comfort after leaving their service, shows that Labour just does not have their back?
Al Carns
I highlight to the right hon. Gentleman that 200 families—200 mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters—of those that served had their inquest inquiries, insight and understanding closed off when the legacy Act came into place. They were serving members of the security forces and their families deserve truth. However, we must ensure that we also provide protection for veterans as we move forward, so that they are not subject to lawfare, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions, and that the process does not become the punishment for veterans as we move forward.
Mr Francois
Labour’s currently stalled remedial order would specifically make it easier for Gerry Adams and his friends to sue the British taxpayer while throwing our Army veterans, many of them recruited from red wall seats, to the wolves. After everything the Government put their Back Benchers through in recent months, are No. 10 and Ministers really intending to press ahead with this madness and do Gerry Adams a favour, at the expense of the soldiers who opposed him? Are they pressing ahead with the remedial order—yes or no?
Al Carns
The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He is trying to divide the House, veterans and the armed forces community, and it has got to stop. The reality is that we will produce legislation that will allow families to get to the truth. He should put himself in the shoes of the families who have lost loved ones, and then put himself in the shoes of veterans—I am a Northern Ireland veteran—and accept that if the protections are in place to ensure that the process does not become the punishment, we have a good solution.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Defence as a whole has accepted 33 recommendations from the “Women in the Armed Forces” report. We have two outstanding elements still in train: the results of an armed forces sexual harassment survey, and a veterans strategy with a specific female veterans section. Both will be released in the autumn. On top of this, we have a tri-service complaints system—which I personally brought in—and the violence against women and girls taskforce, to make sure that any woman can serve with safety and pride.
Sarah Dyke
The Atherton report, published in 2021, surveyed 4,000 female service personnel and veterans. It revealed that 62% had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service. Does the Minister recognise that at a time when we are expanding our armed forces, we must improve the overall experience of women in the military, protect female personnel, and help servicewomen achieve their full potential?
Al Carns
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. Obviously, in our Minister for the armed forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), we have an individual who has lived experience of being a female in the armed forces. It is really important to mention the individual who sits at the bottom of the command chain—where do they go if they are experiencing a problem? Where do they seek help, and who do they complain to? In some cases, they cannot do it within the chain of command. It may not be appropriate or they may not want to, which is why the violence against women and girls taskforce is so important, as well as the tri-service complaints system. It will allow people to come outside the command chain, raise those issues, and make sure they are dealt with appropriately.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
The number of questions on this issue demonstrates the importance that Members in all parts of the House ascribe to the subject of cadets. As we said in the strategic defence review, we will increase the number of existing cadet forces by 30% by 2030 with £70 million of funding, but we are also considering areas of social demographic requirement where new cadet forces can be placed. That will give kids throughout the country fantastic opportunities to flourish and thrive, both at school and as they move to the end of their education.
Lillian Jones
As one of the first female cadets in Scotland during the mid-1980s—I know I do not look old enough—I am aware of how transformative the cadet experience can be, but now, in 2025, girls make up only a third of our cadet force. What more can my hon. Friend do to ensure that joining the cadets is seen as an exciting opportunity for girls as well as boys, and will he join me on a visit to the brilliant cadet units in my constituency to see these brilliant young people in action?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The cadet forces are an inclusive organisation, and I have been delighted to be able to visit branches throughout the country, for instance in Cornwall. A couple of weeks ago I visited a summer camp to observe the diversity of the cadets, which, in some cases, is far better than it is in the armed forces. Currently, 36% of community-based and 39% of school-based cadets are female. That is a positive, important and encouraging trend, and I hope that it will continue over time.
Saqib Bhatti
I was in the King Edward’s school RAF combined cadet force, and until recently I was on the board of the West Midland Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association. I was pleased to learn of the Government’s lofty ambition to increase cadet sizes, but I was worried by the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, which said recently that there was a distinct lack of “detail and funding” to achieve those numbers. Without the funding and without the detail, these plans and numbers are meaningless, are they not?
Al Carns
There are two different issues here. The first one is about expanding the cadet forces by 30% by 2030—there is £70 million behind that, and the plan for how to deliver it is being developed. The second point, on the Public Accounts Committee, is about the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations and is primarily about infrastructure, which we are working on now. That is a legacy issue. We are trying to rejuvenate it and make sure that the accommodation, and indeed the infrastructure, is fit for purpose for the cadets and the reserves as we move forward.
Chris Vince
May I, too, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), to her place on the Front Bench?
Before recess, I was lucky enough to visit Harlow and district air cadets and see the wonderful work that they do in supporting young people from across Harlow, teaching them leadership skills and building a sense of community. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Harlow and district air cadets on their work, and recognise the importance that all types of cadets—in this case, air cadets—make to communities like mine in Harlow, and particularly working-class communities?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend 110%. The cadets are all about social mobility, giving kids opportunity and getting them up and out, and that is what Labour is all about. From my perspective, the air cadets are amazing. I went to the summer camp, which had everything—flying planes, STEM, sports and flying drones—and it was absolutely outstanding. I congratulate the Harlow air cadets; hopefully, I will get to visit them in due course.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne’s mighty sea cadets celebrate their 115th birthday this year, but their future is being put under threat by rising energy bills, which are making running the operation less and less sustainable. It is the same with many other cadets across the country. Will the Minister share how the Government will support the likes of the Eastbourne sea cadets with energy bills so that they can continue having an incredible impact on local young people and our armed forces more generally?
