Strategic Defence Review

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the strategic defence review. I have laid the full 130-page review before the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so and to make this statement on our first day back from the recess.

The world has changed, and we must respond. The SDR is our Plan for Change for defence: a plan to meet the threats that we face, a plan to step up on European security and to lead in NATO, a plan that learns the lessons from Ukraine, a plan to seize the defence dividend resulting from our record increase in defence investment and boost jobs and growth throughout the United Kingdom, and a plan to put the men and women of our armed forces at the heart of our defence plans, with better pay, better kit and better housing. Through the SDR, we will make our armed forces stronger and the British people safer.

I thank those who led the review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill,

“a politician, a soldier and a foreign policy expert”,

as they describe themselves in their foreword. They, alongside others, have put in a huge effort. This is a “first of its kind”, externally led review, the result of a process in which we received 8,000 submissions from experts, individuals, organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the shadow Defence Secretary. I thank them all, and I thank those in the Ministry of Defence who contributed to this SDR. It is not just the Government’s defence review, but Britain’s defence review. The Government endorse its vision and accept its 62 recommendations, which will be implemented.

The threats that we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home. Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way in which war is fought. We are living in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. Since the general election we have demonstrated that we are a Government dedicated to delivering for defence. We have committed ourselves to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, with an extra £5 billion this year and 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and the ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. However, there can be no investment without reform, and we are already driving the deepest reforms of defence in 50 years. Those reforms will ensure clearer responsibilities, better delivery, stronger budget control and new efficiencies worth £6 billion in this Parliament, all of which will be reinvested directly in defence.

Our armed forces will always do what is needed to keep the nation safe, 24/7, in more than 50 countries around the world; but in a more dangerous world, as the SDR confirms, we must move to warfighting readiness, and warfighting readiness means stronger deterrence. We need stronger deterrence to avoid the huge costs, human and economic, that wars create, and we prevent wars by being strong enough to fight and win them. That is what has made NATO the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 75 years. We will establish a new “hybrid Navy” by building Dreadnought, AUKUS submarines, cutting-edge warships and new autonomous vessels. Our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwings in Europe. We will develop the next generation Royal Air Force with F-35s, upgraded Typhoons, sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme jets and autonomous fighters to defend Britain’s skies and to be able to strike anywhere in the world, and we will make the British Army 10 times more lethal by combining the future technology of drones, autonomy and artificial intelligence with the heavy metal of tanks and artillery.

For too long, our Army has been asked to do more with less. We inherited a long-running recruitment crisis, following 14 years of Tory cuts to full-time troops. Reversing the decline will take time, but we are acting to stem the loss and aiming to increase the British Army to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers in the next Parliament. For the first time in a generation, we have a Government who want the number of regular soldiers to rise. This Government will protect our island home by committing £1 billion in new funding to homeland air and missile defences, creating a new cyber-command to defend Britain in the grey zone, and preparing legislation to improve defence readiness.

As Ukraine shows, a country’s armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them, so this SDR begins a new partnership with industry, innovators and investors. We will make defence an engine for growth to create jobs and increase prosperity in every nation and region of the UK. Take our nuclear enterprise. We will commit to investing £15 billion in the sovereign warhead programme in this Parliament, supporting over 9,000 jobs. We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months, allowing us to grow our nuclear attack fleet to up to 12 submarines and supporting more than 20,000 jobs. On munitions, we will invest £6 billion in this Parliament, including in six new munitions factories and in up to 7,000 new long-range weapons, supporting nearly 2,000 jobs. The lives of workers in Barrow, Derby and Govan, where the Prime Minister and I were this morning, are being transformed not just by this defence investment but by the pride and purpose that comes with defence work. In the coming years, more communities and more working people will benefit from the defence dividend that this SDR brings.

Ukraine also tells us that whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the fastest will have the advantage, so we will place Britain at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. We will double investment in autonomous systems in this Parliament, invest more than £1 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, and finance a £400 million UK defence innovation organisation. To ensure that Britain gains the maximum benefit from what we invent and produce in this country, we will create a new defence exports office in the MOD, driving exports to our allies and driving growth at home.

The SDR sets a new vision and a new framework for defence investment. The work to confirm a new defence investment plan, which will supersede the last Government’s defence equipment plan, will be completed in the autumn. It will ensure that our frontline forces get what they need, when they need it. The plan will be deliverable and affordable, and it will consider infrastructure alongside capabilities. It will seize the opportunities of advanced tech, and seize the opportunities to grow the British economy.

As we lose the national service generation, fewer families across this country will have a direct connection to the armed forces, so we must do more to reconnect the nation with those who defend us. As the SDR recommends, we will increase the number of cadets by 30%, introduce a voluntary “gap year” scheme for school and college leavers, and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030. We must also renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. We have already awarded the biggest pay increase in over 20 years and an inflation-busting increase this year, and now I have announced that we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes.

This SDR is the first defence review in a generation for growth and for transformation in UK defence. It will end the 14 years of the hollowing out of our armed forces. Instead, we will see investment increased, the Navy expanded, the Army grown, the Air Force upgraded, warfighting readiness restored, NATO strengthened, the nuclear deterrent guaranteed, advanced technology developed, and jobs created in every nation and region of this country. The strategic defence review will make Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account?

While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it.

The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today.

Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before.

Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary—[Interruption.] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats.

Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism.

To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.

[John Healey]

I see the way the world is changing. I see the way the Chancellor is fixing the economic foundations after 14 years of failure under the Conservative Government. I have to say to the House that I have no doubt that we will meet our ambition to hit 3% of spending on defence in the next Parliament. It is something that the Prime Minister this morning reinforced. He said that the SDR can be delivered, because our commitment to 2.5% was built into the terms of reference. He said this morning that we are committed to spending what we need to spend to deliver this review.

The shadow Secretary of State talks about unfunded promises. He knows about unfunded promises. His drone strategy was unfunded. It was 12 pages, with more pictures than words. His munitions strategy was unfunded and even unpublished. His party’s commitment to 2.5% on defence was never in Government Budgets. It was a gimmick launched four weeks before they called the election—they dither, we deliver.

On Diego Garcia, I say this to the shadow Defence Secretary. This deal is a great investment in the defence and intelligence base that we share with the Americans. It is essential for activities that cannot be undertaken elsewhere, and that we do not undertake with any other nation. It is a deal worth 0.2% of the defence budget. The US backs the deal. NATO backs the deal. Five Eyes backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. India backs the deal. So how, on this national security issue, have the Opposition got themselves on the wrong side?

As far as the SDR goes, this is the defence moment of a generation. With threats increasing and defence spending rising, we now have a plan for transformation—a plan that will link the best of advanced technology with the heavy metal of our platforms; a plan that will drive the defence dividend to increase jobs and business support across the country; and a plan that puts people in defence right at the heart of our defence plans for the future, with increased pay, better housing and better kit to do the job of deterring our adversaries.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Given the growing instability in Europe and beyond, and the fact that, among other things, the UK is the third most targeted nation on the planet by cyber-attacks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s intention to turn the tanker around and increase the focus on defence. However, the strategic defence review is only as effective as the spending review that will follow this month. To ensure that this SDR does not suffer the fate that has befallen some of its predecessors, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that his and the Prime Minister’s ambitions will be fully matched with a correspondingly ambitious spending review?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the scale and nature of the increasing cyber-attacks that this country faces. When I had the privilege of taking this job 10 months ago, I was taken aback to find that in the last year, defence across the piece had been subject to more than 90,000 cyber-attacks that could be linked directly to other states. That is why in this SDR, we pick up the recommendation to establish a new cyber-command, so that we can build on the pockets of excellence across defence and ensure that we can more effectively defend against and use offensive cyber to deter such attacks.

On funding, the spending review next week is an important moment for the Government, but the Prime Minister settled the funding for defence in his statement in February. The Chancellor has already put an extra £5 billion into the defence budget this year. We will hit 2.5% of GDP three years before anybody expected us to, and we have an ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, we will spend what is needed to deliver the vision of the strategic defence review over the next 10 years and beyond.

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, although I am more than disappointed that I only received the SDR two hours ago at 3.30 pm, after the journalists.

The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister are absolutely right. We have entered a new era—one defined by international instability, geopolitical conflict and global uncertainty. Perhaps not since the end of the cold war have we faced such myriad threats to our defence: a barbaric Russian imperialism under Putin threatening Ukraine’s freedom and NATO’s security; a Trumpian White House defined by its total indifference to, and even antagonism towards, the defence of Europe; and the rising threat posed by China, as well as by regional pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. Taken together, these threats pose a once-in-a-generation risk to our country’s defence. Meeting generational risks will require making generational commitments, so I welcome the Government’s readiness to accept all the recommendations outlined in today’s strategic defence review.

It is frankly staggering, however, that we still do not have a clear answer to the vital question: where is the money coming from to fund these ambitions? This is a shopping list without the money to pay for it. The Government have flip-flopped on whether we can expect defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP—the figure on which the proposals of the SDR are premised. Putting the cart before the horse when it comes to funding the nation’s defence sends entirely the wrong message to Putin and our other adversaries. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding cross-party talks on how to reach 3%?

While I welcome the announcement of new funding for military housing and urgent repairs, fixing our recruitment crisis and doing right by our service personnel requires more than sticking-plasters. Will the Government legislate to require all military homes to be brought under the decent homes standard? It is desperately disappointing that despite having had 11 months to consider how to stem the decline in the number of soldiers in the Army, the Government appear to have sat on their hands. The shameful decline in troop numbers has only continued on their watch. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government are serious about delivering for Britain’s defence, reversing the utterly reckless troop cuts overseen by the Conservatives must begin now?

[John Healey]

I welcome what the hon. Lady said on Ukraine. She will recognise that this Government have been supported by all parties in the House in providing steadfast support to Ukraine to fight Putin’s illegal invasion. She will also recognise that since this Government were elected in July, we stepped up the support for Ukraine. I hope that she will recognise that we have also stepped up the leadership that the UK can offer on European security more widely. As well as convening meetings, I chaired the first Ukraine support group meeting after 26 meetings in which the US had led the way. Alongside the French, we are convening the 30-odd nations that are looking at securing a long-term peace in Ukraine, if a ceasefire can be secured. This week at NATO, I will continue those discussions with Defence Ministers.

The SDR is a vision for the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered within the spending commitments that this Government have made. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, those spending commitments were baked into the terms of reference, and have been confirmed by the reviewers. As he has said, we will spend what we need to deliver this review, and I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament.

On military homes, the hon. Lady is right to mention the scandal, which has gone on for years, of making the families of those who serve live in substandard homes, which are often mouldy and damp, with leaking roofs and doors. We can change that, and we have acted to start to do that. This year, for the first time, we bought back family military homes, and we now control 36,000 of them. Last month, also for the first time, we set out a consumer charter, with the basics of what people can expect from the MOD as their landlord. We have also confirmed an extra £1.5 billion over this Parliament to deal with the worst military family homes. We can start to develop for the long term, and build the homes that we need for our forces, and in the country more widely. We will be able to use better the huge asset that MOD land offers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to Lord Etherton, who died recently; his review on the injustice to LGBTQ+ veterans was enormously important.

I really welcome this review from the Secretary of State. I have been around long enough to have seen the words “review”, “defence”, “strategic” and “modern” used many times. As the Secretary of State highlighted, the nadir was reached when the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) was Secretary of State, in a report that had more pictures than text. This report will live only if all Members of this House agree that it is long term, because as the Secretary of State knows, chopping and changing and stopping and starting programmes can cause real problems for our men and women on the ground. Does the Secretary of State agree, and what is he doing to make sure that we embed the review for the long term?

[John Healey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for the strategic defence review, which recognises the threats that we face and maps out the framework for the investment decisions that will deliver it, make our forces stronger and make the British people safer. I will work with Members from all parties in the House whenever national security and the safety of our people are at stake. I welcome her support.

I also welcome my hon. Friend’s chairwomanship of the Treasury Committee. I hope that her Committee will take an interest in the defence investment at the heart of the SDR and at the heart of our plans. The record defence investment that the Government are making in this country not only reinforces our national security, but can drive economic growth and bring a defence dividend that will drive the mission of this Government to increase economic growth and bring jobs, business and new tech to every part of the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

History repeats itself. In 1935, we spent just 3% of national wealth on defence, and because we rearmed almost too late, we almost lost civilisation. By 1945, we were spending 52% of national wealth on defence. Given that we face a crisis in Europe, with an unparalleled Russian rearmament almost as great as that of Germany in the 1930s, will the Secretary of State do the right thing by history and give this House a firm commitment to 3.5%, not as an ambition, but by a set date?

[John Healey]

Given the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two things that I am surprised he has not welcomed. The first is the historic increase in defence spending that this Government have already put made, with an extra £5 billion in our first year in government alone; he will remember that when his party came into power in 2010, it cut defence spending by £2 billion in a year. We also have a commitment and plan to increase spending to 2.5% in two years’ time and to 3% in the next Parliament, which is an ambition that I am confident we will fulfil. He is right to say that if we are to meet the challenges of the SDR, and the challenges of reinforcing our industrial base and our armed forces, we cannot do it alone. We are not doing it alone; we are one of 32 nations in NATO. The second thing that I am surprised he has not welcomed is our security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union, which is potentially a first step to working with other European nations in the EU, and using financing that may be available in Europe to do exactly as he urges.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House is in no doubt about just how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building the submarines that keep our nation safe. The commitment to expanding this country’s submarine programme, with up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats to be built in our shipyard, is the start of the next chapter of that illustrious career. Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence spending under this Labour Government means investment in British companies, in local supply chains and in the very fabric of our communities?

[John Healey]

I do indeed; my hon. Friend is right. She is a strong champion for Barrow and its shipyard. As she will know, the investment programme that we have confirmed is about increasing the ability to produce more submarines more rapidly, and reaching the point where we can look to design, build and launch a new attack submarine every 18 months. That will allow us to respond to the threats that we anticipate in 10 and 20 years’ time, and to meet our NATO commitments.

We will succeed to the extent that we have a Government ready to invest, and a town in Barrow and a supply chain of proud workers from across the UK who are willing to lend their professional expertise to this most important mission: securing our nation’s defences for the future; contributing to a stronger NATO; and reinforcing our ability to generate jobs and prosperity, including in Barrow.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I worked on defence reviews at the Ministry of Defence, they all had up and down arrows. From what I have read of this defence review in the brief time we have had with it, there seem to be a lot of up arrows; I could really find only one down arrow, which was about not extending the Dreadnoughts’ out-of-service date beyond 2050. Does the Secretary of State want to roll the pitch a bit and indicate where capabilities might be de-emphasised, or indeed lost?

[John Healey]

The strategic defence review sets out a vision and framework for decisions over the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered only because of the historic increase in defence spending—the largest since the end of the cold war—that this Government have made. That is the basis on which we will make our decisions, and on which we will deliver the SDR’s recommendations.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

It is a proud day for us in the home of the British Army: Labour is investing more in defence—and more than we saw in 14 years of Tory Governments. It is clear that we need more innovative financing solutions to support the new defence technologies mentioned in the SDR, such as the technologies being developed at Cody business park in Farnborough, which I visited this morning. Will the Secretary of State support my campaign for a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank to help power more investment, jobs and opportunities in Aldershot, Farnborough and right across the country?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is proud of the Government and of the SDR, and we are proud of her—the first Labour MP ever for the town of Aldershot, home of the British Army. She serves that community and the Army with great distinction. She is also doing extremely valuable work on how we match the significant increase in taxpayers’ investment in our defence with more private sources of investment. I have been following her work in developing those ideas, and am looking at them closely; I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is, too.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Like many in the House, I have only had a chance to skim-read the SDR. Fundamentally, it seems to be heading in the right direction, but why is it so timid? Why is it so slow? If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we face an era-defining moment, why not move with the pace that the era demands? Why not commit to 3% within a meaningful timescale, to give industry and the forces a serious opportunity to plan, and to make this a document worth its name, rather than saying, “Let’s see how little we can get away with while keeping the papers happy”?

[John Healey]

I reject that characterisation completely. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the SDR is going in the right direction; it certainly is. He will recognise that it is a complete break from what the Government of whom he was a leading member, less than year ago, presided over—14 years of hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces. It was defence with no vision for the future, and it has ended now. This is a plan to use the very best innovative technology to reinforce the strength of our armed forces and the traditional hardware that we have. The SDR will deliver that vision, and we will deliver it.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This SDR underpins the reason that I left the Royal Air Force: to be part of a Government who take their commitment to defence and security seriously and will bring about the end of the hollowing-out of our armed forces that took place under the last Government. The measures taken within this SDR reverse fundamental and damaging delays caused by the previous Government within our defence programmes, supports our personnel and provides a clear and credible path to meeting the challenges presented to us by Russia. But as General Barrons has said, the greatest threat to this SDR is in its delivery, so can my right hon. Friend provide us with an understanding of what measures are being put in place to ensure that we deliver the SDR and the defence proposition that underwrites our defence, our security and our prosperity?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution he makes to debates in this House and to the determination of the Labour Government to deliver this SDR. I said in my opening remarks that there cannot be investment without reform, and from day one reform was a top priority for me as Defence Secretary. It does not bring photo opportunities and front pages, but it potentially brings the results that we need in the future. We have set up a military strategic headquarters; we have the Chief of the Defence Staff now commanding the chiefs for the first time; we have a new national armaments director; we have a single investment budget; and we now have budgetary control that was not there before. These reforms are in place, and we will drive further reforms that the SDR reinforces and endorses. This is how we will give ourselves the best chance to deliver the vision set out by the reviewers so ably in the strategic defence review report.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

What is the difference between the Chancellor’s black hole and the Defence Secretary accepting 62 recommendations from the SDR without committing the funds to pay for them?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister and the Government have committed the funds—[Interruption.] We have committed the funds. We have built them into the terms of reference that will allow this strategic defence review to be delivered over the next 10 years and beyond. That is the confirmed view of the reviewers, and that is exactly what my job as Defence Secretary will be to do.

