Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I will indeed. In the four months that this Government have been in office we have stepped up support for Ukraine and speeded up delivery of the military aid promised. This is a Government now spending more on military aid than ever before on behalf of the UK. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for the fact that the UK is and remains united for Ukraine.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a landmark piece of legislation and a major step taken by this Government to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. Second Reading of the Bill will be later today and the commissioner will be a strong independent champion for our armed forces and their families, improving parliamentary oversight and getting to grips with the welfare issues faced by our armed forces.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for all he is doing to improve the lives of our armed forces communities. He will be aware of the deeply distressing accounts of rape and sexual assault from the Defence Committee’s report on women in the armed forces. Will he please revisit our recommendations and those of the Lyons review, so that those serious cases can be heard in civilian, not service courts?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this very serious issue. In opposition we made a commitment that murder, manslaughter and rape cases would be tried in civilian, rather than military courts. I encourage her to keep asking questions as we get closer to the armed forces Bill, which will be an opportunity to put that right.
Ukraine
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
In fairness to the Conservatives when they were in government, and to the hon. Lady’s party before the election, we were all united in the efforts to get the interest drawn down from the frozen Russian assets put into Ukrainian hands. The UK Government, before the last election and since, have been leading this work.
These are practical steps that we can take now. Whatever declaratory position the hon. Lady wants to adopt about seizing Russian assets, this is valuable additional funding that, from the new year, will be in the hands of the Ukrainian Government to spend on, in the UK’s case, the military aid that they need. That comes in addition to all the other increases that we have put in place since the election. I hope that despite the hon. Lady’s calls for going very much further, she will recognise how significant this move is and recognise that the UK is among the first of the nations to move on this. I hope she will give this House her full support when we introduce the primary legislation that will seek the parliamentary spending authority to provide this financial assistance in pursuance of a bilateral agreement that we will strike with Ukraine over how to do it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
When this Government said that our support for Ukraine was absolute, we meant it. My right hon. Friend referred to the recently signed defence export treaty between the UK and Ukraine, which will support Ukraine’s defence industrial base while helping to replenish our own stockpiles. As far as he is able, will he update the House on the treaty’s progress?
John Healey
I was proud to sign that treaty, which means that Ukraine can draw down the export credit cover and contract with UK companies. It is also a framework that, like some other frameworks the UK has put in place, other nations and their companies can use to deal with the difficulties that many face in contracting with Ukraine. The Ukrainians will use it for contracting and procuring munitions and ammunition. It will allow us to step up not just the provision but the production of essential military aid to Ukraine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I will indeed. My hon. Friend will know that our party went into the election committed to building on commitments the previous Government made on the Indo-Pacific. I want the strategic defence review to be not just the Government’s defence review, but Britain’s defence review. We are consulting military veterans, industry, academic experts and all parties in this House. I trust that, like me, he will welcome that all-party approach, particularly as he now chairs the Select Committee, and will work with us.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The SDR is welcome and needed. The previous Conservative Government left our armed forces personnel, capabilities and funding depleted. Can the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Hang fire. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the experts conducting our review will have an ongoing focus on our sovereign defence industrial base, and ensure that regions such as the north-east are pivotal in that?
John Healey
They will indeed. This is the way we can reinforce the UK’s security and economy. And yes, we can build, through the SDR, on the work that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did when he was Minister for defence procurement. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), I am really angry about the state of defence after the last Government: there are billion-pound black holes in defence plans; service morale is at record lows; and Army numbers are set to fall below 70,000 next year. We will work night and day to make our forces more fit to fight, and to make Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I genuinely will not take 13 minutes for my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our armed forces give it their all every single day for our protection. Their level of commitment and courage is, sadly, not matched by this Government. Worse, as our Defence Committee report and the reports from the Public Accounts Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) show, the Government have presided over reductions in personnel, depletion of kit and delays in new capabilities. When it comes to the biggest threat of all, war, there is not a single service that is fully ready. This did not happen overnight. This is a culmination of, to use the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), the “hollowing out” of our forces over the last 14 years. The new Defence Secretary rightly said that we are in a pre-war world. But to acknowledge that and then do nothing about it is negligent.
