Armed Forces Workforce
John Healey Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours 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 to accept in full the 2026 pay award recommendations for armed forces remuneration made by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Armed forces personnel will receive their third consecutive above-inflation pay rise of 3.6%, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s commitment with those who serve.
The costs of this award will be met from within existing departmental budgets.
As demands on defence rise, we are asking more of our personnel. Our armed forces and the families who support them make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us all safe. This Government and the nation are proud of their professionalism and dedication.
This year’s award will be backdated to 1 April 2026. After the 4.5% pay award in 2025, and the 6% pay award in 2024, most personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 14.1% since April 2024. Service personnel will now have an average annual salary of around £45,710, up by £1,650 from last year.
This is all part of the action that this Government are taking to address the deep recruitment and retention crisis that we inherited. With 14 years of recruitment targets being missed every year, and military morale falling to record lows, with the proportion of personnel rating their morale as “low” increasing from 42% in 2010 to 58% in 2024, this Government are turning that around, with better pay, better housing and better protections.
And we are backing UK armed forces with the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—hitting 2.6% of GDP from 2027.
The award builds on landmark action to buy back and renew 36,000 military family homes, a new childcare scheme saving eligible forces families in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland up to £6,000 per year per child by reimbursing early years childcare costs, and legislating for the first ever independent armed forces commissioner, with the powers to investigate issues raised directly by personnel and their families.
The latest statistics show that this work is having an impact. For the year ending 31 December 2025, UK regular forces intake exceeded outflow for the first time since 2021 during the covid pandemic, with intake up 11.6% and outflow down 8.9% compared to the previous year, and total armed forces strength now stands at 182,050. And figures published yesterday in the armed forces continuous attitude survey show that satisfaction with service life has improved, up three percentage points since last year to 45%.
We value the AFPRB’s independent expert advice and insight, and the contribution that the collective membership makes on behalf of service personnel. The AFPRB report has been laid before the House today and published on gov.uk.
Today’s award, which will benefit the whole of the armed forces, reflects the value that we place upon our military community.
The recommendations
The AFPRB’s main pay recommendation was for a 3.6% pay award for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2026. 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 £1,650 in the nominal “average” salary in the armed forces, as well as an annual increase of £1,250 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 £27,282, providing an annual increase of £948 for around 14,250 personnel.
The complete recommendations of the AFPRB for pay round 2026 are as follows:
Main pay award
Recommendation 1: That rates of base pay increase by 3.6% for all members of our remit group from 1 April 2026.
Nurses
Recommendation 2: The introduction of the nursing professional pay spine from 1 October 2026 for all nursing ranks up to and including OF3, alongside a senior nursing officer pay spine for OF4 to OF6 nurses.
Recommendation 3: That the value of the nurses’ golden hello should increase to £50,000 from 1 April 2026.
Recommendation 4: That RRP—nursing—should be removed 12 months after the introduction of the new nursing pay spines.
Recommendation 5: To move to a three-year cycle of reviews of nursing pay with the next review in pay round 2029.
United Kingdom special forces
Recommendation 6: In principle the introduction of the special forces remuneration model, with 20 levels and to include cohorts that have a recognised United Kingdom special forces’ selection pathway, for delivery by no later than April 2028.
Recommendation 7: That amendments to the model involving moves of up to two levels and the creation of new levels can be managed and approved by the Ministry of Defence armed forces pay steering group.
Submarine remuneration review
Recommendation 8: The introduction of a second retention payment from 1 April 2026 for OR7 submariners with between 14 and 16 years’ service and OF3 submariners—warfare and engineer officers—with 12 years’ service.
Volunteer reserves training bounty
Recommendation 9: That rates of the volunteer reserves training bounty should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Medical officers and dental officers
Recommendation 10: That the value of defence clinical impact awards and rates of trainer pay and associate trainer pay should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Recruitment and retention payments
Recommendation 11: That all rates of RRPs—including RRP (nursing)—should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation.
Skills payments
Recommendation 12: That the following skills payments should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with the main pay award recommendation:
Cyber skills payments;
Engineering supplement payment;
Defence human intelligence—HUMINT—skills payment;
The trialled payments at level 4 to level 6 of skills based supplement;
Professional supplement (aircrew); and
Nuclear skills supplements.
Compensatory allowances
Recommendation 13: That all rates of compensatory allowances should increase by 3.6% from 1 April 2026, in line with our main pay award recommendation.
Accommodation and related charges
Recommendation 14: That SFA rental charges for CAAS bands A-F should increase by 3.8% and not to be subject to any backdating. No increase in the rates of charges for CAAS bands G and below.
Recommendation 15: No increase in the rates of furniture charges.
Recommendation 16: That SLA rental charges for grade 1 should increase by 3.8%, with increases of 2.5% for grade 2,1.3% for grade 3 and no increase for grade 4 accommodation. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-06-09/HCWS101/
[HCWS101]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
May I start by condemning the reckless Russian drone strike on Romania early on Friday morning? We stand with Romania and all our NATO allies. I have commissioned UK options for contributing to any NATO-led actions to strengthen Romania, should that be required.
The previous Government left forces recruitment and retention in crisis. They set and missed targets every year for 14 years. We are renewing the nation’s commitment to those who serve through the biggest pay rise for over 20 years, free childcare for forces families across the UK, and the biggest upgrade to forces housing in a generation. Armed forces numbers are now growing; that is part of the transformation of defence through the defence investment plan, which, I can tell the House, the Prime Minister is determined to publish before the NATO summit.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for his answer—[Interruption.]
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. Recruitment to our forces has for too long been beset by delays. There is no shortage of young people who want to join the forces, but those delays have led to a large majority of them going off and doing other things. He will have seen that we have changed the regulations, which often restricted recruitment and were barriers to young people joining. He will have seen that we have introduced direct entry for cyber recruitment, and that we are set to put in place a new contract next year for the first ever tri-nation recruitment. That will speed up recruitment and make it more efficient.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
In all the years that I served as a regular in the military, the continuous attitude survey showed that morale was dropping year on year. Since Labour has come into government, that has reversed; the continuous attitude survey is at last going in the right direction under this leadership. Can the Secretary of State explain why that is?
John Healey
There is a serious point behind my hon. Friend’s question. Armed forces numbers are growing. We have turned the corner on recruitment and on morale, as he says, and satisfaction, in particular with military homes, has risen 12% in the last year. This Government are on the side of our forces and their families. This is a Government delivering for defence, and delivering for our armed forces.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I begin by saying that we Conservative Members stand four-square with the Government on their response to Romania? It is a NATO ally, and it deserves our support.
While overall trends in recruitment and retention may have stabilised, there is still a serious problem of personnel leaving the special forces. We know from the personal accounts of former Special Air Service commanders that this is due in no small part to the Government’s facilitation of lawfare against their comrades who served in Northern Ireland. To aid retention, what is the Secretary of State’s personal response to the three special forces regimental associations that publicly warned him in late April that
“The egregious mistreatment of veterans and the ongoing infringement of their rights has to end”?
John Healey
I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description. The discussions that I, the Minister for the Armed Forces and military leaders have had with the regimental associations have dealt with their concerns, in particular with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. We are set to make significant amendments that reflect their concerns. On the position that he describes regarding recruitment and retention, there is no shortage of volunteers for training, and the proportion of those applying to the Paras rose by a quarter in the last year.
Mr Francois
The Secretary of State said he did not recognise “my” description. It is not mine. It is in a statement of 22 April from the three special forces regimental associations. Those are not my words; they are theirs. I will ask him again. If we are to persuade people to continue serving their King and country in uniform in very high-threat situations, we need to address these legitimate concerns. For months now, the Government have been promising to table amendments to their benighted troubles Bill to provide additional protections for veterans, but as with the defence investment plan, we are still waiting for Godot. When exactly will those long-promised amendments be published, and by which Minister?
John Healey
It will be before the Bill is due for its next stage in Parliament, which is Committee stage in this House.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Russia poses a significant and persistent threat to UK and Atlantic security. Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine is now in its fifth year, and Russia conducts hostile cyber-activity, spreads disinformation and carries out sabotage against the UK and many other NATO allies almost daily. European security starts in Ukraine. In response to the recent brutal Russian attacks on Ukraine, I directed UK deliveries of air defence systems to Ukraine to be accelerated. This month, I will chair the next meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters, at which we will look to further step up the military aid we can provide together.
Mr Rand
This Government have rightly increased military support to Ukraine to its highest ever level. That is vital not just for Ukraine’s security, but for ours. Our leadership on this issue places us in the firing line of an increasingly desperate Putin. With the stark warning from GCHQ last week that our nation is being relentlessly targeted by Russian aggression, does the Secretary of State agree that as well as rightly increasing defence spending, we must unite against Russia by seeking a closer relationship with our most important and reliable allies in the European Union?
John Healey
I agree with my hon. Friend that we are right to seek a closer relationship with the European Union, which has an important contribution to make, from within a “NATO first” framework. That is why, last year, we signed the security and defence partnership with the European Union. The Prime Minister has said that we are looking to join the European Union’s Ukraine loan scheme, so that we can provide more aid to Ukraine, backed by the very best British companies, producing the best British kit for Ukrainian warfighters.
Gordon McKee
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) mentioned the annual lecture delivered by the GCHQ director last week, which is important, and we should all reflect on the comments about Russia’s hybrid warfare. It is well established among security experts that Russia is conducting this kind of hybrid warfare, but that is not well understood by the general public. That is a problem, because deterring the attacks requires significant investment and inevitably, at some point, trade-offs. Will the Secretary of State produce a strategy internally—or increase its urgency, if it exists—for communicating the scale of Russian hybrid warfare against the United Kingdom?
John Healey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing more to expose the threats, and will do more still. The Russian threat against the UK is real and rising, and it is important for the public and Parliament to understand that. That is why I revealed last year that the Russian spy ship Yantar was monitoring our critical national undersea infrastructure, and that is why I exposed the month-long covert Russian submarine programme in and near UK waters. I say to Putin: we see you; we will expose you; and we will not stand for you targeting the UK.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
This morning, France once again demonstrated that seizing sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels in international waters is both legal and achievable. In contrast, although the Prime Minister confirmed on 25 March that we have the legal basis to act in our own territorial waters, since that pledge, hundreds of vessels have passed through our waters unchallenged. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is deterrence in reverse? It is tough rhetoric, but no action. In Moscow, that gap between what Britain says and what Britain does will be read as exactly one thing: weakness.
John Healey
On the contrary, this is deterrence in action. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we supported the French operation and were proud to do so. Defence stands ready to lead on our own interdiction, but the impact of what we are ready to do, and what we have signalled to Putin, is that he is having to escort shadow shipping through the English channel with Russian warships, and the rest of his shadow fleet is often detouring right round the UK. We are disrupting his shadow fleet shipping, and are contributing to the fact that Russian oil revenues have fallen by a quarter in the last year.
David Reed
There is a chasm between supporting and leading. Is it not the case that the Attorney General—the same Attorney General who has no hesitation in hounding British veterans through the courts—has now decided that intercepting Russian shadow fleet tankers would breach maritime law? Our allies in Finland, Sweden and Estonia have no such hesitation. France and the United States have no such hesitation. Can the Secretary of State explain why the only person who seems determined to tie Britain’s hands is his Government’s chief legal officer?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion and his facts. With the Attorney General, I led a meeting of the 10 joint expeditionary force nations’ legal military experts, in which we set out, discussed and shared the legal basis on which, individually and together, we can interdict and seize Russian shadow ships. We are ready to do so in support of our allies, as we have just supported France. Together, we are deterring Putin, and we are disrupting his shadow fleet operations.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Last night, I returned from a week in Ukraine. I visited villages in Kherson, just tens of kilometres from the frontline, and saw the total devastation wrought by Russian forces. Every morning, we woke to reports that hundreds of drones had been destroyed overnight by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine is innovating under Russian fire. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate defence co-operation with Ukraine, so that our armed forces can rapidly learn from, develop and deploy the counter-drone capabilities needed for the wars of today and tomorrow, not yesterday?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important argument. It was captured in the strategic defence review, and has been put into practice since. Within the last two weeks, I was with our troops in Estonia, close to the Russian frontline, and I saw exactly how our UK forces, alongside the Estonians, are learning the lessons, and implementing some of the same tactics and technologies that we have been involved in supplying to Ukraine, and which the Ukrainians have demonstrated are combat fit.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This Government are making the biggest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we have more than £11 billion more in the defence budget than in the last year of the previous Government. As the Prime Minister said in February,
“we are going to have to spend more faster”,
and we will.
Wendy Chamberlain
Building our military capability is vital in this world of increasing instability, where Putin continues to wage war in Europe—as we have heard—and Trump rips up the alliances that once kept us safe. Investment in deterrence is far better than fighting a war unprepared. Getting UK businesses access to the Security Action for Europe programme is vital, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether talks have restarted with the EU in that regard, and if so, what progress has been made?
John Healey
As I mentioned in a previous answer, we are indeed looking to participate in, and be able to take advantage of, the European Union’s loan scheme for Ukraine. That is a way in which we could accelerate getting good kit into the hands of the Ukrainians and ensure that British-made kit and British firms can make a big contribution to that.
Victoria Collins
My constituent Fraser puts it best when he says,
“At a time when the world is increasingly dark and uncertain, and when the UK’s defence capability is well below the level required”,
defence bonds
“are surely one which would gain support across the political spectrum. I know that I would happily invest.”
With all of us in the United Kingdom paying the price every time we check out or pay a bill, the Liberal Democrat calls to issue £20 billion of defence bonds would mean an injection of funding in our security, but also in our economy, so what are the Government waiting for?
John Healey
I remember that for at least six months after the election, the hon. Lady and her party were urging us to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. We have done better than that—we are hitting 2.6% next year, three years before anyone expected, including her party. We will go further, and I will look for her support when we do.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Some hon. Members have advocated for defence bonds. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Defence Committee has examined in detail various defence financing options, including a defence, security and resilience bank—the Canadians have stolen a march on us, even though the idea was developed by a former British Army officer. There are multilateral defence mechanisms, and other nations have opted for a loosening of the fiscal rules just for defence. Obviously, these are not either/or options, but given the increased threats and the level of volatility, we must accelerate investment in defence to 3% GDP spend in this Parliament. Given that context, what options and course of action are the Government pursuing? We cannot keep plodding along at the current pace; we must meet the moment.
John Healey
With all due respect—and I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend—the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war is hardly the plodding path he describes. I welcome his Committee’s inquiry into defence investment and its report. I know that Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister who has been commissioned by the Prime Minister to look at multinational financing of security, will use that report as an important part of his work, which I welcome. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech in February that
“We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age.”
We know that we must spend more faster, and we will.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With deep regret, I should inform the House that a training accident occurred in northern Iraq yesterday in which a member of service personnel from the British Army died. The family have been informed, and have asked for a period of grace before further details are released. I know that the thoughts of the House will be with the family and the unit at this desperately sad time.
In this era of growing threat, hard power and strong alliances help make Britain safer. At the weekend, I was at the Shangri-La summit in Singapore with United States Secretary of War Hegseth and Deputy Prime Minister Marles of Australia. Together, we announced the first ever AUKUS pillar II signature project; together, we are now producing the very highest technology sensors and weapon systems for our underwater drones. Together, we will get those capabilities into our warfighters’ hands before the end of next year.
Emma Foody
First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State?
The Veterans Minister recently joined me to meet several women veterans in my constituency, who spoke exceptionally powerfully about the specific challenges and barriers that they experienced in accessing appropriate support after leaving the armed forces. The VALOUR programme is incredibly welcome, but can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the second round of funding, he will look at how women veterans can access gender-informed services that reflect their particular needs and experiences?
John Healey
I can indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the successful Northumbria bid in the first round of the VALOUR funding, which will help cover her constituency. [Interruption.] Given that one in eight of our ex-forces personnel are female veterans, we will ensure that the veterans strategy reflects those concerns, and that any round 2 funding as a result of the new application for bids is recognised.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members not to walk in front of a Member when the Minister is answering their question. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State on the sad news from Iraq and, on behalf of the Opposition, send condolences to the family concerned. It is very sad news indeed.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: has the Treasury signed off the defence investment plan?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me when I answered before, but I can say to him very clearly that the Prime Minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
James Cartlidge
No wonder the defence investment plan is so late: the Labour Government still have not worked out how to pay for it. The good news is that others have. Lord Robertson, a former Labour Defence Secretary, has said:
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
and Tony Blair himself warned last week:
“By the end of this decade, we could be spending more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence. No serious country can do that.”
Is not the truth that whoever becomes the next Labour Prime Minister must do one thing above all else to boost defence, and that is to cut welfare and spend the savings on the British armed forces?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck. There is no recognition of the fact that we are increasing defence spending by a record amount since the end of the cold war, no recognition that this year the defence budget will be £11 billion greater than in his last year in government, and no recognition that there are contracts in place, including the AUKUS pillar II contract, that we have signed and that he did not sign when he was the Minister responsible.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
John Healey
First, we are directing defence investment first to British firms that increase British jobs and increase apprenticeships, skills and opportunities for young people. Secondly, we are opening up direct entry recruitment to the armed forces for those with cyber-skills, and the first cohort has already been recruited. They are deployed much more quickly than via the normal route, and the early reports from every one of their units is overwhelmingly positive, so we are now moving to recruit the second tranche.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
John Healey
We must spend more, we must spend faster—and we will, as the Prime Minister has said. On our nuclear deterrent, I am proud that this Government are putting £6 billion, in this Parliament, into increasing the productivity of our submarine building, to raise production levels and to increase the pace of submarine building in future.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Following the recent challenges with deploying HMS Dragon to the middle east at short notice, will the defence readiness Bill, which was mentioned in the strategic defence review, urgently review how our Type 45 destroyers can be made more readily available to defend against aerial attacks?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
RAF Benson primary school in my constituency is struggling with a temporary reduction in its rolls as a result of the scrapping of the Puma fleet. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the school can continue to thrive into the future as we anticipate the new medium helicopter coming online?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Israel’s illegal invasion of Lebanon is continuing unabated. Millions have left their homes, and millions of refugees have fled to the north. It is happening all over again: people are suffering and civilians are dying. What is the Secretary of State doing to suspend all military co-operation with Israel so that it stops the Gazafication of Lebanon?
John Healey
We are urging both sides to scale down their activity and respect the ceasefire so that the current ceasefire agreement in the wider middle east can be translated into a permanent peace, including between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah.
Defence Readiness
John Healey Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I begin by paying tribute to Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan of the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery, who tragically died at the Royal Windsor horse show. She was a brilliant young soldier, and her commanding officer described her as a “fearless and gifted horsewoman.” I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with her family and comrades as they come to terms with her loss.
I also want to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel for their professionalism and dedication. Right now, we have servicemen and women keeping us safe 24/7 in the most difficult circumstances at home, under the sea and around the world in over 30 operations. I offer them our profound respect and gratitude.
