Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I say to the hon. Lady, who has been consistent in that line of questioning, that one person homeless is one person too many. It is important to emphasise that most people leave the armed forces in a very good position, with skills that will advance their careers in civilian life. I do not want her giving the impression that people are damaged as a result of the service that they have given; the very reverse of that is the case. We will of course continue to support veterans, charities and initiatives to ensure that, particularly in places such as naval base port areas and garrison towns, we house everybody who needs accommodation.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Britain’s world-leading motor sports industry is worth at least £10 billion annually to the UK economy. The sport’s governing body, Motorsport UK, has proudly sponsored access to military venues for many years, but despite recently signing the armed forces covenant, that access appears to be diminishing. Will the Minister please agree to meet me, and perhaps the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, to discuss better third-party revenue-generating opportunities for the MOD estate?

Defence

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with those on his own Front Bench, because the Department is at the moment planning a fresh review, whatever the outcome—[Interruption.] Yes, it is, whatever the outcome of the election. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that the 2030 target is not in the Government’s financial plans; it is in a press release. We cannot rebuild the UK’s armed forces, let long-term procurement contracts, deter those who threaten us or defeat Putin with press releases. If this 2030 plan had been in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly costed and fully funded, but it is not and it was not. There are more holes in the Defence Secretary’s numbers than there is in Emmental cheese. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called the £75 billion figure “essentially meaningless”. The Institute for Government has said that the Conservatives’ 2.5% plan does not add up, and that cutting 70,000 civil servant jobs will get nowhere close to delivering the savings needed to fund 2.5%.

To produce his fake figure of £75 billion, the Secretary of State has invented a zero-growth baseline for the next six years, unlike and in contrast with the Treasury’s official 0.5% real annual growth baseline. To get 2.3% as a different baseline for the annual increases in his plan on page 20 in the annex of his report, which he likes to parade, he has added all the one-off spending this year to the defence core budget—that is £3 billion for Ukraine, £1 billion for the nuclear contingency, half a billion pounds for operations and £300 million for ammunition, all in the figures for each of the next six years. Finally, the Secretary of State has used a trick that the Government tried before, in the 2015 defence strategic review, when Ministers pledged to cut 30% of MOD civil servants just to make their spending plans add up. However, after 2015 and that plan, civil service numbers in the MOD of course did not go down to 41,000; they went up to 63,000.

The new promised increase to defence core budgets will not start until April next year. For the next 10 months, day-to-day budgets in real terms are still being cut, the Army is still being cut and recruitment targets are still being missed. Nine out of 10 of the veterans promised a veterans ID card by the end of last year are still missing out, and around 500 veteran households are being made homeless every three months.

Our armed forces cannot afford another five years of the Conservatives. With threats increasing and tensions growing, we must make Britain better defended. Labour’s plan for defence will reinforce homeland protections with a new strategic review. [Interruption.] It will fulfil NATO obligations in full, with a NATO test on our major programmes.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I am finishing off now; the hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak.

Labour’s plan will renew the nation’s contract with those who have served through an independent forces commissioner. It will make allies our strategic strength, with new French, German and EU defence agreements, and renewed UK leadership within the AUKUS alliance. It will direct British defence investment first to British jobs with deep procurement reform. Labour is the real party of defence. With Labour, Britain will be better defended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful for that opportunity, but I have previously declined it for various reasons. I will get into that in a wee bit more detail and, although the hon. Member may not agree with me, I may want to reflect on some of the profound experiences that we saw in that report. I am afraid that we would not hear those things talked about on the armed forces parliamentary body. I am talking about ordinary service personnel, in private meetings with parliamentarians as part of a Committee inquiry, talking about the dreadful conditions that they suffer because of their gender, sex, sexuality or ethnicity. Some of it has been like a revolving door.

[James Sunderland]

I spent 27 years of commissioned service in the British Army. The hon. Member does the British Army a disservice.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I recall the hon. Gentleman chairing the Armed Forces Bill Committee during the pandemic, when we heard some really profound and challenging evidence. I do not think that he and I would disagree that it was challenging. The report from the hon. Member for Wrexham, a former reservist, was challenging. It was the bare reality of what many members of the armed forces had to go through. I am sure that he was in the Chamber when members of Pride were here to hear the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT members of the services. That happened; it is not a figment of the imagination. It does not say anything about the abilities and capabilities of the vast majority of the armed forces.

