Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2024

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I have today laid before Parliament the 13th armed forces annual covenant report. The 2024 report covers October 2023 to September 2024, and showcases the work that has been achieved throughout the UK in support of our armed forces community.

Thank you to all my colleagues for their Department’s contributions and continued support to strengthen the armed forces covenant.

[HCWS338]

Afghan Resettlement

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Last month, people came together all over the United Kingdom, to honour all the members of our armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our security and freedoms. In this significant year of remembrance anniversaries, the Remembrance Sunday service at the Cenotaph was also notable for an historic first. This year was the first time our veterans of the Afghanistan campaign marched past the Cenotaph together as a distinct unit; a solemn acknowledgement of the sacrifice and bravery of their colleagues during the operation, and in the rebuilding process which followed. Tragically, 454 of their colleagues did not have the option of joining them. I pay tribute to the commitment and courage of all those who served our country in Afghanistan.

Alongside British personnel, many Afghans also worked with commitment and courage to support the UK mission in Afghanistan. This includes members of Afghan specialist units, commonly known as the Triples, who fought valiantly alongside UK personnel, with some giving their lives and others suffering life-changing injuries. As set out by the Government in October, key issues have been identified and resolved through the Triples review, with eligible former Triples and their families being invited to relocate to the UK. We are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25% on a cohort of applications that were previously considered ineligible.

This Government are fully committed to delivering on the pledge made by Parliament to those in Afghanistan who are eligible to relocate and resettle, and we continue to welcome eligible Afghans and their families to the UK through our Afghan resettlement schemes. We would like to express our gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for their co-operation as we have done this.

Whilst we recognise that resettlement is a complicated endeavour, we believe there is room for improvement in how we deliver for eligible Afghans and the communities in which they are being resettled, and ensure value for money for the taxpayer. At present, arrivals through different schemes are subject to differing and complex funding and support offers. This is why we are fixing the foundations of a complicated system and drawing together a single pipeline for Afghan resettlement, to deliver greater efficiency and better outcomes across Government.

By reforming our internal organisation across Government, we will bring to bear the collective expertise within the Home Office, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence and ensure the best possible outcomes at each stage of the resettlement journey. It is only by empowering the Departments to play to their strengths that we will ensure optimal services and value for money are provided overall.

The best resettlement delivers successful integration and supports arrivals to rebuild their lives in their new home. That is why, from the spring, we will be limiting the time that arrivals spend in transitional accommodation to nine months. Transitional accommodation—provided by the Ministry of Defence—will continue to be a mixture of serviced accommodation, and hotels, alongside reduced use of the defence estate. It is a vital part of our support offer to Afghan arrivals, allowing them to orient themselves and set themselves up for success for their new lives in the UK.

All Afghan arrivals will be supported to source their own settled accommodation through the find-your-own accommodation (FYO) pathway. In recognition of the pressures on housing supply and the unique challenges facing this cohort, the Government commit to continuing to fund and support a pipeline of settled housing to support around half these arrivals, who are the hardest to house. This will be through additional capital funding, community sponsorship and some service family accommodation. This will ensure that there is a pipeline of settled accommodation to support delivery of the Afghan resettlement programme.

Local authority and devolved Government colleagues are essential to make this vision a reality. Building on ongoing engagement, we will be meeting with representatives of local government and strategic migration partnerships early in the new year to embark on a specific process of co-design and delivery of immediate programme developments. It is their experience of resettlement and their continued calls for simplification which have informed this programme, and we look forward to working closely with them in its development.

We want to thank local authorities and communities for their continued support of this endeavour, which has been instrumental to both the successful operation of our transitional accommodation sites and for supporting moves into settled accommodation. In order for them to continue to deliver this vital work, we will continue to robustly test planning assumptions.

Over the past 12 months, we have welcomed around 90 eligible families each month and we expect this pace to continue. This cannot, however, be an endless process and ultimately, the Government intend to reach a position where the UK Afghan resettlement schemes can be closed. We will update the House on this accordingly.

We are grateful for the cross-Government commitment and approach to delivery on this important programme and will provide further updates in the new year. We will continue to work to deliver on our commitment to resettle those eligible Afghans who have supported the UK, and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

[HCWS335]

Developments in Military Housing

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I am pleased to confirm that today, the Ministry of Defence and Annington Property Ltd have formally agreed that the MOD will reacquire the 36,000 service family estate homes sold to Annington in 1996.

This agreement reverses one of the most notorious privatisations of the 1990s, with the balance of risk and reward skewed heavily against the public sector. The billions of pounds spent by the MOD on renting back these properties since 1996 could have been better spent on maintaining, improving or rebuilding service family homes.

Estimates suggest the 1996 deal has left the British taxpayer nearly £8 billion worse off—money that could have been used to deliver homes fit for our heroes. In addition to the billions of pounds paid in rent, billions of pounds-worth of empty properties have also been handed over to Annington Ltd.

The new deal is a decisive break with the failed approach of the past, which will save the public purse £230 million a year in rental costs—more than £600,000 a day. These important savings to defence pave the way for a substantial improvement and construction programme to provide high-quality homes for armed forces families. The deep-set problems with military housing will not be fixed overnight, but this is a major step forward and a demonstration of our Government’s intent.

This deal forms part of our growth mission to secure jobs, economic prosperity and house-building across the UK, and our commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve—boosting morale, retention and recruitment across the armed forces.

The opportunity for this landmark deal was presented following a High Court ruling in MOD’s favour. This established MOD’s legal rights to repurchase the houses from Annington, providing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix the long-term decline in military housing and deliver homes fit for heroes.

The deal also represents excellent value for money. We are buying the estate for £6 billion, yet the properties are valued at £10.1 billion by Annington when not subject to leases. However, eliminating the liabilities associated with the leases creates budgetary headroom to partially fund this purchase, meaning that the public expenditure impact of this measure, and the impact on public sector net debt, is confined to £1.7 billion.

By contrast, failing to take advantage of this opportunity would have meant rising rental and maintenance costs on properties that, in many cases, have reached the end of their useful lives.

The taxpayer would have faced a further £5.9 billion costs over the next 10 years through ever-increasing rents. Homes with a value of £1.3 billion would also have been returned to a private company.

Problems with the existing deal were recognised by the last Government, in particular by the right hon. Member for Horsham at the time, Jeremy Quin, who had oversight of the initial core legal challenges. This Government have accelerated this work in recent months across the Ministry of Defence, UK Government Investments and His Majesty’s Treasury. We pay tribute to all those who have worked tirelessly to complete this deal.