It is a privilege to close this debate on the Gracious Speech on behalf of the Government and to do so at the special request of the Chief Whip. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a legislative agenda to strengthen Britain’s economic, energy and national security—a decisive break from the failed past. We are a Government who will cut bills, back workers, lift children out of poverty, reform the NHS, control borders, rebuild ties with Europe, accelerate clean energy and invest in defence.
Over the five days of this King’s Speech debate, we have had speeches from 297 Members, including 37 from Back Benchers in the debate this afternoon. I had the privilege of opening the last King’s Speech debate 22 months ago, and I quoted then what the then Chief of the Defence Staff said to me on my first day in this job: “You are taking on this role at the most extraordinary time in my 35 years of service.” Events since have only reinforced that judgment.
Putin’s aggression is growing across Europe. He is escalating his attacks in Ukraine, increasing air incursions into NATO airspace, and reopening cold war bases in the High North. Only today I revealed details of the dangerous interference with the RAF Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft—an unarmed surveillance aircraft—by two Russian jets over the Black sea. We have démarched the Russians over this totally unacceptable act.
We have war in the middle east, with Iranian airstrikes threatening British lives, British interests and British partner nations across the region. Here at home, we have defended ourselves from Russian spy ships and from subs in our wider waters; we do so daily in the face of cyber-attacks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee, said that Russia is already operating in the grey zone. The right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) both said that people do not know what threats we face, and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said that the world is more dangerous now than it was during the cold war.
At the same time, the US has rightly challenged European nations to step up and take on more responsibility for European security. We are, and we will do further. This, therefore, is undeniably a new era of threat that requires a new era for defence. In the coming years, we will ask more of our armed forces personnel. It is only right that they expect more of their Government and their nation.
We were elected on a promise to renew the nation’s commitment to and contract with those who serve and the families who support them. Through the Armed Forces Bill, we are in part delivering on that promise, extending the armed forces covenant into full legal force, delivering better defence housing, and providing better protections for those who serve through reforms to the service justice system. Through the Bill, we will bolster our readiness by introducing new legal powers to bring down unidentified drones over UK military bases.
We will also expand the pool of our British reserves. That point was made so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is reserve himself. He said that the focus must be more fully on our reserves. We have made a commitment to grow our reserves by 20%.
Jim Shannon
I speak as a former member of the reserves and a part-time soldier for 14 and a half years back in the ’70s through to the late ’80s. In that time, we could recruit plenty of reserves, but today there seems to be a problem with recruitment. I am reminded of that ’60s song, which I am old enough to remember, “The Times They Are A-Changin’”—and we understand that. What more can be done to ensure that reserves can get on with their role as reserve soldiers at the same time as holding jobs? It is really important to have a job and be able to do the reserve role as well.
John Healey
It is indeed; the hon. Gentleman is right. We should pay tribute to, support and welcome those employers who make it possible for their staff and employees to serve as reservists. We do so in the civil service, and there are many very good commercial firms that do the same. We need more to do that, we need more to serve as reservists, and we need to change the terms on which our reservists serve. That is why we are making amendments through the Armed Forces Bill.
It is fair to say that Members on both sides of the House urged on me questions about the publication of the defence investment plan. The Chair of the Defence Committee did so, as did the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who spoke from the Dispatch Box to wind up for the Opposition, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). Everybody wanted the DIP published sooner, including me. The Prime Minister knows of its importance and has been clear to the Liaison Committee that it is a personal priority. I say to those on both sides of the Chamber, and particularly to Opposition Front-Bench Members: we have to get this right.
The equipment programme and the procurement plan that we took on was over-committed, underfunded, and unsuited to our changing threats and battlefield conditions. Defence has not done a line-by-line assessment of how it spends taxpayers’ money for nearly 20 years. The last Government made commitments of tens of billions that were not funded. [Interruption.] The shadow Defence Secretary is chuntering, but let me use an example that he himself used. He announced a £10 billion munitions strategy: it was never developed, never published and never funded. It was announced, of course, just weeks before the election. Those are the problems that we have to sort out.
James Cartlidge
One of the most critical issues in defence at the moment is the munitions position. Obviously, we did not publish it; we were not allowed to as it is a highly sensitive document. I cannot state what the figures were. We had a general election and we became the Opposition. However—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being intervened on as I intervene.
To be clear on the 14 years point—I hope that those on the Government Benches agree with this—we gave a vast amount of munitions to Ukraine. We did that to protect Europe so that we did not end up with a situation where Russia conquered Ukraine early. It was the right thing to do, but it left massive gaps in the inventory that we were filling. If we had become the Government, we had a plan ready to go and it was funded by cutting the civil service. That is why Labour Members did not like it. The way that we were going to pay for it is something that no Labour party could agree with.
John Healey
The shadow Secretary of State has admitted to the House exactly what I was saying. The munitions strategy that he announced weeks before the election was never developed and never funded, and the country cannot be defended with unfunded commitments.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I heard something this morning that I could scarcely believe. I heard that neither the Armed Forces Minister nor the Veterans Minister—notably, the two military veterans on the MOD’s ministerial team—have actually seen the defence investment plan. If he can, will the Secretary of State confirm or deny whether that is the case?
John Healey
I am really proud to have the Minister for Veterans and People and the Minister for the Armed Forces as part of our Defence team. We play different roles across the Department and they make an extraordinary contribution to the defence of this nation. There are briefings in the Department. Those Ministers play an exceptionally important part in the defence of our country and in the Defence team of this nation, and I am proud that they are part of it. The defence investment plan will be published shortly, as we can settle it within Government. There are critical parts of Defence that feed into the investment plan.
Stuart Anderson
If the defence investment plan is the Secretary of State’s priority and the Prime Minister’s priority, is it completed and just waiting for the financial sign-off, or is there a gap in capability to be able to complete it?
John Healey
This is a personal priority for the Prime Minister. We are working flat out to complete it, and we will complete and publish it soon. The whole Defence team are making a contribution to its development, and that contribution stretches right across the defence effort.
I say to the shadow Secretary of State: this has not stopped us getting on with the job of government. This has not stopped us letting more than 1,200 major contracts since the election, with nearly nine in 10 going to British-based firms, creating British-based jobs; nearly 70% of those jobs, investments and contracts are beyond London and the south-east. That is defence driving economic growth and lifting parts of the country, right across the UK.
In just the last seven days, we have invested in and announced: over £100 million in the new hybrid Navy to help with our deployment of the multinational mission to the middle east to reopen the strait of Hormuz; a £1 billion contract for new mobile artillery for the Army, with steel made in Sheffield and artillery barrels made in Telford; and rapidly procured weapons for our Typhoons so they can shoot down drones at a lower cost. Just yesterday, I announced 13 contracts of up to £4 million each for small British defence tech firms, all of which have the potential to become Britain’s next defence unicorns.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Healey
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, then I will make some progress.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge regard for him. We go back quite a long way, and I hope that what I am going to say now will be helpful to him and his Defence team. Poland is planning eventually to spend 9% of its GDP on defence. It is approaching 5% today from a standing start. Everybody in this House with an ounce of common sense wants the right hon. Gentleman and his team to succeed and to get the money they require to increase our defences, but we are behind the curve. I am not blaming him; I am blaming other elements in Government. Will he use this opportunity to send the message to the Government that the House requires that we get the money, publish the plan and get on with making defence successful? The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), has said this, and Members on both sides of the House want the Secretary of State to have it. Please take this message back to the Chancellor: “Enough is enough. We have to do this for our security.” Will he now do that?
John Healey
We have to do this for our security, and we will do this for our security. In the meantime, we are getting on and doing what is necessary for Britain’s security.
John Healey
I will now turn to some of the contributions to the debate. As I said, 37 Back Benchers have spoken, and I am going to turn to some of their contributions now. I will start with the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), if I may. He urged us to reprovision our nuclear programme, and I would just say to him that, in this Parliament alone, we are putting £15 billion into the warhead programme and £6 billion into upgrading Barrow to produce the submarines that we need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) rightly talked about the impact that defence skills have across the economy. She also talked about the skills gaps that need to be filled, which is a central part of the defence technical excellence colleges, the defence growth deals and the Defence Universities Alliance that we are putting in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke passionately about the work he is doing on the Right to Food UK Commission. The testimony that he gave us from workers and parents about the pressure they are under and the problems that creates was really moving. We look forward to the commission’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) also ranged more widely than defence, and mentioned the pressure on families and the action that the Government are now taking on rising costs. She talked about the importance of the legislation in the King’s Speech on railways and on housing for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) talked about the importance of resilience that runs through every aspect of our defence programme. My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) and for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) both spoke movingly, and for the House, on the scourge of antisemitism and the need to stamp it out wherever it is, and about the threat of Iran and the edge of threat that the IRGC poses to this country, as well as to Iran’s own people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) asked for comments on Cabrit and Estonia. I shall be out there in Estonia with our forward land force tomorrow, so if he will forgive me, I will probably be able to give him a more up to date and informed comment if he would like to wait until I come back, rather than commenting from the Dispatch Box today.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the important fact that our armed forces depend on the strength of the innovators and the strength of the industry that stands behind them. This is a lesson that we can draw from Ukraine: when a country is under threat or forced to fight, it is its industry, its innovators and its wider society that must stand behind it to give it strength. She rightly paid tribute to and reminded us about the civilian workforce that supports our uniformed personnel.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On the point about Ukraine, we learned today about the delay to a ban on jet fuel and diesel made from Russian crude oil and refined in places like India and Turkey. Does the Secretary of State accept that the British people do not want to contribute one more ruble to the Kremlin for use in its war machine against the Ukrainian people?
John Healey
I rather regret giving way to the hon. Member because he has not been in the debate, and clearly was not in for the urgent question either, when it was made very clear that there are new sanctions to clamp down on Russian oil revenues and that the licensing regime is a way of bringing those new sanctions in. I urge him to consult the record.
John Healey
No, I will proceed.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and Members from different parties on the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. He talked about the way that the locusts were busy on UK defence during those 14 Conservative years when it was hollowed out and underfunded, and about the extent of the legacy from which we are now recovering. He rightly reminded us that defence is not just a cost or spending for the Government; defence is an investment and an engine for growth across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) gave us a direct example of that from his Methil shipyard, in saying that Labour defence investment and export wins have led to a transformation from the bleak future that he described when he first became an MP to the current recruitment drive. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She rightly took the Scottish nationalists to task for their repeated failure to be willing to invest in defence skills—skills that benefit our security, that benefit Scottish workers and that give opportunities to Scottish young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who is in his place, talked about the many military families in his area. He rightly said that we have to look after those who look after us. Just as an aside, I have been campaigning for over a decade for stronger licensing for taxi and private hire vehicles, exactly like he has, and I welcome the comments he made—entirely irrelevant to defence, but important nevertheless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) spoke as the proud parent of a young forces member. She was right to say that at the heart of our Government commitment is the nation’s commitment to those who serve, and I am delighted to hear that she has been successful in Portsmouth in helping win part of the Valour funding—the £50 million behind the new network of veteran centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly said that election security is linked to our national security and that we are right to toughen up the rules on political funding.
Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) that where I live in Rotherham, no one is talking about the European Union. People have put Brexit behind them. Nevertheless, I welcome his welcome for the European partnership Bill, but the last thing that people want is for us to set aside the manifesto they elected us on and to plunge back into detailed institutional negotiations with the European Union.
Mark Pritchard
One of the defining features of this country’s support for Ukraine has been the cross-party support, but I think it is right for His Majesty’s Opposition to call out the Government where we think they have got it wrong. Over the last 24 hours, I think the Government have got it both right and wrong. I support the Government in the new sanctions regime around third countries. Where I do not support the Government is in allowing temporary licences for the import of Russian jet fuel and diesel. Today in Ukraine, the bombs and missiles are falling. This country should have no part in funding any part of Putin’s war machine.
John Healey
As the Minister for Trade said in response to the urgent question, and as I said earlier, these are steps to further sanctions in order to tighten sanctions and to screw down further on Putin’s ability to fund his illegal war in Ukraine.
I will turn to the question of spending on defence, which was mentioned, as always, by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), as well as by the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). In the debate on the last King’s Speech in 2024, I reaffirmed this Government’s manifesto pledge to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence spending. Throughout that debate, the figure of 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2030 was urged on me 16 times by the shadow Defence Secretary. We have done that, and we have done it three years earlier than anyone expected. We have put in place the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will spend more—we know we must. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary, the defence budget this year is more than £11 billion greater than it was in the final year of his Government.
In that same debate, I promised the strategic defence review, the first of its kind, which we published as a vision for defending Britain, making it safer and more secure at home. I told the House then that we would step up our support for Ukraine. We have provided more military assistance than ever before, we took on the leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to support the fight today, and we established and now lead the coalition of the willing for Ukraine to secure the peace tomorrow. I pledged a new UK-Germany defence agreement, and less than four months later I signed that with Defence Minister Pistorius in the Trinity House agreement. I went on to sign deals with France, Norway and Turkey.
In the same debate, I raised the scourge of dreadful military housing. Within months, we brought back into public ownership 36,000 homes that our military families live in. We upgraded the worst 1,000 before Christmas, and we have already done another 250 since then. In that debate, I said that the morale of our service personnel was at a record low. Since then, we have awarded them the biggest pay rise for nearly two decades, extended free childcare and legislated for the first ever Armed Forces Commissioner in order to improve service life.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) that I missed him at Cabinet this week. He gave us a reflective speech. He is rightly proud of the Government’s record on rebuilding and reforming the NHS, but I trust that he will agree that as with the NHS, in Defence we have certainly not been treading water.
I will close with the His Majesty the King’s opening words last week:
“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom…Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.”
Every Member of the House recognises that truth. We are a Government committed to a decade of rising defence spending, to the readiness of our armed forces, to backing Britain’s industries and its innovators, and to making Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Defence Diplomacy Strategy
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence (Lord Coaker) has made the following written ministerial statement.
In the strategic defence review published in June 2025, the Government committed to bring forward a defence diplomacy strategy. Today, we fulfil that commitment.
The full strategy is necessarily classified, due to its assessments of the UK’s interests. The public summary published and placed in the Library of the House today sets out the concrete actions the Ministry of Defence will take, alongside other Government Departments to deliver the strategy.
Our world has changed. The threats we face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the cold war. In this new era, our first defence diplomacy strategy lays the foundation for UK defence to be more deliberate, targeted and coherent in deepening our international relationships with allies and partners. It is backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and sets out how diplomacy will support the delivery of the SDR’s priorities to make the UK more secure at home and strong abroad.
At a time when Europe has been rightly challenged to step up to meet the security demands in its own region, and in the face of growing Russian aggression, the primary focus of our defence diplomacy is on supporting our commitment to NATO.
Since coming into office 20 months ago, we have secured strategic agreements with Germany, France and Norway, all of which strengthen our national security and make defence an engine for growth at home. We have also galvanised international support for Ukraine. Since February 2025, the UK has stepped up to co-chair the Ukraine defence contact group with Germany—the international forum for providing military equipment to Ukraine. And we co-lead the coalition of the willing with France to help secure a lasting peace in Ukraine.
“NATO first” does not mean NATO only. Security in the Euro-Atlantic is indivisible from security in the middle east and Indo-Pacific. The UK is fully committed to working with our global allies and partners on shared defence priorities.
This new strategy provides a framework for how defence will work across Government and with allies and international partners to do that via diplomacy.
It focuses effort on the UK’s most critical objectives, ensuring better departmental prioritisation and value for money for the taxpayer. For the first time, it puts growth at the heart of defence diplomacy, by encouraging investment in British-based businesses British exports and the procurement of British-made defence equipment by our partners. The strategy embeds lessons from our recent successes—including the biggest fighter jet deal in a generation with Turkey, Britain’s biggest ever warship deal, signed with Norway, and our industrial co-operation with Germany—and ensures we apply them consistently across defence to deliver British jobs and growth.
It will also improve how the Department uses data and AI insights to support decision and policymaking, and equip our staff with better tools and training to build deeper regional expertise.
It sets out how we will train and develop our defence attachés and international-facing personnel by introducing enhanced training and distinct career streams to build deeper regional expertise. We will align the allocation of places on our world-class military education courses to our international prioritisation, ensuring they will have the greatest effect. We will also leverage our international alumni networks for sustained engagement and broaden opportunities for UK personnel to access international training programmes. Our newly established Defence Section London will support the 102 foreign defence sections accredited in the UK, improving co-ordination across the overseas defence network.
We will continue to use ceremonial opportunities to showcase our values, culture and history, recognising the British military’s long and proud record of excellence.
Delivery of the strategy will be monitored through departmental governance at ministerial and official levels to ensure that every pound of public investment delivers maximum strategic value.
I am placing a copy of the defence diplomacy strategy public summary in the Library of the House, and I look forward to updating this House on progress. Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-24/HCWS1440/
[HCWS1440]
Middle East
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I want to update the House on the UK military operations in the middle east, but before I do so let me express my total disgust at the antisemitic attack in north London overnight. Our thoughts are with the Jewish community today. The House will have a statement on the attack from the Security Minister after this statement.
I will start this statement by thanking every single person across defence. They are working flat out, whether they are our senior leaders, our junior ranks—military and civilians alike—our planners in Permanent Joint Headquarters, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region or our sailors in the eastern Mediterranean. I say to them, on behalf of the House: you are proving yet again that you are the best of Britain in action.
In the fast-moving events in the middle east, we are maintaining a clear, consistent approach. As I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK Government’s decisions and actions are founded on three principles. The first principle is defensive and taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That is why I have been putting vital military assets into the region since January. The second principle is co-ordination with allies, and leading and co-ordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners, including the US, the G7, the E5 and Gulf nations. The third principle is ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. UK action remains grounded in those principles and our purpose: to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.
Iran is a threat to us all. It is lashing out, and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war it has attacked 12 countries, and has fired more than 3,500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in its sights. Oil refineries have been bombed, embassies and bases have been targeted, and commercial ships have been hit. Some allies, such as France and the United States, have had service personnel killed, and the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades. In conflict it is never possible to remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.
Iran’s attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House that in the early hours of Friday morning two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base. One fell short of its target, while the other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran’s reckless attacks. Iran must stop; it must de-escalate. We want to see this war end now.
My priority as Defence Secretary is the protection of UK personnel, and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. Those measures are reviewed daily by both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. We know, however, that Iran’s aggression and intent reach beyond the middle east, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home. Over the last year we have been boosting our defence, including our cyber defences, and tightening base security. I want to thank the military police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest and then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter.
Let me turn to our UK defensive operations in the region. Since January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defences in the region. Those advanced preparations made a real difference, and meant that from day one we have been defending actively and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. When Iran started hitting out, putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship.
RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We have more jets in the region than we have had at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we are working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to co-ordinate the contributions of allies, including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and will tonight begin operational integration into Cyprus’s defence alongside allies. More widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity, and provided early warning to our armed forces and our allies operating across the region.
