Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will give way to the former Defence Minister.

[Dr Murrison]

I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, but must say how sorry I am that his first outing has been to defend this load of nonsense. What does he say to the UK Statistics Authority and to the Government Actuary’s Department, which appear to have a very different view of the costing of this to the one that he has just outlined? Is it not the case that what he has said represents a load of accounting double-speak and is dubious, to put it politely and in parliamentary terms?

[Luke Pollard]

That is not quite correct. Indeed, unfortunately, this is not my first outing. My first outing was at Defence questions yesterday, supporting British jobs in the defence sector and celebrating the £10 billion frigate deal that this Government achieved. My second outing was yesterday afternoon with the statement on the defence industrial strategy, making the case for more investment in British businesses. My third outing, though, is here today, securing the most vital military base that the UK and the US operate together. It is absolutely right that, as part of it, we present the costings to Parliament. It is also precisely right that those are reviewed properly by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. That has happened, and that is why we have been able to use the figures with certainty. The costings are also entirely consistent with the Green Book.

The Green Book point is a useful one to dwell on for one moment, because if the policy of the Conservative party is not to use Green Book calculations for long-term investments—the same Green Book used for costings of our nuclear deterrent or pensions—I want to understand how much spending the Opposition are now committing to. In how many other examples would the Green Book no longer apply? What are their new accounting principles and what would be the increased cost to the public purse? How many more people will pay increased taxes, because of their disapplication of the Green Book principles? Those are entirely fair questions. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), signed the reasoned amendment, so surely he would be able to say how many other areas the Green Book no longer applies to. Perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers will be able to specify any other areas that they no longer believe that the Green Book applies to. We calculated our figures based on the Green Book, and that is why we are confident in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister of State has met a full range of groups, including the group mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Murrison]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

For the last time, and then I need to conclude my remarks.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. He was pressed earlier, but I would like to press him again on the social time discounting method. He should be able to give examples of big projects to which his Government have applied this method. Could he now do that and say why, for example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not use that method when she was calculating the cost of the 10-year affordable housing programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I understand the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I hope that he appreciates my argument that the calculation is based on the OBR’s inflation and deflation figures and on the social time preference rate. It is a figure that has been calculated and supported by the OBR, and it stands up to scrutiny. If Conservative Members are saying that they no longer wish to use the Green Book for calculating long-term investments like this, which is their inferred argument, then it is worth looking at what they are suggesting that we no longer use the Green Book to calculate—they are making an awfully large spending commitment when they suggest that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have not heard our Five Eyes allies speak about it being a good way of effectively securing any national interest whatsoever—the concept of leasehold is completely wrong.

[Dr Murrison]

The Government are clearly not going to take any lessons from us, but I wonder whether they would listen to one of their own. Lord West of Spithead was a Security Minister under the previous Labour Administration and then First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, so he knows a thing or two. He has said very clearly that in his expert opinion, this deal is “irresponsible” and that it will damage our strategic interests. Who are we to believe: the Labour party or my old boss, Lord West?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

There is something fundamental here about the negotiations—I think the Minister alluded to this earlier on. The Government were effectively just listening to leftie lawyers and advisory judgments and acting because they were frightened that their left-wing lawyer friends would pursue even more lawfare against us. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Our view is that, without this deal, it was inevitable that Mauritius would pursue and secure a legally binding judgment against the UK. Indeed, legally binding provisional measures could also have been secured within weeks”.

The Government have never—not once—detailed what the legal threat is beyond hiding behind spurious aspects of international law.

I have to say that it is a defeatist attitude that Labour has taken. Britain is Europe’s leading defence power, a pillar of NATO in Europe and a P5 member of the UN Security Council with a right of veto. We are not bound by advisory judgments pursued by Mauritius at the ICJ—which, by the way, included a judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist party. By being vocal in conceding defeat and unwilling to defend Britain from a barrage of lawfare, Labour has let Britain’s standing on the world stage plummet, and its decisions will have serious consequences for us.