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

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s support and his leadership in this time of increased threats. We saw over the weekend that Ukraine had managed to destroy, it says, as many as 40 Russian bombers deep inside Russia, with a value, it would say, of £5 billion. That is almost as much as we are raising the defence budget by. We have to get after innovation, and this SDR does that. In particular, I want to ask the Secretary of State about page 59, which talks about “rapid commercial exploitation”. It mentions the need to

“pull latest technology into operations”,

and to

“unlock private equity and venture capital”.

My question is this: do we need to change the commercial competition laws within the civil service to allow that to happen, or can it already happen?

[John Healey]

We certainly have to change the procurement system. The Chancellor and I have already announced in the spring statement the way that we will ensure that the sort of innovation my hon. Friend talks about can move to contract far faster than it has done before, and that we can ensure that the sort of spiral development that the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), first started to look at in Government can be pursued and put in place. We will do that; it is part of the procurement reforms that we are bringing into place. Pace, innovation and the new companies that have so much to offer are part of how we will do this in the future.

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

Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, has said in the last few days that all NATO nations must achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence spending. I respect the Secretary of State a lot, and he has known me for a long time in this House. When he said on Saturday that there was “no doubt” that UK defence spending would rise to 3% by 2034, I nodded in approval and thought, “Great, they have a commitment.” By Sunday, however, that appeared not to be the case. Nobody here wants this strategic defence review to succeed more than I do, as I have never agreed with the idea of the peace dividend from start to finish. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are all seen as threats, so will he now please get to the Dispatch Box as the character that he is and say that to achieve this we will need at least 3%, if not more, and that this Government will be committed to spending it?

[John Healey]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman: do not take it from me at the Dispatch Box—take it from the Prime Minister when he said that we will spend what is needed to deliver this review. He has made that commitment in the House; he has made that commitment today. The vision of this strategic defence review now becomes the mission of this Government to deliver.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Much of the new hardware pledged today will not be delivered for some years and will not be effective without the personnel to operate it. What more will the Government do right now, not in 2034, to ensure that our armed forces recruit the service personnel who these long-term plans will rely on?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. In many ways, defence is a special case; we need to take many decisions now to secure the future of subsequent generations, and to develop and secure the capabilities that we will need to do that in 10, 20 and 30 years’ time.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that it is the people who are at the heart of this. He will recognise the 14 years of failure leading to the recruitment and retention crisis that we were left with last summer. He will know that I have removed over 100 of the rules that prevented some people from applying to join the forces. He will know that I have introduced direct entry for those with cyber talent to join and contribute to our defences. He will also recognise that we are looking to retain those who are valuable to us by paying better, by looking to upgrade the housing and, where needed, through special retention payments.

This is going to take time. We are closing the gap and I am determined that we will reverse that long-term decline. For the first time, this is a Government who want to increase, not further cut, the size of our Army.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

The review is welcome. Where the last Government hollowed out our armed forces, we are rebuilding. Russia’s northern fleet and China’s polar silk road ambitions have seen both countries focus and co-operate in the High North. As the framework nation for the joint expeditionary force, the UK has limited surface fleet capable of operating in the polar ice. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the new hybrid Navy will see that capability scaled up?

[John Healey]

I can. My hon. Friend plays an important part in debates in this House, including on the Defence Committee. She recognises that, as we can see from Ukraine, it is the nations that are able to bring together the rapid innovation in new technology with the hardware of established weaponry and platforms that will have the combat edge in the future. I am determined that Britain will be at the leading edge of innovation in NATO, that our forces will be better equipped in the future, and that we will reform and rebuild our British industry to equip them for exactly that.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I very much welcome the aspirations of this strategic defence review and welcome the statement on page 7 that,

“We will develop a new Defence Investment Plan”.

However, as the Secretary of State knows from all the Budgets and fiscal events he has sat through, he cannot give the House a categorical assurance over future spending commitments, so will he make it clear to the House what decisions he is prepared to make with respect to the existing commitments such that he can secure that additional funding at subsequent spending reviews and Budgets? I hope that when he comes clean completely to this House, he will make clear that there will be considerable ongoing investment in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, which does an enormous amount to secure understanding of future technologies in the defence arena.

[John Healey]

The delivery of the SDR vision can only be done because of the commitment that this Government have made to increase defence spending. The defence investment plan is a new investment framework and a new investment programme, developed in the context of and defined by this SDR vision. The work on the new investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

There is much in this strategic defence review that will be of interest to my Committee. I welcome the report and in particular the recognition that science, innovation and technology are an opportunity as well as a threat. Can he confirm that the numerous references to AI in the report are to a sovereign AI capability, whether publicly or privately developed? Having spent last week in Brunei as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, observing the amazing work of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, will he also confirm that despite this tilt back to NATO, he recognises the contribution and strategic importance of that base in the South China sea?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. The approach at the heart of this strategic defence review and at the heart of this Government’s commitment to our collective deterrence and defence in the Euro-Atlantic is NATO first, but it is not NATO only. Alliances and partnerships such as the global combat air programme and AUKUS, and partnerships we have with other nations, remain important.

On innovation and the British base, my hon. Friend will recognise that, as part of warfighting readiness, we require an industrial readiness. That industrial readiness—that industrial deterrence that is part of preventing our adversaries from considering attacks against us—means that our companies must be able to innovate and scale up production if we are faced with conflicts in the future. That will be a touchstone for the way we will take many decisions as we invest in the future.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This defence review gives us a long shopping list of technological advances—the cyber command, digital backbone, drones, AI—and that is right and proper, but the British military is tiny. Recently, the Select Committee heard that if we had to fight tonight, we could scratch together five ships and 30 planes. The person who told us that was the former head of the MOD’s own strategic net assessment office. Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that to fight and win wars, we need to have a mass of force—a large force—with tech that is good enough, rather than a small, perfectly formed, high-tech force? Is that lesson being heeded in the review?

[John Healey]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we do not fight alone and we do not plan to fight alone. We are a leading member of NATO, a 32-strong alliance that has never been bigger and has never been stronger. As we approach the NATO summit later this month, there will be a discussion about the capabilities that each nation contributes and develops in the years ahead, so that we can strengthen that collective deterrence, avoid the wars that we do not want to fight, and strengthen our collective and our UK defence.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Anyone who heard Carsten Breuer, Germany’s Chief of Defence, speak at the weekend will have found his words deeply sobering, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the SDR, which is modernising our defence, from Atlantic Bastion to the transformation of our defence and a tech-driven approach. I particularly welcome the cyber and electromagnetic command. He spoke of a stronger deterrence. Will he confirm that there is a need now for stronger offensive cyber-work by our forces?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware of the national cyber force that we are developing further. He will also be aware that I have confirmed, and the SDR recommends, the establishment of a cyber and electromagnetic command, which will be in place and do exactly as he suggests: it will reinforce our capacity, our expertise and our ability to do both defensive and offensive cyber as part of the deterrence and the defence that we need for this country.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I welcome the defence review—it sets a direction and there is much in it—but I do not agree with paragraph 20 on page 68:

“Defence should only run training and education itself when it cannot be obtained externally at suitable quality and cost.”

I think that ties in with paragraph 4 on page 105:

“As it reconsiders its training estate needs, the Navy should ensure there is ‘capacity by design’”.

I worry that that would mean the closing of the Dartmouth academy. Let me explain why I have linked those two statements. I am sure the Secretary of State has visited the United States naval officer training academy in Annapolis. The model there brings a real fellowship to people who want to stay in the armed forces because of all the things offered through the degrees and so on. I will perhaps expand on those comments when we have a further debate, but will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that great institutions and buildings such as Dartmouth will not be closed under this review?

[John Healey]

This SDR and the plans that will follow will only build further on the proud professional tradition and reputation of our Navy, RAF and Army training. I look forward to the further debates that the right hon. Gentleman promises.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the calm assurance that my right hon. Friend has brought to the House. Our country is safer and stronger for the decisions that he has announced today. But if we are to be more prosperous, too, we will need clear objectives for the spending that he has announced to drive more jobs, more innovation and more economic growth here in our country. Will he set out clear targets for each of those objectives when he brings forward the defence industrial strategy a little later on this year?

[John Healey]

I will take my right hon. Friend’s well-informed observations into account. I will take the observations of his Select Committee into account. I welcome the attention he has given to this review as we develop our thinking for the defence industrial strategy.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

There is a serious lack of answers here. Apparently there is going to be further clarity in the forthcoming defence industrial strategy, financial services strategy, defence diplomacy strategy, reserve personnel strategy, defence housing strategy and defence estate optimisation programme. The Secretary of State cannot even provide clarity on where the money is coming from. Will he provide some answers on what on earth the Government have spent the last year reviewing?

[John Healey]

We have spent the last 10 months delivering for defence. We have put in place the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We have given the armed forces the biggest pay rise for more than 20 years. We have voted for £1.5 billion to increase the standard of armed forces housing and we have brought back 36,000 military homes. We have invested in stronger support for veterans. We have also struck the deepest defence agreement, in the Trinity House agreement with Germany. We are delivering for defence. The Government will do more, and the SDR gives us the vision and direction to do that.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the SDR, in particular the reference to an increase in investment in the defence medical services. Given that 70% of veterans have a clinical mental health condition, will my right hon. Friend explain how the interface with NHS mental health services will be managed?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Just as the NHS contributes to our armed forces, so members of our armed forces often work full time in our NHS. It is a synergy that few understand and few appreciate, and it is a strength that we need to build on. I will work with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary in the coming months to advance the recommendations and the vision for reinforcing the readiness and strengths of our armed medical services.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I welcome the NATO-first strategy in the SDR, and the fact that we are looking to lead in NATO. Last week, I was at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio, where the NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that 3% will not be a credible solution to defence—he is going to set this out at the NATO summit this month—and that 3.5% is required to be credible, with another 1.5% on defence-related funding. If that is what NATO says a credible commitment is, will the Defence Secretary commit to 3.5%?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Those discussions are for the NATO summit later this month. We go into that summit having made a record commitment to invest and to increase defence spending, in two years’ time, to a level that we have not seen in this country since 2010, with an aim to get to 3% in the next Parliament. The NATO summit will be a discussion about how we spend, how well we spend and the capabilities we can contribute to NATO, just as much as it will be about spending commitments.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we make an extraordinary contribution as a nation to NATO, and we will step that up through pursuing the SDR vision. Of course, at the heart of it is something we contribute that no other nation does: in full, we commit our UK nuclear deterrent to NATO, as the ultimate guarantor not just of our own national security but of the security of our NATO allies.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Under the previous Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government are getting to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system we inherited? Given that the extra defence spending has come from the aid budget, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more important that additional money delivers frontline capabilities and jobs, and is not lost in the system or to the bottom line?

[John Healey]

It is always important that public money is well spent and that we can demonstrate good value for money. We still have some way to go on the reform of defence, but the steps we have taken already and the action we plan in the future will help us to ensure that we can get better value for the British taxpayer and better value for the British forces.

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

The review describes responsibility for space policy within Government as “fragmented”, so its proposal for a “reinvigorated Cabinet sub-Committee” to set the strategic approach to space is to be welcomed. That will clearly have significant implications for the development of a vertical-launch satellite facility at SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland. Will the Secretary of State ensure that hardwired into that Sub-Committee is a process of engagement for the operators at SaxaVord and the communities that host them, so that both might be empowered to deliver on this most important strategic objective for the country as a whole?

[John Healey]

At the heart of the SDR’s insight and recommendations is a new relationship between Government and industry—one that we have already started to put in place and that allows industry and potential investors to see the challenges that we face and contribute their ideas and innovation to solving them. That principle will be applied just as much in space as it will in other areas of new capabilities that we need to develop.

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

The procurement system that my right hon. Friend inherited from the Conservative party is in chaos, with only two major defence projects out of 49 being delivered on time. What is my right hon. Friend doing to get to grips with that situation? New technology needs to be delivered on time; otherwise, it risks being outdated by the time it is put into use.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right, and he is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chaired the Public Accounts Committee that quite rightly saw and branded the defence procurement system as “broken”. The overhaul required is a measure of the extent of the reform. We have begun that and we will complete it.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Recommendation 26 sensibly calls for the expansion of in-school cadet forces. Will the Defence Secretary work with the Department for Education to reverse its penny-pinching cuts, and reinstate school staff instructor grants to help extend cadet forces into more state schools?

[John Healey]

We will indeed work with the Department for Education in delivering the recommendation and ambition set out, quite rightly, in the SDR, which is to increase the number of cadets by 30% by 2030. It offers a unique opportunity for many young people to gain skills and experience that make a transformation to their lives and prospects.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

This is unquestionably an important moment and a significant review, so I find it incredible—astonishing, in fact—that once again for this important statement Reform Members have gone AWOL. They clearly do not give a damn about the defence of our country.

On page 32 of the review, an overview of the dependencies and threats includes critical minerals such as lithium. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way to reduce dependency on such critical minerals from the likes of China, is to invest heavily and urgently in domestically produced and processed critical minerals such as tin, lithium and tungsten in Cornwall?

[John Healey]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has tin, lithium and tungsten mines in his constituency, but he is right to point to those natural reserves in this country in Cornwall. He makes a powerful case to the House this afternoon.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that the Democratic Unionist party, and the people we are privileged to represent from Northern Ireland, are hugely supportive of our armed forces. He should know that as a region, we disproportionately provide more personnel than any other part of our country to those armed forces. I was encouraged to hear him talk about every region and nation of the United Kingdom benefiting from the SDR, but although we heard about Derby, Govan and Barrow, there was a slight omission regarding Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State knows how pivotal companies in my constituency were for Ukraine in its initial phase of defence, with the NLAW and latterly with Starstreak, so can he confirm that Northern Ireland will indeed benefit from strategic and significant investment?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I can, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is benefiting already as a result of decisions that this Government have taken, not least with the lightweight multirole missiles that are produced in his constituency, and which we are ramping up to deliver more to Ukraine during this year. The £6 billion that I announced in munitions for the next five years will include another six munitions and explosives factories, and I hope he will welcome that. He will know that in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, munitions production is already the source of skilled, long-term, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs, which is something I know he will welcome for the future.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The importance of good cyber-security is referenced throughout the SDR, and it is critical for our defence. Ebbw Vale college has an excellent course in that sector, so to address this threat, will the Secretary of State please advise how the Government plan to get more young people into roles in cyber-security for the future?

[John Healey]

I would encourage my hon. Friend to take a hard look at the plans. The first recruitment is under way at the moment for the new direct entry of young people who have gaming skills, coding skills, computer skills—the sorts of skills that are invaluable for our armed forces in that wider mission of defending the country, with the direct entry route that our new cyber-force recruitment is making available. I know there will be talented young people in his constituency who have a part to play and an interest in helping the nation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is

“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”

as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?

[John Healey]

On the contrary, Madam Deputy Speaker, this deal is essential to safeguard operational sovereignty for the UK of the base on Diego Garcia, to allow us to protect within the 20 nautical-mile radius of that base, and the ability to safeguard that for the future. It is essential to our and American intelligence and defence operations, and it is a linchpin of the special relationship that we have between the US and UK on intelligence and defence matters, of which the right hon. Gentleman is always such a strong champion.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

While the Government pledge to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, funnelling hundreds of billions in public money to arms companies and their shareholders, and continuing to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are at the same time slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap, and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners. How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?

[John Healey]

The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep its citizens safe, and we invest in defence in order to deter and prevent the war that brings such extreme human and economic costs. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this: if we cannot defend the country, where will we be with an NHS without power, and with submarine cables that mean data does not work? Strong national security is fundamental to a stable economy, a strong society, and I hope she will recognise that it is imperative and important for the country that we pursue the vision in the SDR.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It was right that the Secretary of State recognised the military communities who serve across the UK, and that we recognise those communities that support them. The strategic defence review recommendations that the Government have accepted will have a direct impact on communities across the UK, but when we will know, so that communities such as Leuchars in my constituency are aware of the implications of the defence review when thinking of things such as education, transport, health and other infrastructure?

[John Healey]

From today, armed forces communities, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, will be able to read the report for themselves, and draw out the implications for them and their families.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am proud that my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria is home to Europe’s only electronic warfare tactics facility, and proud that this Government have set out steps in the SDR to strengthen our electromagnetic and cyber-defences. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why those elements of our defence are so critical?

[John Healey]

The facility in my hon. Friend’s constituency plays an essential role in our national security, and I welcome her support. She will recognise that the decision to set up a cyber and electromagnetic command is part of what the SDR does, drawing lessons from what we can see about the way the nature of warfare is changing week by week in Ukraine.

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

The document says that

“this will allow us to grow our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to up to 12.”

Is not the truth—and let’s speak the truth—that that is the ask to the Treasury, and the spending review has yet to decide what the defence programme will be? I hear what the Secretary of State says, when he says with his full force and sincerity that “we will fund this defence review”, but how will he achieve that without much more significant cuts to other budgets? No Government can afford to spend and borrow much more, if anything at all, so how will he get the necessary cuts through to fund this big increase in defence spending, beyond 3.5% because we all know we will need more than that?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the attack subs: our investment is in production capacity, so that we can build at a faster rate and have a double production line in Barrow, which will allow us to build the number of new subs that we will need to deter future threats and meet our NATO commitments. I am glad that he welcomes that.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement about this significant investment in the security of our nation. I was thrilled that the Prime Minister announced that there will be up to 12 new attack submarines, boosting growth in Scotland and keeping the UK safe for years to come. However, I was astonished to read over the weekend that the SNP Government in Holyrood are blocking investment in a specialist welding centre in Glasgow by withdrawing a £2.5 million grant. If the SNP continues to block funding for that centre, will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will step in?