Al Carns
The air cadets are fantastic, the sea cadets are fantastic and the Army cadets are amazing—they are all amazing. I would love to take on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, we will have a look at what we can do. I have huge admiration for the sea cadets in his constituency. At some point, if my diary permits, I would love to visit them all.
Mr Speaker
Order. That question was like the buses, indeed—some are quicker than others, and that one should have been an express.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
This Government take seriously both physical and mental injuries from service. Op Courage has already seen 34,000 referrals. It is a fantastic programme that runs across the country and provides mental health services for veterans. I encourage any veteran who thinks that they need help to shout and seek help. It is the first step to recovery.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Al Carns
The expansion of the cadets—30% by 2030— is front and centre of my portfolio. We will ensure that the £70 million is spent on expanding the services, as well as increasing the standard of training, insight and access that cadets have across the country.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Al Carns
If the hon. Member writes to me with the details of that case, I will look into it. There is a plethora of issues and complexities with some of these policies, but I will take this case on and have a look.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Al Carns
The right hon. Member raises an interesting point. Please write to me in due course with examples, and we will look into that, from a defence perspective.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently met my constituent Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye, who is only the third ever woman to receive the Military Cross. She shared with me the difficulty of dealing with the complex physical and psychological effects of her service, and the transformative effect that the Boulder Crest foundation had on her in her recovery. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah to hear about the work of the foundation?
Al Carns
I completely empathise with that veteran. I am more than happy to sit down and talk through the pros of that treatment, and to see if we can expand it further.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Fort Blockhouse in Gosport was due to have been sold by 2024, but the deadline keeps moving. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has not been at all proactive; this giant site sits empty, doing nothing for the MOD, taxpayers or the local economy. First Reform and then the Government have suggested that sites like Blockhouse will be used for asylum accommodation. Gosport deserves so much better. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss a much more innovative future for this important—
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
For many veterans, hearing loss is one of the hidden scars of service, and in a number of cases, it has been linked to defective 3M hearing equipment. Will the Minister use their arts of persuasion on the Prime Minister to ensure an independent inquiry, so that we can find out the extent of this, and see whether any other equipment is involved and how we can prevent it from happening again?
Al Carns
Anyone with hearing loss from equipment can absolutely apply for compensation through the war pension scheme or the armed forces compensation scheme. Broader work is happening on those specific bits of capability outside this place.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State guarantee—yes or no—that no British serviceman or veteran will face prosecution for actions taken in Northern Ireland while serving their country?
Al Carns
As has been mentioned, as we go through the process, we will ensure that protections are in place, to look after our veterans. The reality is—I am being really honest—that if people broke the law, they will be held accountable, but I assure the hon. Member that veterans who served will be protected.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Young people in my constituency are crying out for decent, well-paid jobs, especially in the defence sector, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the Typhoon order that is desperately needed, not only for our country, but for jobs across Blackpool and Lancashire?
Use of Drones in Defence
Al Carns Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am truly grateful to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing the debate—I genuinely believe that we are at a pivotal time, so having it today is poignant. The opportunity to discuss the critical importance of uncrewed systems to our armed forces and our national security is a continual requirement in this place.
It will not be lost on hon. Members that I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement, but I have a vested interest in this subject. I have been helping a cross-ministerial team to design our strategy as we move forward. Why am I passionate about this issue? Mentioned in dispatches, combat; Military Cross, combat; Distinguished Service Order, combat; OBE, combat—I spent a lot of time in combat. What we are seeing now in Ukraine gives the soldier, the airman or the sailor the ability to disengage from combat and to send technology forward. We are seeing a revolution in technological affairs in Ukraine, and it is of the utmost importance.
The devastation and horror of war provide an imperative for rapid innovation. Each side pitted, racing to gain decisive advantage by innovating faster than the other. These developments define an era of conflict and innovation. Think the Parthian shot, the longbow, the crossbow, the musket, the tank, the aeroplane and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, the Dreadnought. They have all marked a pivotal moment in technological change. Today, I would argue that it is uncrewed systems. The lesson for the UK is that we must be a leader in the revolution in uncrewed systems—which has not changed the nature of conflict, as Clausewitz would say, but changed its character forever—or be left behind.
In no small part, this understanding motivated me to enter politics, and it was one of the key reasons I left the military: to galvanise change and to do what I could to safeguard this great nation, because I saw war changing the entire character of conflict itself. Today’s discussion addresses an existential challenge, which this Government, the Defence team, and I are absolutely determined to grip.
Uncrewed systems have fundamentally changed the character of conflict—fact. In Ukraine, thousands of drones fill the skies every day and night. On average, thousands of drones a day—up to 2,000 or 3,000, and, at the very height, 6,000—are being flown on the frontline. A division has hundreds of drones that observe every section of the battlefield 24/7 and cue strike platforms at a moment’s notice. Drones are 22 times more lethal and accurate than an artillery round. For the first time since the first world war, more casualties have been caused by a system other than artillery or offensive support—that is, drones. Not training our people in drones would be like not training our people in artillery prior to the first world war.
A year ago, I was quoted as saying that uncrewed systems represent
“a machine gun moment for the Army, a submarine moment for the Navy and a jet engine moment for the Air Force.”
I also said that the inclusion of data, AI and quantum would only deepen the effects of this revolution. I would say now, one year later, that we are at an inflection point similar to the moment when armies fighting in world war one realised the utility of airpower. We know what happened then: the “Top Gun” generation was born, and airpower changed every nation’s way of fighting.