Our military and our industry in the UK have a shared mission: to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. Last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors, defence attachés and UK defence firms, and the Ministry of Defence has now established Taskforce Sabre with industry to support partners across the middle east with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, along with training, and we will deploy Rapid Sentry to Kuwait. Rapid Sentry is a battle-tested, ground-based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces in taking down drones in the region.
I turn to the strait of Hormuz. People and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war, and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend. Iran is holding the strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines, targeting ships—including red ensign vessels—and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support. The UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week that condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on unarmed ships, strongly backed the freedom of navigation, and expressed our readiness
“to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”
I discussed this matter with E5 Defence Ministers last week, and we have now deployed UK military planners to US Central Command to develop options. We are looking to accelerate new UK minehunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission that we have given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to missile sites and capabilities that threaten the strait of Hormuz. We are determined to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so that commercial ships can move freely and confidently again.
This House knows that the demands on defence are rising. While we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the middle east, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine, to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts, and to deal with Putin’s serious threats to the High North. This House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the middle east for their own gain. We will not let them. As a Government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane.
The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz?
It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe?
When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible.
However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner?
As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes?
If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper?
There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded:
“Continued progress…remains subject to”—
guess what?—
“the Defence Investment Plan.”
In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next?
Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?
John Healey
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel, and I recognise and respect those. He asked me, first, about the comments from President Trump today. I am sure the whole House will welcome President Trump’s statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the
“COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”,
and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants. That creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation, and the onus is now on Iran to respond.
The shadow Secretary of State went on to the strikes that I have reported on, or the missiles fired in the direction of, Diego Garcia. I just say to him that we have been blunt and open about the threat Iran poses—the threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partners—and to suggest otherwise is completely false. That is why we have been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the shadow Defence Secretary the chance to come into the MOD for a secure briefing. I welcome his thanks for that, but he, as a former Defence Minister, will know that no Government routinely comment on the detail of such threats, due to the nature of intelligence sharing. He will also know that no Government immediately confirm such events, partly because in any conflict events are fast-moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should bear that in mind for the future.
I want to reassure the public, however, on the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about long-range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK, and to say, quite clearly, that there is no assessment that we are being targeted in the UK in that way. We have the resources and the alliances in place to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attack. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom. Our Navy, our RAF and our Army are all involved, and we operate our defence with other NATO allies. That layered defence against missiles or any other sort of threat is an important part of keeping this country safe.
It seems to have taken a war in the middle east for the hon. Gentleman to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. [Interruption.] No, because in the last year of his Government, they slashed defence spending on ground-based air defence by 70%. When he was Defence Minister, he promised a munitions strategy, which he never published and was never funded. It was down to this Government, last June, as part of the strategic defence review, to announce an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATO’s DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—air and missile defence initiative. It is this Government who in this year alone have boosted spending on counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government, and spending on ground-based air defence systems by 50%. It is this Government who are delivering for defence after 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous Government.
I have to say that I am still very confused about the Conservatives’ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must “go to the source” in Iran and that “we are in this war” whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:
“I never said we should join”.
The week after that, the shadow Defence Secretary said on Sky News that there are no easy answers to this.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talks about defence investment planning and spending. We are working to finalise the DIP, but he was, of course, the Defence Minister who left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes not on budget, not on time. He was the one who left a defence programme that was over-committed, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats we now face. It is this Government, a Labour Government, who are now delivering for defence: 1,200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses, and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.
John Healey
The Mother of the House speaks with long and deep experience of these matters. I would just say to her that the Prime Minister himself has said that while we are taking
“the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.”
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain.
There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position.
I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?
John Healey
The country’s best interests are served by our actions both before and since the start of this period of the war—actions taken to defend our personnel, our bases, our allies and our interests throughout the region. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our interests are served best by an end to the conflict, which we want to see happen now. We therefore welcome President Trump’s move to step back from further attacks on Iranian power plants and oil infrastructure, which creates the opportunity for further de-escalation, which the hon. Gentleman calls for. I hope that he would recognise that the onus is now on Iran to respond in kind.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, there has been no change in the principles on which our approach, action and decisions are based. These are permissions for the US to use UK bases for defensive action, as it is striking at the very Iranian sites and capabilities that are attacking our interests and those of our partners in the region.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to draw to attention to the fact that when he became Secretary of State, our armed forces were underfunded and very stretched. He and his team and the Government have done much to improve that, including bringing about additional funding for the armed forces. However, I am concerned that this further commitment, because of what is happening in Iran, will put a lot of strain on our already overstretched armed forces, and I am concerned about the sustainability of our continuing investment there. What discussions are taking place in Government to accelerate expenditure to at least 3% in this Parliament and as quickly as possible?
John Healey
Having been a Defence Minister and having served for some time on the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend is more knowledgeable than perhaps anyone else in the House about defence matters. I appreciate his recognition of the way that, since the election, we have stepped up the scale of investment in autonomous systems, counter-drone systems and integrated missile and air defence systems, all of which were badly lacking under the previous Government. He will have followed an important speech that the Prime Minister gave three or four weeks ago at Munich, in which he recognised, as this House does, that demands on defence are rising; that this is an era of hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy; and that we need to spend more, faster, on defence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?
John Healey
I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and the straight answer to his question is yes, I can. The deal that we have in place, which is awaiting ratification, would give us operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years. This base is central and essential to our and the US’ security and military around the world. The deal now on the table, which we have negotiated with the Mauritians, gives us greater protections in the waters around the island and a greater veto over developments on the other islands. It is so much better than the deal the previous Government left when they left office, reached after 11 rounds of negotiation.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to members of the armed forces, and I acknowledge too the difficult path that he has to tread. The Government’s stated objective was to achieve de-escalation of this war led by diplomacy, yet the truth is that the US planes leaving British soil, which he authorised without parliamentary consent, are carrying not diplomats but heavy payloads. The Secretary of State said that he wants these actions to be legal. What protocols has he agreed with the United States to ensure that those bombers are operating within national and international law and in a defensive capacity only? Anything else leads to a slippery slope from defence into offence.
John Healey
The permissions that we have granted in response to specific US requests are for operations restricted to defensive legal purposes that strike at the capabilities that are doing most to hold at risk and attack our interests, allies and personnel. It is part of an established system of requesting such basing operations, with a system that ensures that the US respects the permissions that it has requested. That system allows us to ensure that that is, and continues to be, the case.
On de-escalation, I hope that my hon. Friend recognises and was encouraged by the leadership that the Prime Minister and the UK played at the end of last week, when we led the work that has produced a statement now signed by 29 other countries calling for the co-ordinated development of options and the condemnation of Iran’s attacks and closure of the strait of Hormuz. It also recognises the enormous impact that this is having across the world, including for people and businesses in this country, about which so many are so concerned.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There is a glaring contradiction between the Defence Secretary’s statement, which refers to
“taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence,”
and announcing to the House that we will have another recess without the defence investment plan. Does he recognise that last year the Defence Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members on it, said that
“demand signals will not exist until the Defence Investment Plan is published”?
At a time when so many of our allies have invested in defence, does he not recognise that delaying the plan is likely to stoke inflation, undermining the spend as and when it comes?
John Healey
We are working flat out to finalise the plan, but it has not held up important decisions that we have made. Since the election, we have been able to let over 1,200 major contracts, the majority of which are with British businesses and British firms, creating British jobs, reinforcing the innovation base in this country and demonstrating that defence under this Government is becoming an engine for growth.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The availability of Type 45s is a direct result of the severe defence cuts enacted by the Conservatives in 2010, so I am incredulous that they comment on their availability without giving an apology. However, while we recognise that perhaps there is not an Iranian missile capable of travelling the 2,000 km to the Chagos islands, will my right hon. Friend recognise that, were there to be one, that would show a worrying proliferation of technology from North Korea and Russia, and that shows we must continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russia?
John Healey
I do indeed. My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of his service experience and his service on the Defence Committee. He reminds the House, as I did at the end of my statement, that with all eyes on the middle east, we cannot lift our focus and deflect our priority from stepping up support for Ukraine, and, as the strategic Defence review encourages us to do, learning the lessons from Ukraine. He is right to remind the Conservative party that during its 14 years in office it cut the number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter, and the number of minehunters by more than a half, and in its first five years the defence budget was cut by fully £12 billion.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State talked a lot in his statement about British hardware, but coercing an adversary also requires us to understand their war aims and their beliefs. In Iraq, we learned late about the need to develop cultural awareness. Martyrdom is central to Shi’a Islam and viewed as redemptive suffering. Alongside all the kit that the Secretary of State talked about, will the Government also invest in cultural capability?
John Healey
I am a somewhat simple man, and I am not clear what cultural capability really means. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with his proposition, I would be happy to have a look at it.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
One of the clearest lessons of the Chilcot inquiry was that the UK must be prepared to say no to the US when British interests, legal standards and global stability are at risk. Will the Government hold firm and not be drawn further into this conflict by a so-called ally whose conduct is unpredictable, insulting, destabilising and, in my view, deranged?
John Healey
Let me say again that while we are taking the necessary action to defend our interests and our allies, as the Prime Minister has made clear to the House and in public, we will not get drawn into the wider war.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that we all breathed a sigh of relief this morning at the American President stepping back from the abyss of an attack on Iran’s power network. However, it remains the case that just a few days ago a projectile fell within 350 metres of Iran’s only nuclear power station. The Secretary of State spoke compellingly about the courage of British personnel in defending our assets in the region and those of our allies. If it were to come to our attention that, in an era of irrational decision making, an attack against that nuclear power station was contemplated, with the catastrophic effect that would have on the region, what steps would we take to prevent that attack?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand in this House. He has also, I think, served in a number of security posts in government. He would be the last person to expect me to speculate on future hypothetical scenarios like that, but the points he made at the start of his question are really important. The opportunity now, based on the President’s declaration this morning and his instruction to his Department of War to hold off further attacks on Iranian power plants and infrastructure for the next five days, gives diplomacy the opportunity, gives further de-escalation the opening and places the onus on this country, I hope across all parts of this House, to urge Iran to seize this opportunity and see an early end to the conflict.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for this detailed update. Further to his earlier comments, it is really important that our constituents understand how serious this is. Energy traders right now are like epidemiologists in February 2020. They are looking at energy sources and shortages, just as epidemiologists looked at covid and how it was spreading around the world, and working out how on earth to warn people of the horrors to come. The brutal reality is that if this war does not end, we could see energy shortages that will have a lasting economic effect on this country for decades. My right hon. Friend says that the President has agreed to a five-day suspension and agreed not to target the Iranian power plants. He will know how serious this is. How confident is he that the President will stick to that five-day pledge and give a chance for the urgent de-escalation that our economy and our world needs?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes the clearest and strongest possible case for an early end to this conflict and for how imperative it is to embrace this opportunity that President Trump has created. As she rightly says, the impending potential impact on the world economy, and on the lifestyle and costs of all families and businesses in this country, is severe. That is the reason the Prime Minister will be chairing a Cobra meeting this afternoon that will look at the potential economic impacts of the conflict. I will attend that meeting, and no doubt the House will be updated in due course.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I remind the House that RAF Fairford is in my constituency, so it is with grave concern that I note the news of two missiles being aimed at Diego Garcia. The Prime Minister previously pledged that we will not be drawn into the wider war, yet we have already shifted from the defensive to the offensive use of air bases on UK land. As almost 60% of the British public oppose the use of RAF bases in this war, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing back to this House the opportunity for open debate and full transparency on all the factors that are leading to this rapid descent down the slippery slope?
John Healey
Statements such as this are exactly the opportunity for Members of the House to express their views and put their questions, but I say to the hon. Lady that she is simply wrong: there has been no shift on the permissions granted to the US for specific purposes, and those purposes are defensive. They are defensive because they are limited to the Iranian missiles and capabilities that are attacking our ships, our bases and our interests, and threatening our interests, our bases and our allies across the region. The basis of the permission simply has not changed, as was confirmed in the statement released by the Government after the meeting of Ministers on Friday.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Despite talk of a “complete and total” resolution of hostilities from across the Atlantic, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that we cannot give false comfort to our constituents that there will not be lasting economic and military consequences. What detail can the Secretary of State give us, and when, on the leading role that he sees the UK playing in keeping the strait of Hormuz open?
John Healey
As the statement that the UK helped co-ordinate and signed at the end of last week set out, and as I have said to the House today, we are ready to play a leading role in efforts, including all options that may be necessary, with allies to try to secure a resumption of commercial shipping and a freedom of passage through the strait of Hormuz. That is likely to require significant de-escalation, but we are preparing all options. As I confirmed to the House earlier on as well, I have put UK military planners into US Central Command, and their job is to help shape and prepare the potential co-ordination of such activity, which must include a range of allies and multinational support.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Further to the answer the Secretary of State has just given, he has confirmed to the House this afternoon that mines have been laid in the strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one of the biggest problems—whether there was a cessation of violence overnight—will be getting vessels insured. How quickly can the Secretary of State give the other side of that coin to the markets and the insurance companies that, even if de-escalation happened overnight, they can have faith that the strait of Hormuz will be demined? That will take a military operation led by Europe. The Americans will not get involved—we know that. How quickly can he say what the counterbalance is to the fact that he has confirmed this afternoon that the strait of Hormuz has indeed been mined?
John Healey
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a timescale. What I can say to him is that we are bending all our efforts in defence and more widely to contribute to the development of all options, and those must involve allies and they have to be multinational. In the end, as he suggested to the House, the test will be the decisions of commercial shipowners, crews and insurers about the safety that they can have about resuming their commercial trade through the strait of Hormuz.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
What Donald Trump said at the weekend was that unless the strait was opened, he would obliterate Iran’s power plants. I agree that attacking a nuclear plant could be extremely catastrophic. As we have made clear to Putin, however, attacking power plants that supply power to civilians is against international law and is clearly a move from defence to aggression. On that basis, while I join the Secretary of State in hoping that the next five days secure peace, may I ask him to confirm that UK bases will not be used to attack power plants? If there is to be such a change of policy, will he ask the Prime Minister for a debate and a vote in this House, because I want my constituents to know that I am not willing to support such escalation?
John Healey
The permissions for the use of UK bases by the US are defensive. They do not include the striking of Iranian power plants, which is the clarification that my right hon. Friend asks of me. As I and the Prime Minister have said, those principles of defensive actions and decisions with a sound legal basis, and actions in co-ordination with allies to ensure a collective self-defence in the region, will continue to inform the decisions and choices that this Government make.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
One thing that unites the Prime Minister of Israel and the supreme leader of Iran is that neither could care less about what the UK Prime Minister says, and it is difficult to imagine that the US President is not in a similar camp. With fiscal headroom evaporating, business confidence vanishing and household budgets being shredded by this war, what can the Secretary of State offer, over and above the vacuous calls for de-escalation, to ensure that people on these islands are protected from the ferocious effects of this war on the supply of energy?
John Healey
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman degrades the contribution that the UK is making to the collective defence of allies in the region, and that he fails to recognise that the basing request from the US to which we have agreed is an important and valuable contribution to the US operations and to our interests.
The decisions that the Prime Minister makes are in our national interests. He has said that we will do what we can, with allies, to deal with the risk to worldwide energy supplies and prices. He has supported the release of extra oil on to the markets, he has had the Government put in help for those who use heating oil, and he will chair a Cobra meeting this afternoon, as I have told the House, to consider exactly the things that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I put on record my thanks to the British armed forces, which are working round the clock to defend British interests and British people. My constituents have made it clear that they want no part in the wider war being waged by the US and Israel, but at the same time, they expect the robust defence of British interests and personnel. Although I welcome the fact that neither Iranian missile got anywhere close to Diego Garcia, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the UK will play its full part in the defence of Diego Garcia should another such missile attack take place?
John Healey
We will, as we always have done, defend British personnel and British bases. I know that my hon. Friend and his Rochdale constituents will be proud of the fact that RAF pilots have now flown nearly 900 hours during this conflict for exactly those purposes, and that there are now more British jets in the region than there have been for 15 years.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Any assessment of this intervention must recognise that the Iranian regime has made the Iranian people pay with blood for every single act of defiance, so any attempt to apportion blame when a mass insurrection does not materialise would be unjust, and I hope that we will soon hear Ministers say so from the Dispatch Box. Last week, I raised concerns that the assessment of the intent and capability of Iran was clearly flawed, and this weekend’s activity has proved that to be true. What action has the Secretary of State taken to challenge thinking internally, and to support British overseas territories by taking action to reinforce their defences and by speaking to their elected Governments, not just governors?
John Healey
I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady; I certainly do not accept what I understand to be her point. When I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, I met the Defence Minister, as well as the chief of the national guard, who made it clear to me that military co-operation with the UK is closer than it has ever been. As I have said, we are playing a leading role, with the Republic of Cyprus, in co-ordinating the increasing capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean, to help that sovereign base to remain as protected as possible in the circumstances and in the face of the Iranian threat.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Further to that point, I thank the Minister for Europe for going to Cyprus last week, and I am grateful for the conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus. My constituency has long-standing people-to-people ties with Cyprus, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that Government are considering not just British personnel but the wider Cypriot family?
John Healey
I can indeed. I hope my hon. Friend, and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and their military, realise that the steps we took well before this war broke out to reinforce defences in Cyprus and across the region, have been there not just to protect British personnel and step up defences at our base, but they are defending and helping to protect the whole Republic of Cyprus and the island of Cyprus.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
From the first moments that the attempted rocket launches towards Diego Garcia were reported over the weekend there has been growing speculation, fuelled mainly by Israel, that Iran’s strike capacity now stretches far beyond what we previously conceived, and far beyond the Gulf region. Given what the Secretary of State said today when he confirmed that they were Iranian rockets—that goes beyond the NATO Secretary General yesterday—can he confirm how close those rockets or missiles came to Diego Garcia? What is now the MOD’s assessment about the effective strike range of Iran’s missile capacity? Does it stretch deep into Europe, and is the UK even now at risk?
John Healey
As I have said, the missiles that were fired in the direction of Diego Garcia fell well short. One came down, and one was brought down well short. The specific capabilities of adversaries like Iran, and what they hold, are certainly not details that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to disclose to the House or in public.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments by the Secretary of State when he commends our brave servicemen and women? Far from “hanging around”, which the Leader of the Opposition thinks they are doing, they are working night and day to protect us at home and abroad, and as one of many Members across the House who have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I add my thanks to them. Precisely because the first priority of any Government is to protect British citizens, can the Secretary of State assure the House that those facing Iranian aggression, and who are closer to it than any of us will be, have everything they need to defend our people, our bases, and our allies?