Let us talk about the money. We all know that this Labour Government are big spenders when it comes to splashing about taxpayers’ money, and the costs of Labour’s surrender treaty are astronomical at £34.7 billion—a figure which, by the way, we had to drag out of the Government Actuary’s Department because Labour Ministers repeatedly refused to disclose the cash payments when asked. In fact, because the payments are linked to inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) has pointed out, guess what? The cash cost could be even higher. That means higher taxes for our constituents, which is nothing for those on the Labour Benches to crow about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about UNCLOS and in highlighting the insecurities and serious challenges. It may be forthcoming, but at this stage we do not know what levels of protection will be provided or will continue. We do not know what level of resource Mauritius will put into the MPA or what the UK will contribute.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The answer is none, because Mauritius has no navy and practically no coastguard. With which means will Mauritius defend a territory that is hundreds of kilometres away? It cannot possibly do so.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has summed it up, and it is not just that Mauritius is unable to do so; it clearly will not be interested in this whole area.

It is important for the House to reflect on that point. After decades of investment in and support for the MPA, there is now a major issue of jeopardy. We do not know at this stage what the governance arrangements will be. In fact, in response to questions about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) at the Environmental Audit Committee in April, the Minister, Baroness Chapman, said:

“It will belong to the Government of Mauritius, and they will make decisions about how they protect the seas around the Chagos archipelago… You want more detail than we have… We and the Government of Mauritius want to see the marine protected area continue, but I do not know what the precise nature of it will be.”

What we do know is that the Fisheries Minister of Mauritius, Dr Boolell, is eyeing up the marine protected area to exploit it. He boasted to his National Assembly on 7 February that he wants to issue fishing and trawler licences. He declared that

“what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing licence for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos”.

This issue has been raised extensively in the Foreign Affairs Committee, with no Minister being able to give any assurances. If the Bill passes and the treaty is implemented, the unique marine environment will be put at risk.

I will briefly touch on two areas. Another part of the Chagos surrender Bill that should concern the House is its Henry VIII clause. Clause 5 grants the Government a free hand, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny, decisions or authority, to

“make any provision that appears to his Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.

That could mean the Government making further concessions to the Government of Mauritius. With the treaty making provision for a joint commission with the UK and Mauritius, that could take place without anyone in this House having any sight or knowledge of it. We need a clear commitment from the Minister in his winding-up speech what those measures will be or will he rule out on the Floor of the House that any further concessions will be made to the Government of Mauritius?

In conclusion, this Bill, its six shameful clauses and the treaty it partly implements are a damning indictment of the failures of this Labour Government. It surrenders sovereignty of a land we own to a foreign Government, increasingly allied and growing closer to countries that are not our allies and which pose the biggest threats to our national security and defence. It binds the hands of British taxpayers into paying £35 billion—a surrender tax. It puts the interests and demands of a foreign country and left-wing lawyers above our national interests. It leaves our country poorer, weaker and less able to defend our interests from foreign threats and it undermines our standing in the world.

Labour’s Chagos surrender deal is an epic failure of diplomacy and an expensive humiliation for Britain. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will continue to stand up for Britain’s national interests and our defence and security. We will fight for our sovereignty, we will defend British taxpayers by opposing Labour’s surrender tax and, we will make the case for the British Chagossians to have their rights safeguarded and the marine protected area preserved. We will oppose this Bill and fight this treaty every step of the way.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work that takes place at Scotstoun. In both Govan and Scotstoun, we have an incredible workforce building the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigate, and I am very glad that they have been getting such a lot of attention since the Norway deal, because they deserve it. The skills academy that BAE has built on the Clyde, as well as the skills academy it has built in Barrow for the submarine build work, are best in class. They really provide an opportunity to skill people up for a lifetime of opportunity, and they are precisely the types of investments that we want to see more defence companies make. I will take her question as an early bid for one of those colleges. I look forward to continuing work with her and other Glasgow MPs on how we make the most of the Type 26 project.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Swedish Archer self-propelled gun is in the process of replacing the AS-90, and it will itself be replaced by the German Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 system. Can the Minister say when the in-service date of the Howitzer will be? How much UK componentry will be in it? How many UK jobs does he anticipate will be generated by it?