The world is in turmoil: war in Ukraine, conflict in the middle east, fear of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, an aggressive Russia and an unpredictable China, as well as our armed forces responding to humanitarian missions and MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests, as they did throughout the pandemic. This all makes a pre-war footing all the more urgent. This is not an exhaustive list, but when it comes to our Royal Navy there are delays to the Type 26 frigates, issues with the availability of SSNs, delays to Dreadnought and an over-reliance on RFA Fort Victoria. Our Royal Air Force has a shortfall in fixed-wing transport aircraft numbers, insufficient numbers of maritime patrol aircraft and Wedgetail airborne early warning systems, a lack of air-to-air refuelling, and a lack of ground-based air defence systems or an anti-ballistic missile capability. Our Army lacks infantry fighting vehicles, multiple launch rocket systems, Challenger tanks and armoured fighting vehicles.
We have rightly committed ammunition to Ukraine, but the £1.95 billion announced to replenish stockpiles was not ringfenced. We have heard that the Ministry of Defence is potentially using it to help offset funding shortfalls, instead of using it to restore our warfighting ability. Our lack of industrial capacity is also causing problems with replenishment in particular, as many companies, both at prime and sub-prime level, are facing challenges in scaling up. A failure to address supply chain issues represents a significant risk to production. As the PAC report from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch on the MOD’s equipment plan found, there is no credible Government plan to deliver the desired military capabilities.
As for our personnel, the Haythornthwaite review in 2022 found a net outflow of 4,660 per year from our armed forces. There are significant pinch points in cyber, digital and AI skills. Those who serve in our forces are exceptional people, but they are constantly being asked to do more with less. The result has been significantly lower morale, with recruitment and retention issues across our services and across the reserves. Our Defence Committee report notes:
“Either the Ministry of Defence must be fully funded to engage in operations whilst also developing warfighting readiness; or the Government must reduce the operational burden on the Armed Forces.”
These are difficult decisions to make, but it is obvious that the Government are not going to make them as they are limping towards electoral oblivion. Frustratingly, the Government hindered our inquiry considerably by not sharing with us the information they hold on readiness—information that used to be available. Worse still, they were unable to explain to us why this information has become classified. Bearing in mind that our allies and countries at greater risk than us share theirs, it is fair to conclude that the reason the information is not being shared is because readiness levels are far worse than even we conclude in our report.
Our conclusion, bluntly speaking, is that we are not ready for war. The recent Budget saw no increase for defence, and that is after the cuts referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Just this week, ex-defence and security chiefs said we must prepare genuinely for war. But we do not have the personnel or the kit to be ready for war. Far worse than that, we do not have the right Government in place to be ready for it either.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, let me just say that the Front-Bench contributions in this debate are longer than normal, but we will be able to finish the debate by 3 o’clock as I had indicated. The SNP will have 10 minutes, the Opposition 15 minutes and the Government 15 minutes.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman did not give way to anyone so, if he will forgive me, I will continue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made an excellent point that we have heard a change of tone from Donald Trump in recent days.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister says it is important to understand how ready our forces are, so can he tell us why key information on readiness is no longer published and why none of it was shared with our Committee?
James Cartlidge
I am happy to engage with the Committee, as I did during the week on artificial intelligence. There will always be a balance to be struck between what we can share and where we have to recognise the sensitivity of defence.
From the High North to the Mediterranean, we are deploying 20,000 service personnel from our Navy, Army and Air Force on the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender, which is one of the alliance’s largest ever training exercises. It is a valuable opportunity to strengthen interoperability between us and our allies.
