Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
Today is day 1,239 since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion and it is more than a decade since the Ukrainians have known peace in their homeland. They have had homes destroyed, lands seized, children abducted and loved ones killed by Putin’s forces. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with remarkable determination—military and civilian alike. Almost three and a half years on, I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine. Britain remains united for Ukraine, too. Polling shows that we retain the strongest public support for Ukraine of any European nation. Our solidarity is grounded in our deep respect for the Ukrainian people’s courage, and in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine—because we know that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop with Ukraine.
Let me begin by providing a battlefield update. Russia is maintaining pressure along the whole length of the frontline, with a special focus on Sumy in the north-east and Pokrovsk in the south-east, as well as in Kursk. Last month, Russian ground forces seized approximately 550 sq km of Ukrainian territory—an area greater than the size of Greater Manchester—yet they face continuing difficulties attempting to take fortified towns and cities, and they have not taken a significant town for months. Indeed, they have tried without success to seize Pokrovsk for nearly a year. What ground they do gain comes at great cost. Last month, the number of Russian troops killed and wounded surpassed more than 1 million. This year alone, Russia has sustained 240,000 casualties.
Despite those catastrophic Russian losses, Putin’s ruthless ambitions do not appear to be waning. Russia is escalating the high numbers of one-way attack drones launched at Ukraine: 1,900 in April, 4,000 in May, 5,000 in June and already 3,200 in July. On 9 July, a week ago today, the largest aerial strike of the war was recorded when Russia launched more than 700 attack drones in a single night.
Despite the onslaught, Ukrainians are taking the fight to Putin, striking military targets in Russia that his people see and know about. Spider Web was an operation of remarkable precision and extraordinary success that dealt a fierce blow to Putin. After one year of meticulous planning, it resulted in the damage of 41 long-range bombers—planes that threaten not only Ukraine but NATO.
We must now step up efforts to get further military support to the frontline. Last month, on the eve of the NATO summit, we welcomed President Zelensky to No. 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister signed a UK-Ukraine agreement to share advanced battlefield capabilities and technologies—a deal that means our defence industry can rapidly develop cutting-edge technologies from Ukraine, and step up production for Ukraine. At the NATO summit that followed, 32 nations came together to sign a new investment pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035. Those 32 nations reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, with €40 billion pledged in security assistance for this year. It was a good summit for Ukraine, for Britain and for NATO; it was a bad summit for Putin.
On the basis of those commitments at NATO, President Trump signalled a significant shift this week on Ukraine: he announced NATO weapons transfers, and a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace. Together with the NATO Secretary-General, President Trump agreed to large-scale purchases by NATO allies of US military equipment, including Patriot missiles and other air defence systems and munitions, which he committed to getting
“quickly distributed to the battlefield”.
The UK backs the scheme, and we plan to play our full part. On Monday, we will discuss this further when I chair the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside my German counterpart, Minister Boris Pistorius. The contact group continues to be the forum through which more than 50 nations provide Ukraine with what it needs to fight back against Putin’s war machine. I am pleased that Monday’s meeting will be attended by US Secretary Hegseth; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich.
Britain is providing more than £4.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year—more than ever before. At the UDCG, I will provide the following updates. First, on the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, two thirds of the UK’s ERA total of £2.26 billion has now been disbursed, including £700 million on artillery shells, long- range rockets and air defence missiles—exactly what Ukraine needs most. Secondly, on drones, since March the UK has supplied nearly 50,000 drones to Ukraine. This helps us to meet our commitment to increasing tenfold our supply this year. Thirdly, on air defence, the UK and Germany have agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine. Fourthly, on the NATO comprehensive assistance package, the UK will donate a further £40 million, which Ukraine can use, through a range of programmes, on anything from de-mining to rehabilitating its wounded.
It is four months since President Zelensky responded to President Trump’s peace negotiations with Ukraine’s full commitment to an unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has shown no such interest in an end to the fighting, but peace in Ukraine is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes. Since March, the UK and France have led the coalition of the willing on planning new security arrangements to support Ukraine in any ceasefire. More than 200 military planners from 30 nations have worked intensively for weeks with Ukraine; that includes work on reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
Last week, at the summit, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer said that this initial phase of detailed military planning had concluded. I can confirm that the military command and control structures have been agreed for a future Multinational Force Ukraine. The force’s mission will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defences on the land, at sea and in the air, because the Ukrainian armed forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression. The force will include a three-star multinational command headquarters in Paris, rotating to London after the first 12 months. When the force deploys, there will be a co-ordination HQ in Kyiv, headed by a UK two-star military officer. It will regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armament and training experts. It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft to deliver a level of support similar to that used for NATO’s air policing mission, and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black sea taskforce with additional specialist teams.
When peace comes, we will be ready, and we will play our part in securing it for the long term. Next month, on 24 August, Ukrainians will gather to celebrate their independence day. For another year, the anniversary of Ukraine’s liberation will be marked under the pain of occupation. Whatever else commands the world’s attention, we must never lose sight of this war. We must never lose sight of Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of that proud and sovereign nation, and we must never forget the price that Ukraine is paying in fighting for its own freedom and the security of all free nations, including ours. The UK will stand with the Ukrainian people today, tomorrow, the day after, and for as long it takes for Ukraine to prevail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome for the update. I welcome the Opposition’s continued backing for the steps that we are taking to support Ukraine, just as we gave our backing to their Government when we were in opposition.
The shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that the massive scale of Russian casualties shows the contempt that President Putin has for the life of his own people, as well as for the life of those in Ukraine. He is also right to point out that Russian casualties far outnumber those in Ukraine.
On the coalition of the willing, 30 nations are involved in the planning. The military planning is now complete, and we will keep it refreshed until renewed ceasefire negotiations, which we hope to see soon. Under the plans, there will be a land force, and activity in the air and on the sea. I am pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State back the aid that we are putting into Ukraine. He asks about the coalition of the willing, but I really cannot recall—and I have checked—him backing the coalition. Does his party support Britain’s leadership of the Multinational Force Ukraine?
Discussions on the Trump NATO plan will be developed on Monday at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, which I will co-chair will Boris Pistorius. If sanctions and economic measures play a part in the actions that the international community need to take to bring Putin to the negotiating table, we will of course use them. The shadow Secretary of State’s Government had a good record; we have gone a lot further in the past year. Since July, we have introduced over 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships across all the regimes, and as a nation we have now sanctioned over 289 vessels in the Russian shadow fleet.
On base security, I will update the House when the full base security review is complete. On DragonFire, the shadow Secretary of State is right to say that he was instrumental in the UK taking its first steps on that technology, but he left the programme largely unfunded. We are already accelerating it, and will put that technology into four of our naval vessels, not just the one that he planned to put it in.
On drones, the hon. Gentleman knows that what he keeps citing was a very specific answer to a very specific question. He knows that following the strategic defence review, we are doubling to more than £4 billion the amount of money in this Parliament that we will invest in autonomy and drones. He knows that we will establish a new drone centre of excellence. This will mean we can accelerate the use of uncrewed systems or drones in every service. The Army, for instance, will train thousands of operators. This summer, we will start rolling out 3,000 strike drones. That will be followed by more than 1,000 surveillance drones, and we will equip every section with drones for the future. That is what we mean in the strategic defence review when we talk about combining the power of new technology with the heavy metal of platforms like tanks, planes and ships to make Britain the most innovative armed forces in NATO.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the Member for Aldershot, I know how deeply people in my constituency understand the cost of conflict and the value of standing by our allies, so I welcome this statement and thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Does he agree that the outcome in Ukraine matters for not just European security but the UK’s standing as a reliable defence partner, and that for us to maintain this reputation, long-term investment in British capabilities and industries in constituencies like mine—where, incidentally, DragonFire was created—is essential to sustaining our support and deterring further aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: the UK has been the most reliable ally for Ukraine since before the full-scale invasion almost three and a half years ago. She is also right to say that a test of this nation is whether we are willing to step up the leadership on Ukraine, as we have; whether we are ready to step up the leadership in NATO, as we have; and, underpinning all, whether we are ready to step up the level of defence investment in this country, which we have. The Prime Minister announced in February that this country would invest 2.5% of GDP in defence by 2027, alongside the £5 billion extra in defence this year—Labour’s first year in government. This is the largest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
John Healey
First, we stand ready to expand sanctions on the Russian shadow fleet. Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the coalition of the willing. The military planning is complete. With the prospect of a ceasefire, which we hope to see soon but cannot see immediately, the commitments and the details will be firmed up, and they will be reported appropriately to the House at that stage.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the use of frozen assets. She will know the complexity of this challenge and the interest and will of the Government to work on this, but she will also recognise that the majority of those assets are held outside the UK, so any action on this front must be taken with and alongside others. Therein lies the complexity of the discussions at present.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us.
No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: for the first time in human conflict history, drones are killing far more and causing far more casualties than heavy artillery. She asks the challenging question that was at the heart of the strategic defence review that we published at the beginning of last month: in learning lessons from Ukraine, how do we recognise the way that the change in warfare is accelerated by the rapidly advancing technology? That is the reason we are making a £4 billion investment in this Parliament alone in the drone technology that she cites and the potential of autonomy to reinforce the warfighting readiness of our forces and therefore the deterrence that we can provide as a nation within NATO.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Operation Orbital is the UK training programme for the Ukrainian military. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that personal and personnel data is safe at the Ministry of Defence? He mentioned there being 15,000 drone attacks over the last four months, and he referenced meeting with Germans to look at counter-drone munitions and capabilities, but of course, Ukrainians are being attacked right now—today. What thought has been given to the use of the RAF’s Tucano aircraft, which I think are now out of service? I wonder where they are. Could they be redeployed? Could a variant of the Grob turboprop trainer perhaps be provided? These slow-flying aircraft could interdict Shahed drones, for example, and they are low-cost and low-maintenance.
John Healey
I am not familiar with the Tucano aircraft—if they are still in our inventory, they have not come across my desk—but I will certainly look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the Orbital training programme, I am confident that the data relating to those personnel are secure. I am proud of that programme. It did not just follow Putin’s full-scale invasion in February three and a half years ago; it was in place after Russia first took Crimea and had proxy forces move into Donetsk and Luhansk. There was a UK-Canadian training programme supporting Ukrainians well before Putin’s invasion, and since then, we have trained more than 56,000 Ukrainian forces through the UK-led multinational training programme.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of Russia on 9 July, when it launched the largest aerial bombardment of the war to date, show that Ukrainian civilians and military are still in a fight for their lives and the future of their country, and that this House, our Government and our country must do everything possible to stand with them in that fight?
John Healey
I do, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House and the public. These Russian attacks are directed not just at Ukrainian frontline forces, but at Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian civilians and Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. That is a harsh reminder of Putin’s character. His brutal, illegal invasion is entirely contemptuous of the lives of his own people, and he is attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I fully support the work of the UK Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Like so many voluntary groups across the United Kingdom, the Rotary club of Duns has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine during the war. It has delivered several pick-up trucks loaded with medical equipment and other essential supplies to Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Rotary club and the other voluntary groups that have been involved? What more support can the Government provide to UK voluntary groups that want to provide assistance to Ukraine?
John Healey
I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s local Rotary club and the other local groups that reflect the continuing public will to offer support where we can to Ukraine. If those groups, including his local Rotary club, are looking for specific support to get such supplies to Ukraine, I would encourage him to contact me with the details.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is one of the most energetic and ceaseless supporters of Ukraine, and not just in this House. I know he has gone out with supplies to support civilians and comrades in Ukraine. I am glad that he was at the Ukraine recovery conference in Italy last week. If he is looking for the lessons that the UK Ministry of Defence is pulling from Ukraine, I will send him a personal copy of the strategic defence review.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
These plans for a so-called coalition of the willing are contingency plans. They are designed for a time when Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Ukraine, which, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, he shows no sign of doing. How does the prospect of Ukraine’s allies, such as the UK, deploying armed forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire incentivise the Kremlin to sue for peace?
John Healey
One of the signals that the coalition of the willing underlines to President Putin is that a large number of deeply committed democratic countries are willing to stand with Ukraine in its fight against his invasion, and are willing to stand alongside Ukraine in any peace to secure a long-lasting and just settlement. The single message that Putin should take is that Ukraine will keep fighting, that we will keep supporting it, and that the best way for him is now to accept that he needs to come to the negotiating table to talk and put an end to this fighting.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important update. It is clear that Russia’s growing aggression undermines our security at home. Does he agree that the outcome of the war in Ukraine matters deeply to every one of my constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, as much as it does across the whole country and, indeed, all of Europe? Can he update us any further on the measures he is taking to counter Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy share the sentiment across the UK of strong support for Ukraine, three and a half years into this war. [Interruption.] There is a recognition that this matter rises above party politics, and a recognition in general that the UK not only needs to say that we stand with Ukraine, but needs to demonstrate that through our actions. I hope her constituents will support the Government in what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive.
It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan?
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not my phone either.
The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to the more than 200 military planners, from more than 30 nations, who have worked over the last four months on the detail of the military planning. It has not just been an exercise based and led in France and the UK; it has involved detailed reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
These are serious military plans. They are designed for the circumstances of a ceasefire—circumstances that are not entirely clear now, but that we hope to see. They will be refined regularly between now and any point of peace. They are designed to make sure that, when we get that peace, we are ready to support it as a multinational force for Ukraine.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his update and for his leadership on this issue. In Russia and the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, Russian authorities have introduced military-patriotic training in schools and youth groups, exposing Ukrainian children to military propaganda urging enlistment in the Russian armed forces. There are also reports that Russia is recruiting Ukrainian teenagers and young adults to carry out espionage and sabotage within Ukraine.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine’s children have no place on the battlefield in this war? Can he say a little more about the work he is doing with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hold to account those responsible for the militarisation and forced deportation of Ukraine’s children?
John Healey
I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her ceaseless work to draw public attention in the UK to the plight of abducted Ukrainian children and teenagers in Russia. Abducted Ukrainian children have no place on the Russian frontline, they have no place on the battlefield, and they have no place in Russia.
When the Foreign Secretary and I first went to Ukraine together, when we were still in opposition, we met a magnificent charity that was bringing abducted Ukrainian children back from Russia. We sat down with four young teenagers who had been subject to exactly the sort of treatment that my hon. Friend identifies. I will look to work with her and Foreign Office colleagues to reinforce any of the steps we can take in this country to draw greater attention to this brutal abuse of young people.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It has been three and a half years since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we all know that there has been huge loss of life, and incredible disruption and pain caused to many residents, not only in Ukraine but across the world. I saw that for myself when I met the Keighley Ukrainian association, which has gone above and beyond, not only raising funds for those in Ukraine but supporting many families in my constituency. The owners of Keighley Cougars are in Ukraine as we speak, delivering sports equipment to organisations involved in rugby league in Ukraine, who are unable to have the equipment they need as a result of the war.
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those two organisations? We all know that a divided west only benefits Russia, so following the latest talks with NATO, will the Secretary of State also comment on what more the Government could be doing to ensure other nations are playing their part, both through military support and through funding and developing key defence capabilities to continue to support Ukraine?
John Healey
The UK is playing a leading part by co-chairing the Ukrainian defence contact group, as I will be on Monday. Through that forum, 50 nations co-ordinate support and respond to Ukraine’s battlefield support needs. Alongside the French, we are also leading by developing the coalition of the willing, planning for the future. I pay tribute to the members of the Keighley Cougars who are out in Ukraine delivering sports equipment—hats off to them. I see that as typical of the generosity of the people in Yorkshire.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Brave Ukrainians in my constituency of Rugby, who are a long way from their compatriots at home, tell me about the continuing suffering of civilians—I repeat: civilians—due to Russian aggression. Will the Defence Secretary join me in welcoming the new drive from President Trump and NATO to ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position both to defend itself and in any future negotiations?
John Healey
In reminding the House about the Ukrainian families who are in Rugby, my hon. Friend reminds us that this is a war—an invasion—that has forced many to flee their home. Many are still receiving shelter from UK families, and I pay tribute to those who are offering that shelter. We have been willing to back President Trump in his bid to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine from the outset, and we look to this next stage as a hopeful sign. We will do whatever we can to reinforce his efforts to put pressure on President Putin now and to bring him to the negotiating table.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. The new coalition Government in Germany are making a massively welcome contribution to increased support to NATO and to European security. I welcome that greater contribution. I note that the Federal Ministry of Defence is still led, very ably, by a Social Democratic Party of Germany Minister, Boris Pistorius. I especially welcome that at the heart of the new friendship treaty, which Chancellor Merz and our Prime Minister will sign today, is the Trinity House agreement that Boris Pistorius and I struck back in October: a deep defence agreement, for the first time, between the UK and Germany. It means that we will do so much more together as two nations, but also as two nations within NATO.
Afghanistan
John Healey Excerpts(6 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a significant data protection breach from February 2022 relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. It led to the High Court granting an unprecedented super-injunction and the previous Government establishing a secret Afghan resettlement route. Today I am announcing to the House a change in Government policy. I am closing that resettlement route, disclosing the data loss, and confirming that the Court order was lifted at 12 noon today.
Members of this House—including you, Mr Speaker, and me—have been subject to the super-injunction. It is unprecedented. To be clear, the Court has always recognised the parliamentary privilege of proceedings in this House, and Ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians about the data incident at an earlier stage, as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset. However, as parliamentarians and as Ministers, it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House. I am grateful to be able to disclose the details to Parliament today. I trust that you, Mr Speaker, and Members will bear with me if I take the time to ensure that the House now has the fullest information possible, as I discussed with you yesterday.
The facts are as follows. In February 2022, 10 months after the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, introduced the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and six months after the fall of Kabul, a Defence official emailed an ARAP case working file outside authorised Government systems. As the House knows, ARAP is the resettlement scheme that this country established for Afghan citizens who worked for, or with, our UK armed forces over the combat years in Afghanistan. Both in opposition and in government, Labour has backed that scheme, and ARAP has had full support from across this House.
The official mistakenly believed that they were sending the names of 150 applicants. However, the spreadsheet in fact contained personal information associated with 18,714 Afghans who had applied to either the ex gratia scheme or the ARAP scheme on, or before, 7 January 2022. It contained names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants’ family members. In a small number of cases, the names of Members of Parliament, senior military officers and Government officials were noted as supporting the application. This was a serious departmental error. It was in clear breach of strict data protection protocols, and was one of many data losses relating to the ARAP scheme during this period.
Ministers in the previous Government first became aware of the data loss in mid-August 2023, 18 months after the incident, when personal details of nine individuals from the dataset appeared online. Action was taken to ensure they were swiftly removed, an internal investigation was conducted, and the incident was reported to both the Metropolitan police and the Information Commissioner. The Met deemed that no criminal investigation was necessary, and the Information Commissioner has continued to work with the Department throughout.
However, journalists were almost immediately aware of the breach, and the previous Administration applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the data loss becoming public. The judge deemed that the risk warranted going further and, on 1 September 2023, granted a super-injunction, which prevented disclosure of the very existence of the injunction. That super-injunction has been in place for nearly two years, during which time eight media organisations and their journalists were served to prohibit any reporting. No Government wish to withhold information from the British public, parliamentarians or the press in this manner.
In autumn 2023, previous Ministers started work on establishing a new resettlement scheme specifically designed for people in the compromised dataset who were not eligible for ARAP but who were nevertheless judged to be at the highest risk of reprisals by the Taliban. It is known as the Afghanistan response route, or ARR. It was covered by the super-injunction. The then Government initially established the ARR to resettle a target cohort of around 200 principals, but in early 2024 a combination of Ministers’ decisions on the scheme’s policy design and the court’s views had broadened that category to nearly 3,000 principals.
I want to provide assurance to the House and the British public that all individuals relocated under the Afghanistan response route, ARAP or the Home Office’s Afghan citizens resettlement scheme undergo strict national security checks before being able to enter our country. The full number of Afghan arrivals under all schemes has been reported in the regular Home Office statistics, meaning that they are already counted in existing migration figures.
As shadow Defence Secretary, I was initially briefed on the ARR by James Heappey, the former Armed Forces Minister, on 12 December 2023, and issued with the super-injunction at the start of that meeting. Other members of the present Cabinet were only informed of the evidence of the data breach, the operation of the ARR, and the existence of the super-injunction on taking office after the general election. By that time, the ARR scheme was fully established and in operation, and it was nearly two and a half years since the data loss.