To me it is more about the structure. How different it would be if we had a body in which members of the armed forces, elected by their peers, could engage with any Government in the future. We would then be in a far better position to have that debate and to actually target support where it is needed. I have not yet heard a convincing argument against that.

I am glad that the official Opposition have a policy on this matter. It might not be one that I think is appropriate, but it is a reflection that the time has now come to have some type of body to take up that physical challenge. I believe that their example is from Germany, but I am also mindful of the example of the Kingdom of the Netherlands—one of our closest military allies—where a member of the armed forces could also be the general secretary of a trade union. Having a distinct armed forces trade union does not stop them carrying out their duties as members of the armed forces.

One or two of our NATO allies have unions and actually have the right to strike, although that is not somewhere I would be going in terms of policy. I just think that having such a union is critical, given some of the conditions that members of the armed forces and their families have faced over many years. We have heard about them in Select Committee reports, in debates on housing and in statements. My friend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about Capita and some of the profound problems that members of the armed forces face on a daily basis. I honestly believe that they would be in a far better position to deal with these challenges if they were able to come together and deliberate and engage with whoever the Government are.

It is important to reflect on some of our Scandinavian allies when it comes to a more coherent approach to how we go forward as parliamentarians, because this is not just about members of the armed forces; it is about the role of Parliament as well. I have heard Members talk about having a more collegiate approach. Were we to follow the Danish or Swedish examples—this could be done whether or not the Government have a huge majority—it would mean that for an entire parliamentary term we could have an agreed military defence posture and an agreed budget. We could bring the main parties together and make a collective parliamentary decision.

The Nordic-Scandinavian model means that there is a good foundation to create a robust defence posture, with full parliamentary support. Even we in the SNP would agree to that. We may disagree on the nuclear deterrent, but Parliament has voted for that. But on the vast majority of issues I think the vast majority of parties in this place could agree and support a Government, which is critical given that the times in which we live need a coherent approach and full and robust parliamentary support.

I do hope that both the Government and the official Opposition will consider that if and when the next election is called, and whoever should form the next Government. That brings people together. It is also about us as parliamentarians taking our responsibilities appropriately, and about creating transparency and openness. Even in the United States, there is far more transparent and robust engagement with the Government on Capitol Hill by the Armed Services Committee. Of course, our Defence Select Committee has no such powers, in any shape or form, but if we had more open and transparent engagement at parliamentary level, we could hopefully overcome a lot of that.

The other thing I want to talk about, in bringing my remarks to a conclusion, is partnership. I am really glad that the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned some partnerships in bringing his speech to a close. Since 2016, we on the SNP Benches have been pushing for a more coherent mutual defence agreement with the European Union. He will need to correct me if I am wrong and that was not a part of what he said in his concluding remarks. The reason for that is not to replace NATO, but to understand that some of the complexities that EU members face—for example, when it comes to logistics, road design and bridge weights—could be tackled far more easily through the EU in partnership than, say, through NATO. That is because if we are trying to move a tank from the west to the eastern front, it has to get across France, Germany and so on. [Interruption.] I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I say that as a Euro-Atlanticist. It is really important that we create defence relationships with people who share our common interests here in the Euro-Atlantic area, because, as others have mentioned, we face a crisis of retention, a crisis of recruitment and unfathomable black holes that I would not wish on any Defence Secretary, whether the present one or anybody who wants to be one. The next Government will face unimaginable tasks, but if we put people, place and partnership at the heart of that, we in the SNP—although with our differences on the nuclear deterrent—would certainly be willing to support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I am not a Minister—to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray)—but I am a former serviceman, and I hope to bring some value, as a practitioner, to what we are discussing.

We know that the first duty of any Government is the defence of their people—that is quite clear—so the need to keep people safe is non-discretionary. Right now we have war raging across Europe, not too far away, and multiple threats are proliferating right across the globe. Given that the international landscape now is probably more dangerous, unstable and incendiary than it has been at any time since world war two, defence spending is absolutely essential. Voters care about their security, and many are nervous about what is happening across the world. Most importantly, it is our duty as politicians to keep them safe.

That is why the Government’s commitment to a defence budget equal to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 is so important, both strategically and politically. As a member of the UN Security Council, the UK’s continued role as a bastion of global rights and democracy can be underpinned only by hard power. It is a reality of history that we may yet be called upon to protect our own security and that of our allies. We know that the Defence Secretary has recently increased military aid to Ukraine, securing an extra £700 million and thereby taking Britain’s total contribution beyond £3 billion—that is a lot of money—so we are doing our bit.

