Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response
John Healey Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s response to recent Russian maritime activity. [Interruption.] I am glad that the House waited for this statement.
A foreign vessel, Yantar, is in the North sea, having passed through British waters. Let me be clear: it is a Russian spy ship, used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure. Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the past two days, the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel, every minute, in our waters, and I have changed the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track Yantar.
So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation, but this is the second time that Yantar has entered our waters in recent months. In November, the ship was also closely watched, and was detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure. To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps at that time as part of a clear, direct response to the Russian vessel. Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft, alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus, were deployed to shadow Yantar’s every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantar—strictly as a deterrent measure—to make it clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering, and sailed down to the Mediterranean.
As colleagues will understand, I will not comment further for reasons of operational security. However, I thank all the personnel involved for their dedication and professionalism. I also want President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. With our NATO allies, we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships and aircraft cannot operate in secrecy near the UK or near NATO territory.
This activity is another example of growing Russian aggression, targeting our allies abroad and us at home. The heads of MI6 and the CIA recently made a joint statement, saying that Russia is waging a “reckless campaign” of sabotage across Europe. We are seeing periodic incursions of Russian military aircraft into airspace for which we are responsible, and on Christmas day the EstLink 2 undersea cable between Finland and Estonia was damaged. Many analysts believe that that was caused by a vessel in Russia’s shadow fleet.
Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak. In Ukraine, it has suffered devastatingly high rates of casualties over three years in a war it thought it would win in a week. Compounding the humiliation, Putin has been forced to turn to North Korea to reinforce its frontline fighters. While the strategic defeat in Syria has exposed Russia’s diminishing power on the global stage, at home the Russian economy faces crippling strains.
Nevertheless, Russia remains the most pressing and immediate threat to Britain, and I want to assure the House and the British people that any threat will be met with strength and resolve. First, we are delivering on the foundation of security in our plan for change by making Britain secure at home. Yantar has now passed through the Dover strait and is in Dutch waters. In September, RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept two Russian Bear F aircraft operating near the UK. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is also playing an indispensable role in safeguarding offshore infrastructure with its multi-role ocean surveillance ship, RFA Proteus.
Secondly, we are making Britain strong abroad, working with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. The UK activated Nordic Warden with JEF partners after the EstLink 2 cable damage. The operation is tracking potential threats to undersea infrastructure, monitoring the movements of the Russian shadow fleet and sending out real-time warnings of suspicious activity to JEF allies and to NATO. Today, I can confirm that the RAF will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to join the new Baltic Sentry NATO deployment to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic sea.
Thirdly, with allies we are piling the pressure on Putin. This year, the UK will provide more financial aid in military support to Ukraine than at any time since the full-scale invasion began: £4.5 billion to deliver military support, enhance training and strengthen industrial collaboration. The UK is also leading the way in finding ways to put pressure on the Russian economy, including sanctioning more than 100 ships in the Russian shadow fleet, which is more than any other nation; working with other countries to stop the Russian military acquiring the goods, equipment and technologies it requires to continue its fight and war against Ukraine; and with allies, exposing the activities of the Russian intelligence services, expelling Russian intelligence officers and sanctioning individuals responsible for hostile activity against the UK.
Russian aggression will not be tolerated at home or in Ukraine. That is why one of the first acts of this Government was for the Prime Minister to launch the strategic defence review, why the Government have increased defence spending next year by almost £3 billion, and why we will set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the spring. This new era of threat demands a new era for defence. Change is essential, not optional, and the Government are determined to meet the challenge and determined to deliver for defence. We will protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure and we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence.
I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today.
I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents.
A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO?
Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom?
I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities?
In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place.
To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.
John Healey
I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for welcoming the statement and the Government’s greater transparency. He, like me, has confirmed that he sees Russia as the most critical threat to the UK. He has been a Defence Minister and he understands, as he acknowledges, the importance of sending the strongest possible signals to our adversaries. That is the underlying reason for the decision I have taken to make this statement today.
The shadow Secretary of State argues that our response provides the UK with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership within NATO. I think we have already done that, not by asserting our argument but by our actions: launching and leading through the JEF 10 nations the Nordic Warden response to the attack on EstLink 2 and now by confirming that we will play a leading role in the new NATO deployment in the Baltic, which is linked to the work that we are doing through Nordic Warden.
The shadow Secretary of State asks about the priority for our undersea cables for our homeland infrastructure. These cables are not simply a technical network. They are the infrastructure for the things on which we depend for our daily lives: the operation of the internet; the supply of energy; and communications with other parts of the world. He will therefore have seen and noted in the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, launched by the Prime Minister within two weeks of the Government being elected in July, that defending and reinforcing the homeland defence of Britain is foremost in those terms of reference. We will, as I have said, report on the strategic defence review in the spring.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure.
I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option?
John Healey
I thank the Chair and the members of the Defence Committee not just for the work that they are doing, but for the work that they are willing to do outside this House. I thank them for the visit that they paid to Lossiemouth to see for themselves some of the essential work that our forces personnel and civilians are doing in defending this country. He asks about the Finnish investigation into the EstLink 2 cable damage. That is for the Finns to complete and to confirm the findings of their investigation. It will be at that point that we can draw out and discuss any lessons that there might be for the UK.
We defend more fiercely than perhaps any other nation in the world the freedom of navigation in our seas. Ships of all states may navigate through our territorial waters. They are subject to the right of innocent passage, and so some of the steps that the Chair of the Defence Committee might urge the Government to take are simply not available to us under the United Nations law of the open seas. It is for that reason that we take the steps and actions that I have reported to the House—to make sure that we monitor, we watch and we track, so that those who might enter our waters with malign intent, or try to undertake any malign activity, know that we see them and know that they will face the strongest possible response.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.
The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.
Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.
The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.
To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.
We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive.
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It gives a whole new meaning to “running to the defence”.
John Healey
But Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for the UK contribution to the Baltic Sentry NATO operation. We play a leading role in NATO and we will play a leading role in this operation in the Baltic. It reinforces our allies, and by doing that we reinforce our own defences and strengthen collectively the deterrence that we can, as NATO nations, offer to any future aggression and aggressive intent from President Putin.
The hon. Lady urges us to work hand in glove with allies over the support for Ukraine, which is what we are committed to do. It is why the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last week, when he confirmed the record level of funding for this year to support military aid to Ukraine and when he signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Finally, he made the commitment that I think the hon. Lady is looking for, when he said that, whatever happens next, our job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position both on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That is what I, as Defence Secretary, am determined to do for this country.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Putin and his autocratic friends mistake our freedom and openness for weakness, so may I enthusiastically welcome the strength of the response to the Russian activity? The Secretary of State will be aware of the reports in Newsweek in recent days about patents that have been filed in China for specific cable-cutting technology, presumably for military use by the Chinese. Can he reassure the House that, as well as being active in deterring Putin, the Government are taking a similarly robust stance on any attempts by China to cut the cables?