[John Healey]

I was astonished to learn over the weekend that the SNP Government are withholding £2.5 million in support for Rolls-Royce to set up a specialist welding skills centre. The centre is essential not for munitions, as the SNP Government say, but for shipyards across the board, which act as a pipeline to bring wealth and jobs to Scotland. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that if the SNP will not change its view and will not step in to make the skills centre possible, then we will.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

My constituents in Gosport will be keen for the Secretary of State to clarify two points. First, the line on page 105 about reconsidering “training estate needs” will concern many, so will he confirm that the outstanding training establishments at HMS Sultan and HMS Collingwood, which employ so many, will not be under threat? Secondly, when will the promised funds for accommodation come through? The previous Government spent £400 million on upgrading accommodation, which was beginning to filter through, but some 69 service family accommodation units in Gosport are now empty because they are deemed not fit for human habitation, and that is getting worse under his watch.

[John Healey]

We are doing further work on the nature and needs of our defence estate. It is right that we do that; because we now have a long-term view, we will be able to take better long-term decisions on that estate. The homes that the hon. Lady mentions are among the 8,000 empty family military homes, many because they are unfit for families to live in. I hope that she will welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we will create in this Parliament for overhauling the worst, as well as the longer-term plan in the defence housing strategy that we will publish, because we can—and we must—do much better for our military families.

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

As a veteran and on behalf of my constituents in North East Derbyshire who are serving or who have loved ones in the armed forces, may I say how much I welcome the commitment to supporting armed forces personnel in the review? It recognises that we need to improve the defence medical services, proposes £1.5 billion for housing, and commits to a second, above-inflation pay rise for our personnel. That will mean that for the first time in a long time, no member of our armed forces will receive less than the national living wage—it is shocking that that was ever the case. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the Conservatives left us in this mess and Reform Members could not even be bothered to turn up to the debate, this review shows that Labour is the party for our armed forces personnel?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right: Labour is the party of defence and Labour will put defence people at the heart of our plans for the future, with better pay, housing and kit to serve in the jobs that they volunteer to do to defend us all.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[John Healey]

We are strengthening our armed forces to secure the peace, not to fight the war. We deter the attacks that we fear by being strong enough to defeat our enemy. I say to the hon. Lady that our deterrent has helped to keep stability and peace in Europe for over 75 years, it has been the ultimate guarantee of our national security and it is what Putin fears most. We are the only European nation in NATO that commits its deterrent in full to the protection of other NATO allies. We play a unique role and we make a unique contribution. I would like the hon. Lady to recognise that, even if she cannot support it.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I was pleased to read in the SDR about the importance of building on the 2024 joint declaration on the Norwegian-UK strategic partnership, which recognises the autonomy of both countries and the strength that comes from working together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that important partnership would be further strengthened if Norway decided to purchase the Type 26 frigates—the best frigates in the world—that are built in Govan, in Glasgow South West, and Scotstoun, in my Glasgow West constituency?

[John Healey]

They are indeed the best frigates in the world, and I have been working hard to persuade the Norwegians that joining the UK, with our Type 26 frigates, is about reenforcing the deep partnership that we already have, as two nations, alongside the US, protecting the north Atlantic and the high north from Russian aggression.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has set out an ambitious strategic defence review. As soon as possible after the spending review next week, will he set out a defence investment plan in some detail, so that the Public Accounts Committee can examine whether the funds match the equipment that he has talked about today, and whether the ambitious plan can be delivered and is affordable?

[John Healey]

As Chair of the PAC, the hon. Gentleman knows the problem with the previous Government’s defence equipment plan. As I said in my statement, the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The review puts shipbuilding firmly in the UK’s future defence plans, particularly in the high north, as I have mentioned in the House many times, and looks towards a Royal Navy that is powerful, cheaper and simpler. The workforce at the dockyards in Rosyth, in my constituency, is ideally placed to deliver this. Just last week, we saw the roll-out of HMS Venturer, the first Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is committed to shipbuilding in Scotland, including in my constituency, in contrast to the SNP, which just this week turned down the opportunity to bring new skills to that sector in Scotland?

[John Healey]

We are totally committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. I pay tribute to the workers in his constituency in Rosyth for their pride, professionalism and sense of purpose, and the contribution that they make to our national security.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The service personnel and their families at Bicester garrison, in my constituency, are victims of the scandal of military family housing to which the Secretary of State referred. The investments highlighted today are therefore welcome, but to reassure my constituents, will the Secretary of State commit that military housing will reach the decent homes standard? Will he give the date by which the defence housing strategy will be published? And will he confirm that he has accepted the recommendation in the SDR that all proceeds from housing developments on Ministry of Defence land will be reinvested in military housing?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this long-run scandal. I am sure he will recognise that we cannot turn this round overnight. I hope he will also recognise the steps that we have already taken this year—the 36,000 military homes brought back into public control and the plans we are putting in place for the future. That allows us in this Parliament finally to put an end to the scandal that we have seen of military families being forced to live in such substandard accommodation.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the Government will invest £15 billion in the nuclear warhead programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in my constituency. Not only is that crucial for national security, but it will be transformational for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, supporting jobs and boosting our local economy. Will he set out in greater detail the plans for that investment and the expected benefits to my constituents? Will he come with me to Aldermaston, Burghfield or Brimpton to meet some of the brilliant staff who work there?

[John Healey]

I will, and I look forward to that visit with my hon. Friend. As the constituency MP, she will know the essential and unique work that the AWE undertakes and know that it supports more than 9,500 jobs. She will recognise the defence dividend that that can bring to not just her area, but the wider supply chain with the increase in defence investment that this Government are making.

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

While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?

[John Healey]

Yes.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Our British fleet of submarines are the most awesome and lethal machines in the world, keeping the peace unseen and unheard below the waves for generations. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said, the power in that punch comes from Derby’s Rolls-Royce workers, who give them their nuclear reactor cores. Will the Defence Secretary tell Members how we can be involved in the recommended “national endeavour” public communications campaign to make it absolutely clear how fundamental our at-sea deterrent is to our national security?

[John Healey]

In many ways, my hon. Friend is doing exactly that in the House by reinforcing the importance of the deterrent at the heart of our security and its importance to jobs, technology, businesses, the supply chain and the strength of economic growth. She is making the case that defence investment can drive economic growth, and we will ensure that it does.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can I push the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about HMS Collingwood? My constituents will look for reassurance that it will have a long-term place in the defence estate.

I also ask the Secretary of State about recommendation 40, which says:

“The Royal Navy should explore alternative approaches to augmenting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to deliver a balanced, cost-effective fleet that maximises the UK’s warfighting capabilities.”

The RFA is already stretched; I have been on visits to the RFA where it has told me that it is stretched with the operational requirements placed on it. It sounds to me like this is a loss of operational independence. Will the Secretary of State commit to an expansion of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary consisting of ships managed purely by the Royal Navy under the defence estate?

[John Healey]

We are proud of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It increasingly does tough jobs that in the past we would have expected the Royal Navy to undertake. Its role and contribution is under-recognised, and I am keen to see its role reinforced and for it to have greater recognition. We will ensure that we do that as we pursue the SDR’s vision.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The 1st Division, which is headquartered in my constituency, impressed on me the importance of our diplomacy and soft power and the excellence of the training provided to our armed forces. We have heard a lot about hard power today, but will the Secretary of State ensure that we put serious resources into soft power—the diplomacy that is so important in de-escalating risk? Will he also ensure that we continue that training in my armed forces city of York?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend’s city of York has a proud military history, and she speaks strongly of that this afternoon. She is right to recognise the role of diplomacy alongside hard defence, but perhaps she could do more to recognise the fact that military and civilian defence personnel have an important diplomatic role to play alongside the Foreign Office. One of the things we are doing is working much more closely together in this Government compared with the way in which Foreign Secretaries and Defence Secretaries have been at loggerheads too often in the past, rather than working co-operatively.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Sleaford and North Hykeham is home to RAF Cranwell, RAF Digby, much of RAF Waddington and Beckingham training ranges. This defence review will be read with interest across the constituency. Many of my constituents serve in the armed forces, are veterans or work in the defence industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the expansion of RAF Digby that is planned? Will he ensure that he supports the Greater Lincolnshire regional defence and security cluster, which was established in 2023?

[John Healey]

I cannot give the hon. Lady a commitment at the Dispatch Box today, but I can say that I take those arguments seriously and hear what she has to say. She is speaking up for her area, and they have some great strengths in her part of Lincolnshire.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The 12 new nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines will almost double the UK’s fleet of such submarines. Given that those submarines are to be shared with non-nuclear Australia, does that not go against the UK’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? As they are part of the AUKUS treaty—a treaty with the USA as well as Australia—and focused in the Asia-Pacific, does that not risk adding to the growing tensions between the USA and China and make us all less safe?

[John Healey]

No and no. The AUKUS partnership is entirely consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and our obligations. The answer is no, because it reinforces regional stability and security. It reinforces regional deterrence and makes conflict less likely, not more likely.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Leonardo, based just outside my constituency, has been left as the sole bidder for a major defence contract worth up to £1 billion. The project could contribute more than 12,000 jobs to the UK supply chain, including 1,500 skilled jobs, some of which would be in Glastonbury and Somerton. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for decision making on the procurement of the new medium helicopter?

[John Healey]

I can confirm that the process is under way. We are giving it our full attention, and we will make any decisions as soon as we can.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been raising concerns about the state of our air and missile defences. I welcome that air and missile defence is a key focus in the SDR, which will make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Notwithstanding previously announced initiatives to bolster collaboration on air and missile defence with our allies, can the Secretary of State give us more detail on what conclusions the SDR drew on this vital aspect of national defence?

[John Healey]

The SDR drew the conclusion that we need to take potential threats to our homeland more seriously than we have needed to do in the past. That is the reason why I have made the commitment that we will invest £1 billion in this Parliament to further strengthen in particular radar, communications and the integration of our missile and air defence. My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of the UK’s air and missile defence is provided by our NATO allies, and we have great protection in the fact that our frontline is not on the coast of the UK: our frontline with Russia is on the borders of the eastern flank.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The strapline on the front cover of the review says, “Making Britain Safer”. I trust the Secretary of State means “making the United Kingdom safer”. On page 87, it says that

“The connection between the UK Armed Forces and wider society is the longstanding and necessary foundation for the defence of the country.”

In the light of that, will this review reverse the rundown in armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland, where today, according to answers given in this House, there are five Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel stationed? Of all the services—all three together—there are only 1,305 personnel in Northern Ireland, yet we supply a huge number of personnel to those services. Will the review reverse that rundown and make sure that every part of this United Kingdom shares in the provision of the armed services?

[John Healey]

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well the scale and depth of the recruitment and retention crisis, and he knows very well that over the past 14 years we have seen consistent cuts in the strength of our full-time forces. This is the first Government for a generation who want to see an increase in the size of the full-time British Army, and that is what we will work to deliver.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I was pleased to join the Secretary of State this morning in Glasgow, where he met some of the workers building the Type 26 frigate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, the Norwegian Government are considering placing an order for that frigate, so can I ask the Secretary of State to do everything he can to encourage our Norwegian friends to order the frigate?

[John Healey]

I am, and I will.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary has just thrown into doubt the future of the new medium helicopter. I am very concerned to hear that that programme clearly may not go ahead. Can he tell the House whether he plans to reduce the number of RAF Chinooks, which—as he knows—are very important both to our special forces and to our Army? Are there any plans to reduce the number of Chinooks?

[John Healey]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to read what he has into my remarks. I was simply stating the facts as they are: there is a process under way that has to conclude. That is what I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). This review is not about cuts—it is the first review since the end of the cold war that has taken place not in the context of cuts, but in the context of a decade of rising defence expenditure. It is about enhancing what we have for the future; it is about building out, not hollowing out. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that as the signature of the strategic defence review that we have published this afternoon.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It was really good to see the Secretary of State come to MBDA in Stevenage recently, where its workers were refitting Storm Shadow missiles for Ukraine. I very much welcome what the SDR has to say about a partnership with industry to create an engine for growth for our defence sector and our wider economy, but those tools require effective personnel. Last week, I was in Poland with the armed forces parliamentary scheme visiting our RAF personnel, and we were told, “Look, we cannot speak for ourselves. We need you to champion us.” What can the Secretary of State say today to champion our armed forces?

[John Healey]

First, I hope my hon. Friend will pass on my appreciation to the workers at MBDA in his constituency. They are exemplars of the high-skilled, highly committed and highly productive workforce that contributes so much to the defence of this country. I hope he will be able to say to those workers that this strategic defence review is the first of its kind—one that challenges us to think afresh, recognises the threats that we face, learns the lessons from Ukraine, and makes sure that in the future we can strengthen our armed forces and keep the British people safer. I hope he will recognise that the publication of this strategic defence review is a significant contribution to what he urges on the Government.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

In the last decade, China has expanded its military to a degree only matched since 1945 by the USSR in the cold war era. In the past decade, the previous Government did not read the signs coming from Russia; this Government must read the signs coming from China. Ukraine does not have five years, and neither does Taiwan. I again invite the Government to bring us to the table, and let us find 3% now.

[John Healey]

We have increased defence spending this year by £5 billion. We will reach 2.5% in the year after next, and we aim for 3% in the next Parliament. That is a record increase in defence spending—one that has not been matched at any time since the end of the cold war. The hon. Gentleman could do more to recognise that basic fact.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his leadership. In Edinburgh South West, we have Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton, so I want to focus my comments through the lens of our service personnel. Recommendation 17 rightly links retention to accommodation and, in particular, the number of moves that staff often have to make throughout their service. This can be a particular issue where children are involved and both parents are serving, so when developing his policy in this area, can the Secretary of State commit to working with groups such as Forces Children Scotland to make sure that the voices of service children are heard in this debate?

[John Healey]

We will indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case for that organisation, but it is one among many. We are involving the voices of forces families in our defence housing strategy, and we will do the same in other areas, which will help us to put forces families and forces personnel at the heart of our defence plans.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

With reference to recommendation 46, the US’s 2025 marine aviation plan, published earlier this year, outlined that the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—has changed its programme of record, reducing orders for F-35Bs by 73 aircraft in favour of the F-35C. The upshot is that the unit price of each B aircraft is about to increase by tens of millions, and we have not yet committed to a second tranche. What assessment has been made of the current queue for the F-35A, despite the decline in its fully mission-capable rate with the US air force, and—following on from my many written questions—what assessment has been made of converting our remaining B orders to F-35C and modifying our carriers to CATOBAR, which would also extend their range and therefore increase their survivability in a near-peer conflict?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the SDR recommends commencing discussions with the US and NATO on enhancing the UK’s participation in NATO’s nuclear mission. We have accepted that recommendation, as we have the other 61 recommendations in the review. I will not comment in public on those discussions, but this is what putting NATO first looks like.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent review, and ask whether he will do all he can to use this new focus on British industry to choose AERALIS as the replacement for the Hawk jet, meaning thousands of jobs in the UK; final assembly, production and testing in Prestwick in my constituency; the opportunity for exports; the first British-built jet in 50 years; and our Red Arrows being British and Scottish?

[John Healey]

I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the strategic defence review, and the reviewers’ reinforcement of how valuable our British Red Arrows are to the nation. He has made a very powerful case for the capacity to look for a replacement Hawk trainer in his constituency. The SDR makes the commitment and sets the vision that allows us to say, “We will ensure that there is a defence dividend for the defence investments we make in the future. We will do more than we saw under the previous Government to direct British taxpayers’ investment first to British jobs, British-based businesses, British innovation and British tech.”

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I rise to speak as a proud member of the armed forces covenant family; my husband Paul is a naval veteran, and my daughter is a reservist. I am really pleased to see the whole-society approach in chapter 6 of the defence review, but what actions are being taken to make a career of service in the armed forces more attractive to young people and to address the specific issues raised by those leaving the service, particularly how the nation fails to treat them as the heroes that they are?

[John Healey]

The hon. Lady makes a very powerful case, and I pay tribute to the members of her family who make their own contribution to service. I encourage her to do more of what she has done: speak up, explain, and help us close the gap that has been growing in recent years. A wide range of people in society no longer have any personal or family connection to the forces. We need them to understand, recognise and pay tribute to the service and the sacrifice of those who do serve—those who put on the uniform and provide for us all.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Last month, I had the honour of visiting RBSL—Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land—in my constituency. Along with many defence companies and organisations, it is so proud of its effort to help Britain to defend itself here and around the world. The SDR provides certainty to industry, but we need to go further to ensure that every Government agency, body and Department—from skills and infrastructure to planning and the availability of land—gets behind its ethos. Does the Secretary of State agree that creating growth cluster zones will provide certainty to local communities and assist in that mission?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is a powerful voice and advocate for that approach and for Telford. He will welcome the additional UK investment under this Government, which means that we will have a new gun barrel factory in his constituency that will bring new jobs and prosperity. That is part of defence investment driving future economic growth in this country.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The world is in the midst of an arms race. Last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, $2.7 trillion was spent on arms—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Secretary of State is proposing a substantial increase in defence expenditure by this country. I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity—poverty and hunger—that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.

[John Healey]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument and point of view. He overlooks the fact that the strategic defence review draws on more than 8,000 submissions, which were part of the material on which the reviewers based their recommendations and vision. I simply say to him that we deter those conflicts that have such massive human and economic costs by being strong enough to defeat the adversaries who would do us harm. That is why NATO has been the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 35 years, and that is why we will step up and play a more leading role in NATO for the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend hits at the heart of the strategic defence review with a different view of the investments we make. Those investments will not just strengthen our armed forces but help to drive growth in our economy. I pay tribute to Prospect, GMB and Unite, and the members and the workers in the defence industry who contribute so much.