On the 2.5% target, it is extra money, but the issue is what we do with it and how we spend it—that is important—so I advocate for a capability audit right now. The reason I say that is that the extra injection of funds means that we need to work out what we can now do. When I was working at Northwood permanent joint headquarters many years ago, we had this thing called the JOECR—the joint operational estimate of capability and readiness. In my view, with the extra money that we have now, we should be turning all those capabilities that are flashing red to green—in other words, we should plug the capability gaps—and not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space and cyber. Yes, state-of-the-art platforms are fine, and yes, we must procure weapons that we know can beat our adversaries, but it is also about spending wisely and smartly where necessary.

My second point on the 2.5% is that we need to better operate what we already have so that every part of our lexicon works. We must not rely on the exquisite exclusivity that we have spoken so much about; we must ensure that all our platforms work and can be sustained across the battlespace.

In terms of equipment generally, as one part of capability we need to procure what we need and nothing more. It is about strategic lift as well as exquisite exclusivity. If we do not have the ships—the roll-on roll-off ferries—or the strategic lift, including C-17s and A400Ms, to get equipment and people right across the globe, there is no point having the kit in the first place. It is therefore about enabling expeditionary reach. We cannot put boots on the ground if we cannot get the boots there. Plus, Minister, it is about logistic tail, spares, the supply chain, sustainment, defence contractors, delivery and munitions. We must be careful to ensure that if we buy it, we will be able to use it and then fight it through, and it must be sustainable and enduring.

“Platform” is an interesting word. It means the platform on which a capability sits, but what is put on that platform also matters. I therefore favour a modular approach for future equipment programmes, whereby we can apply different degrees of mobility, firepower and protection, but it is the kit that is bolted on and bolted off that really matters, and that is the battle-winning equipment for me. For me, this is about a commonality of platforms, about spares, about logistics, about interoperability and about cannibalisation. If we run out of something, can we get it? With complex platforms and complex supply chains, we cannot, so let us please go for modular and for commonality.

[Richard Foord]

Is the hon. Member aware of the Supacat range of vehicles, which operate in much the way that he has described?

[James Sunderland]

I am very aware of Supacat. I have visited the company, which is in the hon. Member’s neck of the woods. It is a very impressive British company. Yes, we need to do more to ensure that it produces and builds what we need. Let us work with it a bit more on that. As the hon. Member suggests, this is about fewer variants, an easier supply chain, and not having equipment that is too complex to use or to maintain. That is very important: we should keep it cheap, simple and easy.

Let me say a little about NATO. As we know, it is the only show in town. It is the umbrella for European security in the north Atlantic. It now consists of 32 countries, and that is to be welcomed. It has responded magnificently to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. It has galvanised the alliance since the invasion, in a way that Putin could not possibly have conceived. In many ways, it is much stronger because of what has happened. Article 5 is the prize for NATO membership. It has defined Putin’s actions in Ukraine, in that so far he has not attacked a NATO country. Why? He is worried about article 5, and that strategic uncertainty underpins our security in Europe.

However, there are issues with NATO. First, only 18 of its 32 member countries are currently committed to 2% of GDP, and that is not enough. In addition, the five non-EU members—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey and Norway—contribute 80% of the operating budget, which is outrageous, with 96% of the EU effectively reliant on NATO for its security. That is a stark contrast. Europe must therefore become much more responsible for its own security, and that is non-discretionary.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns that some of us have about Trump’s comments? He has said that if he is the next president of the United States—he may not be—and if NATO members do not up their commitment to 3%, the United States will withdraw and reduce its own commitment. Is Trump a danger?

[James Sunderland]

It is not for me to endorse Trump in this Chamber, but what I will say is that to a certain extent he is right. It is absolutely right that Europe must take on more responsibility for its own security, to allow the United States to worry about parts of the world that NATO will not necessarily worry about. It is important to ensure that the United States is not overly committed in Europe for the same reason. We know that NATO in Europe massively overmatches Russia, but we need to reach a point, strategically, at which Europe itself overmatches Russia, leaving the United States to focus on the parts of the world on which it needs to focus.