I am happy to report that, as the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Warley (John Spellar) said, overnight we have had confirmation that a new defence and security co-operation agreement has been signed with Australia, which will make it easier for our armed forces to operate together in each other’s country. It will also help facilitate UK submarine crews to visit Australia as part of AUKUS.
A large number of points have been made in this debate, and I will try to take as many as I can. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and several others, particularly the right hon. Member for Warley, talked about the importance of industrial resilience, and I totally agree.
The right hon. Member for Warley made an important point about finance. We must not forget the private sector’s role in investing in defence. We have seen commentary on environmental, social and governance, on which he wants to see cross-Government work. I am pleased to confirm that, with my Treasury colleagues, we held a meeting at Rothschild’s in the City to see what more we can do, and I am confident that we will be saying more on this important point about how we make the case for investing in defence as a way of investing in peace.
UK Armed Forces
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(9 months, 1 week 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
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend put that eloquently, and he speaks with great passion and expertise on the cold war and our recent history. As he knows, in the cold war era we had the working assumption that an invasion—or certainly a confrontation—could be launched on the border in Germany very quickly. We had a huge number of forces deployed, and given that threat we spent, understandably, a higher percentage of GDP on defence. Since then, we thought we had a more peaceful era. Those illusions have been shattered by Putin, and we have all had to wake up to that. That is why we have done so much to support Ukraine and, yes, why we will do everything possible to support our armed forces.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said he wanted to ensure that
“our entire defence ecosystem is ready”
to defend, but here is the reality of our armed forces under this Government: capability delays and shortfalls, stockpile shortages, losing personnel, woeful recruitment levels, a £29 billion black hole in finances, and, as of last week, no real boost to the MOD’s budget. The Secretary of State is failing, isn’t he?
James Cartlidge
When the hon. Lady talks about procurement and delays, I would have thought she could at least recognise the support we have given to Ukraine, where we have procured an extraordinary amount of ordnance into the country to help Ukrainians to defend themselves. Much of that has been at great pace, not least from gifting, for example, our AS-90s, a whole range of munitions, and 300,000 artillery shells. Had it not been this country’s role, I think we can safely say that Russia would have been successful.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
I absolutely will. As my right hon. Friend says, the new maritime capability coalition, which I launched at Admiralty House in December, has now been joined by 10 further nations, together with Norway, who will help to ensure that Ukraine’s success in Crimea and the Black sea continues. Ukraine, a nation which has virtually no navy at all, is doing an incredible job, destroying up to 20% of Russia’s Black sea fleet.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
In the United States, additional aid to Ukraine remains stuck in the Senate and there is the potential for a shift in its political leadership later this year. Considering we are still awaiting this Government’s promised action plan for Ukraine, how assured can we be that the Secretary of State is discussing with our NATO allies all future scenarios to ensure there will be no lapse in collective military support for Ukraine?
Grant Shapps
I really hope that there can be no doubt about this Government’s commitment to Ukraine. Not only were we first with the training, but with tanks, missiles and commissioning to enable Ukraine to continue this fight in all manner of different ways. On a personal level, having had a family of three Ukrainians live with us in my house for a year, I am personally committed to this cause as well. We are doing everything possible, including working throughout the Christmas and new year period during which I had numerous conversations with my Ukrainian opposite number and others throughout its Government, to make sure we are supporting their action. It is a Ukrainian plan that is needed to win this war, not a British or American one.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—of course, he speaks with great experience. As we have been stressing, the whole point of acquisition reform is, instead of seeking exquisite platforms, to go for 80% to get them into service faster and then to have spiral development. We think that that is the future of procurement.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Dr Murrison
That is certainly my intention—I have not seen them yet but I intend to. The hon. Lady will have seen the list of 150; I think she will be disappointed about the content of those documents when she sees them, because very few of them will give us any information that will take us any further forward. But I committed to reading them and will certainly do so in the very near future.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Medical Records
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(1 year 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
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) not only for her sterling work in securing and opening this debate, but for her continued campaigning for justice for all our nuclear veterans.
