NATO: Eastern Sentry
John Healey Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On 10 September, Polish air space was recklessly violated by a number of Russian uncrewed aerial systems, in the most significant violation of NATO airspace by Russia since the start of Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Poland requested consultations at NATO under article 4 of the Washington treaty. The UK, alongside our allies, stands in full solidarity with Poland and denounces Russia’s reckless behaviour.
In response, I announced after the E5 defence ministerial meeting in London last week that I had asked our UK armed forces to look at options to bolster NATO’s air defence over Poland.
On 12 September, the NATO Secretary-General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe announced NATO was launching Eastern Sentry to bolster NATO’s posture further along its eastern flank.
Within days, the United Kingdom will deploy RAF Typhoon fighter jets to support NATO’s response to Eastern Sentry, reinforcing the alliance’s air defences on its eastern flank, and supported by RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Operating from the UK, RAF Typhoons will conduct air defence missions over Poland, operating alongside allied forces, from Denmark, France, and Germany, to ensure the security of allied territory and deter further aggression. This activity will involve hundreds of UK personnel and I am, as always, grateful for the hard work and dedication of our armed forces for their work 24/7 to keep the UK and our allies safe.
The UK’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. UK armed forces play a vital role in NATO’s defence, from the permanent British Army presence in Estonia as part of NATO’s Forward Land Forces to the RAF’s rotational air policing missions in eastern Europe. Over the past 18 months, RAF Typhoons have been deployed to Poland and Romania to protect NATO airspace. This deployment underscores the UK’s commitment to NATO and the security of Europe. The Government remain resolute in their duty to protect the UK and our NATO allies.
[HCWS931]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am sure that the House will want to offer its sympathies to His Majesty and the royal family on the passing of the Duchess of Kent.
The world is more dangerous and less predictable that ever, and as a result we need a strong British defence industry that is capable of innovating ahead of our adversaries. Our defence industrial strategy, launched later today, will meet that challenge. It will create jobs, grow skills, and drive innovation. It will make defence an engine for growth in every region and nation of the UK, and it will put Britain at the leading edge of innovation within NATO.
Dr Gardner
The growing advanced ceramics industry in north Staffordshire is a key creator of the unique advanced ceramic materials that are required for His Majesty’s fighting capability, including unique armour materials for defence, ultra high-speed munitions, and the detection and security of our communications. There is a time-based opportunity to create a sovereign capability for the development and supply of ceramic matrix composites that our UK defence forces need, and so enhance the resilience of our defence supply chain. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the creation of that sovereign capability, and visit my constituency to see for himself the range of companies and skills on offer?
John Healey
I know that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. She recognises the truth at the heart of the need for a strong British defence industry that is resilient and capable of supporting the businesses, jobs and innovation that we need to develop here in Britain. Gone will be the days when we let contracts in the defence field without worrying where the jobs, businesses, and long-term investment will go.
Katrina Murray
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Stewart-Buchanan Gauges, a proud employee-owned business in my constituency that supplies high-quality gauges and valves to clients in more than 50 countries. It even provides gauges for the SpaceX shuttle, and it exemplifies the world-class small and medium-sized enterprises that drive our economy and support the defence sector. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that firms such as Stewart-Buchanan Gauges are included in defence innovation initiatives and remain integral to UK supply chains?
John Healey
I take my hat off to the firm in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is exactly those sorts of businesses that are the backbone of a strong British defence industry. Small or medium-sized companies, often with the potential to grow, have not in the past seen support from Government. That is why we have set up an SME support centre that is dedicated to making it easier to access Government contracts, and why we will ringfence £400 million of direct defence investment that will go to SMEs. That will grow in each successive year.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
That is the story of my life—I am always the reserve, but I am always happy to step in. [Laughter.]
Boxer, Challenger 3 and now the gun barrel facility are going to be based in my constituency—well, I hope the latter will be in my constituency, but certainly in Shropshire. Will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks for all the work of the men and women —the new engineers, the 100 new employees—taken on for the Boxer programme since March by Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land? Shropshire is a defence hub, and I ask the new ministerial team—some of them are here for me to welcome them today—whether the Government will continue to invest in Shropshire, recognising the link between local universities and colleges, and the defence supply chain.
John Healey
Far from being the reserve, the right hon. Gentleman is first up for the Opposition this afternoon, and I welcome that and the investment in Shropshire. I reassure him that the Government will continue to support that. I pay tribute, as he encouraged me to do, to the workforce in his area. When the defence industrial strategy is published, the House will see how we are looking to define not just the British industry, but investors, entrepreneurs and the workforce as an essential part of strengthening British industry and innovation, and the future for British jobs.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Following the recent news that Norway will purchase Type 26 frigates, the speculation in the media before the weekend was that the Danish navy might also be about to place a significant order for the Type 31. Will the Secretary of State soon be able to give the UK additional good news?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the biggest British warship deal ever, and it is Norway’s biggest ever defence contract. When the Prime Minister of Norway announced the detail, he said, “We asked ourselves two questions: who is our best strategic partner, and who builds the best warships?” The answer to both was Britain. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope—we will work to ensure this—that that leads to other export contracts that will bring jobs and a future to British industry.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At the Hague summit in June, all 32 NATO nations agreed to step up and increase spending on national security to 5% by 2035. I am proud that this Labour Government played a leading part in the discussions that led to that historic agreement.
Mr Mohindra
Tomorrow we will vote on a Bill that shamefully gives up the sovereignty of our military base in Diego Garcia. Given the commitment to spend more on defence, will the Secretary of State confirm if the money spent on Chagos will be included in our declared NATO spend?
John Healey
The investment in Diego Garcia is a great investment in the defence and intelligence partnership with the United States. Together, we do things from Diego Garcia that cannot be done elsewhere; we do things together that we do not do with other nations. The deal is worth less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. How is it that the Conservatives have got themselves on the wrong side of this argument about national security, when we stand alongside the US as our closest allies?
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Britain’s commitment to the 5% NATO target clearly sends a strong signal of our resolve, but that pledge must command public confidence that the money will be spent wisely. Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on how he is working with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others to ensure that every additional pound of public investment in defence delivers value for money for the taxpayer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. This is about not just how much the Government spend, but how well they spend. Mr Speaker, you will remember that under the previous Government, the Public Accounts Committee branded our defence procurement system as “broken”. We are reforming procurement, and that will be part of the statement this afternoon on the defence industrial strategy by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). At the heart of this, we made a commitment to the British people at the last election that we would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and we are doing that three years early. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and for Britain.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?
John Healey
On the contrary, both the Foreign Secretary and I have been consistent that, taken across the range, the cost of the settlement with Mauritius for Diego Garcia is split between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For defence, our commitment is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is a good investment for this country, and it gives us a sovereign right to operate that base with the Americans for the next 99 years.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the leadership displayed by the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary and our commitment to the historic 5% pledge. What steps will NATO take to further strengthen our response to growing Russian aggression?
John Healey
The response of NATO has produced results exactly to the contrary of those President Putin would have wanted when he invaded Ukraine three-and-a-half years ago. NATO is now bigger; it is 32 nations strong. The commitment that all 32 nations made in the June summit to increase national security spending to 5% by 2035 is a strong deterrent message to Putin, Russia and other adversaries, and it will make NATO bigger and stronger in order to deter in the years ahead.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their promotions. I also send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); it was always a pleasure to work with her.
On defence spending, can the Secretary of State confirm what percentage of GDP will be used to set the cost envelope for the defence investment plan?
John Healey
When we settle our defence investment plan and produce our annual report and accounts, the data that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be set out clearly and in the customary way to this House.
James Cartlidge
Interestingly, the answer is not 3.5%, it is not 3%, and it is not even 2.6%—those are the figures we declare to NATO; they are not from the Ministry of Defence budget. As the then armed forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, confirmed to me last week in a written answer, the amount we will spend on the defence investment plan comes entirely from the MOD’s departmental budget. Therefore, the actual figure for funding our future defence equipment is just 2.2% by 2027, with no funded plans to go any higher. Given the threats we face, is 2.2% enough?
John Healey
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the defence investment plan will be funded from the defence budget. That is exactly what will happen. It will be funded and supported by the record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—by the £5 billion extra in this year’s Budget—with an aim to spend 3% of GDP on defence during the next Parliament. These are commitments that the previous Conservative Government had 14 years to make, but never made. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government have accepted all 62 recommendations of the strategic defence review. Implementation of the review’s recommendations is already well under way.
Alex Brewer
With RAF Odiham celebrating its centenary this year, I am proud of the many close military ties that we have in my constituency of North East Hampshire. One of the recommendations of the strategic defence review is to improve accommodation, where we are letting our military personnel down. Given that there is widespread agreement with the Liberal Democrats on this issue, including in the other place, will the Secretary of State support bringing all military housing in line with the decent homes standard in today’s Renters’ Rights Bill vote?
John Healey
In the last year, we have taken huge steps to start to make good on decades of substandard housing for military personnel and their families. We have brought 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can plan exactly the sort of upgrade that the hon. Lady talks about.
On the rest of the SDR, we have announced the purchase of 12 F-35A aircraft, which will join the dual capable aircraft mission of NATO; we have launched our new £70 million campaign on cadets; and we have stood up the cyber and specialist operations command. Today, we are publishing the defence industrial strategy to make defence an engine for growth. This Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The strategic defence review rightly highlighted the need for a whole-of-society approach to defence, including expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030. A key part of that has to include supporting more adult volunteers to give their time to the cadets. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more adult volunteers are able to support our fantastic cadets?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Cadet forces cannot exist without the adult volunteers who support them, and they are central to our ability to increase the number of cadet forces across this country by 30% by 2030, which will give so many young people opportunities in the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We totally condemn Russia’s air attack on Ukraine over the weekend. It is the worst since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine began, hitting a Government building for the first time. Putin is escalating his attacks, and we must step up and speed up our support for Ukraine. Last week, I announced that over £1 billion of profits from frozen Russian assets has been put into military aid for Ukraine. Tomorrow, I will host and co-chair from London the 30th Ukraine Defence Contact Group, when 50 nations will together confirm increased military aid for Ukraine.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Over the weekend, a drone attack was launched targeting a number of regions, including Kyiv and Odesa, which I had the privilege of visiting earlier this year. It is reported to be the biggest drone strike since Putin’s illegal invasion began. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that more must be done to secure a ceasefire?
John Healey
I agree with my hon. Friend, and she is right that it was the biggest drone attack in the past three and a half years since Putin’s illegal invasion. These air attacks are directed at civilian areas with civilian targets. I saw for myself this week the damage that brings when I stood outside the bombed-out building of the British Council in Kyiv, and I saw the determination of men and women—military and civilians alike—in their defiance to keep fighting in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm how this country and our allies will support Ukraine to defend its airspace from Russian aggression? For example, will we lend it our Typhoons or will we participate in the cross-national F-16 fighter programme, despite the fact that we do not have F-16s?
John Healey
We have worked closely with Ukraine to develop new weapons systems to supply the air defence missiles it requires. While-ever Ukraine is fighting Putin’s invasion, we will stand alongside it and we will provide whatever military aid we can. Beyond that, for when we can reach a negotiated peace, we have been leading work to prepare a multinational force willing to stand with Ukraine in the peace and to secure that peace for the long term so that Russia never again invades that country.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). She served as a Minister in both this and the previous Labour Government with great commitment, and we thank her for her service. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I travelled to Norway to sign the biggest British warship deal ever—a £10 billion contract that will secure 4,000 jobs for the next two decades. Last week I also visited Kyiv, during my fifth visit to Ukraine, where I met Defence Minister Shmyhal, visited a drone factory and chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 30 Defence Ministers. The message to Moscow from one and all was of defiance and determination: the Ukrainians will keep fighting Russian aggression, and the coalition will step up support for Ukraine and preparations for a peace in Ukraine. Tomorrow from London I will co-chair the meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, attended by around 50 nations. This week I will also host the meeting of the E5 Defence Ministers here in London.
Graham Stuart
When I meet veterans across Beverley and Holderness, particularly at Withernsea or Beverley veterans breakfast clubs, the No. 1 issue they raise with me is homelessness among veterans—an issue that the Minister for Veterans and People will recognise. They ask what more we can do, and I share that question with the Secretary of State: what more can we do to ensure that those who have put their lives on the line to serve our country do not find themselves homeless in their later days?
John Healey
I share with the right hon. Gentleman, and, I think, every Member of this House, the pleasure and honour of attending such breakfast clubs with veterans in my constituency. He is right about the range of concerns that veterans raise, which includes the pressures of homelessness. Recognising the forces’ service in local authority housing priorities is our first step, and the £50 million going into the Op VALOUR system to increase support for veterans will also play a part.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
John Healey
We are always ready to take further steps on imposing economic sanctions, and to close any loopholes in those sanctions. We have a record, under both the last Government and this Government, of being at the forefront of imposing these sorts of economic measures on Putin’s regime.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Young people in my constituency are crying out for decent, well-paid jobs, especially in the defence sector, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the Typhoon order that is desperately needed, not only for our country, but for jobs across Blackpool and Lancashire?
John Healey
I will indeed, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged, I hope, by the visit I paid to Turkey, and the initial agreement that I have signed with Turkey for a big new order of Typhoons, which will be built in Lancashire.
Geelong Treaty: Contingent Liability
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 am today laying a departmental minute before Parliament describing a contingent liability that His Majesty's Government will take on relating to the United Kingdom’s participation in the AUKUS security partnership with the United States of America and Australia. His Majesty's Government will hold this liability following entry into force of the Geelong treaty between the UK and Australia, which I have recently signed along with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister.
As set out in the strategic defence review, AUKUS is an enhanced security partnership that will strengthen security in the Indo-pacific and Euro-Atlantic, along with growing the UK economy. The first major initiative of AUKUS is our historic decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The treaty builds on the strong foundation of trilateral co-operation between Australia, the UK and the United States, advancing the shared objectives of the AUKUS partnership. It will enable the development of SSN-AUKUS and resilient trilateral supply chains.
As part of the co-ordinated approach to our respective SSN-AUKUS build programmes, Australia and the UK have decided to provide an appropriate indemnity to each other related to the supply of material, equipment, information and services transferred or to be transferred on a Government-to-Government basis in connection with SSN-AUKUS.
This contingent liability will not be incurred until entry into force of the treaty, which has also been laid before Parliament today. In accordance with usual practice for contingent liabilities, it will therefore not be incurred until at least 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed from the date on which the departmental minute is laid before Parliament.
[HCWS895]
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ukraine.
Before I begin, I inform the House that yesterday we secured a £10 billion contract to supply Norway with at least five Type 26 frigates. This is the biggest British warship deal in our history. It strengthens NATO and our northern flank, and supports 4,000 British jobs and 400 British businesses for years to come. It shows that this Government are making defence an engine for growth across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Turning to Ukraine, a few days ago Ukrainians around the world came together to mark a special day: 34 years of their country’s independence—34 years as a proud and sovereign nation. Ukrainians, civilians and those from the military alike, continue to fight for that freedom with huge courage, three-and-a-half years on from the start of Putin’s brutal, full-scale invasion. A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine: its freedom is our freedom and its values our are values. That is why the UK stands with Ukraine, and why this House stands united for Ukraine. When Ukraine marks its next independence day, we all hope to see Ukrainians celebrate in a time of peace, not in a time of war.
Over the summer, the UK, with our allies, has been working hard to make that hope a reality. The Prime Minister hosted President Zelensky in London, chaired various coalition of the willing meetings with President Macron and joined European leaders with President Zelensky to meet President Trump in Washington DC. I have spoken with Defence Ministers across the coalition about stepping up military support and securing a peace after any deal. Our military leaders have met multiple times to strengthen international contributions to the coalition, also known now as the “multinational force Ukraine.”
We welcome President Trump’s dedication to bringing this terrible war to an end, and we strongly welcome his commitment to make security guarantees “very secure,” as he says, with the Europeans. At every stage, President Zelensky continues his support for a full, unconditional ceasefire and for talks on a lasting peace, yet Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks on Ukraine since the start of the war. During last week’s onslaught on Kyiv, at least 23 people were killed, four of whom were children, including a two-year-old. An attack on the British Council was an outrage: a Russian missile, fired into a civilian area, as part of an illegal war, damaged a British Government building, injuring a civilian worker.
It now appears that Putin is refusing a meeting with President Trump and President Zelensky, so while Ukraine wants peace, Putin wages war. President Trump is right: we must continue pushing for peace, as well as increasing pressure on Putin to come to the table. So we support measures to disrupt Russian oil revenues, and we welcome President Trump’s comments that he is weighing very serious economic sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary will have more to say on similar UK action very soon.