Another important point that I would like the Minister to note is that the UK has a global footprint that extends beyond NATO. We have discussed NATO a great deal this evening, but it is not just about NATO. East of Suez, where we have not had a presence for quite some time, we now have bases in Bahrain, Diego Garcia—we have always had one there—and of course Oman. If the UK is to be a bastion of global democracy, it is important for us to have that reach across the far side of the globe. We also have operating bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falklands, Ascension and Diego Garcia. I mention that because it is really important for us to look after those bases. Were we to withdraw from Diego Garcia, for example, that will be a part of the world that we can no longer cover with our strategic reach. We therefore need to be very careful what we wish for politically.

It is imperative that the UK is able to fulfil its global commitments: in the middle east with carrier strike, as well as in the Falklands, west Africa, the Red sea, the Caribbean, the Baltic and the north Atlantic—the list goes on. We are not just focused on NATO, so it is really important that our defence capabilities extend beyond the north Atlantic and fulfil our global responsibilities. We need only look at where UK forces are deployed right now to realise how important that global footprint is. Dean Acheson, the former US Secretary of State, famously said that

“Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”

Well, we clearly do have that role. We have seen that this evening in this debate, and it is very important that we are resourced and funded to be able to fulfil that role in perpetuity.

Lastly, what numbers should the armed forces consist of? There is a lot of debate about the Army being cut and whether 72,000 is enough, the size of the Navy and the state of the RAF, but the answer is that the forces must be big enough to do the job with which they are tasked. The answer therefore lies in defence tasks. The idea of having an Army or Navy of a certain size is pie in the sky. We know that we have to be able to resource them, but the important thing is that our forces have to be able to meet defence tasks. We know that we do not have enough ships—we need more frigates and more destroyers. Quantity has a quality all of its own. We have state-of-the-art equipment in the RAF, including the C-17, A400M, P-3, F-35B, Typhoon, and Tempest to come, but do we have enough of those platforms?

As for the Army, I keep being told by constituents, “Well, Mr Sunderland, the Army cannot fight Russia.” Of course the British Army is unlikely to be fighting Russia on its own—it is called NATO. We know that NATO has approximately 3 million troops to call upon, and we also know that NATO overmatches Russia in Europe. We need to play our part in NATO, not necessarily being perplexed about what we used to be able to do. The UK needs to be able to retain autonomous and unilateral forces to support NATO and its other tasks, as we have mentioned, so we cannot afford to be harder on numbers.

In conclusion, 2.5% is the right thing to do, but that number must keep rising to meet the threat. Do we need more ships? Yes, we do. A bigger Army? Perhaps. Is NATO fundamental to our future? It absolutely is. Trident? Unequivocally yes—we need to invest in it and reinforce it. It gives us a seat on the UN Security Council, which is really important. Do we need to focus on autonomous and remote platforms? Absolutely, yes. With cyber and space, we now have five domains, not three; we need to invest much more in those, as we saw today. We need to invest in precision capabilities. We need to have better training, better activity, more training, more exciting activity, and opportunities that keep people and attract them to stay. Richard Branson famously said, “We need to train people so well that they can leave, but treat them so well that they do not want to.” With the Minister in his place, I urge him to think about wokery—not too much of it in the armed forces, please; we still have a job to do. Dumbing down of standards? Absolutely not; we have to set the bar and maintain it, because discipline depends upon it. The divisive new accommodation model? No, thank you.

Defence Personnel Data Breach

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I stress again that it is not that I am reluctant to name the malign actor, but that we need more information before I can do so. We are not trying to avoid giving the House this information; we need to be certain before we are able to do so.

My hon. Friend asks who in the Cabinet Office is charged with this responsibility, and I have spoken directly with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure it is set from the very highest levels. My hon. Friend also asks who has overall responsibility, and it is the excellent Chief of Defence People, Phil Hally, who is very good. He has now chaired, I think, 11 internal meetings on this issue, in order to get everything ready for this afternoon. As I have said, it is with deep regret that we did not quite make it to today before the news started to break late last night. Phil Hally is responsible and will continue to be responsible for those efforts.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As an affected veteran, I feel a responsibility for representing and championing my former colleagues in this matter. Will the Defence Secretary please assure me on three particular areas? First, will he assure me that an appropriate diplomatic protest has been made, or will be made, to the guilty party? Secondly, will assurance be given to the House in due course that the firewall protocols given to defence contractors will match or exceed those given to the MOD itself? Thirdly, will he assure me that the information that has been hacked, if indeed it has been hacked, will be sacrosanct so that no malign actor can gain access to bank accounts after this event?