I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and to the public. I felt it only right to reassess the decision-making criteria for the ARR. We began, straightaway, to take a hard look at the policy complexities, costs, risks, court hearings and the range of Afghan relocation schemes being run by the previous Government. Cabinet colleagues endorsed the need for new insights in the autumn of last year, while the scheme kept running. In December 2024, I announced the streamlining of the range of Government schemes that we inherited into the Afghan resettlement programme to establish better value for money, a single set of time-limited entitlements and support to get Afghan families resettled. On behalf of the House, I sincerely thank our colleagues in local government, without whom this unified resettlement programme would simply not have been possible.
At the beginning of this year, I commissioned Paul Rimmer, a former senior civil servant and ex-deputy chief of Defence Intelligence, to conduct an independent review. The review was concluded and reported to Ministers last month. Today I am releasing a public version of Rimmer’s review, and I am placing a copy of it in the Library of the House. I am very grateful to him for his work.
Despite brutal human rights abuses in Afghanistan, the Rimmer review notes the passage of time—it is nearly four years since the fall of Kabul—and concludes:
“There is little evidence of intent by the Taleban to conduct a campaign of retribution against”
former officials. It also concludes that those who pose a challenge to the Taliban rule now are at greater risk of a reaction from the regime, and that
“the wealth of data inherited from the former government”
by the Taliban
“would already enable them”
to target individuals if they wished to do so, which means that it is “highly unlikely” that merely being on the spreadsheet
“would be the…piece of information enabling or prompting the Taleban to act.”
Rimmer is clear: he stresses the uncertainty in any judgments and does not rule out any risk. Yet he concludes that, given this updated context, the current policy that we inherited
“appears an extremely significant intervention…to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents.”
The Rimmer review is a very significant element, but not the sole element, in the Government’s decision to change policy, to close the ARR and to ensure that the court order is lifted today. Policy concerns about proportionality, public accountability, cost and fairness were also important factors for the Government. This was not a decision taken lightly; it follows a lengthy process, including the Rimmer review, detailed ministerial discussions and repeated consultations with legal advisers. Just as I have changed Government policy in the light of the review, the High Court today, in the light of the review, ruled that there was no tenable basis for the continuation of the super-injunction.
To date, 900 ARR principals are in Britain or in transit, together with 3,600 family members, at a cost of about £400 million. From today, there will be no new ARR offers of relocation to Britain. From today, the route is closed. However, we will honour the 600 invitations already made to any named persons still in Afghanistan and their immediate family. When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it. Today I am also restoring full accountability for the Government’s Afghan relocation schemes to Parliament, and I would expect our Select Committees now to hold us to account through in-depth inquiries.
Let me turn to the practical action that we have taken as a result of this policy change and in preparation for the lifting of the court’s super-injunction. My first concern has been to notify as many people as possible who are affected by the data incident and to provide them with further advice. The Ministry of Defence has done that this morning, although it has not been possible to contact every individual on the dataset, owing to its incomplete and out-of-date information. Anyone who may be concerned can head to our new dedicated gov.uk website, where they will find more information about the data loss; further security advice; a self-checker tool, which will inform them whether their application has been affected; and contact steps for the detailed information services centre that the MOD has established.
This serious data incident should never have happened. It may have occurred three years ago, under the previous Government, but to all those whose information was compromised I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British Government, and I trust that the shadow Defence Secretary, as a former Defence Minister, will join me in that.
To date, 36,000 Afghans have been accepted by Britain through the range of relocation schemes. Britain has honoured the duty we owe to those who worked and fought alongside our troops in Afghanistan. The British people have welcomed them to our country, and in turn, this is their chance to rebuild their lives, their chance to contribute to and share in the prosperity of our great country. However, none of these relocation schemes can carry on in perpetuity, nor were they conceived to do so. That is why we announced on 1 July that we would no longer accept new applicants to ARAP. However, I reiterate the commitment that we made then to processing every outstanding ARAP application and relocating those who might prove eligible, and we will complete our commitment to continuing the review of the Triples.
I recognise that my statement will prompt many questions. I would have liked to settle these matters sooner, because full accountability to Parliament and freedom of the press matter deeply to me—they are fundamental to our British way of life. However, lives may have been at stake, and I have spent many hours thinking about this decision; thinking about the safety and the lives of people I will never meet, in a far-off land in which 457 of our servicemen and women lost their lives. So this weighs heavily on me, and it is why no Government could take such decisions lightly, without sound grounds and hard deliberations. During the last year we have conducted and now completed this work. I commend my statement to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for receipt earlier this morning of a hard copy of the Rimmer review. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces for briefing me yesterday and other parliamentary colleagues today. Furthermore, given the nature of the super-injunction and the fact that the timing and nature of the statement relate entirely to the court’s lifting of that super-injunction, I recognise that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I welcome the opportunity that colleagues now have to scrutinise these matters.
Let me begin by declaring an interest. I was a Defence Minister in August 2023, when the Department first became aware of the breach, my main role being to chair one meeting on the matter in August 2023 because I was the duty Minister. Thereafter, however, as Minister for Defence Procurement and with this sitting outside my portfolio, I had relatively minimal direct involvement. That said, the Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that, and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols. I also agree that it is right for an apology to be issued specifically to those whose data was compromised.
It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that when this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then Government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario: namely, an error on the part of an official of the British state leading to the torture, or even murder, of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime. As the Rimmer review confirms, that scenario, thankfully, appears to have been avoided. Of course, we understand that the review was set up in January and reported to the Secretary of State in June.
I want to be clear that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State has sought to update the Department’s understanding of the threat on the ground in Afghanistan that exists today, particularly for those persons in the dataset who had previously been considered to be at the greatest risk of reprisals. However, the House will appreciate that when Ministers became aware of the data breach in August 2023, we did not have the luxury of six months in which to assess the situation. As Rimmer says in paragraph 53:
“The review notes that the passage of time is particularly relevant.”
I know that my former ministerial colleague—the former Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, who led the response to the leak—will have been focused entirely on what he saw as his duty of care to those at risk of reprisals, based on the threat assessment that pertained at the time. However, any threat picture is constantly evolving, and as I say, I support the Secretary of State’s decision to review the MOD’s understanding of the threat. Given the latest situation, as reported by Rimmer, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan response route can now be closed.
Turning to the super-injunction, I entirely understand why this would be a subject of considerable interest, particularly to the newspapers and media outlets concerned. We have an independent judiciary, and it is not for me to comment either on the decision to grant the injunction in the first place or to lift it today, but it is surely telling that paragraph 56 of the Rimmer review states that planning at the time that the Government became aware of the breach in the summer of 2023 was based on a
“risk judgement that were the Taleban to secure access to the dataset, the consequences for affected individuals may be serious.”
Had that not been the case, no doubt the Court would have been less likely to grant the injunction, and certainly not a super-injunction.
On the leak, can the Secretary of State confirm that it was by a civil servant, and that Ministers at the time took steps to change the casework procedure by not using spreadsheets sent by email, but moving to a more secure system fully within the entirely secure network? Can he confirm that, although the dataset was of about 18,000, only a relatively small portion were identified as at high risk of reprisals, and only a small number had been settled here, which is why, as he stated, the cost is about £400 million, not the £7 billion reported elsewhere? Now that these matters are rightly in the public domain and given the reassessment of the threat in the Rimmer review, I agree that it would be wholly appropriate for the Defence Committee and others to look further into these matters.
Can the Secretary of State comment on one specific item being reported, which is that someone—I refer not to the person who made the leak, but another apparent third party who obtained some of the data—was engaged in blackmail? Did the original Metropolitan police investigation look at that, and if not, will he consider reopening it so that the police can look at that specific point, which has serious implications?
Although we must recognise the huge role played by Afghan nationals in support of our armed forces, any policy in this area must always be balanced against our own national interest. We support the Government in closing the ARR scheme, as we did with their decision to close the full ARAP programme.
John Healey
I welcome the tone in which the shadow Defence Secretary has responded, and I welcome his joining me in the apology on behalf of the British Government to those whose data has been compromised. I also welcome his acceptance that, as he put it, it was “entirely appropriate” for the Defence Secretary, as part of a new Government, to look to update the Department’s assessment of the threat. I am very pleased that, as the House will have noted, he supports Rimmer’s conclusions and my policy judgments that the Government have announced today. The shadow Defence Secretary is right that, in simple terms, Rimmer gives us a revised, up-to-date assessment of the risk—in particular, the risk to those individuals whose data may be on that spreadsheet. He does confirm that it is highly unlikely that their name being on the dataset increases the risk of their being targeted.
The shadow Defence Secretary asked me three or four specific questions. He asked about the official—it was a defence official. I cannot account for the improvements in data handling that previous Ministers may have made, but when I did his job in opposition, this data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes. I can also say that, in the past year since the election, the Government have appointed a new chief information officer, installed new software to securely share data and completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system.
On the £7 billion figure, which I think the shadow Defence Secretary may have picked up from court papers, that was a previous estimate. It is related not simply to the Afghan response route but an estimate of the total cost of all Government Afghan schemes for the entire period in which they may operate.
On the significance of today’s announcement and the policy decisions that we have taken compared with simply continuing the policy and schemes that we inherited, the taxpayer will pay £1.2 billion less over the period, about 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country and, above all, proper accountability in this House and proper freedom of the media are restored.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Although I welcome it and his intent to inject parliamentary transparency and scrutiny, this whole data breach is a mess and wholly unacceptable. As I mentioned to the Minister for the Armed Forces during our recent secret briefing, I am minded to recommend to my Defence Committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate it to ascertain what has transpired, given the serious ramifications on so many levels.
As things stand, notwithstanding the contents of the Rimmer review, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the Afghans affected, many of whom bravely supported our service personnel, will not be at risk of recriminations and reprisals?
John Healey
I can only recommend that my hon. Friend reads in full the public version of the Rimmer report, which I have published today. Rimmer sets out conclusions and an updated risk assessment, taking an up-to-date view, recognising that the situation in Afghanistan is nearly four years on from the point at which the Taliban took control and that the present regime sees those who may threaten the regime itself as a greater threat to their operation than any former Government official or serving official.
I recommend that my hon. Friend reads that report, and I expect that he, as the Defence Committee Chair, will want to take full advantage of this restored parliamentary accountability. I have always believed that our Select Committee system in this House is perfectly capable of, and better suited to, many of the in-depth inquiries that often get punted into public inquiries or calls for such inquiries. I hope he will have noted the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary also endorsed that view.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing on this issue this morning.
I am pleased this House now has the opportunity to scrutinise this alarming data breach. It was right that the then Government moved to introduce a new scheme to try to minimise the risk to the Afghan soldiers and their families caught up in this breach involving 18,714 individuals in total. It is the very least we owe them given the sacrifices they made to support our campaign in Afghanistan, and I welcome the apologies from both sides of the House as a result of this data breach.
There are, however, serious questions raised about how this data breach was allowed to happen under the Conservatives’ watch, and the heightened level of risk it has created for the Afghans involved. What steps have been taken to address the root cause of the breach and ensure that it cannot happen again? Reporting by the Financial Times this afternoon suggests that an original relocation scheme considered for all 25,000 Afghan personnel could cost up to £7 billion. Will he confirm what assessment his Department has made of that figure, and why that was kept hidden from the public?
The immediate priority must be to ensure the safety of all those individuals caught up in this breach, so what assurances can the Secretary of State provide that lifting the super-injunction does not heighten dangers for the individuals concerned? What steps is he taking to ensure that the individuals whose data was leaked are aware of the incident? What additional support is being provided to them directly now that the case is in the public domain? In the light of these developments, can he outline when the casework and final relocations under this and the ARAP scheme will be completed?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Lady’s response. I provided the answers to two or three of her questions directly to the shadow Defence Secretary. On the steps we have taken to ensure the reduced risk of data losses and data breaches in future, one can never say never but I am more confident that I was 12 months ago. I have also given a response on the £7 billion figure. The estimated full costs of all Afghan schemes that will run to their completion, from start to finish, because of the savings that will derive from the policy decisions we have taken today, will be between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. The cost of the ARR scheme to date—the cost and the sums committed to bring the 900 principals and their immediate families who are in Britain or in transit—is about £400 million. On those still to come, I expect the cost to be a similar sum.
I think I said in my statement to the House that Rimmer recognises the uncertainties and the brutal nature of the Afghan Taliban regime. There can never be no risk in such judgments and decisions, and that is one reason that I and the Government have taken this decision with hard deliberation and serious intent. I hope the House will back it this afternoon.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the ministerial team for my early briefing, which gave me an opportunity to read a Foreign Affairs Committee report that came out—it was begun in September 2021—in 2022 under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is called “Missing in action: UK leadership and the withdrawal from Afghanistan” and it was excoriating:
“The manner of the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan was a disaster, a betrayal of our allies, and weakens the trust that helps to keep British people safe.”
It said:
“the Government should keep better records—securely held—on locally-employed staff”—
we have heard that this is one of the many data losses from ARAP—
“to ensure that any evacuation can be carried out more effectively. It should devise a policy, based on clear and fair principles, about the assistance that will be offered to local partners in the event of a security deterioration, and report to us when it has done so.”
I hope that such a policy has been developed, that more lessons have been learnt and that Ministers will report to my Foreign Affairs Committee about where we are now.
John Healey
I am sure Ministers will report to my right hon. Friend’s Committee if she invites us to do so. She is right to make the big argument that anyone providing data to the British Government has a right to expect that personal data to be stored securely, handled safely and not subject to the sort of loss or breach that we saw too often in the early days of the Afghan relocation schemes.
John Healey
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I am certainly grateful for his support for my statement this afternoon. Although he has not said it, he is a big champion of press freedom and I expect that he also recognises that an important part of our decision has been the period in which we have seen no public knowledge, no media reporting and no parliamentary accountability. We set that right today.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
As a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I was appalled to watch the chaotic mismanagement following the fall of Kabul that left Afghans who served alongside our troops and who worked so hard for a better Afghanistan, dangerously exposed. This was a situation that I feared would happen and could see coming even when I served in Afghanistan in 2017. The fact is that the previous Government had plenty of warning that that situation could happen and failed to plan properly for it. This data breach joins a litany of other data breaches, delays and failures of our allies. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must give our fullest support to those Afghans, so they can rebuild a new life in the UK?
John Healey
I do indeed. I know from Afghan families who were relocated in the early days to my own constituency in South Yorkshire that it was the voices of Members on both sides of the House, speaking up in exactly the same terms as my hon. Friend just has and recognising the debt this country owes to many of those who worked alongside or served with our armed forces and who made possible in the first place the very difficult job that our forces undertook in Afghanistan, that provided a warm welcome, and they continue to do so. To those Afghans, we are offering a new home and a chance to rebuild their lives and contribute to our country.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the tone of voice with which he delivered it. I commanded the Scots Guards in 2010 in Afghanistan, at the high watermark of violence. I was very well served by Naz and Mukhtar, and I will always be grateful both to the Ministry of Defence for getting them to Britain and to the communities in this country who have welcomed them to their new lives here. I want to focus on a particular phrase the Secretary of State used. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it was a civil servant who carried out the leak. The Secretary of State said it was a “Defence official” and The Times is reporting that it was a soldier. I think it is worth clarifying exactly whether it was a civil servant, a spad or a soldier, because conflating the term “Defence official” to cover members of the armed forces is something that might come back to bite the Secretary of State if he continues to do it.
John Healey
This was a data breach that took place three and a half years ago under the decision and leadership of the previous Government and previous Defence Ministers. The challenge this Government faced was far bigger than the actions of one official that long ago. My full focus since the election in July last year has been to get to grips with the costs, the proportionality—or disproportionality—of the schemes in place, and the lack of accountability to Parliament, freedom of the press and public knowledge. It is that set of factors that has taken up my time and my attention.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I note that the shadow Secretary of State made great play of the changes and the extra safeguards that Ministers of the previous Government put in place following the breach. I also note that the Secretary of State said he had had to make more changes and introduce new software. That suggests to me that the changes put in place by the previous Government were not good enough. Can I ask him this clearly? Who had knowledge of this incident in the 18 months after the data breach had taken place before it reached Ministers? How were there no checks on anyone in the Department who had access to that sort of data to ensure they were using it properly?
John Healey
My hon. Friend poses questions to me in the House this afternoon that I simply cannot answer. The events date from a period well before I took office. As he above all will appreciate, new Ministers have no access to the policy advice, the legal assessments, any of the papers or even the threat assessments that previous Government Ministers may have commissioned. I think that that subject is, if I may say so, proper material for the Defence Committee, on which he serves in such a distinguished way, to perhaps take a deeper look at and to call witnesses on who may be in a better position to answer those questions than I am this afternoon.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about software. I am afraid I am one of the last people to be able to give an authoritative view on the question of cyber-security and up-to-date software, but the nature of this work means that there is a constant requirement for new software and for updating. The fact that we have taken the steps in the past 12 months that our experts and I have regarded as necessary does not necessarily mean that the steps taken by previous Ministers were inadequate. What I can say, however, is that when I was the shadow Defence Secretary, we were aware of and exposed in opposition the building backlogs in casework, the regular data breaches and the broken promises that sadly too often characterised the Afghan relocation schemes, particularly in the early years.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I, too, welcome the statement given by the Secretary of State today. As a member of the Defence Committee, I look forward to giving this matter the scrutiny it deserves. I will not go into the detail of the report, but I think it is important to clarify, if the Secretary of State is able to do so, whether the data breach in question has in the past put or is now putting any serving members of the UK armed forces at risk?
John Healey
I look forward to being called to give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee if it does launch such an inquiry. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is staggering to hear of yet another serious data breach under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can bicker from their Benches, but it was clearly a mistake made when they were in power. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have inherited a chaotic and poorly managed system, and can he tell us what systems have been put in place to correct that? We must not see more systems with officials emailing an Excel spreadsheet—it absolutely beggars belief. Can he confirm that this will never happen again?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the criticism she levels. I would just say, however, that I do not think any Minister could stand here and guarantee that there will never be another data breach, data loss or data error in that way, in the same way that no chief executive of any organisation could say so. I can say that we have taken steps to reduce the risk of that happening and that we no longer do any casework on spreadsheets, which was the technology that was available in the early days of this scheme. That was part of the problem, I think, in the inadvertent mistake made by the Defence official.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What worries me more than the lifting of this super-injunction is the fact that we have closed down all the Afghan schemes at the very time that undocumented Afghans who felt it necessary to flee to Iran and Pakistan are being rounded up for forcible repatriation to an Afghanistan led by the Taliban. I understand that the investigation into our obligation to the Triples—the special forces that our forces trained—will continue, and I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the closure of the schemes, anybody who is found to have worked closely with our armed forces and is in imminent danger can still be rescued and admitted to this country?
John Healey
It is more than four years since the previous Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, launched on behalf of this country the Afghan relocations and assistance policy with the full support of this House. There has been ample time for anyone who could conceivably believe they might qualify to make their application. None of those schemes, including ARAP, was ever conceived or designed to last in perpetuity, which is why we closed them at the beginning of this month to any new applicants, and why I have taken the decision, based on Rimmer and the other factors I have identified, to end the ARR scheme today. On the ARAP applicants—the sort of Afghans whom the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about—we will complete any remaining applications that are in our system waiting to be processed. On the Triples, we will complete the second phase of the review that we have given a commitment to them and to this House to undertake.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for parliamentary transparency and for the work of the Committee corridor in this House. I have no doubt that my excellent colleagues who chair the various Committees that are responsible will do a thorough job of examining this matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will facilitate the sharing of any information that may need to be handled in a sensitive manner. When Labour was last in government, there were a number of breaches of this nature; a predecessor of his asked to be notified of every one, and most were due to human error. It is great that we are updating the IT systems and dealing with the security, but could the Secretary of State touch on the measures that will be put in place to guard against the human error that will inevitably creep in?