This announcement comes as the Government start work on a new military housing strategy, to be published next year. The first steps in the strategy will include the rapid development of an action plan to deliver on the “once in a generation” opportunities unlocked by today’s deal. This work will involve independent experts, forces families and cross-Government input.

The strategy will help to deliver a generational renewal of military housing, new opportunities for forces homeownership, and better use of MOD land to support the delivery of affordable homes for families across Britain.

Our armed forces make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. Theirs is the ultimate public service. By ensuring that our personnel and their families have the homes they deserve, this work will support the Government’s plan for change, which is built on the foundation of strong national security, and it will help achieve the Government’s milestones on kick-starting economic growth and boosting house-building across the country.

Today’s announcement demonstrates how our Government are delivering for defence. This is a major step forward towards delivering military housing fit for our heroes.

[HCWS323]

LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans.

In July last year, Lord Etherton’s report on LGBT veterans shone a much needed light on a dark period in Britain’s military history: an era between 1967 and 2000 when LGBT people were banned from serving in our armed forces; an era when homophobic bullying, harassment and abuse were widespread; an era when LGBT personnel were demoted, dismissed, or driven out of the forces because of their sexuality. The testimony of those who gave evidence to Lord Etherton’s review and who have courageously campaigned for justice are truly harrowing. The very values of a tolerant western democracy that we expected those forces personnel to defend were denied to them. It was profoundly wrong. I have been determined as Defence Secretary that we will continue the work of the previous Government to deal with the injustices suffered by so many LGBT personnel.

I am grateful to Lord Etherton for his work and for his report. I am grateful also for the support of Fighting With Pride and the coalition of more than 20 charities that back its work. I am grateful to them for providing the Government with invaluable guidance and advice on a range of restorative actions, some of which I am able to announce today. I am also grateful for the very small team of officials who have worked from the outset within the MOD on this area. I am grateful, too, for how Members from all parts of the House have come together to recognise the injustice and to support the actions that first the previous Government and now this one are willing to take.

This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill in 2001. We welcomed the Etherton review’s recommendations and publication. In opposition, we called on the previous Government to deliver on the previous Defence Secretary’s pledge for a debate in this House to, as he said,

“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]

Today, this Government delivers on that commitment, and it is an honour for me as Defence Secretary to open the debate.

In doing so, I will update the House on the actions we are taking as a new Government to right the historic wrongs to LGBT veterans. First, among the remaining recommendations made by Etherton, I can announce today that we are establishing a financial recognition scheme. When that scheme goes live tomorrow, it will mean that almost all of the 49 recommendations made by Lord Etherton will have been delivered. Recommendations 28 and 29 in his report specifically refer to financial award —a tangible payment—to reflect Government accountability and our determination to recognise these historic failings.

I am pleased to announce today that we are launching an LGBT financial recognition scheme, with a total budget of £75 million. That is 50% higher than the level recommended in the Etherton review and the cap set by the last Government. This financial recognition scheme will open tomorrow, one year to the day since the previous Government responded to Lord Etherton’s report.

The scheme provides two types of payment to recognise the discrimination and detriment suffered by LGBT personnel under the ban. The first is for those who were dismissed or discharged. It will be available to veterans who were dismissed or administratively discharged, including officers instructed to resign because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or their gender identity under the ban. The payment will be at a flat rate of £50,000. The second is for those who were impacted in other ways. This LGBT impact payment is open to all those who experienced pain and suffering under the ban, including harassment, intrusive investigations and in some cases imprisonment. The impact payment will be assessed by an independent panel, with tariffs ranging between £1,000 and £20,000 to make the awards fair and proportionate to each individual. The two payments will run concurrently as part of a single financial recognition scheme. We have also set aside funding from the MOD to support those charities that can advise applicants on the schemes.

As a result of the additional funding we have allocated, payments can reach up to a maximum of £70,000 for those who were most impacted and most hurt and who qualify for both awards. The scheme will remain open for two years, and applications for payments from the scheme from terminally ill veterans will be prioritised. All payments, from both schemes, will be exempt from income tax and will not affect benefits that applicants may receive. The scheme will open tomorrow morning, and fuller details will be online at that point. I hope that our decision to listen to the views expressed on the last Government’s plans, to uplift the value of this scheme and to deliver it within one year of the recommendations being accepted demonstrate our profound regret and our determination to do right by our LGBT personnel.

Today, I can make three additional important restorative announcements. First, those who were administratively discharged based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation will be able to apply to get their records set straight. As a result, the ban will be shown as the reason for their discharge, finally removing any blame or dishonour on their record for those who have served. Secondly, we will restore the ranks of veterans who had them reduced as a result of the ban, ensuring that they regain the rank they rightfully earned in service. Thirdly, while not within the scope of Lord Etherton’s review, which covered the ban between 1967 and 2000, we also want to acknowledge any LGBT veterans who served before 1967 and who may have suffered under the ban. We are taking further action to recognise their service and contribution. As a result, these veterans can now apply to have their administrative discharges qualified, their rank restored if it had been reduced, and their certificates of service reissued. Former officers may also apply to have their service details published in the Gazette as part of the official record.

Working on these restorative measures and meeting affected veterans have not been easy, but they have shown me how much progress our modern armed forces are making. There has been a change in culture and a change in prevailing attitudes, and Britain’s military today is more inclusive and more tolerant than in the past. Each of the services has held presentation ceremonies to welcome LGBT veterans back into the family, where they have always belonged. While there has been change, and there has been progress, there is no place for prejudice in the modern armed forces. We still have more to do to reinforce zero tolerance of any discrimination or abuse anywhere in defence.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have a constituent who was not a member of the armed forces, but a member of the secret service. He lost his job in the 1980s because he was gay. There is no compensation for him at the moment. I suspect it may not be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that there should be parity of treatment across the forces? We rely on our secret service as much as we do our armed forces. Surely what is fair for them should be fair for those who have given their time and risked their lives in the service of our country.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend makes the powerful point that this discrimination, harassment and abuse—systematic in some cases—is not and was not confined in the past to the military. That concern has been raised by civilians at times within the wider defence field. I and Ministers in this team are as concerned about it there as in the military, but I think she will appreciate that we ask those who put on a uniform for our country to take on a special role, to step forward and to be willing to give their lives to defend the rest of us. When those basic values that they fight for and that our country stands for are denied to them as part of their service, that is a deep injustice, and Lord Etherton’s report gives us the basis for recognition and restoration. That is the focus of my concern in this debate.