On the battlefield, intense fighting continues along the frontline. While Russian military activity has reduced in the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, as Russian ground forces relocate elements of those forces, over the past two weeks, they have advanced in the northern Donetsk region. Pokrovsk remains Russia’s focus and its forces are using a variety of methods to infiltrate Ukrainian positions, but Putin continues to make only minor territorial gains, at a huge cost.
The most recent assessment by UK defence intelligence estimates that at the current pace since January, it would take Russia another 4.4 years to seize the Donbas, at a cost of almost 2 million more Russian casualties. Despite that, the increasing escalation of Russia’s devastating drone strikes is a serious concern. In July, Russia launched approximately 6,200 one-way attack drones into Ukraine, another monthly record. In one night alone, over this weekend, Russia launched nearly 540 drones and 45 missiles.
The UK Government are stepping up our efforts for Ukraine. Our priorities are simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow. To support the fight today, we are providing £4.5 billion in military aid for Ukraine this year—the highest ever level. At the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, with over 50 nations and partners, in July, I launched a “50-day drive” to accelerate the assistance that we are giving. Fifty days on, the UK has delivered to Ukraine nearly 5 million rounds of munitions, around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, 2,500 uncrewed platforms, 30 vehicles and engineering equipment, and 200 electronic warfare and air defence systems.
We will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war. Next week, I will co-chair the 30th UDCG meeting with Germany’s Minister Pistorius, alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and 50 other allies and partners. I will host an E5 Defence Ministers summit in London next week, where we will be joined by the Ukrainian Defence Minister, and where together we will step up still further our support for Ukraine.
To secure the peace tomorrow, the UK continues, with the French, to lead the coalition of the willing. Some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations have helped design plans in the event of a ceasefire: plans to secure the skies and seas, and to train Ukrainian forces to defend their nation. This week, I will host Defence Ministers from across the coalition, with French Minister Lecornu, to further cement contributions to that coalition. For the armed forces, I am reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment. Peace is possible, and we will be ready. The Prime Minister and I will ensure that the House is fully informed of developments in the proper way.
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the driving figures of the coalition of the willing, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin? Today is his last day as the UK Chief of the Defence Staff. Tony has had a distinguished 35-year military career in the armed forces, serving in operations right across the globe. He is widely respected and a true friend of the Ukrainian people, as President Zelensky himself said last week. I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in thanking Tony for his outstanding service and wish every success to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Rich Knighton.
Let me end by saying that while President Putin likes to project strength, he is now weaker than ever. Since Putin launched his illegal invasion, he has not achieved any of his strategic aims. He has lost more than 10,000 tanks and armoured vehicles, and his Black sea fleet has been humiliated. He is forced to rely on states such as Iran for drones, North Korea for frontline troops and China for technology and components. He is using 40% of his total Government spending on the war, with interest rates now running at 18% and inflation at 9%. Moreover, Putin now faces a bigger NATO—32 nations strong, with an agreement to raise national spending on security to 5% by 2035—and a Ukraine that is more determined than ever to control its own future. A secure Europe needs a strong, sovereign Ukraine, and we in the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who, as he says, has given such impactful leadership and support for Ukraine. I also send my best wishes to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. It was a privilege to work with both of them at the MOD.
Let me turn to Ukraine. It is being widely reported that in his speech to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit today, Vladimir Putin said that the understandings reached at his meeting with President Trump in Alaska were opening the way to peace in Ukraine. How utterly cynical. What followed the summit in Alaska was not peace, but the brutal bombing of innocent civilians across Ukraine. In particular, just days ago, Putin unleashed the second-largest aerial attack of the whole war, killing at least 23 people, including four children, as the Secretary of State just confirmed.
Bomb damage included the British Council in Kyiv. We join the Government in utterly condemning the attack on the British Council and pay tribute to all its staff, who are playing their part in our national endeavour to support Ukraine. We pass on our best wishes to the member of staff who was injured in the attack. We note that the chief executive of the British Council, Scott McDonald, promised to continue operations wherever possible. Can the Secretary of State outline to what degree that has been achieved and what support the Government have provided to assist?
If Putin really wants to open the way to peace in Ukraine, as he said, he should recognise that the blame for this war lies squarely with his territorial ambitions, and that all the civilian and military bloodshed that continues is wholly the result of his unprovoked and illegal invasion. The reality is that Putin does not accept that basic fact. In his speech today at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit, Putin is widely quoted as blaming others for the war, in particular his long-standing refrain that the war was caused by
“the West’s constant attempts to draw Ukraine into NATO.”
Without ambiguity, we and all our allies must see that the war in Ukraine is a question of a free and sovereign democracy invaded without provocation by a bullying dictator. That is why, when we were in office, it was right to provide such strong support to Ukraine from the outset of the invasion—indeed, even before it commenced —and why in opposition we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in continuing that policy. That is why we need to keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline.
The Euro-Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constraint Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin from getting his hands on military equipment, so I am glad that the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on sanctions very soon, as the Secretary of State for Defence said. Can he confirm whether the timeline is directly linked to US action? Would the UK go ahead with those plans for tougher sanctions if the US for some reason did not?
On any potential end to the fighting, we all desperately want to see peace in Ukraine, but we are clear that it must be a lasting, sustainable peace. That is why security guarantees are so important. The Secretary of State referred to President Trump’s commitment to make security guarantees “very secure” with the Europeans. What further detail is he able to share on the likely shape of any such US security guarantees?
The Secretary of State states that the coalition of the willing would
“secure the skies and seas”.
That seems to miss out the land force element. Does that mean that the Army would be sent to Ukraine only in a training role? He also said that he is
“reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment”.
Does he expect that funding to come from the Treasury reserve or the existing MOD budget? On reviewing readiness, what is the timescale of the review? Is it yet at the stage where urgent operational requirements are being considered?
Finally, I strongly welcome the news that Norway has selected the Type 26, which is made in Scotland, for its future fleet. That is a huge deal that will support thousands of jobs, but it has been many years in the making, with significant input and progress under the previous Government. In December 2023, I had the pleasure of visiting the Norwegian MOD in Oslo, and I assure the House that the Type 26 was very much at the top of the agenda. To remind hon. Members, that was in the same week we announced that Britain and Norway would lead the maritime coalition supporting Ukraine’s navy, underlining the strength of our naval alliance and our joint commitment to Ukraine.
It is clear that a key reason for Norway’s decision is that it faces the same Russian threat that we do from Russian submarines and wants the best possible capability to respond, maximising interoperability with the Royal Navy. However, that Russian threat arises entirely from Putin’s pursuit of aggression, rather than peace. Until that situation changes in reality rather than in rhetoric, we must continue to be robust in doing everything possible to support Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of the success in securing the Norway deal. Groundwork was certainly done under the last Government, and he led a lot of that as the Defence Procurement Minister, but I have to say that we had a great deal more to do when we took over in July last year. Frankly, we had to reboot the campaign, which we did, and I am grateful that we have secured it, as it has huge military, economic and strategic importance.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s continuing support for the action we are taking to support Ukraine. He is absolutely right to call out Putin’s remarks at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation council, and the pressure is now on Putin to prove that he wants peace and to do what he says he wants. While he has sat down to discuss peace with President Trump in Alaska, he has of course been turning up his attacks in Ukraine. He launched this war, and he can stop it tomorrow if he chooses.
The hon. Gentleman asks about sanctions and encourages us to take further steps. He will know that we have already introduced more than 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships. We have sanctioned 289 vessels as part of the Russian shadow fleet, and very soon the Foreign Secretary will announce further UK steps.
On the security guarantees, the commitments we have secured already from many of those involved in the discussion are substantial. The discussions continue, and we look for contributions to be further confirmed. Much of the shape of any deployment of a coalition of the willing will depend on the terms of any peace agreement. At this stage, I certainly do not want to offer any more public details on that, because it would only reinforce Putin’s hand and make him and the Russians wiser.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I wholeheartedly welcome the historic frigate exports deal with Norway, and join him in paying tribute to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Radakin for his distinguished decades-long service to our country.
Recent Russian attacks across 14 different regions of Ukraine are not actions of peace. Words and actions must align, and it is abundantly clear that both from President Putin present a threat to us all. With such drastic escalation of Putin’s violence running concurrently with peace negotiations, along with Putin’s false reframing of his invasion as some sort of reaction to a Western-backed coup, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shed further light on what levers he has pulled to help enable a peaceful outcome?
John Healey
It is a truism that peace is secured through strength, and our task in countries such as the UK that strongly support Ukraine is to put it in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That means stepping up military support for Ukraine now, which we are doing, and will do further at next week’s UDCG meeting that I will co-chair. It also means stepping up economic pressure on Putin, which the House will have a chance to hear more about —the Foreign Secretary will announce further measures soon—and stepping up our preparations for securing any peace for the long term if Trump can help lead negotiations that will lead to a ceasefire and a peace agreement. That is the way that we support Ukraine now, and it is how we can help reinforce the steps towards the possibility of peace tomorrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that I will ensure tomorrow that Admiral Radakin is aware of the kind comments from both sides of the House. I know that he will appreciate them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps.
I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine?
We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Lady’s strong focus on the need for further economic pressure on Putin and on Russia. She will recognise that the UK is out ahead of many other countries in the number of vessels we have sanctioned as part of the Russian shadow fleet. We are always ready to take further steps in that regard, and I hope she will see very soon from the Foreign Secretary the UK’s determination to go further still on economic pressure and on sanctions. She invites me to offer an update on progress on the use of seized assets; I am unable to do that, but she will know that this is not just a matter of whether it will be effective as a UK decision. The detailed work that is still being discussed with other key allies continues. We recognise the potential for using those assets seized from Russia to help rebuild and support Ukraine—that is something we are working on.
The hon. Lady urges us to lead European allies. It is not unreasonable to say that that is exactly what we are doing, not just through the UK providing our highest ever level of military aid this year, but in the way in which we have now stepped in to lead the UDCG. I will chair its 30th meeting alongside Minister Pistorius next week. We have also stepped in by leading the coalition of the willing with the French—more than 50 nations are part of the discussions about planning for Ukraine’s long-term future, and I will host the Defence Ministers alongside Minister Lecornu this week to discuss that further.
However, there is one other point that I would make to the hon. Lady and to this House. It is often seen as the European coalition of the willing or the European UDCG, but these are coalitions of nations that go well beyond Europe. I was in Japan last week, and Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan has joined the discussions for the coalition of the willing. Some of the most stalwart supporters of Ukraine in terms of military aid since the start of the Russian invasion have been allies of ours—steadfast supporters of Ukraine from other parts of the world, from Australia to Japan and from New Zealand to Korea. That signals to Putin not just that Europe stands steadfast with Ukraine in challenging and confronting his aggression, but that we and many other countries see this as a security matter in the Euro-Atlantic that is indivisible from security in the Indo-Pacific.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the update and for his continuing leadership on this issue. We have all been so moved by the extraordinary bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression, and in my constituency we know how important it is to stand by our friends in Ukraine. In my constituency, I have also had the privilege of being able to visit our armed forces and our industry and to see how much they have been inspired by our Ukrainian colleagues and their innovation on the battlefield. Will the Secretary of State give a bit of an update on the important lessons that the Ministry of Defence has learned from Ukrainians’ innovation on the battlefield?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the courage of the Ukrainians is an inspiration to us all, including our own forces, as is their ability to fight and innovate in combat. We tried to capture that in the strategic defence review, which we published in June. It points the way to the sort of radical transformation that we will require in our own armed forces and defence system. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the hallmarks of that very soon when we publish the defence industrial strategy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
A few weeks ago I returned from Ukraine with some others who had been delivering trucks and medical aid to the Ukrainians for use on the frontline. I have made a number of such trips alongside other Members whom I can see across the Floor, united, as the Government are united, with the Opposition and the other parties. However, having watched the brutality stepped up by President Putin in recent weeks, and following the Alaskan conference in Anchorage, I must say that I am fundamentally still very disappointed. Yes, the Government are right that they are bringing together a coalition of the willing, but the least willing of all at the moment seems to be the White House, and my concern is that without the White House’s commitment to showing Putin that his actions have consequences, this will continue to drag on. The United States is the one country that can really impress upon him that if the Russians carry on with these attacks, they will be sanctioned dramatically and the weapons that the Ukrainians desperately need will flow to them like water. I wonder whether the Government could say to the President, behind closed doors, “It is time to follow your words with actions and not keep on prevaricating.”
John Healey
I appreciate the argument that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is important to recognise that President Trump’s role is essential and central in any opportunity to bring the two sides together. President Tump is playing a role that only he can play, and he has made it clear that the range of further steps, if they become necessary, at his disposal and for his decision include stepping up economic pressure on President Putin. We are ready to respond alongside that, and we are also ready to take our own decisions on economic pressure on President Putin and on Russia. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Defence Committee Chair, that has got to be part of trying to ensure that the pressure on Putin and the support for Ukraine brings the two sides more rapidly to the negotiating table so that we can get the peace that we all want secured.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My West Dunbartonshire constituents know the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in this fight. Does the Minister agree that investments such as the £250 million to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde and the landmark £10 billion deal with Norway—both of which secure thousands of jobs for people on the Clyde, many of whom live in my West Dunbartonshire constituency—all help to show our strength and deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a lesson from Ukraine that we have to take seriously: when a country is faced with conflict or is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. Part of the significance of the frigate deal with Norway is that this will reinforce our British shipbuilding, our British innovation and our British technology base across the UK and especially in Scotland for many years to come.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?
John Healey
The Government’s position is that we are discussing the nature of security guarantees and the contribution that we can help lead through the coalition of the willing, alongside any American support, and together that is part of the configuration of making Ukraine strong and creating the circumstances in which serious negotiations, and we hope a peace agreement, can be reached.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for getting this Norwegian deal over the line. I feel a singular sense of pride about it, because my constituency of Glasgow South West and Govan will become the epicentre of Type 26 construction. Will he undertake to work with me to ensure that my constituents feel the full benefits of this investment? In that vein, will he urge the SNP Government to finally collaborate with us and to dispense with their ideological block on the defence sector, so that together, for want of a better word, we can be stronger for Scotland?
John Healey
First, may I say to my hon. Friend that all of us in the House appreciate the contribution that his constituents, as part of that Govan workforce, make to building the outstanding British ships? The Norwegian Prime Minister had a telling way of explaining the decision on Sunday, when he said that they had weighed two questions:
“Who is our most strategic partner? And who has delivered the best frigates?... The answer to both is the United Kingdom.”
It is also telling that the nationalist-led Scottish Government are yet to welcome this contract and this success.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
First, I commend the Defence Secretary and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for their commitment to a just peace in Ukraine. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that the most reluctant member of this coalition of the willing appears to be President Trump. Does the Defence Secretary agree that it is particularly disappointing that he is unable to give an update on seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets? There is slow progress on that, but it is perhaps our strongest potential lever in exerting pressure on Russia to deliver a just peace.
John Healey
I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The declaration that the President of the United States has made about making the European-led arrangements for security guarantees, in his words, “very secure” is important and significant. Those discussions continue. The shape of any potential and possible deployment to support and secure a long-term peace will depend hugely on the nature of the peace agreement itself. It is for those reasons that it is not possible to set out in public at this stage the details, but we continue those discussions on the nature of the support that can be given to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and on the sort of pressure that may be required to make sure that those serious negotiations can take place.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I want to share with the House the deepest solidarity from the Ukraine Appeal and the Sunflower Ukrainian supplementary school in my constituency of Milton Keynes about the recent attacks in Kyiv and on the British Council. The British Council’s vital cultural initiatives have supported peace and created community cohesion around the world. It is in that spirit that the Ukraine Appeal has created an exhibition, “Faces of Ukrainian Dream”, by the children who go to its Sunflower school. That exhibition will be touring Milton Keynes, including Bletchley Park. Will the Defence Secretary join me in expressing our solidarity to the Ukrainian families in Milton Keynes and across the UK, and those still in Ukraine? Slava Ukraini.