John Healey
I reassure my hon. Friend that I am aware of what he cites, and of the pace of development of many aspects of Chinese technology and equipment. Much of it may be for civilian use, but I assure him that we, with allies, are keeping a very close eye on what China is developing.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the action that he has taken, and all the work of our servicemen to combat this threat. The Yantar has been a well-known threat for quite a long time, but Russia has also been very capable of using private and commercial vessels to map cables and undermine our security. The reality is that we need more resources in our Royal Navy and other services. What assurance can he give the House that a bid has been put together to ensure that the Treasury properly resources him and our servicemen to do a job that we all depend on?
John Healey
Our UK servicemen and women will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I can give him that assurance. Most importantly, I can give him the commitment that we made to the British people at the election that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that Britain has not spent on defence since 2010.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation?
John Healey
I can indeed. I, too, am intensely proud of everything that is done, designed and developed at the Barrow shipyard. It is central to our UK security, and has been for decades. Like me, she will be proud that the Royal Navy submarine that surfaced close to the Yantar in November, which led to the Yantar heading directly off to the Mediterranean, was built in that Barrow shipyard.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that our Royal Navy and RFA are the best in the world. They need to be equipped with the vessels and crew to do their job and address threats such as those I am grateful to him for articulating. He will know that Portsmouth harbour, which Gosport sits opposite, is home to the six Type 45s that were commissioned without adequate propulsion units. Could he update us on the T-45 power improvement programme? Will it be sufficient for T-45s to be allowed to deploy with the upcoming carrier strike group? More broadly, what is he doing as part of the SDR to ensure that a significant and sufficient proportion of our naval personnel have seagoing liability?
John Healey
I am so pleased that, alongside the Royal Navy, the hon. Lady cites the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which plays an essential part in our maritime defence and operations. I give her that assurance on the Type 45s’ participation in the carrier strike group. If she would like me to write to her in more detail about the progress on the engine upgrade programme, I will happily do so.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for such a strong statement, which makes it clear to Vladimir Putin that this aggression will not be tolerated. Recently, Ministers were kind enough to answer a series of written questions from me on quick reaction alert, subsea cables and defence of the high north, all pointing to additional threats from Russian forces and the need for a strong response. With the strategic defence review well under way, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that it is flexible in dealing with those changing and evolving threats, and that we learn from Ukraine, and from the recent example of the Finnish ship in the Baltic sea?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is one of the strongest voices recognising that the high north will become strategically much more essential. Degrees of conflict and contest are likely to grow there, particularly as climate change leads to the opening up of the northern passage. If he looks at the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, and the work of the review and challenge groups, which have been an essential part of the external leadership of it, he will see that the concerns that he raises are central to the SDR’s work. When it is published, I am sure that he will find evidence that the caution he gives to the House is taken very seriously by the Government.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The activities of the Yantar may be an escalation, but this is not the first instance of such activity; it is almost two years since I first raised concerns about the activities of Russian vessels in the waters around Shetland. Events in Finland at Christmas show that Russia is prepared to go further, and we must show that we are determined to meet any challenge of that sort. This is a strategic threat for the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is particularly acute for our island communities, which rely on cables for digital and energy connectivity, quite apart from the pipelines serving the oil and gas industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to the energy companies and his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and ensure that our island communities are not left as a soft target for the next escalation in this business?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is not the first instance; indeed, the total loss of digital connection that his constituency suffered in 2022 vividly demonstrated the dependency of such communities on this critical infrastructure in their everyday life, and their vulnerability to damage or sabotage. I give him the assurance that he seeks. In the consideration of the strategic defence review, and certainly in its implementation, that is exactly the sort of question and challenge that we will meet.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear statement, and for spelling out why it is so important that we protect these deep-sea cables. Something like 95% of all international data goes through them. They are the backbone of the internet. Given those facts, can he assure us that the protection of that critical infrastructure will be at the forefront of the minds of everybody completing the strategic defence review?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I certainly give him that assurance.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s candour. It is important that the country understands the threats to the nation. It is estimated that the economy would lose tens of millions of pounds per hour if there were a data loss. These cables are strategically central to our national wellbeing. With that in mind, the Government have to explain to the public why we have to keep increasing defence spending, given what the consequences would be if we did not do so. If we move above 2.5% to 3% or 3.5%, it will not be because President Trump is pushing that narrative, as many Presidents have done before him; it will be because that is the strategic requirement of Europe and NATO to head off clear acts of aggression—close to a declaration of hybrid war on NATO. It is vital that the public understand why defence spending is so important at this time.
John Healey
As a leading member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman understands better than most in this House the concerns and perspectives of other NATO nations, and he demonstrates that this morning.
On the question of the commitment to increase defence spending, everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. The commitment that my party made going into the election well predated the result of the US election. It is a commitment that we are determined to honour. If it is the case that everyone agrees defence spending must rise to meet the increasing threats, there is certainly a lead responsibility for Government and Ministers to help explain that to the public, but I would hope that everyone who believes defence spending must rise can and will play a part in conveying that to the public as well.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Although out of sight, our offshore infrastructure is absolutely vital to the smooth running of the economy, and any disruption would have a huge impact on my constituents in North East Derbyshire—it would be truly catastrophic. Can the Secretary of State assure me that we will not take the security of that infrastructure for granted and that we will take the necessary steps to provide that security as part of the SDR?
John Healey
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s voice from landlocked North East Derbyshire recognising the fact that this is not simply a concern of maritime communities or islands, but of the whole country and for all of us in our everyday lives. High up, and with specific focus, the strategic defence review’s terms of reference, point to the need to review and reinforce the defence of our British homeland. Central to that consideration, in the light of our experience in recent months, will be the rising Russian aggression and the increase in such incidents.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his profoundly important statement, which is immensely reassuring, but may I ask about pre-emption? We all know that Russia is no respecter of international law, and an over-zealous and overcautious interpretation of the legal constraints on the UK armed forces could be very destructive. Are the Government refusing to rule out pre-emptive action against a hostile ship threatening critical national infrastructure, albeit if it lies under international waters, and will he agree that an open mind on pre-emption is a stronger deterrent than ruling it out?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman has huge experience in this field, so he will recognise that I simply will not and cannot get into responding to hypotheticals. He urges me not to allow undue constraint of perhaps established practices or rules where there is a good case for flexibility. I hope he will take as a signal of the serious intent that I will bring, with the approach and return of the Yantar to UK waters, my readiness, as I have reported, to alter the permissions that the Royal Navy was using so that, should the captains of the warships that we deployed to watch and track the Yantar require it, they could go closer, see better and determine more carefully what exactly the Yantar was up to. Like the surfacing of the submarine in November, that was a move to deter and discourage the sort of activity that we simply do not want to see in our waters.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia?