In September, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and I were proud to present the first Etherton ribbons to veterans, as a way of acknowledging the mistreatment of those affected by the ban.The Government are delivering for defence and delivering for LGBT veterans.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I am intervening on my right hon. Friend because I have to chair Westminster Hall in an hour, so I cannot take part in the debate.

My constituent not only lost his career in the Royal Air Force but was subjected to abuse when he was arrested, including constant internal examinations. He was beaten, he was kicked and he was spat at. He was marched across the parade ground to his billet, where his personal belongings were gone through. He was humiliated. Was that sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence at the time? Was it sanctioned by senior officers, or were those individuals working on their own? They acted like sadistic animals towards my constituent. Something needs to be done to investigate that.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has been one of the most consistent and forceful voices on this historic abuse and demands for the Government now to provide some justice. He has raised that case in this House before. I do not know whether his constituent gave evidence to the Etherton review. If he did, he would have been one of over 1,100 individual LGBT veterans who served and had stories to report to Etherton, often of the sort of abuse that my hon. Friend talked about. It was based on that experience that Etherton made his recommendations. It was based on those recommendations that we make these announcements today. It is from tomorrow that we will open the scheme to start assessing and then making payments that recognise that injustice.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making a really passionate speech. My constituent Ed Hall, who is in the Gallery, was one of the founding members of the legal campaign to lift the ban. Ed was sacked from the Royal Navy for being gay in 1988 and founded the first legal challenge group in 1994. When I met him, he spoke about people who had been investigated, about humiliation and stigma, and about people who were sacked. Many were made homeless simply because of who they loved and their sexuality. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending my constituent Ed Hall for his tireless work? It has helped to deliver justice today for so many LGBT+ veterans, and which is, as Ed has said,

“A close to the shameful chapter in recent British military history”.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a moving and powerful intervention. Although courageous, relentless, energetic groups such as Fighting With Pride have in many ways led the charge, that was opened up by the stance of courageous individuals such as her constituent who had suffered but were prepared to speak out about their experience, which gave voice to the experience of many more.

The whole history of social change and progress in our country is based on brave individuals who at the outset will not stand for injustice, will not stand for that sort of harassment and will speak out. They start the movement that can bring pressure on Governments and others to change. The case that she cites stands for a number of LGBT veterans: people who served this country and were not served well by our military at that time. I hope that her constituent and her constituent’s family will welcome the announcement, and I hope that they will be able to take advantage of the schemes that we will open up tomorrow.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I welcome the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State’s speech. I wonder if he could assist the House in setting out the steps that the Government intend to take to ensure the reliability of gathering data about the size of the cohort who are affected and may be eligible for the compensation scheme.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. The shadow Defence Secretary will know—he and his colleagues started this work before the election—that one of, I would argue, the strengths of the announcement and the scheme we are able to put in place today is the close work we have done with veterans’ groups and Fighting With Pride, as well as with historians and those with access to records, to make our best assessment of the number of veterans who may be affected and may be eligible, and may therefore want to take advantage of these financial recognition schemes. We have set the budgets for the schemes and set the levels of award in the light of them. We will see how that goes.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, and in particular the additional funds found to support charities who will help LGBT veterans with their applications. One of my constituents wrote to me with a most harrowing story about how his career in the armed forces ended with an investigation by the Royal Military Police. He said that every aspect of his life had been greatly affected since the initial investigation, with his housing, employment, health and family life all having suffered as a result of the ban, which was ruled illegal in 1999. Will my right hon. Friend outline when eligible LGBT veterans impacted by the ban can expect to receive their financial recognition?

[John Healey]

They can expect to be able to get the full details from 9 o’clock tomorrow. They can expect to be able to complete the details and respond to the information required from tomorrow. I am conscious that, for many of these veterans, time is ticking, and I am determined that the scheme will not take long to make its proper decisions. Therefore, soon into the new year, LGBT veterans who are confirmed as eligible should expect payment.

I look forward, by the way, to the large number of contributions that there will be in the debate. As I wind up, I want to emphasise two or three points. This is a Government delivering for defence. This is a Government delivering for LGBT veterans. On behalf of the Government, I want to apologise without reservation for the pain and injustice caused during this dark chapter of our armed forces’ history. The treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It is shameful that those who put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country were treated in such callous and unjust ways.

Our Government will now right those wrongs of the past. That is why we are providing financial recognition to veterans. It is why we are making sure that payments will be fair, proportionate and prompt, and it is why we are delivering on the remaining recommendations of the Etherton report. We will learn the lessons from that report. We will never forget the pain and trauma that LGBT veterans were subjected to between 1967 and 2000. We will root out any remaining prejudice and abuse wherever it rears its head in the forces and we will look to build a more diverse, stronger military that better reflects the society that it serves and protects; a military in which everyone can serve without fearing injustice or discrimination. That is the one nation mission that the Government are committed to: a modern, representative, unified armed forces, proud to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Defence Industrial Development

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Today I am announcing plans to develop a new defence industrial strategy that will be published in late spring 2025. I have published a statement of intent setting out the focus of the strategy and invitation to consultation on gov.uk.

The UK faces acute and growing threats to our national security: Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the threat of escalation against NATO allies; conflict in the middle east; tensions in the Indo-Pacific region; and rising geopolitical instability.

The deteriorating security environment means we need a new era for defence: to restock our armed forces for today and the future; enact a deep reform of Ministry of Defence procurement; add urgency and co-ordination to our efforts to support Ukraine; and develop a new defence industrial strategy that is aligned to the Government’s growth mission, creates new partnerships with industry, innovators and allies, and is matched to the urgency of the situation.

The Government’s primary mission is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7—with good jobs and productivity growth in every region and nation in the UK. Defence has a significant role to play, and the Government have confirmed defence as one of the eight priority growth sectors in its new industrial strategy.

Our aim is to produce a better, more integrated, more innovative and more resilient defence sector: a defence industry that can innovate at speed to help Ukraine defeat Russia; with the resilience to deter aggression by our adversaries; able to seize the opportunity presented by the technologies of the future, while growing our share of today’s market through a new focus on exports.

The statement of intent published on gov.uk outlines the proposed framework we will adopt and provides an early signal of our approach. It also sets out the priorities for this strategy which will inform extensive consultation with the defence sector.

I invite all stakeholders to respond to this statement of intent and consultation questions, either publicly or privately, by end of February 2025.

[HCWS273]

Defence Programme Developments

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I have today made an oral statement setting out how our new Government are addressing the challenges facing UK defence. This written ministerial statement provides fuller detail about the decisions I have taken on certain defence programmes.