John Healey
I will indeed express that solidarity, and not just with those Ukrainian families and children; I also pay tribute to the people of Milton Keynes who have opened their homes to house the families of those Ukrainian children. It is often the children and the families who will feel the threat and the grief most fiercely, and the fact that they have expressed such strong solidarity with those British Council workers in the face of that attack is something that we all appreciate, and I would be grateful on behalf of the House if my hon. Friend passed that on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share my disgust at the sight of the killer in the Kremlin having a red carpet rolled out for him that might as well have been stained with the blood of all those who have died in a conflict that is down entirely to him, and to him alone. However, when we talk about meaningful security guarantees, it is perhaps worth remembering that the only reason why, when Germany was divided at the end of the second world war, that was a stable division was that both sides knew that anyone crossing a line would be initiating an international conflict. Surely any security guarantee that does not automatically guarantee the involvement of other states in the defence of Ukraine will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
John Healey
The purpose of the “coalition of the willing” force that we are leading the work to plan for is about actively securing the Ukrainian skies, actively making the Ukrainian seas safe, and providing a presence that will help to reassure, as well as helping to build up the Ukrainians to deter and defend for themselves. It starts from the first premise that in the circumstances of a peace agreement, for the medium and the long term, the strongest defence and the strongest deterrence is the nature and strength of the Ukraine armed forces themselves. That is our purpose, and that would be part of our mission.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend and his whole team for the incredible efforts that they are making on this issue. Over the weekend, Russia launched yet more devastating airstrikes on Kyiv, killing 23 people including a two-year-old child. July was the deadliest month of the conflict since its early stages, with more than 280 civilians killed and more than 1,300 injured. Russia has once again shown its blatant disregard for human life, targeting, abducting, indoctrinating and even weaponising children. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Ukraine has the means to defend itself from these heinous crimes?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning that she is doing, and not just on Ukraine generally but, in particular, to draw attention to the systematic programme that we have seen from Putin and his troops in abducting Ukrainian children and trying to indoctrinate them into the Russian way of life. I have had discussions with Secretary Umerov, when he was Defence Minister and now when he is Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council. He is leading the negotiations on behalf of President Zelensky, and some of the early discussions potentially with the Russian side are about prisoner of war swaps and about the return of those Ukrainian children.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Norwegian investment in Glasgow’s shipyards. The Norwegians understand the importance of European security. The Norwegians understand the importance of territorial integrity. The Norwegians understand the importance of the high north. I pay credit to those at RM Condor, in my constituency, for their work in that particular area. They know that Donetsk is Ukrainian, that Luhansk is Ukrainian, and that Crimea is Ukrainian.
The United States ambassador to NATO said recently that no “chunks” that had not been “earned on the battlefield” should be given over to Russia. When the Secretary of State meets his US counterpart in a couple of weeks, will he make it clear that no chunks of Ukraine are earned by aggressors on the battlefield, and that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is testament regardless of our political allegiance here?
John Healey
The Ukrainians are fighting for their territorial integrity. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, and it is for the Ukrainians to decide when to stop fighting and the terms on which they do so. Our job in the UK, and my job as Defence Secretary, is to ensure that we give them the maximum support possible in the fight, and we will give the maximum support possible as they go into the negotiations. Let me add that the hon. Gentleman’s declaration—and I hope he can speak on behalf of his party—that he fully supports that biggest ever British warship export deal is welcome in the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to start by paying tribute to Andriy Parubiy, the former Ukrainian Speaker, who was brutally assassinated in his home city of Lviv. He played a key role in the Maidan protests, which freed Ukraine of Russian interference.
I really thank my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of the British Council attack in Kyiv. A man was injured, and we need to remember that the British Council is not just any body; it is an arm’s length body of the FCDO. It takes British culture and values, and English language teaching, around the world. In the same attack, the EU delegation building was also attacked. We have heard tonight from Bulgaria that Ursula von der Leyen’s plane was jammed by Russia and had difficulty landing—it had to use paper maps to land.
I am afraid to say that we are hearing more and more on the streets that this war is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, but I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if Ukraine falls, it will not end there. This is a war for all of us, and Ukraine is fighting for all of us. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that we are making it very clear that we know that Putin’s aggression will not stop at Ukraine if Ukraine fails, that the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us, and that we will give them all the support they need to ensure that we are all free in Europe.
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks plainly and strongly. I recognise the work that he has done on Ukraine, just as President Zelensky did last month when he awarded my hon. Friend the Ukrainian Order of Merit for his support.
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the recent assassination of Andriy Parubiy, which is a reminder of the brutality of the invasion. Andriy was not just a leader in the Maidan uprising; he was an ex-Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament. In many ways, his assassination brings home just how serious this war is for us in this House.
Finally, my hon. Friend makes the point that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why the British public, the British House of Commons and the British Government remain so steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is 17 days since President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin—during which time, as the Secretary of State said, Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine with drones and missiles. I thank him for his remarks about Andriy Parubiy, the former Speaker of the Rada. I knew him well and admired him hugely. The last time I met him was when we entertained him in this House as a visiting Speaker. It is a mark of Putin’s hatred of democracy that he regarded the Speaker of a democratic Parliament as an appropriate target.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the present time, Putin shows no interest in a ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever he can to persuade President Trump that the only way that Putin can be made to consider a ceasefire is by stepping up the pressure on Russia through extra sanctions, and by giving ever more support to Ukraine?
John Healey
I think the whole House appreciates the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Andriy Parubiy and the relationship that he had with him. On the question of pressure on Putin to come to the negotiating table, that is a matter for the nations that stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to play our role. It is also a matter that is recognised by the US and the US President. He wants Putin to come to the table. He wants Putin to start to act in the way that he says—interested in peace and ready to talk about peace—but at the moment, he is not yet showing signs of doing so.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
To secure peace in the long term for Ukraine we need to support its defence industrial base and therefore the financial sector that underpins it, but I am concerned that UK Export Finance red tape could be limiting UK-Ukraine defence partnerships. I also believe that we could launch new joint defence innovation funds. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider these ideas and work with me to discuss how we can support Ukraine’s defence financing system?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that we are already working hard with Ukraine on some of these questions of joint ventures and joint industrial partnerships. Indeed, when President Zelensky visited Downing Street in June, our Prime Minister declared that this area of reinforcing our industrial connections and joint enterprise will help Ukraine in the fight now and help develop Ukrainian industry, but could also bring benefits to us and our armed forces in the future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and all those involved on the Type 26 frigate deal, which is great news for all and for economic growth. I reiterate our continuing support for Ukraine, and also for this Government and the Secretary of State in working with other world leaders in trying to secure a ceasefire. I suppose we should not be surprised by Putin’s appalling continuation of the bombing of Ukraine. May I urge the Secretary of State to work with other world leaders to use the leverage, which I think we still have, of the $300 billion-worth of frozen central bank assets that could help in the negotiations with Putin?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I note his view on the frozen Russian assets, and I welcome his declaration of support for Ukraine and his condemnation of Vladimir Putin. The all-party nature of the support for Ukraine in this House is very important, and it is particularly welcome that he is here and makes that clear for the Reform party.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Russia’s aggression directly threatens our security here at home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the push for peace matters not just for the Ukrainian people, but for the security of us all, and that we must invest in the defence industry in constituencies such as Wolverhampton North East to deter Russian aggression and stand in solidarity with Ukraine?
John Healey
I do, indeed. If for a moment this House considers a situation in which Putin prevails in Ukraine, it is not hard to see how that makes Europe less secure. A strong Ukraine is essential for a secure UK and a secure Europe in the future. My hon. Friend urges us to do more to reinforce the British defence industrial base. The record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war that this Government are now committed to investing will be an important part of that, and I hope she will welcome the defence industrial strategy when we publish it shortly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the red carpet treatment afforded to Putin, will the Secretary of State remind our principal ally that it is our co-signatory to the Budapest memorandum?
John Healey
The US is well aware that it is a co-signatory. Everyone involved in trying to support Ukraine through this war, and more importantly also considering the route to securing a long-term and just peace, is acutely aware of not repeating the mistakes of the Budapest memorandum.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine. Given recent reports that Starlink was disabled during a major Ukrainian counter-offensive, highlighting the dangers of relying on a single privately owned satellite system, will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking with their European allies to ensure that Ukraine has a resilient and sovereign communication system that cannot be switched off at the whim of one individual?
John Healey
Without going into the details in public, I can say to my hon. Friend that, across a range of capabilities where the Ukrainians are requiring our support and our military aid, we are looking to provide that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Ukraine needs a just peace. It also needs financial support to rebuild. The EU has said that it will allow frozen Russian assets to be used in higher risk investments to generate more money. What discussions has the Secretary of State had on supporting the EU’s latest effort to use Russia’s assets to provide vital funding for Ukraine?
John Healey
I have had none of those discussions myself, but the Government have had them with the European Union and with other allies that must be part of any effective plan to make use of the frozen Russian assets. The hon. Lady will be aware of the way we are already making use of the interest on those frozen assets, putting them to good use to make sure we can support Ukraine to continue its fight.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
A Ukrainian constituent who has just returned from a visit to Ukraine told me today:
“Russia is systematically destroying our border regions and key infrastructure: medical, educational, civil, governmental and business. The scale of the problem goes far beyond housing or temporary displacement—it is about the viability of life across large parts of Ukraine. This is part of a wider strategy aimed at rendering Ukraine’s borderlands uninhabitable. Any recovery strategy will require years of investment, security guarantees and sustained international support.”
In the light of that, I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which demonstrates that British support for Ukraine is unwavering. Can he confirm that we are using every tool at our disposal to ensure that the cynical Russian policy described by my constituent will ultimately be overcome?
John Healey
I can confirm that we are doing all we can. If my hon. Friend or his constituent identifies areas where we are not doing that, I would welcome his tackling me on doing so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The House should be grateful to the Secretary of State for giving this statement today, because it underlines how the Government are determined to keep this issue at the top of the British political agenda. He gave quite an optimistic assessment of how we, the Ukrainians and her allies, are doing in Ukraine, only inasmuch as Russia cannot win this war. The risk—something I hope he will emphasise to President Trump—is that the west is losing the peace, and that by losing the peace we are losing our own security. In the words of his own strategic defence review, we need to mobilise the British people to have a national conversation as to why we need to step up our efforts. Are we really giving Ukraine enough? I do not think we are.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has deep experience, so I take his views very seriously. I would just say to him that we are doing more this year than we have ever done before. We recognise that the UK on its own is limited and that we can play a really important role in stepping up the collective leadership, as we are doing through the UDCG and the coalition of the willing. In that way, Britain can play a co-ordinating role to contribute to the support that Ukraine needs. We do so with allies, and when we do so with allies, we make more of an impact.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Clyde is a wide river that straddles the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) and mine, so I join my colleague in welcoming the deal with Norway that was concluded at the weekend. Not only will it secure a bright future for the 100-plus apprentices at BAE Systems on the Clyde, it will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde, including at the Scottish Government-owned Ferguson Marine, which is a subcontractor to BAE Systems. There are perhaps 10 billion reasons why the Scottish Government should welcome the deal. The Secretary of State mentioned the diminution of Putin’s strength. Does he agree that the deal will help to further that diminution, particularly in the high north?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This will not just set new standards within NATO of interoperability and interchangeability, with effectively a combined Norwegian-UK anti-submarine force; it means that more frigates—a total of 13 anti-submarine frigates between the two nations—will be available to reinforce the northern flank of NATO to provide the sort of deterrence required to keep the Russian threat in check.
My hon. Friend must be very proud of her Scotstoun yard. I hope that she will recognise, as I do, that this deal will secure the future of 4,000 jobs in the UK for many years, 2,000 of which are in Scotland.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin is a fine example of public service, so I humbly agree with the Defence Secretary about the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff. When the CDS appeared before the Defence Committee in June, he said of NATO that
“The crucial thing is whether we are deterring Russia and whether we can face down the threats of Russia”.
He answered his own rhetorical question that we are, “absolutely”.
Following the strike in Kyiv that damaged the British Council and the EU’s diplomatic mission last week, can the Defence Secretary set out how the UK and NATO are deterring further symbolic attacks like this one?
John Healey
Without wishing to speak for him, I suspect that one of the things Admiral Radakin will not miss in stepping down as CDS is appearing before the Defence Committee, although I am sure he will still contribute to public debate on these matters. The hon. Gentleman makes a general point about the attempt to step up our support for Ukraine. We will always try to respond to what Ukraine says it most needs. As we go into next week’s UDCG meeting, which I will be hosting with Minister Pistorius, that is exactly what we will try to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his leadership on this issue. As the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire builds, Russia too escalates its campaign of aerial attack on Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the liberated city of Kherson, Russian first-person drone operators are turning state killing into a grotesque spectacle that is publicly broadcast and has been christened a “human safari”.
The provision and conversion of Ukrainian Soviet-era missiles into the Gravehawk system represents both real material aid and an accomplishment of British military engineering. Crucially, it helps to reduce dependency on any single supply chain and technology for aerial defence. Will the Defence Secretary give the House an assurance that all steps are being taken to increase both the quantity and the diversity of air defence systems for Ukraine?
John Healey
We are doing what we can to increase the diversity and quantity of air defence systems. I am proud of what we have achieved with Gravehawk, which is a good example of two things: first, innovation, and secondly, a combination of Ukraine and UK minds working together. When we do that, we can respond rapidly and in a way that meets Ukraine’s needs, but that also points the way to a different future in the way we develop the systems that we need in our own forces for the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I should declare an interest in that my eldest son today started work at Rosyth royal dockyard, a key part of British military infrastructure for more than 100 years. Over the summer, we saw Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney meet with Ukrainian military personnel at the Edinburgh military tattoo. Incredibly, were those brave men and women to be injured in the line of duty, NHS medical aid sent from Scotland could not be used to treat them because of a prohibition put in place by the Scottish Government, who continue to refuse to fund warfighting capability in Scotland. With defence reserved to this place, Secretary of State, how is it possible that the devolved Administration in Holyrood can damage British interests and security in this manner?
John Healey
The hon. Member poses those questions to me, but they are clearly not for me but for the Scottish nationalist Government to answer. I would love to see an end to the antagonism to investment in Scotland—investment which supports Scottish jobs in the wider defence industry and supports our UK security, in which Scotland plays such a vital part. It ought to be something that the Scottish Government embrace and support, rather than resist and oppose.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
People in my constituency know the importance of standing with Ukraine in its fight, and in a recent survey I did, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine, which after three-and-a-half years is an impressively high figure. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the push for peace in Ukraine matters not just for Ukrainians, whose country has been attacked for over a decade by Russian forces, but for our future security in Britain, and that we must therefore invest in the defence industry in regions such as the east midlands to deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
The answer is yes, and I ask my hon. Friend pass on to his constituents my appreciation for their support. At a level of support for Ukraine of 87%, the constituents in Rushcliffe are an exemplification of the British spirit that recognises that Ukraine is fighting for the same sorts of freedoms that we value and for its own future in the way that we in this country have done in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. I look forward very much to his statements in this Chamber, because he invariably brings us good news, and today he has done so again with the order of five frigates for Norway worth £10 billion. As a farmer, I am minded that while someone sows the seed, someone else garners the harvest, and the person who garners the harvest is the person who gets the plaudits, so congratulations to the Minister for that.
What discussion has the Secretary of State had with our American allies to ensure that the good of Ukraine is at the heart of any approach and that any minerals deal is secondary to our ensuring that the battle was not fought in vain and that lives were not lost in vain? Can he ensure that Putin and the Russian army will be held accountable for their war crimes and their reign of terror, and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue always to stand with Ukraine?
John Healey
I think this House appreciates the hon. Member’s declaration on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that they stand steadfast with Ukraine. The support that the UK Government—the previous Government and this Government—are giving to Ukraine to document in the most difficult circumstances of an ongoing war the evidence that will be required to bring the Russian forces and Russian leaders to account after the fighting is over is an important part of the contribution that we can make. Funding, resources, and expert and legal advice is part of the ongoing aid that we are providing to Ukraine for that purpose.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and reiteration that we will always support the people of Ukraine. Given Russia’s despicable attack against civilian targets in Kyiv, costing the lives of over 20 civilians including children and damaging a British Council building, it is quite clear that Vladimir Putin has very little interest in any legitimate peace process. Given that reports differ about how committed countries are to deploying troops in Ukraine to enforce any potential peace agreement, can the Secretary of State set out how the UK is working with our allies to convince them to back security guarantees and peace in Ukraine, and will he state that there is nothing that Vladimir Putin can do now to deter our support for Ukraine?
John Healey
There is indeed nothing that Putin can do to deter our support for Ukraine—our support while it fights, but also our preparation for the moment of peace that we hope will come. My hon. Friend invites me to set out how we are developing that. We have had multiple meetings of our military leaders and planners over the summer through the coalition of the willing. I will host this week a meeting of Defence Ministers from the coalition of the willing. It will be designed to make sure that we maintain our military plans and step up the commitments to contribute at the point at which we can get a peace agreement in place. There will be a role for countries like ours to support Ukraine, both in securing that peace for the long term and in regenerating their own armed forces to deter Russia in future.
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
Today is day 1,239 since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion and it is more than a decade since the Ukrainians have known peace in their homeland. They have had homes destroyed, lands seized, children abducted and loved ones killed by Putin’s forces. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with remarkable determination—military and civilian alike. Almost three and a half years on, I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine. Britain remains united for Ukraine, too. Polling shows that we retain the strongest public support for Ukraine of any European nation. Our solidarity is grounded in our deep respect for the Ukrainian people’s courage, and in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine—because we know that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop with Ukraine.