I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, despite nearly two hours at the Dispatch Box, we have not got to everybody’s question. If any Member wants to raise points with me, they should please do so directly, and I will provide them with answers.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to add to what I said in my earlier point of order and to seek your guidance. I reiterate how incredibly disappointing it is, as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on the day of the SDR, not to be able to read it before having to stand up and respond to the Government.

I said earlier that we knew of one major defence company that received a copy of the document at 8 am this morning. I have been told of another major prime—one of the largest—that received a copy at 8 am this morning. That means that at the time that I was messaging the Minister for the Armed Forces and begging him to let us have a copy, and he was saying that we could not have one, they were reading the SDR over breakfast.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard Mr Speaker refer to the phrase “skin in the game”; he was very concerned about a document being given early in the morning to big defence companies that have skin in the game. Can you advise us on what more we can do to probe this point and hold the Government to account on commercial sensitivity?

Defence Nuclear Enterprise

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today placing in the Library of the House the Defence Nuclear Enterprise 2025 annual update to Parliament.

This Government have been clear that we are wholly committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent. This has been reinforced through our triple lock, which guarantees the building of the four Dreadnought nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, that we will maintain our continuous at-sea deterrent, and the delivery of all future upgrades to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our deterrent. Alongside this triple lock, we are committed to keeping Parliament informed on the work of our Defence Nuclear Enterprise, and to providing regular updates on the progress of our key activities.

The work of the DNE is vast. Bringing together the Defence Nuclear Organisation, the Royal Navy, UK Strategic Command, the Submarine Delivery Agency and AWE Nuclear Security Technologies, the DNE is working on hundreds of projects and programmes across the breadth of the UK, including some of the largest, most complex and technologically advanced programmes the Government have ever undertaken. The DNE has a supply chain of over 3,000 UK-based businesses and a workforce demand of over 48,000 jobs across the UK, with this demand set to grow to 65,000 by 2030. The DNE’s programmes represent a substantial investment in industry and the UK’s economy. It spent £10.9 billion in the financial year 2024-25, with final figures subject to audit, and has a projected spend of over £100 billion through UK suppliers over the next 10 years.

Taken together, this work constitutes a national endeavour for the UK, and it is driving economic growth in every corner of the country. I am hugely grateful to other Government Departments for their continued support to us in delivering our deterrent.

In an era of rising global threats and uncertainty and conflict in Europe, it is as critical as ever that we work together to demonstrate our enduring resolve. I look forward to continued engagement with my parliamentary colleagues over the next year as we update you on the progress on maintaining and renewing our nuclear deterrent. Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-05-22/HCWS659/

[HCWS659]

Armed Forces Workforce

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the armed forces for 2025-26.

Our service personnel make extraordinary sacrifices and work tirelessly to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This Government and the nation are proud of their professionalism and dedication.

We are facing a new age of insecurity, with war in Europe for the first time in years, growing Russian aggression, and increasing global threats. Within three weeks of taking office, we therefore launched a root-and-branch strategic defence review to assess the capabilities we need to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next decade. The Prime Minister has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the cold war, rising to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and to 3% when economic and fiscal conditions allow, underlining this Government’s commitment to our national security. That is why it is more important than ever that we continue to invest in our people.

Since coming into office in July, we have stepped up support for our armed forces and their families. Last year we confirmed one of the largest pay rises for service personnel in over 20 years. This substantial pay deal ensured that all those choosing a full-time career in the armed forces were paid the national living wage for the first time.

We have also announced new financial retention packages to help tackle the long-standing recruitment and retention crisis we inherited. To improve living conditions in service accommodation, we have introduced a new consumer charter to provide homes fit for the heroes who serve our nation. And we have taken steps to establish in law the first ever armed forces commissioner, who will act as a strong, independent voice for personnel and their families and have powers to hold the Government and single services to account.

Along with subsidised accommodation, health and childcare, a generous pension scheme, and world-class training, education and skills development, pay plays a key role in rewarding service personnel for the extraordinary sacrifices they make. To recognise that commitment, I am announcing today that we will be accepting in full the 2025 pay award recommendations for armed forces remuneration made by the independent Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and Senior Salaries Review Body.

We continue to value the AFPRB’s and SSRB’s independent expert advice and insight, and the contribution the collective membership makes on behalf of service personnel. The AFPRB report has been laid before the House today and published on gov.uk. The SSRB 2025 report, which considers pay for our senior military officers of two-star rank and above, has been laid before Parliament today by my colleagues in the Cabinet Office.

Today’s awards, which will benefit the whole of the armed forces, reflect the value that we place upon our military community. We are renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve as part of our plan for change.

The recommendations

The SSRB has recommended that all members of the senior military (two-star rank and above), should receive a 3.75% consolidated increase to base pay. They have also recommended no change to the current pay differential arrangements for senior medical and dental officers. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.

The AFPRB’s main pay recommendation was for a 4.5% pay award for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2025. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.

The AFPRB has also recommended rises and changes to other targeted forms of remuneration, and increases to some accommodation and related charges, which have all been accepted.

Accepting these recommendations represents an annual increase of circa £2,100 in the nominal “average” salary in the armed forces, as well as an annual increase of c.£1,500 in the starting salary for an officer. It also ensures that our most junior sailors, soldiers and aviators who choose a full-time career in the armed forces continue to receive the national living wage. The starting salary for other ranks will increase to c.£26,334, providing an annual increase of c.£1,200 for around 7,800 personnel. This means armed forces personnel have received a cumulative pay award of 10.5% (8.75% for senior officers) since July 2024.

Although defence spending will be increasing, this is not just about how much we spend on defence, but how well we spend it. For that reason, the Prime Minister has announced that we will publish a defence reform and efficiency plan. This will set out how we are redesigning our organisation, driving productivity across the business, overhauling our processes and reforming our approach to some of our biggest areas of spend. The cost of this pay award will also be factored into our capability planning following the strategic defence review and spending review, to ensure affordability within the overall defence programme.

The complete recommendations of the AFPRB for pay round 2025 are as follows:

Main pay award:

Recommendation 1: That rates of base pay increase by 4.5% for all members of their remit group from 1 April 2025.

Medical and dental officers:

Recommendation 2: That rates of base pay for all ranks within the medical and dental officer cadre should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 3: The removal of the OF5 higher medical management pay spine and endorse renaming the OF6 higher medical management pay spine as suitable for all substantive OF6 medical and dental officers.

Recommendation 4: That reserve medical and dental officers at OF5 and OF6 should be paid in line with their regular medical and dental officer counterparts.

Recommendation 5: That the value of the medical and dental officers’ golden hello should increase to £100,000 from 1 April 2025 for payment to consultants and registrars (specialist training, year three upwards) in specialisms with a declared delivery workforce capability gap.

Recommendation 6: That the value of defence clinical impact awards should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 7: That rates of trainer pay and associate trainer pay should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Bespoke pay arrangements:

Recommendation 8: That all rates of pay on the veterinary officers’ pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 9: That all rates of pay on the chaplains’ pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 10: That all rates of pay on the military provost guard service pay spine should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recruitment and retention payments:

Recommendation 11: That all rates of all recruitment and retention payments should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Skills and supplement payments:

Recommendation 12: That all rates of the cyber skills payment should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 13: That all rates of the engineer supplement payment should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Financial incentives:

Recommendation 14: The introduction of two retention payments for Royal Navy catering services’ personnel for three years from 1 April 2025: £10,000 at four years’ service, attracting a three-year return of service; and £15,000 at two years after promoting to OR4, attracting a further three-year return of service.

Volunteer reserves training bounty:

Recommendation 15: That rates of the volunteer reserves training bounty should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Compensatory allowances:

Recommendation 16: The introduction of an afloat environmental allowance.

Recommendation 17: That all rates of compensatory allowances should increase by 4.5% from 1 April 2025.

Accommodation and related charges:

Recommendation 18: That service families’ accommodation rental charges for combined accommodation assessment system bands A to F should increase by 7.6%. There should be no increase in the current rates of charges for bands G and below. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.

Recommendation 19: That there should be no increase in the rates of furniture charges.

Recommendation 20: That single living accommodation rental charges for grade 1 should increase by 7.6%, with increases of 5.1% for grade 2, 2.5% for grade 3 and no increase to grade 4 accommodation. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating.

Recommendation 21: That charges for standard garages and carports should increase by 7.6%. These increases are not to be subject to any backdating. There should be no increase in the charges for substandard garages and substandard carports.

For senior military officers only, the SSRB have recommended the following:

Recommendation 5: all members of the senior military (2-star rank and above), including medical officers and dental officers, should receive a 3.75% consolidated increase to base pay from 1 April 2025.

Recommendation 6: no change to the current pay differential arrangements for medical officers and dental officers (MODOs):

2-star MODOs should continue to be paid 10% above the base pay at the top of the MODO 1-star scale, plus X-factor.

3-star MODOs should continue to be paid 5% above the base pay at the top of the MODO 2-star scale, plus X-factor.

[HCWS661]

Diego Garcia Military Base

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Diego Garcia military base.

For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.

There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.

The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our armed forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.

America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:

“This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”

President Trump himself has described this as “very long-term” and “very strong”.

Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.

Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.

Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of Government.

Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.

I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

5.6 pm

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.

Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.

[John Healey]

I regret the tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck this evening—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister was making a simple point: if the base goes, the countries that benefit—the countries that want to see the base go and the deal fail—are China, Russia and Iran. Quite simply, he was asking whose side of the argument—

[James Cartlidge]

Are we on?

[John Healey]

Yes, whose side are you on? [Interruption.] Frankly, if you do not back the deal, you do not back the base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will decide what is and is not shameful. I am going to say this once and for all: Mr Cartlidge, you have been pushing and pushing for quite a while. Emotions are running high, but I do not want a continuous barracking and that level of noise coming from you. You should be setting a good example as the shadow Secretary of State, keeping calm and being effective, not bawling.

[John Healey]

Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:

“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”

That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.

The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations, however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.

I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

In the ’60s and ’70s, Labour and Conservative Governments removed the Chagossian people from their islands in the interests of national security. In response to written questions, the Foreign Office has confirmed that many certainties that would be required for Chagossians to return to the islands have not been secured as a part of this deal—once more banning them in the name of national security. What should I tell my Chagossian constituents when they ask about the moral basis on which the UK is once again ignoring their right to self-determination while we fight for it in Ukraine for Ukrainians? On what basis can members of British overseas territories feel any certainty that they will retain possession of their islands in the event that our national security interests are suddenly piqued?

[John Healey]

I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.

It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?

As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?

[John Healey]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that from this point, this House has the full opportunity to scrutinise the deal. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed the full text of the treaty before this House, together with the financial arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiators have not been giving a running commentary, but he also says that he does not want a running commentary because he respects the fact that in any negotiation, there has to be a private space in which discussions can take place. I have said consistently that when the treaty is ready and put before the House, the full financial information will come alongside it. That has happened today. The proper scrutiny by this House begins today, and when the Bill is published soon, the hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise that, too. On the question of the Chagossians, we will provide £40 million so that the Mauritians can set up a new trust fund for those communities.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the US. This treaty has been negotiated between and signed today by our Prime Minister and the Mauritian Prime Minister. It secures a vital defence and intelligence base for Britain, but, as I said in my statement, almost everything we do on this base is done jointly with the US, so of course we have kept the Americans informed and consulted them. At no point has the US had a veto—this is our deal and our decision. I bring it to the House this afternoon because it is in our best national interest and our best security interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security?

[John Healey]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point in a judicious way. The shadow Defence Secretary could learn a bit from him.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Both the Prime Minister—in his extensive press conference prior to the Secretary of State for Defence coming to the House—and the Secretary of State have said on numerous occasions that this deal is the only way of protecting the military operations on Diego Garcia. When I was Foreign Secretary, I did not see anything to make me agree that this is the only way of protecting military operations on that base. The Defence Secretary suggested in his statement that a judgment could come within weeks that would undermine the operations of the base. From which binding legal authority does he fear that jurisdiction may come? We know it is not the International Telecommunication Union or the International Court of Justice. Who does he believe would prevent us from military operations on that island?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman was a formidable and very senior figure in the previous Government. He was in the post of Foreign Secretary during the period when there were negotiations on this deal. By entering into the negotiations, his Government accepted and conceded the principle that a negotiated deal was the way to secure the full operational sovereignty of this base for the long term.

The right hon. Gentleman may well not have been satisfied with the deal that his own people could have negotiated at the time, because when we picked up the negotiations, there was no agreement on an effective UK veto across the archipelago, which we have now; there was no buffer zone accepted in that agreement, which there is now; there was no agreement in that text for 99 years, or the option of an extra 40 years, which we have got in there now; and there was also not an agreement for Mauritius to take on responsibility for any migrants, but there is now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the new text of the treaty, and I hope he will back it when it comes before the House.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I rise to welcome this agreement, which safeguards a vital national security asset and cements the United Kingdom’s role at the heart of global defence co-operation. Let us be clear: this treaty is about protecting Britain’s ability to defend itself and its allies. Diego Garcia is not just a piece of land in the Indian ocean, but the backbone of our joint operations with the United States and a linchpin of the UK’s ability to project power, to deter threats and to ensure security in an increasingly unstable world. All our closest allies—the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India—support this deal. NATO supports this deal. They understand what Diego Garcia represents: unmatched strategic certainty. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about how we will be protecting the area around the islands?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our close allies take a close interest, and they can see that this treaty is the best way of securing—for the UK, for the US and for themselves—a vital base on which we can help both to project military power and to reinforce regional security. My hon. Friend will see the 24 nautical mile buffer zone—an exclusion zone, if you like—that allows us to control the seas and the air. We would not be able to do that, increasingly, without the deal. She will see that sweep and an effective veto on any developments across the archipelago to ranges of at least 100 nautical miles. She will also see the value of a deal that guarantees our full operational sovereignty and therefore prevents any undermining of our ability to use the electromagnetic spectrum. As I said in my statement, that is so crucial to the unique capabilities that this base and its operations offer to this country and to the United States.

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

When a former Foreign Secretary asks a sitting Defence Secretary for a direct answer as to which court would be able to make a binding judgment against us on this matter, he is entitled to a direct answer, so will the Secretary of State now give that direct answer?

[John Healey]

There are a range of international legal challenges and rulings against us. The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend has set out that this deal, which is essential for our national security, will cost less than a quarter of 1% of our national defence budget. Will he also confirm that this deal costs far less than other base deals, such as France’s deal with Djibouti, yet offers vastly superior strategic scale and value?

[John Healey]

I can indeed, and my right hon. Friend is right: this deal will cost less than 0.2% of the defence budget. It compares very favourably with the €85 million that the French paid for their Djibouti base, which by the way is right next to a Chinese base. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger than the French base in Djibouti and has an exclusion zone around it, which helps to protect our operations and the intelligence services that we have there. My right hon. Friend is right: this is a good investment for the future national security of this country.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

This morning, I was at the High Court to listen to the judgment. I was with a very large group of Chagossians, who told me that they feel betrayed. They also feel that the United Kingdom is acting in exactly the same high-handed, colonial-like manner that led to their dislocation and displacement from the islands in the 1960s. Can those on the Government Front Bench assure us all that when this deal comes back to the House, we are not going to be asked to vote for a new round of colonial practice that will further disadvantage the Chagossians?

[John Healey]

Of course we are not going to ask that. We deeply regret the way that the Chagossians were removed from the islands. We have expressed that sentiment as a new Government since July. We have made provisions in the treaty to support the Chagossian communities, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a wide range of views within the Chagossian communities and groups. Some of them see the value of this deal, and some of them support it. The important fact for us is that the legal challenge in the High Court demonstrates some of the legal difficulties that would continue to bedevil the operation of this base without the deal that our Prime Minister has signed today.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for explaining—in as much detail as he is able on the Floor of the House—why he believes that this is a necessary act, and I trust him to have the security of the nation as his top priority. However, elements of the treaty cannot be talked about, even at the point when this House may vote on it. There is only one Member of this House who has access to all areas of Government spending: the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Does my right hon. Friend agree that some areas need deeper scrutiny, and will he support our plan to have a scrutiny Committee that can examine sensitive issues, including this one?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend knows that I have had discussions with her and the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the capability of the House of Commons to scrutinise and hold to account the Government— of whatever party—in areas of necessarily highly secret and confidential activity. She knows that I have a different view about how to deal with that challenge, but deal with it we must.

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

The Secretary of State has cited UNCLOS—under pressure from my right hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—as the reason for this expensive cave-in. I am familiar with UNCLOS, and although I am a layman and so is the Secretary of State, could he explain in lay terms which parts of UNCLOS are responsible for what has happened, because it is not clear to me and it will not be clear to my constituents and to his, who will be paying the bill for this?

[John Healey]

The judgments of any international tribunal or court do not necessarily just apply to the UK; they are taken by other agencies, other organisations and other nations. In particular, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister spelt out this afternoon, if there is uncertainty or a binding finding against the UK about the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, our ability to protect, in particular and most immediately, the electromagnetic spectrum on which our sensors, radars, communications and intelligence functions depend is compromised. That is the security assessment and that is the military view. That is why we have taken this step, and recognised that the best and only way of safeguarding the operational sovereignty—the total control and protection—of the Diego Garcia island base for the future is the deal we have struck this afternoon.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am alarmed by the passion of Conservative Members for the Chagos islands—

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I do not share the right hon. Member’s passion.

Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition first tweeted about the Chagos islands in October 2024. That was five years after the ICJ ruling and two years after negotiations started. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives’ new-found passion for the Chagos islands perhaps owes more to political opportunism than to any deeply held conviction?

[John Healey]

I do, indeed, and I have to say that I am relieved my hon. Friend has not asked me to name all 50-plus islands in the archipelago.