We face increasing global threats—war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, conflict in the middle east, and technology changing the nature of warfare. As a result, defence needs increased resilience and readiness for the future. We also face serious financial pressures in the defence budget. Our Government have taken immediate action, confirming an additional £2.9 billion for the defence budget in 2025-26 to help start fixing the foundations of UK defence. And we will set a clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.

To ensure that Britain is kept secure at home and strong abroad in a changing world, defence needs to make changes, too. Difficult decisions are required. As I set out in today’s oral statement, this includes the retirement of ageing equipment as we transition to new capabilities and make our armed forces fit for the future. These decisions will deliver better value for money and ensure we are in a better position to modernise and strengthen UK defence.

I have halted the current refit of HMS Northumberland, a Type 23 frigate, which will now be retired from the fleet in March 2025. As a result of service well beyond the original Type 23 out-of-service date, the structural damage discovered during refit makes her uneconomical to repair. There will be no impact on current operations, and the ship’s company has already been assigned elsewhere for the refit period. The Type 23 frigates will be replaced by the most advanced anti-submarine warfare frigates in the world: the Type 26, the first of which, HMS Glasgow, will be delivered by 2027.

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the Royal Navy’s two amphibious assault ships, will be retired from service by the end of March 2025. Both are currently held at lower readiness, having not been to sea since 2023 and 2017 respectively. On current planning, neither was due to go to sea again before their planned out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034. They had, in effect, been mothballed, but were still costing the taxpayer around £9 million per year to maintain. Almost all crew have been reassigned already, and the rest will be reassigned once the ships are retired. They will be replaced by planned multi-role support ships. In the meantime, the Commando Force will continue to be supported by the three Bay-class auxiliary landing ship docks and RFA Argus.

The Wave class auxiliary oilers, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler, will be retired from service by the end of March 2025. They have not been to sea since 2017 and 2022 respectively. They are currently in extended readiness and are not due to return to sea before their planned out-of-service date in 2028. All crew have been reassigned already. The fleet’s operations and training will be unaffected, with the more modern Tide-class auxiliary oilers fulfilling all requirements.

The Army’s Watchkeeper Mk 1 uncrewed aerial system will be retired from service from March 2025. Watchkeeper Mk 1 was introduced in 2010. Since then, drone technology has advanced at a rapid rate, accelerated by prolific use throughout the war in Ukraine. A modern army must self-evidently have a modern drone capability, able to operate in the most challenging environments. Following the retirement of Watchkeeper Mk 1, the Army will rapidly switch to a new advanced capability, drawing on the most recent operational lessons and technological developments.

The Chinook helicopter has been a workhorse for the armed forces since it first entered service in the Royal Air Force in 1980. Over the years, it has been upgraded many times. Fourteen of the most modern variant, the highly capable H-47(ER), will enter service with the Royal Air Force from 2027. Ahead of this arrival, decommissioning of the oldest 14 aircraft will be accelerated as they reach their next deep maintenance period over the next four years. Current personnel will be unaffected and will continue to train, ready for the introduction of the H-47(ER).

The Puma helicopter has similarly served the Royal Air Force for a long time, having been first introduced in 1971 and extended several times. Puma will be retired in March 2025 when its current support contract expires. Pumas currently operate solely in Cyprus and Brunei, where they will be replaced by the new Airbus H-145 from 2026. During this short gap in capability, a commercial or military solution will be used for firefighting on our sovereign base in Cyprus, and alternatives to Brunei will be used for some elements of jungle training.

These ships and aircraft have provided a valuable capability over many years, but we must look to the future. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who currently serve, and have served, with and in them during their deployments around the world. All personnel will be redeployed or retrained.

These are not the only difficult decisions we will need to make, as a new Government, to deal with the fiscal inheritance, but they are decisions which secure better value for money for taxpayers and better outcomes for our military. They are set to save the MOD up to £150 million in the next two years, and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence. My decisions are all backed by our military chiefs and taken in consultation with those leading the strategic defence review. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. I am announcing this now in order to maximise the associated savings, which will be invested back into defence.

[HCWS239]

Points of Order

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he will, I believe, be aware, I have been given no indication that the Secretary of State will be making such a statement, but the Secretary of State is obviously here and taking note of what is being said, and if he wishes to comment either now or later, he has the opportunity to do so.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have seen, over recent weeks, a significant change in the action and in the rhetoric on Ukraine, and Ukraine’s action on the battlefield speaks for itself. We, as a nation and as a Government, are doubling down on our support for Ukraine, and are determined to do more. When I discussed this with Minister Umerov in a call yesterday, he talked about Ukraine’s robust response to recent Russian escalations—the escalation in the attacks on Ukrainian cities and children, the escalation in the attacks on the energy system, and the escalation that involves deploying 10,000 North Korean troops in combat positions on the frontline. We also discussed our plans, as the UK, to support the Ukrainians throughout 2025.

I remain committed to keeping Parliament as fully informed as possible. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the House will, I think, understand the reasons why, at this point, I am not able to go into any further operational details.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I trust that that response has satisfied the hon. Member for South Suffolk.

Defence Programmes Developments

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.

I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.

This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.

We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.

However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.

First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.

Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.

Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,

“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.

Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.

These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.

Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.

Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.

I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Defence Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.

I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.

The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.

The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.

However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?

[John Healey]

As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I am sure they would say that these are entirely the right decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I can confidently take them now, because we need to create the scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review reports.

We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government. The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old. This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new, much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other purposes.

Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon. Gentleman’s nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive payment.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?

[John Healey]

The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no, which is precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight, deter and defend this country.

I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful delegation visit to Montreal later this week.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.

Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD’s arm in future discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always with the Treasury.

I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review, it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now, and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and a proper debate”?

[John Healey]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his advice. On the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that we should expect that in the spring.

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?

[John Healey]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, and the reminder to this House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra staff. I have also scrapped the Tories’ £40 million VIP helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women, which we can now do.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion and HMS  Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and 10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces, just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?

[John Healey]

I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9 million a year that would have been spent under the previous plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on the future of our forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to increasing threats?

[John Healey]

I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.

With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?

On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, America’s airfields and dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies. We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his clearing out.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument that the UK’s alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought and was different from that of some other countries. I have made it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of service has not yet been settled.

On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first, that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence review.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the decisions outlined in today’s statement will fix the foundations of our nation’s defence, spend every penny he has wisely and keep our nation safer?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army after four years’ service, which I have been able to announce this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer and more productive career in our armed forces.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.

Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?

[John Healey]

It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?

[John Healey]

One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he, and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before a replacement can be provided?