Let me begin by providing a battlefield update. Russia is maintaining pressure along the whole length of the frontline, with a special focus on Sumy in the north-east and Pokrovsk in the south-east, as well as in Kursk. Last month, Russian ground forces seized approximately 550 sq km of Ukrainian territory—an area greater than the size of Greater Manchester—yet they face continuing difficulties attempting to take fortified towns and cities, and they have not taken a significant town for months. Indeed, they have tried without success to seize Pokrovsk for nearly a year. What ground they do gain comes at great cost. Last month, the number of Russian troops killed and wounded surpassed more than 1 million. This year alone, Russia has sustained 240,000 casualties.
Despite those catastrophic Russian losses, Putin’s ruthless ambitions do not appear to be waning. Russia is escalating the high numbers of one-way attack drones launched at Ukraine: 1,900 in April, 4,000 in May, 5,000 in June and already 3,200 in July. On 9 July, a week ago today, the largest aerial strike of the war was recorded when Russia launched more than 700 attack drones in a single night.
Despite the onslaught, Ukrainians are taking the fight to Putin, striking military targets in Russia that his people see and know about. Spider Web was an operation of remarkable precision and extraordinary success that dealt a fierce blow to Putin. After one year of meticulous planning, it resulted in the damage of 41 long-range bombers—planes that threaten not only Ukraine but NATO.
We must now step up efforts to get further military support to the frontline. Last month, on the eve of the NATO summit, we welcomed President Zelensky to No. 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister signed a UK-Ukraine agreement to share advanced battlefield capabilities and technologies—a deal that means our defence industry can rapidly develop cutting-edge technologies from Ukraine, and step up production for Ukraine. At the NATO summit that followed, 32 nations came together to sign a new investment pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035. Those 32 nations reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, with €40 billion pledged in security assistance for this year. It was a good summit for Ukraine, for Britain and for NATO; it was a bad summit for Putin.
On the basis of those commitments at NATO, President Trump signalled a significant shift this week on Ukraine: he announced NATO weapons transfers, and a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace. Together with the NATO Secretary-General, President Trump agreed to large-scale purchases by NATO allies of US military equipment, including Patriot missiles and other air defence systems and munitions, which he committed to getting
“quickly distributed to the battlefield”.
The UK backs the scheme, and we plan to play our full part. On Monday, we will discuss this further when I chair the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside my German counterpart, Minister Boris Pistorius. The contact group continues to be the forum through which more than 50 nations provide Ukraine with what it needs to fight back against Putin’s war machine. I am pleased that Monday’s meeting will be attended by US Secretary Hegseth; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich.
Britain is providing more than £4.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year—more than ever before. At the UDCG, I will provide the following updates. First, on the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, two thirds of the UK’s ERA total of £2.26 billion has now been disbursed, including £700 million on artillery shells, long- range rockets and air defence missiles—exactly what Ukraine needs most. Secondly, on drones, since March the UK has supplied nearly 50,000 drones to Ukraine. This helps us to meet our commitment to increasing tenfold our supply this year. Thirdly, on air defence, the UK and Germany have agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine. Fourthly, on the NATO comprehensive assistance package, the UK will donate a further £40 million, which Ukraine can use, through a range of programmes, on anything from de-mining to rehabilitating its wounded.
It is four months since President Zelensky responded to President Trump’s peace negotiations with Ukraine’s full commitment to an unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has shown no such interest in an end to the fighting, but peace in Ukraine is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes. Since March, the UK and France have led the coalition of the willing on planning new security arrangements to support Ukraine in any ceasefire. More than 200 military planners from 30 nations have worked intensively for weeks with Ukraine; that includes work on reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
Last week, at the summit, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer said that this initial phase of detailed military planning had concluded. I can confirm that the military command and control structures have been agreed for a future Multinational Force Ukraine. The force’s mission will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defences on the land, at sea and in the air, because the Ukrainian armed forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression. The force will include a three-star multinational command headquarters in Paris, rotating to London after the first 12 months. When the force deploys, there will be a co-ordination HQ in Kyiv, headed by a UK two-star military officer. It will regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armament and training experts. It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft to deliver a level of support similar to that used for NATO’s air policing mission, and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black sea taskforce with additional specialist teams.
When peace comes, we will be ready, and we will play our part in securing it for the long term. Next month, on 24 August, Ukrainians will gather to celebrate their independence day. For another year, the anniversary of Ukraine’s liberation will be marked under the pain of occupation. Whatever else commands the world’s attention, we must never lose sight of this war. We must never lose sight of Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of that proud and sovereign nation, and we must never forget the price that Ukraine is paying in fighting for its own freedom and the security of all free nations, including ours. The UK will stand with the Ukrainian people today, tomorrow, the day after, and for as long it takes for Ukraine to prevail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome for the update. I welcome the Opposition’s continued backing for the steps that we are taking to support Ukraine, just as we gave our backing to their Government when we were in opposition.
The shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that the massive scale of Russian casualties shows the contempt that President Putin has for the life of his own people, as well as for the life of those in Ukraine. He is also right to point out that Russian casualties far outnumber those in Ukraine.
On the coalition of the willing, 30 nations are involved in the planning. The military planning is now complete, and we will keep it refreshed until renewed ceasefire negotiations, which we hope to see soon. Under the plans, there will be a land force, and activity in the air and on the sea. I am pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State back the aid that we are putting into Ukraine. He asks about the coalition of the willing, but I really cannot recall—and I have checked—him backing the coalition. Does his party support Britain’s leadership of the Multinational Force Ukraine?
Discussions on the Trump NATO plan will be developed on Monday at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, which I will co-chair will Boris Pistorius. If sanctions and economic measures play a part in the actions that the international community need to take to bring Putin to the negotiating table, we will of course use them. The shadow Secretary of State’s Government had a good record; we have gone a lot further in the past year. Since July, we have introduced over 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships across all the regimes, and as a nation we have now sanctioned over 289 vessels in the Russian shadow fleet.
On base security, I will update the House when the full base security review is complete. On DragonFire, the shadow Secretary of State is right to say that he was instrumental in the UK taking its first steps on that technology, but he left the programme largely unfunded. We are already accelerating it, and will put that technology into four of our naval vessels, not just the one that he planned to put it in.
On drones, the hon. Gentleman knows that what he keeps citing was a very specific answer to a very specific question. He knows that following the strategic defence review, we are doubling to more than £4 billion the amount of money in this Parliament that we will invest in autonomy and drones. He knows that we will establish a new drone centre of excellence. This will mean we can accelerate the use of uncrewed systems or drones in every service. The Army, for instance, will train thousands of operators. This summer, we will start rolling out 3,000 strike drones. That will be followed by more than 1,000 surveillance drones, and we will equip every section with drones for the future. That is what we mean in the strategic defence review when we talk about combining the power of new technology with the heavy metal of platforms like tanks, planes and ships to make Britain the most innovative armed forces in NATO.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the Member for Aldershot, I know how deeply people in my constituency understand the cost of conflict and the value of standing by our allies, so I welcome this statement and thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Does he agree that the outcome in Ukraine matters for not just European security but the UK’s standing as a reliable defence partner, and that for us to maintain this reputation, long-term investment in British capabilities and industries in constituencies like mine—where, incidentally, DragonFire was created—is essential to sustaining our support and deterring further aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: the UK has been the most reliable ally for Ukraine since before the full-scale invasion almost three and a half years ago. She is also right to say that a test of this nation is whether we are willing to step up the leadership on Ukraine, as we have; whether we are ready to step up the leadership in NATO, as we have; and, underpinning all, whether we are ready to step up the level of defence investment in this country, which we have. The Prime Minister announced in February that this country would invest 2.5% of GDP in defence by 2027, alongside the £5 billion extra in defence this year—Labour’s first year in government. This is the largest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
John Healey
First, we stand ready to expand sanctions on the Russian shadow fleet. Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the coalition of the willing. The military planning is complete. With the prospect of a ceasefire, which we hope to see soon but cannot see immediately, the commitments and the details will be firmed up, and they will be reported appropriately to the House at that stage.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the use of frozen assets. She will know the complexity of this challenge and the interest and will of the Government to work on this, but she will also recognise that the majority of those assets are held outside the UK, so any action on this front must be taken with and alongside others. Therein lies the complexity of the discussions at present.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us.
No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: for the first time in human conflict history, drones are killing far more and causing far more casualties than heavy artillery. She asks the challenging question that was at the heart of the strategic defence review that we published at the beginning of last month: in learning lessons from Ukraine, how do we recognise the way that the change in warfare is accelerated by the rapidly advancing technology? That is the reason we are making a £4 billion investment in this Parliament alone in the drone technology that she cites and the potential of autonomy to reinforce the warfighting readiness of our forces and therefore the deterrence that we can provide as a nation within NATO.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Operation Orbital is the UK training programme for the Ukrainian military. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that personal and personnel data is safe at the Ministry of Defence? He mentioned there being 15,000 drone attacks over the last four months, and he referenced meeting with Germans to look at counter-drone munitions and capabilities, but of course, Ukrainians are being attacked right now—today. What thought has been given to the use of the RAF’s Tucano aircraft, which I think are now out of service? I wonder where they are. Could they be redeployed? Could a variant of the Grob turboprop trainer perhaps be provided? These slow-flying aircraft could interdict Shahed drones, for example, and they are low-cost and low-maintenance.
John Healey
I am not familiar with the Tucano aircraft—if they are still in our inventory, they have not come across my desk—but I will certainly look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the Orbital training programme, I am confident that the data relating to those personnel are secure. I am proud of that programme. It did not just follow Putin’s full-scale invasion in February three and a half years ago; it was in place after Russia first took Crimea and had proxy forces move into Donetsk and Luhansk. There was a UK-Canadian training programme supporting Ukrainians well before Putin’s invasion, and since then, we have trained more than 56,000 Ukrainian forces through the UK-led multinational training programme.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of Russia on 9 July, when it launched the largest aerial bombardment of the war to date, show that Ukrainian civilians and military are still in a fight for their lives and the future of their country, and that this House, our Government and our country must do everything possible to stand with them in that fight?
John Healey
I do, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House and the public. These Russian attacks are directed not just at Ukrainian frontline forces, but at Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian civilians and Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. That is a harsh reminder of Putin’s character. His brutal, illegal invasion is entirely contemptuous of the lives of his own people, and he is attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I fully support the work of the UK Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Like so many voluntary groups across the United Kingdom, the Rotary club of Duns has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine during the war. It has delivered several pick-up trucks loaded with medical equipment and other essential supplies to Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Rotary club and the other voluntary groups that have been involved? What more support can the Government provide to UK voluntary groups that want to provide assistance to Ukraine?
John Healey
I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s local Rotary club and the other local groups that reflect the continuing public will to offer support where we can to Ukraine. If those groups, including his local Rotary club, are looking for specific support to get such supplies to Ukraine, I would encourage him to contact me with the details.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is one of the most energetic and ceaseless supporters of Ukraine, and not just in this House. I know he has gone out with supplies to support civilians and comrades in Ukraine. I am glad that he was at the Ukraine recovery conference in Italy last week. If he is looking for the lessons that the UK Ministry of Defence is pulling from Ukraine, I will send him a personal copy of the strategic defence review.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
These plans for a so-called coalition of the willing are contingency plans. They are designed for a time when Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Ukraine, which, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, he shows no sign of doing. How does the prospect of Ukraine’s allies, such as the UK, deploying armed forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire incentivise the Kremlin to sue for peace?
John Healey
One of the signals that the coalition of the willing underlines to President Putin is that a large number of deeply committed democratic countries are willing to stand with Ukraine in its fight against his invasion, and are willing to stand alongside Ukraine in any peace to secure a long-lasting and just settlement. The single message that Putin should take is that Ukraine will keep fighting, that we will keep supporting it, and that the best way for him is now to accept that he needs to come to the negotiating table to talk and put an end to this fighting.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important update. It is clear that Russia’s growing aggression undermines our security at home. Does he agree that the outcome of the war in Ukraine matters deeply to every one of my constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, as much as it does across the whole country and, indeed, all of Europe? Can he update us any further on the measures he is taking to counter Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy share the sentiment across the UK of strong support for Ukraine, three and a half years into this war. [Interruption.] There is a recognition that this matter rises above party politics, and a recognition in general that the UK not only needs to say that we stand with Ukraine, but needs to demonstrate that through our actions. I hope her constituents will support the Government in what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive.
It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan?
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not my phone either.
The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to the more than 200 military planners, from more than 30 nations, who have worked over the last four months on the detail of the military planning. It has not just been an exercise based and led in France and the UK; it has involved detailed reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
These are serious military plans. They are designed for the circumstances of a ceasefire—circumstances that are not entirely clear now, but that we hope to see. They will be refined regularly between now and any point of peace. They are designed to make sure that, when we get that peace, we are ready to support it as a multinational force for Ukraine.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his update and for his leadership on this issue. In Russia and the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, Russian authorities have introduced military-patriotic training in schools and youth groups, exposing Ukrainian children to military propaganda urging enlistment in the Russian armed forces. There are also reports that Russia is recruiting Ukrainian teenagers and young adults to carry out espionage and sabotage within Ukraine.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine’s children have no place on the battlefield in this war? Can he say a little more about the work he is doing with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hold to account those responsible for the militarisation and forced deportation of Ukraine’s children?
John Healey
I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her ceaseless work to draw public attention in the UK to the plight of abducted Ukrainian children and teenagers in Russia. Abducted Ukrainian children have no place on the Russian frontline, they have no place on the battlefield, and they have no place in Russia.
When the Foreign Secretary and I first went to Ukraine together, when we were still in opposition, we met a magnificent charity that was bringing abducted Ukrainian children back from Russia. We sat down with four young teenagers who had been subject to exactly the sort of treatment that my hon. Friend identifies. I will look to work with her and Foreign Office colleagues to reinforce any of the steps we can take in this country to draw greater attention to this brutal abuse of young people.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It has been three and a half years since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we all know that there has been huge loss of life, and incredible disruption and pain caused to many residents, not only in Ukraine but across the world. I saw that for myself when I met the Keighley Ukrainian association, which has gone above and beyond, not only raising funds for those in Ukraine but supporting many families in my constituency. The owners of Keighley Cougars are in Ukraine as we speak, delivering sports equipment to organisations involved in rugby league in Ukraine, who are unable to have the equipment they need as a result of the war.
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those two organisations? We all know that a divided west only benefits Russia, so following the latest talks with NATO, will the Secretary of State also comment on what more the Government could be doing to ensure other nations are playing their part, both through military support and through funding and developing key defence capabilities to continue to support Ukraine?
John Healey
The UK is playing a leading part by co-chairing the Ukrainian defence contact group, as I will be on Monday. Through that forum, 50 nations co-ordinate support and respond to Ukraine’s battlefield support needs. Alongside the French, we are also leading by developing the coalition of the willing, planning for the future. I pay tribute to the members of the Keighley Cougars who are out in Ukraine delivering sports equipment—hats off to them. I see that as typical of the generosity of the people in Yorkshire.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Brave Ukrainians in my constituency of Rugby, who are a long way from their compatriots at home, tell me about the continuing suffering of civilians—I repeat: civilians—due to Russian aggression. Will the Defence Secretary join me in welcoming the new drive from President Trump and NATO to ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position both to defend itself and in any future negotiations?
John Healey
In reminding the House about the Ukrainian families who are in Rugby, my hon. Friend reminds us that this is a war—an invasion—that has forced many to flee their home. Many are still receiving shelter from UK families, and I pay tribute to those who are offering that shelter. We have been willing to back President Trump in his bid to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine from the outset, and we look to this next stage as a hopeful sign. We will do whatever we can to reinforce his efforts to put pressure on President Putin now and to bring him to the negotiating table.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. The new coalition Government in Germany are making a massively welcome contribution to increased support to NATO and to European security. I welcome that greater contribution. I note that the Federal Ministry of Defence is still led, very ably, by a Social Democratic Party of Germany Minister, Boris Pistorius. I especially welcome that at the heart of the new friendship treaty, which Chancellor Merz and our Prime Minister will sign today, is the Trinity House agreement that Boris Pistorius and I struck back in October: a deep defence agreement, for the first time, between the UK and Germany. It means that we will do so much more together as two nations, but also as two nations within NATO.
Afghanistan
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a significant data protection breach from February 2022 relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. It led to the High Court granting an unprecedented super-injunction and the previous Government establishing a secret Afghan resettlement route. Today I am announcing to the House a change in Government policy. I am closing that resettlement route, disclosing the data loss, and confirming that the Court order was lifted at 12 noon today.