John Healey
I hope the content of my statement—the assertion that the most immediate and concerning threat to the UK comes from Russia—and the action I have taken in response to the Russian spy ship, Yantar, being in our waters again, will reassure my hon. Friend that, exactly as he urges and as the shadow Defence Secretary the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has recognised, Russia is a serious menace. In Ukraine, it is fighting the first full-scale war in Europe since the second world war, but as the shadow Defence Secretary said, its aggression particularly in the grey zone—warned about by the heads of the CIA and M16—tells us that this is a regime intent on disruption and on disrupting our way of life. My hon. Friend is right to start by saying that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he simply will not stop in Ukraine.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the actions it details to intervene in Russian activity in the waters around these islands. I also commend the diligence and professionalism of those men and women in uniform in the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the RAF. He said in his statement, though, that the UK will
“continue to lead the way”
on sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, but the UK is not leading the way on sanctions, is it? A Sky News investigation last week found out that the Government have no record of how many investigations they are carrying out into breaches of Russian sanctions. That follows a previous investigation showing that goods, including luxury cars, fossil fuels and items that can be weapons—or whose components can be converted into weaponry—have been flowing between the UK and Russia since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Surely the Secretary of State must be concerned that inaction elsewhere in Whitehall is potentially putting men and women in uniform in the UK’s armed forces at risk from Russia’s malign aggression.
John Healey
I certainly do not share the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. I simply say to him that I made the argument that the UK is leading the way with allies in action to deal with the Russian shadow fleet, and I confirm that we have sanctioned 100 ships—more than any other nation—that compose that loosely networked Russian shadow fleet.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement about Russia’s activities, which are concerning but not surprising. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries. Does he agree that close co-operation with our Nordic allies is important in dealing with this threat?
Building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the broader discussion about transparency and information sharing with the United Kingdom, before Christmas every Swedish household received the pamphlet, “Om krisen eller kriget kommer”, meaning, “In case of crisis or war”. Sweden does that regularly. Is it time for us to look into that?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on chairing the all-party group on Nordic countries in this House. One of the benefits of all Nordic countries now being part of NATO, and of the very close defence and security relationships we have with those countries, is that we can indeed learn from each other. It is not just the new approach taken before Christmas by the Swedish, but the sense that a country is stronger if its society is resilient and if societies recognise they may be under threat and are ready to respond if required. There are certainly some lessons for us in the UK as we consider the future and consider the rising level and complexity of threats we may face in the years ahead.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Last week, alongside other hon. Members and peers in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited the nation’s flagship Prince of Wales aircraft carrier. The commanding officer Captain Will Blackett and his team showed us the ship’s capability, and we witnessed an incredible demonstration of how they can respond. But when we asked about how they would respond to ballistic missiles, or how this place and other institutions are protected from hostile states, it was a terrifying response. I realise the strategic defence review is ongoing and that there is a commitment to get to 2.5%, but with President Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, that is not enough. What plans does the Secretary of State have to go faster and to put our military retention and recruitment on a stronger footing, so that our country and infrastructure are properly protected?
John Healey
Captain Blackett and his crew were delighted that the hon. Lady and other members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme were able to go on board to be briefed and look at what an extraordinary piece of British military kit we have. The strategic defence review is set up to examine exactly the sort of points that she raises. It is designed to look at the threats we may face, the capabilities we may need, the resources available, and, in particular, the accelerated way in which the nature of warfare is changing and the central role of accelerating technology development in the changing natures both of the threat and of the capabilities that we must develop with allies to meet that threat.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, the second greatest threat must be any American decision to turn their back on NATO. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything in his power to convince his new counterparts in the United States Administration of the seriousness of the threat that Russia poses?
John Healey
I do not expect the new Administration to require any coaching on the threats from Russia or other parts of the world. I expect that Administration to be one who take defence and security seriously, and who recognise that a secure, free and openly trading Europe is in America’s very best interests.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships cannot operate in secrecy near UK territory. He will be aware of an occasion just over a year ago when a Russian submarine was chased from the harbour in Cork by the British Navy, because the Irish navy does not have the sonar equipment to detect potential underwater threats. Those threats affect about 97% of the world’s communication and internet traffic. What communication or interaction has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government and the Irish armed forces to strengthen our co-operation with them and ensure that the west coast of these British Isles is protected?
John Healey
We do not and will not comment on specific operational details like that. Needless to say, however, we work very closely with the Irish Government on such matters. Recently, our Chief of the Defence Staff met his counterpart from Ireland.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement and for the actions that he has taken—particularly to change the rules of engagement to allow for the closer inspection of that vessel. However, he does not control all the maritime assets of this country. In December, the Transport Secretary told me that there had been no instances of the UK using its agencies to board and inspect bits of the Russian black and grey fleet. Will he speak to his colleagues across Government to ensure that we use all the arms of government and its agencies to interdict unlicensed, unregistered threats to our security?
John Healey
Where there are grounds for interdiction, the Government collectively will certainly be ready, with the appropriate agency, to take action. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served as a distinguished Defence Minister for some years, that that sort of close co-ordination and collective action is a feature of the national security secretariat that we have at the very heart of our Government. It plays an important role and ensures that we can deal with any such threats or aggressive activity in the most appropriate way.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary, his team and the service personnel involved for their robust response—that is exactly the kind of thing we need when dealing with Russia. He is right when he says that the Russian army in Ukraine has nearly been destroyed, but of course the Russian navy—particularly the northern fleet, which we have to deal with in the UK—is still at strength. He has said a couple of times that Russia is the most pressing and immediate threat to the UK. In the light of those facts, does he still think it is the right decision to send the UK carrier group—which, given the Royal Navy’s size, is most of its deployable force—to the far east for five months this year?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Undersea cables in the modern era are as vital to this country as the merchant navy convoys were in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942, and they are equally vulnerable. Taking shape on the banks of the Clyde at the moment are the state-of-the-art Type 26 frigates, which have mission bays on board. The right hon. Gentleman is fleet of foot—as we have heard, he won a foot race today—but we are in an underwater arms race. Will he do all he can to ensure that, when those ships take to sea, their mission bays bristle with the necessary underwater equipment to take on that threat?
John Healey
Those bays are designed to be interchangeable, and they will do exactly that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is clear that Putin is testing the west’s resolve. I welcome the rigour of the statement. The threat to our underground cables is an international issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Nations response has been disappointing, and that its convention on the law of the sea is wholly inadequate to deal with such subversion and, indeed, is out of date? What steps are being taken internationally to get concerted action to protect the undersea cables on which every nation depends?
John Healey
I think the problem is less with the basic rules of the sea and more with observance by states that wilfully test the limits or contravene them. That is why the actions that I have reported to the House, in the instance of the Yantar in British waters, are exactly the sort of steps that nations such as the UK will continue to take, working with allies—particularly close NATO allies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about the strength of his words on what it means for us in the United Kingdom to stand firm. We thank him for that determination and his strong voice, which we in this Chamber all support. When the naval crew of HMS Somerset were called back to their ship on Christmas day, the message was clear: the Russians do not take a holiday, but neither do our Royal Navy crews. Russia’s perpetual activity in pressing towards our boundaries outlines the need for the complete preparedness of our Navy. Will the Secretary of State outline whether greater support is needed to ensure that our Navy is at full strength, given that our service fleet is now smaller than those of France and Italy?