John Healey
For functions and roles like this, having sound, secure caseworker software, good training and proper protocols—all of which are now in place—greatly minimises the risk that anything like this data breach, which we now find out took place in February 2022, is likely to happen again. Most importantly, I think it will help to provide the reassurance that anyone providing data to the British Government or state should have that that data will be held and handled securely.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
If the Defence Secretary will forgive me, I detect some wriggling. The fact is that he is justifying this super-injunction and not telling Parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm’s way. Is it not the case that his argument is actually very thin? Even the MOD admits that Taliban-aligned individuals already had access to the database, so not telling those Afghans that they were in harm’s way is, quite frankly, unbelievable. The precedent of a super-injunction is very concerning for this place. How do we know that there is not another super-junction about another leak? Of course, the Secretary of State could not tell us, could he?
John Healey
Well, I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that if there is another super-injunction, I have not been read in. In his characteristic way, he makes an important point about how unprecedented, uncomfortable and, in many ways, unconscionable it is to have a super-injunction like this in place. In the light of that, I hope he will accept that it was a difficult decision to review the risks, the costs and details of the scheme, and the legal hearings that have taken place. Those have all been components of the important policy decision that I have been able to announce to the House today, and I hope he will back it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
My husband served in Afghanistan and has always felt keenly the debt that our country owes to those who worked alongside and supported our forces, and I know that many of my constituents who served there feel the same. If we fail to honour our debts, why should people in future conflicts trust us and support our troops? Does the Defence Secretary share that concern? Does he also agree that it is right that we offer a warm welcome to the Afghans who come to our country seeking sanctuary?
John Healey
I agree 100%, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend speaks so plainly, so forcefully and so passionately. When we first debated the obligation to put in place the ARAP scheme four or five years ago, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Defence, one of the things that struck me most was that those who felt fiercest were, understandably, those who had served—those in this House who had been part of the 140,000 British men and women who had served in Afghanistan over 20 years—because they recognised just what a debt this country and they owe to people like those whom my hon. Friend’s husband speaks about.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge to restore full accountability to the Government’s relocation schemes, but I am saddened that this is the first opportunity that we have had to talk about the closure of ACRS and ARAP on the Floor of the House, given that they were announced by written statement at very short notice only two weeks ago. May I ask a couple of specific questions? On the ARR, which we have only found out about today, the Secretary of State mentioned 600 invitations that will be honoured. For those who were not accepted and are part of the breach, are they aware of that? ARAP has been closed to new applications, but, again—I have asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about this before—what is the communication strategy for updating them? The ACRS was never open to vulnerable women and the civil rights defenders it aimed to protect. Again, what communication will the Government have with those individuals who are in hiding either in Afghanistan or in third countries?
John Healey
We made a statement about the closure of the Home Office-run ARAP and ACRS on 1 July, and the hon. Lady will have had opportunities since then to raise those matters in the House. On the information to those who may be affected, we will honour the invitations that have been issued to 600 ARR individuals. To everyone else in the dataset, we have communicated the latest position this morning. We are offering access to further advice through the designated area of the gov.uk website, and that includes steps that individuals can take, if they wish, to get in touch with our information services centre, which has been set up by the MOD to deal with questions and concerns that people may have.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a very shocking story that the Secretary of State has told us today, and I pay tribute to him for his commitment to be transparent about it. Sadly, this comes as no surprise to many of us here and to those in our offices who, over that period of time, had to deal with hundreds of desperately distraught people ringing in to find out what might happen to their relatives. I have to be honest with the Secretary of State: this matter is not closed. I join the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in being desperately concerned that we still have people who would have qualified under these schemes, but who, because of failures like this, fled Afghanistan or tried to go to other countries. We tried to raise this issue with Ministers, but could not get meetings with them, and now we discover that there were secret schemes.
The Secretary of State will understand that, right now, MPs’ offices across this country will be hearing this and be worried that, again, they will get those phone calls and have those queries. He is right to say that there must be parliamentary scrutiny. Can he assure us that there will be additional resources to help us support our constituents who come forward and that he will keep an open mind that, even four years later, there will still be cases that are relevant to this scheme that should be heard—people who should be given sanctuary here—if we are to honour our debt to those people who kept our forces safe?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been one of the most active and most assiduous Members of this House in championing the cause of her constituents and others who may be trying to get access to the scheme. It has been over four years since the ARAP scheme was first established, and there are still 22,000 ARAP applicants whose applications will be processed. Where eligibility is established, they will be offered the relocation that this country has undertaken to give them. Those applicants need not have applied from Afghanistan, but many did so. From the outset, one of the most important features of the ARAP scheme—given that the Taliban had taken over in Afghanistan—was that it applied to female Afghans who formerly worked alongside our own forces and even served in the Afghan forces alongside our own, who have potentially been at greatest risk. For them, the offer to relocate to this country, and to rebuild and re-establish a life here, has been very important.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for the calm and sensible way in which he has announced the change in Government policy today. I can already announce to the House that, since the briefing earlier today, I have made preliminary arrangements for MOD officials to address the Public Accounts Committee to examine the cost implications. Some £400 million has been spent so far, and I think the Secretary of State said in parentheses that another £400 million will be spent on the 600 people currently based in Afghanistan who have received invitations under the scheme. Can he give me and the House an assurance that if those 600 people, who must be in some danger, do need assistance, it will be rapidly provided?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is very fast off the mark, and I am glad that he has already issued his invitation to his Committee. He is asking for figures as Chair of the PAC. The cost of what has been spent and committed in order to get in transit to Britain the 900 principals eligible under ARR, plus their immediate family members, is around £400 million. For the remaining members of the ARR and their immediate families who have been issued invitations, we expect something similar again. But because of the policy decisions that we have been able to announce and the changes that we have been able to make to the programmes we inherited—he may want to probe this with his Committee—it means that the taxpayer should be paying £1.2 billion less over the next few years, and that around 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s decision to support the lifting of the super-injunction today and bring this awful matter properly into the public domain. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right and proper that this issue is now fully scrutinised by Parliament?
John Healey
I do, indeed. One important feature for me in being able to make this statement and to set out the details before the House this afternoon has been that we are now restoring the proper parliamentary accountability of Ministers to this House for the decisions that we take, the schemes that we run and the spending that we commit on behalf of the taxpayer. I look forward to Members in this Chamber—and, I hope, in the appropriate Committees—undertaking their proper constitutional role in a way they have not been able to do over the past two years without being constrained.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This has been a difficult statement for the Secretary of State—make no mistake. He said in his statement that this was a breach of very strict data protection protocols. Well, on the basis of this breach and the other breaches around Afghan resettlement, those protocols were clearly not strict enough. He has declined to say whether it was a contractor, a civil servant or a member of service personnel. I do not think that anyone in this House wants to know who it was, but I would like to know how senior that person was. If it was a junior member of MOD staff, the delinquency is both systemic and personal, but if it was a senior member of MOD staff, the delinquency is purely personal on the basis of their knowledge and seniority.
This instance related to brave Afghans, but what reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that the brave personnel of the UK forces would not be compromised by a level of delinquency similar to this in the MOD—and why the synchronicity between the lifting of the super-injunction and the ending of the schemes? Should we not walk a mile in the shoes of the people who have fled the Afghan regime, and do should we maybe think whether we need an ARR-plus wash-up to get these people out of danger if it becomes a reality?
John Healey
I wanted this House to hear the policy decisions that I had made and I wanted this House to hear them first. The judge, aware of the decisions that the Government had taken and the announcements that I was planning to make today, took his decision to lift the super-injunction and to deliver his court judgment at noon.
On the question of the individual responsible for the original data loss, that is not something I am prepared to pursue in this House. Clearly the overarching responsibility was with the Ministers at the time. My full focus has been to get to grips with what we inherited, take a fresh look at the policy that was in place, and be in a position—with the proper degree of deliberation, and with sound grounds—to come to the House and announce the changes I have this afternoon.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As I am sure many Members do, I feel a sense of anger that once again the Afghan people have been betrayed. I thank the Secretary of State for his candour and his response, and for lifting the super-injunction, which will allow proper parliamentary scrutiny, but will he assure me that the following three questions will be answered? First, how was a year allowed to pass between the initial leak and it being uncovered? Secondly, how was an email with a spreadsheet attached considered a serious way to send around what effectively amounted to a kill list of Afghans for the Taliban?
Thirdly, the role of James Heappey in overseeing this has been mentioned. What role, if any, was held by the two Secretaries of State for Defence over that time, one who served until August 2023 and one who served from August 2023—to my mind, either side of the information coming to light? If we do not get to the bottom of those questions, we will do an immense disservice to the British people and, worse, to Afghans, who have been let down once again.
John Healey
My hon. Friend signals some of the areas that the necessary parliamentary scrutiny will consider. I have to say, it was 18 months, not one year, between the original data loss and when it was first discovered and brought to Ministers’ attention in August 2023. To his second question about the spreadsheet, this was a period in which officials and the Department were working at breakneck speed to put in place novel schemes that were urgently needed. Clearly that sort of spreadsheet software is inappropriate for this casework system, and it is no longer used in that way. Finally, on the role of my predecessors, Grant Shapps was the Defence Secretary who oversaw the design, extension and establishment of the ARR scheme.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
As well as risking lives, this extraordinary error has cost taxpayers huge sums. The Secretary of State says that it will now cost £1.2 billion less, but what will be the total cost of all these schemes after that? First, given the extraordinary lack of transparency that this Parliament has been subjected to—and voters too—will the Secretary of State agree to publish the legal advice that led to the expansion of the ARR and other schemes so that we can properly discuss it? Secondly, the Secretary of State did not mention any official resigning or being sacked over this extraordinary episode. I think my constituents will find that quite surprising. Will he name the number of people who have resigned or been sacked over this extraordinary error, and if nobody has been, does he agree that that is wrong?
John Healey
I am not in a position to make a decision about publishing the legal advice that led the previous Government and Defence Secretary to extend the scheme. It is not legal advice that I have had access to or seen. On the question of costs, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, will do the job. I can confirm that the total cost of all Afghan relocation schemes to date, for those 36,000 Afghans who have been brought to this country, is around £2.7 billion. The expected cost over the entire lifetime of those schemes, to bring in anyone who may subsequently prove eligible, is between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. That is at least £1.2 billion less because of the policy decisions I have taken this afternoon.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his openness and transparency, and for his apology, and I thank Portsmouth city council for its involvement in Afghan resettlement schemes, which have helped many of those who served alongside my Portsmouth North constituents. I welcome today’s decision. The Government rightly took time to consider all the options and examine the complexities, including through the Rimmer review. They considered the cost to taxpayers and the safety of those affected, alongside the need for transparency and openness in this House and to the press and the public. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must, as a Government, reaffirm our commitment to public transparency?
John Healey
I do agree, and this House is doing so this afternoon in response to my statement. The role that my hon. Friend’s local council in Portsmouth and councils across the country are playing in making sure that there is a warm welcome and a unified Afghan resettlement programme in place for those Afghans and their families who we are welcoming into this country is remarkable. We thank them for that. Central Government and this House could not see these schemes operate effectively without our local councils.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State’s statement. I will not dwell on the past, because I am sure that the Defence Committee and other Select Committees will have a look at that. I want to ask him about where this goes in future. All these schemes are closing, but there are still people out there who do not recognise the statement in the report that there is no longer a widespread campaign of targeting individuals. I have one case in my mind. The Minister for the Armed Forces knows exactly who I am referring to: Sami Atayee, who has fled and is in hiding in Pakistan, and whose brother has been arrested during the pursuit. He was not directly employed by the British Government—he could not have been, for security reasons—but the testament of General Olly Brown and others all say that he saved lives for British servicemen and servicewomen. We surely owe people like that a debt of honour and gratitude for their work, so I simply ask the Secretary of State to look at what might replace the schemes that he has got rid of, which were inflexible, very narrow and often left out those who really did this Government a service. I would be grateful if he came up with some flexible idea that allows some of these people to seek succour here in the United Kingdom.
John Healey
I hesitate to be too blunt with the right hon. Gentleman, because I have a great deal of respect for him. If any applicant is not eligible under the criteria of the scheme that this House has approved and the Government have in place and operate, that can really only lead to one decision. He encourages me to look in a creative way at other options. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is very familiar with the case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. We will look at it again, but I do not want to raise false hopes for him, or for the man whom he describes so vividly, and with such concern.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am proud that Bracknell Forest is involved in the Afghan resettlement programme, and is offering transitional support to the brave Afghans who risked their life to support our troops. Any such scheme depends on public trust, so it is concerning to hear that under the Conservative Government, we instead had secrecy, security breaches and a super-injunction. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reaffirm two commitments: first, that this Government will continue to honour the moral obligation we owe to the Afghans who fought alongside our troops, and, secondly, that we will do so in a way that reaffirms this Government’s commitment to public transparency?
John Healey
I will indeed reaffirm our continuing commitment to honouring the obligations and duty that we owe to those who served or worked alongside our forces. Through the ARAP scheme, we will complete the processing of any outstanding applications, and any who prove eligible will get full relocation and resettlement support. I am glad to be able to restore a degree of that parliamentary scrutiny and transparency that our system in Britain depends on.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He said: “When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it.” I agree. In the chaos of withdrawal, my constituent who left under ARAP was made a promise by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. Two years later, we have still not kept that promise. My constituent’s wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban, and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan—despite the risk to him—to be reunited with them. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who knows the case, has told me that the Ministry of Defence will not consider it, and that this is now a matter for the Home Office. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State repeat his commitment that our nation should keep its promise to my constituent? Will he undertake to discuss with the Home Secretary how her Department will ensure that such cases are afforded proper treatment in the light of our commitment to the Afghan people?
John Healey
I will take a look at the case and, if required, I will speak to my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Home Secretary.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the diplomats and armed forces involved in what was clearly an extraordinary operation. It is a stark reminder that our asylum system—despite the demagoguery we sometimes hear in this place—often represents a sacred duty to those who put their lives at risk for us and our allies. Will the Secretary of State confirm that while the ARR is now closed, we will continue to process cases of those in the ARAP scheme since 1 July, including the one that I have raised with officials?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully. Where there are outstanding ARAP applications, they will be processed. Where there are outstanding Triples cases that fall into the second phase of the review, that review will be completed, and where eligibility for ARAP entitlement is established, that will be honoured.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, but I think it asks a lot more questions than it answers. Will he outline exactly how the dataset came to be accidentally emailed? Will he confirm that it was indeed an accident? What was the security classification of that dataset? Who was the dataset emailed to, given that it is now feared to be in the hands of the Taliban? I appreciate that he might not be able to answer some of those questions, but given that this happened three years ago, what level of investigation has taken place? Can that be published?
John Healey
I think that I reported earlier to the House that the incident under previous Ministers was reported to the Metropolitan police. It was also reported to the Information Commissioner. The Met police deemed no criminal investigation or further action to be required. The Information Commissioner still has the case—we are working closely with them—and I would expect some conclusions and judgments from the Information Commissioner’s Office before too long, but I simply cannot say when.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I ran an aid agency when the Taliban came to power in 2021 and vividly recall trying to get the then Government to help with the evacuation of brave Afghan colleagues, aid workers and human rights defenders—people who had served humanity—under huge threat. I remember the confusion that reigned in the UK Government. To hear that the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians were further put at risk by this data breach is deeply shocking. The Defence Secretary will know that under the Taliban, Afghan women and girls are enduring the world’s most severe women’s rights crisis. Does he agree that the UK must do all it can to support the women and girls of Afghanistan in realising their right to equality?
John Healey
I do. Where female Afghans are eligible for the schemes, it has been important that they have been able to apply, and we have been able to offer them the same relocation and resettlement as others. My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and passion about that period in Afghanistan four years ago, when the Taliban were taking over as Kabul fell. I am sad to say that her characterisation of policy confusion and programme failure is exactly what was going on in the British Government at that time.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Secretary of State will know that communities in Wales, as across the UK, have been proud to welcome those Afghans and their families who served alongside UK personnel. Many colleagues have raised concern about the Afghans who might remain in Afghanistan or in adjacent countries and may still be in danger for their services rendered. How confident can we be that all those in severe and imminent danger of reprisals will receive invitations for resettlement?
John Healey
Those who have received invitations will have those honoured. On the concerns that the hon. Member may have about the assessment of risk in Afghanistan, I recommend that he reads Paul Rimmer’s report, which is comprehensive and up to date. It inevitably contains some uncertainties, and it identifies the risks that are inevitably there in any policy judgments that Government Ministers like me must make. I will also reinforce the point that the hon. Member made about the welcome and the pride with which the Welsh people embrace those Afghans who come to rebuild their lives in our country.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
My constituent has an active application to bring members of his family, who are currently in a third country, to safety in the UK. The MOD has advised him to assume that their data has been compromised, which is deeply concerning given the nature of the work he used to undertake. He has been told that this third country cannot be supported, even though his family might not be safe in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State help to ensure that his case is accelerated, given the further danger that the data leak may have put his family in?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details of that case, I will certainly take a hard look at it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his well-chosen, careful, contrite words, which were said in a tone that the House appreciates. As an MP who has often decried the abandonment of those Afghans who helped to secure safety for our troops, and whose job put them in the firing line, I must agree with the principle of doing the right thing, and being a nation that is seen globally as supporting those who support us. The issue of secrecy to the House is critical; the Secretary of State has outlined that. Does he agree that Governments must always totally protect those who were put in harm’s way, under the principle of doing what it is always right to do? I think of my constituent who served along with our forces in Afghanistan, and whose Afghan friend is in hiding in Pakistan with his wife and three children. I think of him and the fear he is in. If I send the Secretary of State the details of that gentleman and his family, will he ensure that he gets the help we should give him? That is what my constituent wants, what I want as his MP, and what that person wants.
John Healey
I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised his concerns about that case. If he writes to me with the details, I will take a hard look at it.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I served twice in Afghanistan alongside some of the bravest soldiers, judges and women’s rights defenders I have met. After the fall of Kabul, I was based in Pakistan with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where I was involved in the evacuation from Afghanistan. At that time, despite the excellent work of people who served in Op Pitting, we saw many mistakes made by the last Government, including dogs being prioritised ahead of people. This data breach, which was held secret for years, is just the latest embarrassment from that evacuation. Will the Secretary of State consider a Select Committee inquiry into not just the breaches in this case, but the entire Afghan relocation system, which has failed so many times?
John Healey
One of the great joys of this House is the depth and breadth of experience that Members on all sides bring to debates. I applaud my hon. Friend and the insights he brings from his experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is certainly not for Ministers to define the terms of any inquiry that a Select Committee of this House may choose to undertake. That will be a matter, quite properly, for those Committees. If Ministers are summoned and required to account and give evidence, we certainly will.
Lancaster House 2.0
John Healey Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We are in a new era of threat which demands a new era for defence. Yesterday I, together with my French counterpart Minister Sébastien Lecornu, agreed on implementing the detailed direction for rebooting the Lancaster House defence and security treaties between the United Kingdom and France. With the Lancaster House treaties originally signed in 2010, this reboot will modernise and build on our bilateral defence and security relationship in order to affect a generational shift in both our bilateral co-operation and our joint contribution to the defence of Europe, of its citizens and of its interests. It fulfils a commitment from the countries manifesto and the SDR which states that the UK’s defence relationship with France is “fundamental” to our security.
The UK and France, as Europe’s only nuclear powers, share a special responsibility for European and international defence and security. Our two nations represent nearly 40% of the defence budget of European allies, and more than 50% of the European spending on research and technology.
This reboot of the Lancaster House treaties builds on this strong foundation between the UK and France, reflecting the continuation of our shared values and strategic interests. It will enable us to continue to protect our shared interests, values, partners in Europe and beyond, and, fundamentally, our democratic way of life.
The reboot will deepen our long-standing and resolute commitment to co-operation on nuclear deterrence. Since 1995, we have stated that we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of one could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened. Thirty years on, the Northwood declaration, signed by the Prime Minister and the President at the 2025 UK-France summit, states for the first time that our respective deterrents are independent, but can be co-ordinated, and that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations. Any adversary threatening the vital interests of our nations should know that they could be confronted by the combined strength of the nuclear forces of both nations.
The UK and France will improve co-ordination across defence nuclear policy, capabilities and operations, and strengthen our ability to make joint decisions if needed. We will also deepen co-operation on nuclear research and technology, building on the 2010 Teutates treaty. A new UK-France nuclear steering board will be established to provide political direction for our collaboration. Both the UK and France remain committed to article V of the North Atlantic treaty and are dedicated to burden-sharing on wider nuclear deterrence. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear weapons. The UK’s strategic nuclear forces remain fully operationally independent and sovereign, but we are able to co-ordinate with France should the situation demand it. Our deterrent remains declared to the defence of NATO. We remain committed to our obligations under the NPT to pursue effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, and to the long-term goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.