John Healey
I can indeed. As I reported to the House, we have the highest levels of force protection in place, and they are reviewed daily by the Chief of Joint Operations, who reports to me each week. My hon. Friend is completely right. I was in Cyprus a couple of weeks ago, talking to the pilots and crews that allow our F-35s and Typhoons to fly those defensive missions, as they have done from day one of this conflict, and they were frankly insulted that the Leader of the Opposition had accused them of “just hanging around”—[Interruption.] There has never been an apology from the Opposition for those remarks, but Labour Members know that those pilots and crews are working flat out and doing an important job to defend our personnel, our bases, and our allies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman makes his case. He knows, as I do, that our British services have foiled around 20 sabotage or assassination plots with the Iranian hand behind them on British soil. He makes the case for proscription. That is a decision in other parts of the Government, but it something we keep under review, and a decision we will take with a broader view of the way that we are challenging, confronting, and working with allies to deal with the Iranian threat.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
BBC News Ukraine recently published an outstanding report on the demand for drone interceptors, such as the British-made Octopus and the Wild Hornets Sting drone. Will the Government update the House on what work they are doing to bolster UK and Ukrainian drone interceptor production so that these devices can be in the skies to defend against Shahed drones, which are threatening the interests of Britain and Gulf partners alike?
John Healey
I am proud to say that there are interceptors in the skies above Ukraine now that have the British hand and British production behind them, working closely with Ukraine. The Octopus interceptor that my hon. Friend talks about is a special link-up between Ukraine and the UK. We look forward to being able to produce them en masse and return them to Ukraine to help them defend their skies against Putin’s invasion.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Six days ago, the UK Government’s security group rightly launched a leak inquiry into the leaking of very sensitive information from the National Security Council. I do not expect the Defence Secretary to comment on an ongoing inquiry, but does he agree on these principles? First, the very least that our armed forces should expect when they are being sent into harm’s way is for the political leadership of this country to not leak secret and top-secret information. Secondly, whoever it is—a Cabinet Minister, a senior official or a junior official—when caught, they should be sacked.
John Healey
I do not think anyone can doubt the determination of the Prime Minister to prevent such actions or to take the action required when such activities are going on. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my reassurance that that is the case.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to our civilians and armed forces personnel who are defending the UK national interests. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them overseas during my time in the House. Those serving overseas have been putting themselves in harm’s way, and they will have families back at home who are understandably worried, especially given the situation with personnel from the US and France being killed. What support is the Secretary of State putting in place back at home for the families of those who are serving in the middle east?
John Healey
I will certainly write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but the House can rest assured that this issue is foremost in our mind. We have a system in place that is doing exactly what my hon. Friend urges.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Against the backdrop of this illegal, counterproductive and reckless war, next month, Palestinians in the west bank and in parts of Gaza will take part in municipal elections, which include candidates who are committed to peaceful dialogue with Israel and who reject Iranian-backed terrorism. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the significance of those elections for building peace in the middle east, and will he and the Government do everything in their power to ensure the deployment of independent observers so that the elections are fair and safe?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
US military aircraft departed from the Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport up to 32 times in the 10 days before American and Israeli strikes started on Iran. Like many of my constituents, I am worried about the prospect of a Scottish airport being used in an illegal war. Will the Secretary of State definitively say today who has the authority to stop the US military using Scottish civilian infrastructure? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the First Minister of Scotland?
John Healey
There is no use—there has been no use—of Prestwick airport for US bombing strikes.
John Cooper
I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?
John Healey
I don’t know why he swallowed a fly, and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman imagines that there is a tug of war, especially when he can look at the Government’s record over the past 18 months in putting in place a record increase in defence spending, the degree of support that the Chancellor has given to recognising the rising demands on defence and the commitment that the Prime Minister has given that in this era of hard power—“the currency of the age”, as the Prime Minister calls it—we need to do more and spend faster.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The humanitarian implications of this war are already severe. In Lebanon, 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including Palestinian and Syrian refugees who had found safety in the south of Lebanon, but who are now being forced to flee for their lives again. Meanwhile, the airspace closures in the Gulf and the closure of the strait of Hormuz are affecting global humanitarian supply chains. For example, the International Rescue Committee has warned that $130,000 of pharmaceutical supplies for Sudan are now stuck in Dubai. What is the Secretary of State doing to support access to humanitarian relief during this crisis?
John Healey
That issue is a part of the discussions, particularly those being undertaken by the Foreign Secretary and her team, that we are having with Gulf nations and with Lebanon, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Lebanese Prime Minister in recent days.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The expansion of US use of UK bases announced over the weekend represents an escalation of UK involvement in this war. At a time when we all agree that de-escalation is urgently needed, we are being dragged into Trump’s illegal, reckless war, with huge ramifications for the region and for households in this country. Last week, the Secretary of State said that he would get involved only if there was a “viable, collective plan”, but where is that plan? This afternoon, the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee that we must beware of
“the false comfort of thinking that there will necessarily be a quick and early end to this”
conflict. Given all that, when will we have a Commons vote on the escalating UK involvement in this illegal and reckless war?
John Healey
I reject almost everything that the hon. Lady has said. We will not get drawn into a wider war. The decisions that we are taking are de-escalatory and defensive, not escalatory, and we will work in whatever way we can to bring an early end to this conflict.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The long-range missile attacks have raised the spectre in my mind, and surely in those of others, of attacks on the United Kingdom. I have listened to the Secretary of State’s reassurances about the defence of this country, but we have all seen the value of the Iron Dome. What is being done to create such a system for the defence of this country?
John Healey
An extra £1 billion is being put now into integrated air and missile defence for Britain. That was not part of the previous Government’s plans and it stems directly from the assessment that the strategic defence review set out when we published it last year.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given that it takes about a month to move a minor war vessel from Portsmouth to the Gulf, and notwithstanding the meetings that the Secretary of State says that he is having with allies about ensuring freedom of navigation through the strait, would it be a good idea to start shifting those minehunters now, so that when he has the results of his discussions, which I hope will be a bit more than just handwringing, we will be in a position to genuinely do something in an area that we are actually really rather good at?
John Healey
The House will have heard me say that we already have autonomous minehunting capabilities in the region and we are looking to reinforce them. I guess the right hon. Gentleman now regrets being part of a Government that in 2021 accelerated the out-of-commission dates of some of the minehunters.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Under international law, the use of force is permitted for “individual or collective self-defence” against “an armed attack”. Such use of force must satisfy the requirements of proportionality and necessity. In light of the broadening use of British military bases at the request of Donald Trump over the past week, will the Defence Secretary clarify for the British public how this satisfies those requirements? If the lessons of Iraq are to be learned, surely he must understand that the British public will not accept anything other than a parliamentary debate and vote on any further British military involvement.
John Healey
I reassure my hon. Friend, as she invites me to, that the permissions that we have given are for operations that are defensive, in the sense that they are directed only at Iranian missile capabilities that are being used to attack British interests, British allies and British shipping, including red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Much old ground has been gone over by the Secretary of State, but our service personnel live in the here and now. The defence investment plan is absolutely vital for their future, whether we are talking about operations in the field, or upgrading housing for their families—a subject that we are discussing in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. Given that he did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), may I ask if “working flat out” means that the DIP will be published in days, weeks or months?
John Healey
“Working flat out” means working flat out, and we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
May I commend our current position of not being drawn further into the US and Israeli operation in Iran? Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will continue to avoid any escalation, and will act only in ways that are in defence of British personnel and interests?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: our purpose is the defence of British personnel, our bases, our interests and our allies in the region. We will continue to make decisions and take action based on principles that are defensive and legal, and in co-ordination with our allies.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to Lebanon. Like him, I am gravely concerned about the conflict and the situation there. Like him, I strongly condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, and they must stop, but the forced displacement of 1 million people due to Israel’s operations is unacceptable. There must be diplomatic action to prevent this conflict from widening. For that purpose, the Foreign Secretary has spoken recently to the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Lebanese Prime Minister.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the people of Harlow will want me to echo the Secretary of State’s comments about our brave personnel and the work that they do to keep us safe every single day. Listening to his statement, it struck me that it is hugely important that our bases here and abroad are safe. Can he outline what he is doing to ensure that the security of our bases is paramount, and that any organisation that seeks to break into our bases faces the full strength of the law?
John Healey
I can indeed. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern. We are investing in more counter-drone technology and more closed circuit television, and we are tightening up the base security arrangements. My hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister has taken personal charge of this operation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Donald Trump may have paused his escalation of aggressive attacks, but we know that the conflict is not over. The Secretary of State said that US access to British bases is restrained by the principle that such use is defensive only. The public have the right to know what safeguards exist. What follow-up checks are made to verify that this use is indeed defensive only?
John Healey
The safeguard is the established system of granting access, basing and overflight. That established system builds in throughout—not just afterwards—the reassurance, checks and controls required to ensure that when the US takes advantage of the permissions that we have given, it does so within those permissions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the personnel at RAF Wyton, who are doing incredible round-the-clock work to analyse exactly what is going on in this conflict in the middle east.
The Secretary of State talks about missile defence for the UK. I appreciate that he has had his Weetabix this morning, but can I gently remind him that he was a Minister in the last Labour Government, who halved the number of Type 45 destroyers, meaning that we do not have enough? They also equipped them with WR-21 engines, and as a result, we have only one that is currently seaworthy, HMS Dragon. The Security Minister, who is also sitting on the Front Bench, told me last week that the Government were informed in advance of the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Could the Secretary of State confirm how far in advance the Government were informed of those attacks? Was it hours, days, or weeks?
John Healey
I am not prepared to disclose that sort of data, but the hon. Gentleman should judge us by our actions, and well ahead of this war breaking out, we reinforced Britain’s defences in the region. Turning to HMS Dragon, we only have it available to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean because it was ordered by a Labour Government, and over 14 years, Conservative Governments did not order a single new destroyer.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
While the Government have set out their military approach in some detail, there remains far less clarity on the diplomatic strategy that must eventually bring this conflict to an end. Can the Secretary of State set out what the UK is doing to get all sides back to the negotiating table? As we do so, how will the Government ensure that we do not simply follow President Trump down a path that risks replacing one brutal regime with another, rather than securing democracy and freedom for the Iranian people?
John Healey
First and foremost, we are ensuring that we can protect British interests in the region. We are looking to protect our allies in the region, and everything we do is in co-ordination with our partners in the region. I hope the hon. Lady takes some encouragement from the announcement that we helped to co-ordinate and publish at the end of last week about the importance of opening the strait of Hormuz, which has now been signed by 29 other nations.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State have contacts at US Central Command that can give reassurance that there is a plan? The President’s social media feed gives the opposite impression. Is Britain at war?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government may not want to be drawn into a war with Iran, but Iran has declared war on us by attacking our bases, trying to kill our civilians, attacking our economy, and even engaging in acts of terror in our country. We have found this weekend that we rely on the US to protect our bases, and require its defensive capability to do so. Does that not lead the Secretary of State to the conclusion that, rather than begrudgingly providing limited access to our bases, we should be giving full support to the Americans and the Israeli Government in destroying this regime, to stop it fomenting war in the middle east and blackmailing us economically?
John Healey
We have agreed to the requests that the US has put to us. As I have said, one of our major principles is that we are working in close co-ordination with allies on defensive operations, including and especially with the US.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome President Trump’s statement that he is apparently now in talks with Iran. Sadly and predictably, Iran seems to have achieved escalation dominance by closing the strait of Hormuz, so what plans is the UK making for a post-conflict region in which Iran retains the upper hand because it can dictate global energy prices and continue to threaten Gulf nations?
John Healey
We will work in exactly the way that the joint statement that we helped to co-ordinate at the end of last week sets out, so as to de-escalate the conflict, co-ordinate with allies, and look for a point at which we can see the strait of Hormuz reopen.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Every credible legal analyst will state that this attack on Iran by Israel and the US was illegal. There was never an imminent threat, and the Caroline principles incorporated into the UN charter were simply not engaged. Given that Trump now seeks to withdraw from this war, and given the disquiet in this House about whether our base use is offensive or defensive in nature, will the Defence Secretary allow a parliamentary debate in which Members can vote on whether we should allow our bases to be used? If not, why not?
John Healey
The decisions we have taken as a Government have been taken for defensive purposes, and in co-ordination with allies. This House has plenty of opportunities, including for almost an hour and a half today, to put questions and debate these matters. It is important that we do that, and important that we continue to take the steps necessary to protect our people in the middle east.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Why, alone among our European allies, is the UK facilitating Trump’s illegal war by allowing the United States to use RAF bases to launch attacks? The Government admitted last week that they could not guarantee that such attacks were not made against civilian infrastructure in Iran. In the light of the Government’s complicity, have they uprated the risk assessment of the threats faced by the population of these islands? Finally, just what is it about illegal wars in the middle east that the Labour party seems unable to resist?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is almost last, but not least. I reject almost every assertion he makes in his tripartite question. The decisions we have taken and the permissions we have given have a sound legal basis. They are for defensive purposes, and are directed at Iranian sites that are attacking our interests and our allies, and that hold a threat, including to British ships and red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?
John Healey
We will always work closely with the US. This is a deep military and security relationship that has seen the ups and downs of politics over many decades, and that will continue to be the case. The Prime Minister spoke with the President last night.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Before I answer, I want to thank our British personnel who are working 24/7 in the middle east, at home and around the world to protect British lives. For our part, we are working flat out to settle the defence investment plan, which is a plan for the 10-year transformation of Britain’s defence, as laid out in the strategic defence review. We are fixing a military programme that, when we came into government, was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts we now face.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I draw the House’s attention to my former role as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for defence technology. When I was at Sandhurst, when we would talk about punctuality, the colour sergeant would often say to us, “Three minutes early is two minutes late.” When it comes to the defence investment plan, it feels more like “on the bus, off the bus.” Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it will be published before the House rises on 26 March?
John Healey
We will settle this defence investment plan. Unlike the plans we have seen recently from previous Governments, it will be affordable and deliverable. The hon. Gentleman knows from his time in service—he gave an anecdote from Sandhurst—that over 14 years, Tory Governments hollowed out the armed forces; we are turning that around. We are putting £270 billion into defence in this Parliament, which is the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Ian Roome
We are still waiting for the defence investment plan, and according to the strategic defence review, items should be deleted from that plan only on the advice of the national armaments director; service chiefs must advise the Secretary of State if anything is to be removed from the defence to-do list. Has the Secretary of State received any such advice? I understand that it is a draft plan at the moment, but it must be finished.
John Healey
This is a whole-of-Defence effort; we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will put into practice the 10-year vision that the strategic defence review set out in June last year, as the hon. Gentleman mentions. When we have that completed, we will report that to the House.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The delay to the defence investment plan is obviously having a huge effect on our capabilities, and the plan is in danger of being overtaken by events. We are waiting for approval on the block 2 procurement of underwater uncrewed vessels and the mine countermeasures, hydrographic and patrol capability programme. The Prime Minister has confirmed that there are autonomous mine-clearing vessels in the Gulf. Are the vessels currently in the region deployable? What support ship will support them, given that HMS Stirling Castle left Portsmouth this morning, and will take at least three weeks to get to the region?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is the last person in the House to expect me to set out the detail of those sorts of operational arrangements in public. The defence investment plan is not holding up important investment decisions. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election, and we have seen a significant increase in defence investment in businesses in his region of the east of England. I think the House would expect him to welcome that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
This Government are making a record investment in defence, and steelworkers in my constituency will want to be assured that we are committed to using as much UK steel as possible as we invest. Will the Secretary of State commit to that?
John Healey
A principle of the investment that this Labour Government are making is that we will direct British defence investment first to British jobs, British businesses and British innovation, and we will ensure that the supply chains reflect that policy and political commitment, because we are determined that this increase in defence investment will bring a defence dividend to all parts of the country, including Wales. That is measured in good jobs and future opportunities.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
As a former Parachute Regiment reservist, I warmly welcome the Government’s clear focus on strengthening our armed forces and their defensive capability. Although the appetite for service remains high, the bureaucracy we inherited is holding back recruitment. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that his Department is taking to support more working adults in joining the volunteer reserve forces?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have swept away some of the long-standing rules that got in the way of people being recruited into the forces. There is no shortage of those who want to join, including young people, but the system has too often been too slow and bureaucratic, and it has raised unnecessary barriers to getting a range of talent into our armed forces for the future.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the defence investment plan, and his leadership on increased defence spending. Does he agree that a defence finance and investment strategy is key to unlocking the capital that firms across the supply chain need, if they are to deliver for the DIP? Will he therefore update the House on when the DFIS will be published?
John Healey
I agree that the strategy is key; my hon. Friend is entirely right. This capital is matched by the biggest increase in defence spending from public investment and the public purse since the end of the cold war. We are ensuring that it leverages in not just additional sources of private investment, but record foreign direct investment. We have had £3.2 billion into this country since the election, and have had the most successful British exports year on record, winning fresh business, fresh contracts and fresh opportunities for British innovators and businesses.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am not sure that the Secretary of State heard the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), which was incredibly simple: will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises on 26 March?
John Healey
We are working flat out to conclude the defence investment plan. The hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Defence Procurement who left defence programmes overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we face, so he will be aware of the scale and significance of the challenge that we are determined to meet.
James Cartlidge
There is a reason why that date matters: it is the date when purdah commences before the Scottish elections. Then we will have the Welsh and local elections. It is our understanding—and the Secretary of State is welcome to correct this—that the defence investment plan cannot be published during purdah. If that is the case, and if it is not published before the rise of the House on 26 March, we will not see it until well into May. That is why this question is so important.
I ask the Secretary of State the question again, because he has failed to answer it so far. It is a very simple, straight question, and it needs a straight answer. Will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises for the recess—yes or no?
John Healey
As the Prime Minister said, it will be published as soon as it is ready. This is not holding up major investments; there have been more than 1,200 major investments in contracts awarded since the election—and 86% of those contracts were awarded to British-based businesses, so we are boosting British security and the British economy at the same time.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?
John Healey
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the issue. He will recognise that, as was pointed out in the strategic defence review, this is a question for the whole of society and the whole of Government. Preparation for greater defence readiness, and greater societal and economic readiness, is going on at present, alongside the work that we are doing in defence with other parts of Government to ensure that we can deliver the defence investment plan. We will then be able to deliver, in due course, a defence readiness Bill.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At the election, military morale had fallen to record lows, and we promised, as a new Government, to renew the nation’s commitment to those who serve. That is what we are doing. We have delivered the biggest forces pay increase for two decades, and landmark investment to buy back and renew nearly 40,000 military family homes. Wraparound childcare has been extended for those serving overseas. When we say that we are a Government on the side of our forces, this is what we mean.
Luke Murphy
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was recently privileged to spend time in the High North, in Norway, with our Royal Marines and other armed forces personnel. It was a stark reminder of their service, and the sacrifice that they make to protect our national interests and our way of life. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the overseas allowance for personnel on temporary duty, like those in the Arctic?