We are approaching the 85th anniversary of the battle of Britain, which is a poignant reminder of the significant impact of cutting-edge technology, such as the Spitfire, radar, importantly, or our very first computers, on the defence of our nation. Unlike those previous advances, the impact of uncrewed systems across air, land and sea is simultaneous, undermining many existing, exquisite and expensive capabilities.
As I reflect over 24 years of military service, I recognise just how much of what I did could now be done by uncrewed systems. I mean that, because about 75% of everything I have done could be done by uncrewed systems. That would have made my life a lot safer, although it would probably have reduced the medal count.
We have seen this revolution shape Putin’s war of aggression. On land, surveillance and attack drones stalk the battlefield around the clock. Thousands of drones, whether FPV—first-person-view—drones, surveillance drones or long-range strike drones, dominate the battlefield. There is a dead zone on the frontline, about 30 km deep, where no one moves: small teams or individuals are the only ones who survive, and they do not survive for long. Interestingly—the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned tanks earlier—tanks’ sustainability on the battlefield is limited. Not K-kills but M-kills—mobility kills, taking off the tank’s tracks, immobilising its engine, or immobilising the crew, the sights and the sensors—happen relatively quickly. Perhaps we can allude to what that will look like in the future later in the debate.
In the Black sea, we have seen a navy without a navy sink a navy—that is, Ukraine’s unmanned vessels have sunk or scattered Russia’s once all-powerful Black sea fleet.
James Cartlidge
The Minister is making a fascinating speech, and he knows that I am as interested in this subject as anyone. On the naval point, it was an incredible moment in May when a Ukrainian naval drone downed a Russian Su-30, I think. Does that not point to some of our looming procurements—for example, future air dominance, the Type 83, and all those things in the Navy’s assumptions about how we defend this island in the future? We are an island, so the potential for us to be protected by uncrewed barges and sensors carrying effectors way out in our ocean is an exciting development.
Al Carns
I completely agree. I can see a future—we will talk about this later—involving a high-low mix, in which we have very sophisticated fifth generation capability matched by relatively low-end hardware with very sophisticated software. When we combine the two, we can increase our mass, our lethality and our overwatch of large swathes of land, sea and air. It is also worth noting—I will cover this later—that there are false lessons from Ukraine. The Black sea is not the Pacific or the north Atlantic. However, the technology, when designed with the right hull form, can absolutely survive in those environments.
Moving on to air, we see co-ordinated waves of drones penetrate the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world and strike far beyond the frontline. I mentioned yesterday, in relation to the remembrance of the battle of Britain, that we are hearing air sirens every day in Ukraine. We are not talking hundreds of drones; we now talking, in some cases, of thousands of drones attacking major cities and critical national infrastructure throughout Ukraine.
These capabilities are being enhanced, made increasingly sophisticated—with the capability to map and target-identify—and combined with the use of data and artificial intelligence to train training models, with profound implications for the way we fight warfare. Our adversaries understand that. Russia, other countries such as China, and large states are developing at a different scale. They are already producing drones on an industrial scale, and investing in innovation to make them more capable and deadly, and to remove the human even further from the battlefield. War is driving an innovation cycle that cannot be replicated in peacetime.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked earlier about the innovation cycle here with SMEs. SMEs that often have joint ventures or relationships with companies at the front in Ukraine are innovating faster than anyone else. We are talking 20 or 30 to 100 innovations in a year, in comparison with some of our contracts in the past, which have had one, two, three or four innovations linked into the contractual management.
I would argue that we need to do more. Ukraine reminds us daily that to safeguard the nation we have an obligation to lead in the development of uncrewed systems. We may not have the opportunity to fight differently. Historically, almost every major conflict has been characterised by short periods of manoeuvre, and long periods of attrition to build up capability and capacity and to innovate, which are then broken by periods of manoeuvre, with a focus on supporting the warfighter with the best technology. I would posit that, if it came to it, our adversaries would seek to draw us into an attritional conflict, which puts the burden on the defence industry, our economy and our society’s ability to sustain the fight. At a tactical level, there is an argument that this will no longer be about supporting the warfighter, but about supporting the technology in the fight. That is a fundamental shift and change in opinion, and a critical and fundamental distinction in the way that future wars may be fought.
This Government have taken decisive action, as laid out in our strategic defence review, first to integrate uncrewed systems across the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and to adapt our military culture to recognise that uncrewed systems are a core capability.
Several hon. Members mentioned the innovation cycle. In Ukraine early on in the war, a stalemate took place across the frontline, broken by periods of manoeuvre and usually initiated by dominance in GPS-guided munitions. The Russians quickly learned to counter a proportion of that, and as such the innovation of drones and uncrewed systems came into place on land, at sea and in the air. We have now accelerated along that line. We have gone from hundreds of different Ukrainian companies with different intellectual property swamping the battlefield with small start-ups, to the Ukrainians synthesising that capability procurement down to a set number of drones, and mass producing. They are using the innovation cycle on the frontline, with companies embedded in combat companies to drive that innovation cycle faster than ever before. They went broad to start with, and they have now gone narrow and are scaling. It is starting to work.
We must learn some of those lessons as automated platforms are bought by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Do they all talk to each other? Do they have the same software, or different hardware? Can they work together? Can they work on an integrated kill net? If they do not, we may repeat some of the same mistakes as Ukraine. A great quote is, “Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.” There is a bit that we must watch, and we must ensure that we get this right, because if we get it wrong, it may be difficult to unravel.