[Luke Pollard]

It is entirely right that we donated the AS-90 platforms; nearly all of them are now in operation with our Ukrainian friends. That was the right decision, which was originally taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s own party, supported by the Labour party. It is right that we have transferred those. The Archer is a good platform that will provide interim capability; I can get him the stats, and I will write to him with further details. It is absolutely right that we equip our forces with the latest technologies and do so where possible by procuring with our allies to reduce the R&D costs and increase the real benefit from them.

Ukraine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a lesson from Ukraine that we have to take seriously: when a country is faced with conflict or is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. Part of the significance of the frigate deal with Norway is that this will reinforce our British shipbuilding, our British innovation and our British technology base across the UK and especially in Scotland for many years to come.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?

[John Healey]

The Government’s position is that we are discussing the nature of security guarantees and the contribution that we can help lead through the coalition of the willing, alongside any American support, and together that is part of the configuration of making Ukraine strong and creating the circumstances in which serious negotiations, and we hope a peace agreement, can be reached.

Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan.

It is an honour to open today’s debate as we come together as a House and as a country to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, which brought an end to fighting in the far east. The anniversary will be commemorated on 15 August. On 15 August 1945, King George VI delivered a speech to the nation and the Commonwealth, saying,

“now we shall have to work hard to restore what has been lost, and to establish peace on the unshakable foundations”.

Eighty years on, we remember the British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth veterans—the second world war generation who gave so much, and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure our freedom and peace. To them, we say thank you.

VE Day 1945 marked the end of the second world war in Europe, but thousands of British, Northern Irish and Commonwealth troops continued to battle against Japanese forces in Asia and the Pacific. Three months later, victory over Japan was declared on 15 August, following Japan’s agreement to surrender unconditionally to the allies. The Prime Minister of the day, Clement Attlee, gave a radio broadcast to announce the end of hostilities, declaring:

“Japan has today surrendered. The last of our enemies is laid low.”

Eighty years on, this Government recognise the huge importance of commemorating this anniversary. VJ Day is a moment to reflect on the remarkable perseverance and bravery shown by those who fought, or endured, the war in the far east.

The human cost of the second world war was overwhelming. It led to death and destruction for millions of people. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities—one on Hiroshima on 6 August and the other three days later on Nagasaki—resulted in enormous devastation, bringing the six-year global conflict to a rapid end and introducing the atomic age. The end of the war brought sadness, relief, and renewed hope that families and soldiers who had long been separated would soon be reunited. However, it would take months and much effort to bring British service personnel back home.

Shortly after VE Day, we saw the liberation of Jersey and Guernsey on 9 May, and Alderney on 16 May. It was a huge honour to visit Jersey and Sark this year for the celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Liberation Day. The story of the islands is one of perseverance, which I was grateful to hear more about when I attended a number of commemoration events there, but the period of time from May 1945 through to VJ Day on 15 August was a period of suffering. Tens of thousands of service personnel from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth fought and gave their lives, including thousands of allied troops who were taken as prisoners of war and forced into hard labour. Many allied prisoners of war in Japanese captivity died before liberation in August 1945. Those individuals experienced unimaginable suffering, including starvation and disease, and their memory and sacrifice must not be forgotten.

Alongside the British armed forces, hundreds of thousands served in the far east from countries including pre-partition India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nepal, and from east and west Africa. The British Pacific fleet worked in parallel with our US allies, making the second world war an international effort.

This year’s commemorations to mark VJ Day have been, and will continue to be, led by those with first-hand experience of the war. We acknowledge the importance of this, as this year is likely to be the last significant anniversary at which veterans who served in the second world war are present. The Government are honoured to be working closely with the Royal British Legion to put veterans front and centre of the VJ Day commemorations. I take this opportunity to thank the partners who have worked with us throughout this commemorative year, including the Royal British Legion, Imperial War Museums, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the National Theatre, Arts Council England, Historic Royal Palaces, the Together Coalition, the Big Lunch, Atlantic Productions, the BBC and the National Lottery Community Fund.