John Healey
I will write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but part of the commitment that we have made to renewing the contract with those who serve has involved the extension of wraparound childcare to those serving overseas. It is part of making sure that we raise the quality of the experience of those in uniform. We can raise the morale of those who serve and, in doing so, we can help deal with the deep-seated, 14-year-long recruitment and retention crisis that we saw at the time of the last general election.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Personnel and families from Northern Ireland face exceptional costs if they are stationed here on the mainland. If they want to meet up with their family or go home again, there are extra costs for them. What has been done to ensure that personnel from Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged because they live so far away from their family, and to ensure that families can have the family time that they need to ensure that they stay together?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the “get home” allowance that we made sure every one of our serving personnel could access at Christmas for the first time. We have delivered the highest pay increase for forces personnel for 20 years. The more than 10% pay rise over the first two years of this Government is part of making service life more affordable, including for those in Northern Ireland. I am proud to be the first Defence Secretary of this country who can say that no one working full time in UK military uniform is paid less than the national living wage.
Mr Speaker
Will we look at the Royal Gibraltar Regiment as well, Secretary of State?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Our outstanding armed forces are in the middle east, protecting our people, our interests and our allies. The Royal Air Force has now conducted over 550 hours of defensive operations in five countries, and drones have been shot down by UK forces almost daily. We now have more jets flying in the region than at any time in the last 15 years.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. About 10 days ago, we saw alleged attacks by both US and Iranian forces on water desalination plants in the middle east, which is in direct contravention of international law. Civilians in the middle east are reliant on desalinated water for survival, and targeting it is absolutely unacceptable. Can the Secretary of State confirm that UK forces operating in the middle east continue to operate fully under international law, and that we condemn operations that target civilian infrastructure?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right: Iran’s widespread strikes have shown a total disregard for civilian life. Because I strengthened British defences in the region ahead of this conflict with extra jets, radars and defence systems, from day one we have been co-ordinating defensive actions, with a sound legal basis, to protect British citizens and bases, and our allies in the region. I am proud of the skill and dedication that our armed forces are showing in the middle east.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have constituents at RAF Akrotiri who have been deployed out of RAF Cosford in my constituency, and I have already had correspondence from concerned constituents and their families. The Iranian regime has a very potent chemical and biological weapons programme. I have asked the Defence Secretary this question before: will he confirm that there is CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—protective kit at Akrotiri and other UK armed forces military bases in the region? The Iranian regime also has a very potent submarine fleet—it may not be nuclear or Trident-led, as ours is, but it is nevertheless a significant threat in the region—so could he say what he is doing to address both those threats?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the range of threats that the Iranian regime poses, especially, as we have seen, as it hits back after the first wave of strikes. Those hits are widespread, they hit countries not involved in the conflict and they are directed at civilian, not just military targets. I say to his constituents living as well as serving in Akrotiri that when I was out there about 10 days ago I made a point of asking our base commander if there was anything further he needed from us back in Britain, and he said, “I have got everything that I asked for to protect ourselves.”
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After having insulted Great Britain for our response in not joining his war and then claiming that he did not need British help after having “already won” the war, President Donald Trump has now sent an SOS to the world, including to the UK and other NATO allies, to help him protect the strait of Hormuz. I think it is in our national interests to stop the disruption to global shipping, because otherwise that will drive up the cost of goods and the cost of living for my Slough constituents and others across the country. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government’s response will be to the US President’s request? How will my right hon. Friend ensure the safety of British armed forces personnel if they are to engage in any such operations?
John Healey
As the Prime Minister said this morning, in fact—my hon. Friend is right—the strait of Hormuz is vital. It is vital to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and the US. These questions are complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations taking part as possible. Without going into detailed operational options or discussions, I have already said that we have prepositioned in the region autonomous minehunting capabilities. We have counter-drone systems in action in the region, pulling down drones. Looking ahead, alongside industry, we are looking at additional innovative options, including interceptor drones for the middle east.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Ministers were all over the airwaves this weekend saying two things: first, that they would like to see a de-escalation of the conflict in the middle east; and, secondly, that they would like to see the strait of Hormuz secured for shipping. Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that those two aims are mutually exclusive? If they are mutually exclusive, how can he achieve both?
John Healey
Quite simply, we will do so by making a major contribution, as we are, to discussions about any multinational plans that may be put in place to safeguard for the future the commercial shipping that is the lifeline both of the international economy and of international security.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
British personnel in Cyprus, Bahrain, Iraq and across the middle east have been attacked by Iran and its proxies. In such circumstances, we must act quickly to protect our people and interests. Having served on Royal Navy vessels, I know it takes time to ready a ship, yet nearly two weeks passed before the Government sent a single destroyer— HMS Dragon—to help defend our forces in Cyprus. Why was that decision not taken sooner, and given that the Royal Navy had advised deploying assets earlier, which Minister took the decision not to act on that point?
John Healey
I strengthened UK defences ahead of the conflict. Once the scale and nature of the indiscriminate and widespread Iranian response became clear and the circumstances were changing, we altered and adopted further actions. The deployment of HMS Dragon was part of that. I took the decision to give that go-ahead on the same day the Chief of the Defence Staff offered that to Ministers as an option. The hon. Gentleman served as a reservist in the Navy—[Interruption.] Sorry, he served as a regular in the Navy. If he is concerned about the state of the British Navy, he really should look at the record of his own Government: they cut the total number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter; they cut minehunters by more than half; and they cut defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. It is our job now to fix those problems. Whereas they were cutting and hollowing out our armed forces, we are rebuilding them for the future.
David Reed
This is an important point and, given the volatility of the international system, we must learn from our mistakes. In a written answer on 9 March, the Minister for the Armed Forces confirmed that discussions took place before the decision to deploy HMS Dragon. We know those conversations happened and that the Royal Navy put forward recommendations. When British personnel are under threat, those delays carry consequences. I ask again: will the Secretary of State tell the House which Minister chose not to act on that advice sooner, and, crucially, why?
John Healey
As I have said to the House more than once, and as the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC the weekend before last, the day the deployment was put to Ministers as an option, in the circumstances of conflict that were changing at the time, we adapted our actions to protect British lives, to protect British allies and to protect citizens right across the region.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With all eyes on the middle east, this House expects, and I am determined to ensure, that we will continue to confront the growing threats in the High North, to fulfil our obligations to NATO and to step up support for Ukraine. I can confirm today that over the last month, we have delivered to Ukraine 3,500 drones, 18,000 artillery rounds and 3 million rounds of small ammunition. We face two conflicts on two continents, supported by an axis of aggression with similar tactics and similar technologies. I say this to the Ukrainian people on behalf of the UK: we will not forget the war in Europe, and our total determination to stand with Ukraine remains steadfast. We will welcome President Zelensky to this country tomorrow.
Bill Esterson
Evidence presented to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee shows that if the war in Europe is expanded, Russian submarines pose a significant threat to oil and gas tankers, pipelines and installations in the North sea. What is the Government’s plan to address this significant threat to our oil and gas supplies?
John Healey
I praise my hon. Friend’s chairmanship of the Committee. He is absolutely right: as the strategic defence review said last year, Russia poses an immediate and pressing threat to this country. The UK and allies’ navies monitor, shadow and surveil activities of the Russian navy, and we are stepping up our surveillance of any activity close to our oil installations and pipelines.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
John Healey
I hope the hon. Lady’s constituents and other Ukrainian families will be reassured by the response this afternoon in the House. Despite all eyes being on the middle east, we are determined to continue to stand with Ukraine and to step up our support for Ukraine alongside allies including the US.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
John Healey
First, on behalf of the House may I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving in Ukraine earlier this month the presidential Order of Merit for her work on this area? We are supporting a new tracing mechanism being used in Ukraine, and since September it has already identified an extra 600 children stolen by the Russians and forcibly held, and attempted indoctrination of the exact kind that my hon. Friend is campaigning against.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry did not just mention the record export deal that we managed to secure with Turkey—£8 billion-worth that will be boosting the British economy, principally in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the north-west. The hon. Gentleman also fails to welcome the investment of half a billion pounds in new radars for the Typhoons. This is part of building up our UK defence base and part of a 15% increase under this Government in defence investment going to his region.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. The answers will come from the Government side, not the Opposition.
John Healey
We invested £8 billion more in defence in our first year than the Conservative Government did in their last year, with a total of £270 billion into defence in this Parliament alone and a vision for the next 10 years set out in our strategic defence review.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
In just 18 months this Government have ended the disastrous 1996 Tory privatisation of military housing, which cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. We have repaired 1,000 military homes in the poorest condition ahead of schedule, and we have kick-started a landmark £9 billion repair and renewal of 36,000 forces homes. Does the Minister agree that this is more action in 18 months than the last lot managed in 14 years?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In 2020, the now Prime Minister proposed legislation to ensure that any UK military action could take place only if there were a legal justification, a viable objective and the consent of the Commons. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principles outlined by his party leader, and will he therefore support my Armed Conflict (Requirements) Bill?
John Healey
I am very happy to look at the hon. Lady’s Bill, but in recent weeks the Prime Minister has reasserted exactly the basis on which any UK military forces are committed into conflict.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Many United States service personnel from RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall live off base in Bury St Edmunds. Three planes from Lakenheath were shot down in friendly fire over Kuwait last week. Fortunately, the pilots were rescued. Mildenhall is home to a large fleet of aerial refuelling tankers. I do not know whether it was a tanker from Mildenhall that was lost, but I do know that there are six grieving families right now. Will the Secretary of State join me in extending our support and sincere condolences to our brave United States families? Wherever they are, they are in our thoughts.
John Healey
I will indeed. My hon. Friend speaks for the House, and it is a message that I made sure the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, heard directly from me on behalf of the UK people.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State is a former distinguished Treasury Minister. Government is about taking decisions when things change. It is welcome that the Chancellor has addressed the heating oil crisis, but what will the Secretary of State do to make the Chancellor come to terms with the changes over the last few weeks, and to provide some additional support so that the defence investment plan will do justice to his ambitions?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the rising demands on defence. That point was reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech to the Munich conference last month, in which he said that
“hard power...is the currency of the age”.
We know that we need to spend more faster.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Last month, I joined several Members from across the House in Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion. The mood was very different from the previous year, after an extremely harsh winter and Putin’s bombardment of the power networks. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that we will not only stand by Ukraine with everything going on in the middle east, but help them and support them in fixing key infrastructure, so that 400,000 people in Kyiv are not living without power?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right, and I welcome the visit that he paid to Ukraine. We are indeed doing what we can to help Ukraine defend its critical civilian infrastructure targeted by Putin, and we are stepping up our military support to Ukraine in the way I have reported to the House today.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I have just returned from visiting Ukraine last week. It is clear to me that Ukraine still needs help with procurement of missiles, interceptors and sanctions on the shadow fleet, but the role of the US also remains critical. Does the Secretary of State think that it really helps persuade the US to stay strong on Ukraine, when, as a close ally, the UK U-turns over the use of our air bases to attack Iran?
John Healey
The decision to accept the fresh US request to use our bases in order to strike Iran’s missile location was clearly set out at the time. I welcome—the House welcomes—her visit to Ukraine. In our support of Ukraine, it is enormously encouraging that Members from both sides of the House are regularly in Ukraine to reinforce this country’s continued support for its fight against Putin.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Following last week’s welcome announcement of defence investment in Scotland, will the Minister provide an update on the plan to take forward Programme Euston at Faslane? Does he agree that the skilled workforce at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government, will provide excellent capacity to deliver that vital contract?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Further to the question from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), offshore energy infrastructure needs to be protected. The strategic defence review did not specifically mention moveable assets such as platforms, floating production, storage and offloading units, or rigs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they will be considered as part of our energy security, and what will the Ministry of Defence do to ensure their security now and in the future?
John Healey
On the contrary, the strategic defence review placed greater emphasis on the need to step up our homeland security and defence. That includes the critical undersea infrastructure on which we depend.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry mentioned Exercise Titan Storm in the context of Ajax. On 1 January, I asked the Ministry of Defence a named-day question—which was due an answer by 7 January—about how many noise and vibration injuries had been sustained up to Exercise Titan Storm. Before Defence Ministers leave the Chamber, may I ask for your advice on how best to elicit an answer, which is now over two months late?
Middle East: Defence
John Healey Excerpts(3 months 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 to update the House on the middle east. As I trust the House will understand, there is a lot on which to update it.
Let me start by praising our armed forces who are working 24/7 to protect British lives and British interests in the region—from our 400-strong air defence teams in Cyprus, who I visited last week, to our counter-drone specialists in Iraq, our fast jet pilots in Qatar, our command specialists in the regional defence co-ordination centres, and everyone else who is working on this crisis, abroad and at home. Iran threatens us all, but it is our forces who feel this most acutely. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking them for their outstanding dedication and their professionalism, for protecting British lives and for keeping us safe. We want to say to them, “You are the best of Britain in action.” [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The UK Government’s approach throughout the current developments in the middle east is founded on three principles. The first is defensive, which means taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. We have taken steps since January, weeks before the current war with Iran began, to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defence in the region, and have sent additional military capability since last Saturday, when the Iranian retaliation attacks started. The second principle is co-ordination with allies. We do not work alone, so we are leading and co-ordinating our response with NATO allies and other partners, including the United States, E5 nations and the Gulf states. I am in daily contact with my counterparts, as is the Chief of the Defence Staff. The third principle is legal: we must have a legal basis for our decisions. That allows Ministers to make sound choices, and allows our military to operate with the fullest confidence. Our UK action is grounded in those principles, to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.
In the last week, we have seen Iran lashing out with dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes. On the first day alone, it attacked 10 countries with military and civilian targets, including hotels in Dubai and Bahrain and the Kuwaiti national airport. British troops stationed at a US base in Bahrain were within a few hundred yards of an Iranian strike, and a small drone hit our base in Cyprus, coming from Lebanon or Iraq—and Iraq has now fired over 500 ballistic and cruise missiles, and over 2,000 drones.
John Healey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for paying such close attention to my statement; Iran has now fired 500 ballistic and cruise missiles, and over 2,000 drones.
Even after the Iranian President’s apology and promise to the Gulf states over the weekend, Iran struck multiple countries with drones and missiles, including Bahrain, where 32 civilians were injured in one attack and a desalination plant was hit in another. We totally condemn these attacks. They are putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, including British nationals and members of our armed forces.
Although Iran’s current indiscriminate strikes began last Saturday, the Iranian regime has for decades been a source of evil, exporting violence across the middle east and beyond. It has supplied nearly 60,000 Shahed drones to Putin for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Here in the UK, Iran conducts aggressive cyber-attacks against us and has plotted assassination on Britain’s streets. The Iranian regime is a destructive force that has slaughtered protesters in its own streets and inflicts terrible suffering, especially against its own people. We want to see Iran stop its strikes, give up its nuclear ambitions and restart the negotiations.
As Defence Secretary, my No. 1 priority is protecting British people, military and civilian alike. Since January we have moved significant military assets into the region, ahead of the first US-Israeli strikes. Those preparations made a real difference and mean that we have conducted defensive military operations from day one. Our F-35s have destroyed Iranian drones over Jordan. Our Typhoons have shot down targets heading towards Qatar. Our counter-drone units have defeated further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq. We acted early to protect British people and British interests, and to support our allies.
As the Iranian response became clear last weekend, we adapted our actions to the changing circumstances, driven at all times by military advice. That is why we accepted a new US request for the use of British bases at RAF Fairford and on Diego Garcia last Sunday, and why I committed further resources to the region last week, including four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters, a Merlin helicopter and HMS Dragon. I can confirm today that Dragon will set sail in the next couple of days, and I want to personally thank all those who are working tirelessly—some for up to 22 hours a day—to get the ship ready. HMS Dragon will join US air defence destroyers to provide additional protection in the eastern Mediterranean.
Let me provide the House with the following operational update from last night. The UK is now conducting defensive air sorties in support of the United Arab Emirates. Typhoons successfully took out two drones—one over Jordan, and the second heading to Bahrain. The third Wildcat has arrived in Cyprus, and we have now deployed additional RAF operations experts to more than five countries in the region, helping to co-ordinate regional military and civilian airspace. The fragments of the drone that hit Akrotiri are being analysed for foreign military hardware by our experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.
British pilots have now racked up over 230 flying hours. We have eight jets in Qatar, including the joint Qatari-British squadron, which is flying in support of regional allies, and we have more jets in Cyprus than any other nation. I visited our 400-strong air defence team at our base in Cyprus on Thursday last week. They are there in addition to the 4,000 personnel regularly stationed on the island. I was subjected to the daily air sirens that they face. I saw the impact that the Iranian proxy drone had caused, and I asked the Commander British Forces, General Tom Bewick, “Do you need anything more from us back in Britain?” He said to me, “No, I have been given everything I have asked for.” The UK is leading the response to Iranian threats in close co-ordination with our allies, and Cyprus’s head of the national guard told me last week, “Our military co-operation has never been closer.” Our support is backed up by our NATO allies, including the US, France, Greece and Germany—something that I discussed with E5 Defence Ministers last week.
I can confirm to the House that, having given the US the go-ahead to use British bases for specific defensive operations into Iran last Sunday, the first US bomber landed at RAF Fairford on Friday. As the Prime Minister has set out, this activity is part of
“the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives…in accordance with international law.”
These missions are to destroy Iranian missiles at source.
We are deeply concerned about escalation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a dangerous terror organisation that is tied to the regime in Iran. It must cease its attacks against Israel, but we do not want to see Israel expand this conflict further into Lebanon. More than 400 people have already been killed, and half a million displaced, by recent Israeli operations. The solution to these problems, and to this conflict, must be guided by the Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government. We urge de-escalation and the return to a negotiated process.
Moving beyond defence, I know that many Members have constituents with friends and family who are caught in the region, and they are worried about the safety of loved ones. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams are working as fast as possible to get our people out of the region. Three chartered flights have now taken off, with more to come this week. More than 170,000 people have registered their presence, which has allowed us to get them the information, support and advice that they need. More than 37,000 British nationals have been evacuated since the start of the crisis response, and as the Prime Minister said last week:
“We will not stop until our people are safe.”
These are deeply uncertain times. While we deal with the immediate crisis in the middle east, we must also maintain our strong support for Ukraine, deter increasing threats in the High North, fulfil our NATO commitments, and ensure that our homeland is protected. Our adversaries are watching. We must manage rising demands on defence, balancing resources to best effect. We must also deal with the cost of living impact that this conflict could cause, just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her statement.
I am proud of the UK’s response. Acting at all times in our national interest, we will defend our allies and support our armed forces. We will do everything necessary to protect British lives and British interests, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing that I received from his officials this morning.
May I begin by offering condolences, on behalf of the Opposition, to the families of the seven US soldiers killed in the ongoing action against Iran? I join the Secretary of State in utterly condemning Iran’s indiscriminate attacks across the region, and I express my gratitude and that of the Opposition to all our brilliant, brave service personnel and their families who are stationed out there.
Of course, the Secretary of State and I agree that the No. 1 responsibility of any Government is to defend their people and that everything possible must be done to secure our sovereign bases, particularly RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, which was attacked by drones a week ago. That is an incredibly serious development. We support the Government in taking steps to use the RAF and other assets to protect the airspace and defend against drone and missile threats to Akrotiri, but also in deploying our air force to defend allies in the region as an act of collective self-defence.