For decades, our nuclear veterans, their families, campaign groups, journalists and MPs have relentlessly pursued truth and justice for those brave servicemen who bore close witness to the most devastating weapon this country ever produced. Those men were part of an experiment that secured our safety but devastated them and their families. The Minister is well aware of the countless testimonies from those willing to speak about the harm that radiation exposure has caused to them.
Cancer, heart, skeletal, dental and skin problems, difficulties conceiving, depression, personality changes, chronic headaches, mental ill health, rare genetic conditions and birth defects passed down through generations were all prevalent after taking part in those tests. That is the enduring, painful legacy of the tests those men were subjected to. Many of them still feel responsible for that pain, but they are not responsible; the Ministry of Defence is. It is the MOD that sent them to the blasts without any understanding of the protection they needed. Men stood in their shorts and vests, and were simply asked to turn their back on nuclear blasts that contaminated the land around them and instantly killed all wildlife there.
Litigation, petitions, information requests and pleas have all been sidelined by Governments who have stated that they cannot prove that those men were irradiated, and that the scientific evidence needed to prove the link between their and their families’ unexplained ill health simply does not exist. Who on earth would seriously keep up the denial that nuclear blasts do not have a negative impact on the human body? The veterans rightly suspect some kind of cover-up. Susie Boniface at the Daily Mirror, in her long campaign for the truth, has repeatedly uncovered evidence that would indicate such a cover-up—most recently, evidence that the National Radiological Protection Board report had been tampered with by officials, and past UK-Government commissioned research that contradicted the conclusions of international scientific research.
My constituent and dear friend Jack Taylor was involved in Operation Antler near Maralinga. He has files full of documents and pictures from his time there and also, sadly, mountains of dismissive letters from various Secretaries of State and Ministers. For him, like many of the nuclear veterans, it is not just about compensation; it is about recognition, truth and justice. It breaks my heart that my dear friend and others who did their duty to our country—as Jack says, a duty that has kept the world safe for decades—should be treated in such a despicable way. There is nothing worse than knowing you are telling the truth and those in authority keep telling you that you are wrong. It remains a stain on this country.
The common theme through the decades that veterans and their families have been fighting for justice is inconsistency from Government on whether the servicemen had blood and urine tests prior to and after the nuclear tests. If they did, where were the records kept and how can they be accessed?
A recent freedom of information request has shown that such records do exist, but, as usual, full details will not be released because the AWE says that it is too expensive. That is why the veterans, exhausted but not defeated, are exploring fresh legal action, but they should not have to. The veterans and their families know that full access to their medical records will show they were exposed to radiation that caused them ill health. They are therefore owed compensation.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the question is one of openness and transparency from the Ministry of Defence. Those brave servicemen, including my constituent Dennis Brooks, served this country and contributed to the safety of this nation over many decades, and they deserve answers. Many of the families and brave servicemen are now advanced in years. It would be lovely if, before they pass away, they received the answers that they and their families and children have waited so long for. The Government surely have an obligation to deliver that for the families.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention—I could not agree more. Given the anger and frustration that the families and the veterans who are still with us today feel, the Government’s answer that it will cost too much is an insult to the veterans and their families and everything that they have been through.
The UK remains the only nuclear power to deny compensation to its bomb test veterans. Does the Minister seriously think that the US, Canada, France, Fiji and Australia are all wrong to give their nuclear veterans compensation? Why must our nuclear veterans here have to continually fight every single step of the way? We often hear that the Government’s ambition is for us to be the best place in the world to be a veteran, but it is clear that that ambition does not extend to our nuclear veterans.
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for bringing this debate and for her tireless championing of the cause of nuclear test veterans. We all have nuclear test veterans in our constituencies. Many of us served with them during the initial parts of our service life; and some of us have nuclear test veterans in our own families.