I mentioned adapting our military culture, and the hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned commander training within our organisations, whether that be Dartmouth, Cranwell or Sandhurst. I have been on that, as an individual responsible for people, to ensure that these things are inculcated at the earliest stage of training, whether that be defence from drones or the adoption of drones as a critical component, much the same as a machine gun is for a rifle section. We are moving forward in that space.
Secondly, as hon. Members have said, there is a requirement to work seamlessly with industry, transforming our procurement and industrial base to meet the demands of modern warfare and drive growth for the nation. To do that, we must encourage the best of Ukrainian industry to share its expertise with us. We must continue to foster a truly innovative and adaptive defence industry that draws on the best of Britain. What I am leading to here is that British start-ups and British companies, both primes and SMEs, must engage with Ukrainian companies on joint ventures and cross-IP sharing to enhance the best of both. If they do that, I genuinely think they will be world beating, above and beyond what British industry already is.
The Government’s vision is to become a defence industrial superpower by 2035, and we are making that a reality. As a frontier industry, drone development is key to that economic transformation, which will attract major investment and create high-quality jobs. It is also vital to put the best systems into the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Drone systems now will be out of date within six weeks on the frontline, but the training and the integration of the culture and the software may not be, so we must think carefully as we bring systems into the military and avoid 10-year contracts that buy the wrong drone in six years’ time that is way out of date in six weeks.
The Government are doing everything possible to capitalise on this opportunity. We have committed to more than doubling our spend on autonomous systems over this Parliament. I pushed really hard to get £4 billion of investment in mass-produced both unsophisticated and sophisticated weapons. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned GCAP and loyal wingman; I would see loyal wingman as a sophisticated, high-end, fourth, fifth or sixth-generation capability. I see mass uncrewed systems for the Army—and in some cases the Navy—slightly differently.
Ben Obese-Jecty
If we are talking about those low-end, attritable systems being introduced at Army or Marine level as section-level capability, like a light machine gun, at what point will we look at redesigning our entire military capability in terms of logistical supply of batteries and parts for those? We all know that soldiers already carry too much kit, and carrying more batteries for drones will be key in that. How can we effectively redesign the section attack to incorporate drones? As I said in my speech, this is a fundamental shift in how the Army fights battles. I appreciate that the Minister is doing everything he can to introduce drones into the ecosystem, but it seems to me that we are making huge changes here. This is almost the same as introducing the machine gun and then wondering why we do not know how to fight it properly when we get to the battlefield. I would be interested to hear what we are doing to further that.
Al Carns
It is a combination of the two. Yes, it is a machine gun moment for the Army, but it is also an Air Force moment for the whole military, so we need careful consideration of how we will integrate this. The Ukrainians, for example, have combat companies who will fly 150 FPV drone strikes a day. They will do that with separate teams flying in support of infantry, much as we would have had close air support in the past. A drone team may fly 50 drone missions a day with 80% lethality and accuracy.
I will leave it to the generals, the admirals and the air vice-marshals to work out how they integrate the system. However, it must be integrated at the section and infantry level all the way to the division level in the Army; from the single ship all the way to the fleet level in the Navy; and from the single aircraft, if not major drone, all the way to fighting formations in the Air Force. That is the level of integration that will be required—it is pretty seismic.
We talked earlier about the high-low end mix. We will help to deliver Europe’s first hybrid carrier air wing. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, and I agree, that GCAP and the loyal wingman programme are sophisticated capabilities, but there is nothing to say that it is not—no pun intended—a Russian doll method where something releases something smaller that becomes more attritable and more mass-produced. That is probably where we are going with many of these systems.
We are also enhancing our uncrewed naval platforms. The patrol of the north Atlantic, protecting our continuous at-sea deterrent can adopt some of that technology. We will also, as the hon. Member mentioned, move towards a 20:40:40 capability mix for the British Army, which I think is essential, as is being proven in Ukraine at the moment. As he mentioned, that is 20% crewed, 40% reusable and 40% disposable uncrewed systems. I would like to see a lot of those drones used as ammunition so that, much as we would have down the range with a magazine and 30 rounds of ammunition, we should be able to go down the range with 10 drones, fly them down, use them, get proficient in that and ensure that we are as accurate and lethal with a drone as we are with a rifle, if not more so.
It is a move to help deliver our goal of increasing the Army’s lethality tenfold. I argue that we need to move on that as fast as is feasible. The critical component is our partnership with industry, and not just the big primes but SMEs are key to delivering those ambitions. That is why we have established UK Defence Innovation to connect with investors and get those SMEs, innovators and start-ups able to break into the defence market, which we know has been a problem in the past. That will ensure that we can rapidly identify and back innovative products that will give us a military, and indeed an economic, edge.
To integrate these new technologies across three military services—I think this is the critical component—we are creating an uncrewed centre of excellence, alongside a range and testing facility. It will be surrounded by SMEs and industry, with the people who know what they are talking about, because there is a lot of snake oil out there. We must put them in one place and then, as I mentioned, slow is smooth, smooth is fast. We must allow them to help the Army, Navy and Air Force to contract different hardware that has simultaneous and integrated software. That is how we will create capabilities that will be able to talk to each other in the future.
James Cartlidge
I called my reform the integrated procurement model, because I think the Minister is right: integration is so important, and it has been a deficiency of our bottom-down approach. However, does that not mean that we will need some kind of C2 system for our military? When I was in post, there was a lot of talk about ACCS, which was the system developed for NATO, but frankly was not fit for purpose. That would be a very significant investment. Is it something that the MOD is currently looking at?