I also thank officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and from the Ministry of Defence. Of course, we have been working across Government, and in particular with the Ministry of Defence. I am joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I have worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Coaker, who is with us this evening.

As living history fades into the past, it is more important than ever that we listen to the stories of the remaining veterans who fought for their country in that conflict. The diverse armies that fought together for our freedom reflect the very fabric of modern Britain. The national commemorations will commence with a Government reception to celebrate and commemorate VJ Day with veterans. On Friday 15 August, the Royal British Legion will lead the nation in honouring and remembering those who fought and died during the war in the far east, with a service marking the 80th anniversary of VJ Day. That will take place at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire and will be broadcast live on BBC One from midday. It will pay tribute to British, Northern Irish, Commonwealth and allied veterans who served in the far east theatres of war, the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories.

With veterans in attendance, the VJ service will be a tribute to them, involving 400 members of the armed forces, and the Red Arrows. The event will feature a guard of honour of the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. Music will be provided by military bands, and the battle of Britain memorial flight will lead a breathtaking flypast. The national two-minute silence will be held on Friday 15 August at midday to remember and thank those who fought for our freedom. The silence will be marked by all UK Government Departments, which will also fly the Union flag at full mast.

The Government continue to support and promote a range of initiatives to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the ending of the second world war throughout the year, to Remembrance Sunday and beyond. To mark VJ Day specifically, the Imperial War Museum will screen a short film, “I Saw the World End”, produced by Es Devlin, to commemorate the dropping of the atomic bombs. There is a new augmented reality experience offering a deeper exploration of the second world war in Asia and the Pacific. Children and families will be welcomed to the museum’s sites in London and the north to participate in making paper cranes as a symbol of peace.

We continue to promote a range of educational and cultural activities to help schools and communities to engage with the 80th commemorations designed to mark both VE and VJ Day, including: “Our Shared Story”, a collection of educational resources; “Letters to Loved Ones”, a project encouraging people to share family letters from the war to illustrate what everyday life was like—it was lovely to discover some of my grandparents’ letters from when my grandad, Bobby, who I am very proud of, was serving in the RAF during the war; and “The Next Morning”, a new production written by James Graham that focuses on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the second world war.

The Government have provided funding to support arts centres, libraries and museums across the country to work with their local communities to develop activities that commemorate and reflect the VE and VJ Day anniversaries. I look forward to visiting one such project in my area, taking place at the Barnsley Civic, to hear more about its work exploring community solidarity in Barnsley from the 1940s to the present day.

My Department has been working with the Common-wealth War Graves Commission on the “For Evermore Tour”, which is travelling across the UK and global sites including cemeteries in Kenya, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. The tour will honour and shine a light on stories from those across the world who fought in the second world war, and I was grateful for the opportunity to see the tour at first hand in May. UK landmarks, high commissions in Commonwealth countries and prominent memorials will be lit up in white on 15 August as beacons of strength and national unity, as they were 80 years ago.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

We have just been through the centenary of the great war. Does the Minister agree that the difference between 80 years and 100 is that we still have veterans among us? Sadly, when we come to the centenary of the events we are commemorating this year, that will not be the case. Will she therefore make absolutely sure that it is the veterans who are centre stage during this commemoration?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I hope I have outlined this in my contribution, but I reiterate that we want veterans to be front and centre of these commemorations.

Importantly, commemorative activity is taking place across the UK, with each of the devolved Governments marking VJ Day 80. The Scottish Government will be leading a concert at Edinburgh castle, where I recently visited the national war memorial. In Northern Ireland, a charity concert will take place in Lurgan, and I was pleased to visit the area a few months ago when I was invited by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I recently visited Cathays cemetery in Cardiff to see the work it carries out to honour the Commonwealth war graves. National wreath-laying at the Wales national war memorial will lead a programme in Wales centred on peace and reconciliation.

Those are just some of the events taking place across our devolved nations, and together they reflect a shared commitment to remembrance and recognition across the UK. More than 144 commemorations are taking place across the nation throughout August to mark VJ Day, from those that I have already mentioned to services in Lichfield and Norwich cathedrals, which the public are encouraged to join. We commemorate the end of the second world war throughout the year, and not only on VE Day on 8 May or VJ day on 15 August; troops returned home gradually throughout the year until Alderney’s Homecoming Day on 15 December.