Members of this House—including you, Mr Speaker, and me—have been subject to the super-injunction. It is unprecedented. To be clear, the Court has always recognised the parliamentary privilege of proceedings in this House, and Ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians about the data incident at an earlier stage, as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset. However, as parliamentarians and as Ministers, it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House. I am grateful to be able to disclose the details to Parliament today. I trust that you, Mr Speaker, and Members will bear with me if I take the time to ensure that the House now has the fullest information possible, as I discussed with you yesterday.
The facts are as follows. In February 2022, 10 months after the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, introduced the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and six months after the fall of Kabul, a Defence official emailed an ARAP case working file outside authorised Government systems. As the House knows, ARAP is the resettlement scheme that this country established for Afghan citizens who worked for, or with, our UK armed forces over the combat years in Afghanistan. Both in opposition and in government, Labour has backed that scheme, and ARAP has had full support from across this House.
The official mistakenly believed that they were sending the names of 150 applicants. However, the spreadsheet in fact contained personal information associated with 18,714 Afghans who had applied to either the ex gratia scheme or the ARAP scheme on, or before, 7 January 2022. It contained names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants’ family members. In a small number of cases, the names of Members of Parliament, senior military officers and Government officials were noted as supporting the application. This was a serious departmental error. It was in clear breach of strict data protection protocols, and was one of many data losses relating to the ARAP scheme during this period.
Ministers in the previous Government first became aware of the data loss in mid-August 2023, 18 months after the incident, when personal details of nine individuals from the dataset appeared online. Action was taken to ensure they were swiftly removed, an internal investigation was conducted, and the incident was reported to both the Metropolitan police and the Information Commissioner. The Met deemed that no criminal investigation was necessary, and the Information Commissioner has continued to work with the Department throughout.
However, journalists were almost immediately aware of the breach, and the previous Administration applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the data loss becoming public. The judge deemed that the risk warranted going further and, on 1 September 2023, granted a super-injunction, which prevented disclosure of the very existence of the injunction. That super-injunction has been in place for nearly two years, during which time eight media organisations and their journalists were served to prohibit any reporting. No Government wish to withhold information from the British public, parliamentarians or the press in this manner.
In autumn 2023, previous Ministers started work on establishing a new resettlement scheme specifically designed for people in the compromised dataset who were not eligible for ARAP but who were nevertheless judged to be at the highest risk of reprisals by the Taliban. It is known as the Afghanistan response route, or ARR. It was covered by the super-injunction. The then Government initially established the ARR to resettle a target cohort of around 200 principals, but in early 2024 a combination of Ministers’ decisions on the scheme’s policy design and the court’s views had broadened that category to nearly 3,000 principals.
I want to provide assurance to the House and the British public that all individuals relocated under the Afghanistan response route, ARAP or the Home Office’s Afghan citizens resettlement scheme undergo strict national security checks before being able to enter our country. The full number of Afghan arrivals under all schemes has been reported in the regular Home Office statistics, meaning that they are already counted in existing migration figures.
As shadow Defence Secretary, I was initially briefed on the ARR by James Heappey, the former Armed Forces Minister, on 12 December 2023, and issued with the super-injunction at the start of that meeting. Other members of the present Cabinet were only informed of the evidence of the data breach, the operation of the ARR, and the existence of the super-injunction on taking office after the general election. By that time, the ARR scheme was fully established and in operation, and it was nearly two and a half years since the data loss.
I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and to the public. I felt it only right to reassess the decision-making criteria for the ARR. We began, straightaway, to take a hard look at the policy complexities, costs, risks, court hearings and the range of Afghan relocation schemes being run by the previous Government. Cabinet colleagues endorsed the need for new insights in the autumn of last year, while the scheme kept running. In December 2024, I announced the streamlining of the range of Government schemes that we inherited into the Afghan resettlement programme to establish better value for money, a single set of time-limited entitlements and support to get Afghan families resettled. On behalf of the House, I sincerely thank our colleagues in local government, without whom this unified resettlement programme would simply not have been possible.
At the beginning of this year, I commissioned Paul Rimmer, a former senior civil servant and ex-deputy chief of Defence Intelligence, to conduct an independent review. The review was concluded and reported to Ministers last month. Today I am releasing a public version of Rimmer’s review, and I am placing a copy of it in the Library of the House. I am very grateful to him for his work.
Despite brutal human rights abuses in Afghanistan, the Rimmer review notes the passage of time—it is nearly four years since the fall of Kabul—and concludes:
“There is little evidence of intent by the Taleban to conduct a campaign of retribution against”
former officials. It also concludes that those who pose a challenge to the Taliban rule now are at greater risk of a reaction from the regime, and that
“the wealth of data inherited from the former government”
by the Taliban
“would already enable them”
to target individuals if they wished to do so, which means that it is “highly unlikely” that merely being on the spreadsheet
“would be the…piece of information enabling or prompting the Taleban to act.”
Rimmer is clear: he stresses the uncertainty in any judgments and does not rule out any risk. Yet he concludes that, given this updated context, the current policy that we inherited
“appears an extremely significant intervention…to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents.”
The Rimmer review is a very significant element, but not the sole element, in the Government’s decision to change policy, to close the ARR and to ensure that the court order is lifted today. Policy concerns about proportionality, public accountability, cost and fairness were also important factors for the Government. This was not a decision taken lightly; it follows a lengthy process, including the Rimmer review, detailed ministerial discussions and repeated consultations with legal advisers. Just as I have changed Government policy in the light of the review, the High Court today, in the light of the review, ruled that there was no tenable basis for the continuation of the super-injunction.
To date, 900 ARR principals are in Britain or in transit, together with 3,600 family members, at a cost of about £400 million. From today, there will be no new ARR offers of relocation to Britain. From today, the route is closed. However, we will honour the 600 invitations already made to any named persons still in Afghanistan and their immediate family. When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it. Today I am also restoring full accountability for the Government’s Afghan relocation schemes to Parliament, and I would expect our Select Committees now to hold us to account through in-depth inquiries.
Let me turn to the practical action that we have taken as a result of this policy change and in preparation for the lifting of the court’s super-injunction. My first concern has been to notify as many people as possible who are affected by the data incident and to provide them with further advice. The Ministry of Defence has done that this morning, although it has not been possible to contact every individual on the dataset, owing to its incomplete and out-of-date information. Anyone who may be concerned can head to our new dedicated gov.uk website, where they will find more information about the data loss; further security advice; a self-checker tool, which will inform them whether their application has been affected; and contact steps for the detailed information services centre that the MOD has established.
This serious data incident should never have happened. It may have occurred three years ago, under the previous Government, but to all those whose information was compromised I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British Government, and I trust that the shadow Defence Secretary, as a former Defence Minister, will join me in that.
To date, 36,000 Afghans have been accepted by Britain through the range of relocation schemes. Britain has honoured the duty we owe to those who worked and fought alongside our troops in Afghanistan. The British people have welcomed them to our country, and in turn, this is their chance to rebuild their lives, their chance to contribute to and share in the prosperity of our great country. However, none of these relocation schemes can carry on in perpetuity, nor were they conceived to do so. That is why we announced on 1 July that we would no longer accept new applicants to ARAP. However, I reiterate the commitment that we made then to processing every outstanding ARAP application and relocating those who might prove eligible, and we will complete our commitment to continuing the review of the Triples.
I recognise that my statement will prompt many questions. I would have liked to settle these matters sooner, because full accountability to Parliament and freedom of the press matter deeply to me—they are fundamental to our British way of life. However, lives may have been at stake, and I have spent many hours thinking about this decision; thinking about the safety and the lives of people I will never meet, in a far-off land in which 457 of our servicemen and women lost their lives. So this weighs heavily on me, and it is why no Government could take such decisions lightly, without sound grounds and hard deliberations. During the last year we have conducted and now completed this work. I commend my statement to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for receipt earlier this morning of a hard copy of the Rimmer review. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces for briefing me yesterday and other parliamentary colleagues today. Furthermore, given the nature of the super-injunction and the fact that the timing and nature of the statement relate entirely to the court’s lifting of that super-injunction, I recognise that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I welcome the opportunity that colleagues now have to scrutinise these matters.
Let me begin by declaring an interest. I was a Defence Minister in August 2023, when the Department first became aware of the breach, my main role being to chair one meeting on the matter in August 2023 because I was the duty Minister. Thereafter, however, as Minister for Defence Procurement and with this sitting outside my portfolio, I had relatively minimal direct involvement. That said, the Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that, and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols. I also agree that it is right for an apology to be issued specifically to those whose data was compromised.
It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that when this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then Government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario: namely, an error on the part of an official of the British state leading to the torture, or even murder, of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime. As the Rimmer review confirms, that scenario, thankfully, appears to have been avoided. Of course, we understand that the review was set up in January and reported to the Secretary of State in June.
I want to be clear that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State has sought to update the Department’s understanding of the threat on the ground in Afghanistan that exists today, particularly for those persons in the dataset who had previously been considered to be at the greatest risk of reprisals. However, the House will appreciate that when Ministers became aware of the data breach in August 2023, we did not have the luxury of six months in which to assess the situation. As Rimmer says in paragraph 53:
“The review notes that the passage of time is particularly relevant.”
I know that my former ministerial colleague—the former Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, who led the response to the leak—will have been focused entirely on what he saw as his duty of care to those at risk of reprisals, based on the threat assessment that pertained at the time. However, any threat picture is constantly evolving, and as I say, I support the Secretary of State’s decision to review the MOD’s understanding of the threat. Given the latest situation, as reported by Rimmer, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan response route can now be closed.
Turning to the super-injunction, I entirely understand why this would be a subject of considerable interest, particularly to the newspapers and media outlets concerned. We have an independent judiciary, and it is not for me to comment either on the decision to grant the injunction in the first place or to lift it today, but it is surely telling that paragraph 56 of the Rimmer review states that planning at the time that the Government became aware of the breach in the summer of 2023 was based on a
“risk judgement that were the Taleban to secure access to the dataset, the consequences for affected individuals may be serious.”
Had that not been the case, no doubt the Court would have been less likely to grant the injunction, and certainly not a super-injunction.
On the leak, can the Secretary of State confirm that it was by a civil servant, and that Ministers at the time took steps to change the casework procedure by not using spreadsheets sent by email, but moving to a more secure system fully within the entirely secure network? Can he confirm that, although the dataset was of about 18,000, only a relatively small portion were identified as at high risk of reprisals, and only a small number had been settled here, which is why, as he stated, the cost is about £400 million, not the £7 billion reported elsewhere? Now that these matters are rightly in the public domain and given the reassessment of the threat in the Rimmer review, I agree that it would be wholly appropriate for the Defence Committee and others to look further into these matters.
Can the Secretary of State comment on one specific item being reported, which is that someone—I refer not to the person who made the leak, but another apparent third party who obtained some of the data—was engaged in blackmail? Did the original Metropolitan police investigation look at that, and if not, will he consider reopening it so that the police can look at that specific point, which has serious implications?
Although we must recognise the huge role played by Afghan nationals in support of our armed forces, any policy in this area must always be balanced against our own national interest. We support the Government in closing the ARR scheme, as we did with their decision to close the full ARAP programme.
John Healey
I welcome the tone in which the shadow Defence Secretary has responded, and I welcome his joining me in the apology on behalf of the British Government to those whose data has been compromised. I also welcome his acceptance that, as he put it, it was “entirely appropriate” for the Defence Secretary, as part of a new Government, to look to update the Department’s assessment of the threat. I am very pleased that, as the House will have noted, he supports Rimmer’s conclusions and my policy judgments that the Government have announced today. The shadow Defence Secretary is right that, in simple terms, Rimmer gives us a revised, up-to-date assessment of the risk—in particular, the risk to those individuals whose data may be on that spreadsheet. He does confirm that it is highly unlikely that their name being on the dataset increases the risk of their being targeted.
The shadow Defence Secretary asked me three or four specific questions. He asked about the official—it was a defence official. I cannot account for the improvements in data handling that previous Ministers may have made, but when I did his job in opposition, this data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes. I can also say that, in the past year since the election, the Government have appointed a new chief information officer, installed new software to securely share data and completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system.
On the £7 billion figure, which I think the shadow Defence Secretary may have picked up from court papers, that was a previous estimate. It is related not simply to the Afghan response route but an estimate of the total cost of all Government Afghan schemes for the entire period in which they may operate.
On the significance of today’s announcement and the policy decisions that we have taken compared with simply continuing the policy and schemes that we inherited, the taxpayer will pay £1.2 billion less over the period, about 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country and, above all, proper accountability in this House and proper freedom of the media are restored.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Although I welcome it and his intent to inject parliamentary transparency and scrutiny, this whole data breach is a mess and wholly unacceptable. As I mentioned to the Minister for the Armed Forces during our recent secret briefing, I am minded to recommend to my Defence Committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate it to ascertain what has transpired, given the serious ramifications on so many levels.
As things stand, notwithstanding the contents of the Rimmer review, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the Afghans affected, many of whom bravely supported our service personnel, will not be at risk of recriminations and reprisals?
John Healey
I can only recommend that my hon. Friend reads in full the public version of the Rimmer report, which I have published today. Rimmer sets out conclusions and an updated risk assessment, taking an up-to-date view, recognising that the situation in Afghanistan is nearly four years on from the point at which the Taliban took control and that the present regime sees those who may threaten the regime itself as a greater threat to their operation than any former Government official or serving official.
I recommend that my hon. Friend reads that report, and I expect that he, as the Defence Committee Chair, will want to take full advantage of this restored parliamentary accountability. I have always believed that our Select Committee system in this House is perfectly capable of, and better suited to, many of the in-depth inquiries that often get punted into public inquiries or calls for such inquiries. I hope he will have noted the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary also endorsed that view.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing on this issue this morning.
I am pleased this House now has the opportunity to scrutinise this alarming data breach. It was right that the then Government moved to introduce a new scheme to try to minimise the risk to the Afghan soldiers and their families caught up in this breach involving 18,714 individuals in total. It is the very least we owe them given the sacrifices they made to support our campaign in Afghanistan, and I welcome the apologies from both sides of the House as a result of this data breach.
There are, however, serious questions raised about how this data breach was allowed to happen under the Conservatives’ watch, and the heightened level of risk it has created for the Afghans involved. What steps have been taken to address the root cause of the breach and ensure that it cannot happen again? Reporting by the Financial Times this afternoon suggests that an original relocation scheme considered for all 25,000 Afghan personnel could cost up to £7 billion. Will he confirm what assessment his Department has made of that figure, and why that was kept hidden from the public?
The immediate priority must be to ensure the safety of all those individuals caught up in this breach, so what assurances can the Secretary of State provide that lifting the super-injunction does not heighten dangers for the individuals concerned? What steps is he taking to ensure that the individuals whose data was leaked are aware of the incident? What additional support is being provided to them directly now that the case is in the public domain? In the light of these developments, can he outline when the casework and final relocations under this and the ARAP scheme will be completed?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Lady’s response. I provided the answers to two or three of her questions directly to the shadow Defence Secretary. On the steps we have taken to ensure the reduced risk of data losses and data breaches in future, one can never say never but I am more confident that I was 12 months ago. I have also given a response on the £7 billion figure. The estimated full costs of all Afghan schemes that will run to their completion, from start to finish, because of the savings that will derive from the policy decisions we have taken today, will be between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. The cost of the ARR scheme to date—the cost and the sums committed to bring the 900 principals and their immediate families who are in Britain or in transit—is about £400 million. On those still to come, I expect the cost to be a similar sum.
I think I said in my statement to the House that Rimmer recognises the uncertainties and the brutal nature of the Afghan Taliban regime. There can never be no risk in such judgments and decisions, and that is one reason that I and the Government have taken this decision with hard deliberation and serious intent. I hope the House will back it this afternoon.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the ministerial team for my early briefing, which gave me an opportunity to read a Foreign Affairs Committee report that came out—it was begun in September 2021—in 2022 under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is called “Missing in action: UK leadership and the withdrawal from Afghanistan” and it was excoriating:
“The manner of the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan was a disaster, a betrayal of our allies, and weakens the trust that helps to keep British people safe.”
It said:
“the Government should keep better records—securely held—on locally-employed staff”—
we have heard that this is one of the many data losses from ARAP—
“to ensure that any evacuation can be carried out more effectively. It should devise a policy, based on clear and fair principles, about the assistance that will be offered to local partners in the event of a security deterioration, and report to us when it has done so.”
I hope that such a policy has been developed, that more lessons have been learnt and that Ministers will report to my Foreign Affairs Committee about where we are now.