Al Carns
In the SDR, there was a £1 billion investment in an integrated targeting web, and that is what ties all these systems together. The only way it will tie together is if the software is interchangeable. Indeed, if we were then to lay on AI in quantum, we would be taking it to the next step of starting to remove people further back down the chain. I believe we will always have to be in the chain, but we will move back. Our adversaries may not. That will be a pivotal change in the way of warfare again.
The uncrewed centre of excellence is one to watch within the SDR. It will be in place by February. It will provide centralised expertise, funding and standards. The Military Aviation Authority and the Civilian Aviation Authority were mentioned. The centre will help them to develop and get through some of the bureaucracies while remaining in line with the rules and regulations. It will help to develop skills across defence. For example, drone qualifications across the Navy, Army and Air Force at the moment are all starting to move in different directions. We have to synthesise them, and make sure that they are correct and that everyone is doing the same, so that we can swap and interchange people. That will help to deliver a regulatory framework in which our companies can succeed.
In June, we announced a landmark partnership with Ukraine to share technology, harness the innovation expertise from the frontline and increase our industrial co-operation, which is critical because innovation is moving at such a pace on the frontline. Our plans are a shot in the arm. We need to continue to push as hard as is feasible for what is already one of the leading uncrewed systems sectors in the world.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Recently, we saw the ACUA Ocean Pioneer granted a licence by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Do we think that by pushing out more civilian licences to enable more companies to develop those autonomous platforms, including for things that have maritime applications, drones will be enhanced more quickly? I appreciate that a drone can be set up and flown relatively easily, but getting something that floats in the water, particularly something sizeable that has a civilian application, is quite difficult. Do we think that advancing the number of licences given to companies working on autonomous maritime capability would be an advantage?
Al Carns
The reality is that the governance and compliance of some of these systems has not kept pace with the innovation in the technological-industrial world. The drone centre of excellence will cut through that. Some countries are using dual-use technology, from drone delivery of shopping through to resupplying in disaster zones, and mapping and tracking forestry for carbon capture. We are on the very cusp of a change. It is interesting to look at the key capabilities of what each drone requires to sustain itself to innovate, and where those capabilities come from. That may give us a lead on where we should be focusing from an economic perspective as well.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a really interesting point. He mentioned “Star Wars”. It feels a bit like that. When I watched the first destruction and sinking of a Russian frigate, I said it was a cross between “Star Wars” and “The Dam Busters”, because that is the leap it was making in war. Three ships were sunk in three weeks by relatively simple uncrewed systems, taking out the most significant naval platforms in the world. A lot of people would say that, as these ships get removed off the line of march, one of the biggest mistakes would be to replace them with the same capability.
Drone warfare is today’s reality. Capabilities are evolving faster than any of us can possibly imagine in Ukraine. That is why the Government’s response has been both immediate and decisive, but we have to go faster, and we have to go harder. Through clear leadership, unprecedented investment, closer work with industry and, importantly, our Ukrainian partners who are at the cutting edge, we will ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of this revolution. I genuinely believe that we will get there, and that it will make us stronger abroad and secure at home.
The Battle of Britain
Al Carns Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for initiating today’s debate, and to all Members and gallant Members for their contributions—particularly those with service history, but also great knowledge of the battle of Britain.
On 2 September 1940, 85 years ago today, the Luftwaffe launched a series of massive attacks on RAF airfields and multiple other strategic industrial targets across our great country. Just one of those waves consisted of 250 German aircraft, which is almost incomprehensible today. They darkened the sky as they crossed the English channel in a fearsome display of force and intent. Yet, even with all that firepower and industrial might, it turned out to be another costly day for the Luftwaffe. Harassed, harried and hounded by the RAF, the Germans’ air force was failing to meet its objectives.
At a briefing about the lack of progress, Reichsmarschall Göring criticised his airmen for the mounting losses. When he asked one of his leading flying aces, Adolf Galland, what he needed to turn the battle in Germany’s favour, Galland famously responded,
“I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”—
a reply that left Göring speechless with rage. He stormed off in disgust.
The excellence of the British aircraft was surpassed by the extraordinary courage of the heroes, such as the father of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who flew them. Today, we come together once again to say thank you to the generation who gave so much.
It is difficult to imagine the mood, but also the courage and fortitude, of the British people as they contemplated Hitler’s next move during the summer of 1940. It is easy for us now, with hindsight, to look back with certainty, but for those sat here in Britain in 1940, invasion was imminent. They had watched our European allies fall to Nazi Germany one by one. They knew that a momentous battle was approaching—a battle for the future of not just Britain, but freedom and democracy. They knew that we might be defeated—certainty was not guaranteed.
The battle proved to be an immense test of national character and many made the ultimate sacrifice, with 23,000 civilians losing their lives and more than 1,500 RAF air crew personnel dying trying to protect them. Pilots often flew multiple sorties day after day, week after week, scrambling to their planes every time the next wave of bombers was detected, fighting on after sustaining damage and injuries high over the fields of south-east England, locked in high-stakes combat against a deadly foe. The battle was not only a contest for the control of our skies; it was a test of will that would determine the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme Nazi confidence, the battle of Britain demonstrated to ourselves, and was a signal to the rest of the world, that Hitler could be defeated.
What lessons can we learn from that for today? First, in an increasingly fragile world, we must continue to defend and to stand up for what we believe in and who we are against the rise of autocracy. We must be able to stand up, no matter how dangerous and no matter the threat of physical or economic consequences.