The strength and courage of those who fought are truly unmatched, and the horror that they suffered as prisoners of war in the far east is unimaginable. Strength is what we remember about VJ veterans: their unshakable resilience, determination, service and sacrifice in unimaginable circumstances, and the way in which they came together to support one another long after the war had ended. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in expressing our deep gratitude to our great second world war generation. We come together in the House in a moment of unity today to mark 80 years since victory over Japan, in awe of those who gave more than many of us will ever have to give.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law.

Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information.

The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today.

To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing?

[Luke Pollard]

That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.

Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.

Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.

Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.

More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We do indeed, and we are putting in extra funds and greater support to deal with the problem of homeless veterans. I am happy to thank and pay tribute to the Ancre Somme Association for its part in a successful Armed Forces Day parade and celebration in Falkirk. I pay tribute to all the volunteers right across the country who made our local Armed Forces Day events possible. We pay tribute to the regulars, the reservists, the veterans, the cadets and the armed forces families, but it is the volunteers who help us make these events happen.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

With basing becoming longer-term and more predictable, and with most young people wanting to buy rather than rent their home, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the success of Forces Help to Buy? What plans does he have to extend it?

[John Healey]

Unfortunately, Forces Help to Buy really has not kept pace either with demand or with the success of civilian programmes. It is part of the forces housing review that I have launched, which I expect to report in the autumn. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the aspirations of those who serve and who join the services are exactly the same as for every other working person in this country. We should try to make that part of the contract that this nation makes with those who will serve in future.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am not sure I quite understood that question, Mr Speaker. What I can say, though, is that we do not normally confirm or deny where nuclear weapons might be stored. It is not something that we have ever done. I think that is what the hon. Member was asking, but I am not absolutely sure. I would be happy to speak to her afterwards if I have got that question wrong.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Have any alternative platforms been considered for the potential delivery of a tactical nuclear weapon? In particular, have the Government looked at the Astute class attack submarine as an alternative or additional platform, or at its successor, the SSN-AUKUS?

[Maria Eagle]

We are not seeking to widen our range of nuclear capability. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission and contributing to that. As I said earlier, this is not some kind of stepping stone to acquiring tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrent is our submarine-operated continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD—and that is how it will continue.

National Armaments Director

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently, and I have also made it. The Minister will have heard and, hopefully, she might have something positive to say when she responds to the debate.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that the situation is even worse than he has outlined? Inflationary pressures bear far more heavily on defence than on, with the possible exception of healthcare, practically any other part of public spending, yet I see no evidence in the defence review or anywhere else over the past 12 months of that being properly accounted for by Ministers or those who advise them.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My right hon. Friend must have read my mind; when I come on to submarines, I will mention that very factor of inflation in defence costs.

The MOD is being reorganised into four sections: there will be a permanent secretary in charge of the Department; the chief of the defence organisation will be in charge of all personnel matters; there will be a new national armaments director in charge of all matters to do with procurement, digital and research, including all the matters to deal with what is now in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation; and there is of course the Defence Nuclear Organisation. This debate is focused on the national armaments director, whose appointment has been ongoing since it was announced on 17 December 2024. I am hopeful that the Department might soon be in a position to announce who they have selected to do the job, which I have to say is very prestigious and very large, with a very large £400,000 salary attached.

As I said, the national armaments director will be responsible for all defence procurement and all of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, including defence housing, as well as digital and research. This represents a huge part of the defence budget. He will have significantly more control over the acquisition process than hitherto. I hope that some of the Government’s announcements will come to fruition, including that on reducing the time it takes to award a contract to a two-year maximum, which the Department hopes to do by involving industry at a much earlier stage in the process, to help to solve problems. Rather than over-specifying on requirements, this should streamline things and simplify the contracts. It should also allow our defence sector to export more equipment to the international market, which will in turn support even more jobs in the sector.