The reboot will overhaul the existing Combined Joint Expeditionary Force into the Combined Joint Force to refocus it on the Euro-Atlantic and warfighting at scale to deter, placing it on an operational footing for the first time. This will be done through increasing the declared joint force capacity for a deployment of a combined corps capability as the land component of a broader joint force combining all military functions, as part of NATO or on its own. This will also provide for the creation of a joint operations cell, refreshed governance structure and a new strategic alignment process to better co-ordinate our forces.
The reboot will establish an “Entente Industrielle” to enhance capability and industrial co-operation, bringing our defence industries and militaries closer than ever before to strengthen NATO and grow our economies. We will develop capabilities such as the future cruise anti-ship weapon, acquire new Storm Shadow and Scalp missiles, strengthen our co-operation on complex weapons and include other European allies where appropriate. We will expand our co-operation across the new domains of space and cyber and we will also reinvigorate and expand our co-operation on wider science and technology and innovation co-operation, including on artificial intelligence.
In the land domain, we will develop together the UK and French combined corps concept in order to better jointly support NATO defence, and strive to facilitate aligned training at brigade, divisional and corps level to drive interoperability. In the maritime domain, we will expand our existing global maritime security dialogue at defence ministries level and global maritime domain awareness co-operation to better deter maritime hybrid threats, as well as continue to co-ordinate our carrier strike group deployments, including with other European carrier nations through ECGII and NATO. In the air domain, we will increase the complexity of our training exercises and enhance development of counter unmanned aerial systems.
The UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies; we are confident that the reboot of the Lancaster House treaties will contribute to the security, growth and prosperity of both our nations and the wider European region. We look forward to working closely with France to ensure its successful implementation.
As with the original 2010 treaties, this reboot will continue to serve as the cornerstone of our defence and security relationship with France and will be implemented by both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. This reboot of our defence and security relationship marks a significant milestone in strengthening co-operation with France, particularly in a time where the threats we face have changed fundamentally. It is ever more crucial for us to work closely with our allies and partners to strengthen the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as wider global arenas.
[HCWS812]
UK Defence Innovation and Cyber & Specialist Operations Command
John Healey Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today this Government are outlining two major developments in our commitment to reform defence and the delivery of our strategic defence review. The establishment of the new UK Defence Innovation organisation and the renaming of the UK Strategic Command to become the “Cyber & Specialist Operations Command (CSOC)”, reflecting the command’s evolved role and enhanced responsibilities.
UKDI is a new body which will harness and exploit technology for our armed forces. It will be the focal point for innovation within the Ministry of Defence, backed by a ringfenced annual budget of £400 million, supporting the Government’s plan for change by driving defence as an engine for UK growth and creating highly skilled jobs in the dual-use technology sector.
It will consolidate and streamline the existing MOD landscape into a single coherent system, as demanded by the SDR, with the mandate to bring innovative technology to the hands of frontline troops faster and to foster a thriving and world-leading UK defence tech sector. The UKDI will be in the new National Armaments Director Group within the MOD as part of the new operating model being established through Defence Reform.
The SDR highlighted the rapidly evolving threat landscape and the critical need for the UK to maintain its technological edge. UKDI will play a pivotal role in implementing the review’s recommendations by breaking down barriers between defence and commercial innovation, ensuring that game-changing technologies can be identified, developed, and deployed to the frontline at pace.
It will take a new approach by moving quickly and decisively, using different ways of contracting, to enable UK companies to scale up innovative prototypes rapidly, by setting out a clear pathway to growth, working with the rest of Government, from initial production to manufacturing at scale.
And will make the UK a defence innovation leader through funding and supporting firms of all sizes to take state-of-the-art technology from the drawing board to the production line.
The UKDI has been formally established today, with further design, transition and implementation work to be developed over the next 12 months. UKDI will be fully operational by July 2026.
This comes alongside another significant development within the Military Strategic Headquarters, under the command of the Chief of Defence Staff, with UK Strategic Command being renamed as the Cyber & Specialist Operations Command. This change reflects the command’s changed role and reinforces its responsibilities following the SDR, particularly its leadership of the cyber domain, which the SDR demanded a greater focus on across defence and Government as a whole. It follows the MOD, and Government partners, having to protect UK military networks against more than 90,000 “sub-threshold” attacks in the last two years.
The new name firmly places leadership of this crucial domain for defence and the armed forces with the new command. It also better represents CSOC’s “Lead Command” responsibilities for those specialist capabilities critical to operational success, ranging from intelligence, special forces, through to deployed medical capabilities and command and control as well as the permanent joint headquarters. CSOC, through Commander CSOC—General Sir Jim Hockenhull—will continue to be under the command of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the newly formed Military Strategic Headquarters, created under Defence Reform.
These are part of the far-reaching changes that will ensure we get cutting-edge innovations to our armed forces faster, enhancing military capability while driving economic growth in every corner of the UK.
[HCWS762]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, on behalf of those serving in our armed forces, I would like to thank you for the parliamentary flag-raising ceremony to mark the start of Armed Forces Week last Monday. I thank hon. Members across the House for the support that they gave to more than 200 local Armed Forces Day events over the weekend.
On housing, we are a Government who are delivering for defence. In January, we bought back 36,000 military homes into public ownership. In April, we launched a consumer charter to deliver basic housing rights and standards. In May, we announced an additional £1.5 billion for forces family homes—part of £7 billion that we will invest in military accommodation in the next five years.
Matt Turmaine
I meet servicemen, servicewomen and veterans in my constituency at events such as Remembrance Day and the recent VE commemorations. We all know the challenges that servicemen and women have had with housing and its quality in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this Labour Government who are finally making them proud?
John Healey
Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his strong working links with veterans in Watford. He is right: as he will recognise, my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People recently launched Operation Valour, the first ever UK-wide approach to veteran support, with £50 million of funding to establish a new network of Valour-recognised support centres right across the country.
Euan Stainbank
This Saturday, hundreds will join to mark Falkirk Armed Forces Day in Callendar Park, belatedly. Many of those who are currently serving and veterans in Scotland rely on the activities of charitable organisations such as the Ancre Somme Association, which is hosting the event, and Veterans Housing Scotland, which provides affordable housing for those who have served. Do the Government have any plans to supplement the essential and welcome £1.5 billion additional investment for service housing with additional support for registered charitable organisations that are working tirelessly to safely house veterans?
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.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Housing is not the only issue affecting armed forces families. When a member of the forces moves, their family often move with them. My work experience student Amy, who is in the Gallery today, is from an armed forces family and attended three primary schools. One school provided dedicated support, whereas others had less understanding of the issues that children whose parents are in the forces may face. Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that armed forces children receive consistent support at every school that they attend?
John Healey
We will indeed. Amy’s experience is typical for many children of forces families: regularly moving as their parents answer the call and are deployed in different areas. We can do better by them. I am in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary about how we can do better by our forces families and forces children, but also about how we can do better for the cadets and the opportunities that they offer to all young people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I welcome the recent announcement of funding to improve military housing, but our fantastic service personnel deserve more than short-term fixes. This year’s armed forces continuous attitudes survey showed that one in five personnel plan to leave, and over a quarter of them cited the standard of accommodation as a reason. That should be a wake-up call. Will the Government commit to going further and show a real commitment to retention by finally U-turning on their decision to block Liberal Democrat proposals to bring all military housing under the decent homes standard?
John Healey
No one could describe the decision to buy back 36,000 military family homes from private hands as a short-term fix, nobody could describe the consumer charter setting out basic housing rights and standards as a short-term fix, and no one could describe the housing strategy review we have got going as a short-term fix. The decent homes standard is one standard; I think we can be doing better by our armed forces families.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At last week’s NATO summit, I met Defence Ministers, including Ukrainian Defence Minister Umerov, about surging support into Ukraine, with the UK also announcing last week that hundreds more advanced short range air-to-air missiles—ASRAAM—would be delivered to Ukraine, starting in the next few weeks. Last Monday, I joined the Prime Minister in hosting President Zelensky in No. 10, where we discussed the ongoing detailed planning for the coalition of the willing, and I am proud to say that, three and a half years into Putin’s illegal invasion, this House and this country remain united for Ukraine.
Jas Athwal
Yesterday, alarming reports indicated that Russia had launched its largest air attack on Ukraine since the war began, killing at least six people and injuring many more. Clearly, regardless of his claims, Putin is not ready for peace. Given Russia’s continued aggression, what steps are the Government taking alongside NATO allies to increase pressure on Russia to agree to an unconditional ceasefire?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Last night’s attack is a reminder of just how fierce the Russian onslaught on Ukraine is, but it is also a reminder that Putin has failed in his strategic ambitions. Three and a half years into this campaign, he has passed the gruesome milestone of 1 million Russian casualties on the battlefield, and he is failing to take the territory that he thought would fall to him. I am proud that the UK has stepped up with leadership on Ukraine—with the coalition of the willing alongside the French and by chairing the Ukraine defence contact group alongside the Germans—and that we will spend more than £4.5 billion this year on UK military aid to Ukraine, which is the highest ever level.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on those terrible attacks. It should be a source of pride that some of the best drone and counter-drone tech that we have supplied to Ukraine has been made by British SMEs. The problem is that Labour’s procurement freeze means that almost none of it has been bought in parallel for our own armed forces. In this week of Labour U-turns, will the Secretary of State consider another one: namely, scrapping the Government’s crazy £30 billion Chagos deal and instead spending the money on rapidly supplying drones for the British Army, so that it can train for war as it is being fought today in Ukraine?
John Healey
That was a bit of a “bucket” question. On drones, we are increasing tenfold the number of British drones that we will supply to Ukraine this year. We are also stepping up the lessons we are learning from working with Ukraine on the development of its technology—battlefield-hardened and combat-ready—so that we can supply our own forces with increasing numbers of drones as part of the strategic defence review’s vision for the way that we transform our forces in the years ahead.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The veterans who served under Op Banner served to protect civilian lives and secure the peace in Northern Ireland. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s deep concern that many may now be caught up in investigations or litigation, and I am determined that we protect them further. I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary, as are our officials, to ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans as part of the necessary plans to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
David Davis
During Operation Banner, every single time a paramilitary was killed by a British soldier, it was subject to judicial investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions went through the evidence at the time, interviewed people, looked at the planning documents and was able to talk to people contemporaneously while they could still remember it. It was not a rubber stamp; it was rigorous, as was proven by the fact that, where necessary, it led to prosecution. What is happening now is double jeopardy. Worse still, it is double jeopardy under new rules but with no new evidence. Indeed, there is a risk of lost evidence and lost memory, given the passage of time. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, but will he commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the Government’s replacement for the legacy Act?
John Healey
Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislation—it has been rejected by domestic courts, and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles, whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks about, including our armed forces communities and veterans, to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties, in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about.
John Healey
We welcome the petition, and we certainly welcome the parliamentary debate—it is quite proper that Parliament debates these issues. The right hon. Gentleman’s legacy Act offered false and undeliverable promises to the veterans of Northern Ireland. The last Government were warned that it would be unlawful and incompatible with the Windsor framework. Even the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery said that the Act has obvious problems, and that elements of it were dead in the water from the beginning. We are now fixing that flawed and failed legislation, and we will do so in a way that honours our duty towards those veterans.
Mr Francois
The Government could have appealed to the Supreme Court on this but deliberately did not. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal sincerity. However, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister promised veterans:
“We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 324.]
Why then, despite the PM’s solemn promise, is the order still unchanged? Surely he is not expecting to order his own MPs, many of whom represent red wall seats from which those veterans were originally recruited, through the Aye Lobby just to do Gerry Adams a favour? He is not going to do that, is he?
John Healey
The Prime Minister was right then and he is right now. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary to repeal and replace the legacy Act. We will honour the Prime Minister’s undertaking to this House and do right by the duty that this nation holds to those veterans who served for more than 38 years during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At last week’s NATO summit all 32 nations signed up to a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, spending on national security, national resilience and homeland security. That builds on this Government’s £5 billion boost to defence this year, the funded and costed plan to hit 2.5% of GDP in two years’ time, and our ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Cameron Thomas
There is a great deal of experience across these Benches, and most of us recognise the imminence of the need to hit 3%. My expertise is in force protection, and I know, among other things, that Brize Norton cannot draw support from the Military Provost Guard Service under the land top level budget, such as at nearby Dalton barracks and South Cerney. That is more acute still at RAF Lossiemouth. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the command structure of the MPGS and bring our experience to the table to find that 3% of GDP imminently?
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman —he would be a much better person to meet than me on this matter.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence companies need certainty from the Government in order to invest and plan with confidence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent efforts at the G7 and NATO summits, and his commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, including 1.5% on defence and security-related investment. Can the Secretary of State clarify how exactly that 1.5% will be measured? Will it involve new projects and investments, or will it merely be a reclassification of existing projects? Crucially, how can industry, public bodies and other stakeholders contribute so that they can help to achieve that goal?
John Healey
My hon. Friend asks characteristically searching questions, so let me send him the NATO criteria that were published alongside the pledge last week, and let him and his Committee, when they interrogate me on Wednesday afternoon, pursue any further questions that they might have.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
There are Members on the Government Front Bench who know a thing or two about leadership—I can say that with confidence, because the Prime Minister is not in that place. The Government have a commanding majority and do not need the support of Members from any other Benches to hit 3% of GDP, and further, if only the leadership of the Labour party could get its own Members of Parliament through the Division Lobby. Given that the Prime Minister shows no ability to do that with the changes to welfare, how will he ensure that 3% is spent on defence in a timely manner?
John Healey
The Conservatives “hollowed out and underfunded” defence for 14 years—those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Gentleman’s former Cabinet colleague, Ben Wallace. This year there has been a £5 billion boost in defence spending, but in his Government’s first year, in 2010, there was a £2 billion cut in defence. Just as we boosted defence spending this year, we will increase it to 2.5% by 2027, which is three years earlier than the right hon. Gentleman argued for. We have shown exactly how we will fund that. We have taken the decision—which he did not take—to switch funding from overseas development aid into defence, and just as we have shown where the money is coming from in this Parliament, in the next Parliament we will do the same.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the commitment to get to 5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. It is imperative that the increase in defence spending means that funding is getting to those on the cutting edge of defence innovation. Cody technology park in Farnborough is already home to world-class defence innovation, with a wide range of small and medium-sized enterprises working there, alongside QinetiQ, and it is where DragonFire has just been developed. What role does the Minister see for existing places such as Cody, in delivering our defence industrial strategy? Will she meet me to discuss whether Cody could be the home for the new defence SME hub?
John Healey
I see a huge role. I hope that my hon. Friend took the commitment that the Chancellor and I made, alongside the spring statement, to set a new target for direct defence investment in SMEs, as a sign of that commitment. While I am in the business of committing my ministerial colleagues to meetings, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be only too happy to meet her and to draw on her expertise as part of the development of our defence industrial strategy.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
On defence spending, is not the truth that Labour’s promise to reach 3% of GDP, let alone 3.5% or 5%, is just smoke and mirrors, because there is no actual plan to pay for it? How can the Government claim that they will properly invest in our defence and keep the country safe when they cannot even deliver the limited savings they have promised on welfare? So I ask the Secretary of State: where is the money coming from?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to the Conservative Front Bench team, alongside his two very distinguished colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I gently say to him that, since the election, his colleague the shadow Defence Secretary argued 13 times for 2.5% by 2030. He only changed his tune after February, when the Prime Minister showed how it was going to be funded and said that we would do it three years earlier, in 2027. We have shown how we will raise the extra funding for this record increase in investment in defence since the end of the cold war. We have shown exactly how it is costed and exactly how it will be funded in this Parliament, and in the next Parliament we will do the same.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government’s commitment to reach 5% on GDP on defence spending is the right decision. As we face the once-in-a-generation threat from Russia, it is vital that we regenerate our armed forces after years of decline under the Conservatives. However, we need more urgency. The International Institute for Strategic Studies warns that if there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, Russia could
“pose a significant military challenge to NATO allies…as early as 2027.”
In order to strengthen our defence, we need to give people better incentives to join the armed forces. Will the Minister consider accelerating recruitment by backing the Liberal Democrat proposal for a £10,000 signing bonus to attract new recruits?
John Healey
We are accelerating recruitment. We are dealing with the deep-seated and long-running failure in recruitment, because the previous Government, over 14 years, set and then failed to meet their own recruitment targets. We are dealing with the recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces. I am proud to say that last year we gave the armed forces the biggest pay rise for over 20 years; that this year there will be another inflation-busting pay rise; and that we are starting to provide better pay, better kit, better housing and better support for forces families—the sorts of things that will keep those valuable and valued members of the armed forces serving our country and protecting us all.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Last week, 32 NATO nations came together at the summit in The Hague, united in collective deterrence and in our collective defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. I can report to the House that NATO is now bigger, stronger and more lethal than before. We signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, with new capability commitments from each nation. It was a good day for NATO, a good day for British jobs, and a bad day for Putin.
Everyone at the summit agreed that Iran should never have nuclear weapons. We all want the ceasefire between Israel and Iran to hold, and we will work to support it. Finally, we also discussed it creating a new opportunity for a ceasefire in Gaza, which would be a vital step on the path to peace.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Now that the Prime Minister has made a cast-iron commitment to meet NATO’s 5% defence spending target, will the Secretary of State make a similarly welcome commitment to cross-party talks to establish a credible and durable path towards meeting that goal ahead of NATO’s 2029 capability review?
John Healey
I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for the commitment we have made at NATO; the Leader of the Opposition was unable to offer that support at Prime Minister’s questions last week. If the hon. Gentleman has ideas about how we should fund that commitment in the next Parliament, I would be perfectly happy to hear them.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State support the action taken by the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities?
John Healey
As I said in my response to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), we are absolutely determined that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. We have been working with allies, on a diplomatic path. Now that a ceasefire is in place, the mind of all NATO leaders, including President Trump, was on putting our weight behind that diplomatic path. That is the way towards ensuring a sustainable and verifiable end to any nuclear programme.
James Cartlidge
It is extraordinary that a British Secretary of State for Defence is unable to give his explicit support to the military action of our closest ally, the United States. Is the real reason why Labour cannot back US military action against Iran not the same as the reason why it will not U-turn on Chagos or on Northern Ireland veterans—that when it comes to choosing between legal theory and the national interest, this Prime Minister is a lawyer, not a leader?
John Healey
Absolute rubbish! The UK and the US are the very closest of defence, intelligence and national security partners. The US was strongly behind the deal we have done on Diego Garcia, because it knows that that deal secures the operational sovereignty there of the UK and the US for the next 100 years and beyond.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what happened to the £4 billion earmarked for autonomous systems, including in Plymouth. That line was in the Chancellor’s spending review speech, but not delivered on the day. The Chief Secretary did not know. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this funding exists, and will he accept an invitation to Turnchapel Wharf, where exciting marine autonomy is being developed?
John Healey
I can confirm that the £4 billion is funded. I can confirm that the investment in autonomous and drone technology in this Parliament is double what was planned before the election. I can confirm that we will spend and invest that money it in this Parliament. I always like coming to Plymouth; my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces drags me down there frequently.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
John Healey
I do indeed. NATO is bigger, stronger and more lethal than ever before. It is our guarantee that we will never fight alone. That is why the leading contribution that Britain makes to NATO deterrence and defence is a big part of keeping us safe for the future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sadly, we have all seen the devastation caused by modern missiles. Germany is preparing to receive the Arrow 3 missile defence system, ordered just two years ago, which can intercept intercontinental missiles at 2,500 km. What plans have the Government to equip this country similarly?
John Healey
One of the recommendations in the strategic defence review was that we develop an integrated air and missile defence system in this country. We must take our homeland security more seriously than we have in the past, and that is exactly what we will do.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
During our last session of Defence questions, I asked the Secretary of State to join me in wishing a happy forthcoming birthday to Eastbourne’s last surviving war veteran, Eric Deach, who was shortly to turn 100. Unfortunately, tomorrow I shall be a pallbearer at his funeral; he did not make it. Will the Secretary of State, ahead of that funeral, join me in paying one final tribute to Eric for his service and everything he did to fight for our country?