The second lesson is about the importance of alliances and friendships. United we are stronger. As one great general once said:
“The only thing worse than working with allies is working without them.”
We honour the crucial role played by the US, the French nationals, the Poles, the Czechs, the South Africans, individuals from New Zealand and many others on the ground and in the air during the battle of Britain. More than 15 nations, and some more, came together, united by a shared purpose and shared beliefs.
The third lesson is in the importance of consistent innovation. In 1940, the world’s first integrated radar-based air defence system gave the RAF a critical advantage. Just a few weeks ago, an audacious Ukrainian drone attack on Russian bomber airfields reminded us of how new and evolving technology is vital to success in modern warfare. We are continually innovating to keep our skies secure. We are investing heavily in uncrewed systems, but we must do more in satellite technology, as space becomes a key defence domain in the future and in our global combat air programme, alongside our allies and partners.
The fourth lesson we can learn for today is the importance of our defence industry. Behind the “few” who Churchill spoke about—the heroes who manned the aircraft and took on the might of the German air force—were the many. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, it was the many who supported, armed and sustained our fighters throughout the battle.
Finally, in 1940, when we fought the battle of Britain, the whir and the echo of air raid sirens reverberated around every city in the UK. That is going on right now in one place not so far from here—the sirens echo every day in Ukraine, which is under sustained and relentless attack by an aggressor.
Churchill fully grasped that this was a war of production, and said:
“The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1160.]
I have always said that, while armies, navies and air forces may respond to crisis and fight wars, it is industry, economies and societies that win them.
Britain prevailed because our supply chains turbocharged our fighting power. Our victory was built in significant measure on manufacturing excellence and organisational strength, and our modern defence industry remains just as integral a part of our national security. That is why the Government are rolling out our new defence industrial strategy by making defence an engine for growth. We create a robust pipeline for the equipment and munitions that keep Britain safe, and we create secure, skilled jobs up and down this wonderful country, with the workforce continuing to play a vital role in the protection of our nation.
A variety of issues were raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One that resonated was the requirement to remember. I would argue that remembering is not just for individuals of our age in this wonderful place, but is about education, communication and remembering across every section of society at all ages, because those who do not read history are unfortunately doomed to repeat it.
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for highlighting preparedness. The reality is that the first 70 to 80 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry. Finding the fighting power and the humans to fight is quite easy during conflict; it is very difficult to build the industrial base to sustain the ability to wage a defence of a nation.
The tributes that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) paid to his father were truly unbelievable. I cannot comprehend the bravery of his father—day in, day out, he jumped into an aircraft and flew into the unknown. I am truly jealous of the right hon. Gentleman’s ability to sit in the flank and listen to some of those stories, probably as his father sipped a whisky and regaled him about his time defending this great country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned courage and fear; I always say that courage is a decision and fear is a reaction. The courage to volunteer and then fly into the unknown every day is utterly commendable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a really valid point, highlighting the fact that anyone can be a patriot, but we must not allow anyone to hijack that narrative to the point where people feel nervous about championing their patriotism. We are all proud to be British, first and foremost, and I argue that our duty here is to serve our country as a No. 1 priority.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the manipulation of the narrative, or indeed the past. I am absolutely galled that we see protesters defacing and damaging military aircraft, and pressing industry and universities not to get involved in the defence industry. The naivety is utterly remarkable, for the very freedoms, permissions and laws that allow those individuals to protest in the first place are defended by the individuals and equipment they attack. The naivety rings through and potentially will be called out only when we are called to respond to an existential crisis.
The battle of Britain was a defining conflict of world war two. We collectively remain in awe at the courage, conviction and stalwart self-belief of the men and women of this great isle who faced down Nazi Germany. But we still live in a time that demands courage, resilience and sacrifice. Today, our armed forces are actively engaged in keeping Britain safe in a more volatile and more dangerous world than I have seen in 24 years of service. We are profoundly grateful for everything they do, and, indeed, for everything that everybody in this House does to remind both the population and the international community of the threats that they may face.
This anniversary reminds us that we cannot grow complacent about peace. Our military serves as our insurance policy against threats to our security and our way of life. The battle of Britain generation continues to inspire us to be strong in the face of overwhelming odds and adversity, to stand up for the values that we believe in at any cost, and to proudly defend our great nation and our western way of life. That is the best way to honour the heroes of 1940. As a fellow veteran, I particularly thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for helping us by bringing this great debate to the House today.
Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report 2024: MOD Response
Al Carns Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the MOD’s formal response to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2024 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The ombudsman’s report assessed the service complaints system and the work of her office in 2024. The response sets out MOD’s comments to the report and our view on the two new recommendations she has made.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the ombudsman brings to the service complaints system.
Part of the improvements we intend to make will be the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner in 2026, with greater and more far-reaching powers than currently possessed by the ombudsman.
Additionally, the Ministry of Defence has committed to the creation of a new tri-service complaints team to take the most serious complaints alleging bullying, harassment and discrimination out of the chain of command for the first time.
We will continue to build upon this, as part of our Government commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-09-01/HCWS891/
[HCWS891]
War Widows Recognition Payment Scheme: Closure
Al Carns Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s decision to close the war widows recognition payment scheme on 15 October 2025, in line with the original plan for the scheme to operate for a fixed period of two years.