John Healey
I am sure Ministers will report to my right hon. Friend’s Committee if she invites us to do so. She is right to make the big argument that anyone providing data to the British Government has a right to expect that personal data to be stored securely, handled safely and not subject to the sort of loss or breach that we saw too often in the early days of the Afghan relocation schemes.
John Healey
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I am certainly grateful for his support for my statement this afternoon. Although he has not said it, he is a big champion of press freedom and I expect that he also recognises that an important part of our decision has been the period in which we have seen no public knowledge, no media reporting and no parliamentary accountability. We set that right today.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
As a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I was appalled to watch the chaotic mismanagement following the fall of Kabul that left Afghans who served alongside our troops and who worked so hard for a better Afghanistan, dangerously exposed. This was a situation that I feared would happen and could see coming even when I served in Afghanistan in 2017. The fact is that the previous Government had plenty of warning that that situation could happen and failed to plan properly for it. This data breach joins a litany of other data breaches, delays and failures of our allies. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must give our fullest support to those Afghans, so they can rebuild a new life in the UK?
John Healey
I do indeed. I know from Afghan families who were relocated in the early days to my own constituency in South Yorkshire that it was the voices of Members on both sides of the House, speaking up in exactly the same terms as my hon. Friend just has and recognising the debt this country owes to many of those who worked alongside or served with our armed forces and who made possible in the first place the very difficult job that our forces undertook in Afghanistan, that provided a warm welcome, and they continue to do so. To those Afghans, we are offering a new home and a chance to rebuild their lives and contribute to our country.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the tone of voice with which he delivered it. I commanded the Scots Guards in 2010 in Afghanistan, at the high watermark of violence. I was very well served by Naz and Mukhtar, and I will always be grateful both to the Ministry of Defence for getting them to Britain and to the communities in this country who have welcomed them to their new lives here. I want to focus on a particular phrase the Secretary of State used. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it was a civil servant who carried out the leak. The Secretary of State said it was a “Defence official” and The Times is reporting that it was a soldier. I think it is worth clarifying exactly whether it was a civil servant, a spad or a soldier, because conflating the term “Defence official” to cover members of the armed forces is something that might come back to bite the Secretary of State if he continues to do it.
John Healey
This was a data breach that took place three and a half years ago under the decision and leadership of the previous Government and previous Defence Ministers. The challenge this Government faced was far bigger than the actions of one official that long ago. My full focus since the election in July last year has been to get to grips with the costs, the proportionality—or disproportionality—of the schemes in place, and the lack of accountability to Parliament, freedom of the press and public knowledge. It is that set of factors that has taken up my time and my attention.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I note that the shadow Secretary of State made great play of the changes and the extra safeguards that Ministers of the previous Government put in place following the breach. I also note that the Secretary of State said he had had to make more changes and introduce new software. That suggests to me that the changes put in place by the previous Government were not good enough. Can I ask him this clearly? Who had knowledge of this incident in the 18 months after the data breach had taken place before it reached Ministers? How were there no checks on anyone in the Department who had access to that sort of data to ensure they were using it properly?
John Healey
My hon. Friend poses questions to me in the House this afternoon that I simply cannot answer. The events date from a period well before I took office. As he above all will appreciate, new Ministers have no access to the policy advice, the legal assessments, any of the papers or even the threat assessments that previous Government Ministers may have commissioned. I think that that subject is, if I may say so, proper material for the Defence Committee, on which he serves in such a distinguished way, to perhaps take a deeper look at and to call witnesses on who may be in a better position to answer those questions than I am this afternoon.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about software. I am afraid I am one of the last people to be able to give an authoritative view on the question of cyber-security and up-to-date software, but the nature of this work means that there is a constant requirement for new software and for updating. The fact that we have taken the steps in the past 12 months that our experts and I have regarded as necessary does not necessarily mean that the steps taken by previous Ministers were inadequate. What I can say, however, is that when I was the shadow Defence Secretary, we were aware of and exposed in opposition the building backlogs in casework, the regular data breaches and the broken promises that sadly too often characterised the Afghan relocation schemes, particularly in the early years.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I, too, welcome the statement given by the Secretary of State today. As a member of the Defence Committee, I look forward to giving this matter the scrutiny it deserves. I will not go into the detail of the report, but I think it is important to clarify, if the Secretary of State is able to do so, whether the data breach in question has in the past put or is now putting any serving members of the UK armed forces at risk?
John Healey
I look forward to being called to give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee if it does launch such an inquiry. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is staggering to hear of yet another serious data breach under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can bicker from their Benches, but it was clearly a mistake made when they were in power. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have inherited a chaotic and poorly managed system, and can he tell us what systems have been put in place to correct that? We must not see more systems with officials emailing an Excel spreadsheet—it absolutely beggars belief. Can he confirm that this will never happen again?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the criticism she levels. I would just say, however, that I do not think any Minister could stand here and guarantee that there will never be another data breach, data loss or data error in that way, in the same way that no chief executive of any organisation could say so. I can say that we have taken steps to reduce the risk of that happening and that we no longer do any casework on spreadsheets, which was the technology that was available in the early days of this scheme. That was part of the problem, I think, in the inadvertent mistake made by the Defence official.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What worries me more than the lifting of this super-injunction is the fact that we have closed down all the Afghan schemes at the very time that undocumented Afghans who felt it necessary to flee to Iran and Pakistan are being rounded up for forcible repatriation to an Afghanistan led by the Taliban. I understand that the investigation into our obligation to the Triples—the special forces that our forces trained—will continue, and I welcome that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the closure of the schemes, anybody who is found to have worked closely with our armed forces and is in imminent danger can still be rescued and admitted to this country?
John Healey
It is more than four years since the previous Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, launched on behalf of this country the Afghan relocations and assistance policy with the full support of this House. There has been ample time for anyone who could conceivably believe they might qualify to make their application. None of those schemes, including ARAP, was ever conceived or designed to last in perpetuity, which is why we closed them at the beginning of this month to any new applicants, and why I have taken the decision, based on Rimmer and the other factors I have identified, to end the ARR scheme today. On the ARAP applicants—the sort of Afghans whom the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about—we will complete any remaining applications that are in our system waiting to be processed. On the Triples, we will complete the second phase of the review that we have given a commitment to them and to this House to undertake.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for parliamentary transparency and for the work of the Committee corridor in this House. I have no doubt that my excellent colleagues who chair the various Committees that are responsible will do a thorough job of examining this matter, and I hope that the Secretary of State will facilitate the sharing of any information that may need to be handled in a sensitive manner. When Labour was last in government, there were a number of breaches of this nature; a predecessor of his asked to be notified of every one, and most were due to human error. It is great that we are updating the IT systems and dealing with the security, but could the Secretary of State touch on the measures that will be put in place to guard against the human error that will inevitably creep in?
John Healey
For functions and roles like this, having sound, secure caseworker software, good training and proper protocols—all of which are now in place—greatly minimises the risk that anything like this data breach, which we now find out took place in February 2022, is likely to happen again. Most importantly, I think it will help to provide the reassurance that anyone providing data to the British Government or state should have that that data will be held and handled securely.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
If the Defence Secretary will forgive me, I detect some wriggling. The fact is that he is justifying this super-injunction and not telling Parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm’s way. Is it not the case that his argument is actually very thin? Even the MOD admits that Taliban-aligned individuals already had access to the database, so not telling those Afghans that they were in harm’s way is, quite frankly, unbelievable. The precedent of a super-injunction is very concerning for this place. How do we know that there is not another super-junction about another leak? Of course, the Secretary of State could not tell us, could he?
John Healey
Well, I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that if there is another super-injunction, I have not been read in. In his characteristic way, he makes an important point about how unprecedented, uncomfortable and, in many ways, unconscionable it is to have a super-injunction like this in place. In the light of that, I hope he will accept that it was a difficult decision to review the risks, the costs and details of the scheme, and the legal hearings that have taken place. Those have all been components of the important policy decision that I have been able to announce to the House today, and I hope he will back it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
My husband served in Afghanistan and has always felt keenly the debt that our country owes to those who worked alongside and supported our forces, and I know that many of my constituents who served there feel the same. If we fail to honour our debts, why should people in future conflicts trust us and support our troops? Does the Defence Secretary share that concern? Does he also agree that it is right that we offer a warm welcome to the Afghans who come to our country seeking sanctuary?
John Healey
I agree 100%, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend speaks so plainly, so forcefully and so passionately. When we first debated the obligation to put in place the ARAP scheme four or five years ago, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Defence, one of the things that struck me most was that those who felt fiercest were, understandably, those who had served—those in this House who had been part of the 140,000 British men and women who had served in Afghanistan over 20 years—because they recognised just what a debt this country and they owe to people like those whom my hon. Friend’s husband speaks about.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge to restore full accountability to the Government’s relocation schemes, but I am saddened that this is the first opportunity that we have had to talk about the closure of ACRS and ARAP on the Floor of the House, given that they were announced by written statement at very short notice only two weeks ago. May I ask a couple of specific questions? On the ARR, which we have only found out about today, the Secretary of State mentioned 600 invitations that will be honoured. For those who were not accepted and are part of the breach, are they aware of that? ARAP has been closed to new applications, but, again—I have asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about this before—what is the communication strategy for updating them? The ACRS was never open to vulnerable women and the civil rights defenders it aimed to protect. Again, what communication will the Government have with those individuals who are in hiding either in Afghanistan or in third countries?
John Healey
We made a statement about the closure of the Home Office-run ARAP and ACRS on 1 July, and the hon. Lady will have had opportunities since then to raise those matters in the House. On the information to those who may be affected, we will honour the invitations that have been issued to 600 ARR individuals. To everyone else in the dataset, we have communicated the latest position this morning. We are offering access to further advice through the designated area of the gov.uk website, and that includes steps that individuals can take, if they wish, to get in touch with our information services centre, which has been set up by the MOD to deal with questions and concerns that people may have.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a very shocking story that the Secretary of State has told us today, and I pay tribute to him for his commitment to be transparent about it. Sadly, this comes as no surprise to many of us here and to those in our offices who, over that period of time, had to deal with hundreds of desperately distraught people ringing in to find out what might happen to their relatives. I have to be honest with the Secretary of State: this matter is not closed. I join the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in being desperately concerned that we still have people who would have qualified under these schemes, but who, because of failures like this, fled Afghanistan or tried to go to other countries. We tried to raise this issue with Ministers, but could not get meetings with them, and now we discover that there were secret schemes.
The Secretary of State will understand that, right now, MPs’ offices across this country will be hearing this and be worried that, again, they will get those phone calls and have those queries. He is right to say that there must be parliamentary scrutiny. Can he assure us that there will be additional resources to help us support our constituents who come forward and that he will keep an open mind that, even four years later, there will still be cases that are relevant to this scheme that should be heard—people who should be given sanctuary here—if we are to honour our debt to those people who kept our forces safe?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been one of the most active and most assiduous Members of this House in championing the cause of her constituents and others who may be trying to get access to the scheme. It has been over four years since the ARAP scheme was first established, and there are still 22,000 ARAP applicants whose applications will be processed. Where eligibility is established, they will be offered the relocation that this country has undertaken to give them. Those applicants need not have applied from Afghanistan, but many did so. From the outset, one of the most important features of the ARAP scheme—given that the Taliban had taken over in Afghanistan—was that it applied to female Afghans who formerly worked alongside our own forces and even served in the Afghan forces alongside our own, who have potentially been at greatest risk. For them, the offer to relocate to this country, and to rebuild and re-establish a life here, has been very important.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for the calm and sensible way in which he has announced the change in Government policy today. I can already announce to the House that, since the briefing earlier today, I have made preliminary arrangements for MOD officials to address the Public Accounts Committee to examine the cost implications. Some £400 million has been spent so far, and I think the Secretary of State said in parentheses that another £400 million will be spent on the 600 people currently based in Afghanistan who have received invitations under the scheme. Can he give me and the House an assurance that if those 600 people, who must be in some danger, do need assistance, it will be rapidly provided?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is very fast off the mark, and I am glad that he has already issued his invitation to his Committee. He is asking for figures as Chair of the PAC. The cost of what has been spent and committed in order to get in transit to Britain the 900 principals eligible under ARR, plus their immediate family members, is around £400 million. For the remaining members of the ARR and their immediate families who have been issued invitations, we expect something similar again. But because of the policy decisions that we have been able to announce and the changes that we have been able to make to the programmes we inherited—he may want to probe this with his Committee—it means that the taxpayer should be paying £1.2 billion less over the next few years, and that around 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s decision to support the lifting of the super-injunction today and bring this awful matter properly into the public domain. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right and proper that this issue is now fully scrutinised by Parliament?
John Healey
I do, indeed. One important feature for me in being able to make this statement and to set out the details before the House this afternoon has been that we are now restoring the proper parliamentary accountability of Ministers to this House for the decisions that we take, the schemes that we run and the spending that we commit on behalf of the taxpayer. I look forward to Members in this Chamber—and, I hope, in the appropriate Committees—undertaking their proper constitutional role in a way they have not been able to do over the past two years without being constrained.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This has been a difficult statement for the Secretary of State—make no mistake. He said in his statement that this was a breach of very strict data protection protocols. Well, on the basis of this breach and the other breaches around Afghan resettlement, those protocols were clearly not strict enough. He has declined to say whether it was a contractor, a civil servant or a member of service personnel. I do not think that anyone in this House wants to know who it was, but I would like to know how senior that person was. If it was a junior member of MOD staff, the delinquency is both systemic and personal, but if it was a senior member of MOD staff, the delinquency is purely personal on the basis of their knowledge and seniority.
This instance related to brave Afghans, but what reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that the brave personnel of the UK forces would not be compromised by a level of delinquency similar to this in the MOD—and why the synchronicity between the lifting of the super-injunction and the ending of the schemes? Should we not walk a mile in the shoes of the people who have fled the Afghan regime, and do should we maybe think whether we need an ARR-plus wash-up to get these people out of danger if it becomes a reality?
John Healey
I wanted this House to hear the policy decisions that I had made and I wanted this House to hear them first. The judge, aware of the decisions that the Government had taken and the announcements that I was planning to make today, took his decision to lift the super-injunction and to deliver his court judgment at noon.
On the question of the individual responsible for the original data loss, that is not something I am prepared to pursue in this House. Clearly the overarching responsibility was with the Ministers at the time. My full focus has been to get to grips with what we inherited, take a fresh look at the policy that was in place, and be in a position—with the proper degree of deliberation, and with sound grounds—to come to the House and announce the changes I have this afternoon.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As I am sure many Members do, I feel a sense of anger that once again the Afghan people have been betrayed. I thank the Secretary of State for his candour and his response, and for lifting the super-injunction, which will allow proper parliamentary scrutiny, but will he assure me that the following three questions will be answered? First, how was a year allowed to pass between the initial leak and it being uncovered? Secondly, how was an email with a spreadsheet attached considered a serious way to send around what effectively amounted to a kill list of Afghans for the Taliban?
Thirdly, the role of James Heappey in overseeing this has been mentioned. What role, if any, was held by the two Secretaries of State for Defence over that time, one who served until August 2023 and one who served from August 2023—to my mind, either side of the information coming to light? If we do not get to the bottom of those questions, we will do an immense disservice to the British people and, worse, to Afghans, who have been let down once again.
John Healey
My hon. Friend signals some of the areas that the necessary parliamentary scrutiny will consider. I have to say, it was 18 months, not one year, between the original data loss and when it was first discovered and brought to Ministers’ attention in August 2023. To his second question about the spreadsheet, this was a period in which officials and the Department were working at breakneck speed to put in place novel schemes that were urgently needed. Clearly that sort of spreadsheet software is inappropriate for this casework system, and it is no longer used in that way. Finally, on the role of my predecessors, Grant Shapps was the Defence Secretary who oversaw the design, extension and establishment of the ARR scheme.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
As well as risking lives, this extraordinary error has cost taxpayers huge sums. The Secretary of State says that it will now cost £1.2 billion less, but what will be the total cost of all these schemes after that? First, given the extraordinary lack of transparency that this Parliament has been subjected to—and voters too—will the Secretary of State agree to publish the legal advice that led to the expansion of the ARR and other schemes so that we can properly discuss it? Secondly, the Secretary of State did not mention any official resigning or being sacked over this extraordinary episode. I think my constituents will find that quite surprising. Will he name the number of people who have resigned or been sacked over this extraordinary error, and if nobody has been, does he agree that that is wrong?