John Healey
We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.
Defence
John Healey Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Security Council—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.
[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 588.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey):
John Healey
I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Secretary-General—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.
Contingency Fund Advance: Annington Homes
John Healey Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Further to my statement HCWS323 on 17 December 2024 on developments in military housing, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has a new cash requirement to fund the transaction to purchase 36,347 properties from Annington Property Ltd.
The deal represents a decisive break with the failed approach of the past and reverses a privatisation that currently costs the MOD £230 million a year in rent. It offers excellent value for money, as well as opening up the “once in a generation” opportunity for a new military housing strategy which will provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to wider Government objectives on house building and growth.
The agreed purchase price is nearly £6 billion but eliminating the liabilities associated with the leases creates budgetary headroom to partially fund this purchase, meaning that the public expenditure impact of this measure, and the impact on public sector net debt, is confined to £1.7 billion. The ONS has agreed this fiscal impact approach. Funding for the deal is being provided by HMT. The Treasury scored additional funding to the reserve at autumn Budget for this purpose.
Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £1,698,300,000 for this new expenditure and additional cash of £4,296,200,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the MOD. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £5,994,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
This is funding for a one-off financial transaction, and therefore does not reflect the MOD’s cash management position.
[HCWS350]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This is day 1,049 of Russia’s brutal, illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and 2025 will be the critical year in the conflict. My job as Defence Secretary is to put Ukrainians in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table, so throughout 2025, we will develop UK training, strengthen defence industrial co-operation, increase pressure with allies on Russia, and step up and speed up military aid to Ukraine.
Harpreet Uppal
I welcome the recent announcement of £225 million in new military assistance to Ukraine. Alongside that, we must continue to step up our efforts to pressure Russia. Following the reported damage to a major undersea cable in the Baltic over Christmas, which Finnish authorities suggest may be linked to a shadow fleet vessel, what further actions is the UK taking alongside European allies to undermine the Russian shadow fleet?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right in general terms: Russian aggression is not simply confined to Ukraine, and we all saw what happened on Christmas day. We are deeply concerned about the damage and sabotage to undersea cables. I can confirm to the House that for the first time the joint expeditionary force—the JEF—has activated an advanced UK-led reaction system to track potential threats to undersea infrastructure and to monitor the movements of the Russian shadow fleet. That will be run out of the standing joint force headquarters at Northwood.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State said that his aim is to ensure that Ukraine is in the “strongest possible position”, but for what? Does he intend to support Ukraine in commanding her internationally recognised borders or to ensure that the de facto border, which excludes Donbas and Crimea, becomes a more permanent feature?
John Healey
Quite simply, our job as the UK is to support Ukraine in its fight and, if and when it decides to talk, to support it in any negotiations. It is the Ukrainians who are fighting; it is the Ukrainians who decide when to start talking; and it is for the Ukrainians to decide on what terms they may start talking.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The AUKUS partnership will create new contract opportunities for hundreds of small and medium-sized firms. It will create 7,000 new jobs both in UK shipyards and across the UK supply chain.
Mr Holden
As the Secretary of State knows, under the defence equipment plan about half of MOD expenditure is on equipment, with around 40% of that going overseas. What impact does the Secretary of State think that the Government’s abolition of business property relief and the massive increase in national insurance will have on UK SMEs’ ability to compete in the defence sector with our AUKUS allies following the previous Government’s signing of that agreement?
John Healey
It is certainly the case, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, that in government the Conservatives were too often largely blind to where British firms were based and to where the contracts that they were ready to award went. This Government have come into power committed not just to strengthening UK security but to boosting the UK economy. That means designing, making and buying more in Britain.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government are delivering for defence by increasing defence spending. There is already £3 billion extra for next year, and a commitment to setting a path to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.
Patrick Spencer
It is all very well spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we have to spend it on the right kit. Over the weekend I noted a story about our NATO allies being frustrated with Britain for not investing in appropriate missile defence systems. As the Secretary of State meets his 2.5% commitment, will he commit to investing in surface-to-air missiles, precision and hypersonic missile systems, DragonFire laser systems and counter-drone blocking technology to ensure that the British Army is the most advanced and able in the western world?
John Healey
The UK has for many years been one of the highest spenders on defence in NATO. We continue to hold that proud record. Increasing spending this year will mean that Britain continues to be one of the highest spenders in NATO. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under the previous Labour Government—a level of defence spending that was not matched once during the 14 years in which his party was in government.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On defence spending, I am glad that UK-based defence firms will be prioritised for Government investment under the defence industrial strategy, which should boost British jobs in constituencies such as Slough and help to strengthen national security, but major defence programmes are currently in disarray, with only two out of 49 on time and on budget. What actions are the Government taking to fix the waste and mismanagement in the system?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Everyone agrees that more needs to be spent on defence to meet the increasing threats. He asks why only two out of 49 of the major defence projects are on time and on budget. That question may best be directed at the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was responsible for exactly that up until the election six months ago. There is of course a question about how much we spend, but there is also a challenge in how well we spend it. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was one of the strongest critics of the previous Government and of what he described as the “broken” procurement system. We are getting a grip of MOD budgets, driving deep reform in defence and ensuring that we reduce the waste and delay in procurement contracts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on receiving a distinguished service order—we are all proud of him.
The Government have tied the announcement of their timetable for 2.5% to the publication of the strategic defence review, so we need it to be published as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify why he has pushed back the SDR’s publication in Parliament from the spring to the summer?
John Healey
I have not done that. The work of the reviewers leading the strategic defence review is thorough and flat out. The review has been widely contributed to and is the first of its kind in this country, allowing fresh thinking in defence planning. On the 2.5% commitment, as we said in the plan for change, we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. The Government are delivering on defence and defence reform; we will deliver on defence funding, too.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State says that publication has not been pushed back, but I remind the House that at the previous Defence questions on 18 November last year, the Secretary of State was asked specifically about SDR timing and said:
“The reviewers will report in the spring.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 4.]
However, in a written answer to me on 17 December—just before the House rose—a Defence Minister said:
“The Reviewers will make their final report to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Defence Secretary in the first half of 2025. The Secretary of State for Defence will subsequently report the Strategic Defence Review to Parliament.”
If the first part is in the first six months of the year, even I can see that the second part, which is subsequent to that, will happen in the second half of the year. That is not the spring, is it?