[Grant Shapps]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. He makes three excellent points, and I absolutely assure him that the guilty party will be brought to book. I also assure him that the MOD was not responsible for failing to issue correct instructions, in terms of the contractual requirement to keep this data safe.

Members on both sides of the House have pushed this point hard, and I will make sure that it is not buried or lost in process. I will return to this House. I cannot promise to do that in the next few days, as the Butler process takes a while, but I will not allow it to drop. The House has my undertaking on that issue.

UK Armed Forces in Middle East

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

A great deal of energy from Ministers and officials is going into the ongoing discussion about how to operationalise the greater flow rate of humanitarian aid going into Gaza, so the hon. Lady asks a relevant question.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The Minister is rightly reluctant to discuss the roles, dispositions and locations of British forces in the middle east, but could he again confirm to the House that the requisite force protection will be factored into all operational level planning, and also that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the UN could be coerced into taking a more active role in Gaza?

[Leo Docherty]

My hon. Friend also asks a relevant question, and I can give him that assurance in relation to the deployment of RFA Cardigan Bay.

Defence Spending

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is something that we in the MOD are always looking to do. We have just made our seventh or eighth drop of food aid into Gaza, using the RAF. We are working with the Americans on other solutions, including the pier, and I work very closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Indeed, I used to be a Minister in the former Department for International Development, so I am well aware of the issues he raises. The MOD will always look to assist, with our armed forces, wherever we can; we often combine hard and soft power.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

This has been a good week for defence, and I commend the Government on their commitment to 2.5%, but the issue is how we spend it. Could the Defence Secretary confirm to the House that, rather than our focusing on exquisite exclusivity or—heaven forbid—indulging single service bad behaviour, the money will be spent on plugging capability gaps, better operating the platforms that we have, and ensuring that our forces have the activity, resilience and sustainment to maintain and enhance their world-leading and persistent global posture?

[Grant Shapps]

That is an excellent question. The Minister for Defence Procurement has done an outstanding job on a publication that I recommend to everyone in the House: “Integrated Procurement Model”. It is much more exciting than it sounds. That new model has already been responsible for bringing forward the procurement of the DragonFire by five years. Rather than our trying to create exquisite, unbelievably complicated and never-quite-right equipment, the model will bring equipment into the field and allow it to be spiralled and developed further. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we will use this money much more intelligently to make sure that we get kit into the field, and expand and improve it from there.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The thing that I am most proud of, beyond the exceptional operational output of His Majesty’s armed forces every time they are called on, is that the Government have increased the defence budget to more than £50 billion a year for the first time. The hon. Gentleman, whose interest in defence is very welcome indeed, should be enormously concerned about the shadow Chancellor’s repeated refusal to commit to anything more than the 2% NATO floor for defence spending. If his concern for defence is to last, he should immediately be concerned about the fact that unless his party changes policy urgently, it will equal a £7 billion cut in defence spending on day one of a Labour Government.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The question of whether our armed forces are fit for purpose should centre on whether they can carry out the defence tasks set by the MOD, and I believe that they can. If I may carry on in the same vein as the previous response, does the Minister agree that Labour’s failure to commit to spending more than 2% of GDP on defence presents a much bigger risk to UK security, objectively, than any matter of debate among Members on this side of the House?

[James Heappey]

Absolutely. We should urgently achieve 2.5% of GDP; the fiscal situation is improving, and the Conservative party has made that commitment. As the Secretary of State rightly said in an interview the other day, both main parties should strongly consider a further increase in defence spending in the next Parliament.

Cadet Expansion Programme

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a huge privilege to lead tonight’s Adjournment debate on the cadet expansion programme, and I am grateful to the Minister for responding to it.

Almost exactly 40 years ago, when I was a young Army cadet in Guildford, the combined cadet force at my school deployed to Okehampton for its Easter camp. During that week, cadets participated in a night navigation exercise across the notorious Dartmoor. Given the cold weather and awful terrain, that would have been a challenge at any time, but we had barely left Okehampton when thick fog engulfed us, to the point that you could not see your hand in front of your face. Sensing the danger, the three of us in my group used all the training that we had been given not just to get off the moor, but to complete the exercise together.