We will certainly never forget the tens of thousands of service personnel scientists and civilians from the UK and her allies who participated in the British nuclear testing programme between 1952 and 1967. The test programme over 15 years represented the largest tri-service event since the D-Day landings. By equipping the UK with an appropriate nuclear capacity they helped to keep the Cold War in the fridge, preventing a third, potentially devasting, conventional war. With the threat from nuclear armed states escalating, their contribution continues to keep us safe today.
We have had some powerful contributions from Back Bench Members today. In addition to the contribution from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who speaks for the Opposition, we have heard from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Members for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I will try to respond to the points they have made in the time available, but if I am unable to do so I will certainly write to them.
When it comes to health effects, we should remember at all times that the UK atmospheric nuclear test programme experimented on weapons; it did not experiment on service personnel. Tests were carried out to contemporary radiological standards, as shown by the documented safety measures and monitoring that took place at the time.
Over the past six decades there have been four big independently conducted and analysed longitudinal cohort studies of the population at risk. The results have consistently demonstrated that cancer and mortality rates for the nuclear test veterans are similar to those serving contemporaneously in the armed forces who did not participate in the testing programmes. It is important to emphasise that those are big epidemiological studies. The results show that the cancer and mortality rates are in fact lower than for the general population. I am not going to pray that in aid, as we would expect that to be the case, given what is called the healthy worker effect, but it should give some reassurance to those who served. In corroboration, a study of mortality among US military participants in eight above-ground nuclear test series events between 1945 and 1962 was published last year. The study population was 114,270 individuals over 65 years. No health effect from participation in the tests was evidenced. In July last year, Brunel University published the results of its study into the number of chromosomal abnormalities in nuclear test veterans and their children compared with a control veteran group. It found no significant differences.
Those studies are important because, perfectly understandably, veterans may ascribe illness or abnormality to dramatic past experiences, such as witnessing a nuclear mushroom cloud, but the highly compelling evidence we have from both this country and abroad strongly suggests that they should be reassured in respect of their participation in nuclear tests between 1952 and 1967. Based on the peer-reviewed evidence, furthermore I think that we should all be responsible and measured in the language we use, even as we rightly advocate for our constituents and call for transparency, on which more anon.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On the point the Minister made about the United States tests, President Biden said in July this year:
“I have signed laws that support veterans who developed cancer and other medical conditions stemming from our World War II nuclear program.”
What science is he relying on that we are not relying on?
Dr Murrison
I am relying on the evidence that was published last year—the study of 114,000-plus veterans who have been followed up over 65 years. I cannot account for the remarks of the President of the United States. What I can do is rely rigorously on the scientific peer-reviewed evidence. Today we have heard a number of harrowing accounts from constituents, and I have my own, but at the end of the day the hon. Lady will appreciate that policy has to be based on a rigorous examination of the evidence. I believe that is what has been done in this country and, I suspect, by predecessor Governments of all political persuasions. That is the only basis on which we can proceed. May I tell the hon. Lady, who spoke powerfully, that we need to be careful about unduly alarming people who have served the country in the way we have been describing. That is not in any way to say that their concerns should be downplayed or, indeed, that we should not be transparent in the evidence we produce. I will come on to cover some of that.
I have to say that the narrative that someone is hiding files, presumably under consecutive Governments, is curious. To answer the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, I am not aware that medical records or test results have been withheld for national security reasons. I have asked again, and it has been confirmed, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment does not hold medical records for any former service personnel. It does, however, hold historical technical and scientific documentation about the UK’s nuclear testing programme in its archives. This was published as recently as September through a freedom of information request, as has been mentioned in today’s debate.
In response to the request for any documents containing the words “blood” or “urine”, the AWE returned a report containing the subject headings of 150 items. Those were reviewed and it was found that three particular documents referencing blood and urine tests were of interest. One referred to an anonymous blood test, another contained four anonymous urine tests and the last identified one individual’s blood tests. Following a request, that information was provided to the individual’s next of kin. I have looked at the subject headings and asked officials to look again at the 150 files with a view to placing those not already available to the public in the public domain. I have also asked to see them myself.