John Healey
We are dancing on the head of a pin here—the spring is in the first half of the year. I think the hon. Gentleman should take my words to this House and to him, which have been consistent that the strategic defence review will report in the spring. It will report directly to the Prime Minister, to the Chancellor and to me, and I will update the House directly. We will also set out our clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On this first day after the recess, I thank all armed forces personnel who worked over Christmas, including the nearly 10,000 personnel deployed overseas, and the crew of HMS Somerset, who were recalled on Christmas day to shadow Russian vessels around our shores. I also congratulate the many exceptional servicemen and women and veterans recognised in the new year’s honours list for their outstanding contributions, including the Minister for Veterans and People. My new year’s message to everyone working across defence is that this Government will continue delivering for defence throughout 2025, making the UK secure at home and strong abroad, stepping up support for Ukraine, boosting the UK defence industry, strengthening ties with allies and improving service life for armed forces personnel and their families.
Rebecca Smith
We have long-standing, cross-party support in Plymouth and Devon for ensuring the future of the Royal Marines, including 42 Commando in my constituency. Given the amphibious assault capability gap that we have as a result of scrapping—or, should I say, retiring—Devonport ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, what commitment can the Secretary of State give that the green light will be given to building six multi-role support ships, and can he give a firm indication of when he hopes they will be in service?
John Healey
HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion were not genuine capabilities. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry made that clear. Neither ship was set to put to sea again before their out-of-service date. This decision allows us to focus resources on where they need to be: on the capabilities that we need to support our Marines and deal with our adversaries.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?
John Healey
I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Security Council—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.
James Cartlidge
My apologies. I am, like you are Mr Speaker, very passionate on this subject. We see this as a terrible deal. That is why we would have never signed it. The incoming US President opposes the deal, the Mauritians are seeking to renegotiate it, and by any measure it is terrible value for money for the over-taxed British public. Does the Secretary of State really think that it is in our national interest to spend hundreds of millions of pounds leasing back a military base that we currently own, instead of spending every penny of that money on our armed forces in the UK?
John Healey
The agreement means that the base will be undisputed and legally secure for the first time in 50 years. The US Defence Secretary described it as an “historic agreement” and said:
“it will safeguard the strategic security interests of our two nations and our partners in the Indo-Pacific region”.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a long-standing, deep-running weakness, namely a procurement policy under the last Government that did not recognise the UK steel industry as a strategic industry and was content for the amount of UK steel sourced for some new ships to be in the single figures. [Interruption.] Under previous procurement Ministers, the proportion was 4%. We will change that: the SDR will set out a plan to not just boost UK security, but strengthen the UK economy.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Given the Secretary of State for Defence’s previous remarks, can he set out for the House exactly what discussions there have been between Ministers and the incoming Trump Administration on the future of the Diego Garcia base?
John Healey
As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the system in the US is very different from ours. The Administration who are in place at present are in place until inauguration day on 20 January. That will be the point at which we in the UK Government will start to pick up direct discussions with the incoming Administration. The US is our closest security ally, and we will work with them to ensure that that continues.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Since Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, our European Union allies have contributed €47.3 billion in funding to the Ukrainian military. One of those integral allies is Poland, which has just assumed the presidency of the EU Council, having started on 1 January. Will the Minister set out in a little more detail how we are working in lockstep with crucial allies like Poland at this dangerous time for the continent?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It sounds like the Government are not very keen to talk about Diego Garcia with President Trump, but when people as diverse as President Trump and Lord Neil Kinnock agree that NATO countries should be spending between 3% and 4% on defence, would it not be sensible to take them seriously?
John Healey
On Diego Garcia, Members will have the chance to scrutinise the detail of any treaty once it comes before the House. Just as the previous Government did, we made sure throughout the negotiations that the US Administration were fully informed, fully briefed and fully content with the steps that we were taking.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The procurement of Ajax wasted hundreds of millions of pounds—money desperately needed in my North East Derbyshire constituency. Can the Minister update me on the progress made in learning the lessons of that failure and implementing the findings of the Sheldon report?
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The cost of the 10-year equipment plan for the Defence Nuclear Organisation stood at £44 billion in 2019. In 2022, it went up by 27% to £60 billion, and in 2024 it inflated by 62% to £99.5 billion. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the MOD has not lost the run of itself on this worst-of-all defence procurement debacles? What personal commitment can he give the House that he has the foggiest idea what to do about it?
John Healey
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I can also tell him that this is a national enterprise of the utmost importance that maintains the underpinning security for this nation, as it has done over decades, and that the management of our nuclear enterprise and the budget controls are in place and stronger than they have been for years.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The naval base at Faslane and companies such as BAE Systems support thousands of jobs in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that we need to grow an integrated, innovative and resilient defence sector that will address problems such as skills shortages and the need for strategic long-term partnerships?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When the Secretary of State appeared at the Defence Committee recently, he was sitting alongside his permanent secretary when the permanent secretary announced that it was his aspiration to reduce the number of MOD civil servants by 10% within this Parliament. Does the Secretary of State recognise and welcome that aspiration?
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
As a great supporter of the British-American alliance, I am disappointed to have to ask this question, but, given some of the recent tweets from people associated with the incoming US Administration, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the UK’s exposure of our defence capabilities, given that there may be some changes in the White House?
John Healey
The US is the closest ally of this country, and this country is the closest security ally of the US. That has been for case the decades—it has withstood the ups and downs of the political cycle on both sides of the Atlantic—and we as a Government will work closely with the incoming US Administration.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Defence spend with Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises last year accounted for only £3 million. What will the Secretary of State and the Minister do to proactively increase that spend with Northern Ireland SMEs?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Following the Christmas day attack on Finnish sea cables, what assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the threat to British interconnectors? Which individual Minister is ultimately responsible for their security?
John Healey
The Finnish investigation into what caused the damage to the Estlink 2 cable is continuing, but many analysts conclude that it is likely that the Eagle S was the cause. That reinforces the case for Operation Nordic Warden, which I confirmed to the House in response to an earlier question. It is being run from the Northwood standing joint forces headquarters and will cover a number of areas of interest, including areas where we have British undersea cables.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I recently visited HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth in my constituency, a former Royal Navy submarine now being safely and securely dismantled and recycled by Babcock, as a pilot project of the submarine dismantling programme. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme, which could secure hundreds of jobs in Dunfermline and Dollar by dealing with similar submarines at Rosyth over the coming decades?
Afghan Resettlement
John Healey Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Last month, people came together all over the United Kingdom, to honour all the members of our armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our security and freedoms. In this significant year of remembrance anniversaries, the Remembrance Sunday service at the Cenotaph was also notable for an historic first. This year was the first time our veterans of the Afghanistan campaign marched past the Cenotaph together as a distinct unit; a solemn acknowledgement of the sacrifice and bravery of their colleagues during the operation, and in the rebuilding process which followed. Tragically, 454 of their colleagues did not have the option of joining them. I pay tribute to the commitment and courage of all those who served our country in Afghanistan.