[John Healey]

Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?

[John Healey]

I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in the end. What message will be received from this statement in Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?

[John Healey]

The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in future.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I very much welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about cuts, when the previous Government’s biggest cut was to our armed forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars. In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future if they serve?

[John Healey]

The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career: a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut defence by £2 billion.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—now that the Secretary of State’s Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in any way at all?

[John Healey]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in this very job, I will take that as an early representation on the future decisions I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is decommissioned.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform. One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment, which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. Will he commit to also reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces? Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence, but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment, I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our national security.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

With close social and economic ties between communities on both sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the future?

[John Healey]

If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.

[John Healey]

I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. It is really good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by today’s decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to that 2.5% target. Given that this today’s final question, will he take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at home and strong abroad?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly what this Government are determined to do.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

John Healey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today, the Government take a major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind them. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe, and at the heart of that security are the men and women of our armed forces. In this role, I have the privilege of meeting many of those men and women who serve proudly, here in the UK and around the world. I see at first hand their dedication and professionalism and some of the extraordinary sacrifices they make in defence of our nation—from the 700 personnel who rapidly deployed to Cyprus over the summer to support our contingency planning for the safety of UK nationals in Lebanon, to the 140 Royal Navy submariners who I met recently at Faslane as they completed the final leg of their sea patrol. I had to apologise that mine was the first face they saw upon arriving home after so many months. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service.

I know, too, that all Members will join me in recognising that when we talk about loved ones away from home—a spouse or parent who may be deployed at a moment’s notice to another part of the UK or the world—we are talking about sacrifices that are made not only by those in uniform, but by the family members who support them. We cannot say enough that our forces’ families live their lives in service to the nation. As such, the Bill before the House establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life for our serving personnel and their families. That is significant and long overdue.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and welcome his Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. As he has rightly pointed out, the Bill will allow our brave service personnel and their families to make complaints to the commissioner, but that right has not been given to bereaved family members. Can he reassure me and the House that bereaved families will also be given that right?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. Our definition of “relevant family members”, which is on the face of the Bill, will include bereaved families.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Of course, the other group excluded from that provision is veterans—I speak as a veteran. Why is the Secretary of State not concerned about them? Should they not come under the auspices of this new official too? An example might be those who were exposed to potential contaminants at Camp Lejeune in the US. That is a thematic investigation that the new commissioner might undertake.

[John Healey]

Our first priority is those who serve and their families—those who are subject to service law. The range of agencies and services that support veterans is very different. A better way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law, as well as the range of steps that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has already started to take. We have taken the view that the commissioner established by this Bill will give their first priority and full focus to those who are serving, as well as their families, who are also impacted by their service life.

As I have said, this Bill is significant and long overdue. It is long overdue because the forces have been badly let down for the past 14 years. The Conservatives have created a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale. Last year, the trained strength of the armed forces fell at the fastest rate for a decade—with 300 more personnel leaving than joining every month—and service morale fell to its lowest level on record. Only four in 10 of our forces personnel report being satisfied with service life. They report that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing their decision to leave.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that while the previous Government systematically failed, communities around the country did their best to support serving personnel and their families through military covenants. Some did that really well, while others did not. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what role he sees for covenants in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner, to ensure that commitments made in good faith by agencies around the country are delivered on so that serving personnel and their families can have easier, more rewarding lives?

[John Healey]

The covenant sets out the important principle that no one who is serving, or who has served, should be disadvantaged by that service. That is why, as an Opposition party before the election, Labour supported the then Government in their partial translation of the covenant into law. The job is only half done, and we will complete it. We aim to do so through the armed forces Bill that is to come, but although the role of the commissioner will exist in the context of the covenant, they will draw their powers from the legislation before the House. Their role will be defined in this legislation, and they will become a powerful independent voice for those who serve and the families who stand behind them.

Both our forces and their families have been failed for too long. That is why the Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. It is why the Government are putting people at the heart of our defence plans, and why I am now introducing this legislation as a priority in the first legislative Session of this Government.

We cannot reverse those deep-set problems overnight, but our mission is to lift military morale, and in these first four months we have been getting on with that job. We are investing in our servicemen and women, giving them the highest pay rise for over 20 years. We are putting forces families first, expanding childcare for forces families overseas. We are starting to fix forces recruitment with new recruitment targets, cutting red tape and a new direct cyber-route to recruit into the armed forces. We are also improving service life by introducing this Bill in Parliament to establish the Armed Forces Commissioner—a Government delivering for defence and delivering our manifesto commitment to establish that commissioner as an independent champion for our forces and their families to improve service life.

The commissioner will be a direct point of contact for serving personnel and their families, who will be able to raise concerns that may impact on their service lives and their ability to serve: everything from kit to food, housing, medical care, study programmes, promotions, childcare and support for spouses in work. The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military. Dr Eva Högl, the current commissioner in Germany, told me:

“Since 1959, the year the German commissioner was first established, it has become well recognised, respected and unchallenged as an institution in Germany, safeguarding the basic rights of our soldiers.”

She went on to say:

“I would be delighted if this success story were to be repeated in the UK.”

That is exactly what we aim to do.

The commissioner will have the necessary access to personnel, information and defence sites. They will have the power to hear directly from service personnel and family members on their concerns connected with their service, and the power to investigate individual concerns and launch wide-ranging thematic investigations into those issues that materially impact personnel and families of the forces. They will have the power to demand access to information to facilitate their investigations and access to service premises—and in the UK to make those visits unannounced.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

How does the Secretary of State envisage the commissioner standing alongside others in the armed forces in terms of the chain of command? Has an assessment been made on that?

[John Healey]

The commissioner will be independent and separate from the chain of command, with powers that do not depend on or account to the chain of command in any way. They will have the power to make recommendations to improve service life and to set out the findings of their investigations in reports to be laid before Parliament. Their annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of the forces and what we must do to improve our offer as a Government and as a nation to those who serve. It is my intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each and every year.

The commissioner and their reports will challenge Ministers, will strengthen parliamentary oversight and will raise awareness of the issues facing our forces. The commissioner will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Commons Defence Committee.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Secretary of State is being generous with his time. I note from the Bill that there is no prospect of approval being sought from the cross-party Defence Committee, although, as the Secretary of State just alluded to, there will be a pre-appointment hearing. Will he give me and the House an undertaking that if the Committee has concerns, he will listen closely to our recommendations and take action accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the Select Committee’s Chair for intervening on this point. The legislation and what I propose reflects the current arrangements and practices in Parliament. I am keen that the Committee exercises the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny—we need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion—and I will certainly listen closely to and take close note of the Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.