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

The Mauritians have never ever owned the Chagos islands. When they gained independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960s, the UK paid them millions of pounds to cede any future claims over the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. The Defence Secretary has confirmed the strategic importance of the Chagos islands, and we all agree on that, but the truth is that this is the worst ever deal in history by this country. Over 100 years we are paying, with inflation, over £40 billion to give away a strategically important security asset. The truth is, and I confirm it now, that when Reform wins the next general election, we will rip up this deal—tear it up—and stop all future payments. It is a disgrace.

[John Healey]

That is total rubbish—not just the hon. Member’s figures, but his assertion. Our closest ally, which has taken the closest look at the deal we have negotiated, sees this as the way we can secure the joint operations and the control of this base. Through this deal, we can jointly guarantee that for the next century and beyond. We have gone over the cost, and it is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. For this, we get the security of being able to continue operating an intelligence and defence base doing activities and operations that we simply could not do anywhere else. This is a good investment for Britain, and Britain is safer today because of the deal we have struck.

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

The Conservative party had a terrible record on defence, with abject failure after abject failure. I think we have seen this afternoon that Conservative Members have not learnt from those lessons. Does the Secretary of State agree that in backing this deal, with support from the US, NATO, Five Eyes and some of our biggest allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as India and Australia, the Labour party is showing that it cares seriously about national security, will put the national interest first and, unlike the party opposite, will not make meaningless gestures to put our own party first?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. This is a base that has saved British lives for over 50 years. It has saved the lives of people at home in this country, because it has been the launchpad from which we have defeated terrorist attacks. It has also been the launchpad for protecting and saving the lives of British forces when they have been deployed to war zones around the world. This deal, which we signed today, means we can continue to exercise the full control necessary to continue to do that for the century to come.

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

May I, in all candour, suggest to the Government that having now introduced this new element—the UN convention on the law of the sea and, I presume, the associated International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—as the decisive factor that might have created a binding ruling, it really is incumbent on the Government to set out in a statement exactly how it would have affected the electromagnetic spectrum or our ability to use it in Diego—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary might just calm down for a minute. I just want a proper explanation.

I make this forecast. To cut personal independence payments and winter fuel allowances to pay billions of pounds for something that was already British sovereign territory—how is the Secretary of State going to explain that on the doorstep to all his party’s voters? I promise you, we will make sure that they never hear the end of it.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman might just like to remember this and make the comparison: the total cost over the 99 years of the deal we have struck to protect this space and British control over it is less than the value of the personal protective equipment that was unusable and that was burned because the last Government bought it in the first year of the covid pandemic.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The US supports this deal. NATO supports this deal. India supports this deal. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that Opposition Members seem so intent on ignoring our allies?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point very succinctly. I hope this House has heard it and I hope the Conservative party listens to it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the regard I have for him and for the Foreign Secretary. He knows, too, of my interest and involvement in national security matters. There is no debate across the House about the salience of Diego Garcia. It is absolutely critical to our national interest. The debate is about the legal advice. Will he, in the interests of scrutiny, provide, where it does not compromise national security, all the information and advice given to him and previous Ministers on the subject of that legal advice? We suspect that that advice could have been challenged, and I suspect that many previous holders of his office and others will have received similar, if not the same, legal advice and resisted it.

[John Healey]

This House will have plenty of opportunity to test and debate these issues, but the right hon. Gentleman might start by asking those of his right hon. Friends who were in government at the time. They started negotiations and judged at the time that negotiations on the deal were necessary to safeguard the future of Diego Garcia and the full operational control of the base.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for his calm and measured approach to this really serious topic. Will he expand on the safeguards in the deal, in particular the 24-mile nautical exclusion or buffer zone and the ban on foreign military presence, which guarantee full UK command of the base? I remind Opposition colleagues that it is important to lead and not follow, and to use sensible, measured language, not charged mistruths.

[John Healey]

The provisions of the treaty, as my hon. Friend will see from the full text, guarantee the rights of the UK in the 24-nautical mile zone immediately around the islands and in the airspace above to patrol and control that airspace. If we saw a succession of legal judgments that started to establish a Mauritian claim to sovereignty, that would undermine and weaken our ability to conduct those patrols, control the skies and protect the base.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Under this deal, we will be paying billions of pounds for the privilege of having our own territory taken away from us. The Secretary of State talks about the threat to the base as if Mauritius, a country with no navy, is about to steam in or pick a fight with the United States. That is implausible. The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State trying to dodge the question from the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and, on being pressed, scrambling around for a legal argument and coming up with something totally novel and hazy. The truth is that our constituents are going to be paying billions so that the Prime Minister can bask in the warm glow of approval from his fellow human rights lawyers.

[John Healey]

Absolute rubbish. It is £3.4 billion over 99 years, which is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. This is a good investment for a unique capability that has played an essential role in defeating terrorism and breaking up terrorist groups, deploying British forces, protecting our trade routes and monitoring nuclear threats around the globe. This is an essential base. We run it jointly with the US, which is full square behind us—and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party will be the same.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting out very clearly why this is the right thing to do for the UK. Could he share with the House any threat assessments that he has, indicating that without guaranteed access to Diego Garcia—and “guaranteed” is the key word—China and other countries could attempt to expand their regional military presence, building installations close to the base?

[John Healey]

Of course China wants to try to move in on the Chagos archipelago; of course it wants to try to set up operations or activities that would allow it to interfere or monitor what we do from the base. This deal helps to protect the base and helps to prevent that from happening.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom?

[John Healey]

Within a few weeks, we expect rulings that will start to weaken our ability to control and maintain our full operational sovereignty over Diego Garcia; within a few years, we expect that to be at a point where it compromises our ability to continue the operations that are so essential to protecting people at home, as well as protecting our forces when they deploy around the world.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

National security decisions and debate should be led by facts, not political point scoring, as we have seen today. Does the Secretary of State agree that had the Conservatives performed some sort of miracle and stayed in government at the election, they too would have signed this deal, and we would have supported that in the interests of national security?

[John Healey]

I do not want to speak for the Conservatives, but, clearly, they were trying to negotiate a deal. They had had 11 rounds of negotiations. Any Government elected in July would have been faced with the challenge of how to secure this space for the long term. It was clear that that was their direction, and that they had conceded that principle in government. I regret the fact that they are not consistent in pursuing that principle, recognising the way that we have strengthened the deal and done the deal that they were unable to secure.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I am concerned about the influence of foreign nations levied through the criminal courts. If it is not too vague, I should like to read out a very brief quote:

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

Given that this land was always going to be ours and now it will be ours for only 99 more years, who will benefit from that shade in a century?

[John Healey]

The British people and British forces will benefit from that shade. They will continue to benefit from that shade beyond the 99 years if we choose as a nation at that point to exercise our first refusal to extend the deal for another 40 years. That was a provision that was not in the deal that the Conservatives negotiated. It is a provision that extends our ability to control this space for the long term, for our national security.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As the Prime Minister confirmed earlier today, the cost of this deal is slightly less than the average annual cost of just one aircraft carrier without the aircraft. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a price well worth paying to ensure our country’s safety and security?

[John Healey]

It is definitely a good investment for this country. It helps protect our security at home. It helps strengthen our forces abroad. It helps reinforce that very special security relationship that we have with our closest ally, the United States.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I hope the Defence Secretary is fully across the detail here. Annex 1, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c states:

“Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide upon the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum”

in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia. Given that Diego Garcia shall be represented by Mauritius at the International Telecommunication Union—as per Letter No.1 on 22 May 2025—how will control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum be reflected as per annex 1, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph b, clause iv? And given the threat posed by Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific and the level of Chinese development finance investment in Mauritius, what assessment have the Government made of future lack of co-operation from Mauritius on access to said electromagnetic spectrum?

[John Healey]

I will have a word with my right hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, and just let him know that the hon. Gentleman has made an early bid for membership of the Bill Committee.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is telling that one of the many Tory Prime Ministers that we had over their 14 years in Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said in 2023 that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. Is it not the case that the bluster and the red faces that we have seen from the Conservative party today is nothing more than the worst type of political hypocrisy?

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has a quote that I have not managed to get, and I will ask him to pass it on to me. He makes a very powerful point to this House and to the Conservative party, a number of whom served under the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister at the time.

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

The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal?

[John Healey]

The jeopardy and the uncertainty over this space is putting at risk security operations that are essential to us and our allies. We are not prepared to take that risk with national security. We have done a deal in order to secure for the long term the guaranteed full operational continuing control of Diego Garcia and that military base.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

America backs the deal. Canada backs the deal. Australia backs the deal. New Zealand backs the deal. Our relationship with the Five Eyes countries is our most crucial intelligence relationship, so does the Secretary of State agree that it would have been a dereliction of duty to our country and those four countries to have failed to do this deal?

[John Healey]

Well said, and I would add that India supports the deal. Those countries, which are our staunchest allies, are our strongest supporters on this deal. The countries that are our adversaries, that do us harm and that want to be able to move into the part of the world of this archipelago do not want us to have the base and do not want the deal. So there is a question: whose side of the argument are you on?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I respect the expertise of the Defence Secretary, so I hope he can help me here. The ICJ said that it was a non-binding decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the court that he is worried about. The country will wonder why he would not challenge this in the court, stand by it, and see what that process would look like. If he was worried he would lose, will he publish the documentation that shows why he was advised that he would lose, so that the country can understand why he is not making that challenge? If he failed in that challenge, he could appeal as well. To the public it looks like we are just giving into the deal without even using the courts that we could legally use.

[John Healey]

The Chief Whip has a second volunteer for the Committee stage of this legislation! There is an accumulation of legal challenge, and there is a serious risk of legal rulings. This is not just a matter of international law; it is about the direct impact on the operations of this base that is essential to our national security. The risk that this poses puts the future operation of the base in jeopardy, and no responsible Government can stand by and simply say, “We cannot act”. No action is not an option, and that is why we struck the deal and signed the treaty today.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. What steps he is taking to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are able to participate in defence procurement contracts.

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

The House will note that this afternoon we are without the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is halfway up Everest with a group of soldiers, raising funds for armed forces charities and raising the profile of veterans, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him well. Most of us also think, “Rather him than me.”

This Government have confirmed the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, which will boost national security and make defence the engine for growth in every part of the United Kingdom. For too long, small businesses have felt left out of defence, but no more. We are setting new targets to ensure that smaller firms benefit from that increase in defence spending. We are setting up a new support centre to guide small businesses on access to defence and, for the first time, we are making British-based businesses a priority for British taxpayers’ defence investment.

[Dr Sandher]

I, too, wish the Veterans Minister the best of luck as he climbs Everest, and I am sure we all agree: rather him than us.

In today’s world warfare is changing dramatically. Drones costing $1,000 can destroy tanks worth $10 million, but the innovation cycle for those drones is rapid; they are designed to become obsolete within months. We need a dynamic SME sector to produce those drones, but defence SMEs are struggling to get the finance they need, with a lack of long-term contracts and a lack of guarantees. A multilateral defence bank could help to ensure that those firms get the finance they need. Will the Secretary of State please set out the discussions he is having to help to found that multilateral defence bank?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is quite right about the fact that capabilities are now changing in weeks, not months or even years. He is also right about finance. That is why I went to the London stock exchange last week and closed the markets—I think it was the first time a Defence Secretary has ever done that. I wanted to signal that this Government want a new partnership with not just industry and innovators, but investors, and that means changing the way in which defence does its work.

[Mr Charters]

I have met outstanding UK SMEs, such as Supacat, 4GD and many others, which contribute to the sovereign industrial base that our security depends on. However, under the last Government, the percentage of Ministry of Defence direct expenditure going to SMEs fell, from 5% to 4%. Will my right hon. Friend confirm when this Government expect to surpass that record and therefore back the innovation we need to equip our forces and support our allies?

[John Healey]

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), for the work that they are doing on innovative finance, which will help SMEs in future. I look forward to the publication of their Royal United Services Institute report shortly. I can confirm that SME involvement in the defence supply chain will be boosted by new spending targets that I will set in June to produce exactly the sort of result that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is looking for.

[Catherine Atkinson]

When I spoke at the Make UK Defence summit in Derby, I met with lots of small and medium-sized businesses in the sector. The issues that they raised with me were echoed during my visit last week to a local composites manufacturer, Pentaxia, including accessing finance to grow and complicated defence procurement processes. What is the Defence Secretary doing to engage with small and medium-sized companies to ensure that they can get a fair crack at Government defence contracts?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend knows better than most the challenge for small firms entering into the supply chain in defence, and she does more than most to champion their case. We want defence to do business differently, and making it easier for small firms and newer entrants to start doing their business with defence a big part of that. That is why we have announced a new SME support centre—a new front door for small firms that can then become part of the defence supply chain, unlocking new jobs and putting more money in the pockets of workers.

[Baggy Shanker]

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of hosting a roundtable and listening to businesses in Derby—small and medium-sized businesses in engineering and manufacturing, including the vital defence sector. With nearly 70% of Government defence spending directed towards businesses outside of London and the south-east, we know how every pound spent with UK defence businesses has the power to create jobs and employment for local people. Will the Secretary of State therefore outline how the Department will ensure that as many SMEs as possible are aware of Government procurement opportunities, so that they can deliver jobs in areas such as Derby?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The access of SMEs to defence is very often through primes and subcontracting, rather than directly with the Ministry of Defence itself. It is the certainty of long-term relationships and long-term contracts for the primes that allow them to pass those benefits on to smaller firms. That is why it is significant that when my hon. Friend joined me at the Derby Rolls-Royce factory when I announced the eight-year £9 billion Unity contract for Rolls-Royce, 240 small firms were part of that submarine supply chain.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I do not wish to end the Defence Secretary’s glittering career here on the Floor of the House, but may I praise him as my new favourite Minister—alongside the Defence Procurement Minister—for today announcing the new £400 million investment in my Shropshire constituency for Rheinmetall to build a new gun barrel factory? I thank him and his Defence Procurement Minister for working with me, across parties and in the national interest, to ensure that the UK has the very latest and most technologically advanced Challenger 3 tank—the best in NATO.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We will always work across parties in the national interest and in the interests of defence— I hope he is wrong that doing so may ruin my career. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for noticing the £400 million investment in its Telford factory that Rheinmetall is announcing today. That is a direct response to the UK-German defence agreement that I signed in October, and it is confirmation that this is a Government who are delivering for defence.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Somerset’s defence-related SMEs help to make the south-west the biggest region for defence after the south-east. Will the Secretary of State take a particular look at how SMEs are supporting Somerset Armed Forces Day? They are a backbone of that operation. Will he also look at the fact that Armed Forces Day is run by veterans and volunteers who sometimes do not receive funding until six months after they have held the event, and will he agree to support the biggest Armed Forces Day in the country, which is Somerset Armed Forces Day?

[John Healey]

There may be a competition for the title of the biggest Armed Forces Day event in the country—I refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I am not sure whether his question was about SMEs or Armed Forces Day events, but I welcome the support that his small firms are giving to Armed Forces Day. From the centre, we are making sure that we can support local Armed Forces Day events where councils and local charities are willing to organise them. We are doing so right around the country, and I know the whole House will back those events, locally and nationally.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Somerset is home to many growing defence sector SMEs, such as Needles and Pins Aerospace in Somerton, which will shortly be opening a new factory in the town. It has been a supplier of bespoke support equipment to Leonardo helicopters for many years. What support is the Minister providing to SMEs such as Needles and Pins to ensure that they can compete for defence procurement contracts?

[John Healey]

If the hon. Lady alerts her local small firms to the commitment I have made that next month we will set a target for direct defence investment in SMEs, she will then get confirmation of our commitment to boosting this important area of our economy. She will also recognise that every 1% more of defence spending we put into SMEs is worth £250 million more for those small firms.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Given that at the moment only 4% of defence procurement goes to the SME sector, I very much welcome what the Secretary of State is saying about opening up that scope. Does he recognise, though, that part of the problem with SMEs getting defence contracts is not just the amount of money—although that is vital—but that the procurement portals and processes need to be accessible for smaller businesses with less of a back-room operation than the huge corporations? What can he say about that, particularly given that I represent a constituency in which the entire economy is SMEs?

[John Healey]

First, the new SME support centre, which we have announced and will set up shortly, will help with exactly those sorts of challenges. Secondly, the hon. Member is right to point to that low 4% level of direct defence spending into SMEs. That was the level under the last Government, and it went down for every one of the three years before the last election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On behalf of the official Opposition, we send our best wishes to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on his ascent of Everest.

On defence procurement, we will all have enjoyed the Red Arrows fly-past as part of our VE Day celebrations, but the fact is that the Hawk jet needs replacing. Given that one of the publicly stated roles of the Red Arrows is “supporting British industry”, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the next jet for the Red Arrows will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom?

[John Healey]

As a former procurement Minister, the shadow Secretary of State will know that the replacement of our jet trainer is long overdue. He will have heard me say earlier that, for the first time, this is a Government who will look to direct British taxpayers’ defence investment to British-based firms, British-based jobs, British-based technology and British-based innovation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

21. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of a security and defence partnership with the EU on NATO.

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

This is a Government delivering for defence. Today we have agreed a new bespoke and ambitious security and defence partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The SDP will strengthen NATO, the cornerstone of the UK’s defence, and it will grow the economy. It allows us to step up more effectively together on European security against growing Russian aggression and the increasing threats that we face.

[John Milne]

The ill-advised decision to leave the EU in 2016 saw us leave the European Defence Agency at the same time. With defence expenditure rising at record rates across Europe in response to the invasion of Ukraine, the EDA has a vital role to play in our national security. What plans do the Government have to secure a more effective working relationship with Europe’s defence procurement strategy and to form stronger links with the EDA?

[John Healey]

Quite simply, the answer to both the hon. Gentleman’s first question and his second question is exactly the partnership deal that we have signed this afternoon.

[Alison Bennett]

I welcome the news that the UK is deepening defence ties with the European Union, including participation in the €150 billion Security Action for Europe, or SAFE, defence fund. However, given that France has previously said that it wants the UK’s access to be limited to 15%, will the Secretary of State confirm what level of access has been agreed?