Alongside British personnel, many Afghans also worked with commitment and courage to support the UK mission in Afghanistan. This includes members of Afghan specialist units, commonly known as the Triples, who fought valiantly alongside UK personnel, with some giving their lives and others suffering life-changing injuries. As set out by the Government in October, key issues have been identified and resolved through the Triples review, with eligible former Triples and their families being invited to relocate to the UK. We are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25% on a cohort of applications that were previously considered ineligible.
This Government are fully committed to delivering on the pledge made by Parliament to those in Afghanistan who are eligible to relocate and resettle, and we continue to welcome eligible Afghans and their families to the UK through our Afghan resettlement schemes. We would like to express our gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for their co-operation as we have done this.
Whilst we recognise that resettlement is a complicated endeavour, we believe there is room for improvement in how we deliver for eligible Afghans and the communities in which they are being resettled, and ensure value for money for the taxpayer. At present, arrivals through different schemes are subject to differing and complex funding and support offers. This is why we are fixing the foundations of a complicated system and drawing together a single pipeline for Afghan resettlement, to deliver greater efficiency and better outcomes across Government.
By reforming our internal organisation across Government, we will bring to bear the collective expertise within the Home Office, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence and ensure the best possible outcomes at each stage of the resettlement journey. It is only by empowering the Departments to play to their strengths that we will ensure optimal services and value for money are provided overall.
The best resettlement delivers successful integration and supports arrivals to rebuild their lives in their new home. That is why, from the spring, we will be limiting the time that arrivals spend in transitional accommodation to nine months. Transitional accommodation—provided by the Ministry of Defence—will continue to be a mixture of serviced accommodation, and hotels, alongside reduced use of the defence estate. It is a vital part of our support offer to Afghan arrivals, allowing them to orient themselves and set themselves up for success for their new lives in the UK.
All Afghan arrivals will be supported to source their own settled accommodation through the find-your-own accommodation (FYO) pathway. In recognition of the pressures on housing supply and the unique challenges facing this cohort, the Government commit to continuing to fund and support a pipeline of settled housing to support around half these arrivals, who are the hardest to house. This will be through additional capital funding, community sponsorship and some service family accommodation. This will ensure that there is a pipeline of settled accommodation to support delivery of the Afghan resettlement programme.
Local authority and devolved Government colleagues are essential to make this vision a reality. Building on ongoing engagement, we will be meeting with representatives of local government and strategic migration partnerships early in the new year to embark on a specific process of co-design and delivery of immediate programme developments. It is their experience of resettlement and their continued calls for simplification which have informed this programme, and we look forward to working closely with them in its development.
We want to thank local authorities and communities for their continued support of this endeavour, which has been instrumental to both the successful operation of our transitional accommodation sites and for supporting moves into settled accommodation. In order for them to continue to deliver this vital work, we will continue to robustly test planning assumptions.
Over the past 12 months, we have welcomed around 90 eligible families each month and we expect this pace to continue. This cannot, however, be an endless process and ultimately, the Government intend to reach a position where the UK Afghan resettlement schemes can be closed. We will update the House on this accordingly.
We are grateful for the cross-Government commitment and approach to delivery on this important programme and will provide further updates in the new year. We will continue to work to deliver on our commitment to resettle those eligible Afghans who have supported the UK, and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.
[HCWS335]
Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2024
John Healey Excerpts(1 month 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 Parliament the 13th armed forces annual covenant report. The 2024 report covers October 2023 to September 2024, and showcases the work that has been achieved throughout the UK in support of our armed forces community.
Thank you to all my colleagues for their Department’s contributions and continued support to strengthen the armed forces covenant.
[HCWS338]
Developments in Military Housing
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am pleased to confirm that today, the Ministry of Defence and Annington Property Ltd have formally agreed that the MOD will reacquire the 36,000 service family estate homes sold to Annington in 1996.
This agreement reverses one of the most notorious privatisations of the 1990s, with the balance of risk and reward skewed heavily against the public sector. The billions of pounds spent by the MOD on renting back these properties since 1996 could have been better spent on maintaining, improving or rebuilding service family homes.
Estimates suggest the 1996 deal has left the British taxpayer nearly £8 billion worse off—money that could have been used to deliver homes fit for our heroes. In addition to the billions of pounds paid in rent, billions of pounds-worth of empty properties have also been handed over to Annington Ltd.
The new deal is a decisive break with the failed approach of the past, which will save the public purse £230 million a year in rental costs—more than £600,000 a day. These important savings to defence pave the way for a substantial improvement and construction programme to provide high-quality homes for armed forces families. The deep-set problems with military housing will not be fixed overnight, but this is a major step forward and a demonstration of our Government’s intent.
This deal forms part of our growth mission to secure jobs, economic prosperity and house-building across the UK, and our commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve—boosting morale, retention and recruitment across the armed forces.
The opportunity for this landmark deal was presented following a High Court ruling in MOD’s favour. This established MOD’s legal rights to repurchase the houses from Annington, providing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix the long-term decline in military housing and deliver homes fit for heroes.
The deal also represents excellent value for money. We are buying the estate for £6 billion, yet the properties are valued at £10.1 billion by Annington when not subject to leases. However, eliminating the liabilities associated with the leases creates budgetary headroom to partially fund this purchase, meaning that the public expenditure impact of this measure, and the impact on public sector net debt, is confined to £1.7 billion.
By contrast, failing to take advantage of this opportunity would have meant rising rental and maintenance costs on properties that, in many cases, have reached the end of their useful lives.
The taxpayer would have faced a further £5.9 billion costs over the next 10 years through ever-increasing rents. Homes with a value of £1.3 billion would also have been returned to a private company.
Problems with the existing deal were recognised by the last Government, in particular by the right hon. Member for Horsham at the time, Jeremy Quin, who had oversight of the initial core legal challenges. This Government have accelerated this work in recent months across the Ministry of Defence, UK Government Investments and His Majesty’s Treasury. We pay tribute to all those who have worked tirelessly to complete this deal.
This announcement comes as the Government start work on a new military housing strategy, to be published next year. The first steps in the strategy will include the rapid development of an action plan to deliver on the “once in a generation” opportunities unlocked by today’s deal. This work will involve independent experts, forces families and cross-Government input.
The strategy will help to deliver a generational renewal of military housing, new opportunities for forces homeownership, and better use of MOD land to support the delivery of affordable homes for families across Britain.
Our armed forces make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. Theirs is the ultimate public service. By ensuring that our personnel and their families have the homes they deserve, this work will support the Government’s plan for change, which is built on the foundation of strong national security, and it will help achieve the Government’s milestones on kick-starting economic growth and boosting house-building across the country.
Today’s announcement demonstrates how our Government are delivering for defence. This is a major step forward towards delivering military housing fit for our heroes.
[HCWS323]
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.
In July last year, Lord Etherton’s report on LGBT veterans shone a much needed light on a dark period in Britain’s military history: an era between 1967 and 2000 when LGBT people were banned from serving in our armed forces; an era when homophobic bullying, harassment and abuse were widespread; an era when LGBT personnel were demoted, dismissed, or driven out of the forces because of their sexuality. The testimony of those who gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review and who have courageously campaigned for justice are truly harrowing. The very values of a tolerant western democracy that we expected those forces personnel to defend were denied to them. It was profoundly wrong. I have been determined as Defence Secretary that we will continue the work of the previous Government to deal with the injustices suffered by so many LGBT personnel.