The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Of course, the ombudsman’s role is too narrow: it is entirely reactive, it can consider formal individual grievances only after the service complaints system has been completed, and then it can judge only whether that process has been reasonable. I expect that the Armed Forces Commissioner will challenge us to do better in the service complaints system and widely across service life. I expect that the commissioner will develop strong views on improving the service complaints system, and I believe that the future Armed Forces Bill will offer us the right opportunity for that, should primary legislation be required.

This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. There will be, for the first time, a champion for our armed forces; for the first time, a champion for forces families; and for the first time, a champion with serious powers to access every part of service life, who will report in public to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve service life for serving personnel and their families.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Over the last year, service morale fell to record lows, with over 300 more full-time personnel leaving the forces than joining each month. We cannot reverse these deep-set problems overnight, but this Government are putting people at the heart of our defence plans, and today will see the Second Reading of our legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life.

[Dr Cooper]

The package announced this weekend of 20 hours of funded wraparound childcare for families deployed overseas is very welcome. Can the Minister please assure us that this type of practical assistance will be a fundamental pillar of the Government’s support for forces families?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. Supporting our service families is really important, especially when they are far from home, and this scheme will reduce the burden of childcare costs for those eligible families overseas. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and putting our forces personnel at the heart of our defence plans.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is often overlooked, yet it is vital to the sustainability and success of our Royal Navy. Often its pay and conditions do not keep track with either the armed forces or the civil service. What can the Secretary of State say to members of the RFA to reassure them that they are valued?

[John Healey]

Over the last decade or more, we have been expecting more of those members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. They play a critical role in our maritime operations and they are highly valued as part of our services community. We see an important future for that service as part of building Britain’s defences for the future, and we are putting forces personnel and RFA personnel at the heart of our plans to ensure that we are more secure at home and strong abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the subject of improving service life for service personnel and their families, thousands of families will be getting the unwelcome Christmas present this year of a 20% tax on the school fees that they pay to fund an independent boarding school or, otherwise, will have to allow their children’s education to be constantly destabilised. Given that this new tax is 100% the responsibility of the Government, will the Secretary of State confirm that the continuity of education allowance will be uplifted to fund 100% of the new tax on those fees?

[John Healey]

We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January. We will do that so that the allowance continues to maintain the schooling of the many children of personnel that are deployed. Our mission as a Government is to lift the morale of our services. That is why we are investing in our servicemen and women, supporting their families and starting to fix the problems of the last 14 years that we have inherited.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of publishing all board of inquiry documents on the bombing of RFA Sir Galahad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

3. What his Department’s planned timetable is for the strategic defence review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The strategic defence review is the first of its kind in the UK. It is externally led and draws widely on experts within Government and the military, as well as those from industry, academia and our allies. The reviewers will report in the spring.

[Gregory Stafford]

With the increasing threats we see around the world, the Government are entitled to conduct a strategic defence review, but that should not be an excuse not to commit to increasing defence spending. Given that the Secretary of State refused to provide a timetable at last week’s urgent question, will he now say yes or no to whether the Government will get to 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament?

[John Healey]

Everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. Under this Government, it is increasing by nearly £3 billion next year, and there is a cast-iron commitment that we will set a clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. Of course, the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010 with a Labour Government.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Deciding to defer or to review is just as much of a decision as one to go ahead or not to go ahead, because it means that nothing is happening. The Typhoon factory at Warton is currently idle—no Typhoons are being produced—which is bad for exports and bad for our defence. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when we will take a decision to procure more Typhoons? There are 25,000 jobs at risk, as well as the country’s defence.

[John Healey]

I have had the privilege of visiting Warton, and I have seen the skills, the technology and the workforce’s commitment and dedication to that job. The reviewers of the strategic defence review will produce their final report and make recommendations in the spring. In the meantime, my hon. Friend rightly points to exports. It may interest him to know that, last week, I was in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to discuss with Defence Ministers the future role that UK-made Typhoons could play in the defence of both countries.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), I welcome the £2.9 billion of extra defence expenditure from next year. However, not only do we not have a timetable for meeting 2.5% of GDP, which the whole House would like to hear about; will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no additional funding for the in-year pressures that this Department, alongside so many others, is suffering from?

[John Healey]

The Chancellor set out in her Budget on 30 October the steps we are taking, across Government, to deal with the £22 billion in-year deficit that this Government inherited. On the commitment to 2.5% of GDP, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made it clear that we will set that path in the spring. I remind the House that the Prime Minister said at the NATO summit in Washington, back in July, that it was a question of the strategic defence review first, then the commitment and the path to 2.5%.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

My constituency is home to many small and medium-sized enterprises that contribute to our UK defence sector. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that submissions from SMEs to the strategic defence review are given equal weighting and consideration compared with submissions from prime contractors, in order to support innovation, job creation and competition within the UK defence sector?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Defence Secretary will recognise the role that small, medium and growing companies can play in our defence and security sector better than anyone else in the House. That is one reason why, within days of getting this job, I did not just meet the big, leading defence companies; I had a similar meeting and briefing on the approach this Government will take with small and medium-sized companies, including growing companies, in the defence sector. Such companies will be an important focus for the strategic defence review, as the reforms and the long-term industrial strategy required to deliver stronger defences for this country are considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

5. What plans he has to maintain the UK’s role in NATO.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

NATO is the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic security. Our commitment to the alliance is unshakable. The strategic defence review will ensure that we have a NATO-first policy at the heart of Britain’s defence plans for the future.

[Bob Blackman]

Following the election of President Trump in the United States, there will clearly be much more pressure from the new US Administration on other countries in NATO to step up to the mark and put in the resources that they should be putting in to safeguard the defence of Europe. What action will the Secretary of State take to show leadership and ensure that other European countries step up and keep Europe safe from external threats such as Russia, China and beyond?

[John Healey]

Our cast-iron commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will help to set the pace in NATO. I am pleased that, while in 2001 only six NATO nations were meeting the pledge level of 2%, this year 23 nations are doing so. The UK commits almost all our armed forces and our nuclear deterrent to NATO, so we play a leading role. We will have a NATO-first policy at the heart of our defence plans, and will always look to be first in NATO as part of our leadership role.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Mindful that tomorrow marks the 1,000-day anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, and of the increase in Russian hostility over the weekend, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take this opportunity to assure the House of this Government’s continued steadfast support for both Ukraine and NATO?