[John Healey]

This is a big step today—a broad and bespoke agreement between the European Union and the UK on security and defence—but it is a first step. Settling the details and the terms of access for European programmes, including the SAFE funding programme, is exactly the task beyond today.

[Alex Ballinger]

Before being elected, I was proud to serve alongside our European allies, including French, Dutch and Estonian forces, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we build on those alliances to strengthen European security. Can the Secretary of State tell us how we can do more to strengthen European mechanisms for security, such as the joint expeditionary force, to build our collective security?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right about the joint expeditionary force, and he is right to emphasise the importance of the step today. While NATO is the cornerstone of our European security—and recognised as such by the European Union in its White Paper—the step today will mean that we will be able to upgrade our co-operation with the European Union on the mobility of military matériel and personnel, on maritime and space security, on irregular migration and on protecting our critical infrastructure. It opens the door to closer defence industrial collaboration, including potential participation in the EU’s €150 billion SAFE arrangements.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the crew of HMS Dragon, which succeeded in obliterating a supersonic missile with a Sea Viper missile off the coast of the Hebrides? The Royal Navy hit their target thanks to the work of the MOD Hebrides range. Will he also congratulate them on their continued work?

[John Healey]

I will indeed. We congratulate the crew of HMS Dragon on their professionalism and skill, and they will welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that skill in the House this afternoon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I have previously raised, during Defence questions, my deep concern about the possibility that the Government would give away our fishing rights in order to gain access to the European Union rearmament fund, but in fact it is far worse than that. Is not the truth that we have surrendered our fishing grounds for at least 12 years and will become a passive rule taker, and that all we have in exchange is a glorified talking shop with not a penny of guaranteed defence funding?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. [Interruption.] He is quite right, in that during the last Defence Question Time he talked about our not being excluded from the Security Action for Europe defence fund that would include EU states. I would have thought that he would welcome this afternoon’s agreement, because this is the open door to those arrangements. Let me ask him this: does he therefore agree with his party leader, who declared before even seeing the agreements that will be signed today—including the security and defence partnership agreement—that she would tear them up?

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve support for veterans.

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

Earlier this month the nation celebrated 80 years since Victory in Europe Day, and the Government announced the Operation Valour programme, a new UK-wide veteran support system to ensure that veterans have improved access to essential care and support. It is backed by a new £50 million investment, starting this year.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

The rights of the charity PTSD Resolution—which provided vital healthcare services in our stretched NHS—to deliver services that imprisoned veterans desperately need have been taken away in England. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the MOD and other signatories to the armed forces covenant can support the case of veteran prisoners, and to explain why precious support from a charity has been taken away?

[John Healey]

We made an election commitment to put the armed forces covenant fully into law, and we will do that. The Minister for Veterans and People is working across Government to ensure that veterans receive the support they need from all services, including Op Nova, which provides for ex-forces people who become caught up in the criminal justice system. I know that I can speak for my hon. Friend the Minister while he is on Everest in saying that he would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend, and I will ensure that it takes place.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I take it that the meeting will not be on Everest.

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that one of the most distressing experiences for our veterans today is the fear of being dragged into court in the face of politically motivated prosecutions after the Clonoe and Coagh inquiries, which opened a month ago. Some action will obviously have to be taken to protect them. Is the MOD currently researching the legal, judicial and legislative requirements that are necessary to protect our veterans from this appalling treatment?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We owe the Operation Banner veterans a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and, in many cases, sacrifices of their lives saved civilian lives and helped to bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys. In respect of Clonoe, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the MOD is seeking a judicial review of the coroner’s findings, and he will also know that I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the welfare and legal support that we have provided for veterans who are caught up in any investigations is reinforced further so that we can protect this special group of veterans from the impact of such investigations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?

[John Healey]

I hesitate to turn this into a party political debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has just done that. He must accept that the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help veterans. It was found unlawful over and over again, and any incoming Government last summer would have had to deal with that legacy, which is what we are doing. I am working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am looking to ensure that we minimise the impact of any investigations on this special and unique group of veterans, who served—with great distinction in most cases—to keep the peace, secure long-term peace and protect civilians.

[Mr Francois]

Labour could have appealed those judgments to the Supreme Court but chose not to. Labour MPs and peers have already voted for this barmy process in the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 February. Labour will now be expecting all its MPs to vote for it again this autumn. Given that many of the young soldiers who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland were recruited from “red wall” seats—from Barnsley to Blackpool, and from Bolton to Burnley—how on earth do this Government expect any Labour MP to do Gerry Adams a favour at the expense of the veterans who opposed him, and then to go back to their own seats and look their constituents, including veterans and their families, in the eye?

[John Healey]

The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful time and again. We have to deal with that problem, and any Government would. My concern is for the UK service personnel who served in Northern Ireland over a period of 38 years, who were there to protect the peace, protect civilian lives and prevent civil war. We support anyone who is now caught up in investigations or litigation with welfare and legal support, and I am determined that we will protect them further. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary as part of the plans for replacing the legacy Act arrangements, and we will ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans who have served our country so well.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking with his international counterparts to improve troop mobility across Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to support veterans of Operation Banner.

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

The Government recognise the important service and sacrifice of those forces veterans who served in Northern Ireland. More were killed during the troubles there than in Afghanistan. I am acutely aware of the anguish caused to those veterans and their families by historical investigations. While the Ministry of Defence continues to provide welfare support and legal support to those affected, I am determined that we will do more.

[John Cooper]

Operation Banner defeated the IRA militarily and paved the way for the Good Friday agreement, so why are this Labour Government now pushing two-tier justice, to the obvious detriment of our brave Northern Ireland veterans and to the advantage of Gerry Adams and his Sinn Féin fellow travellers? Where is the justice in that?

[John Healey]

This Government are dealing with the woeful shortcomings of the last Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As we do so, we will give priority to strengthening the protections that preserve dignity and respect for our veterans who served in Northern Ireland.

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

14. What steps he is taking to improve recruitment and retention in the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

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

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

Last year, we pledged to the British public that if we were elected we would seek a new security pact with the European Union. Today we have made good on that promise. The UK-EU security and defence partnership is an ambitious agreement. It will strengthen NATO, and it will grow the economy. In a further demonstration that defence is a powerful engine for growth, I can confirm that Rheinmetall will be opening its new gun barrel factory in Telford, bringing 400 new jobs to the area and boosting investment in the UK economy by nearly half a billion pounds. This is what resetting Britain’s relationship with Europe and stepping up on European security looks like, and this is what delivering for defence looks like, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Anneliese Midgley]

Abbey Group in Knowsley partners with Sweden’s Saab to produce the world-class Saab Barracuda camouflage system used by the British Army. It is a prime example of British manufacturing at its best: backed by international collaboration and providing good jobs. However, small and medium-sized enterprises such as Abbey need stability and support. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that they get it?

[John Healey]

We have committed to set new SME spending targets and establish a new SME support centre. In the last week, we have launched a new tech scaler, and we will strengthen the SME voice on the new defence industrial joint council.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the highly topical subject of fishing rights, the Secretary of State will no doubt share my profound concern at reports that last week Mauritius and Russia agreed to deepen their co-operation on fisheries and other maritime issues. Does that not show that Labour’s policy of spending billions renting back a military base that we already own is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but a major risk to our national security?

[John Healey]

No. It shows that when we were elected last summer we inherited a situation of increasing questions and jeopardy over the continuing sovereignty—our operational sovereignty—of the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have been taking action since then.

[James Cartlidge]

The Chagos chaos continues, as multiple reports now suggest that No. 10 has put the whole £18 billion Chagos nonsense on hold. It has done that for fear that Labour MPs, who are being whipped to withdraw winter fuel payments from up to 10 million pensioners, will not vote for it. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is still the Government’s policy to stand by their crazy Chagos deal, or has he finally decided to give it all up?

[John Healey]

The Diego Garcia base is essential to our security and to our security relationship with the US. It was increasingly under threat under the previous Government. We have had to act, as the previous Government started to do, to deal with that jeopardy. We are completing those arrangements and will report to the House when we can.

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

T3. With the defence review coming, alongside the welcome extra investment in defence, how will things change so that more school leavers in Bristol can learn about the opportunities in the military and across Bristol’s wider defence sector?

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

Last week’s “Panorama” documentary brought fresh allegations of war crimes by Special Air Service and Special Boat Service forces, raising grave new questions about the conduct of the special forces during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the vital importance of promoting transparency and accountability across our armed forces. In the light of these developments and the ongoing public inquiry, will the Secretary of State consider looking at how Parliament could scrutinise the work of the special forces?

[John Healey]

The previous Government, with our support, set up the Haddon-Cave inquiry, whose job it is to get to the bottom of any allegations and investigate them fully. That is the job it is doing, and it has our full support—and, I hope, the continued support of the House —in doing it. The hon. Lady mentioned the “Panorama” programme. Anybody who is willing to talk to the media about the information they have and what they allege must be willing to do the same to the Haddon-Cave inquiry.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T4. I met Major Eales and the Derby and Derbyshire Ex-Services Association, who do so much with fellow veterans at events all year round. Following the launch of Operation Valour, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work that it and other associations do and tell us what is being done to encourage and recognise volunteers who support our veterans?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T2. Will the Minister tell the House how much of the European Union’s €150 billion rearmament fund he anticipates will be available to our defence companies, who provide high quality jobs, and to our armed forces?

[John Healey]

It is simply too early to say that about any of the nations, including all 27 EU nations. What I can say is that today’s agreement is the necessary key that opens the door to that potential for our Government and our defence industry.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T5.   Over the weekend, a drone attack was launched targeting a number of regions, including Kyiv. It was arguably the biggest drone strike since the full-scale invasion began. While I am pleased that significant headway has been made between Russia and Ukraine regarding a possible prisoner swap, does the Minister agree that the Government must continue to urge for a wholesale ceasefire to ensure that no more civilian lives are lost?

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

If the Government end up paying a fee for British companies bidding for European defence contracts, will they charge the EU a fee when its companies want to bid for British defence contracts?

[John Healey]

Any arrangements that we make will be in the best national interests of this country and the interests of our industry. They will be fair, and they will ensure that our UK industry can participate fully in any programmes and make the biggest possible contribution alongside the European Union, within the context of NATO, to making European security stronger.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Secretary of State delay putting before the House the remedial order until he is certain that the Government have a way of delivering the Prime Minister’s commitment to preventing Gerry Adams from claiming compensation?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is a regular attender in this House, and I suggest that he be here on Wednesday for Northern Ireland questions to put that question directly to the Northern Ireland Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Only if there is the opportunity, I might add.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I reject any accusation of a veil of secrecy. I will look into the allegations that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will write to him, or can meet him, if that is helpful.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T8. Joining a cadet force offers young people a fantastic opportunity to develop key skills, including enhanced communication skills, and to improve their self-confidence and physical and mental wellbeing. What steps are the Government taking to support the cadets, and to encourage more young people to join and obtain life-changing skills?

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

The British defence company Babcock employs over 2,000 people from my constituency. The long-awaited strategic defence review is due any day now, so will the Secretary of State set out how the Government will do more to prioritise British defence jobs, and British firms that will not only provide training and employment opportunities in the UK, but help to develop the vital sovereign capability that has never been more critical for our national security?

[John Healey]

We will indeed. We will set out in our defence industrial strategy the detail that the hon. Lady wants. She mentions Babcock, which has welcomed today’s UK-EU agreement as a step forward, describing it as strengthening the critical defence partnership between the EU and the UK in uncertain times. I am sure that she will welcome that as well.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

T9. I welcome the recent investment of £117 million in Rock barracks in my constituency, which will deliver new living accommodation, technical facilities and a much-needed upgrade to assets by spring 2030. What plans does the Department have to bring unused military homes back into use for families in Suffolk Coastal?

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

One of Eastbourne’s last surviving world war two veterans, the incredible Eric Deach, celebrates his 100th birthday three weeks today, on 9 June. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing him a very happy centenary, and thank him for his service to our country?

[John Healey]

I would be delighted to, and if the hon. Gentleman would give me Mr Deach’s address, I would like to write to him as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I recently dropped in on an Armed Forces Network community event in my constituency, one of many organised by Lee Chapman, a veteran. The network is supported by the council and local volunteers. I have been made aware that there is no official system automatically recording and publishing statistics on veteran suicide in the UK. A petition has been launched, but will the Minister look into that, and see what action can be taken?

[John Healey]

I congratulate Lee Chapman on the event that he organised in the right hon. Lady’s constituency. I will indeed look into the matter, and if she has additional data and information for me to go on, I would be grateful if she could let me have it.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of drones on the modern battlefield. The previous Government published a drone strategy that was only 12 pages long, and half of that was pictures. They failed to fund UK companies that are investing in, and making, world-leading drone tech here at home. Will the strategic defence review correct that wrong, and support drone development in the UK? [Interruption.]

[John Healey]

The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), shouts, “Total rubbish,” but his 12-page drone strategy was half-full of pictures and totally unfunded. The strategic defence review will look at how our technologies are changing the nature of warfare, and will ensure that we can make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Following the particularly adverse findings against the Special Air Service soldiers in the Clonoe inquest, will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that better law pertains to inquests in England? In England, when there is a suspicion of criminality, the inquest is stopped, and the matter is referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. In Northern Ireland, however, the inquest reaches highly prejudicial findings, on the balance of probabilities, and then concludes, and there is then a referral to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Would it not be far better to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England?

[John Healey]

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Government and the Ministry of Defence are seeking judicial review of the coroner’s work on the Clonoe inquiry. If there are other factors to be taken into account and lessons to be learned, the Government will do that.

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

Yesterday, a Conservative councillor in my constituency said that the Government were “dancing to the tune of warmongers” because of their support for British defence manufacturing, despite one of those manufacturers being in his ward. Do the Government believe, as I do, that we need to do more, not less, to support British defence manufacturing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Salute Her, a veterans’ charity in the north-east, does incredible work to support women veterans with specific needs in accessing support. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that women’s voices and needs will be heard and catered for in the upcoming veterans’ strategy?

[John Healey]

We are developing the veterans’ strategy in close consultation with veterans and the organisations that represent them. They are at the heart of the process; I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I am glad that she is looking forward to the strategy’s publication.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

UNCLOS––the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—is an incredible international anti-piracy and anti-drug-running tool, but as the House of Lords discussed in 2022, it needs upgrading to include measures on modern slavery and human trafficking. What work are the Government doing on that in the international sphere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps someone on the Front Bench would like to answer.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order. I was not aware that he was going to raise it, and I have to say that it is news to me; most regimental associations that I know cannot be pressured by anyone from outside. However, I am grateful to him for raising the issue in the House. Anything that interferes with the parliamentary process is of concern to all Members of the House, and I will certainly look into it and get back to him.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say thank you to the Secretary of State for answering that point of order? It saves me from getting involved, but we recognise how important organisations are. Nobody should be stifled.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to make a statement to update the House on the action we took last night against a Houthi military target. We did so in collective self-defence and to uphold the freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.

Yesterday, UK forces conducted a joint operation with US allies against a Houthi military facility in Yemen. Our intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings 15 miles south of Sanaa used by the Houthis to manufacture drones of the type used to attack ships in the Red sea and in the gulf of Aden. Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4s, with air refuelling support from RAF Voyager tankers, struck a number of those buildings with Paveway IV precision bombs last night. This action was limited, targeted and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life. Everyone involved in the UK operation has returned to base safely. On behalf of the House, I thank all members of our armed forces involved in this operation and pay tribute to them for their total professionalism and courage.

Yesterday’s operation was carried out alongside the US, our closest security ally. It was conducted in line with both the UN charter and the established UK policy of this Government and the last; you will remember, Mr Speaker, that when Labour was in opposition, it backed the Government when they conducted five separate strikes with the US against Houthi targets.

Yesterday’s attack aligns with four broad objectives. The first is to restore freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, the second is to degrade Houthi capability and prevent future attacks, the third is to reinforce regional security alongside allies and partners, and the fourth is to protect our economic security at home. First thing this morning, the Government briefed the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the Speakers of both Houses; the Liberal Democrats’ defence spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I can now tell the House that our initial assessment is that the planned targets were all successfully hit, and we have seen no evidence of civilian casualties.

Since November 2023, the Houthis have been waging a campaign of aggression against international shipping in the Red sea. To date, there have been over 320 attacks; those attacks are illegal and deadly, and we totally condemn them. Maritime routes have been disrupted, sailors have been killed, and commercial ships have been hit and sunk. The Houthis have even targeted aid vessels destined for Yemen itself, as well as military vessels of our allies and partners. Both the Royal Navy and the US navy have been forced into action in the Red sea—last September, I met the crew of HMS Diamond, who shot down a ballistic missile and multiple drones in self-defence during their deployment in the Red sea.

Make no mistake: the Houthis act as an agent of instability across the region. They continue to receive both military and financial backing from Iran, and even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations. The aggression in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is yet another example of how our adversaries are increasingly working together against our interests. As such, I want to be clear that this Government reject any Houthi claims that attacking ships in the Red sea is somehow supporting Gaza. The Houthis were targeting tankers and seizing ships well before the war in Gaza began, and their attacks since have targeted vessels of all nations, so hear me when I say that these attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people or the push for a lasting peace.

An estimated 12% of global trade and 30% of container traffic passes through the Red sea every year, but the Houthi threat has led to a drastic fall. Levels are down by 55% on what they were in November 2023; the majority of ships now take a 5,000-mile diversion around the Cape of Good Hope, adding a full fortnight to a journey between Asia and Europe and pushing up prices for the goods that British people and others rely on. This cannot continue.

In opposition, I argued that, for what is now 80 years,

“the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 355.]