I hope that helps the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I share the House’s desire to make transparent that which can be made transparent. I hope this will put the matter beyond any possible doubt. To answer the hon. Member for Strangford directly, recently my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said categorically:
“There is no cover up”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 220.]
Indeed, I cannot see why there would be.
No personal health records are withheld from living veterans. Any medical records taken either before, during or after participation in the UK nuclear weapon tests that are held in the individual military medical records in the Government archives can be accessed on request by submitting a data subject access request. I must say, however, that any records that were made would be up to 71 years old. They would be paper, poorer-quality and perishable—not at all the auditable, searchable medical and technical records that we are used to today. Absent or incomplete records should not be taken as evidence of some sort of conspiracy.
We know that when a group of nuclear test veterans initiated a claim against the then Government in the early 2000s, the then Government denied that exposure took place and said that there were no health consequences as a result of being present at nuclear test sites. I cannot answer for the then Government but evidence since strongly supports the claim that there have been no health consequences.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Does the Minister believe the appointment of Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary strengthens or weakens the Prime Minister’s stance that China poses an “epoch-defining challenge” to global security?
James Heappey
It greatly strengthens the Prime Minister’s position.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Murrison
It was this Government who set up the review. This situation was going on from 1967 to 2000, and it was an appalling stain on all of us, so I am really pleased that, at long last, the Government have gripped it. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to be a little bit more patient, but I suspect that we will publish the report and a response very soon indeed.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government have injected more than £29 billion of additional funding into defence since 2020, investing in Army modernisation, major platforms such as Type 26, Type 31, Challenger 3 and F-35, and restocking of ammunition to ensure that we reversed the hollowing out of our armed forces that has occurred under successive Governments for the past 30 years.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but only recently the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe said that Britain is “just holding on” to its status as one of NATO’s leading members and that our Army is “too small”. A former Chief of the Defence Staff said that all of our armed forces are too small, with the Army having “significant capability deficiencies”. The Government are failing our forces, are they not?
Mr Wallace
It is interesting, because of course it was Labour that cut 19 battalions from the Army when I was serving under the hon. Member’s Government. What is important is not just that the Army is the right size but that it is an Army that is properly equipped and able to do its job. Having just numbers and non-equipment leads to the place where we had Snatch Land Rovers in Afghanistan under her Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the RAF. To fly into an airfield with unsure conditions, often in the dark and without much of an advance recce is some achievement. If you remember, Mr Speaker, we also saw the RAF do that in the large evacuation of Kabul. Alongside the RAF, a specialist unit from 16 Air Assault Brigade flew in and helped to fix the runway, which, of course, was not used to the level of demand placed on it; only Britain had that ability. That allowed a better relationship with the Sudanese armed forces and enabled the longer-term evacuation to continue. That is an example of the breadth of experience our armed forces carry.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Three of the four Atlas aircraft used in the evacuation of British nationals from Sudan are reported to have developed faults, two thirds of the incoming fleet are listed as unavailable and there remains no clarity that the fleet can perform the niche functions that our Special Air Service and Special Boat Service need. Has the Secretary of State not made a mistake in pressing ahead with ditching the Hercules fleet in their favour?
Mr Wallace
I have heard these tired arguments that what we need to do is keep the Herc and get rid of the A400. The A400 outperforms the Herc in most areas. It has a longer ranger and a bigger capacity, and it can land in the same area; in fact, it can land in a shorter distance. In the massive evacuation of Kabul, one A400 had a fault for six hours and managed to continue on its course. The A400 is performing. The migration to special forces and other capabilities is on track, with jumps having been done from it and other parts. The simple reality is that the A400 outperforms the Hercules, and its availability was extremely successful. The Hercules accounts for only 10% of the fleet, and the overall fleet for lift is now the biggest it has been for 50 years.