The war widows recognition payment scheme was introduced on 16 October 2023 to recognise widow(er)s —including civil partners and unmarried cohabiting partners—of service personnel who forfeited their pensions due to a service-attributable death occurring before 2015. From the outset, the scheme was designed as a time-limited initiative to address this specific issue and to acknowledge the sacrifices made by the spouses and partners of those who gave their lives in service to our nation.
Since its launch, the scheme has successfully fulfilled its intended purpose, having awarded almost £21 million since it launched, providing meaningful recognition to those who were eligible. Following an internal review and the drop-off in application numbers, the Government are now proceeding with the planned closure of the scheme, as originally outlined at its inception.
The scheme will remain open for applications until 15 October 2025, after which no new applications will be accepted. All applications received before this date will be processed in accordance with the scheme’s existing guidelines. I strongly encourage those eligible to apply as soon as possible.
Resources will continue to be directed towards other programmes and initiatives that provide comprehensive assistance to veterans, service personnel, their families, and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, the bereaved.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have served in the armed forces and their families for their sacrifices and contributions to our country.
Further details regarding the closure of the scheme and the support available to affected individuals will be published on the Defence Business Services website and communicated directly to stakeholders.
[HCWS866]
Historical Abuse Redress Scheme: MOD Contribution
Al Carns Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Queen Victoria school is a co-educational, non-denominational, non-selective boarding school in Dunblane, Perthshire, owned and operated by the Ministry of Defence. Following investigations carried out by the Scottish child abuse inquiry, covering the years 1951 to 2021, and as result of the brave actions of former pupils and teachers in coming forward with their testimony, it is clear that lives were blighted by appalling abuse which took place at the school. I wish to pay tribute to those victims and survivors of this abuse, to thank them for their courage in coming forward, and to apologise to them for the abuse that they suffered while in our school.
In addition to the support that MOD personnel and staff at QVS have given to the inquiry, I also want to inform the House that the MOD has joined the Scottish Government redress scheme, which exists to make redress payments to people who were abused while in care as children before 1 December 2004, and some next of kin. The MOD has joined other organisations in committing to making a fair and meaningful contribution towards funding redress payments as part of overall efforts to recognise the harm suffered by individuals in our care and our failure to safeguard them.
In addition to making this statement, we have provided a letter of acknowledgment of harm which will be published on the website of the redress scheme. Details of the MOD’S financial contributions such as are appropriate in terms of protecting anonymity of claimants will be included in annual reporting by the Scottish Government.
[HCWS841]
RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit
Al Carns Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for your chairship. I welcome this fantastic debate on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit in world war two. I will not detract from the debate, which aims to recognise those individuals, by trying to score political points. We will talk about those brave men, and indeed women, who fought to protect the very freedoms we enjoy.
One of the key messages from this debate is that, if we step back and look at the current geopolitical situation, it is very fragile. Across the nation, our connection with defence is, in some cases, limited or getting less and less as the generations go on. It is really important that the stories of the PRU and other units are amplified and used as a mechanism to reconnect people in an interesting and valiant way.
If we move forward five to 10 years, and are called upon to serve nationally, it is really important that we understand where our freedoms came from, and how this great place has been collectively protected by the brave young men and women of this nation. I will make one correction to what the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) said: there were 31 veterans present in this room who served in Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did, but I did, and I would like the record to state 31 veterans, not 30.
Returning to the importance of this debate, the era of modern warfare—where satellites and drones can scrutinise enemy positions and provide intelligence, insight and understanding—reinforces the achievement of the RAF’s PRUs for the simple reason that what they did was absolutely remarkable. Back then, gathering critical evidence of enemy targets could hardly be more perilous. The men of the photographic reconnaissance units, whose job it was to fly the planes armed with nothing more than lethal cameras, suffered the second highest attrition rate of any airborne unit during the conflict.
Without the extraordinary courage of those men, we could not have traced and sunk the twin battleships, Bismarck and Tirpitz, which were the national pride of the German fleet. We could not have protected convoys of ships in the north Atlantic that were bringing critical supplies from the United States, essential to the war effort. We could not have disabled the experimental rocket works, greatly delaying the development of the V2; who knows where that would have gone, if the PRU had not provided the intelligence and allowed subsequent strikes to degrade it?
We could not have conducted the fantastic Dambusters raid, which not only held strategic value but was a huge morale boost back here in the UK. Most of all, we could not have planned D-day as successfully as we did without collecting precise photographs of German positions across the whole of the French coast. It is not only about nationally significant moments like those but the day in, day out flights on which those pilots conducted consistent regular operations over enemy-held territory. Those are just a few examples of how British airborne reconnaissance units played a fundamental role in actually winning the war. Those pilots flew mostly alone in single-engine planes, without guns to defend themselves—just heavy fuel tanks to carry them over exceptionally long distances.
Let us take ourselves out of this place today and imagine a pilot sitting on a misty airfield somewhere in middle England. With the mist coming in, they go and get in their aircraft. Prior to boarding, they have been briefed that they will go over a certain area to take photographs, but they were not told why in any way, shape or form, because if they are captured, that information would be exceptionally important to the adversary. The pilot jumps in their plane and flies over enemy territory, but there is not a wingman on their left or right, and there is a minimal escape and evasion plan should they be shot down. The pilot is on their own for hours on end, through all weathers, and often attacked by flak and other aircraft. What they did is truly brave and remarkable.
Many of them, unfortunately, did not return. In November 1942, an Air Ministry report found that PRU pilots flying single-engine planes had a 31% chance of surviving their first tour of operations. That is 300 hours. Think about having a 31% chance of surviving that. The overall PRU death rate was nearly 50%, yet those men successfully brought back more than 20 million images—transforming British intelligence gathering—whether they were operating over the Norwegian fjords or the Burmese jungle, or providing equally crucial imagery after Allied attacks to assess the accuracy and extent of bomb damage.