[John Healey]

I will indeed. In the four months that this Government have been in office we have stepped up support for Ukraine and speeded up delivery of the military aid promised. This is a Government now spending more on military aid than ever before on behalf of the UK. I pay tribute to the Conservative party for the fact that the UK is and remains united for Ukraine.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

6. What progress he has made on establishing an independent armed forces commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

10. What steps he has taken to increase support for Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

With tomorrow marking 1,000 days since the start of President Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of Ukraine, our commitment to stand with the Ukrainian people is absolute. We have stepped up with more military support, we have sped up deliveries, and we are now spending more on military aid as a country than ever before.

[Lillian Jones]

Tomorrow will be 1,000 days since Putin invaded Ukraine. My constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun have concerns about the ongoing welfare of Ukrainian civilians, so can the Secretary of State please assure my constituents that the Government will continue to offer support and aid to those in need? Will he underline our absolute support for Ukraine forces to end Putin’s aggression?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What she really says is that the Ukrainians have been fighting with huge courage—military and civilians alike—and the best way we can help the Ukrainians to defend their own civilians is to step up our support for Ukraine. That is why we have increased military support and aid to its highest level ever. We have signed a new industrial treaty with Ukraine worth £3.5 billion to increase military hardware. We have hit the £1 billion milestone for the UK-led international fund for Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. This is a Government delivering for defence and for Ukraine.

[Matt Turmaine]

I thank the Secretary of State for his previous answers. Will he outline some of the detail of the support that has been offered to Ukraine and how that support is evolving as the conflict continues?

[John Healey]

At each stage, we have tried to respond to the requirements that the Ukrainians say that they have to match the state of their battle to defend their country. We have announced packages of artillery, of ammunition and of air defence, which is one of their most critical needs at present, including recently a new contract to supply short-range air defence missiles—the lightweight multi-role missiles. Those will be in Ukrainian hands at the turn of the year. We expect to step up that production and delivery during the course of next year.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the recent media interview given by a leading candidate to be Labour’s next ambassador to Washington DC? This supposedly clever negotiator declared that Ukraine should not expect to get its territory back, and should not expect to be put on the path to join NATO, but could perhaps secure some security guarantees from western countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that whoever is sent to Washington should be somebody who supports Ukraine in defending itself and does not reward Russian aggression with pre-emptive capitulation?

[John Healey]

One of the first privileges I had in this new role was to represent the country at the NATO Washington summit. That was the point at which the NATO nations collectively agreed to step up support for Ukraine and to develop the security guarantees that Ukraine will need in the longer term. The task for us and allies that support Ukraine is to help Ukrainians and support them in their fight now. At the point at which they judge the talking should start, our role then is to give them equally steadfast support, and we will.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure the whole House stands solidly with Ukraine on its one thousandth day countering Russian aggression and doing so for us all, but its ability to do so is weakened by North Korea sending armaments and manpower, the Iranians sending drones, and oil contracts still being signed. Will the Minister assure us that, in the light of the American decision to allow strikes inside Russia, we will also give permission for our missiles to be used to break up concentrations of arms and material inside Russia?

[John Healey]

I will not be drawn on details about long-range missiles today—it risks operational security, and the only person who benefits from public debate is President Putin. As the right hon. Member rightly says, 10,000 North Korean troops are on the frontline in Russia. At the weekend, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack into Ukraine since August against infrastructure. I spoke yesterday to the US Defence Secretary about this escalation. I will speak to the Ukrainian Defence Minister about it later today. I want the House to be in no doubt: the Prime Minister has been clear that we must double down and give Ukraine the support it needs for as long as it needs. We will continue to work in close co-ordination with the US in our support for Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I asked the Secretary of State last month whether there was an update on the usage of Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine. As has been widely reported, yesterday President Biden lifted restrictions on the use of long-range US missiles. Given the continuous bombing of Ukrainian communities by Russia, and given that thousands of North Korean troops are fighting against our ally in our continent, will Ukraine now be allowed to use those Storm Shadow missiles—obviously, within the confines of international law—or do we expect Ukraine to continue fighting and defending itself with one hand tied behind its back while keeping those Storm Shadows in safe storage?

[John Healey]

I say again that I will not compromise operational security and comment on the details of long-range systems today. The Prime Minister has been clear—as I am being to the House—that we must double down on the support to Ukraine, give it the support it needs and do so for as long as it takes. In doing so, we will continue our close co-operation with the US and allies in providing that support to Ukraine.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I join the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), in strongly welcoming the decision by the United States to permit Ukraine to use long-range missiles in Kursk. I know the Secretary of State does not want to go into operational detail—I understand that—but I assure him of our support if he follows through in relation to Storm Shadow, as we believe he should. There will be those who talk about escalation, but does he agree that the only escalation that matters here is 10,000 North Korean troops on the ground supporting Russia in its illegal war?

[John Healey]

The shadow Secretary of State is right that the one person responsible for escalation in this conflict is President Putin, and the one side that has been escalating in recent months is Russia. In recognising that he has escalated his illegal war against Ukraine by intensifying the use of glide bombs, destroying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and deploying thousands of North Korean troops into combat positions in Kursk, I am discussing this very serious development with the US Defence Secretary and will be discussing it with the Ukrainian Defence Secretary this evening.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister raise Ukraine during his meeting with President Xi given China’s undoubted influence over Russia and North Korea?

[John Healey]

I regard the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi as an important step forward. He is the first Prime Minister of the UK to meet the leader of China in nearly six years. After 14 years of damaging Conservative inconsistency on China, this Government will bring a long-term approach to managing our relations with China. We will co-operate where we can, compete where we should, and challenge where we must.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support the cadet forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

This Government are delivering for defence. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement, marking a new era of co-operation between our armed forces and our defence industries. With threats increasing, we must strengthen European security. Tomorrow marks the bloody milestone of 1,000 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine began. The UK continues to be united for Ukraine, and the Government continue to step up support for Ukraine. As part of that, I can confirm today that 50,000 Ukrainian troops have now been trained through Operation Interflex —the UK-led multinational training programme—which I have now extended to run throughout 2025.

[Luke Myer]

I welcome that announcement by the Secretary of State. It should shame every politician in this House that today veterans who have served our country are still sleeping rough on our streets. Can the Secretary of State set out the steps he will take to ensure that homes will be there for heroes?

[John Healey]

Our first step was to ensure that veterans who face homelessness have a more advantaged place in social housing provision—that was announced by the Prime Minister in his Labour party conference speech and will be followed up by the Deputy Prime Minister in changes to the arrangements for local authority guidance. On the eve of Remembrance weekend, we also made a pledge of £3.5 million to help homeless veterans.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In relation to the cost of renting back our own military base on the Chagos islands, last week the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said that the reason the Government refused to tell us what the cost will be is that

“it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases anywhere across the globe”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 793.]