John Healey
It needs no words; the hon. Gentleman has heard the response of the House. We pay tribute to Mr Deach, and offer our deepest sympathies to his family, his friends and his comrades, and our thoughts will be with the hon. Gentleman tomorrow as he bears that coffin into the crematorium or the church for Mr Deach’s final journey.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the Government raise with the F-35 joint program office or the joint executive steering board the human rights breaches and the possibility of suspending Israel’s access while maintaining supplies to other customers?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Secretary of State to my home town of Cleethorpes, where we witnessed the national Armed Forces Day event. Earlier, he referred to the volunteers who made this possible. My constituent Alex Baxter, whom he met on Saturday, has masterminded the Armed Forces Day event in Cleethorpes for many years. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Alex and his team on a splendid event?
John Healey
I had one of the best days in this job so far with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) in his home town of Cleethorpes—they were there together. Behind the event was Alex Baxter, the absolutely formidable figure who organised the armed forces major events team that staged the Cleethorpes Armed Forces Day. Some 300,000 people were expected over the weekend. It was a great boost to our armed forces, to veterans and to the people of Cleethorpes.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Cadets are a wonderful source of social mobility in our country, and played a key role in last weekend’s Armed Forces Day celebrations. I want to recognise my brilliant local air cadets: 12F Walthamstow and Leyton squadron, and 241 Wanstead and Woodford squadron. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to increasing the size of cadet forces in communities like mine so that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that cadets have to offer?
Points of Order
John Healey Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important.
On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary.
However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined.
I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.
Strategic Defence Review
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the strategic defence review. I have laid the full 130-page review before the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so and to make this statement on our first day back from the recess.
The world has changed, and we must respond. The SDR is our Plan for Change for defence: a plan to meet the threats that we face, a plan to step up on European security and to lead in NATO, a plan that learns the lessons from Ukraine, a plan to seize the defence dividend resulting from our record increase in defence investment and boost jobs and growth throughout the United Kingdom, and a plan to put the men and women of our armed forces at the heart of our defence plans, with better pay, better kit and better housing. Through the SDR, we will make our armed forces stronger and the British people safer.
I thank those who led the review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill,
“a politician, a soldier and a foreign policy expert”,
as they describe themselves in their foreword. They, alongside others, have put in a huge effort. This is a “first of its kind”, externally led review, the result of a process in which we received 8,000 submissions from experts, individuals, organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the shadow Defence Secretary. I thank them all, and I thank those in the Ministry of Defence who contributed to this SDR. It is not just the Government’s defence review, but Britain’s defence review. The Government endorse its vision and accept its 62 recommendations, which will be implemented.
The threats that we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home. Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way in which war is fought. We are living in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. Since the general election we have demonstrated that we are a Government dedicated to delivering for defence. We have committed ourselves to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, with an extra £5 billion this year and 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and the ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. However, there can be no investment without reform, and we are already driving the deepest reforms of defence in 50 years. Those reforms will ensure clearer responsibilities, better delivery, stronger budget control and new efficiencies worth £6 billion in this Parliament, all of which will be reinvested directly in defence.
Our armed forces will always do what is needed to keep the nation safe, 24/7, in more than 50 countries around the world; but in a more dangerous world, as the SDR confirms, we must move to warfighting readiness, and warfighting readiness means stronger deterrence. We need stronger deterrence to avoid the huge costs, human and economic, that wars create, and we prevent wars by being strong enough to fight and win them. That is what has made NATO the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 75 years. We will establish a new “hybrid Navy” by building Dreadnought, AUKUS submarines, cutting-edge warships and new autonomous vessels. Our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwings in Europe. We will develop the next generation Royal Air Force with F-35s, upgraded Typhoons, sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme jets and autonomous fighters to defend Britain’s skies and to be able to strike anywhere in the world, and we will make the British Army 10 times more lethal by combining the future technology of drones, autonomy and artificial intelligence with the heavy metal of tanks and artillery.
For too long, our Army has been asked to do more with less. We inherited a long-running recruitment crisis, following 14 years of Tory cuts to full-time troops. Reversing the decline will take time, but we are acting to stem the loss and aiming to increase the British Army to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers in the next Parliament. For the first time in a generation, we have a Government who want the number of regular soldiers to rise. This Government will protect our island home by committing £1 billion in new funding to homeland air and missile defences, creating a new cyber-command to defend Britain in the grey zone, and preparing legislation to improve defence readiness.
As Ukraine shows, a country’s armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them, so this SDR begins a new partnership with industry, innovators and investors. We will make defence an engine for growth to create jobs and increase prosperity in every nation and region of the UK. Take our nuclear enterprise. We will commit to investing £15 billion in the sovereign warhead programme in this Parliament, supporting over 9,000 jobs. We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months, allowing us to grow our nuclear attack fleet to up to 12 submarines and supporting more than 20,000 jobs. On munitions, we will invest £6 billion in this Parliament, including in six new munitions factories and in up to 7,000 new long-range weapons, supporting nearly 2,000 jobs. The lives of workers in Barrow, Derby and Govan, where the Prime Minister and I were this morning, are being transformed not just by this defence investment but by the pride and purpose that comes with defence work. In the coming years, more communities and more working people will benefit from the defence dividend that this SDR brings.
Ukraine also tells us that whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the fastest will have the advantage, so we will place Britain at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. We will double investment in autonomous systems in this Parliament, invest more than £1 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, and finance a £400 million UK defence innovation organisation. To ensure that Britain gains the maximum benefit from what we invent and produce in this country, we will create a new defence exports office in the MOD, driving exports to our allies and driving growth at home.
The SDR sets a new vision and a new framework for defence investment. The work to confirm a new defence investment plan, which will supersede the last Government’s defence equipment plan, will be completed in the autumn. It will ensure that our frontline forces get what they need, when they need it. The plan will be deliverable and affordable, and it will consider infrastructure alongside capabilities. It will seize the opportunities of advanced tech, and seize the opportunities to grow the British economy.
As we lose the national service generation, fewer families across this country will have a direct connection to the armed forces, so we must do more to reconnect the nation with those who defend us. As the SDR recommends, we will increase the number of cadets by 30%, introduce a voluntary “gap year” scheme for school and college leavers, and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030. We must also renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. We have already awarded the biggest pay increase in over 20 years and an inflation-busting increase this year, and now I have announced that we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes.
This SDR is the first defence review in a generation for growth and for transformation in UK defence. It will end the 14 years of the hollowing out of our armed forces. Instead, we will see investment increased, the Navy expanded, the Army grown, the Air Force upgraded, warfighting readiness restored, NATO strengthened, the nuclear deterrent guaranteed, advanced technology developed, and jobs created in every nation and region of this country. The strategic defence review will make Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account?
While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it.
The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today.
Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before.
Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary—[Interruption.] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats.
Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism.
To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.
John Healey
I see the way the world is changing. I see the way the Chancellor is fixing the economic foundations after 14 years of failure under the Conservative Government. I have to say to the House that I have no doubt that we will meet our ambition to hit 3% of spending on defence in the next Parliament. It is something that the Prime Minister this morning reinforced. He said that the SDR can be delivered, because our commitment to 2.5% was built into the terms of reference. He said this morning that we are committed to spending what we need to spend to deliver this review.
The shadow Secretary of State talks about unfunded promises. He knows about unfunded promises. His drone strategy was unfunded. It was 12 pages, with more pictures than words. His munitions strategy was unfunded and even unpublished. His party’s commitment to 2.5% on defence was never in Government Budgets. It was a gimmick launched four weeks before they called the election—they dither, we deliver.
On Diego Garcia, I say this to the shadow Defence Secretary. This deal is a great investment in the defence and intelligence base that we share with the Americans. It is essential for activities that cannot be undertaken elsewhere, and that we do not undertake with any other nation. It is a deal worth 0.2% of the defence budget. The US backs the deal. NATO backs the deal. Five Eyes backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. India backs the deal. So how, on this national security issue, have the Opposition got themselves on the wrong side?
As far as the SDR goes, this is the defence moment of a generation. With threats increasing and defence spending rising, we now have a plan for transformation—a plan that will link the best of advanced technology with the heavy metal of our platforms; a plan that will drive the defence dividend to increase jobs and business support across the country; and a plan that puts people in defence right at the heart of our defence plans for the future, with increased pay, better housing and better kit to do the job of deterring our adversaries.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the growing instability in Europe and beyond, and the fact that, among other things, the UK is the third most targeted nation on the planet by cyber-attacks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s intention to turn the tanker around and increase the focus on defence. However, the strategic defence review is only as effective as the spending review that will follow this month. To ensure that this SDR does not suffer the fate that has befallen some of its predecessors, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that his and the Prime Minister’s ambitions will be fully matched with a correspondingly ambitious spending review?
John Healey
My hon. Friend rightly raises the scale and nature of the increasing cyber-attacks that this country faces. When I had the privilege of taking this job 10 months ago, I was taken aback to find that in the last year, defence across the piece had been subject to more than 90,000 cyber-attacks that could be linked directly to other states. That is why in this SDR, we pick up the recommendation to establish a new cyber-command, so that we can build on the pockets of excellence across defence and ensure that we can more effectively defend against and use offensive cyber to deter such attacks.
On funding, the spending review next week is an important moment for the Government, but the Prime Minister settled the funding for defence in his statement in February. The Chancellor has already put an extra £5 billion into the defence budget this year. We will hit 2.5% of GDP three years before anybody expected us to, and we have an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, we will spend what is needed to deliver the vision of the strategic defence review over the next 10 years and beyond.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, although I am more than disappointed that I only received the SDR two hours ago at 3.30 pm, after the journalists.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are absolutely right. We have entered a new era—one defined by international instability, geopolitical conflict and global uncertainty. Perhaps not since the end of the cold war have we faced such myriad threats to our defence: a barbaric Russian imperialism under Putin threatening Ukraine’s freedom and NATO’s security; a Trumpian White House defined by its total indifference to, and even antagonism towards, the defence of Europe; and the rising threat posed by China, as well as by regional pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. Taken together, these threats pose a once-in-a-generation risk to our country’s defence. Meeting generational risks will require making generational commitments, so I welcome the Government’s readiness to accept all the recommendations outlined in today’s strategic defence review.
It is frankly staggering, however, that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question: where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions? This is a shopping list without the money to pay for it. The Government have flip-flopped on whether we can expect defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP—the figure on which the proposals of the SDR are premised. Putting the cart before the horse when it comes to funding the nation’s defence sends entirely the wrong message to Putin and our other adversaries. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3%?
While I welcome the announcement of new funding for military housing and urgent repairs, fixing our recruitment crisis and doing right by our service personnel requires more than sticking-plasters. Will the Government legislate to require all military homes to be brought under the decent homes standard? It is desperately disappointing that despite having had 11 months to consider how to stem the decline in the number of soldiers in the Army, the Government appear to have sat on their hands. The shameful decline in troop numbers has only continued on their watch. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government are serious about delivering for Britain’s defence, reversing the utterly reckless troop cuts overseen by the Conservatives must begin now?
John Healey
I welcome what the hon. Lady said on Ukraine. She will recognise that this Government have been supported by all parties in the House in providing steadfast support to Ukraine to fight Putin’s illegal invasion. She will also recognise that since this Government were elected in July, we stepped up the support for Ukraine. I hope that she will recognise that we have also stepped up the leadership that the UK can offer on European security more widely. As well as convening meetings, I chaired the first Ukraine support group meeting after 26 meetings in which the US had led the way. Alongside the French, we are convening the 30-odd nations that are looking at securing a long-term peace in Ukraine, if a ceasefire can be secured. This week at NATO, I will continue those discussions with Defence Ministers.
The SDR is a vision for the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered within the spending commitments that this Government have made. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, those spending commitments were baked into the terms of reference, and have been confirmed by the reviewers. As he has said, we will spend what we need to deliver this review, and I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament.
On military homes, the hon. Lady is right to mention the scandal, which has gone on for years, of making the families of those who serve live in substandard homes, which are often mouldy and damp, with leaking roofs and doors. We can change that, and we have acted to start to do that. This year, for the first time, we bought back family military homes, and we now control 36,000 of them. Last month, also for the first time, we set out a consumer charter, with the basics of what people can expect from the MOD as their landlord. We have also confirmed an extra £1.5 billion over this Parliament to deal with the worst military family homes. We can start to develop for the long term, and build the homes that we need for our forces, and in the country more widely. We will be able to use better the huge asset that MOD land offers.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to Lord Etherton, who died recently; his review on the injustice to LGBTQ+ veterans was enormously important.
I really welcome this review from the Secretary of State. I have been around long enough to have seen the words “review”, “defence”, “strategic” and “modern” used many times. As the Secretary of State highlighted, the nadir was reached when the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) was Secretary of State, in a report that had more pictures than text. This report will live only if all Members of this House agree that it is long term, because as the Secretary of State knows, chopping and changing and stopping and starting programmes can cause real problems for our men and women on the ground. Does the Secretary of State agree, and what is he doing to make sure that we embed the review for the long term?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for the strategic defence review, which recognises the threats that we face and maps out the framework for the investment decisions that will deliver it, make our forces stronger and make the British people safer. I will work with Members from all parties in the House whenever national security and the safety of our people are at stake. I welcome her support.
I also welcome my hon. Friend’s chairwomanship of the Treasury Committee. I hope that her Committee will take an interest in the defence investment at the heart of the SDR and at the heart of our plans. The record defence investment that the Government are making in this country not only reinforces our national security, but can drive economic growth and bring a defence dividend that will drive the mission of this Government to increase economic growth and bring jobs, business and new tech to every part of the country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
History repeats itself. In 1935, we spent just 3% of national wealth on defence, and because we rearmed almost too late, we almost lost civilisation. By 1945, we were spending 52% of national wealth on defence. Given that we face a crisis in Europe, with an unparalleled Russian rearmament almost as great as that of Germany in the 1930s, will the Secretary of State do the right thing by history and give this House a firm commitment to 3.5%, not as an ambition, but by a set date?
John Healey
Given the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two things that I am surprised he has not welcomed. The first is the historic increase in defence spending that this Government have already put made, with an extra £5 billion in our first year in government alone; he will remember that when his party came into power in 2010, it cut defence spending by £2 billion in a year. We also have a commitment and plan to increase spending to 2.5% in two years’ time and to 3% in the next Parliament, which is an ambition that I am confident we will fulfil. He is right to say that if we are to meet the challenges of the SDR, and the challenges of reinforcing our industrial base and our armed forces, we cannot do it alone. We are not doing it alone; we are one of 32 nations in NATO. The second thing that I am surprised he has not welcomed is our security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union, which is potentially a first step to working with other European nations in the EU, and using financing that may be available in Europe to do exactly as he urges.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House is in no doubt about just how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building the submarines that keep our nation safe. The commitment to expanding this country’s submarine programme, with up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats to be built in our shipyard, is the start of the next chapter of that illustrious career. Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence spending under this Labour Government means investment in British companies, in local supply chains and in the very fabric of our communities?
John Healey
I do indeed; my hon. Friend is right. She is a strong champion for Barrow and its shipyard. As she will know, the investment programme that we have confirmed is about increasing the ability to produce more submarines more rapidly, and reaching the point where we can look to design, build and launch a new attack submarine every 18 months. That will allow us to respond to the threats that we anticipate in 10 and 20 years’ time, and to meet our NATO commitments.
We will succeed to the extent that we have a Government ready to invest, and a town in Barrow and a supply chain of proud workers from across the UK who are willing to lend their professional expertise to this most important mission: securing our nation’s defences for the future; contributing to a stronger NATO; and reinforcing our ability to generate jobs and prosperity, including in Barrow.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I worked on defence reviews at the Ministry of Defence, they all had up and down arrows. From what I have read of this defence review in the brief time we have had with it, there seem to be a lot of up arrows; I could really find only one down arrow, which was about not extending the Dreadnoughts’ out-of-service date beyond 2050. Does the Secretary of State want to roll the pitch a bit and indicate where capabilities might be de-emphasised, or indeed lost?
John Healey
The strategic defence review sets out a vision and framework for decisions over the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered only because of the historic increase in defence spending—the largest since the end of the cold war—that this Government have made. That is the basis on which we will make our decisions, and on which we will deliver the SDR’s recommendations.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
It is a proud day for us in the home of the British Army: Labour is investing more in defence—and more than we saw in 14 years of Tory Governments. It is clear that we need more innovative financing solutions to support the new defence technologies mentioned in the SDR, such as the technologies being developed at Cody business park in Farnborough, which I visited this morning. Will the Secretary of State support my campaign for a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank to help power more investment, jobs and opportunities in Aldershot, Farnborough and right across the country?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is proud of the Government and of the SDR, and we are proud of her—the first Labour MP ever for the town of Aldershot, home of the British Army. She serves that community and the Army with great distinction. She is also doing extremely valuable work on how we match the significant increase in taxpayers’ investment in our defence with more private sources of investment. I have been following her work in developing those ideas, and am looking at them closely; I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is, too.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Like many in the House, I have only had a chance to skim-read the SDR. Fundamentally, it seems to be heading in the right direction, but why is it so timid? Why is it so slow? If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we face an era-defining moment, why not move with the pace that the era demands? Why not commit to 3% within a meaningful timescale, to give industry and the forces a serious opportunity to plan, and to make this a document worth its name, rather than saying, “Let’s see how little we can get away with while keeping the papers happy”?
John Healey
I reject that characterisation completely. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the SDR is going in the right direction; it certainly is. He will recognise that it is a complete break from what the Government of whom he was a leading member, less than year ago, presided over—14 years of hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces. It was defence with no vision for the future, and it has ended now. This is a plan to use the very best innovative technology to reinforce the strength of our armed forces and the traditional hardware that we have. The SDR will deliver that vision, and we will deliver it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This SDR underpins the reason that I left the Royal Air Force: to be part of a Government who take their commitment to defence and security seriously and will bring about the end of the hollowing-out of our armed forces that took place under the last Government. The measures taken within this SDR reverse fundamental and damaging delays caused by the previous Government within our defence programmes, supports our personnel and provides a clear and credible path to meeting the challenges presented to us by Russia. But as General Barrons has said, the greatest threat to this SDR is in its delivery, so can my right hon. Friend provide us with an understanding of what measures are being put in place to ensure that we deliver the SDR and the defence proposition that underwrites our defence, our security and our prosperity?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution he makes to debates in this House and to the determination of the Labour Government to deliver this SDR. I said in my opening remarks that there cannot be investment without reform, and from day one reform was a top priority for me as Defence Secretary. It does not bring photo opportunities and front pages, but it potentially brings the results that we need in the future. We have set up a military strategic headquarters; we have the Chief of the Defence Staff now commanding the chiefs for the first time; we have a new national armaments director; we have a single investment budget; and we now have budgetary control that was not there before. These reforms are in place, and we will drive further reforms that the SDR reinforces and endorses. This is how we will give ourselves the best chance to deliver the vision set out by the reviewers so ably in the strategic defence review report.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
What is the difference between the Chancellor’s black hole and the Defence Secretary accepting 62 recommendations from the SDR without committing the funds to pay for them?
John Healey
The Prime Minister and the Government have committed the funds—[Interruption.] We have committed the funds. We have built them into the terms of reference that will allow this strategic defence review to be delivered over the next 10 years and beyond. That is the confirmed view of the reviewers, and that is exactly what my job as Defence Secretary will be to do.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s support and his leadership in this time of increased threats. We saw over the weekend that Ukraine had managed to destroy, it says, as many as 40 Russian bombers deep inside Russia, with a value, it would say, of £5 billion. That is almost as much as we are raising the defence budget by. We have to get after innovation, and this SDR does that. In particular, I want to ask the Secretary of State about page 59, which talks about “rapid commercial exploitation”. It mentions the need to
“pull latest technology into operations”,
and to
“unlock private equity and venture capital”.
My question is this: do we need to change the commercial competition laws within the civil service to allow that to happen, or can it already happen?