These pilots often flew deception operations that were tactically irrelevant but could be strategically important by diverting enemy resources and confusing enemy plans. It is also important to remember that, while that was the front end, behind them sat a huge number of interpreters and analysts, many of them women, who were employed to analyse the images brought back from those lines and interpret them for the senior command to work out what exactly they meant. Their part in the history of the PRU was an integral part of the war effort.
However, compared with many other units in our wartime armed forces, the units remain relatively unrecognised. They are commemorated as part of other main memorials, such as the RAF memorial on the Victoria Embankment, the RAF Bomber Command memorial in Green Park and the RAF Coastal Command memorial in Westminster Abbey. They are also included in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s marked graves, but a dedicated national memorial would be a fitting way to recognise the scale of their vital contribution to defeating the Nazis.
I know this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is passionate about, and I thank her for securing a debate that helps to acknowledge the wider requirement for defence to connect with society and for society to connect with defence and recognise why it is so important. More widely, her voice is also important in raising the profile of this memorial campaign. It is one small step but, collectively with lots of other stuff that is going on, it is a really important narrative that I am sure both sides of the House support and champion.
I particularly congratulate the hard work and perseverance of the Spitfire AA810 Project in progressing the memorial campaign. The group carries that name for a good reason—Spitfire AA810 was a specially modified reconnaissance aircraft used by the PRU, completing 14 long-range operational sorties during six months of service during the war. When we consider that those sorties might have been five hours long, predominantly over highly-guarded enemy territory, Spitfire AA810 had a significantly longer career than many other planes in the fleet—and fortunately so.
However, on 5 March 1942, on its way to catch sight of the Tirpitz, Spitfire AA810 was attacked by two Messerschmitts and crashed into the Norwegian mountains. Pilot Alastair ‘Sandy’ Gunn, who was mentioned earlier, managed to eject himself before impact, but he was badly burned. He was forced to hand himself in to the Germans, who sent him to the infamous Stalag Luft III, where he was part of the breakout immortalised in the film “The Great Escape”. The PRU is actually recognised in almost all such films. The imagery, intelligence and operations that took place were all underpinned by the PRU.
Sandy was eventually caught after that great escape. He was interrogated by the Gestapo and, tragically, shot. However, that was not the end of the aircraft’s story. Spitfire AA810 was recovered in 2018 from the Norwegian site where it had lain for 76 years. Fortunately, much of that aircraft had been preserved by peat and snow, so it presented a unique opportunity for restoration and rebuild back to an airworthy state. That has been taking shape over recent years.
Let me address some of the questions that right hon. and hon. Members have raised, and in particular, respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on the campaign for a national memorial. I wish the project every success; it has my full support. With a prominent and fitting location chosen outside the Churchill War Rooms here in Westminster, it will be an exemplary addition to London’s memorials.
For the record, I have to state that the funding of such memorials remains a preserve of public subscriptions, driven by individuals and organisations. In line with the long-standing policy position of successive Governments, Ministers cannot support them in an official capacity, but in a personal one, I absolutely support it. I have written to the chief executive of the Royal Parks charity and Tony Hoskins of the Spitfire AA810 Project to express my hope that the plans for a Westminster memorial are successful. My hon. Friend can rely on me personally for that. I can only re-emphasise that conviction here today, and assure her that we welcome the efforts of all those who are working to get the memorial built.
Regarding the names from the PRU, I support a meeting with MOD officials to see what we can do. The National Archives is the main route, but if we have exhausted those records, I would be really interested to look at where else records are, or whether the MOD can help. It will be riddled with GDPR issues, I am sure, but we can talk through it and see whether we can find a solution or come up with some innovative way to make that information available.
Let me also address the question of how long it will take to get the memorial. Interestingly, this is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, so I will write to ensure that my support is registered. I know that it is a private issue, but I also know that the Department is tracking and moving this forward, so I will make sure that I give it a nudge. I will write to the Department personally, if I can, to make sure we support it.
I am not going to devalue this debate. It is about the PRU. Given that it is just a matter of weeks since we commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it is time that the PRU’s contribution to victory in the second world war and to almost every battle is fully recognised, and that a national memorial ensures that we always remember not just the heroes in the stories but why we have a defence capability in the first place. It is an absolutely fantastic initiative, which gets my full support. It helps us to understand the men and women who helped to serve our country and who sacrificed so much, and importantly, what was required to protect our democracy and the great freedoms we enjoy in this nation today.
Defence
Al Carns Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
The scheme will be open for one year, but I want to be absolutely clear, as I have been with the previous and current heads of Fighting With Pride, and assure all LGBT veterans that, if they are eligible and apply, they will receive their payment.
[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 386WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns):
Al Carns
There were payments to 84 applicants for the dismissed or discharged payment, with each applicant receiving over £50,000. Additionally, we have made £82,000 in impact payments to 11 applicants, ranging from £1,000 to £2,000.
[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 388WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Veterans and People:
Service Police Complaints Commissioner: Annual Report 2024
Al Carns Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2024 on the Service Police complaints system. The report is published by Margaret Obi and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the delivery of her functions in her second year as commissioner. I am grateful for her work and independent oversight of the Service Police complaints system. The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the commissioner will follow once that work is complete.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-07-10/HCWS804/
[HCWS804]