John Healey
I am not in a position to make a decision about publishing the legal advice that led the previous Government and Defence Secretary to extend the scheme. It is not legal advice that I have had access to or seen. On the question of costs, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, will do the job. I can confirm that the total cost of all Afghan relocation schemes to date, for those 36,000 Afghans who have been brought to this country, is around £2.7 billion. The expected cost over the entire lifetime of those schemes, to bring in anyone who may subsequently prove eligible, is between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. That is at least £1.2 billion less because of the policy decisions I have taken this afternoon.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his openness and transparency, and for his apology, and I thank Portsmouth city council for its involvement in Afghan resettlement schemes, which have helped many of those who served alongside my Portsmouth North constituents. I welcome today’s decision. The Government rightly took time to consider all the options and examine the complexities, including through the Rimmer review. They considered the cost to taxpayers and the safety of those affected, alongside the need for transparency and openness in this House and to the press and the public. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must, as a Government, reaffirm our commitment to public transparency?
John Healey
I do agree, and this House is doing so this afternoon in response to my statement. The role that my hon. Friend’s local council in Portsmouth and councils across the country are playing in making sure that there is a warm welcome and a unified Afghan resettlement programme in place for those Afghans and their families who we are welcoming into this country is remarkable. We thank them for that. Central Government and this House could not see these schemes operate effectively without our local councils.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State’s statement. I will not dwell on the past, because I am sure that the Defence Committee and other Select Committees will have a look at that. I want to ask him about where this goes in future. All these schemes are closing, but there are still people out there who do not recognise the statement in the report that there is no longer a widespread campaign of targeting individuals. I have one case in my mind. The Minister for the Armed Forces knows exactly who I am referring to: Sami Atayee, who has fled and is in hiding in Pakistan, and whose brother has been arrested during the pursuit. He was not directly employed by the British Government—he could not have been, for security reasons—but the testament of General Olly Brown and others all say that he saved lives for British servicemen and servicewomen. We surely owe people like that a debt of honour and gratitude for their work, so I simply ask the Secretary of State to look at what might replace the schemes that he has got rid of, which were inflexible, very narrow and often left out those who really did this Government a service. I would be grateful if he came up with some flexible idea that allows some of these people to seek succour here in the United Kingdom.
John Healey
I hesitate to be too blunt with the right hon. Gentleman, because I have a great deal of respect for him. If any applicant is not eligible under the criteria of the scheme that this House has approved and the Government have in place and operate, that can really only lead to one decision. He encourages me to look in a creative way at other options. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is very familiar with the case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. We will look at it again, but I do not want to raise false hopes for him, or for the man whom he describes so vividly, and with such concern.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am proud that Bracknell Forest is involved in the Afghan resettlement programme, and is offering transitional support to the brave Afghans who risked their life to support our troops. Any such scheme depends on public trust, so it is concerning to hear that under the Conservative Government, we instead had secrecy, security breaches and a super-injunction. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reaffirm two commitments: first, that this Government will continue to honour the moral obligation we owe to the Afghans who fought alongside our troops, and, secondly, that we will do so in a way that reaffirms this Government’s commitment to public transparency?
John Healey
I will indeed reaffirm our continuing commitment to honouring the obligations and duty that we owe to those who served or worked alongside our forces. Through the ARAP scheme, we will complete the processing of any outstanding applications, and any who prove eligible will get full relocation and resettlement support. I am glad to be able to restore a degree of that parliamentary scrutiny and transparency that our system in Britain depends on.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He said: “When this nation makes a promise, we should keep it.” I agree. In the chaos of withdrawal, my constituent who left under ARAP was made a promise by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. Two years later, we have still not kept that promise. My constituent’s wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban, and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan—despite the risk to him—to be reunited with them. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who knows the case, has told me that the Ministry of Defence will not consider it, and that this is now a matter for the Home Office. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State repeat his commitment that our nation should keep its promise to my constituent? Will he undertake to discuss with the Home Secretary how her Department will ensure that such cases are afforded proper treatment in the light of our commitment to the Afghan people?
John Healey
I will take a look at the case and, if required, I will speak to my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Home Secretary.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the diplomats and armed forces involved in what was clearly an extraordinary operation. It is a stark reminder that our asylum system—despite the demagoguery we sometimes hear in this place—often represents a sacred duty to those who put their lives at risk for us and our allies. Will the Secretary of State confirm that while the ARR is now closed, we will continue to process cases of those in the ARAP scheme since 1 July, including the one that I have raised with officials?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully. Where there are outstanding ARAP applications, they will be processed. Where there are outstanding Triples cases that fall into the second phase of the review, that review will be completed, and where eligibility for ARAP entitlement is established, that will be honoured.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, but I think it asks a lot more questions than it answers. Will he outline exactly how the dataset came to be accidentally emailed? Will he confirm that it was indeed an accident? What was the security classification of that dataset? Who was the dataset emailed to, given that it is now feared to be in the hands of the Taliban? I appreciate that he might not be able to answer some of those questions, but given that this happened three years ago, what level of investigation has taken place? Can that be published?
John Healey
I think that I reported earlier to the House that the incident under previous Ministers was reported to the Metropolitan police. It was also reported to the Information Commissioner. The Met police deemed no criminal investigation or further action to be required. The Information Commissioner still has the case—we are working closely with them—and I would expect some conclusions and judgments from the Information Commissioner’s Office before too long, but I simply cannot say when.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I ran an aid agency when the Taliban came to power in 2021 and vividly recall trying to get the then Government to help with the evacuation of brave Afghan colleagues, aid workers and human rights defenders—people who had served humanity—under huge threat. I remember the confusion that reigned in the UK Government. To hear that the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians were further put at risk by this data breach is deeply shocking. The Defence Secretary will know that under the Taliban, Afghan women and girls are enduring the world’s most severe women’s rights crisis. Does he agree that the UK must do all it can to support the women and girls of Afghanistan in realising their right to equality?
John Healey
I do. Where female Afghans are eligible for the schemes, it has been important that they have been able to apply, and we have been able to offer them the same relocation and resettlement as others. My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and passion about that period in Afghanistan four years ago, when the Taliban were taking over as Kabul fell. I am sad to say that her characterisation of policy confusion and programme failure is exactly what was going on in the British Government at that time.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Secretary of State will know that communities in Wales, as across the UK, have been proud to welcome those Afghans and their families who served alongside UK personnel. Many colleagues have raised concern about the Afghans who might remain in Afghanistan or in adjacent countries and may still be in danger for their services rendered. How confident can we be that all those in severe and imminent danger of reprisals will receive invitations for resettlement?
John Healey
Those who have received invitations will have those honoured. On the concerns that the hon. Member may have about the assessment of risk in Afghanistan, I recommend that he reads Paul Rimmer’s report, which is comprehensive and up to date. It inevitably contains some uncertainties, and it identifies the risks that are inevitably there in any policy judgments that Government Ministers like me must make. I will also reinforce the point that the hon. Member made about the welcome and the pride with which the Welsh people embrace those Afghans who come to rebuild their lives in our country.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
My constituent has an active application to bring members of his family, who are currently in a third country, to safety in the UK. The MOD has advised him to assume that their data has been compromised, which is deeply concerning given the nature of the work he used to undertake. He has been told that this third country cannot be supported, even though his family might not be safe in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State help to ensure that his case is accelerated, given the further danger that the data leak may have put his family in?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details of that case, I will certainly take a hard look at it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his well-chosen, careful, contrite words, which were said in a tone that the House appreciates. As an MP who has often decried the abandonment of those Afghans who helped to secure safety for our troops, and whose job put them in the firing line, I must agree with the principle of doing the right thing, and being a nation that is seen globally as supporting those who support us. The issue of secrecy to the House is critical; the Secretary of State has outlined that. Does he agree that Governments must always totally protect those who were put in harm’s way, under the principle of doing what it is always right to do? I think of my constituent who served along with our forces in Afghanistan, and whose Afghan friend is in hiding in Pakistan with his wife and three children. I think of him and the fear he is in. If I send the Secretary of State the details of that gentleman and his family, will he ensure that he gets the help we should give him? That is what my constituent wants, what I want as his MP, and what that person wants.
John Healey
I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised his concerns about that case. If he writes to me with the details, I will take a hard look at it.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I served twice in Afghanistan alongside some of the bravest soldiers, judges and women’s rights defenders I have met. After the fall of Kabul, I was based in Pakistan with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where I was involved in the evacuation from Afghanistan. At that time, despite the excellent work of people who served in Op Pitting, we saw many mistakes made by the last Government, including dogs being prioritised ahead of people. This data breach, which was held secret for years, is just the latest embarrassment from that evacuation. Will the Secretary of State consider a Select Committee inquiry into not just the breaches in this case, but the entire Afghan relocation system, which has failed so many times?
John Healey
One of the great joys of this House is the depth and breadth of experience that Members on all sides bring to debates. I applaud my hon. Friend and the insights he brings from his experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is certainly not for Ministers to define the terms of any inquiry that a Select Committee of this House may choose to undertake. That will be a matter, quite properly, for those Committees. If Ministers are summoned and required to account and give evidence, we certainly will.
Lancaster House 2.0
John Healey Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We are in a new era of threat which demands a new era for defence. Yesterday I, together with my French counterpart Minister Sébastien Lecornu, agreed on implementing the detailed direction for rebooting the Lancaster House defence and security treaties between the United Kingdom and France. With the Lancaster House treaties originally signed in 2010, this reboot will modernise and build on our bilateral defence and security relationship in order to affect a generational shift in both our bilateral co-operation and our joint contribution to the defence of Europe, of its citizens and of its interests. It fulfils a commitment from the countries manifesto and the SDR which states that the UK’s defence relationship with France is “fundamental” to our security.
The UK and France, as Europe’s only nuclear powers, share a special responsibility for European and international defence and security. Our two nations represent nearly 40% of the defence budget of European allies, and more than 50% of the European spending on research and technology.
This reboot of the Lancaster House treaties builds on this strong foundation between the UK and France, reflecting the continuation of our shared values and strategic interests. It will enable us to continue to protect our shared interests, values, partners in Europe and beyond, and, fundamentally, our democratic way of life.
The reboot will deepen our long-standing and resolute commitment to co-operation on nuclear deterrence. Since 1995, we have stated that we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of one could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened. Thirty years on, the Northwood declaration, signed by the Prime Minister and the President at the 2025 UK-France summit, states for the first time that our respective deterrents are independent, but can be co-ordinated, and that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations. Any adversary threatening the vital interests of our nations should know that they could be confronted by the combined strength of the nuclear forces of both nations.
The UK and France will improve co-ordination across defence nuclear policy, capabilities and operations, and strengthen our ability to make joint decisions if needed. We will also deepen co-operation on nuclear research and technology, building on the 2010 Teutates treaty. A new UK-France nuclear steering board will be established to provide political direction for our collaboration. Both the UK and France remain committed to article V of the North Atlantic treaty and are dedicated to burden-sharing on wider nuclear deterrence. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of the UK’s nuclear weapons. The UK’s strategic nuclear forces remain fully operationally independent and sovereign, but we are able to co-ordinate with France should the situation demand it. Our deterrent remains declared to the defence of NATO. We remain committed to our obligations under the NPT to pursue effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, and to the long-term goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.
The reboot will overhaul the existing Combined Joint Expeditionary Force into the Combined Joint Force to refocus it on the Euro-Atlantic and warfighting at scale to deter, placing it on an operational footing for the first time. This will be done through increasing the declared joint force capacity for a deployment of a combined corps capability as the land component of a broader joint force combining all military functions, as part of NATO or on its own. This will also provide for the creation of a joint operations cell, refreshed governance structure and a new strategic alignment process to better co-ordinate our forces.
The reboot will establish an “Entente Industrielle” to enhance capability and industrial co-operation, bringing our defence industries and militaries closer than ever before to strengthen NATO and grow our economies. We will develop capabilities such as the future cruise anti-ship weapon, acquire new Storm Shadow and Scalp missiles, strengthen our co-operation on complex weapons and include other European allies where appropriate. We will expand our co-operation across the new domains of space and cyber and we will also reinvigorate and expand our co-operation on wider science and technology and innovation co-operation, including on artificial intelligence.
In the land domain, we will develop together the UK and French combined corps concept in order to better jointly support NATO defence, and strive to facilitate aligned training at brigade, divisional and corps level to drive interoperability. In the maritime domain, we will expand our existing global maritime security dialogue at defence ministries level and global maritime domain awareness co-operation to better deter maritime hybrid threats, as well as continue to co-ordinate our carrier strike group deployments, including with other European carrier nations through ECGII and NATO. In the air domain, we will increase the complexity of our training exercises and enhance development of counter unmanned aerial systems.
The UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies; we are confident that the reboot of the Lancaster House treaties will contribute to the security, growth and prosperity of both our nations and the wider European region. We look forward to working closely with France to ensure its successful implementation.
As with the original 2010 treaties, this reboot will continue to serve as the cornerstone of our defence and security relationship with France and will be implemented by both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. This reboot of our defence and security relationship marks a significant milestone in strengthening co-operation with France, particularly in a time where the threats we face have changed fundamentally. It is ever more crucial for us to work closely with our allies and partners to strengthen the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as wider global arenas.
[HCWS812]
UK Defence Innovation and Cyber & Specialist Operations Command
John Healey Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today this Government are outlining two major developments in our commitment to reform defence and the delivery of our strategic defence review. The establishment of the new UK Defence Innovation organisation and the renaming of the UK Strategic Command to become the “Cyber & Specialist Operations Command (CSOC)”, reflecting the command’s evolved role and enhanced responsibilities.
UKDI is a new body which will harness and exploit technology for our armed forces. It will be the focal point for innovation within the Ministry of Defence, backed by a ringfenced annual budget of £400 million, supporting the Government’s plan for change by driving defence as an engine for UK growth and creating highly skilled jobs in the dual-use technology sector.
It will consolidate and streamline the existing MOD landscape into a single coherent system, as demanded by the SDR, with the mandate to bring innovative technology to the hands of frontline troops faster and to foster a thriving and world-leading UK defence tech sector. The UKDI will be in the new National Armaments Director Group within the MOD as part of the new operating model being established through Defence Reform.
The SDR highlighted the rapidly evolving threat landscape and the critical need for the UK to maintain its technological edge. UKDI will play a pivotal role in implementing the review’s recommendations by breaking down barriers between defence and commercial innovation, ensuring that game-changing technologies can be identified, developed, and deployed to the frontline at pace.
It will take a new approach by moving quickly and decisively, using different ways of contracting, to enable UK companies to scale up innovative prototypes rapidly, by setting out a clear pathway to growth, working with the rest of Government, from initial production to manufacturing at scale.
And will make the UK a defence innovation leader through funding and supporting firms of all sizes to take state-of-the-art technology from the drawing board to the production line.
The UKDI has been formally established today, with further design, transition and implementation work to be developed over the next 12 months. UKDI will be fully operational by July 2026.
This comes alongside another significant development within the Military Strategic Headquarters, under the command of the Chief of Defence Staff, with UK Strategic Command being renamed as the Cyber & Specialist Operations Command. This change reflects the command’s changed role and reinforces its responsibilities following the SDR, particularly its leadership of the cyber domain, which the SDR demanded a greater focus on across defence and Government as a whole. It follows the MOD, and Government partners, having to protect UK military networks against more than 90,000 “sub-threshold” attacks in the last two years.
The new name firmly places leadership of this crucial domain for defence and the armed forces with the new command. It also better represents CSOC’s “Lead Command” responsibilities for those specialist capabilities critical to operational success, ranging from intelligence, special forces, through to deployed medical capabilities and command and control as well as the permanent joint headquarters. CSOC, through Commander CSOC—General Sir Jim Hockenhull—will continue to be under the command of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the newly formed Military Strategic Headquarters, created under Defence Reform.
These are part of the far-reaching changes that will ensure we get cutting-edge innovations to our armed forces faster, enhancing military capability while driving economic growth in every corner of the UK.
[HCWS762]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, on behalf of those serving in our armed forces, I would like to thank you for the parliamentary flag-raising ceremony to mark the start of Armed Forces Week last Monday. I thank hon. Members across the House for the support that they gave to more than 200 local Armed Forces Day events over the weekend.
On housing, we are a Government who are delivering for defence. In January, we bought back 36,000 military homes into public ownership. In April, we launched a consumer charter to deliver basic housing rights and standards. In May, we announced an additional £1.5 billion for forces family homes—part of £7 billion that we will invest in military accommodation in the next five years.
Matt Turmaine
I meet servicemen, servicewomen and veterans in my constituency at events such as Remembrance Day and the recent VE commemorations. We all know the challenges that servicemen and women have had with housing and its quality in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this Labour Government who are finally making them proud?
John Healey
Indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his strong working links with veterans in Watford. He is right: as he will recognise, my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People recently launched Operation Valour, the first ever UK-wide approach to veteran support, with £50 million of funding to establish a new network of Valour-recognised support centres right across the country.