Is that correct?

[John Healey]

That is correct, but it is also true to say that the treaty is in the legal and national security interests of the UK and US. That is why the US Defence Secretary welcomed the agreement, which he said would

“safeguard the strategic security interests of the United Kingdom…and the United States…into the next century”.

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State says it is true that it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases, but there have actually been several written answers, under this Government and previous ones, giving the costs of overseas bases. For example, in November 2015 the then Minister for the Armed Forces—Penny Mordaunt, no less—revealed in a written answer the cost of 10 overseas bases, including Diego Garcia and the cost of leases. The reason for withholding the cost does not stack up. What does the Secretary of State have to hide from Parliament?

[John Healey]

Absolutely nothing, nor will we. It is a matter of course to confirm running costs for bases. What we are talking about here is an agreement leading to a treaty that will be put before this House. I have said to the House and to the shadow Secretary of State that we will set out the costs and the details of that treaty in due course when the House comes to consider it.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. In Doncaster, we are proud to have an armed forces covenant co-ordinator, the fantastic Teresa Hodgson, and a Doncaster armed forces covenant board, which is a coalition of groups and organisations committed to supporting the armed forces community in Doncaster. Will the Minister visit my constituency to speak to the board and discuss the action that the Government are taking to support veterans facing homelessness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Tomorrow marks 1,000 days since the illegal invasion of Ukraine. With the incoming White House Administration casting doubts on continued US support for Ukraine, I echo the calls heard across the House today urging the Minister to confirm that the Government plan to authorise the use of Storm Shadow missiles in Russia.

[John Healey]

I urge the hon. Lady to look back in the record at the answer that I have given two or three times already to this House.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

T4.   I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his decisive action to safeguard the Octric semiconductor factory in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, protecting jobs and, crucially, the sovereign supply of this vital defence component. Will my right hon. Friend meet with me to discuss how we can expand the jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities at this fantastic high-tech facility?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

T8.   Could I ask for a progress update on the recruitment for a national armaments director, the creation of a military strategic headquarters, and the release of the defence industrial strategy, and crucially, will they all be in place and established in time to contribute to the recommendations of the strategic defence review?

[John Healey]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Defence team—it is good to see him asking questions. The short answer is yes.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

T6. As we meet today, EU Foreign Ministers are reportedly discussing that Chinese manufacturing is now providing drones to the Russian war machine, specifically drones made in Xinjiang. Does that not further the need for Europe to deepen its own defence industrial base, and specifically, should we be securing an administrative arrangement with the European Defence Agency to that end?

[John Healey]

It is certainly true that we need to rebuild relations with important European allies, and that we need to do more collaboratively on big programmes. That is at the heart of the UK-German defence agreement that we have already signed as a new Government. We have also said that we will set out to strike a UK-EU security agreement, and aspects of that may be relevant.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Many veterans who I have spoken to recently are deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to remove the role of Veterans Minister from Cabinet. Will the Secretary of State explain how he will ensure veterans get the attention from Government that they rightly deserve?

[John Healey]

Veterans have a fully fledged Cabinet Minister speaking up for them. I am proud to do so as the Secretary of State for Defence.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

T7. Groups such as Light Project Peterborough do vital work to support homeless veterans, but as we know, demand has risen in recent years. Will the Minister welcome and congratulate groups such as Light Project and outline what steps he is taking to ensure support for veterans facing homelessness this winter?

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that the UK is working on a potential UK-EU security agreement. Might that include involvement in the European Peace Facility, which procures ammunition jointly?

[John Healey]

Discussions are at an early stage. At present, I am more concerned about the action we can take immediately, which is why I have given my first priority to building relations with key European allies. When I can, I will consolidate those relations in formal agreements, which we already have with Germany.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T9. As the MP for Sandhurst as well as Bracknell, I am delighted that the first intake of recruits to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst since the general election has hit 101% of its target, despite the wider retention and recruitment crisis. Will the Minister join me in welcoming all the 2024 recruits to my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I served in Germany for two years as part of NATO’s very high readiness joint task force, and I welcome the improved co-operation with that nation. I also saw at first hand the importance of our relationship with Poland. Can the Secretary of State tell me what we are doing to improve co-operation with that nation?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. Poland was one of the first countries that I visited as the new Defence Secretary. I was keen to establish a good relationship with my Polish counterpart and have done so. There is a good deal that we will do in future and are already doing, both military to military and with our defence industries.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On Friday, the UK Defence Journal reported on the activities of the Russian research and intelligence vessel Yantar in the Irish sea, in the vicinity of various cables. This is not new; we had the same thing last year in the North sea and off Shetland. Given the sheer quantity of cables and pipelines now in the seabed, what are the Government doing to ensure that that critical national infrastructure is properly protected?

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

With our domestic air defences under increased scrutiny, will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to strengthen them and give assurances that our Government understand that our forces will need the resources available to secure our skies?

[John Healey]

This is one of the areas that the strategic defence review is looking at closely: it has set up 26 review and challenge panels and is drawing in almost 150 external experts from the whole range of defence. With rising threats at this point, this is part of the long, hard look we have to take at the capabilities we need in order to keep Britain safe in future and to be strong abroad.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State speaks to a UK commitment to “NATO first”, and that is great, but we have just seen the election of a US President who is putting America first and the defence of Europe in the hands of European states, which makes the prevarication over 2.5% all the more difficult. Will he accept that a commitment without a date is watery and that only a date will provide a commitment? Will it be in this Parliament—yes or no?

[John Healey]

I do not accept that for a moment. It is a commitment and a level of defence spending that we have not seen for 15 years. As far as the new President goes, it is early days—he has only just been elected—and we will ensure that as a Government and as a country we work closely with him and with the US.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

As world leaders meet this week at the G20 in Brazil, what steps is the Defence Secretary taking with his international counterparts —other Defence Secretaries at the G20, in particular—about the urgent situation in Gaza, particularly for civilians and children?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. For nearly nine months—in opposition and now in government—we have been calling for and working for a ceasefire in Gaza to get all hostages released and, importantly, to flood the area with the aid that the Palestinians so desperately need. That has to be the first step towards a political solution that can see a Palestinian state and security both for Israel and for the Palestinians in future.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In the UK we have some very special skills when it comes to developing future defence equipment. To lose those skills would be a desperate business. Does the Secretary of State agree that co-operating and working with our friends in Europe is one way to preserve them?