John Healey
We certainly have to change the procurement system. The Chancellor and I have already announced in the spring statement the way that we will ensure that the sort of innovation my hon. Friend talks about can move to contract far faster than it has done before, and that we can ensure that the sort of spiral development that the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), first started to look at in Government can be pursued and put in place. We will do that; it is part of the procurement reforms that we are bringing into place. Pace, innovation and the new companies that have so much to offer are part of how we will do this in the future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, has said in the last few days that all NATO nations must achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence spending. I respect the Secretary of State a lot, and he has known me for a long time in this House. When he said on Saturday that there was “no doubt” that UK defence spending would rise to 3% by 2034, I nodded in approval and thought, “Great, they have a commitment.” By Sunday, however, that appeared not to be the case. Nobody here wants this strategic defence review to succeed more than I do, as I have never agreed with the idea of the peace dividend from start to finish. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are all seen as threats, so will he now please get to the Dispatch Box as the character that he is and say that to achieve this we will need at least 3%, if not more, and that this Government will be committed to spending it?
John Healey
I say to the right hon. Gentleman: do not take it from me at the Dispatch Box—take it from the Prime Minister when he said that we will spend what is needed to deliver this review. He has made that commitment in the House; he has made that commitment today. The vision of this strategic defence review now becomes the mission of this Government to deliver.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Much of the new hardware pledged today will not be delivered for some years and will not be effective without the personnel to operate it. What more will the Government do right now, not in 2034, to ensure that our armed forces recruit the service personnel who these long-term plans will rely on?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. In many ways, defence is a special case; we need to take many decisions now to secure the future of subsequent generations, and to develop and secure the capabilities that we will need to do that in 10, 20 and 30 years’ time.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that it is the people who are at the heart of this. He will recognise the 14 years of failure leading to the recruitment and retention crisis that we were left with last summer. He will know that I have removed over 100 of the rules that prevented some people from applying to join the forces. He will know that I have introduced direct entry for those with cyber talent to join and contribute to our defences. He will also recognise that we are looking to retain those who are valuable to us by paying better, by looking to upgrade the housing and, where needed, through special retention payments.
This is going to take time. We are closing the gap and I am determined that we will reverse that long-term decline. For the first time, this is a Government who want to increase, not further cut, the size of our Army.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The review is welcome. Where the last Government hollowed out our armed forces, we are rebuilding. Russia’s northern fleet and China’s polar silk road ambitions have seen both countries focus and co-operate in the High North. As the framework nation for the joint expeditionary force, the UK has limited surface fleet capable of operating in the polar ice. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the new hybrid Navy will see that capability scaled up?
John Healey
I can. My hon. Friend plays an important part in debates in this House, including on the Defence Committee. She recognises that, as we can see from Ukraine, it is the nations that are able to bring together the rapid innovation in new technology with the hardware of established weaponry and platforms that will have the combat edge in the future. I am determined that Britain will be at the leading edge of innovation in NATO, that our forces will be better equipped in the future, and that we will reform and rebuild our British industry to equip them for exactly that.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I very much welcome the aspirations of this strategic defence review and welcome the statement on page 7 that,
“We will develop a new Defence Investment Plan”.
However, as the Secretary of State knows from all the Budgets and fiscal events he has sat through, he cannot give the House a categorical assurance over future spending commitments, so will he make it clear to the House what decisions he is prepared to make with respect to the existing commitments such that he can secure that additional funding at subsequent spending reviews and Budgets? I hope that when he comes clean completely to this House, he will make clear that there will be considerable ongoing investment in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, which does an enormous amount to secure understanding of future technologies in the defence arena.
John Healey
The delivery of the SDR vision can only be done because of the commitment that this Government have made to increase defence spending. The defence investment plan is a new investment framework and a new investment programme, developed in the context of and defined by this SDR vision. The work on the new investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
There is much in this strategic defence review that will be of interest to my Committee. I welcome the report and in particular the recognition that science, innovation and technology are an opportunity as well as a threat. Can he confirm that the numerous references to AI in the report are to a sovereign AI capability, whether publicly or privately developed? Having spent last week in Brunei as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, observing the amazing work of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, will he also confirm that despite this tilt back to NATO, he recognises the contribution and strategic importance of that base in the South China sea?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The approach at the heart of this strategic defence review and at the heart of this Government’s commitment to our collective deterrence and defence in the Euro-Atlantic is NATO first, but it is not NATO only. Alliances and partnerships such as the global combat air programme and AUKUS, and partnerships we have with other nations, remain important.
On innovation and the British base, my hon. Friend will recognise that, as part of warfighting readiness, we require an industrial readiness. That industrial readiness—that industrial deterrence that is part of preventing our adversaries from considering attacks against us—means that our companies must be able to innovate and scale up production if we are faced with conflicts in the future. That will be a touchstone for the way we will take many decisions as we invest in the future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This defence review gives us a long shopping list of technological advances—the cyber command, digital backbone, drones, AI—and that is right and proper, but the British military is tiny. Recently, the Select Committee heard that if we had to fight tonight, we could scratch together five ships and 30 planes. The person who told us that was the former head of the MOD’s own strategic net assessment office. Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that to fight and win wars, we need to have a mass of force—a large force—with tech that is good enough, rather than a small, perfectly formed, high-tech force? Is that lesson being heeded in the review?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we do not fight alone and we do not plan to fight alone. We are a leading member of NATO, a 32-strong alliance that has never been bigger and has never been stronger. As we approach the NATO summit later this month, there will be a discussion about the capabilities that each nation contributes and develops in the years ahead, so that we can strengthen that collective deterrence, avoid the wars that we do not want to fight, and strengthen our collective and our UK defence.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Anyone who heard Carsten Breuer, Germany’s Chief of Defence, speak at the weekend will have found his words deeply sobering, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the SDR, which is modernising our defence, from Atlantic Bastion to the transformation of our defence and a tech-driven approach. I particularly welcome the cyber and electromagnetic command. He spoke of a stronger deterrence. Will he confirm that there is a need now for stronger offensive cyber-work by our forces?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware of the national cyber force that we are developing further. He will also be aware that I have confirmed, and the SDR recommends, the establishment of a cyber and electromagnetic command, which will be in place and do exactly as he suggests: it will reinforce our capacity, our expertise and our ability to do both defensive and offensive cyber as part of the deterrence and the defence that we need for this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the defence review—it sets a direction and there is much in it—but I do not agree with paragraph 20 on page 68:
“Defence should only run training and education itself when it cannot be obtained externally at suitable quality and cost.”
I think that ties in with paragraph 4 on page 105:
“As it reconsiders its training estate needs, the Navy should ensure there is ‘capacity by design’”.
I worry that that would mean the closing of the Dartmouth academy. Let me explain why I have linked those two statements. I am sure the Secretary of State has visited the United States naval officer training academy in Annapolis. The model there brings a real fellowship to people who want to stay in the armed forces because of all the things offered through the degrees and so on. I will perhaps expand on those comments when we have a further debate, but will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that great institutions and buildings such as Dartmouth will not be closed under this review?
John Healey
This SDR and the plans that will follow will only build further on the proud professional tradition and reputation of our Navy, RAF and Army training. I look forward to the further debates that the right hon. Gentleman promises.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I welcome the calm assurance that my right hon. Friend has brought to the House. Our country is safer and stronger for the decisions that he has announced today. But if we are to be more prosperous, too, we will need clear objectives for the spending that he has announced to drive more jobs, more innovation and more economic growth here in our country. Will he set out clear targets for each of those objectives when he brings forward the defence industrial strategy a little later on this year?
John Healey
I will take my right hon. Friend’s well-informed observations into account. I will take the observations of his Select Committee into account. I welcome the attention he has given to this review as we develop our thinking for the defence industrial strategy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a serious lack of answers here. Apparently there is going to be further clarity in the forthcoming defence industrial strategy, financial services strategy, defence diplomacy strategy, reserve personnel strategy, defence housing strategy and defence estate optimisation programme. The Secretary of State cannot even provide clarity on where the money is coming from. Will he provide some answers on what on earth the Government have spent the last year reviewing?
John Healey
We have spent the last 10 months delivering for defence. We have put in place the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We have given the armed forces the biggest pay rise for more than 20 years. We have voted for £1.5 billion to increase the standard of armed forces housing and we have brought back 36,000 military homes. We have invested in stronger support for veterans. We have also struck the deepest defence agreement, in the Trinity House agreement with Germany. We are delivering for defence. The Government will do more, and the SDR gives us the vision and direction to do that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the SDR, in particular the reference to an increase in investment in the defence medical services. Given that 70% of veterans have a clinical mental health condition, will my right hon. Friend explain how the interface with NHS mental health services will be managed?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Just as the NHS contributes to our armed forces, so members of our armed forces often work full time in our NHS. It is a synergy that few understand and few appreciate, and it is a strength that we need to build on. I will work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary in the coming months to advance the recommendations and the vision for reinforcing the readiness and strengths of our armed medical services.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I welcome the NATO-first strategy in the SDR, and the fact that we are looking to lead in NATO. Last week, I was at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio, where the NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that 3% will not be a credible solution to defence—he is going to set this out at the NATO summit this month—and that 3.5% is required to be credible, with another 1.5% on defence-related funding. If that is what NATO says a credible commitment is, will the Defence Secretary commit to 3.5%?
John Healey
Those discussions are for the NATO summit later this month. We go into that summit having made a record commitment to invest and to increase defence spending, in two years’ time, to a level that we have not seen in this country since 2010, with an aim to get to 3% in the next Parliament. The NATO summit will be a discussion about how we spend, how well we spend and the capabilities we can contribute to NATO, just as much as it will be about spending commitments.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we make an extraordinary contribution as a nation to NATO, and we will step that up through pursuing the SDR vision. Of course, at the heart of it is something we contribute that no other nation does: in full, we commit our UK nuclear deterrent to NATO, as the ultimate guarantor not just of our own national security but of the security of our NATO allies.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government are getting to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system we inherited? Given that the extra defence spending has come from the aid budget, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that additional money delivers frontline capabilities and jobs, and is not lost in the system or to the bottom line?
John Healey
It is always important that public money is well spent and that we can demonstrate good value for money. We still have some way to go on the reform of defence, but the steps we have taken already and the action we plan in the future will help us to ensure that we can get better value for the British taxpayer and better value for the British forces.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The review describes responsibility for space policy within Government as “fragmented”, so its proposal for a “reinvigorated Cabinet sub-Committee” to set the strategic approach to space is to be welcomed. That will clearly have significant implications for the development of a vertical-launch satellite facility at SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland. Will the Secretary of State ensure that hardwired into that Sub-Committee is a process of engagement for the operators at SaxaVord and the communities that host them, so that both might be empowered to deliver on this most important strategic objective for the country as a whole?
John Healey
At the heart of the SDR’s insight and recommendations is a new relationship between Government and industry—one that we have already started to put in place and that allows industry and potential investors to see the challenges that we face and contribute their ideas and innovation to solving them. That principle will be applied just as much in space as it will in other areas of new capabilities that we need to develop.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The procurement system that my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative party is in chaos, with only two major defence projects out of 49 being delivered on time. What is my right hon. Friend doing to get to grips with that situation? New technology needs to be delivered on time; otherwise, it risks being outdated by the time it is put into use.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right, and he is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chaired the Public Accounts Committee that quite rightly saw and branded the defence procurement system as “broken”. The overhaul required is a measure of the extent of the reform. We have begun that and we will complete it.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Recommendation 26 sensibly calls for the expansion of in-school cadet forces. Will the Defence Secretary work with the Department for Education to reverse its penny-pinching cuts, and reinstate school staff instructor grants to help extend cadet forces into more state schools?
John Healey
We will indeed work with the Department for Education in delivering the recommendation and ambition set out, quite rightly, in the SDR, which is to increase the number of cadets by 30% by 2030. It offers a unique opportunity for many young people to gain skills and experience that make a transformation to their lives and prospects.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
This is unquestionably an important moment and a significant review, so I find it incredible—astonishing, in fact—that once again for this important statement Reform Members have gone AWOL. They clearly do not give a damn about the defence of our country.
On page 32 of the review, an overview of the dependencies and threats includes critical minerals such as lithium. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way to reduce dependency on such critical minerals from the likes of China, is to invest heavily and urgently in domestically produced and processed critical minerals such as tin, lithium and tungsten in Cornwall?
John Healey
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has tin, lithium and tungsten mines in his constituency, but he is right to point to those natural reserves in this country in Cornwall. He makes a powerful case to the House this afternoon.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that the Democratic Unionist party, and the people we are privileged to represent from Northern Ireland, are hugely supportive of our armed forces. He should know that as a region, we disproportionately provide more personnel than any other part of our country to those armed forces. I was encouraged to hear him talk about every region and nation of the United Kingdom benefiting from the SDR, but although we heard about Derby, Govan and Barrow, there was a slight omission regarding Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State knows how pivotal companies in my constituency were for Ukraine in its initial phase of defence, with the NLAW and latterly with Starstreak, so can he confirm that Northern Ireland will indeed benefit from strategic and significant investment?
John Healey
I can, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is benefiting already as a result of decisions that this Government have taken, not least with the lightweight multirole missiles that are produced in his constituency, and which we are ramping up to deliver more to Ukraine during this year. The £6 billion that I announced in munitions for the next five years will include another six munitions and explosives factories, and I hope he will welcome that. He will know that in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, munitions production is already the source of skilled, long-term, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs, which is something I know he will welcome for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The importance of good cyber-security is referenced throughout the SDR, and it is critical for our defence. Ebbw Vale college has an excellent course in that sector, so to address this threat, will the Secretary of State please advise how the Government plan to get more young people into roles in cyber-security for the future?
John Healey
I would encourage my hon. Friend to take a hard look at the plans. The first recruitment is under way at the moment for the new direct entry of young people who have gaming skills, coding skills, computer skills—the sorts of skills that are invaluable for our armed forces in that wider mission of defending the country, with the direct entry route that our new cyber-force recruitment is making available. I know there will be talented young people in his constituency who have a part to play and an interest in helping the nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is
“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”
as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?
John Healey
On the contrary, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is essential to safeguard operational sovereignty for the UK of the base on Diego Garcia, to allow us to protect within the 20 nautical-mile radius of that base, and the ability to safeguard that for the future. It is essential to our and American intelligence and defence operations, and it is a linchpin of the special relationship that we have between the US and UK on intelligence and defence matters, of which the right hon. Gentleman is always such a strong champion.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
While the Government pledge to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, funnelling hundreds of billions in public money to arms companies and their shareholders, and continuing to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are at the same time slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap, and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners. How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?
John Healey
The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe, and we invest in defence in order to deter and prevent the war that brings such extreme human and economic costs. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this: if we cannot defend the country, where will we be with an NHS without power, and with submarine cables that mean data does not work? Strong national security is fundamental to a stable economy, a strong society, and I hope she will recognise that it is imperative and important for the country that we pursue the vision in the SDR.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It was right that the Secretary of State recognised the military communities who serve across the UK, and that we recognise those communities that support them. The strategic defence review recommendations that the Government have accepted will have a direct impact on communities across the UK, but when we will know, so that communities such as Leuchars in my constituency are aware of the implications of the defence review when thinking of things such as education, transport, health and other infrastructure?
John Healey
From today, armed forces communities, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, will be able to read the report for themselves, and draw out the implications for them and their families.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am proud that my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria is home to Europe’s only electronic warfare tactics facility, and proud that this Government have set out steps in the SDR to strengthen our electromagnetic and cyber-defences. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why those elements of our defence are so critical?
John Healey
The facility in my hon. Friend’s constituency plays an essential role in our national security, and I welcome her support. She will recognise that the decision to set up a cyber and electromagnetic command is part of what the SDR does, drawing lessons from what we can see about the way the nature of warfare is changing week by week in Ukraine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The document says that
“this will allow us to grow our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to up to 12.”
Is not the truth—and let’s speak the truth—that that is the ask to the Treasury, and the spending review has yet to decide what the defence programme will be? I hear what the Secretary of State says, when he says with his full force and sincerity that “we will fund this defence review”, but how will he achieve that without much more significant cuts to other budgets? No Government can afford to spend and borrow much more, if anything at all, so how will he get the necessary cuts through to fund this big increase in defence spending, beyond 3.5% because we all know we will need more than that?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the attack subs: our investment is in production capacity, so that we can build at a faster rate and have a double production line in Barrow, which will allow us to build the number of new subs that we will need to deter future threats and meet our NATO commitments. I am glad that he welcomes that.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement about this significant investment in the security of our nation. I was thrilled that the Prime Minister announced that there will be up to 12 new attack submarines, boosting growth in Scotland and keeping the UK safe for years to come. However, I was astonished to read over the weekend that the SNP Government in Holyrood are blocking investment in a specialist welding centre in Glasgow by withdrawing a £2.5 million grant. If the SNP continues to block funding for that centre, will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will step in?
John Healey
I was astonished to learn over the weekend that the SNP Government are withholding £2.5 million in support for Rolls-Royce to set up a specialist welding skills centre. The centre is essential not for munitions, as the SNP Government say, but for shipyards across the board, which act as a pipeline to bring wealth and jobs to Scotland. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that if the SNP will not change its view and will not step in to make the skills centre possible, then we will.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My constituents in Gosport will be keen for the Secretary of State to clarify two points. First, the line on page 105 about reconsidering “training estate needs” will concern many, so will he confirm that the outstanding training establishments at HMS Sultan and HMS Collingwood, which employ so many, will not be under threat? Secondly, when will the promised funds for accommodation come through? The previous Government spent £400 million on upgrading accommodation, which was beginning to filter through, but some 69 service family accommodation units in Gosport are now empty because they are deemed not fit for human habitation, and that is getting worse under his watch.
John Healey
We are doing further work on the nature and needs of our defence estate. It is right that we do that; because we now have a long-term view, we will be able to take better long-term decisions on that estate. The homes that the hon. Lady mentions are among the 8,000 empty family military homes, many because they are unfit for families to live in. I hope that she will welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we will create in this Parliament for overhauling the worst, as well as the longer-term plan in the defence housing strategy that we will publish, because we can—and we must—do much better for our military families.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
As a veteran and on behalf of my constituents in North East Derbyshire who are serving or who have loved ones in the armed forces, may I say how much I welcome the commitment to supporting armed forces personnel in the review? It recognises that we need to improve the defence medical services, proposes £1.5 billion for housing, and commits to a second, above-inflation pay rise for our personnel. That will mean that for the first time in a long time, no member of our armed forces will receive less than the national living wage—it is shocking that that was ever the case. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Conservatives left us in this mess and Reform Members could not even be bothered to turn up to the debate, this review shows that Labour is the party for our armed forces personnel?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right: Labour is the party of defence and Labour will put defence people at the heart of our plans for the future, with better pay, housing and kit to serve in the jobs that they volunteer to do to defend us all.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
John Healey
We are strengthening our armed forces to secure the peace, not to fight the war. We deter the attacks that we fear by being strong enough to defeat our enemy. I say to the hon. Lady that our deterrent has helped to keep stability and peace in Europe for over 75 years, it has been the ultimate guarantee of our national security and it is what Putin fears most. We are the only European nation in NATO that commits its deterrent in full to the protection of other NATO allies. We play a unique role and we make a unique contribution. I would like the hon. Lady to recognise that, even if she cannot support it.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I was pleased to read in the SDR about the importance of building on the 2024 joint declaration on the Norwegian-UK strategic partnership, which recognises the autonomy of both countries and the strength that comes from working together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that important partnership would be further strengthened if Norway decided to purchase the Type 26 frigates—the best frigates in the world—that are built in Govan, in Glasgow South West, and Scotstoun, in my Glasgow West constituency?
John Healey
They are indeed the best frigates in the world, and I have been working hard to persuade the Norwegians that joining the UK, with our Type 26 frigates, is about reenforcing the deep partnership that we already have, as two nations, alongside the US, protecting the north Atlantic and the high north from Russian aggression.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State has set out an ambitious strategic defence review. As soon as possible after the spending review next week, will he set out a defence investment plan in some detail, so that the Public Accounts Committee can examine whether the funds match the equipment that he has talked about today, and whether the ambitious plan can be delivered and is affordable?
John Healey
As Chair of the PAC, the hon. Gentleman knows the problem with the previous Government’s defence equipment plan. As I said in my statement, the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The review puts shipbuilding firmly in the UK’s future defence plans, particularly in the high north, as I have mentioned in the House many times, and looks towards a Royal Navy that is powerful, cheaper and simpler. The workforce at the dockyards in Rosyth, in my constituency, is ideally placed to deliver this. Just last week, we saw the roll-out of HMS Venturer, the first Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is committed to shipbuilding in Scotland, including in my constituency, in contrast to the SNP, which just this week turned down the opportunity to bring new skills to that sector in Scotland?