The problem is that any serious integrated missile defence plan for the sovereign base areas on Cyprus would by necessity include the presence of one of our highly capable Type 45 air defence destroyers, yet despite the Secretary of State saying that “since January” we have moved significant military assets into the region, there is not a single Royal Navy warship present and our Type 45, HMS Dragon, has not even set sail. Will he confirm that the Government decided only last Tuesday to send a Type 45 to the eastern Med, after the US action had already commenced and two days after RAF Akrotiri was attacked by kamikaze drones?
Of particular importance is that it has been widely reported that the Royal Navy recommended to Ministers weeks ago to deploy a Type 45 destroyer to the region. Is that true, and if so, when did the Navy make the recommendation to send a Type 45 and which Minister took the decision to decline that advice from the Royal Navy and instead choose not to send a destroyer? Most importantly, why was the decision taken not to send a Type 45 until there had already been attacks on our base on Cyprus? Can the Secretary of State tell us on what date he expects HMS Dragon to be in position to provide air defence in the region? Furthermore, given the Chancellor’s promise in her statement earlier to reopen the strait of Hormuz and France’s pledge to provide escort ships, what other Royal Navy assets will we be sending to assist?
On 19 February, the BBC reported that the United Kingdom would not allow the United States to use its bases to launch an attack on Iran. We know that three US Arleigh Burke destroyers—its equivalent of the Type 45—have for days been based in the Mediterranean, providing Cyprus with defence against ballistic missiles. Does that not mean that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn a week ago, this Labour Government were displaying the most extraordinary double standards to our closest military ally by on the one hand denying the US the use of our bases, while on the other relying on it to protect ours?
One of the bases in question is Diego Garcia, which is absolutely critical for launching US heavy bombers. It is bad enough for the Prime Minister to be U-turning over permission to use Diego Garcia while it is still our sovereign territory, but how much worse will the situation be once we have started paying billions for the pleasure of Mauritius, a close ally of China, having a say on whether such action complies with international law? When it comes to the Prime Minister’s next and 17th U-turn, would not the best thing he could do be to scrap his crazy Chagos deal and spend every penny on the British armed forces?
However, this is not just about the future of Diego Garcia. Last week, the Cypriot Foreign Minister said that there are “questions” about the future of the UK’s military bases on the island. Is not the reality that Greece, France and Spain are all sending ships, and that Labour’s failure to deploy the Royal Navy to the eastern Mediterranean has completely undermined our international standing in the eyes not just of our many allies in the middle east, but of those who can now exploit such weakness? Will the Secretary of State therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that UK sovereignty of our bases on Cyprus is not up for negotiation?
It is not of course just HMS Dragon that everyone is waiting for. At a time of war on multiple fronts, we have been waiting months and months for the Government to publish their long overdue defence investment plan. I cannot emphasise how serious this is: Britain urgently needs to rearm. It was right that we gave a huge amount of munitions to support Ukraine, but that has made our need to rearm even more pressing. When exactly are the Government going to publish the defence investment plan? Can the Secretary of State at least say if it will be published before local election purdah commences? That is a key question.
Finally, is there not a simple reason why there is no defence investment plan, and is it not the same reason why, for the first time in almost half a century, there are no Royal Navy warships in the middle east? It is because when it comes to defence spending, this Government have prioritised welfare over rearmament. They have chosen to spend billions more on benefits rather than strengthening our defence in a dangerous world. After all the Prime Minister’s dither and delay, U-turns and weakness, will the Secretary of State finally demand from his Chancellor what we all know our armed forces need, which is a properly funded plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament?
John Healey
Let me start by recognising the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary supports the steps we have taken to put UK defence capabilities in the middle eastern region, and that he recognises and supports the fact that we did that in advance of the current crisis. These capabilities and our co-ordination of them have been alongside our US allies and have been purely defensive in nature. We have been making our best contribution to the protection of British interests, British personnel, British bases and British allies in the region.
The shadow Defence Secretary asks me about HMS Dragon. While we have been building up that significant military presence in the middle east since January, which he for the first time has recognised and welcomed, it is totally right that, as circumstances change, so should our military posture. He asks me when the option of Dragon was first put to Ministers. As the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC on Saturday, he looked at the proposals for Dragon being deployed to the middle east on Tuesday last week, and I signed them off the same day. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about the state of the British Navy, he should take a hard look at his Government’s record. Over 14 years, they hollowed out and underfunded our forces. They cut £12 billion from the defence budget in their first five years. Total frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 17, and in 14 years in government they did not order a single new destroyer. We have Dragon available to go to the middle east today only because the Labour Government commissioned it before 2010. I completely—[Interruption.] I am proud of the work our military are doing in the middle east, and I reject claims about the response. We got ahead of the first strikes in the way that we have set out.
I have been unable to find any evidence, in public or in this House, of the shadow Defence Secretary calling at any stage before the war began for military assets to be moved to the middle east. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary was calling barely a month ago in this Chamber for our military
“to prioritise or repurpose…inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 81.]
The shadow Defence Secretary really is proving himself quite an armchair general—General Hindsight, wise only after the event. I am really disappointed.
The shadow Defence Secretary asks about the defence investment plan. We are working flat out to produce that. He asks about defence spending. He cut it; we invested in defence. We have seen the greatest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we are spending £62 billion on defence, which is £8 billion more than the last year of the Conservative Government.
I am really disappointed, and our forces will be disappointed, that the shadow Defence Secretary did not stand up and offer an apology for what his leader said on Friday. His leader’s claim that British forces in the middle east are “just hanging around” is totally wrong and deeply insulting. They are working flat out, in the face of air raid sirens and warnings, to protect British lives, protect British interests and protect British allies. It is time the Tories did the decent thing, and apologised for her remarks and withdrew them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for his operational briefing beforehand. I also want to pay tribute to and praise our armed forces for their bravery, dedication and professionalism in defending our citizens and our allies in the region.
I agree with the Defence Secretary that we must urge de-escalation and a return to the negotiation process. I am glad that the Government pre-positioned Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone units and other air defence assets in the region. However, the lack of a naval presence should be a cause of huge concern for all of us. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments that our armed forces are significantly overstretched from the High North to further beyond, and that the hollowing out in recent years has meant that we do not have enough assets, but what is being done urgently to rectify the situation and increase the investment in defence in the near future, so that we can be in several places at once?
John Healey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action we have taken—the deployments I have decided to commit to the region. He asks what we are doing to make good 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under the previous Government. The first step is to increase defence spending: this year, it is more than £8 billion greater than in the last year under the previous Government, totalling £270 billion in this Parliament alone, which is the single biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The defence investment plan that will follow up the strategic defence review is a vision and a plan for rebuilding our forces, strengthening our deterrent, integrating our armed forces for the future and harnessing the accelerating power of new technology. I am grateful to him and his Defence Committee members for supporting and recognising that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces in putting their lives on the line for us all.
The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump’s illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. Given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US navy ships, including aircraft carriers such as those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide an assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the middle east?
Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war.
Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are. I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.
John Healey
As I said to the House in my statement, all the decisions we have taken and all actions in the face of the current conflict have been defensive in nature and legally well based. That gives a sound foundation for Ministers’ decisions and it gives forces personnel the fullest confidence in the actions they are taking. That is true of those we have deployed in the region and it will be true of those we have embedded, I am proud to say, in the US forces around the world. I am proud that our US-UK relationship remains deep and close, and that we continue to do things together that no other nations will do.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that our armed forces are the very best of us. Australian and British media are reporting that HMS Anson has departed western Australia ahead of schedule. Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether HMS Anson will play a role in defending British interests in the region on her voyage home?
John Healey
There are certain things that I will not and cannot disclose publicly. The operations of our submarines fall into that category. My hon. Friend is a long-standing member of the Defence Committee. I know she will understand the sensitivity and the potency of our submarine fleet. She asks the question, but she cannot realistically and reasonably expect an answer; I know that she knows that.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. At the same Dispatch Box about half an hour ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps unwisely delved into the world of military strategy and said a couple of things that were slightly alarming. First, she upbraided the shadow Chancellor for not calling for the de-escalation of the operations against Iran, yet the Defence Secretary’s own statement mentions de-escalation only when it comes to the situation in Lebanon. Can he clarify whether he is calling on his American counterparts to de-escalate in Iran or not? Secondly, she said that to open the strait of Hormuz we would need to support something she called “cross-country” operations with France and the US, and that we were ready to do that to open the strait of Hormuz. Will he comment on that too, please?
John Healey
The UK Government are urging Iran to de-escalate. We are deeply concerned about regional stability. Part of the reason for our co-ordinated defensive actions—the contribution we are making in the regional co-ordination centres, but also with our jets flying in defence of middle eastern allies—is to reinforce regional security and stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement this afternoon, and included the confirmation of the commitment to approve for the Ministry of Defence access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities as they are needed to the middle east. I am sure the House will welcome that, as it will welcome the fact that she said,
“I am committed to giving our military the resources they need.”
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership at this time. One of the defining characteristics of the UK’s response to the crisis when Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was the political unity that this party, the Labour party, offered our country. Does he find it extremely disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying that our military are “hanging around”, when they are putting themselves in harm’s way to defend our interests abroad? Does he expect, as I do, the shadow Secretary of State to apologise for that really disappointing, cheap political point scoring?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I had the honour of spending part of Thursday with our personnel on our base in Akrotiri, it was not just the teams and the pilots flying the fast jets who were working flat out—the F-35 team I spoke to had deployed at five days’ notice to Cyprus. The whole of the military personnel on that base were doing so, including those looking after and ensuring the relocation of non-essential personnel and families to hotels in the Paphos area. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more insulting than the suggestion that they are simply “hanging around” in the middle east. I really would like to hear—we did not hear it from the shadow Defence Secretary—any Conservative Member contest what their leader said and apologise on her behalf. Let us have the sort of support that recognises that our armed forces are in the region to protect British personnel, British bases and British interests. We are proud that they are doing that job.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am not particularly keen on the tone of these exchanges, so may I make a positive suggestion to the Secretary of State? We have heard that Ukraine has offered to assist the United States with its specialised version of anti-Iranian drone technology. These weapons for bringing down Iranian drones are much cheaper than the drones themselves, whereas the weapons that we and the Americans generally use are much more expensive. Given the difficult relationship between Zelensky and Trump, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role here for Britain, with its high standing in Ukraine, to see if we can make a start by acquiring from Ukraine some of these weapons, which we can use in the defence of our own bases and which may then pave the way for a deal between Trump and Zelensky for the wider benefit of the whole theatre?
John Healey
We are taking this one step at a time, but I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and the tone in which he offers his thoughts. Like me, he will welcome President Zelenksy’s declaration that Ukraine stands ready and is offering its experience and expertise to the Gulf states facing many of the same Shahed Iranian drones. We are playing our part. The defence special adviser for the middle east is currently making a series of visits to nine Gulf countries with a team that includes British experts in the Ukrainian fight against Putin’s invasion and the technologies Ukraine has been using to defeat many of Putin’s developments and drones. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is also talking to British firms about the contribution they could make to supplying the reinforced defences that our middle eastern partners so badly need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I shed no tears for the demise of an Iranian regime that murdered and repressed tens of thousands of its own citizens, particularly women, but I am proud that this Government have not joined the US and Israel in this reckless war, which lacks a clear plan and which is hitting my constituents in the pocket and threatening the global economy. Given that this Government have our own independent foreign policy, we are not the handmaiden of Washington, as the Tories would like, nor the poodle of Putin, as Reform is. Can the Defence Secretary say how important it is that the Chancellor is providing new funds for our armed forces who are defending British interests and British citizens in the region?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right to underline the statement and the commitment the Chancellor made this afternoon to this House. He is also right to point out that while the US may be our closest ally, as the Prime Minister has said, it is for the Prime Minister and the British Government to decide what is in Britain’s best national interests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I listened very carefully to what he had to say about the authorisation for the US to use UK bases and his confirmation that there are UK personnel embedded with US operations in the region. With that in mind, it seems all the more important that this Government are entirely clear on the limits of the consent they have given to operating with the US. On Monday last week, US Defence Secretary Hegseth mocked the idea of rules of engagement and said that he wanted to seek “maximum lethality”. On Saturday, President Trump then said that new areas and groups of people would be under serious consideration for “complete destruction”. What confidence does the Secretary of State have that the US is following the same rules of engagement that he believes are legal for the UK?
John Healey
I have the fullest confidence. These arrangements for access, basing and overflight are well established. The relations between the US and the UK are very close. We have operated them together before, and we are doing so now.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for all he is doing to support our troops in the region and protect British citizens. It is clear that a long conflict would pose real risks not only to our troops, but to energy prices and the cost of living here in the UK. Does he agree that we need to see urgent de-escalation and a reduction in tensions across the region, and does he share my concern that the Conservatives and Reform would see us dragged into a conflict that could have such devastating consequences for British lives and livelihoods?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes important points. I welcome his support for the first concern of this Government, which is the protection of British personnel and British citizens in the wider middle east, our bases and our allies. I know that he supports the action we have taken both before the current conflict broke out and in the week or so since.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is the problem here not our military capability—we still have the second most capable navy in NATO—but the political will? Why is it that HMS Duncan, the sister ship of HMS Dragon, is alongside in Portsmouth, having spent the summer in a maintenance period? She has been up and ready to go for weeks. Why was she not sent at the beginning of this crisis?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is another former Defence Minister from the previous Government, so he knows all about the decisions that left our Navy in the state it is in now. He will also appreciate that we have taken decisions to deploy the things that Britain can best put into the region to protect our allies and our people, both military and civilian. He will recognise and applaud the fact that because of that, from day one, our fast jets have been flying defensive operations in co-ordination with our allies and our US colleagues, and that where circumstances change, we will adapt the action and decisions that we take, which is what we have done from the point that we saw the indiscriminate extent of the Iranian response last Saturday.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Iran has a network of proxies and lone actors who threaten our security here at home. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking all the volunteers of the Community Security Trust who protect our Jewish places of worship and schools? Never have they been more crucial.
John Healey
I will indeed. My hon. Friend is right: the Community Security Trust does extraordinary work in very difficult times and is responding to deep unease, deep concern and, in some cases, serious fears among the Jewish community in this country.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
May I first say that I do not know of anybody on the Conservative Benches who would not wish to associate themselves with the Secretary of State’s praise for the courage and determination of our armed services, both worldwide and particularly in Cyprus? I have to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker; as you know, I am an honorary citizen of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus has maintained a principled neutrality that has served British nationals and others well over many years. Akrotiri is based almost exactly between Paphos and Larnaca—it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to square. Will he tell the House what steps will be taken to protect the many British nationals resident in Cyprus and the many other British visitors who have hitherto gone to the island for their holidays?
John Healey
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about our armed forces and will ensure that they are passed on. I had not realised he was an honorary citizen of Cyprus; I hope he will appreciate that, as I confirmed in my statement, the head of the national guard has confirmed that co-operation between our militaries has never been closer. I hope he will also appreciate that the defensive capabilities and activities that we are running from Akrotiri are part of defending not just our base, but our people right across Cyprus and the island of Cyprus itself. From that island, we can also help to defend regional allies, which we are doing.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing to support all my constituents in the region and to keep them safe. I know that he and I share the priority of getting our serving personnel the capabilities that they need. In the light of the movements we have seen today in the gilt and bond markets, which underline the pressure on Governments to finance increased defence spending, does the Secretary of State agree that we should explore innovative multilateral financing mechanisms, such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, to help to unlock the capital our defence industrial base needs to grow?
John Healey
I do, and we are. My hon. Friend will also have noted the Prime Minister’s important speech at the Munich security conference a couple of weeks ago when he recognised that in this new era of threats we face, this is now an era of hard power. He has recognised the need to spend more on defence and to spend it faster.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I visited the UK-US Bahrain base at the end of last year, and during the Venezuela statement on 5 January this year I said that we were exposed in Bahrain with the naval assets. The Secretary of State has rightly said that the UK presence over there has been ramped up since January. If last Tuesday was the first time that the Chief of the Defence Staff saw a request for naval assets to go to that region, what has gone wrong during that time and is it a strategic failure that it has taken that long for a request for those assets to be put on that desk?
John Healey
I have explained to the House the range of defensive capabilities that we put into the region ahead of this current conflict. When we saw the scale of the Iranian reaction to the strikes—the retaliation from Saturday onwards—it was clear that we wanted to do more. I have done more, and I have explained that to the House. I have also explained that these are not just British defensive assets deployed on a fully legal basis; these assets are employed in full co-ordination with the US and our other allies. As I have explained, HMS Dragon will take up its position in the eastern Mediterranean alongside other defensive destroyers that the US has already deployed in the area.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State laments the state of our Royal Navy, but he will remember that it was his party that cut investment in our Royal Navy over 14 years, cut the number of warships we had by 25% and ordered no new destroyers in that period either. Does the Secretary of State agree that while we should be investing in our Navy, we should take no lessons from the Conservatives, who set up our Navy to be ready to fail in the situation that we are in now?
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and we are investing in our Navy, just as we are increasing defence investment across the board, including in the munitions that we need when we are faced with conflicts like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State made the distinction between permitting the use of British bases for offensive action and for defensive action. I understand the need to protect and defend British citizens in the middle east, but can the Secretary of State explain how he is seeking to maintain this distinction between offensive and defensive action, given that it would require a degree of control over US military activity that the British Government may not possess?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is a military man by experience. He will understand the nature of the requests that nations make of each other, the agreements that they put in place and how those work. Accessing, basing, overflights—that is exactly the request that we had when it was clear that the Iranian response to the first wave of attacks took us into a new phase. It was a request from the US that we allow US bombers to operate from Fairford and Diego Garcia for specific defensive purposes: to take out the Iranian missile positions. That is what they are doing.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It was a Conservative 2010 strategic defence and security review and subsequent basing review that took the Royal Navy’s repair facilities from three to one—an utterly reckless decision that was made worse considering that the Conservatives knew of the Type 45s’ power plant problems—creating an internal competition for the limited resource of the Royal Navy. Does the Secretary of State agree that it was reckless Tory risk taking that left the Royal Navy in this precarious situation—
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend; he speaks with the authority of someone who was serving at the time in 2010. In that first year, the Tories cut £2 billion from the defence budget, and in their first five years they cut £12 billion from defence. They underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over 14 years.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The deployment of HMS Dragon means that we have left a gap in our commitment to be the flagship of the Standing NATO Maritime Group One. HMS Duncan is already tasked to go on Operation Firecrest to the High North, and HMS Dauntless is still in the fleet time support period. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will be able to fulfil our commitment to NATO in providing the flagship role, and can he guarantee that it will be provided by a British ship?