The young cadets alongside me were Hamish Walker and Graham Atkinson. I will never forget the experience. Anyone who is familiar with military service will know that heightened sense of vigilance and excitement when travelling cross-country at night. Totally confident in what the map and compass were telling us, and meticulously counting our paces, we worked together to double-check our navigation and agree every decision we made—this was long before sat-nav. We were utterly blind because of the fog, but we trusted our instincts, training and the compass needle, and that potent combination of teamwork, resilience, informed judgement, competitive spirit and confidence that one gets with military service saw us succeed against the odds, even as 13-year-old kids.

This, however, was typical of what cadets still do. Whether abseiling down dams, building shelters, learning to ski or shoot, escaping from a capsized canoe, preparing an ambush or cooking in the field, the skills I acquired as an Army cadet, for five years at school and for a further three years in the university officer training corps, were pivotal to everything I am today. While the cadet movement does not exist to recruit people for a military career, it was so formative for me that it gave me the skills to thrive at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, which I now represent as the local MP, and throughout a 27-year military career. My response to almost everything that has been asked of me since leaving the cadets probably has its foundation in my time with the cadets, so it has made a huge difference to me personally.

What of the cadet forces themselves? The Ministry of Defence sponsors five different types of cadet forces. The sea cadet corps, the volunteer cadet corps, the Army cadet force and the air training corps are single service in nature, not tied to schools, but the fifth, the combined cadet force, offers more tri-service balance and is hosted in schools, with adult volunteers often coming from the teaching staff. All these units are voluntary organisations that offer challenging and enjoyable activities for young people, and prepare them to play an active role in their community while developing life skills. While they do model their traditions and ethos on their parent service, they are not actually part of HM forces and do not of course have any formal military role.

The sea cadets consist of over 14,000 young people and 5,000 adult volunteers in 400 units across towns, cities and ports, undertaking activities such as sailing, boating and coastal navigation. The volunteer cadet corps offers something very similar, but is more tightly connected to naval families. It consists of around 460 cadets and 150 volunteers, located in eight naval bases across southern England and Scotland. The Army cadet force has over 37,000 cadets and 9,000 adult volunteers, and it celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2010. The fourth of the non-school units is the air training corps, which consists of over 44,000 cadets and volunteer staff in over 900 squadrons across the UK, encouraging participants to take an active interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate; we spoke beforehand. The schools cadet expansion programme in Northern Ireland has gone from success to success, with Kilkeel High School in the constituency neighbouring my Strangford constituency becoming the newest cadet force. This week, 139 pupils from schools across Northern Ireland entered the cyber-skills challenge competition, which is fantastic. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Northern Ireland is very much setting the targets for other cadet forces across the United Kingdom to try to match up to? Does he also welcome the fact that almost as many Roman Catholics are now joining the cadet forces in Northern Ireland as Protestants?

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I completely agree. What is happening in Northern Ireland is an exemplar for the cadet movement. It is quite something that we have a balance between Catholic and Protestant children in these units. This is about cohesion and community, and what is happening over there is commendable.

As for the combined cadet force, units exist in over 260 schools across the UK. Traditionally, they are the preserve of independent schools, with over 200 of them hosting detachments, but there are now at least 60 units in state schools too. They offer young students a broad range of exciting, adventurous and educational activities that complement the normal school curriculum during the evening, at weekends and during the holidays. Like the other cadets units, they help to develop personal responsibility, leadership, teamwork and self-discipline. In my view, it is no coincidence that many young cadets emerge to be highly successful in their chosen career fields.

In Berkshire, I am proud that we have a strong pedigree with the military presence there. I could again mention the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, the headquarters of 77 Brigade at Hermitage, the Household Cavalry Regiment and the 1st Battalion of the Coldstream Guards in Windsor, 7 Rifles in Reading and so much more, but I really want to highlight the Royal County of Berkshire Army cadet force. This currently supports over 600 cadets and 120 adult volunteers in 18 detachments, many of which I see on Remembrance Sunday and at special events alongside the lord lieutenant. I give a big shout-out for 7 Platoon in Bracknell, which does so much locally, trains and plays hard in equal measure, and always looks so smart.

While we do not, sadly, have a sea cadets unit in my constituency, Bracknell is home to 2211 Squadron of the Air Training Corps. I met several of the cadets recently, and it never ceases to amaze me just how much is on offer. It is even possible for cadets to go flying and set themselves up to gain pilot licences. To anyone watching from Bracknell Forest I say: please do consider joining the Army Cadet Force or Air Training Corps locally; it is a real opportunity.