Euan Stainbank
This Saturday, hundreds will join to mark Falkirk Armed Forces Day in Callendar Park, belatedly. Many of those who are currently serving and veterans in Scotland rely on the activities of charitable organisations such as the Ancre Somme Association, which is hosting the event, and Veterans Housing Scotland, which provides affordable housing for those who have served. Do the Government have any plans to supplement the essential and welcome £1.5 billion additional investment for service housing with additional support for registered charitable organisations that are working tirelessly to safely house veterans?
John Healey
We do indeed, and we are putting in extra funds and greater support to deal with the problem of homeless veterans. I am happy to thank and pay tribute to the Ancre Somme Association for its part in a successful Armed Forces Day parade and celebration in Falkirk. I pay tribute to all the volunteers right across the country who made our local Armed Forces Day events possible. We pay tribute to the regulars, the reservists, the veterans, the cadets and the armed forces families, but it is the volunteers who help us make these events happen.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
With basing becoming longer-term and more predictable, and with most young people wanting to buy rather than rent their home, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the success of Forces Help to Buy? What plans does he have to extend it?
John Healey
Unfortunately, Forces Help to Buy really has not kept pace either with demand or with the success of civilian programmes. It is part of the forces housing review that I have launched, which I expect to report in the autumn. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the aspirations of those who serve and who join the services are exactly the same as for every other working person in this country. We should try to make that part of the contract that this nation makes with those who will serve in future.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Housing is not the only issue affecting armed forces families. When a member of the forces moves, their family often move with them. My work experience student Amy, who is in the Gallery today, is from an armed forces family and attended three primary schools. One school provided dedicated support, whereas others had less understanding of the issues that children whose parents are in the forces may face. Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that armed forces children receive consistent support at every school that they attend?
John Healey
We will indeed. Amy’s experience is typical for many children of forces families: regularly moving as their parents answer the call and are deployed in different areas. We can do better by them. I am in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary about how we can do better by our forces families and forces children, but also about how we can do better for the cadets and the opportunities that they offer to all young people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I welcome the recent announcement of funding to improve military housing, but our fantastic service personnel deserve more than short-term fixes. This year’s armed forces continuous attitudes survey showed that one in five personnel plan to leave, and over a quarter of them cited the standard of accommodation as a reason. That should be a wake-up call. Will the Government commit to going further and show a real commitment to retention by finally U-turning on their decision to block Liberal Democrat proposals to bring all military housing under the decent homes standard?
John Healey
No one could describe the decision to buy back 36,000 military family homes from private hands as a short-term fix, nobody could describe the consumer charter setting out basic housing rights and standards as a short-term fix, and no one could describe the housing strategy review we have got going as a short-term fix. The decent homes standard is one standard; I think we can be doing better by our armed forces families.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At last week’s NATO summit, I met Defence Ministers, including Ukrainian Defence Minister Umerov, about surging support into Ukraine, with the UK also announcing last week that hundreds more advanced short range air-to-air missiles—ASRAAM—would be delivered to Ukraine, starting in the next few weeks. Last Monday, I joined the Prime Minister in hosting President Zelensky in No. 10, where we discussed the ongoing detailed planning for the coalition of the willing, and I am proud to say that, three and a half years into Putin’s illegal invasion, this House and this country remain united for Ukraine.
Jas Athwal
Yesterday, alarming reports indicated that Russia had launched its largest air attack on Ukraine since the war began, killing at least six people and injuring many more. Clearly, regardless of his claims, Putin is not ready for peace. Given Russia’s continued aggression, what steps are the Government taking alongside NATO allies to increase pressure on Russia to agree to an unconditional ceasefire?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Last night’s attack is a reminder of just how fierce the Russian onslaught on Ukraine is, but it is also a reminder that Putin has failed in his strategic ambitions. Three and a half years into this campaign, he has passed the gruesome milestone of 1 million Russian casualties on the battlefield, and he is failing to take the territory that he thought would fall to him. I am proud that the UK has stepped up with leadership on Ukraine—with the coalition of the willing alongside the French and by chairing the Ukraine defence contact group alongside the Germans—and that we will spend more than £4.5 billion this year on UK military aid to Ukraine, which is the highest ever level.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on those terrible attacks. It should be a source of pride that some of the best drone and counter-drone tech that we have supplied to Ukraine has been made by British SMEs. The problem is that Labour’s procurement freeze means that almost none of it has been bought in parallel for our own armed forces. In this week of Labour U-turns, will the Secretary of State consider another one: namely, scrapping the Government’s crazy £30 billion Chagos deal and instead spending the money on rapidly supplying drones for the British Army, so that it can train for war as it is being fought today in Ukraine?
John Healey
That was a bit of a “bucket” question. On drones, we are increasing tenfold the number of British drones that we will supply to Ukraine this year. We are also stepping up the lessons we are learning from working with Ukraine on the development of its technology—battlefield-hardened and combat-ready—so that we can supply our own forces with increasing numbers of drones as part of the strategic defence review’s vision for the way that we transform our forces in the years ahead.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The veterans who served under Op Banner served to protect civilian lives and secure the peace in Northern Ireland. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s deep concern that many may now be caught up in investigations or litigation, and I am determined that we protect them further. I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary, as are our officials, to ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans as part of the necessary plans to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
David Davis
During Operation Banner, every single time a paramilitary was killed by a British soldier, it was subject to judicial investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions went through the evidence at the time, interviewed people, looked at the planning documents and was able to talk to people contemporaneously while they could still remember it. It was not a rubber stamp; it was rigorous, as was proven by the fact that, where necessary, it led to prosecution. What is happening now is double jeopardy. Worse still, it is double jeopardy under new rules but with no new evidence. Indeed, there is a risk of lost evidence and lost memory, given the passage of time. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, but will he commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the Government’s replacement for the legacy Act?
John Healey
Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislation—it has been rejected by domestic courts, and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles, whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks about, including our armed forces communities and veterans, to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties, in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about.
John Healey
We welcome the petition, and we certainly welcome the parliamentary debate—it is quite proper that Parliament debates these issues. The right hon. Gentleman’s legacy Act offered false and undeliverable promises to the veterans of Northern Ireland. The last Government were warned that it would be unlawful and incompatible with the Windsor framework. Even the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery said that the Act has obvious problems, and that elements of it were dead in the water from the beginning. We are now fixing that flawed and failed legislation, and we will do so in a way that honours our duty towards those veterans.
Mr Francois
The Government could have appealed to the Supreme Court on this but deliberately did not. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal sincerity. However, at Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister promised veterans:
“We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 324.]
Why then, despite the PM’s solemn promise, is the order still unchanged? Surely he is not expecting to order his own MPs, many of whom represent red wall seats from which those veterans were originally recruited, through the Aye Lobby just to do Gerry Adams a favour? He is not going to do that, is he?
John Healey
The Prime Minister was right then and he is right now. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary to repeal and replace the legacy Act. We will honour the Prime Minister’s undertaking to this House and do right by the duty that this nation holds to those veterans who served for more than 38 years during the troubles in Northern Ireland.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At last week’s NATO summit all 32 nations signed up to a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, spending on national security, national resilience and homeland security. That builds on this Government’s £5 billion boost to defence this year, the funded and costed plan to hit 2.5% of GDP in two years’ time, and our ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Cameron Thomas
There is a great deal of experience across these Benches, and most of us recognise the imminence of the need to hit 3%. My expertise is in force protection, and I know, among other things, that Brize Norton cannot draw support from the Military Provost Guard Service under the land top level budget, such as at nearby Dalton barracks and South Cerney. That is more acute still at RAF Lossiemouth. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the command structure of the MPGS and bring our experience to the table to find that 3% of GDP imminently?
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman —he would be a much better person to meet than me on this matter.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence companies need certainty from the Government in order to invest and plan with confidence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent efforts at the G7 and NATO summits, and his commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, including 1.5% on defence and security-related investment. Can the Secretary of State clarify how exactly that 1.5% will be measured? Will it involve new projects and investments, or will it merely be a reclassification of existing projects? Crucially, how can industry, public bodies and other stakeholders contribute so that they can help to achieve that goal?
John Healey
My hon. Friend asks characteristically searching questions, so let me send him the NATO criteria that were published alongside the pledge last week, and let him and his Committee, when they interrogate me on Wednesday afternoon, pursue any further questions that they might have.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
There are Members on the Government Front Bench who know a thing or two about leadership—I can say that with confidence, because the Prime Minister is not in that place. The Government have a commanding majority and do not need the support of Members from any other Benches to hit 3% of GDP, and further, if only the leadership of the Labour party could get its own Members of Parliament through the Division Lobby. Given that the Prime Minister shows no ability to do that with the changes to welfare, how will he ensure that 3% is spent on defence in a timely manner?
John Healey
The Conservatives “hollowed out and underfunded” defence for 14 years—those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Gentleman’s former Cabinet colleague, Ben Wallace. This year there has been a £5 billion boost in defence spending, but in his Government’s first year, in 2010, there was a £2 billion cut in defence. Just as we boosted defence spending this year, we will increase it to 2.5% by 2027, which is three years earlier than the right hon. Gentleman argued for. We have shown exactly how we will fund that. We have taken the decision—which he did not take—to switch funding from overseas development aid into defence, and just as we have shown where the money is coming from in this Parliament, in the next Parliament we will do the same.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the commitment to get to 5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. It is imperative that the increase in defence spending means that funding is getting to those on the cutting edge of defence innovation. Cody technology park in Farnborough is already home to world-class defence innovation, with a wide range of small and medium-sized enterprises working there, alongside QinetiQ, and it is where DragonFire has just been developed. What role does the Minister see for existing places such as Cody, in delivering our defence industrial strategy? Will she meet me to discuss whether Cody could be the home for the new defence SME hub?
John Healey
I see a huge role. I hope that my hon. Friend took the commitment that the Chancellor and I made, alongside the spring statement, to set a new target for direct defence investment in SMEs, as a sign of that commitment. While I am in the business of committing my ministerial colleagues to meetings, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be only too happy to meet her and to draw on her expertise as part of the development of our defence industrial strategy.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
On defence spending, is not the truth that Labour’s promise to reach 3% of GDP, let alone 3.5% or 5%, is just smoke and mirrors, because there is no actual plan to pay for it? How can the Government claim that they will properly invest in our defence and keep the country safe when they cannot even deliver the limited savings they have promised on welfare? So I ask the Secretary of State: where is the money coming from?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to the Conservative Front Bench team, alongside his two very distinguished colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I gently say to him that, since the election, his colleague the shadow Defence Secretary argued 13 times for 2.5% by 2030. He only changed his tune after February, when the Prime Minister showed how it was going to be funded and said that we would do it three years earlier, in 2027. We have shown how we will raise the extra funding for this record increase in investment in defence since the end of the cold war. We have shown exactly how it is costed and exactly how it will be funded in this Parliament, and in the next Parliament we will do the same.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government’s commitment to reach 5% on GDP on defence spending is the right decision. As we face the once-in-a-generation threat from Russia, it is vital that we regenerate our armed forces after years of decline under the Conservatives. However, we need more urgency. The International Institute for Strategic Studies warns that if there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, Russia could
“pose a significant military challenge to NATO allies…as early as 2027.”
In order to strengthen our defence, we need to give people better incentives to join the armed forces. Will the Minister consider accelerating recruitment by backing the Liberal Democrat proposal for a £10,000 signing bonus to attract new recruits?
John Healey
We are accelerating recruitment. We are dealing with the deep-seated and long-running failure in recruitment, because the previous Government, over 14 years, set and then failed to meet their own recruitment targets. We are dealing with the recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces. I am proud to say that last year we gave the armed forces the biggest pay rise for over 20 years; that this year there will be another inflation-busting pay rise; and that we are starting to provide better pay, better kit, better housing and better support for forces families—the sorts of things that will keep those valuable and valued members of the armed forces serving our country and protecting us all.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Last week, 32 NATO nations came together at the summit in The Hague, united in collective deterrence and in our collective defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. I can report to the House that NATO is now bigger, stronger and more lethal than before. We signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, with new capability commitments from each nation. It was a good day for NATO, a good day for British jobs, and a bad day for Putin.
Everyone at the summit agreed that Iran should never have nuclear weapons. We all want the ceasefire between Israel and Iran to hold, and we will work to support it. Finally, we also discussed it creating a new opportunity for a ceasefire in Gaza, which would be a vital step on the path to peace.
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Now that the Prime Minister has made a cast-iron commitment to meet NATO’s 5% defence spending target, will the Secretary of State make a similarly welcome commitment to cross-party talks to establish a credible and durable path towards meeting that goal ahead of NATO’s 2029 capability review?
John Healey
I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for the commitment we have made at NATO; the Leader of the Opposition was unable to offer that support at Prime Minister’s questions last week. If the hon. Gentleman has ideas about how we should fund that commitment in the next Parliament, I would be perfectly happy to hear them.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State support the action taken by the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities?
John Healey
As I said in my response to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), we are absolutely determined that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. We have been working with allies, on a diplomatic path. Now that a ceasefire is in place, the mind of all NATO leaders, including President Trump, was on putting our weight behind that diplomatic path. That is the way towards ensuring a sustainable and verifiable end to any nuclear programme.
James Cartlidge
It is extraordinary that a British Secretary of State for Defence is unable to give his explicit support to the military action of our closest ally, the United States. Is the real reason why Labour cannot back US military action against Iran not the same as the reason why it will not U-turn on Chagos or on Northern Ireland veterans—that when it comes to choosing between legal theory and the national interest, this Prime Minister is a lawyer, not a leader?
John Healey
Absolute rubbish! The UK and the US are the very closest of defence, intelligence and national security partners. The US was strongly behind the deal we have done on Diego Garcia, because it knows that that deal secures the operational sovereignty there of the UK and the US for the next 100 years and beyond.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what happened to the £4 billion earmarked for autonomous systems, including in Plymouth. That line was in the Chancellor’s spending review speech, but not delivered on the day. The Chief Secretary did not know. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this funding exists, and will he accept an invitation to Turnchapel Wharf, where exciting marine autonomy is being developed?
John Healey
I can confirm that the £4 billion is funded. I can confirm that the investment in autonomous and drone technology in this Parliament is double what was planned before the election. I can confirm that we will spend and invest that money it in this Parliament. I always like coming to Plymouth; my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces drags me down there frequently.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
John Healey
I do indeed. NATO is bigger, stronger and more lethal than ever before. It is our guarantee that we will never fight alone. That is why the leading contribution that Britain makes to NATO deterrence and defence is a big part of keeping us safe for the future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sadly, we have all seen the devastation caused by modern missiles. Germany is preparing to receive the Arrow 3 missile defence system, ordered just two years ago, which can intercept intercontinental missiles at 2,500 km. What plans have the Government to equip this country similarly?
John Healey
One of the recommendations in the strategic defence review was that we develop an integrated air and missile defence system in this country. We must take our homeland security more seriously than we have in the past, and that is exactly what we will do.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
During our last session of Defence questions, I asked the Secretary of State to join me in wishing a happy forthcoming birthday to Eastbourne’s last surviving war veteran, Eric Deach, who was shortly to turn 100. Unfortunately, tomorrow I shall be a pallbearer at his funeral; he did not make it. Will the Secretary of State, ahead of that funeral, join me in paying one final tribute to Eric for his service and everything he did to fight for our country?
John Healey
It needs no words; the hon. Gentleman has heard the response of the House. We pay tribute to Mr Deach, and offer our deepest sympathies to his family, his friends and his comrades, and our thoughts will be with the hon. Gentleman tomorrow as he bears that coffin into the crematorium or the church for Mr Deach’s final journey.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the Government raise with the F-35 joint program office or the joint executive steering board the human rights breaches and the possibility of suspending Israel’s access while maintaining supplies to other customers?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On Saturday, I had the pleasure of welcoming the Secretary of State to my home town of Cleethorpes, where we witnessed the national Armed Forces Day event. Earlier, he referred to the volunteers who made this possible. My constituent Alex Baxter, whom he met on Saturday, has masterminded the Armed Forces Day event in Cleethorpes for many years. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Alex and his team on a splendid event?
John Healey
I had one of the best days in this job so far with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) in his home town of Cleethorpes—they were there together. Behind the event was Alex Baxter, the absolutely formidable figure who organised the armed forces major events team that staged the Cleethorpes Armed Forces Day. Some 300,000 people were expected over the weekend. It was a great boost to our armed forces, to veterans and to the people of Cleethorpes.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Cadets are a wonderful source of social mobility in our country, and played a key role in last weekend’s Armed Forces Day celebrations. I want to recognise my brilliant local air cadets: 12F Walthamstow and Leyton squadron, and 241 Wanstead and Woodford squadron. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to increasing the size of cadet forces in communities like mine so that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that cadets have to offer?
Points of Order
John Healey Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important.
On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary.
However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined.
I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.