John Healey
I am not going to announce the deployments of British forces in advance. The hon. Member is right to point to the balance of threats and responsibilities that we have to manage. We are doing that, and we will always fulfil our NATO commitments.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Can I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that he is doing in Britain’s national interest? Our armed forces cannot believe their ears when we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that they are hanging around doing nothing and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) swanning off to the States to tell Donald Trump that, if he were Prime Minister, he would blindly follow US defence policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first duty of any Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence is our national interest—Britain’s national interest and not anything else?
John Healey
The first duty of any Government is to defend the country, pursue our national interest and support our armed forces. On this occasion, we had expected and look for better from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have only been in the House for 21 years, but whenever we talk about defence and when our armed forces are in harm’s way, I have to say that a blame game on either side is not going to save a single life. While we all want to see de-escalation, the Government, I hope, will have learned lessons in the last few weeks and months to prepare for escalation. Is the Defence Secretary aware of the 2024 report by the US director of national intelligence that underlines the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Iran holds, and will he work with friends and allies in the region and the new Syrian Government to identify and deal with those stockpiles? Finally, on Akrotiri and other bases in the region, will he ensure that our armed forces personnel and their families are given the right protective chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear kit?
John Healey
I am aware of the 2024 report that the right hon. Gentleman cites, and we are aware of those risks. I say to the House that the right hon. Gentleman puts his 21 years as a Member of this House to good effect in the comments that he makes this afternoon.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
We should be deeply alarmed at the sight of US bombers arriving at UK bases ahead of joining President Trump’s bombing of Iran. These attacks violate international law, and the suggestion that these aircraft would be used only for defensive purposes is frankly absurd. Their deployment risks dragging Britain into unlawful attacks and the further loss of civilian life. What assurances can the Secretary of State give this House that UK bases will not be used to facilitate further unlawful attacks and that Britain will not be dragged deeper into an illegal war that the majority of the British public do not support?
John Healey
British bases will be used by American aircraft for fully lawful and defensive purposes. That is spelled out in the agreement that we have with the US, and it is to destroy Iran’s missile bases, which hold such indiscriminate risk and threat to our personnel and allies in the region.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Protecting livelihoods and limiting the cost of living hit both depend on President Trump ending his war of choice. I doubt he cares a jot about the damage he is doing to our economy, but he does care about his poll numbers. Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that it is a matter of national security that every method is used to make it clear to the President that his reputation prior to the midterms is best served by bringing this crisis to a speedy conclusion?
John Healey
The last thing the right hon. Lady will find me doing is commenting on American political affairs. What she will find me doing as Defence Secretary is putting the protection of British people—military and civilians—bases and allies front and centre.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
US and Israeli strikes on Iran have pushed the region into deeper instability. More than 1,000 civilians, including children, have been killed, Britons remain stranded, and the shock to fuel prices is already being felt at home. The Government were right not to join this illegal war, but will the Secretary of State hold the line against the drumbeat for escalation? Will he commit only to defend British citizens and national security within international law, and not enter an offensive war without the consent of this House?
John Healey
My hon. Friend will have heard me set out in my statement, and in response to other questions, the principles on which the decisions that we have taken are based. They will continue to inform any future decision that we take, as circumstances in this conflict may change.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?
John Healey
We will take the action we need to defend British interests, personnel and civilians. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our personnel are at risk—as he puts it, they are in the firing line. I am incredibly proud of the work they are doing not just to protect our bases and each other, but to protect our allies in the region and to lead the co-ordination of defensive operations that help to keep the middle east safe in the face of these Iranian attacks.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The targeting of RAF Akrotiri by Iranian proxies is a direct act of aggression against the United Kingdom. The Iranian regime have repeatedly shown their willingness to export terror internationally across multiple fronts. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with colleagues across Government to ensure Iran poses less of a threat to Britons abroad and in the UK?
John Healey
Our first priority is British citizens in the region. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her team are working so hard to advise and help Britain bring Brits back. My priority is to protect our forces personnel and ensure they can play their role in protecting our allies and British citizens in the region. I recognise that many people have friends and family stranded in the middle east, and are concerned about their future. I am incredibly proud of the role that our armed forces are playing in doing just that.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
We all agree that it is important to protect our overseas bases and personnel deployed on operations, and that must include Ukraine. Over the weekend, the MOD posted a video on social media from a British-run military repair facility in Ukraine. It has been taken down, reportedly because it revealed the geolocation of the sensitive site. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is correct, and can he assure the House that it will not happen again in relation to Ukraine, the middle east or anywhere we have facilities?
John Healey
We have taken that video down through an abundance of caution. The last thing that I and the British Government would want to do is put Ukrainians at risk; we would not allow that to happen. I want to ensure that the steps we take in our support of Ukraine—just like those we take in support of our allies in the middle east—reflect our national interests and our duty to protect our own people.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I talked to people in Exeter over the weekend, and there was very strong support for the Government’s current position of defending British citizens and assets, and—at this point—not going further. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s work to increase defence spending and commitment to new assets, including the new medium helicopter programme, in partnership with Leonardo in the south-west, which will safeguard hundreds of jobs in our region, stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservative Government?
John Healey
I do indeed. That contract will not just secure well over 3,000 jobs for the future, but will create opportunities for many more in the years ahead. It is not just a contract to build new medium helicopters in Yeovil; Leonardo has committed to make Yeovil and the UK its global centre for the development and export of military helicopters, and for the development of helicopter autonomy for the future. The contract reinforces and is a great vote of confidence in Britian’s innovation and industrial base.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I mean no discourtesy to the Secretary of State, but in his statement, which lasted for 10 minutes, there was an omission: the murder of 165 young children at a school, which was allegedly targeted by a Tomahawk cruise missile in a double-tap strike. The Government talk about calling out war crimes—in particular, violence against women and girls—but this does very little to support that proposition. Will the Secretary of State condemn that attack? Would he like to explain what he has done to talk to his alleged allies about this particular strike?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will note that we have only the reports from the Iranian regime about the strike. He will be aware that the US is looking into this at present.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I want to start by paying tribute to Edinburgh’s Iranian community. Despite being concerned about their families in Iran, they have taken time in the past week to host public events, which shared details of Iran’s rich culture and the barbaric nature of its regime.
I want to ask a question about HMS Dragon. The maths are quite clear: the ship cost £1 billion, but the Conservatives cut the defence budget by £14 billion. Surely, if they wanted to see more destroyers in the Mediterranean, they should have built the things.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the Iranian community in his home city of Edinburgh; I echo his comments. He is also right, of course, that in 14 years the Conservatives did not commission a single new destroyer. We have HMS Dragon, which is set to sail this week—in the next couple of days—only because it was commissioned by the previous Labour Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on the Iranian regime has shocked and disgusted our constituents, just like the Iranian regime’s crackdowns on opposition protests for decades. The horrors that we have seen reinforce the feeling in this country that international events are happening to us, and that since Brexit and since Trump re-entered the White House, we have had much less say in our future and security. Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls to empower us to take back control of our fate by issuing defence bonds, which would raise the cash we need to meet our defence spending, and by rebuilding our place in Europe through deeper co-operation with our European neighbours to reduce our dependence on the mad king in the White House?
John Healey
I am always interested in ways of getting more funding into defence. That is one of the reasons that I have laid such stress not just on the record increase in defence investment that the Government are making from the public purse, but on ways that we can leverage that with investment from private sources. That is why we have a defence investors advisory group, which will shortly set out its report with proposals that we can pursue.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of the first statement, it was indicated from the Chair that those who were not called on that statement would be prioritised in respect of this second statement. Did that happen? If not, why not?
Armed Forces Maximum Personnel 2026-27
John Healey Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I have today laid before the House the Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2026-27 as HC1660. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2026-27, including increases for reserve naval and marine forces as well as the Army regulars and reserves. Full details can be found in the report.
As outlined in the 2025 strategic defence review, we are making targeted interventions to improve recruitment and retention. The changes to Votes A maximum numbers accommodate planned growth and targeted recruitment and retention efforts to enable strength to grow. We need a dynamic blend of people with varying terms of service and commitment to provide the optimum mix of skills, experience, and strategic depth necessary.
These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics.
[HCWS1313]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Can I associate the Government side of the House with your tributes to Lord Wallace and Lord Flight, Mr Speaker? I pay tribute to Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney of the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, who died on 25 January. He was an outstanding young officer. I convey the condolences of the whole House to his friends and family.
I also inform the House—as you know, Mr Speaker—that my hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister is in the Norwegian High North on reservist training. When we said we would boost the reserves, this is the Defence team delivering in person.
Turning to the question, my message to Great British businesses of all sizes is that we want the UK to be the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business. That is why we have set a target to spend an extra £2.5 billion with SMEs by 2028. That is an uplift of 50%. This is a Labour Government delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Dr Opher
Impcross, a company in my constituency of Stroud, is the sole supplier of flight-critical parts to the Typhoon aircraft and a key supplier for the Vanguard submarine fleet. It is on the verge of collapse, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is filing to wind it up, after the owners were prohibited from selling their business on the grounds of national security and sovereign capability. What support is the Secretary of State offering to critical suppliers that are struggling financially, and will he meet me to discuss what steps we can take to support this company?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing Impcross in his constituency. I think he will accept that it is right that when British companies deliver the sort of sovereign UK capabilities he mentions that we scrutinise hard any sale to foreign firms. Impcross does indeed play an important role in the Typhoon and F-35 supply chains, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry would be happy to meet him.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?
John Healey
My hon. Friend and his Committee know a great deal more about this than The Times does. He will know that a competitive contract process is under way for the new medium-lift helicopter. He will also know that we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan. And he will know that, as part of that plan, we are dealing with a programme of record—a previous commitment to equipment—that was hugely overcommitted, underfunded and, in some cases, unsuited to the threats we face. For the first time in nearly 18 years, the Ministry of Defence is taking a line-by-line approach to building up our plans for the future.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that many small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector are supported by bigger defence firms? Companies such as Honeywell operate on the Leonardo site in Yeovil. Does he therefore accept that, if bigger defence firms such as Leonardo cannot get contracts like the one for the new medium-lift helicopter, we risk losing not just Leonardo but smaller defence firms, too?
John Healey
Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a £450 million contract to Leonardo for a really important part of upgrading our Typhoon jets for the future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the supply chain to smaller and medium-sized firms is often mediated by primes such as Leonardo, which is why it is important that, since the election, we have let over 1,100 major contracts in defence, 84% of which have gone to British-based firms.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney.
Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?
John Healey
We are working flat out to complete the DIP, and the hon. Gentleman above all, having been responsible for defence procurement in the last Government, will appreciate just how overcommitted his own programme is. He will appreciate the truth of his former boss saying that, over 14 years, the Conservatives had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. We will deal with that overcommitment, we will deal with the underfunding and we will deal with the fact that his plans were unsuited to many of the threats we face.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?
John Healey
I remember when the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor stood in this House after the election to argue, like the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did, for this country to invest 2.5% of GDP by 2030—the hon. Member for South Suffolk called for it 13 times before the Prime Minister said, a year ago, we would do it three years earlier.
We will look at any way of raising the level of investment going into defence, but the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) could start by recognising that this Government have made a commitment to record investment in defence—the largest increase since the end of the cold war. I note in passing that he seems to be against how we will fund this to reach 2.5% and 2.6% next year.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Three weeks ago I was in Kyiv. I saw for myself the savagery of Putin’s brutal assault on the Ukrainian people and I saw also their extraordinary defiance. Next week I will co-chair the 50-nation strong Ukraine defence contact group in NATO, and the UK is providing more military support now than ever before, and we will continue to stand united in this House, will continue to stand united in this country, and will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Mr Perkins
The Defence Secretary is absolutely right to spell out the strength of our commitment but there is increasing concern about the extent to which China is propping up both the economic and military capabilities of Mr Putin and his barbaric regime, so can the Secretary of State tell me what his latest assessment is of China’s contribution to Putin’s war machine and what steps we are taking to ensure the international community remains united?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and as a nation and a Government the UK will not hesitate to act against those supplying and funding Putin’s war economy. We have sanctioned a range of organisations that operate in third countries over economic and military support for Russia, including 50 Chinese companies. We will continue to work across other nations with other nations and to bolster the support for Ukraine and the principles of the UN charter.
Rachel Taylor
In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, many, like Felicitas in Water Orton, have welcomed Ukrainian refugees into their homes and have stood by Ukraine, just as this Labour Government have. Meanwhile, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has removed the Ukrainian flag from county hall despite public protest. Given the ever-growing threats of Russian aggression, what steps is the UK taking to strengthen its anti-submarine warfare capabilities?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that politicians of any party are judged on what we do, not just what we say, and the performance of Reform-led councils will certainly come home to roost, I suggest, for their party. But my hon. Friend is right: in this new era of Russian threat, we must ensure that our Royal Navy has the innovation it needs to detect, to track and to deter threats beneath the waves, and so today we have announced a new £40 million contract with a British-based SME to buy new sonobuoys, exactly to be deployed and used beneath the waves to track Putin’s subs.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Our Ukrainian friends want not just to physically rebuild after this devastating war, but to recover with a modernised, reformed economy that can attract investment and support their entrepreneurial population. This is something Britain can help with, given our strengths in defence and technology and, indeed, as a global financial centre. So may I ask the Government to fully lean into these efforts alongside our allies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the private sector, because an economically strong Ukraine is good not just for Ukraine’s future security, but for ours as well?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: a strong Ukraine is the key to a long-term secure Europe. He is also right that British defence, British innovation and British financial muscle can help Ukraine in the medium term. I think he would also recognise that we can contribute to Ukraine in a unique way, having been, since the start of Putin’s brutal invasion, Ukraine’s closest and most reliable ally under both Governments.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
As we approach the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine this month, with reports that Russian troops have killed 12 people and injured 17 others after launching a drone strike on civilians just yesterday, the brutality of Putin’s war shows no sign of abating. So can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will not follow any US lead that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty or territorial integrity, and will he commit to maintaining Britain’s military support at current levels or above, ensuring that decisions about Ukraine’s future remain with Kyiv, not with Washington or Moscow?
John Healey
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the heart of our determination to stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to step up our support for Ukraine. The House will recognise the brutal attack on those mineworkers, who were going to work to mine the coal that keeps their own Ukrainian citizens warm in this period of unprecedented cold in Ukraine.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
As the strategic defence review sets out, the High North is becoming more important to the UK and our NATO allies, as it becomes more accessible through climate change. We have Royal Navy deployments in the High North and Royal Marines undertaking cold weather training in Norway, as well as Ranger exercises in Sweden and Finland. We will continue to step up on Arctic security alongside our NATO and JEF allies.
Mr Carmichael
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your words about the late Lord Wallace of Tankerness? Jim Wallace was not just my predecessor in this House; he was a friend and, in fact, my London flatmate for many years. I am sure that his family and all those who mourn his passing, especially in the Northern Isles, will appreciate your acknowledgment of his contribution. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Through the years of the cold war, the RAF radar station at Saxa Vord in Unst was the frontline of our nation’s defences to the north. That was drawn down 20 years ago, and it is now home to the Shetland spaceport. We have seen the recent activities of the Russian tanker Yantar and the interception of the Bella 1. With space being identified as a priority in the strategic defence review, will the Government now reassess the significance of Shetland and its waters as we look to the developing situation in the far north?
John Healey
We deeply value the role that Shetland—and Scotland in general—plays to reinforce the security of the United Kingdom. That is demonstrated by the fact that there are 9,500 full-time troops in Scotland; the fact that there are around 3,000 civilian defence personnel based in Scotland; and the fact that, as a Government, in the last year we put over £2 billion into the Scottish economy to support defence and the role that Scotland plays in general. It is not only part of keeping this country safer but of defence driving economic growth throughout the UK.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Along with that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my constituency has an obvious interest in the High North and the defence of the western approaches. I welcome the £40 million investment in anti-submarine sonobuoys and the Atlantic Bastion operation’s defence of our subsea cables, but can the Minister give us a similar assurance on the integrity of cables and communications between our islands across the Pentland Firth, the Minch, the Irish sea and even the Isle of Wight?
John Healey
My hon. Friend quite rightly points to a growing level of Russian activity in particular that monitors and potentially threatens our critical undersea infrastructure. He will see the way in which we have demonstrated that we see, understand and track those Russian threats. We are working, particularly together with JEF allies, to deal with those threats, and we will step that up further in the months ahead.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government are already making the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war; we plan to hit 2.6% of GDP being spent on defence in April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament.
David Chadwick
Britain faces a once-in-a-generation threat to our national security, as Putin’s war continues in Europe and uncertainty grows about the future reliability of the United States. Will the Secretary of State therefore take up the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that we issue time-limited defence bonds? That would allow the public to invest directly in modernising our armed forces, raise billions for new equipment, and ensure strong parliamentary oversight of how the money is spent.
John Healey
I note the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his party are now making, but it was just in autumn 2024 that the Lib Dems were calling for this Government to set a pathway to 2.5%. We went further than that, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, three years before he was calling for it. We have a plan to hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Munira Wilson
I appreciate what the Defence Secretary has just said, but with President Trump attempting to tear apart the international alliances that have kept us safe for decades, and with Putin waging war in Ukraine for almost four years, the world is changing fast. We need to come together as patriots to decide how we can best invest in the defence of our country as quickly as possible. Can I press him again to convene cross-party talks on how we can reach 3% of GDP on defence quickly, and will he ensure that defence bonds are part of the solution?
John Healey
In the first instance, I would welcome support from the hon. Lady and her party for the fact that in this Parliament, we will invest £270 billion in defence to keep Britain safe and our alliances secure for generations to come. This is a Government who are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This month marks four years since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people continue to fight with huge defiance and courage, recently retaking parts of the city of Kupiansk, striking military targets deep in Russia, and reporting a Russian casualty rate of 25 to 1 in some parts of the frontline. Putin is increasingly under pressure. He has thrown 17,000 North Korean troops into the fight, and has recruited thousands more from Africa and other nations. Four years on, the Ukrainian courage will be matched by our UK determination. Next week I will travel to NATO and will co-chair the 33rd meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, where 50 nations will step up the provision of military aid and support to keep the Ukrainians in the fight.
Rebecca Smith
Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?
John Healey
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The doubling in this Parliament of our investment into autonomy will be directed in significant part towards marine technology. Her part of the world—the south-west—plays a leading role in that. She urges action across Government, so I hope she will see that the shipbuilding and marine autonomy plan that we will publish shortly will show exactly what we are doing on a number of fronts.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.
John Healey
Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
John Healey
I take that as an early indication that the hon. Lady might want to serve on the Bill Committee, in which case we welcome her stepping forward. I think she will recognise that the legislative framework, which allows us to take action to bring down malign and menacing drones over UK defence sites and defence bases, is long overdue. I look forward to her support in introducing that.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, for the first time, we have in place a security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union. That is part of our stepping up our willingness to work with the European Union. He knows that the SAFE negotiations did not come to a successful conclusion. That was quite simply because it was not in the interests of the British taxpayer and the British defence industry. We will do a great deal more to support the wider security of the European Union and European nations through NATO.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Intensifying security competition in the Arctic necessitates enhanced co-operation with our regional allies. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to invite Canada to join the Joint Expeditionary Force?