One contract that demonstrates the weaknesses in our procurement strategy was that for the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme, which was contracted to General Dynamics. The contract was the subject of many Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee inquiries and of many urgent questions. It was originally contracted in 2011 for delivery in 2017, then deferred to 2020-21. As we all know, the trials were halted due to safety concerns, and the contract was renegotiated for 2024. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when all 180 vehicles will be in operation?

General Dynamics was also awarded the infamous Morpheus battlefield radio system contract, which has cost £828 million so far. Will the Minister confirm that it is currently in the evolve-to-open transition partnership, and when its in-service date is likely to be? It was intended to replace the existing Bowman communications system by 2026, but that will now have to be extended with modifications to at least 2031, and possibly to 2035. That may leave a capability gap in our defence system. I think the whole House would appreciate an update on where we are with our tri-service battlefield communications system, and how it could be accelerated.

Another contract that should receive more scrutiny is the E-7 Wedgetail early-warning and control aircraft. Although the SDR says that we will procure further units, and share the costs with our NATO allies, the Pentagon has labelled the E-7 “expensive”, “gold-plated” and

“not survivable in the modern battlefield”.

Again, we would be grateful for further detail from the Minister on that contract.

As I said to the Minister in my question on today’s statement, I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to buying more F-35 aircraft—12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs. The F-35A capability will be an alternative to our seaborne nuclear capability. Another huge commitment as part of the SDR is the one to invest in up to 12 new SSN-AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines. The submarines are due to be in operation in the 2030s and 2040s, with one being built every 18 months, but there are huge challenges ahead due to it being a new class of submarine and concerns with the lack of capacity at Barrow-in-Furness. No cost per submarine has ever been disclosed, and the programme is likely to take more than 10 years, so we really need to see some of the detail. Is the deal underpinned by the Government’s eventual commitment to increase expenditure to 3% in the next Parliament? We need to be able see whether it is feasible.

Speaking of long in-service dates, as I was in respect of the F-35s earlier—and the Minister agreed—we need to see the early work on feasibility and contracts beginning as soon as possible to meet the long tail into the buying, building and commissioning of the submarines.

This strategically important contract will, when costs are announced, need leadership from the national armaments director to ensure that it remains on track and on budget, unlike so many others before it. The Public Accounts Committee has asked for an update by the end of June 2026, which will demonstrate how well defence procurement has improved under the first year of the national armaments director group. The renewed focus on nuclear is important when looking at the ever-increasing nuclear enterprise budget. In 2024, the budget was £10.9 billion, which is about 18% of the whole budget. The 10-year defence nuclear enterprise costs have increased by £10 billion from £117.8 billion to £128 billion, and it is not clear whether the extra £15 billion announced in the SDR that has been committed to the warhead is included in that figure.

The budget is rising due to various factors, including technical factors, inflation, and the speed of manufacturing at which we now need to build these submarines to meet the timetable that is absolutely necessary for our defence. The budget is one of the few that is left unscrutinised due to the sensitive nature of these contracts, but as Chairman of the PAC, I am constitutionally obliged to see the detail. This needs to be resolved, and I am grateful for the commitment of the Secretary of State in working towards a solution. Sensitive scrutiny has never been more important, due to the context of the figures I announced earlier.

Defence personnel is another focus of the defence budget. The budget has had to increase by £14.3 billion to pay for the Treasury’s employer’s national insurance tax rise. The number of people leaving the armed forces is far too high. Last year, for every 100 personnel we recruited to the Army, we lost 130. This is completely unsustainable, especially as the SDR commits to increasing our armed forces to 76,000. The PAC recently held a session on cadet and reserve forces, and the SDR again clarifies that the Government want to increase the number of cadets by 30% and, critically, of reservists by 20%. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how much that will cost.

We need to make joining the armed forces a much more attractive option than it currently is. Frankly, a prisoner would get better and safer conditions than some of the defence housing I have seen, much of which has mould, rust and leaks. This must change if we want to improve the retention and recruitment of our armed forces by giving them a better package of remuneration and conditions of service. I welcome the £1.5 billion to improve defence housing as part of the SDR and the £6.1 billion spent to repurchase 35,000 homes following the landmark deal with Annington Homes. This will allow the MOD to undertake major improvement schemes.