Since last month, the US has been conducting a sustained campaign, targeting the Houthis in Yemen to restore freedom of navigation. It moved two carriers into the region, and its recent strikes have destroyed multiple command and control centres, air defence systems, advanced weapons manufacturing sites and advanced weapons storage sites. The US military says that its operations have now degraded the effectiveness of the Houthi attack, reporting that ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69% and one-way drone attacks are down by 55%.

The US continues to be the UK’s closest security ally. It is stepping up in the Red sea, and we are alongside it. Yesterday’s joint operation builds on the broader support that we have provided to the US in the region in recent months. That includes air-to-air refuelling; the use of our important military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations; and RAF Typhoons to support the defence of the US carrier strike group, which has been coming under near-daily attack from Houthi missiles and drones.

This Government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security. The UK is stepping up and encouraging allies to do more to protect our common security, just as we are with the eight-month deployment of our carrier strike group to the Mediterranean and the Indo-Pacific, which started last week. The UK has a long and proud history of taking action to protect freedom of navigation. This illegal Houthi aggression does not just disrupt shipping and destabilise the region; it hits our economy here at home. That is why the Government took this decision. It is why the UK has taken this action to help protect freedom of navigation, reinforce regional stability and strengthen economic security for families across the country. We are determined that we will keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies.

With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source.

The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability.

The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation.

That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran?

The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless?

Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday:

“it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.”

The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency?

[John Healey]

I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.

When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his in-person briefing beforehand.

I am glad that our brave service personnel who were involved in yesterday’s strike have returned home safely, and that the precision sovereign strike has destroyed the drone factory with no civilian casualties. I agree with the Secretary of State that Houthi attacks since 2023 have tragically killed innocent merchant mariners, led to a shocking 55% drop in shipping through the Red sea costing billions, fuelled regional instability, and exacerbated the cost of living crisis here in the UK and across the globe. However, on the basis of current intelligence, how confident is he that following yesterday’s strike there will be freedom of navigation and that there will be no further loss of life because of the Houthis?

[John Healey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action that we took overnight. It was part of a sustained campaign—a US campaign that we are working alongside. There is no overnight solution to this, but according to the evidence reported by the US military about this new sustained, intensive campaign, it seems to be having an effect on the pace, the rate, and the threat that the Houthis pose. Our action last night was designed to reinforce that campaign, to support the push for regional stability, and to protect the domestic economy and protect against the impact of the disruption in international shipping and its effect on prices for ordinary people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today.

The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes.

Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties?

[John Healey]

Before I respond to the hon. Lady, may I point out that I neglected to respond to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on the subject of the SDR? When it is published in the spring, all his questions will be answered.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s recognition of the importance of degrading the military capabilities of the Houthis, and I welcome her support for the action that we took last night. I say to her with confidence and reassurance that our own UK intelligence and communications systems remain secure.

The hon. Lady asked, “Why now?” First, the decision and the action that we took were in line with long-established policy, both UK policy and the United Nations charter. Secondly, it was a reflection of the fact that, as I have reported to the House, the US is stepping up and we, as a close ally, are alongside it in this action. Thirdly, our purpose is to protect our economy at home, because most of the shipping in this busiest of international sea routes makes a big detour that pushes up prices and has a direct impact on not just our security interests but our economic interests in Britain. That is why we are acting.

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Houthis say that they are shelling international shipping in order to help the Palestinians, but does my right hon. Friend agree that by not just undermining international trade but causing a devastating decline in the use of the Suez canal and crashing the numbers of cruise ships visiting Aqaba, they are actually attacking Egypt and Jordan—two countries which could not be working harder for a future for the Palestinians, which could not be giving more support, whether it is financial, political or diplomatic, and which provide a refuge for so many? Does he agree that if the Houthis really care about the Palestinians, they should simply stop this?

[John Healey]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Jordan and Egypt are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in trying to support the Palestinians, and it is notable that there is no evidence that the Houthis have provided any aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. The action that they are taking, which is causing disruption and the intensification of insecurity in the region, is doing absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians’ cause.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome this action and join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to our exemplary armed forces. It is essential that we tackle the tentacles of Iran through all its proxies—whether it is the Houthis, Hamas or Hezbollah—which do so much damage to Israel and the wider middle east, and not least to the people of Palestine. One fundamental question, as he will know from our discussions when I was Deputy Prime Minister, is about the long-term strategy to eliminate the threat of the Houthis to Red sea shipping. For the benefit of the House, will the Defence Secretary give some further indication of the new Government’s thinking on the long-term strategy to address this threat?

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for going out of his way when he was Deputy Prime Minister, as this Government are doing now, to ensure that we were well briefed on such strikes. He is absolutely right to say that military action against the Houthis can take us only so far. The wider strategy must, therefore, involve the UK doing what we can to work with allies, especially in the region: first, to constrain the Houthis, as our action overnight was designed to do; secondly, to bolster the strength, authority and capability of the Yemeni Government, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), announced support earlier this year; and thirdly, to pursue the importance of a negotiated settlement that gives Yemen a peaceful way forward, while in the meantime not losing sight of our responsibility as a nation to support the Yemeni people, who are suffering greatly.

The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary announced in January an extra £5 million-worth of UK aid for Yemen, which brought the total over the previous 12 months to £144 million. The UK remains the third largest donor to the Yemeni humanitarian programme.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and echo his words about the courage and professionalism of our service personnel. It is good that everyone has returned safely.

Having a strong and capable military is essential to ensuring our economic security and freedom of trade. Is that not why financial institutions and pension funds should increase their investment in defence industries, and not listen to voices opposed to that?

[John Healey]

Quite right. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear about the work that I and the Chancellor have commissioned together on the barriers in the UK that are holding back private sources of investment in our defence and technology industries. An important part of the defence industrial strategy, which we will be able to publish before too long, will be about how we use the big commitment of this Government and this country to invest in defence and make our armed forces fit for the future, and how we can use that to leverage much more investment from private sector sources so that we can do more, more quickly.

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

It is unusual for a terrorist group engaged in a civil war to invite retaliation of this sort by attacking international shipping so comprehensively. Clearly, the Houthis are acting as an agent of Iran. Can the Secretary of State advise us what the Government know about the ability of Iran to keep fuelling the attacks in the Red sea? Now that the domestic ability to manufacture drones in Yemen has been degraded, how easy will it be for Iran to supply them directly to the Houthis?

[John Healey]

The short answer is that we must do what we can with allies to make it as hard as possible for Iran to maintain both its financial support to the Houthis and its logistical, munitions and military support and supplies. We are working on that with allies and, as I said to the House earlier, the straight military action that we were conducting last night is part of the solution for the long term. It is not the whole solution.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We have had a long-standing relationship with the US, which is our closest security ally. Does he agree that our continued work on AUKUS will help to deepen and strengthen that for all the nations involved?

[John Healey]

It will indeed. The AUKUS programme is a good example of how big defence commitments provide not just long-term deterrent commitments to our own security and that of our allies but an important economic boost, showing how defence can be a driver of economic growth. My hon. Friend, who has the privilege of representing the town of Barrow and its royal shipyard, will know better than anyone how important that combination is. It is hardwired into the approach that this Government take.

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

The brutal oppression of the Palestinians in Gaza will not be helped one iota by the bombing of merchant shipping and drone strikes against the merchant marine, so we are supportive of the action that has been taken. It seems to be an operation that has the appearance of something which may endure into a more strategic affair. Does the Secretary of State agree that, notwithstanding the general consensus in the Chamber on the action that was taken, a broader debate in Parliament would be desirable—not to discuss operational imperatives, plans or anything of that nature, but to further reinforce the will of the House? While he celebrates the actions of aircrew, will he further acknowledge that the aircrew would not be able to do their tremendous work if it was not for all the other trades that keep them mobilised?

[John Healey]

Well said. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that standing behind our armed forces and the ultimate professionalism that they display is a large cadre of civilian and military personnel who make operations successful and possible. He would be wrong to say that this is a sustained campaign. This is the first UK strike on Houthi positions since May last year, and Parliament will be kept informed in the event of any future military interventions like this.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is essential to the global economic system, and anything that impinges on it impacts the global economy, increases the cost to the environment and impacts the poorest people in the world. It is for this reason that I am proud to be the former commander of the expeditionary air wing whose Typhoons and Voyagers were launched last night to carry out these strikes. Does the Defence Secretary agree that this action forms part of the joined-up international strategy to end the attacks and defend freedom of navigation?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. It is part of a longer-term programme to degrade the ability of the Houthis to hit international shipping, to defend and protect freedom of navigation, and to recognise that conflicts in the middle east have a big impact on business and prosperity in this country. The British Chambers of Commerce recently published a survey that said 50% of businesses in Britain report that they have now been impacted by conflicts in the middle east.

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

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and congratulate all involved on a very successful joint operation. Matters like this are likely to attract retaliation from Iran and its proxies. What is being done to support our allies in the region against possible attacks? As Carrier Strike Group 25 prepares to transit and exercise in the region on Operation Highmast, will he assure the House—without going into specifics—that all is being done to protect our men and women?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman, who I think served as a Defence Minister under two Administrations, will know that Defence Ministers and Secretaries, including me, give the highest priority to our forces’ protection. My hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister and I went over that matter in detail with military planners and chiefs before the carrier group set sail, and I was briefed on that again when the Prime Minister and I visited the carrier last week. In general terms, the operation last night was designed to prevent further escalation. It was designed to prevent further Houthi attacks by taking out the major weapons manufacturing site that we struck last night.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of all our service personnel who were involved in this successful operation. Does he agree that the whole House should stand together against the Houthi attacks, which challenge freedom of navigation and, if left unaddressed, could lead to a devastating rise in the cost of essential food items not just for my constituents but across the UK and in other countries?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend puts the argument very well. This is a matter of freedom of navigation and a matter of international law, but it is also a matter of economic self-interest for Britain, because the price for the disruption to world shipping on this essential trade route through the Red sea is paid by ordinary people in the food and goods they depend on. That is in part why we took this action last night.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the professionalism of our armed forces, and I am thankful for their safe return. Is the Secretary of State confident about the appropriate security for our military personnel, given that the previous leaks from the Trump Administration on Signal gave details of such attacks before they happened, and what reassurances has he had from the United States on that?

[John Healey]

I am confident. We handle secure communications in secure ways, and we do that consistently here in the UK.

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

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the armed forces personnel who took part in last night’s action. The fact that it is the UK that is supporting the USA in this action really does emphasise our close relationship. However, this morning’s newspapers suggest that our desire to do a trade deal with America has been pushed back to a second tranche of countries, or maybe even a third. Does he share my disappointment at that decision, and would he ask the Trump Administration to return to that issue and to consider our close relationship in defence and intelligence?

[John Healey]

I gently urge my hon. Friend not necessarily to believe everything he reads in the newspapers. He is very experienced and has a very good insight into the political world. Just to reassure him, we are pulling out all the stops behind the scenes to try to settle a trade deal with the US, just as we are to reinforce the special depth of the relationship on security and defence matters between the UK and the US.

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

I very much welcome the statement and the action, which I fully support, and I am very pleased to hear of the level of engagement by the US. The Secretary of State will recall that the humanitarian situation in Yemen was the subject of frequent debate and discussion during the previous Parliament, but it appears to have fallen off the agenda, partly because of atrocious conflicts elsewhere. I was pleased to hear what he said about the FCDO’s approach, but as the FCDO has more constrained resources, will he ensure that the humanitarian situation in Yemen remains a priority?

[John Healey]

I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has that in mind. He will be conscious, as is the right hon. Gentleman, that the UK acts not just as the third-largest donor to the Yemen humanitarian programme, but as the penholder for Yemen at the United Nations.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and associate myself with his words about our brave military personnel. Does he agree that we must reiterate how the Houthi attacks are illegal, are against the UN charter and target the principle of freedom of navigation, which benefits all nations, including our allies in the region? Does he also agree that our action shows that working in concert with our allies internationally can improve regional stability and security, and indeed our security here at home?

[John Healey]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. This is a matter of reinforcing regional stability and a matter of defending and protecting freedom of navigation, but it is also a matter of protecting our own economic interests back home, and I make no apology for standing up for British interests and those of our allies.

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

We in Reform fully endorse the Government’s action against the Houthis, and we thank our brave and brilliant military personnel. The Secretary of State referred to the continuing support of the Houthis by Iran, so will he update the House on further sanctions against Iran? Surely now is the time to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that I will not comment on the process of proscription. Suffice it to say, the Government have sanctioned a number of major Houthi leaders. I welcome his welcome for the action we took last night, and I hope he will take that action as a sign of a determination to do what we can, alongside our US allies, to degrade their ability to continue to threaten freedom of navigation for international shipping.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

The Houthis are acting freely in the absence of a road map for peace. Yemen is facing the worst humanitarian crisis, with 22 million people needing assistance, of whom 11 million are children, and in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies. To defeat the Houthis permanently, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that this Government, along with allies, will do all that is possible to deliver a road map for peace and ensure that this happens now, because otherwise it will be a lost opportunity?

[John Healey]

As I said earlier, my responsibility as Defence Secretary is for the military components of the wider approach that must be pursued if we are to help play an important role in securing peace and a settlement to end the civil war in Yemen, and to provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of Yemenis who are suffering so severely. Constraining the Houthi threat is part of that, as is reinforcing and bolstering the Yemeni Government, but working with allies, particularly the leading regional allies, in trying to force the pace of a negotiated settlement and a peace in Yemen is absolutely crucial.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and I add my thanks to, and appreciation for, the Royal Air Force and all those involved in this successful operation. In his statement he said that

“even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations.”

However, does it not go a little bit deeper than that? The Wall Street Journal has reported that targeting data provided by Russia has been utilised by the Houthis for their attacks against western shipping, while Iran has arbitrated secret talks between the terror group and the Kremlin. What steps is he taking to disrupt Russia’s deepening ties to Iran and its proxies across the middle east?

[John Healey]

I am really not going to disclose in public, or even to this House, the steps that we are taking to deal with some of that covert Russian activity, which goes well beyond Yemen to the wider middle east. Suffice it to say, the hon. Member has made a contribution to the discussion on this statement by bringing that report from The Wall Street Journal to the House.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I add my words of support for the action the UK took last night. The Houthi group is a terrorist organisation that has been deeply destabilising and it is right that we are playing our role in protecting freedom of navigation. The Halesowen community of Yemenis are really concerned about the desperate humanitarian situation in Yemen. Could the Secretary of State add a few more words on what we are doing to support Yemenis who are so desperate right now, and what we are doing to end the civil war?

[John Healey]

Yes. I mentioned the in-year uplift that the Foreign Secretary gave to our contribution to the Yemeni humanitarian assistance plan, which makes us the third-largest donor. Our focus on aid has been especially on food, of which there is a critical shortage and which is a necessity to hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. We calculate that we will have helped almost 900,000 Yemenis with our food support this year. Our support is also in healthcare, supporting over 700 medical centres across the country with medicines, vaccines and some of the basic equipment needed to provide the healthcare that people also so desperately need in that country.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I share the recognition of the RAF’s role in last night’s operation. Given the existing global commitments of our Typhoon squadrons, should the coalition of the willing provide a military contribution to any post-war force in Ukraine, and therefore a combat air patrol or air policing role in Ukraine, in addition to the Baltic and the high north, how will we continue to facilitate direct action, such as the strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, with no plans to purchase a second tranche of F-35Bs?

[John Healey]

On Ukraine and a potential role in a coalition of the willing on security guarantees—if a negotiated peace settlement, which we all hope President Trump secures, can be put in place—we are planning at the moment. The consequences of any commitments we make will be fully explained to the House if a decision is made, but that is contingent on a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and that is contingent principally upon Putin doing what he says he wants by seeking an end to the fighting.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and pay tribute to all those involved in the successful strike. Does he agree that this Government will always put personnel at the heart of our defence plans?

[John Healey]

For too long, I believe, the previous Government overlooked that. They certainly failed to meet their recruitment tests. I am proud to be a Defence Secretary in a Labour Government who was able, last year, to give armed forces personnel the largest pay increase for 20 years, and to be the first Defence Secretary who can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that nobody in uniform will be paid less now than the national living wage. I am also proud to have managed to do a deal to buy back and bring into public control 36,000 family military homes, following what was quite the worst privatisation ever, in 1996 under the previous Tory Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State talked about the devastation in Yemen, with 11 million people in desperate need of help and support, and the civil war conditions that pertain there. On the armed intervention that Britain made yesterday, we all need to know where it will lead, what the end game is, whether we are involved in an internal war in Yemen, and what the long-term implications of our involvement are. Ultimately, there has to be some kind of peace process in Yemen, just as much as there has to be in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Does this action bring peace nearer, or does it exacerbate the danger of a widening conflict?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the extreme hardship faced by many Yemenis in what has been a war-torn country for years. The strikes last night were designed to reduce and prevent the risk of further Houthi attacks, and they were done because we were able to take out an important facility where the Houthis had been manufacturing the very weapons used to target international shipping and our own.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and add my thanks to our service personnel for their action. I would like to talk about what the Houthis have been doing alongside the other terrorist proxies in the middle east, Hamas and Hezbollah, who are controlled by Iran. Therefore, what is this country’s policy on disrupting and containing that network, and attacking the heart of it—namely, Iran itself?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Iran is a destabilising influence across the region, not just in its own terms but in particular in the way it has developed, sponsored and supplied proxy groups. The Houthis are clearly supplied and supported by Iran. Part of the long-term ability to see a secure and conflict-free middle east has got to be a reconciliation that Iran has: for it to stop using those proxies to threaten its neighbours in the region and the interests of countries such as ours.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

US action in recent weeks has considerably degraded ballistic missile and drone attacks, and I welcome these RAF strikes. However, the action will work only if it is sustained. Will the Defence Secretary commit to ongoing UK and RAF direct support to US Operation Rough Rider to strike Houthi terrorists, rather than the ad hoc approach adopted so far, so that we can properly restore freedom of navigation?