John Healey
The 10 JEF nations, led by the UK—JEF was established by the previous Government—have stepped up their leadership, with support from Members on both sides of the House. JEF is an important part of NATO and allows us to act ahead of unanimity in NATO. From critical infrastructure to exercising in the High North, JEF has led the way and will continue to do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?
John Healey
I can, indeed; I welcome my hon. Friend’s constituent in the Gallery today. This Government are on the side of those who serve and on the side of those families who support those who serve.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Taskforce Kindred has been a fantastic success of this Government. Can the Secretary of State outline if there are plans to extend the programme and how defence SMEs can get on board with it?
John Healey
I can, indeed. Taskforce Kindred has been at the heart of the UK’s rapid response and our reliability as Ukraine’s closest ally since Putin first invaded Ukraine nearly four years back. It will continue to play a central role in the future, and it has lessons for the procurement and provision of our own kit and systems for our forces.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
John Healey
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had enough of trying to continue this debate—it now ends.
Armed Forces Bill
John Healey ExcerptsMonday 26th January 2026
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a rare privilege to open this debate. This is only the second ever Labour Armed Forces Bill, yet the provenance of this legislation reaches all the way back to the Bill of Rights, and more than three centuries on, granting authority to maintain our armed forces remains one of the most important—if not the most important—formal constitutional responsibilities of Members of this House.
This is a substantial Bill—a reflection of just how much the world has changed over the past five years. It is more dangerous and much less certain, and this new era of threat demands a new era for defence. That is why our Government have committed an extra £5 billion to defence spending this year and committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, switching funding directly from overseas aid. It is why we are proposing, through this Bill, to increase our warfighting readiness and homeland security, and why we are putting the men and women in our armed forces at the heart of defence plans.
In the coming years, we will ask more of our service personnel, and it is only right that they expect more of their Government. The Bill takes significant steps to improve service life and strengthen the bond between society and our forces. At the general election, we pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise: the largest pay increase for our armed forces in more than two decades, expanded wraparound childcare support, an independent Armed Forces Commissioner and a funded plan for a safe, decent home for every forces family. Through this legislation, we continue the work of renewing that commitment, with better housing, better services and better protections for those who serve.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a good turnout in the House tonight to debate the Armed Forces Bill, which affects the quality of life and the service of the brave people who keep us safe? Yet again when we debate this vital subject, not a single Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber. Is it not wrong that these people wrap themselves in the flag, but never come along to defend the people who actually protect that flag?
John Healey
There is a general support for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on both sides of the House. This Armed Forces Bill, as I will go on to say, commands all-party support, and it is a shame that we have not got all parties in this House to demonstrate that.
The bond between the British people and those sworn to defend them is a proud part of our nation’s security. The purpose of the armed forces covenant is to strengthen that bond. The policy and principles underpinning the covenant were first set out in a Command Paper in 2008 under the last Labour Government, and to this day—this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—the covenant maintains strong cross-party support across this House and across the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, welcome the armed forces covenant and the legal duty that it will place on devolved nations. Of course, while Wales has 5% of the population, we contribute 7% to Army strength. Could the Secretary of State tell me, therefore, whether any extra new money will be coming to Wales to support the covenant, particularly in the NHS, which is of course so beneficial to veterans?
John Healey
I welcome the leader of Plaid in this House welcoming the Bill and her support for the forces. She is right that the record of the Welsh nation in supporting our armed forces and recruiting some of the best of our armed forces is long and proud. She also knows that the Barnett formula has already delivered a record increase in NHS spending in Wales, and I will go on to speak about the role of the devolved nations in the implementation of the covenant.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Just on devolved issues, will the Secretary of State explain why the armed forces covenant is being extended to local authorities everywhere except Northern Ireland? Why are the councils in Northern Ireland not also included in the Bill? Why are they excluded?
John Healey
Just as the Armed Forces Act 2001 required a degree of discussion, agreement and devolution to the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland, so too will this Bill. Our officials are in deep discussion with Northern Ireland Office officials. The Minister for the Armed Forces has written to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, and I am confident that, following the passage of the Bill, we will have arrangements in place allowing the proud armed forces covenant to be fully implemented in legislation at every level of government: the UK national Government, devolved Governments and local authorities across the UK.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Further to the previous intervention, the covenant is predicated on veterans not being disadvantaged by their service, as the Secretary of State will know. However, Northern Ireland veterans will be subject to records that do not apply to civilian terrorists. Will he confirm that there will be no disadvantage to Northern Ireland veterans, and that the covenant will apply to them as originally intended?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is speaking about the legislative provisions of a different Bill that is before the House. We will deal with that and strengthen protections for veterans. Successive Governments have failed because it has been too difficult, but, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland leading the way, we will finally have a settlement that allows the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that one job I did before coming to this place was to work at a homelessness charity. It was particularly difficult to see homeless veterans coming to me in need of support. In my constituency, we have nearly 2,000 veterans. Will he outline what additional support the Government will give to home our veterans, and how we will support them with mental health issues, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The short answer is that there is record funding to support the mental health and wellbeing of veterans; there are record levels of support for veterans’ groups, with a new wave of Valour centres shortly to be announced by the Minister for Veterans and People; and there is, of course, a commitment to ensure that no veteran loses out on their right to social housing because of the local connection test, which was in place until this Government removed it after the election.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the earlier exchange about Northern Ireland veterans? I have some good news and some bad news for him. The good news is that I strongly suspect that, at the end of all the raked-up trials held against Northern Ireland veterans, none will be convicted. The bad news is that that is not the purpose of doing all this; the purpose is to put them through a nightmarish ordeal that allows republican terrorists to rewrite history. He should not be quite so satisfied with the state of the Government’s legislation regarding Northern Ireland veterans. It is a disgrace, and it is tearing up something that was working and that could have worked, according to four professors of law who gave testimony to a previous Defence Committee.
John Healey
I know about the right hon. Gentleman’s good news and bad news. We will return to that discussion when we return to Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. When we do so, we will have in place strengthened protections for veterans, and that will be a result of the detailed discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, military leaders, the Prime Minister and I have had in recent weeks with representatives of the forces and special forces, and with former military chiefs, who have a point of view on this—
Mr Francois
The Secretary of State mentions such a wide spread, but when we debated the remedial order last Wednesday, over 100 Labour MPs abstained, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Armed Forces Minister and two thirds of the Cabinet. If it is such a good idea, why did the Secretary of State not come here and vote for it?
John Healey
Quite honestly, I was unable to be in the House at the time. That is an important piece of legislation because it paves the way for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It removes the immunity that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government tried to put in place for terrorists. They removed the right of 200 families whose loved ones were killed by terrorists in the troubles to get the same access to truth, information and a degree of justice. Now, if the House will permit me, I will return to the Armed Forces Bill, which is the legislation before us this afternoon.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing so much to bring housing back under control and to upgrade it, as well as on the roll-out of Valour centres—the Links charity in Llanelli has put in an excellent application. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will strengthen the armed forces covenant by ensuring that it covers all public services. There is good will across the country, in devolved Governments and in councils, but how will we ensure that, right across all public services, including those that are devolved in Wales, the covenant actually delivers for veterans? We want them to have the very best of services in all circumstances.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We will do that in two ways. First, we are already doing it in discussions with other Departments and with the devolved Administrations, as well as by working with councils where we can. Secondly, we will do it by issuing guidance and sharing best practice, and we will encourage the development of the rest to meet the very best, so that we reduce the degree of postcode lottery and patchwork support for veterans across the UK.
John Healey
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), and then I will move on.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. He will recognise that one way in which we have the backs of current military personnel, as well as of veterans, is by offering, through the Joining Forces partnership, access to a credit union for military personnel. Will he assure me that nothing in the Bill will prevent the further promotion of the benefits of credit union membership to even more military personnel, and will he or a Minister meet me to explore how we might promote the Joining Forces partnership even further?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a ceaseless campaigner for co-operative and credit union provision throughout his career in this House. I will certainly ensure that he meets the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in charge of the Bill. If my hon. Friend permits me, I will take this as an early indication of his interest in serving on the Bill Committee, where he could press his arguments on the value of credit unions to members of the armed forces and veterans.
Robin Swann
The Secretary of State talks about a patchwork quilt and a postcode lottery. Operation Restore supports military veterans with their physical and mental health, but Northern Ireland-resident veterans do not have the same access in devolved institutions—the likes of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. Will the legislation enable Northern Ireland-resident veterans to access the services that are accessible to English veterans?
John Healey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a large number of the services on which our forces veterans depend come under the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Government and the councils in that area. They have a strong and doughty champion in the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, with whom the hon. Gentleman works closely. I encourage him to make his arguments not just in the House, but back in Northern Ireland with exactly the bodies that have responsibility for the provision of services that matter so much to veterans.
To come back to the question of cross-party support, not just in the House but across the UK, 14,000 companies and other organisations are signatories to the covenant, and almost every council in every part of the UK has an armed forces champion to promote the interests and the adoption of the covenant. In opposition, we supported the previous Government when they brought the covenant partly into law through the 2001 Act. With this Bill, we complete the job. We are extending the armed forces covenant across central Government, devolved Governments and at local level, fulfilling a promise that we made in our manifesto. It means that social care, employment support and other public services will be legally required to consider the unique circumstances faced by forces personnel and their families and by veterans.
The Government have ensured that NHS England now operates a single point of contact via integrated care boards. The service pupil premium supports 76,000 pupils, and the local connection test has been removed so that no veteran can be disqualified from social housing in their local area because they have been living elsewhere in the armed forces. But we know that the covenant can do more, and with this Bill it will do more.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about social care, but an awful lot of care in this country is provided by family carers, who can often be serving personnel or the children of serving personnel. Does he consider that the Bill as currently drafted does everything possible to support unpaid carers who face a greater postcode lottery as they move round the country as a result of their service?
John Healey
The Bill should ensure that if forces families are in such a situation as unpaid carers there is no penalty or disqualification for having an armed forces connection and experience. When they are looking for support from local services, those services will in future have to take into account the unique experience and circumstances that those families and individuals face.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State refers to the local connection test. Will he acknowledge that the removal of that test was initiated by the previous Government? That is not the impression he gave in his initial remarks, although it is certainly the case. Secondly, is it his intention to allocate service housing going forward on the basis primarily of rank or primarily on need?
John Healey
On the local connection test, as with a lot of things, the previous Government talked a lot but we have got on and done a lot of those things, and the Bill takes that intent and determination several steps further.
Let me move on to housing, because behind many of the men and women who serve our country are husbands, wives, partners and children, who support them in their service, and who bear the weight of their absence during deployments. For those families, the nation has a moral duty to provide safe and decent housing. As recent Governments failed, satisfaction with military family homes fell in 2023 to its lowest level on record. I, and many other Members of the House have seen why: damp, mould, broken boilers, ill-fitting doors and windows, even a hole in the wall of a children’s bedroom. None of us would tolerate our families living in such conditions, and neither should those in our armed forces. It is a betrayal of service, and the crisis in defence housing tracks back directly to perhaps one of the worst ever privatisation deals.
Under the terms of the Annington sale in 1996, the taxpayer picked up all costs for maintenance, repairs and rent, but all the benefits of development opportunities or increases in property value were surrendered to a private equity fund. When I was appointed Defence Secretary 18 months ago, that deal was costing the taxpayer over £600,000 a day. Just six months after the election, our Government reversed that, bringing more than 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can now plan and invest in the future. Twelve months after the election, we delivered our consumer charter, guaranteeing what should never have been in question: higher move-in standards, quicker repairs, a named housing officer for every family, and renovations of the very worst homes, 1,000 of which were completed ahead of schedule before Christmas. Our charter also tore up rules that should never have been written, so that forces families now have freedom to decorate their own homes, and keep pets without seeking permission.
In November we published our defence housing strategy, and our plan for the wholesale renewal of service family estate, backed by a landmark 10-year investment programme, totalling over £9 billion. All told, nine in 10 of all forces family homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. Less than three months after the defence housing strategy was published, the Bill delivers a central recommendation of that strategy: the creation of a specialist arm’s length organisation, the Defence Housing Service. With the plan, the investment and now the Defence Housing Service, we will end the scandal of service families living in substandard housing, and we will deliver the homes the country needs. When Labour said at the election that we would stand on the side of our armed forces, this is what we meant.
All those who serve our country rightly expect to be able to do so with the fullest respect, and they must certainly be able to do so free from any fear or abuse. Last year we commissioned and published the UK’s first military-wide survey into sexual harassment. We did that to provide for the first time a no-holds-barred baseline to confront the problem fully. The results were sobering, concluding that two thirds of our servicewomen and one third of our servicemen experience some form of sexualised behaviour. Let me be clear: such behaviour has no place in our armed forces, just as it has no place in any workplace—not now, not ever.
The previous Government took steps to improve victim and witness care. We can see some of the benefits of those steps, but it is also clear that more must be done. We have established a new, single tri-service complaints team to take the most serious complaints out of the single-service chain of command for the first time. We have launched a pioneering new prevention programme in Catterick and Plymouth, working directly with young recruits on our bases, to prevent unacceptable behaviours. Through the Bill we go further to strengthen protections for our service personnel, and ensure that perpetrators have nowhere to hide.
Together, provisions in the Bill will make available in the service justice system a comprehensive range of protection orders, including for sexual harm, domestic abuse and stalking. It will strengthen supervision of offenders on release from prison, and ensure that service restraining orders are enforceable in the criminal justice system once a defendant has left the armed forces. It will place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice, setting out the services that victims can expect to receive in the service justice system, and it will allow victims to choose whether they wish to have their case heard in a civil or military court, although the formal decision will be taken by the prosecutor.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am greatly encouraged—I think we all are—by what the Secretary of State has said about victims. I am conscious that sometimes we have young people—perhaps aged 16, 17 or 18—joining the forces and finding themselves under pressure, away from home and from their parents, and they might be vulnerable to start with. It is important that a structure is in place where they can make a complaint, and that that complaint will be heard, not lost somewhere in the system of those above them, whether they are officers, sergeants or corporals. Is looking after those vulnerable people who need help at the beginning, and access to people who understand their circumstances, part of this process?
John Healey
Like the hon. Gentleman I am deeply proud that our armed forces will take 16-year-olds and give them skills and discipline, and change the course of their career and future life. If they suffer any of the abuse and harassment that I am talking about, the tri-service complaints team will take that out of the single chain of command. Cross-party support has allowed us to legislate as a House for an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who has the power to deal with complaints and to launch inquiries if they pick up a pattern of problems, so safeguards and protections are in place. I hope that will give more confidence to young people who are looking at a future career in the armed forces, as well as to their families, who want to see them launched well in their lives.
Make no mistake: these are substantial reforms, reflecting both the seriousness of the problem and our resolve to root it out. These measures are a result of the Ministry of Defence being part of a cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy for the first time ever, and Ministers and chiefs being united and determined for the first time to play a part in this Government’s central mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Helen Maguire
I commend the progress made in the Bill on violence against women and girls. Is the Secretary of State aware that there may be a gap in relation to Royal Navy ships? Commanding officers can administer justice for disciplinary offences and some criminal conduct offences through the summary hearing process, where they investigate the allegation and determine whether the accused is guilty. They are potentially carrying out very serious investigations, which could be into things like serious sexual assaults, in the absence of a warrant card holder. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that issue is being addressed? Will he explore the possibility of having investigation-trained military police on those ships, which are often at sea for more than six months?
John Healey
The hon. Lady has made a detailed point very clearly—perhaps it is another bid to be a member of the Bill Committee. It is exactly the sort of issue that should be examined in detail at that point in the passage of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would be the first to endorse the fact that the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. In our age, drones are rapidly changing the nature of war and homeland defence. It is essential that we have the power and authority to protect defence sites from any current or future threats. In October, I promised to introduce new legal powers to bring down unidentified drones over UK military bases. The Bill will create a regime that will allow defence personnel to better detect, deter and defeat drones that pose a threat to defence property and activities.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
John Healey
I will not. I am conscious of the number of hon. Members who want to speak, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to make a contribution.
The reforms are designed to be both flexible and future-proof, allowing defence to adapt to the ever changing and increasing threats. If the strategic defence review were boiled down to one core objective, it would be to raise the level of warfighting readiness in order to strengthen our deterrence.
Crucial to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid potential transition to war will be our reserve forces. In 2024, more than one in five troops training Ukrainian forces on Operation Interflex—the British-led multinational military operation supporting the Ukraine armed forces—were reservists. They are an integral part of the operation and, very often, of the deployment and exercising of our forces. The Bill will make it easier to mobilise personnel earlier, ahead of the outbreak of war. It will align the time for which recall applies across all three services to 18 years, and it will increase the maximum age at which reservists can be recalled, from 55 to 65.
At the moment, we have cyber-operators, trainers, medics and translators who are being shown the door to the military only because of an arbitrary age limit. They are men and women who will continue their profession in civilian life for many years after they are forced out of the military. That makes no sense for the reservists or for our nation’s security, so through the Bill we must act to build a major boost to our readiness to fight during this era of increasing threat.
I will end by recalling our manifesto at the election, which said:
“At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country.”
The Bill gives legislative force to that Labour principle, with better housing, better services and better protections to those who serve. We pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through this Bill, we are delivering exactly that, backing those who sacrifice so much, making Britain safer, delivering for defence and delivering for Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me in posterity. All I can say is that when I came to the job, I was not impressed with the state of armed forces accommodation. Let us not pretend that it suddenly took that shape; in the 13 years when Labour was previously in power, it made no attempt to buy back the defence estate. I return to the point that that is why we did the deal in the first place. We all agree that those who serve our country must never be given substandard homes. The Annington deal has enabled the prospect of what could be the most exciting estate regeneration project for generations. This is the chance to deliver homes for heroes.
We had to buy the estate back, and I enabled that. That being said, delivering such an opportunity requires leadership. The reason why my first policy announcement as shadow Defence Secretary in June last year was the creation of an armed forces housing association, which created a body that could do just that—both manage the estate and deliver a comprehensive rebuild, as the best housing associations have been able to do over the years.
James Cartlidge
From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says, “Giving it away.” It is very odd when a member of the Labour party thinks that setting up a co-operative is somehow a privatisation.
The body that the Government will create in this Bill to deliver that transformation is the Defence Housing Service. Although we welcome its ambition to improve the supply and quality of defence housing, inevitably we will want to see that its structure means that it is able to deliver as many of the outcomes that we wanted from our own policy as possible.
Specifically, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford first proposed an armed forces housing association in 2020 was to give armed forces families proper representations on its board. Will the Defence Housing Service ensure a similar, meaningful voice for service families? Given that a priority for our housing association model was to extend home ownership throughout the ranks, not least because housing associations have access to a wider suite of home ownership products, what role will the Defence Housing Service play in delivering greater home ownership among service families?