Another recruitment issue is the length of time it takes to enrol service personnel into training. We used to have an armed forces recruitment centre on every high street in the country. People could walk in off the streets, sign up and be wearing a new uniform within two weeks. There are now stories of recruitment taking well over six months, which is simply not good enough. We need to look further afield to ensure that the military has the right skills for the future. Cyber-warfare is becoming an increasing and real threat, and I believe the MOD could do more to recruit those with artificial intelligence and digital skills, but who would not necessarily meet the medical and fitness entry requirements needed for normal military personnel.

[Dr Murrison]

Would my hon. Friend comment on the Government’s enthusiasm or otherwise for the Haythornthwaite review of careers in the armed forces? It was put in train by and carried out under the last Government, but we hear tell that there has perhaps been some backsliding since. That is a pity, as Rick Haythornthwaite’s review was magisterial and had already shown signs, through zig-zag careers and the spectrum of service, of being appealing to servicemen and servicewomen, and holding them in—both in the regulars and the reserves. It would be a pity if that process did not continue on the basis of not-made-here-itis.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I cannot tell what is on the Government’s mind, but maybe the Minister will be able to tell us. However, given that the SDR makes it perfectly clear that they want to increase the numbers of our armed forces considerably, we have to consider every aspect of recruiting and retaining more. We must make sure that they do not just leave the Army or the armed forces as soon as they get particular skills. My right hon. Friend has raised a really important issue.

In conclusion, there is no greater duty on a Government than defending the nation, yet all Members of this House and the general public need to have confidence that our armed forces are properly equipped to do the job. That does not mean we can complacently give in to every demand, and it is the role of PAC members to carefully scrutinise the defence budget. Wasted spending and shortfalls are stopping our armed forces keeping us safe in the most efficient and effective ways. It is therefore imperative that the MOD releases more information on its finances in a timely manner, so that we can thoroughly scrutinise it and thus assure Parliament that our armed forces can do their job in the most effective way, with world-beating equipment.

UK Military Base Protection

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

As there is an ongoing counter-terrorism inquiry into the activities of Palestine Action, which conducted a direct attack on UK military assets at a time of heightened tensions, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the full details. I will say to my hon. Friend, though, that the proscription of Palestine Action has been considered for a long time by my colleagues in the Home Office. It is a decision that they have taken after considering the facts—those in the public domain and those, perhaps, held privately. We are certain that this is the right course of action to keep our country safe in these difficult times.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My constituents in military establishments around Salisbury plain will not see this as an act of vandalism. They will see it as criminal damage. They will see it as sabotage. They will see it as terrorism. The Minister, who I respect, does himself no good by trying to downplay its seriousness.

There are 2,900 Ministry of Defence policemen in the country. In recent years, they have been employed largely in investigating relatively low-level fraud within the Ministry of Defence and in military establishments across the country, with a relatively low conviction rate. Does the Minister agree that they would be much better employed looking after our critical national infrastructure and military bases up and down the land, including those in my constituency, and will he consider ensuring that warranted officers are able to do a job of work for the MOD that cannot be done by regional forces? I am very confident that they would welcome the challenge.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member, who I also have a lot of time for. At no point have I sought to downplay the activities of Palestine Action. Indeed, today the Government have taken the strong step of proscribing Palestine Action, precisely because its activities are a threat to our national security. It is for that reason that the Home Secretary has made her decision.

In relation to the military bases near the right hon. Member’s constituency in Salisbury plain, and indeed to those in the constituency that I represent in Plymouth, the review of our security arrangements covers all military bases. From the Defence Secretary to the Chief of the Defence Staff and others in the Ministry of Defence, we are looking carefully at what lessons can be learned, what improvements can be put in place and—noting the conclusion of the strategic defence review that we need to invest more in this area—how we can implement the findings of the SDR as quickly as we can.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s points about policing, I would be very happy to discuss them further with him, because I know he is an expert in this area.