I am grateful to Lord Etherton for his work and for his report. I am grateful also for the support of Fighting With Pride and the coalition of more than 20 charities that back its work. I am grateful to them for providing the Government with invaluable guidance and advice on a range of restorative actions, some of which I am able to announce today. I am also grateful for the very small team of officials who have worked from the outset within the MOD on this area. I am grateful, too, for how Members from all parts of the House have come together to recognise the injustice and to support the actions that first the previous Government and now this one are willing to take.
This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill in 2001. We welcomed the Etherton review’s recommendations and publication. In opposition, we called on the previous Government to deliver on the previous Defence Secretary’s pledge for a debate in this House to, as he said,
“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]
Today, this Government delivers on that commitment, and it is an honour for me as Defence Secretary to open the debate.
In doing so, I will update the House on the actions we are taking as a new Government to right the historic wrongs to LGBT veterans. First, among the remaining recommendations made by Etherton, I can announce today that we are establishing a financial recognition scheme. When that scheme goes live tomorrow, it will mean that almost all of the 49 recommendations made by Lord Etherton will have been delivered. Recommendations 28 and 29 in his report specifically refer to financial award —a tangible payment—to reflect Government accountability and our determination to recognise these historic failings.
I am pleased to announce today that we are launching an LGBT financial recognition scheme, with a total budget of £75 million. That is 50% higher than the level recommended in the Etherton review and the cap set by the last Government. This financial recognition scheme will open tomorrow, one year to the day since the previous Government responded to Lord Etherton’s report.
The scheme provides two types of payment to recognise the discrimination and detriment suffered by LGBT personnel under the ban. The first is for those who were dismissed or discharged. It will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers instructed to resign because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or their gender identity under the ban. The payment will be at a flat rate of £50,000. The second is for those who were impacted in other ways. This LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced pain and suffering under the ban, including harassment, intrusive investigations and in some cases imprisonment. The impact payment will be assessed by an independent panel, with tariffs ranging between £1,000 and £20,000 to make the awards fair and proportionate to each individual. The two payments will run concurrently as part of a single financial recognition scheme. We have also set aside funding from the MOD to support those charities that can advise applicants on the schemes.
As a result of the additional funding we have allocated, payments can reach up to a maximum of £70,000 for those who were most impacted and most hurt and who qualify for both awards. The scheme will remain open for two years, and applications for payments from the scheme from terminally ill veterans will be prioritised. All payments, from both schemes, will be exempt from income tax and will not affect benefits that applicants may receive. The scheme will open tomorrow morning, and fuller details will be online at that point. I hope that our decision to listen to the views expressed on the last Government’s plans, to uplift the value of this scheme and to deliver it within one year of the recommendations being accepted demonstrate our profound regret and our determination to do right by our LGBT personnel.
Today, I can make three additional important restorative announcements. First, those who were administratively discharged based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation will be able to apply to get their records set straight. As a result, the ban will be shown as the reason for their discharge, finally removing any blame or dishonour on their record for those who have served. Secondly, we will restore the ranks of veterans who had them reduced as a result of the ban, ensuring that they regain the rank they rightfully earned in service. Thirdly, while not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review, which covered the ban between 1967 and 2000, we also want to acknowledge any LGBT veterans who served before 1967 and who may have suffered under the ban. We are taking further action to recognise their service and contribution. As a result, these veterans can now apply to have their administrative discharges qualified, their rank restored if it had been reduced, and their certificates of service reissued. Former officers may also apply to have their service details published in the Gazette as part of the official record.
Working on these restorative measures and meeting affected veterans have not been easy, but they have shown me how much progress our modern armed forces are making. There has been a change in culture and a change in prevailing attitudes, and Britain’s military today is more inclusive and more tolerant than in the past. Each of the services has held presentation ceremonies to welcome LGBT veterans back into the family, where they have always belonged. While there has been change, and there has been progress, there is no place for prejudice in the modern armed forces. We still have more to do to reinforce zero tolerance of any discrimination or abuse anywhere in defence.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have a constituent who was not a member of the armed forces, but a member of the secret service. He lost his job in the 1980s because he was gay. There is no compensation for him at the moment. I suspect it may not be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that there should be parity of treatment across the forces? We rely on our secret service as much as we do our armed forces. Surely what is fair for them should be fair for those who have given their time and risked their lives in the service of our country.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend makes the powerful point that this discrimination, harassment and abuse—systematic in some cases—is not and was not confined in the past to the military. That concern has been raised by civilians at times within the wider defence field. I and Ministers in this team are as concerned about it there as in the military, but I think she will appreciate that we ask those who put on a uniform for our country to take on a special role, to step forward and to be willing to give their lives to defend the rest of us. When those basic values that they fight for and that our country stands for are denied to them as part of their service, that is a deep injustice, and Lord Etherton’s report gives us the basis for recognition and restoration. That is the focus of my concern in this debate.
In September, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and I were proud to present the first Etherton ribbons to veterans, as a way of acknowledging the mistreatment of those affected by the ban.The Government are delivering for defence and delivering for LGBT veterans.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am intervening on my right hon. Friend because I have to chair Westminster Hall in an hour, so I cannot take part in the debate.
My constituent not only lost his career in the Royal Air Force but was subjected to abuse when he was arrested, including constant internal examinations. He was beaten, he was kicked and he was spat at. He was marched across the parade ground to his billet, where his personal belongings were gone through. He was humiliated. Was that sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence at the time? Was it sanctioned by senior officers, or were those individuals working on their own? They acted like sadistic animals towards my constituent. Something needs to be done to investigate that.
John Healey
My hon. Friend has been one of the most consistent and forceful voices on this historic abuse and demands for the Government now to provide some justice. He has raised that case in this House before. I do not know whether his constituent gave evidence to the Etherton review. If he did, he would have been one of over 1,100 individual LGBT veterans who served and had stories to report to Etherton, often of the sort of abuse that my hon. Friend talked about. It was based on that experience that Etherton made his recommendations. It was based on those recommendations that we make these announcements today. It is from tomorrow that we will open the scheme to start assessing and then making payments that recognise that injustice.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making a really passionate speech. My constituent Ed Hall, who is in the Gallery, was one of the founding members of the legal campaign to lift the ban. Ed was sacked from the Royal Navy for being gay in 1988 and founded the first legal challenge group in 1994. When I met him, he spoke about people who had been investigated, about humiliation and stigma, and about people who were sacked. Many were made homeless simply because of who they loved and their sexuality. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending my constituent Ed Hall for his tireless work? It has helped to deliver justice today for so many LGBT+ veterans, and which is, as Ed has said,
“A close to the shameful chapter in recent British military history”.