John Healey
We are totally committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. I pay tribute to the workers in his constituency in Rosyth for their pride, professionalism and sense of purpose, and the contribution that they make to our national security.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The service personnel and their families at Bicester garrison, in my constituency, are victims of the scandal of military family housing to which the Secretary of State referred. The investments highlighted today are therefore welcome, but to reassure my constituents, will the Secretary of State commit that military housing will reach the decent homes standard? Will he give the date by which the defence housing strategy will be published? And will he confirm that he has accepted the recommendation in the SDR that all proceeds from housing developments on Ministry of Defence land will be reinvested in military housing?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this long-run scandal. I am sure he will recognise that we cannot turn this round overnight. I hope he will also recognise the steps that we have already taken this year—the 36,000 military homes brought back into public control and the plans we are putting in place for the future. That allows us in this Parliament finally to put an end to the scandal that we have seen of military families being forced to live in such substandard accommodation.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the Government will invest £15 billion in the nuclear warhead programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in my constituency. Not only is that crucial for national security, but it will be transformational for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, supporting jobs and boosting our local economy. Will he set out in greater detail the plans for that investment and the expected benefits to my constituents? Will he come with me to Aldermaston, Burghfield or Brimpton to meet some of the brilliant staff who work there?
John Healey
I will, and I look forward to that visit with my hon. Friend. As the constituency MP, she will know the essential and unique work that the AWE undertakes and know that it supports more than 9,500 jobs. She will recognise the defence dividend that that can bring to not just her area, but the wider supply chain with the increase in defence investment that this Government are making.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Our British fleet of submarines are the most awesome and lethal machines in the world, keeping the peace unseen and unheard below the waves for generations. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said, the power in that punch comes from Derby’s Rolls-Royce workers, who give them their nuclear reactor cores. Will the Defence Secretary tell Members how we can be involved in the recommended “national endeavour” public communications campaign to make it absolutely clear how fundamental our at-sea deterrent is to our national security?
John Healey
In many ways, my hon. Friend is doing exactly that in the House by reinforcing the importance of the deterrent at the heart of our security and its importance to jobs, technology, businesses, the supply chain and the strength of economic growth. She is making the case that defence investment can drive economic growth, and we will ensure that it does.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can I push the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about HMS Collingwood? My constituents will look for reassurance that it will have a long-term place in the defence estate.
I also ask the Secretary of State about recommendation 40, which says:
“The Royal Navy should explore alternative approaches to augmenting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to deliver a balanced, cost-effective fleet that maximises the UK’s warfighting capabilities.”
The RFA is already stretched; I have been on visits to the RFA where it has told me that it is stretched with the operational requirements placed on it. It sounds to me like this is a loss of operational independence. Will the Secretary of State commit to an expansion of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary consisting of ships managed purely by the Royal Navy under the defence estate?
John Healey
We are proud of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It increasingly does tough jobs that in the past we would have expected the Royal Navy to undertake. Its role and contribution is under-recognised, and I am keen to see its role reinforced and for it to have greater recognition. We will ensure that we do that as we pursue the SDR’s vision.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The 1st Division, which is headquartered in my constituency, impressed on me the importance of our diplomacy and soft power and the excellence of the training provided to our armed forces. We have heard a lot about hard power today, but will the Secretary of State ensure that we put serious resources into soft power—the diplomacy that is so important in de-escalating risk? Will he also ensure that we continue that training in my armed forces city of York?
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s city of York has a proud military history, and she speaks strongly of that this afternoon. She is right to recognise the role of diplomacy alongside hard defence, but perhaps she could do more to recognise the fact that military and civilian defence personnel have an important diplomatic role to play alongside the Foreign Office. One of the things we are doing is working much more closely together in this Government compared with the way in which Foreign Secretaries and Defence Secretaries have been at loggerheads too often in the past, rather than working co-operatively.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Sleaford and North Hykeham is home to RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby, much of RAF Waddington and Beckingham training ranges. This defence review will be read with interest across the constituency. Many of my constituents serve in the armed forces, are veterans or work in the defence industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the expansion of RAF Digby that is planned? Will he ensure that he supports the Greater Lincolnshire regional defence and security cluster, which was established in 2023?
John Healey
I cannot give the hon. Lady a commitment at the Dispatch Box today, but I can say that I take those arguments seriously and hear what she has to say. She is speaking up for her area, and they have some great strengths in her part of Lincolnshire.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The 12 new nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines will almost double the UK’s fleet of such submarines. Given that those submarines are to be shared with non-nuclear Australia, does that not go against the UK’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? As they are part of the AUKUS treaty—a treaty with the USA as well as Australia—and focused in the Asia-Pacific, does that not risk adding to the growing tensions between the USA and China and make us all less safe?
John Healey
No and no. The AUKUS partnership is entirely consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and our obligations. The answer is no, because it reinforces regional stability and security. It reinforces regional deterrence and makes conflict less likely, not more likely.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Leonardo, based just outside my constituency, has been left as the sole bidder for a major defence contract worth up to £1 billion. The project could contribute more than 12,000 jobs to the UK supply chain, including 1,500 skilled jobs, some of which would be in Glastonbury and Somerton. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for decision making on the procurement of the new medium helicopter?
John Healey
I can confirm that the process is under way. We are giving it our full attention, and we will make any decisions as soon as we can.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been raising concerns about the state of our air and missile defences. I welcome that air and missile defence is a key focus in the SDR, which will make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Notwithstanding previously announced initiatives to bolster collaboration on air and missile defence with our allies, can the Secretary of State give us more detail on what conclusions the SDR drew on this vital aspect of national defence?
John Healey
The SDR drew the conclusion that we need to take potential threats to our homeland more seriously than we have needed to do in the past. That is the reason why I have made the commitment that we will invest £1 billion in this Parliament to further strengthen in particular radar, communications and the integration of our missile and air defence. My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of the UK’s air and missile defence is provided by our NATO allies, and we have great protection in the fact that our frontline is not on the coast of the UK: our frontline with Russia is on the borders of the eastern flank.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The strapline on the front cover of the review says, “Making Britain Safer”. I trust the Secretary of State means “making the United Kingdom safer”. On page 87, it says that
“The connection between the UK Armed Forces and wider society is the longstanding and necessary foundation for the defence of the country.”
In the light of that, will this review reverse the rundown in armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland, where today, according to answers given in this House, there are five Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel stationed? Of all the services—all three together—there are only 1,305 personnel in Northern Ireland, yet we supply a huge number of personnel to those services. Will the review reverse that rundown and make sure that every part of this United Kingdom shares in the provision of the armed services?
John Healey
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well the scale and depth of the recruitment and retention crisis, and he knows very well that over the past 14 years we have seen consistent cuts in the strength of our full-time forces. This is the first Government for a generation who want to see an increase in the size of the full-time British Army, and that is what we will work to deliver.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I was pleased to join the Secretary of State this morning in Glasgow, where he met some of the workers building the Type 26 frigate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, the Norwegian Government are considering placing an order for that frigate, so can I ask the Secretary of State to do everything he can to encourage our Norwegian friends to order the frigate?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary has just thrown into doubt the future of the new medium helicopter. I am very concerned to hear that that programme clearly may not go ahead. Can he tell the House whether he plans to reduce the number of RAF Chinooks, which—as he knows—are very important both to our special forces and to our Army? Are there any plans to reduce the number of Chinooks?
John Healey
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to read what he has into my remarks. I was simply stating the facts as they are: there is a process under way that has to conclude. That is what I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). This review is not about cuts—it is the first review since the end of the cold war that has taken place not in the context of cuts, but in the context of a decade of rising defence expenditure. It is about enhancing what we have for the future; it is about building out, not hollowing out. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that as the signature of the strategic defence review that we have published this afternoon.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It was really good to see the Secretary of State come to MBDA in Stevenage recently, where its workers were refitting Storm Shadow missiles for Ukraine. I very much welcome what the SDR has to say about a partnership with industry to create an engine for growth for our defence sector and our wider economy, but those tools require effective personnel. Last week, I was in Poland with the armed forces parliamentary scheme visiting our RAF personnel, and we were told, “Look, we cannot speak for ourselves. We need you to champion us.” What can the Secretary of State say today to champion our armed forces?
John Healey
First, I hope my hon. Friend will pass on my appreciation to the workers at MBDA in his constituency. They are exemplars of the high-skilled, highly committed and highly productive workforce that contributes so much to the defence of this country. I hope he will be able to say to those workers that this strategic defence review is the first of its kind—one that challenges us to think afresh, recognises the threats that we face, learns the lessons from Ukraine, and makes sure that in the future we can strengthen our armed forces and keep the British people safer. I hope he will recognise that the publication of this strategic defence review is a significant contribution to what he urges on the Government.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
In the last decade, China has expanded its military to a degree only matched since 1945 by the USSR in the cold war era. In the past decade, the previous Government did not read the signs coming from Russia; this Government must read the signs coming from China. Ukraine does not have five years, and neither does Taiwan. I again invite the Government to bring us to the table, and let us find 3% now.
John Healey
We have increased defence spending this year by £5 billion. We will reach 2.5% in the year after next, and we aim for 3% in the next Parliament. That is a record increase in defence spending—one that has not been matched at any time since the end of the cold war. The hon. Gentleman could do more to recognise that basic fact.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his leadership. In Edinburgh South West, we have Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton, so I want to focus my comments through the lens of our service personnel. Recommendation 17 rightly links retention to accommodation and, in particular, the number of moves that staff often have to make throughout their service. This can be a particular issue where children are involved and both parents are serving, so when developing his policy in this area, can the Secretary of State commit to working with groups such as Forces Children Scotland to make sure that the voices of service children are heard in this debate?
John Healey
We will indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case for that organisation, but it is one among many. We are involving the voices of forces families in our defence housing strategy, and we will do the same in other areas, which will help us to put forces families and forces personnel at the heart of our defence plans.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan, published earlier this year, outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions, and we have not yet committed to a second tranche. What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A, despite the decline in its fully mission-capable rate with the US air force, and—following on from my many written questions—what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR, which would also extend their range and therefore increase their survivability in a near-peer conflict?
John Healey
As the hon. Gentleman says, the SDR recommends commencing discussions with the US and NATO on enhancing the UK’s participation in NATO’s nuclear mission. We have accepted that recommendation, as we have the other 61 recommendations in the review. I will not comment in public on those discussions, but this is what putting NATO first looks like.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent review, and ask whether he will do all he can to use this new focus on British industry to choose AERALIS as the replacement for the Hawk jet, meaning thousands of jobs in the UK; final assembly, production and testing in Prestwick in my constituency; the opportunity for exports; the first British-built jet in 50 years; and our Red Arrows being British and Scottish?
John Healey
I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the strategic defence review, and the reviewers’ reinforcement of how valuable our British Red Arrows are to the nation. He has made a very powerful case for the capacity to look for a replacement Hawk trainer in his constituency. The SDR makes the commitment and sets the vision that allows us to say, “We will ensure that there is a defence dividend for the defence investments we make in the future. We will do more than we saw under the previous Government to direct British taxpayers’ investment first to British jobs, British-based businesses, British innovation and British tech.”
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I rise to speak as a proud member of the armed forces covenant family; my husband Paul is a naval veteran, and my daughter is a reservist. I am really pleased to see the whole-society approach in chapter 6 of the defence review, but what actions are being taken to make a career of service in the armed forces more attractive to young people and to address the specific issues raised by those leaving the service, particularly how the nation fails to treat them as the heroes that they are?
John Healey
The hon. Lady makes a very powerful case, and I pay tribute to the members of her family who make their own contribution to service. I encourage her to do more of what she has done: speak up, explain, and help us close the gap that has been growing in recent years. A wide range of people in society no longer have any personal or family connection to the forces. We need them to understand, recognise and pay tribute to the service and the sacrifice of those who do serve—those who put on the uniform and provide for us all.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Last month, I had the honour of visiting RBSL—Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—in my constituency. Along with many defence companies and organisations, it is so proud of its effort to help Britain to defend itself here and around the world. The SDR provides certainty to industry, but we need to go further to ensure that every Government agency, body and Department—from skills and infrastructure to planning and the availability of land—gets behind its ethos. Does the Secretary of State agree that creating growth cluster zones will provide certainty to local communities and assist in that mission?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is a powerful voice and advocate for that approach and for Telford. He will welcome the additional UK investment under this Government, which means that we will have a new gun barrel factory in his constituency that will bring new jobs and prosperity. That is part of defence investment driving future economic growth in this country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The world is in the midst of an arms race. Last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, $2.7 trillion was spent on arms—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Secretary of State is proposing a substantial increase in defence expenditure by this country. I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity—poverty and hunger—that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.
John Healey
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument and point of view. He overlooks the fact that the strategic defence review draws on more than 8,000 submissions, which were part of the material on which the reviewers based their recommendations and vision. I simply say to him that we deter those conflicts that have such massive human and economic costs by being strong enough to defeat the adversaries who would do us harm. That is why NATO has been the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 35 years, and that is why we will step up and play a more leading role in NATO for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Healey
My hon. Friend hits at the heart of the strategic defence review with a different view of the investments we make. Those investments will not just strengthen our armed forces but help to drive growth in our economy. I pay tribute to Prospect, GMB and Unite, and the members and the workers in the defence industry who contribute so much.
I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, despite nearly two hours at the Dispatch Box, we have not got to everybody’s question. If any Member wants to raise points with me, they should please do so directly, and I will provide them with answers.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to add to what I said in my earlier point of order and to seek your guidance. I reiterate how incredibly disappointing it is, as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on the day of the SDR, not to be able to read it before having to stand up and respond to the Government.
I said earlier that we knew of one major defence company that received a copy of the document at 8 am this morning. I have been told of another major prime—one of the largest—that received a copy at 8 am this morning. That means that at the time that I was messaging the Minister for the Armed Forces and begging him to let us have a copy, and he was saying that we could not have one, they were reading the SDR over breakfast.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard Mr Speaker refer to the phrase “skin in the game”; he was very concerned about a document being given early in the morning to big defence companies that have skin in the game. Can you advise us on what more we can do to probe this point and hold the Government to account on commercial sensitivity?
Armed Forces Workforce
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the armed forces for 2025-26.
Our service personnel make extraordinary sacrifices and work tirelessly to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This Government and the nation are proud of their professionalism and dedication.
We are facing a new age of insecurity, with war in Europe for the first time in years, growing Russian aggression, and increasing global threats. Within three weeks of taking office, we therefore launched a root-and-branch strategic defence review to assess the capabilities we need to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next decade. The Prime Minister has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the cold war, rising to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and to 3% when economic and fiscal conditions allow, underlining this Government’s commitment to our national security. That is why it is more important than ever that we continue to invest in our people.
Since coming into office in July, we have stepped up support for our armed forces and their families. Last year we confirmed one of the largest pay rises for service personnel in over 20 years. This substantial pay deal ensured that all those choosing a full-time career in the armed forces were paid the national living wage for the first time.
We have also announced new financial retention packages to help tackle the long-standing recruitment and retention crisis we inherited. To improve living conditions in service accommodation, we have introduced a new consumer charter to provide homes fit for the heroes who serve our nation. And we have taken steps to establish in law the first ever armed forces commissioner, who will act as a strong, independent voice for personnel and their families and have powers to hold the Government and single services to account.
Along with subsidised accommodation, health and childcare, a generous pension scheme, and world-class training, education and skills development, pay plays a key role in rewarding service personnel for the extraordinary sacrifices they make. To recognise that commitment, I am announcing today that we will be accepting in full the 2025 pay award recommendations for armed forces remuneration made by the independent Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and Senior Salaries Review Body.
We continue to value the AFPRB’s and SSRB’s independent expert advice and insight, and the contribution the collective membership makes on behalf of service personnel. The AFPRB report has been laid before the House today and published on gov.uk. The SSRB 2025 report, which considers pay for our senior military officers of two-star rank and above, has been laid before Parliament today by my colleagues in the Cabinet Office.
Today’s awards, which will benefit the whole of the armed forces, reflect the value that we place upon our military community. We are renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve as part of our plan for change.
The recommendations
The SSRB has recommended that all members of the senior military (two-star rank and above), should receive a 3.75% consolidated increase to base pay. They have also recommended no change to the current pay differential arrangements for senior medical and dental officers. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.
The AFPRB’s main pay recommendation was for a 4.5% pay award for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2025. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.
The AFPRB has also recommended rises and changes to other targeted forms of remuneration, and increases to some accommodation and related charges, which have all been accepted.
Accepting these recommendations represents an annual increase of circa £2,100 in the nominal “average” salary in the armed forces, as well as an annual increase of c.£1,500 in the starting salary for an officer. It also ensures that our most junior sailors, soldiers and aviators who choose a full-time career in the armed forces continue to receive the national living wage. The starting salary for other ranks will increase to c.£26,334, providing an annual increase of c.£1,200 for around 7,800 personnel. This means armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 10.5% (8.75% for senior officers) since July 2024.
Although defence spending will be increasing, this is not just about how much we spend on defence, but how well we spend it. For that reason, the Prime Minister has announced that we will publish a defence reform and efficiency plan. This will set out how we are redesigning our organisation, driving productivity across the business, overhauling our processes and reforming our approach to some of our biggest areas of spend. The cost of this pay award will also be factored into our capability planning following the strategic defence review and spending review, to ensure affordability within the overall defence programme.
The complete recommendations of the AFPRB for pay round 2025 are as follows:
Main pay award:
Recommendation 1: That rates of base pay increase by 4.5% for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2025.
Medical and dental officers:
Recommendation 2: That rates of base pay for all ranks within the medical and dental officer cadre should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 3: The removal of the OF5 higher medical management pay spine and endorse renaming the OF6 higher medical management pay spine as suitable for all substantive OF6 medical and dental officers.
Recommendation 4: That reserve medical and dental officers at OF5 and OF6 should be paid in line with their regular medical and dental officer counterparts.
Recommendation 5: That the value of the medical and dental officers’ golden hello should increase to £100,000 from 1 April 2025 for payment to consultants and registrars (specialist training, year three upwards) in specialisms with a declared delivery workforce capability gap.
Recommendation 6: That the value of defence clinical impact awards should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 7: That rates of trainer pay and associate trainer pay should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Bespoke pay arrangements:
Recommendation 8: That all rates of pay on the veterinary officers’ pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 9: That all rates of pay on the chaplains’ pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 10: That all rates of pay on the military provost guard service pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recruitment and retention payments:
Recommendation 11: That all rates of all recruitment and retention payments should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Skills and supplement payments:
Recommendation 12: That all rates of the cyber skills payment should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 13: That all rates of the engineer supplement payment should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Financial incentives:
Recommendation 14: The introduction of two retention payments for Royal Navy catering services’ personnel for three years from 1 April 2025: £10,000 at four years’ service, attracting a three-year return of service; and £15,000 at two years after promoting to OR4, attracting a further three-year return of service.
Volunteer reserves training bounty:
Recommendation 15: That rates of the volunteer reserves training bounty should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Compensatory allowances:
Recommendation 16: The introduction of an afloat environmental allowance.
Recommendation 17: That all rates of compensatory allowances should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.
Accommodation and related charges:
Recommendation 18: That service families’ accommodation rental charges for combined accommodation assessment system bands A to F should increase by 7.6%. There should be no increase in the current rates of charges for bands G and below. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.
Recommendation 19: That there should be no increase in the rates of furniture charges.
Recommendation 20: That single living accommodation rental charges for grade 1 should increase by 7.6%, with increases of 5.1% for grade 2, 2.5% for grade 3 and no increase to grade 4 accommodation. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.
Recommendation 21: That charges for standard garages and carports should increase by 7.6%. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating. There should be no increase in the charges for substandard garages and substandard carports.
For senior military officers only, the SSRB have recommended the following:
Recommendation 5: all members of the senior military (2-star rank and above), including medical officers and dental officers, should receive a 3.75% consolidated increase to base pay from 1 April 2025.