As for the Combined Cadet Force, there are two detachments in my constituency. Wellington College has an established military presence and a proud history of service. While I have not yet been invited to visit, it is a good one by reputation. At Brakenhale School in Bracknell, I have watched with wonder as a fledgling detachment has evolved under the superb leadership and vision of both Second Lieutenant Bury and Second Lieutenant Gildersleve. Getting that off the ground from virtually nothing is quite an achievement, and the detachment serves as an exemplar for the cadet expansion programme, with over 100 pupils in Bracknell now being given the opportunity to wear uniform, train with the British Army, get adventure training and learn life skills that they may otherwise not have done. I cannot commend Brakenhale School enough for everything that it is doing, and I am looking forward to the annual inspection later this year.

So what of the cadet expansion programme itself? It was first launched on Armed Forces Day in June 2012 by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, with the aim of delivering 100 new cadet units in English state-funded schools by September 2015. This target was reached six months early, in March 2015, and following that achievement, the Government committed an extra £50 million from LIBOR fines to further increase the number of cadet units in schools across the UK, bringing the total to 500 by 2020. Phase 3 is now under way, and the Minister is sure to provide a progress report later.

The cadet expansion programme is part of the Government’s aim of promoting the military ethos in schools; instilling values in young people that will help them to get the most out of their life and contribute to their community; and fostering those essential qualities of resilience, independence and teamwork that will assist young people on their chosen career path. Mirroring what has already been achieved in the private sector, state schools that have set up cadet units are offering significant benefits to their young people; there are also benefits to the school and the local community. Headteachers report that they have seen significant improvement in attendance and behaviour, attainment, commitment, self-confidence and discipline, and that relationships between staff and students have improved. The sense of pride that some students feel is also palpable, and given that the Government are a champion of aspiration, opportunity, ambition and enterprise, I want to see this programme developed further and faster, so that all pupils, irrespective of their background, can have better access to these superb opportunities.

Before I close, I want to highlight a number of areas where I feel that we can do better. First and foremost, it would be massively positive for all our adult volunteers to be given a financial incentive for their time. Not only would that be positive for recruitment and retention, but it would send a clear signal that the Ministry of Defence is taking the broader benefits more seriously. Our volunteers are the lifeblood of the cadet movement, and it would be remiss of me not to formally thank and pay tribute to everyone who runs our detachments for their huge contribution.

We should invest more in our cadet infrastructure, repair our older halls, build new ones and provide better facilities such as ranges and accommodation. It goes without saying that higher operating costs should be mitigated, that more transport should be made available, that more opportunities should be provided to train alongside our regular forces, and that better adventure training and more updated equipment should be made available. While it is a considerable outlay for the Ministry of Defence to provide uniforms, weapons and personal kit, it should be possible for serviceable ex-military equipment that would otherwise be disposed of to be provided to cadet units. Closer tie-ups with regular and reserve units through the affiliation process should help to ensure that greater localised support is available for those detachments that need it.

Lastly, as someone who got so much out of the Combined Cadet Force and Officers’ Training Corps, I was always hugely privileged to visit and inspect local cadet units in Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire, particularly when serving as a commanding officer in Aldershot and at Sandhurst. Our cadets are our future, and whether they choose to join His Majesty’s forces or not, their service in uniform will leave a lasting legacy throughout their lifetime, and their personal skills will be called upon, as were mine.

I also wish to thank the many organisations that continue to enable the cadet movement, not least: our single-service branches, such as the cadets branch at Army Headquarters Regional Command in Aldershot, which forms part of home command; the national cadet training centre at Frimley Park, which does so much to train our adult volunteers; and our reserve forces and cadet associations, or RFCAs, which support our cadet forces so well behind the scenes. Indeed, today I am wearing the distinctive tie of the South East Reserve Forces and Cadet Association, which I have worked alongside for many years; I ask them to please keep up the great work locally.

I conclude by paying tribute to the other youth movements across the UK that do so much to promote the essential values that we have commended this evening. They are far too numerous to list, so I hope that I can be forgiven for not doing so, but we have the police cadets, St John Ambulance cadets, the scout and guide movement, venture scouts, youth sports clubs, young Crusaders, religious clubs, breakfast and after-school clubs, environmental groups, online networks, voluntary organisations and at least 8,000 more established groups than can easily be found with a quick search online.