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a moving and powerful intervention. Although courageous, relentless, energetic groups such as Fighting With Pride have in many ways led the charge, that was opened up by the stance of courageous individuals such as her constituent who had suffered but were prepared to speak out about their experience, which gave voice to the experience of many more.
The whole history of social change and progress in our country is based on brave individuals who at the outset will not stand for injustice, will not stand for that sort of harassment and will speak out. They start the movement that can bring pressure on Governments and others to change. The case that she cites stands for a number of LGBT veterans: people who served this country and were not served well by our military at that time. I hope that her constituent and her constituent’s family will welcome the announcement, and I hope that they will be able to take advantage of the schemes that we will open up tomorrow.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I welcome the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State’s speech. I wonder if he could assist the House in setting out the steps that the Government intend to take to ensure the reliability of gathering data about the size of the cohort who are affected and may be eligible for the compensation scheme.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The shadow Defence Secretary will know—he and his colleagues started this work before the election—that one of, I would argue, the strengths of the announcement and the scheme we are able to put in place today is the close work we have done with veterans’ groups and Fighting With Pride, as well as with historians and those with access to records, to make our best assessment of the number of veterans who may be affected and may be eligible, and may therefore want to take advantage of these financial recognition schemes. We have set the budgets for the schemes and set the levels of award in the light of them. We will see how that goes.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, and in particular the additional funds found to support charities who will help LGBT veterans with their applications. One of my constituents wrote to me with a most harrowing story about how his career in the armed forces ended with an investigation by the Royal Military Police. He said that every aspect of his life had been greatly affected since the initial investigation, with his housing, employment, health and family life all having suffered as a result of the ban, which was ruled illegal in 1999. Will my right hon. Friend outline when eligible LGBT veterans impacted by the ban can expect to receive their financial recognition?
John Healey
They can expect to be able to get the full details from 9 o’clock tomorrow. They can expect to be able to complete the details and respond to the information required from tomorrow. I am conscious that, for many of these veterans, time is ticking, and I am determined that the scheme will not take long to make its proper decisions. Therefore, soon into the new year, LGBT veterans who are confirmed as eligible should expect payment.
I look forward, by the way, to the large number of contributions that there will be in the debate. As I wind up, I want to emphasise two or three points. This is a Government delivering for defence. This is a Government delivering for LGBT veterans. On behalf of the Government, I want to apologise without reservation for the pain and injustice caused during this dark chapter of our armed forces’ history. The treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It is shameful that those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country were treated in such callous and unjust ways.
Our Government will now right those wrongs of the past. That is why we are providing financial recognition to veterans. It is why we are making sure that payments will be fair, proportionate and prompt, and it is why we are delivering on the remaining recommendations of the Etherton report. We will learn the lessons from that report. We will never forget the pain and trauma that LGBT veterans were subjected to between 1967 and 2000. We will root out any remaining prejudice and abuse wherever it rears its head in the forces and we will look to build a more diverse, stronger military that better reflects the society that it serves and protects; a military in which everyone can serve without fearing injustice or discrimination. That is the one nation mission that the Government are committed to: a modern, representative, unified armed forces, proud to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Defence Industrial Development
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today I am announcing plans to develop a new defence industrial strategy that will be published in late spring 2025. I have published a statement of intent setting out the focus of the strategy and invitation to consultation on gov.uk.
The UK faces acute and growing threats to our national security: Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the threat of escalation against NATO allies; conflict in the middle east; tensions in the Indo-Pacific region; and rising geopolitical instability.
The deteriorating security environment means we need a new era for defence: to restock our armed forces for today and the future; enact a deep reform of Ministry of Defence procurement; add urgency and co-ordination to our efforts to support Ukraine; and develop a new defence industrial strategy that is aligned to the Government’s growth mission, creates new partnerships with industry, innovators and allies, and is matched to the urgency of the situation.
The Government’s primary mission is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7—with good jobs and productivity growth in every region and nation in the UK. Defence has a significant role to play, and the Government have confirmed defence as one of the eight priority growth sectors in its new industrial strategy.
Our aim is to produce a better, more integrated, more innovative and more resilient defence sector: a defence industry that can innovate at speed to help Ukraine defeat Russia; with the resilience to deter aggression by our adversaries; able to seize the opportunity presented by the technologies of the future, while growing our share of today’s market through a new focus on exports.
The statement of intent published on gov.uk outlines the proposed framework we will adopt and provides an early signal of our approach. It also sets out the priorities for this strategy which will inform extensive consultation with the defence sector.
I invite all stakeholders to respond to this statement of intent and consultation questions, either publicly or privately, by end of February 2025.
[HCWS273]
Defence Programmes Developments
John Healey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.
I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.
This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.
We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.
However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.
First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.
Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.
Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,
“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.
Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.
These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.
Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.
Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.
I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.
John Healey
That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.
I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.
The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.
However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?
John Healey
As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
John Healey
My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I am sure they would say that these are entirely the right decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I can confidently take them now, because we need to create the scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review reports.
We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government. The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old. This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new, much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other purposes.
Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon. Gentleman’s nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive payment.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?
John Healey
The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no, which is precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight, deter and defend this country.
I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful delegation visit to Montreal later this week.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.
Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD’s arm in future discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always with the Treasury.
I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review, it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now, and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and a proper debate”?
John Healey
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his advice. On the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that we should expect that in the spring.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?
John Healey
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, and the reminder to this House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra staff. I have also scrapped the Tories’ £40 million VIP helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women, which we can now do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and 10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces, just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?
John Healey
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9 million a year that would have been spent under the previous plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on the future of our forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to increasing threats?
John Healey
I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?
John Healey
The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.
With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?
On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, America’s airfields and dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies. We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his clearing out.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument that the UK’s alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought and was different from that of some other countries. I have made it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of service has not yet been settled.
On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first, that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence review.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the decisions outlined in today’s statement will fix the foundations of our nation’s defence, spend every penny he has wisely and keep our nation safer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army after four years’ service, which I have been able to announce this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer and more productive career in our armed forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.
Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?
John Healey
It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?
John Healey
One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he, and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before a replacement can be provided?
John Healey
Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?
John Healey
I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in the end. What message will be received from this statement in Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?
John Healey
The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in future.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I very much welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about cuts, when the previous Government’s biggest cut was to our armed forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars. In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future if they serve?
John Healey
The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career: a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut defence by £2 billion.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—now that the Secretary of State’s Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in any way at all?
John Healey
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in this very job, I will take that as an early representation on the future decisions I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is decommissioned.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform. One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment, which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. Will he commit to also reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces? Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence, but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment, I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our national security.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
With close social and economic ties between communities on both sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the future?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
John Healey
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?
John Healey
My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. It is really good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by today’s decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to that 2.5% target. Given that this today’s final question, will he take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at home and strong abroad?
John Healey
My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly what this Government are determined to do.