Recommendation 6: no change to the current pay differential arrangements for medical officers and dental officers (MODOs):
2-star MODOs should continue to be paid 10% above the base pay at the top of the MODO 1-star scale, plus X-factor.
3-star MODOs should continue to be paid 5% above the base pay at the top of the MODO 2-star scale, plus X-factor.
[HCWS661]
Defence Nuclear Enterprise
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Defence Nuclear Enterprise 2025 annual update to Parliament.
This Government have been clear that we are wholly committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent. This has been reinforced through our triple lock, which guarantees the building of the four Dreadnought nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, that we will maintain our continuous at-sea deterrent, and the delivery of all future upgrades to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our deterrent. Alongside this triple lock, we are committed to keeping Parliament informed on the work of our Defence Nuclear Enterprise, and to providing regular updates on the progress of our key activities.
The work of the DNE is vast. Bringing together the Defence Nuclear Organisation, the Royal Navy, UK Strategic Command, the Submarine Delivery Agency and AWE Nuclear Security Technologies, the DNE is working on hundreds of projects and programmes across the breadth of the UK, including some of the largest, most complex and technologically advanced programmes the Government have ever undertaken. The DNE has a supply chain of over 3,000 UK-based businesses and a workforce demand of over 48,000 jobs across the UK, with this demand set to grow to 65,000 by 2030. The DNE’s programmes represent a substantial investment in industry and the UK’s economy. It spent £10.9 billion in the financial year 2024-25, with final figures subject to audit, and has a projected spend of over £100 billion through UK suppliers over the next 10 years.
Taken together, this work constitutes a national endeavour for the UK, and it is driving economic growth in every corner of the country. I am hugely grateful to other Government Departments for their continued support to us in delivering our deterrent.
In an era of rising global threats and uncertainty and conflict in Europe, it is as critical as ever that we work together to demonstrate our enduring resolve. I look forward to continued engagement with my parliamentary colleagues over the next year as we update you on the progress on maintaining and renewing our nuclear deterrent. Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-05-22/HCWS659/
[HCWS659]
Diego Garcia Military Base
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Diego Garcia military base.
For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.
I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.
The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our armed forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.
America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:
“This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”
President Trump himself has described this as “very long-term” and “very strong”.
Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.
Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.
Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of Government.
Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.
I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
James Cartlidge
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.
Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?
When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.
John Healey
I regret the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck this evening—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister was making a simple point: if the base goes, the countries that benefit—the countries that want to see the base go and the deal fail—are China, Russia and Iran. Quite simply, he was asking whose side of the argument—
John Healey
Yes, whose side are you on? [Interruption.] Frankly, if you do not back the deal, you do not back the base.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide what is and is not shameful. I am going to say this once and for all: Mr Cartlidge, you have been pushing and pushing for quite a while. Emotions are running high, but I do not want a continuous barracking and that level of noise coming from you. You should be setting a good example as the shadow Secretary of State, keeping calm and being effective, not bawling.
John Healey
Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:
“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”
That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.
The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations, however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.
I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
In the ’60s and ’70s, Labour and Conservative Governments removed the Chagossian people from their islands in the interests of national security. In response to written questions, the Foreign Office has confirmed that many certainties that would be required for Chagossians to return to the islands have not been secured as a part of this deal—once more banning them in the name of national security. What should I tell my Chagossian constituents when they ask about the moral basis on which the UK is once again ignoring their right to self-determination while we fight for it in Ukraine for Ukrainians? On what basis can members of British overseas territories feel any certainty that they will retain possession of their islands in the event that our national security interests are suddenly piqued?
John Healey
I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.
It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?
Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?
As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?
John Healey
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that from this point, this House has the full opportunity to scrutinise the deal. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed the full text of the treaty before this House, together with the financial arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiators have not been giving a running commentary, but he also says that he does not want a running commentary because he respects the fact that in any negotiation, there has to be a private space in which discussions can take place. I have said consistently that when the treaty is ready and put before the House, the full financial information will come alongside it. That has happened today. The proper scrutiny by this House begins today, and when the Bill is published soon, the hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise that, too. On the question of the Chagossians, we will provide £40 million so that the Mauritians can set up a new trust fund for those communities.
Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the US. This treaty has been negotiated between and signed today by our Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister. It secures a vital defence and intelligence base for Britain, but, as I said in my statement, almost everything we do on this base is done jointly with the US, so of course we have kept the Americans informed and consulted them. At no point has the US had a veto—this is our deal and our decision. I bring it to the House this afternoon because it is in our best national interest and our best security interest.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security?
John Healey
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point in a judicious way. The shadow Defence Secretary could learn a bit from him.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Both the Prime Minister—in his extensive press conference prior to the Secretary of State for Defence coming to the House—and the Secretary of State have said on numerous occasions that this deal is the only way of protecting the military operations on Diego Garcia. When I was Foreign Secretary, I did not see anything to make me agree that this is the only way of protecting military operations on that base. The Defence Secretary suggested in his statement that a judgment could come within weeks that would undermine the operations of the base. From which binding legal authority does he fear that jurisdiction may come? We know it is not the International Telecommunication Union or the International Court of Justice. Who does he believe would prevent us from military operations on that island?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman was a formidable and very senior figure in the previous Government. He was in the post of Foreign Secretary during the period when there were negotiations on this deal. By entering into the negotiations, his Government accepted and conceded the principle that a negotiated deal was the way to secure the full operational sovereignty of this base for the long term.
The right hon. Gentleman may well not have been satisfied with the deal that his own people could have negotiated at the time, because when we picked up the negotiations, there was no agreement on an effective UK veto across the archipelago, which we have now; there was no buffer zone accepted in that agreement, which there is now; there was no agreement in that text for 99 years, or the option of an extra 40 years, which we have got in there now; and there was also not an agreement for Mauritius to take on responsibility for any migrants, but there is now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the new text of the treaty, and I hope he will back it when it comes before the House.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I rise to welcome this agreement, which safeguards a vital national security asset and cements the United Kingdom’s role at the heart of global defence co-operation. Let us be clear: this treaty is about protecting Britain’s ability to defend itself and its allies. Diego Garcia is not just a piece of land in the Indian ocean, but the backbone of our joint operations with the United States and a linchpin of the UK’s ability to project power, to deter threats and to ensure security in an increasingly unstable world. All our closest allies—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India—support this deal. NATO supports this deal. They understand what Diego Garcia represents: unmatched strategic certainty. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about how we will be protecting the area around the islands?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our close allies take a close interest, and they can see that this treaty is the best way of securing—for the UK, for the US and for themselves—a vital base on which we can help both to project military power and to reinforce regional security. My hon. Friend will see the 24 nautical mile buffer zone—an exclusion zone, if you like—that allows us to control the seas and the air. We would not be able to do that, increasingly, without the deal. She will see that sweep and an effective veto on any developments across the archipelago to ranges of at least 100 nautical miles. She will also see the value of a deal that guarantees our full operational sovereignty and therefore prevents any undermining of our ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum. As I said in my statement, that is so crucial to the unique capabilities that this base and its operations offer to this country and to the United States.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When a former Foreign Secretary asks a sitting Defence Secretary for a direct answer as to which court would be able to make a binding judgment against us on this matter, he is entitled to a direct answer, so will the Secretary of State now give that direct answer?
John Healey
There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend has set out that this deal, which is essential for our national security, will cost less than a quarter of 1% of our national defence budget. Will he also confirm that this deal costs far less than other base deals, such as France’s deal with Djibouti, yet offers vastly superior strategic scale and value?
John Healey
I can indeed, and my right hon. Friend is right: this deal will cost less than 0.2% of the defence budget. It compares very favourably with the €85 million that the French paid for their Djibouti base, which by the way is right next to a Chinese base. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger than the French base in Djibouti and has an exclusion zone around it, which helps to protect our operations and the intelligence services that we have there. My right hon. Friend is right: this is a good investment for the future national security of this country.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
This morning, I was at the High Court to listen to the judgment. I was with a very large group of Chagossians, who told me that they feel betrayed. They also feel that the United Kingdom is acting in exactly the same high-handed, colonial-like manner that led to their dislocation and displacement from the islands in the 1960s. Can those on the Government Front Bench assure us all that when this deal comes back to the House, we are not going to be asked to vote for a new round of colonial practice that will further disadvantage the Chagossians?
John Healey
Of course we are not going to ask that. We deeply regret the way that the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We have expressed that sentiment as a new Government since July. We have made provisions in the treaty to support the Chagossian communities, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a wide range of views within the Chagossian communities and groups. Some of them see the value of this deal, and some of them support it. The important fact for us is that the legal challenge in the High Court demonstrates some of the legal difficulties that would continue to bedevil the operation of this base without the deal that our Prime Minister has signed today.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my right hon. Friend for explaining—in as much detail as he is able on the Floor of the House—why he believes that this is a necessary act, and I trust him to have the security of the nation as his top priority. However, elements of the treaty cannot be talked about, even at the point when this House may vote on it. There is only one Member of this House who has access to all areas of Government spending: the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Does my right hon. Friend agree that some areas need deeper scrutiny, and will he support our plan to have a scrutiny Committee that can examine sensitive issues, including this one?
John Healey
My hon. Friend knows that I have had discussions with her and the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the capability of the House of Commons to scrutinise and hold to account the Government— of whatever party—in areas of necessarily highly secret and confidential activity. She knows that I have a different view about how to deal with that challenge, but deal with it we must.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has cited UNCLOS—under pressure from my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—as the reason for this expensive cave-in. I am familiar with UNCLOS, and although I am a layman and so is the Secretary of State, could he explain in lay terms which parts of UNCLOS are responsible for what has happened, because it is not clear to me and it will not be clear to my constituents and to his, who will be paying the bill for this?
John Healey
The judgments of any international tribunal or court do not necessarily just apply to the UK; they are taken by other agencies, other organisations and other nations. In particular, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister spelt out this afternoon, if there is uncertainty or a binding finding against the UK about the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, our ability to protect, in particular and most immediately, the electromagnetic spectrum on which our sensors, radars, communications and intelligence functions depend is compromised. That is the security assessment and that is the military view. That is why we have taken this step, and recognised that the best and only way of safeguarding the operational sovereignty—the total control and protection—of the Diego Garcia island base for the future is the deal we have struck this afternoon.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am alarmed by the passion of Conservative Members for the Chagos islands—
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I do not share the right hon. Member’s passion.
Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition first tweeted about the Chagos islands in October 2024. That was five years after the ICJ ruling and two years after negotiations started. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives’ new-found passion for the Chagos islands perhaps owes more to political opportunism than to any deeply held conviction?
John Healey
I do, indeed, and I have to say that I am relieved my hon. Friend has not asked me to name all 50-plus islands in the archipelago.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Mauritians have never ever owned the Chagos islands. When they gained independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960s, the UK paid them millions of pounds to cede any future claims over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. The Defence Secretary has confirmed the strategic importance of the Chagos islands, and we all agree on that, but the truth is that this is the worst ever deal in history by this country. Over 100 years we are paying, with inflation, over £40 billion to give away a strategically important security asset. The truth is, and I confirm it now, that when Reform wins the next general election, we will rip up this deal—tear it up—and stop all future payments. It is a disgrace.
John Healey
That is total rubbish—not just the hon. Member’s figures, but his assertion. Our closest ally, which has taken the closest look at the deal we have negotiated, sees this as the way we can secure the joint operations and the control of this base. Through this deal, we can jointly guarantee that for the next century and beyond. We have gone over the cost, and it is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. For this, we get the security of being able to continue operating an intelligence and defence base doing activities and operations that we simply could not do anywhere else. This is a good investment for Britain, and Britain is safer today because of the deal we have struck.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Conservative party had a terrible record on defence, with abject failure after abject failure. I think we have seen this afternoon that Conservative Members have not learnt from those lessons. Does the Secretary of State agree that in backing this deal, with support from the US, NATO, Five Eyes and some of our biggest allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as India and Australia, the Labour party is showing that it cares seriously about national security, will put the national interest first and, unlike the party opposite, will not make meaningless gestures to put our own party first?
John Healey
I do indeed. This is a base that has saved British lives for over 50 years. It has saved the lives of people at home in this country, because it has been the launchpad from which we have defeated terrorist attacks. It has also been the launchpad for protecting and saving the lives of British forces when they have been deployed to war zones around the world. This deal, which we signed today, means we can continue to exercise the full control necessary to continue to do that for the century to come.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I, in all candour, suggest to the Government that having now introduced this new element—the UN convention on the law of the sea and, I presume, the associated International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—as the decisive factor that might have created a binding ruling, it really is incumbent on the Government to set out in a statement exactly how it would have affected the electromagnetic spectrum or our ability to use it in Diego—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary might just calm down for a minute. I just want a proper explanation.
I make this forecast. To cut personal independence payments and winter fuel allowances to pay billions of pounds for something that was already British sovereign territory—how is the Secretary of State going to explain that on the doorstep to all his party’s voters? I promise you, we will make sure that they never hear the end of it.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman might just like to remember this and make the comparison: the total cost over the 99 years of the deal we have struck to protect this space and British control over it is less than the value of the personal protective equipment that was unusable and that was burned because the last Government bought it in the first year of the covid pandemic.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The US supports this deal. NATO supports this deal. India supports this deal. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that Opposition Members seem so intent on ignoring our allies?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point very succinctly. I hope this House has heard it and I hope the Conservative party listens to it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows the regard I have for him and for the Foreign Secretary. He knows, too, of my interest and involvement in national security matters. There is no debate across the House about the salience of Diego Garcia. It is absolutely critical to our national interest. The debate is about the legal advice. Will he, in the interests of scrutiny, provide, where it does not compromise national security, all the information and advice given to him and previous Ministers on the subject of that legal advice? We suspect that that advice could have been challenged, and I suspect that many previous holders of his office and others will have received similar, if not the same, legal advice and resisted it.
John Healey
This House will have plenty of opportunity to test and debate these issues, but the right hon. Gentleman might start by asking those of his right hon. Friends who were in government at the time. They started negotiations and judged at the time that negotiations on the deal were necessary to safeguard the future of Diego Garcia and the full operational control of the base.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for his calm and measured approach to this really serious topic. Will he expand on the safeguards in the deal, in particular the 24-mile nautical exclusion or buffer zone and the ban on foreign military presence, which guarantee full UK command of the base? I remind Opposition colleagues that it is important to lead and not follow, and to use sensible, measured language, not charged mistruths.
John Healey
The provisions of the treaty, as my hon. Friend will see from the full text, guarantee the rights of the UK in the 24-nautical mile zone immediately around the islands and in the airspace above to patrol and control that airspace. If we saw a succession of legal judgments that started to establish a Mauritian claim to sovereignty, that would undermine and weaken our ability to conduct those patrols, control the skies and protect the base.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Under this deal, we will be paying billions of pounds for the privilege of having our own territory taken away from us. The Secretary of State talks about the threat to the base as if Mauritius, a country with no navy, is about to steam in or pick a fight with the United States. That is implausible. The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State trying to dodge the question from the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and, on being pressed, scrambling around for a legal argument and coming up with something totally novel and hazy. The truth is that our constituents are going to be paying billions so that the Prime Minister can bask in the warm glow of approval from his fellow human rights lawyers.
John Healey
Absolute rubbish. It is £3.4 billion over 99 years, which is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. This is a good investment for a unique capability that has played an essential role in defeating terrorism and breaking up terrorist groups, deploying British forces, protecting our trade routes and monitoring nuclear threats around the globe. This is an essential base. We run it jointly with the US, which is full square behind us—and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party will be the same.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out very clearly why this is the right thing to do for the UK. Could he share with the House any threat assessments that he has, indicating that without guaranteed access to Diego Garcia—and “guaranteed” is the key word—China and other countries could attempt to expand their regional military presence, building installations close to the base?
John Healey
Of course China wants to try to move in on the Chagos archipelago; of course it wants to try to set up operations or activities that would allow it to interfere or monitor what we do from the base. This deal helps to protect the base and helps to prevent that from happening.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom?
John Healey
Within a few weeks, we expect rulings that will start to weaken our ability to control and maintain our full operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia; within a few years, we expect that to be at a point where it compromises our ability to continue the operations that are so essential to protecting people at home, as well as protecting our forces when they deploy around the world.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
National security decisions and debate should be led by facts, not political point scoring, as we have seen today. Does the Secretary of State agree that had the Conservatives performed some sort of miracle and stayed in government at the election, they too would have signed this deal, and we would have supported that in the interests of national security?
John Healey
I do not want to speak for the Conservatives, but, clearly, they were trying to negotiate a deal. They had had 11 rounds of negotiations. Any Government elected in July would have been faced with the challenge of how to secure this space for the long term. It was clear that that was their direction, and that they had conceded that principle in government. I regret the fact that they are not consistent in pursuing that principle, recognising the way that we have strengthened the deal and done the deal that they were unable to secure.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I am concerned about the influence of foreign nations levied through the criminal courts. If it is not too vague, I should like to read out a very brief quote:
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
Given that this land was always going to be ours and now it will be ours for only 99 more years, who will benefit from that shade in a century?
John Healey
The British people and British forces will benefit from that shade. They will continue to benefit from that shade beyond the 99 years if we choose as a nation at that point to exercise our first refusal to extend the deal for another 40 years. That was a provision that was not in the deal that the Conservatives negotiated. It is a provision that extends our ability to control this space for the long term, for our national security.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As the Prime Minister confirmed earlier today, the cost of this deal is slightly less than the average annual cost of just one aircraft carrier without the aircraft. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a price well worth paying to ensure our country’s safety and security?
John Healey
It is definitely a good investment for this country. It helps protect our security at home. It helps strengthen our forces abroad. It helps reinforce that very special security relationship that we have with our closest ally, the United States.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I hope the Defence Secretary is fully across the detail here. Annex 1, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c states:
“Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide upon the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum”
in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Given that Diego Garcia shall be represented by Mauritius at the International Telecommunication Union—as per Letter No.1 on 22 May 2025—how will control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum be reflected as per annex 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, clause iv? And given the threat posed by Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific and the level of Chinese development finance investment in Mauritius, what assessment have the Government made of future lack of co-operation from Mauritius on access to said electromagnetic spectrum?
John Healey
I will have a word with my right hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, and just let him know that the hon. Gentleman has made an early bid for membership of the Bill Committee.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is telling that one of the many Tory Prime Ministers that we had over their 14 years in Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said in 2023 that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. Is it not the case that the bluster and the red faces that we have seen from the Conservative party today is nothing more than the worst type of political hypocrisy?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has a quote that I have not managed to get, and I will ask him to pass it on to me. He makes a very powerful point to this House and to the Conservative party, a number of whom served under the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister at the time.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal?
John Healey
The jeopardy and the uncertainty over this space is putting at risk security operations that are essential to us and our allies. We are not prepared to take that risk with national security. We have done a deal in order to secure for the long term the guaranteed full operational continuing control of Diego Garcia and that military base.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
America backs the deal. Canada backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. New Zealand backs the deal. Our relationship with the Five Eyes countries is our most crucial intelligence relationship, so does the Secretary of State agree that it would have been a dereliction of duty to our country and those four countries to have failed to do this deal?
John Healey
Well said, and I would add that India supports the deal. Those countries, which are our staunchest allies, are our strongest supporters on this deal. The countries that are our adversaries, that do us harm and that want to be able to move into the part of the world of this archipelago do not want us to have the base and do not want the deal. So there is a question: whose side of the argument are you on?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I respect the expertise of the Defence Secretary, so I hope he can help me here. The ICJ said that it was a non-binding decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the court that he is worried about. The country will wonder why he would not challenge this in the court, stand by it, and see what that process would look like. If he was worried he would lose, will he publish the documentation that shows why he was advised that he would lose, so that the country can understand why he is not making that challenge? If he failed in that challenge, he could appeal as well. To the public it looks like we are just giving into the deal without even using the courts that we could legally use.
John Healey
The Chief Whip has a second volunteer for the Committee stage of this legislation! There is an accumulation of legal challenge, and there is a serious risk of legal rulings. This is not just a matter of international law; it is about the direct impact on the operations of this base that is essential to our national security. The risk that this poses puts the future operation of the base in jeopardy, and no responsible Government can stand by and simply say, “We cannot act”. No action is not an option, and that is why we struck the deal and signed the treaty today.