I am often told by parents and teachers in my constituency that there is nothing for young people to do locally, that the Government are not doing enough, that that is a key reason for antisocial behaviour, and that many are bored. My answer is usually the same—“Really?”—but while there is always more that we can and must do locally and nationally, we should also be proud of what we have, not least in our cadet forces. Extending such opportunities more broadly across our society is a complete no-brainer for so many reasons, and I hope that the Minister will not disappoint us.

Defence Acquisition Reform

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

On matters of defence procurement, it always strikes me how many former service personnel will raise the issue of urgent operational requirements or whatever else we call them, whatever variation of the acronym. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress their importance. They are not something that can be used at scale for the whole procurement system, but in specific, urgent areas they are critical, and we will continue to use them. I am considering them in a couple of sensitive areas, which obviously I cannot talk about further, but he makes an excellent point. By the way, the Jackal is an excellent platform. My first trade mission on exports was to the Czech Republic, and the Jackal was there. I was proud to receive glowing reviews about it from the defence select committee there.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I, too, welcome today’s statement and the bold strategy, so I thank the Minister. We had a conversation yesterday in which I suggested that we needed an arbiter of good taste within strat comms. I am delighted to see the IDA now being formed, which should allow for a bit of rigour, with tri-service interest. May I make a point about how we can further reform acquisition? To my mind, if we are serious about not writing cheques that we cannot cash, and about financial rigour, discipline and planning, we need to be making procurement teams responsible for the entire capability throughout lifecycle. May I please leave that with the Minister? I am being mischievous, but it is a seed I want to sow.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend has also served and has great expertise in logistics and these matters. In many ways, that is the portfolio approach: having teams within MOD who are focused on a particular capability, potentially cutting across the frontline commands and the stovepipe approach. It has been particularly useful for complex weapons. In effect, as I have said, we will be using that with drones and uncrewed systems, but I am happy to look into it further.

I am also glad that my hon. Friend stresses the importance of the IDA in strat comms. Just to be clear, this is about having a way of calling out issues that I suspect and hope are not commonplace, but having that presence there will hopefully lead to cultural change, which is the key thing we want to see, so that we get into the habit whereby when we procure, we are looking at not just the platform but whether it has the key enablers. If we get the basics right, we will set programmes up for success.

Ukraine: Military Equipment

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I apologise for missing the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question; I will write to him on that. On the second part, within the training figures I mentioned, there is significant training for medical personnel. I am happy to include that in the letter. Whether it is training medical personnel or frontline soldiers, the effort we have put in place is huge, it is international and we will do everything we can to keep it going.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The number of NATO member countries meeting the 2% GDP commitment is expected to rise from seven last year to 18 later this year. Indications from the US suggest that the US Government are more likely to release an expected $60 billion-worth of commitment to Ukraine once Republican congressmen have had their primaries. Will the Minister confirm that the British defence industry at home is now on a war footing and that we are best able to spend UOR—urgent operational requirement—money and deliver it to Ukraine?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend as ever asks an excellent question. As he highlighted, this has to be an international effort. There is a tendency to overplay the negative voices, but my experience from international meetings is of an overwhelming consensus, from small nations to large nations, and of a huge desire to keep supporting Ukraine in every way possible. Obviously, the role of the US is fundamental. I can give him the assurance that we will work with the British defence industry to ramp up production. We will be bringing forward a munitions strategy soon and the goal of always-on production will be most in the interests of both the military and our defence sector.

Situation in the Red Sea

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

This is the third time that we have come to Parliament and made a statement—I know that the hon. Lady has made other contributions to the debate—so we do feel that Parliament is being fully engaged in the process. We are not looking to make this a sustained, long-term military action. Indeed, I can guarantee for the House that if the Houthis stop, we will have absolutely no requirement again to drop munitions on them. But it is a fact that they are the ones interrupting international maritime activity, and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary cannot comment specifically on target acquisition, but will he please confirm to the House that our intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance is focused on those Houthi capabilities directly engaged in the attacks on international shipping? Is it reasonable to assume that further degradation of those capabilities will result in increased security in the Red sea?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend asks a good question that has not yet been asked. The answer is yes. We are looking carefully, and the locations chosen on this occasion were indeed from a combination of US and UK intelligence.