[John Healey]

Operation Rough Rider is a US military campaign. We took action last night alongside the US. Any future military interventions such as last night’s will be reported to the House.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in the action overnight. Does he agree with me that the USA has always been, and will remain, our strongest and most steadfast security ally?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. The US-UK defence relationship has a special depth that has lasted decades. We do things together as two nations that no other nations do: we train together, we exercise together and at times we have to fight together.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I am relieved to hear that the strategic defence review is coming in the spring—with a great yellow ball in the sky, I assume that will be fairly soon. In all military operations time is the enemy, and I am concerned about reports that the SDR may only be a broadbrush document—an interim document, as it were—and that the important decisions on specific capabilities and weapons systems may not be taken until autumn. Are we marching on to war? If so, should we not be doing so at the double, rather than at a slow march?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has managed to broaden his question from this specific statement on the overnight strikes. The strategic defence review is a strategic defence review. It will be published in the spring. It has been an unprecedented and externally led process, which has allowed to us to take stock of the threats we face and the capabilities we need, and to do so within the unprecedented increase in defence funding that this Government have now committed to over the next 10 years.

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

In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to Russian attempts to support Houthi operations. Without compromising any information that he is unable to share, how would he rate the effectiveness of those Russian interventions, as well as the UK response? Does he agree that they show that we must continue to support Ukraine in every way we can to undermine the dictator Vladimir Putin?

[John Healey]

It does indeed, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend has been steadfast from the Back Benches as a strong voice for Ukraine, and I welcome his support for the actions the UK Government have offered, and for our leadership. On the effectiveness of Russian action and interventions in Yemen, I am more concerned to ensure that any military action that this Government sanction is effective, and that the outstanding military personnel who are involved return safely. I am happy to report to the House that that was the case last night.

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

On 17 March, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the UK had taken a kinetic role in strikes against the Houthis under the previous US Government, but have not taken an active role in those carried out by this US Government. We have since seen those leaked Signal messages in which the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, lamented the lack of European involvement in the strikes on 15 March. How much has the involvement of British jets in these strikes come as a response to the allegation by Pete Hegseth of European freeloading?

[John Healey]

The strikes that we conducted last night were a result of the fact that America, our closest ally, has been coming under near daily attack from the Houthis; that shipping has more than halved through that Red sea route; and that 50% of UK businesses now say that they have been impacted by conflict in the middle east. I make no apology for defending Britain’s interests, and the interests of our allies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for giving us the comprehensive information that we need. I congratulate our armed forces and our allies on a successful strike against this facility—long may those targeted and successful operations continue. What further steps will be taken with our NATO allies—quite simply, we cannot do this without them; we need them—to secure the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, and thereby lower shipping costs and consumer costs for all those who are paying the price for the evil actions of the Houthis?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say this is bigger and more important than just UK or even US action. I reported to the House earlier that the broader challenges that he sets out were discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers, and have been discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7 within the last month.

Ukraine Update

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Today, HMS Prince of Wales set sail from Portsmouth. I trust that the whole House will join me in wishing the entire carrier strike group a safe and successful global deployment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the ongoing war in Ukraine. Today, Parliament returns from our Easter break, and during the past two weeks Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has continued, with drone strikes, missile attacks and fierce fighting on the frontline. On Palm Sunday, men, women and children in Sumy on their way to church were hit by Putin’s deadliest attack on Ukrainian civilians so far this year, killing 35 people, including young children, and injuring over 100 more. We are united in condemnation of this brutal attack and of Putin’s illegal actions.

At this critical moment for Ukraine and for European security, we have stepped up the Government’s efforts in support of Ukraine, and we will step up further to increase military support for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow. We cannot jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war, so 10 days ago in Brussels, the UK convened and I co-chaired the 27th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside my good friend the German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. Some 51 nations and partners from Europe, the Indo-Pacific and South America came together at NATO headquarters with Ukrainian President Zelensky, US Defence Secretary Hegseth and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We came together to step up support for Ukraine in the fight. Together we pledged a record €21 billion of military support to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position and to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate.

This year, the UK is providing £4.5 billion in military support to Ukraine—more than ever before. In Brussels, I announced that £200 million of that support will be surged to the frontline, with supplies starting to reach Ukraine’s fighters within this month, including radar systems, anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of drones. I also announced £160 million to help repair and maintain essential battlefield vehicles and equipment. This support will strengthen Ukrainian troops in the close fight, and it will also strengthen our industrial links with Ukraine and boost UK businesses.

President Trump talks about peace through strength, and it is the commitments made through the Ukraine defence contact group that provide the strength to secure that peace. Despite President Putin’s promise of a 30-hour pause in fighting, I can confirm that Defence Intelligence has found

“no indication that a ceasefire on the frontline was observed over the Easter period”.

Some 10,000 missiles and drones have been fired into Ukraine this year alone, including from the Black sea. While Putin has said he declared an Easter truce, he broke it. While Putin says he wants peace, he has rejected a full ceasefire. While Putin says he wants to put an end to the fighting, he continues to play for time in the negotiations.

The Russian military continues to pressure Ukraine on a number of fronts. I can confirm that Russian military progress is slowing. Putin gained less territory in March than he did in February, and less territory in February than he did in January. Ukrainian towns that Russia has been targeting since before Christmas have still not been captured. Ukrainian troops have still not been ejected from Russian territory in Kursk.

Whatever ground Putin is taking comes at a huge human cost. More than 940,000 Russians are likely to have been killed or injured in the war so far, including 150,000 killed or injured this year alone. Last month the average daily casualty rate on the Russian side was 1,300, almost double the rate this time last year. At home, Putin faces crippling interest rates of 21%, while inflation is running at over 10% and the Russian Government are spending nearly 40% of their entire budget on his military campaign. It is, however, likely that in the days ahead Russia will keep up attacks on the Sumy oblast to help it to reclaim nearby contested areas of Kursk.

In the central Donetsk oblast, Russia is targeting urban strongholds such as Toretsk, Povrosk and Chasiv Yar, and in Kharkiv, Russia continues to make assaults towards the rail and logistics hub of Kupiansk. We expect more ground to be taken and more Russian missiles to be fired into Ukraine, which is why we must remain united for Ukraine—across the House, across the country, and across those nations standing alongside Ukraine. We must step up support for Ukraine and pressure on Putin, to force him to recognise that now is the time for peace and that continuing the war will prove to be much worse for Russia in the long run.

We believe that peace is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes, so as well as providing vital military aid, the UK Government continue the push for peace. The Foreign Secretary joined ceasefire discussions with the United States, France, Germany and Ukraine in Paris last week, and in Brussels 10 days ago, along with my good friend the French Defence Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, I convened and co-chaired the first Defence Ministers’ meeting of the coalition of the willing, with 30 countries coming together to build on the hard work of more than 200 military planners from Europe and beyond.

That operational planning must remain classified, but I can assure the House that the plans are real, substantial and well developed. Our reassurance force will have clear objectives for Ukraine: first, to secure safe skies; secondly, to secure safe seas; thirdly, to support peace on the land; and fourthly, to help the Ukrainian armed forces become their own strongest possible deterrent against future Russian attacks. In the days ahead this detailed planning will continue, domain by domain, and nations will continue to provide firm commitments for the coalition. Tomorrow I will meet Ukrainian Defence Minister Umerov and other allies as the Government bring together the United States, the United Kingdom, and European Ministers and national defence security advisers to discuss the next steps. That will include discussing what a ceasefire might look like, and how to secure peace in the long term.

This war was never just about the fate of one nation. It is about not allowing national borders to be redrawn by force, and about preventing aggressors across the world from being emboldened to threaten the security of all nations. That is why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It is why UK leadership is playing a unique role, to put Ukraine in the strongest position on the battlefield and in negotiations, and to prepare the building blocks for a lasting peace that will safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty and deter Putin from future aggression. I hope that the House will join me in sending a signal to President Putin, and in saying to Ukraine, “We will stand with you in the fight and we will stand with you in the peace, whenever that may come.”

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s wishing a good and successful mission to the crew of HMS Prince of Wales as it sets sail on its latest trip?

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, both for advance sight of his statement and for the support that was provided by his Department for my recent visit to Ukraine; we provided the same support when we were in government. It was a privilege to pay tribute to the victims of this terrible war at the Wall of Memory in Kyiv, but it was also a powerful reminder of the stark contrast between the reality on the ground of continued casualties and the lies and propaganda from the Kremlin in respect of any so-called ceasefire.

It must be clear that to Putin a ceasefire is simply part of a game—one that he has no intention of pausing—and we must continue to stand with all our allies in being 100% clear about who the aggressor is in this war. Those who pay the price for Putin’s game are innocent civilians, such as those killed in the terrible strike on Sumy on Palm Sunday. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on reports that Russian forces used a cluster munition as part of the attack on civilians, and if so, does this not illustrate the extraordinary contrast between claims of a ceasefire and the reality of the Russians’ continued indiscriminate bombing? In the face of such aggression, we remain proud of the extraordinary role that the United Kingdom has played in backing Ukraine’s struggle under successive Governments, and I welcome the continued support announced by the Ukraine defence contact group.

I turn to the Secretary of State’s latest update on the coalition of the willing. Although we will always stand with the Government in supporting Ukraine, he knows that it would be a major shift to go from the indirect provision of munitions to boots on the ground. Therefore, as the Opposition, we are duty bound to probe what remain several unanswered but very significant practical questions that any such deployment would raise.

A month ago, on 22 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State with a series of questions on the coalition of the willing, but I have yet to receive a reply. Given the importance of those questions, I will ask them now. First, what progress has he made on securing a US military backstop? Secondly, what would be the expected rules of engagement? Thirdly, how many nations have definitively committed to sending troops? Fourthly, will he consider derogating from the European convention on human rights for any deployment, given our military’s previous experience of vexatious lawsuits arising from overseas operations?

Of course, an extraordinary aspect of the coalition of the willing is that we are meant to be leading with France, while at the same time—behind our back—it is seeking to undermine our fishing rights in our sovereign waters over access to a European defence fund that will definitively include non-EU nations. When I pointed that out at oral questions last month, the Secretary of State asked me to “drop” the “Brexit rhetoric”, yet over the Easter recess it was he who blasted the EU’s foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas when she suggested that his plan for troops in Ukraine was unclear. What is clear? Almost alone, we stood by Ukraine from the very beginning of the war, helping it to avoid an early capitulation that would have been a disaster for the whole of Europe. We also offer our nuclear deterrent to European NATO 24/7—not to get better fishing rights, but to defend the freedom of European nations.

A country that does all that should not be excluded from a defence fund that will include non-EU states, and should not face punitive measures against its fishing fleet, when we are meant to be doing everything possible to strengthen European defence solidarity. The Secretary of State needs to understand that this is not about Brexit, Britain or France; it is about the security of the whole of Europe. Does he understand that, and can he confirm categorically that the Government will not offer any concessions on fishing rights in order to secure an EU defence pact?

Finally, I turn to procurement for our own armed forces. Both in Kyiv and with cross-party colleagues in Parliament this morning, I had the pleasure of meeting Ukrainian manufacturers of drones that have been highly effective on the frontline. Will the Secretary of State support such companies to partner with British companies and to set up operations in the UK, both to boost Ukraine and to give our military rapid access to proven capabilities? Given how much of this rests on the strategic defence review, will it be published this month?

[John Healey]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has been to Ukraine recently, and I am glad we were able to facilitate that visit. I am proud of the number of Members of this House who are regularly going to Ukraine. It has a big impact on the Ukrainian population, who do not necessarily hear our debates in the UK. When they see British parliamentarians of all parties and you, Mr Speaker—as the Speaker of this House—in Ukraine, they know that this country stands united and stands with them.

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to contrast Putin’s claims of a ceasefire with the reality of continued brutal attacks, including on the civilian population of Ukraine. He asked about a potential negotiated peace in which we, alongside 30 other nations in the coalition of the willing, consider how best we can help secure a lasting peace, which is what President Trump has promised to deliver. He will have heard the Prime Minister say that we are fully committed to putting British troops on the ground if necessary, and we would do that because the security of the UK starts in Ukraine. He asked about the US, and both I and the Prime Minister have been clear in our discussions with the US that, post a negotiated ceasefire and peace, Ukraine will need long-term security assurances and that there is a role for the US to play in those.

On the ECHR, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone, it is long-standing practice of successive Governments that UK deployments at home and abroad will always comply with international law. That is what sets us apart from nations such as Putin’s Russia. I will not be drawn into what any of the operational deployments may look like, because the only person who benefits from that is President Putin.

The hon. Gentleman raised two other things with me. On the EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas, and the question of a European Union-UK defence agreement and access to the EU programmes that it is stepping up and putting in place, he quite rightly says that we have a part to play and a contribution to make. Kaja Kallas herself has said:

“I think the UK is a very important defence and security partner. It’s the most logical defence and security partner that we have, and it’s a beneficial relationship for both sides.”

That is why she and we are committed to negotiating a defence and security agreement.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the significance of drones in the current battle. It is now the fact that more casualties on both sides are caused by drones than by artillery. On the UK-Ukrainian link, we have helped manufacture, in this country and in Ukraine, and supply over 14,000 drones since the last election in July. This is central to the Ukrainian defence strategy, and it is central to the future of our own forces—

[James Cartlidge]

And the SDR?

[John Healey]

The SDR, as we have said many times, is close to completion. It is being finalised, and it will be published in the spring.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

Although it was saddening to hear about the continued colossal death and destruction in Ukraine, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Indeed, I welcome his leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, which by pledging a record €21 billion, has demonstrated that the 51 allies are firmly committed to helping our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need. He mentioned the many shorter ceasefires that were agreed and then broken, and the question we need to ask ourselves is: when President Putin says he wants a ceasefire, is that actually the case? However, if a much-needed ceasefire is agreed, how confident is the Secretary of State of convening and then keeping the coalition of the willing together?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the job he does in chairing the Defence Committee. One of the trickiest tasks in the work undertaken by our military planners is that it is not clear in what circumstances any forces may be required to be deployed, and it is not clear that the details of the negotiated peace deal we all want to see will be in place. He asked me a straight question, and when the deal is done, the peace is negotiated and the ceasefire is in place, I believe it will actually be easier, not harder, to hold together and enlarge the number of nations willing to be a part of the coalition of the willing. In the meeting I chaired at NATO headquarters 10 days ago—the first ever meeting of the Defence Ministers of the coalition of the willing—the 30 nations around the table, all participating in the detailed operational military planning that is continuing, were not just from Europe but beyond.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million of support to the frontline in Ukraine. Over Easter, Putin proved that he had no interest in securing peace. Within hours of declaring a supposed Easter truce, Putin unleashed a fresh wave of drone and artillery attacks across many parts of the frontline. Meanwhile, President Trump has shown once again his utter indifference towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. After boasting that he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office, he now threatens to withdraw US support for mediating talks altogether. It is no wonder his efforts have failed, given his warped approach of applying pressure to Kyiv while offering the hand of friendship to the Kremlin.

We cannot rely on President Trump if we want to secure a just peace in Ukraine, one that respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination and proves that aggression towards neighbours does not pay. That is why the UK needs to go further and faster, together with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, to support Ukraine and increase the pressure on Putin. Will the Defence Secretary update the House on what steps have been taken to seize the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets across the UK and deploy them to Ukraine? Will he also update the House on whether the Government plan to expand the UK’s designation of vessels that are part of Russia’s shadow fleet and subject to sanctions, helping to further reduce Putin’s ability to fund his war through exported oil revenues?

We welcome the Government’s work to convene discussions on creating a reassurance force for Ukraine. The credibility of the UK’s commitment to such a force would be significantly enhanced by reversing the staggeringly irresponsible 10,000 troop cut to our Army which the Conservatives undertook while in government. Will the Defence Secretary commit to reversing those cuts today?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the surge in UK support to Ukrainian troops on the frontline. It is important to support them at this point in their close fight. That is what we are determined to do, as well as preparing for the longer term peace that we hope will be secured.

On the peace negotiations, I would just say to her that it is President Trump who has created this opportunity for negotiations and for peace, and it really is too soon to call failure on those negotiations. Everything about the determination of some significant US figures and the work they are doing, the discussions we will help support and play a part of in London tomorrow, demonstrates that there is a broad coalition of nations that wants to see a peace in Ukraine, wants to see Putin negotiate seriously, and is willing to take the steps to help bring that about.

On the question of the pressures on Putin, whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian state assets is something we are looking closely at. It is not just a question or a judgment for the UK. It will be much more powerful if that is done with other allies, particularly through the G7. If we make any progress on that front, that is the way we will do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have just come back from Ukraine—I went with other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee—and can certainly confirm what we all know, which is that there is huge gratitude and affection for the United Kingdom in Ukraine. Whatever is happening on the western front, it is a war that affects the whole of the country. Even when we were in the capital, there were three air raids in one day.

There is a desire by Ukrainians to reciprocate and support us as best they can. By necessity, they have become experts in the use of drones and want to share with us their knowledge and skills on training and development and the production of this new weapon system. Will the Government be taking up that opportunity and working with the Ukrainians on this new weapon system?

[John Healey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the job that she is doing chairing the FAC, and for her commitment to Ukraine and her recent visit. I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. I am proud of the way it was led by the previous Government, supported by us in opposition. I am proud that the official Opposition now provide the necessary support for this Government to step up still further the support we can offer.

On drones, it is not just a question, as my right hon. Friend asks, of whether we will do it. We have been doing it, and for some time. I said earlier in response to the shadow Defence Secretary, since the election in July alone, we have gifted more than 14,000 drones to Ukraine. In some cases, those are drones we have made, designed and developed here, and in some cases we have done that jointly with Ukrainian companies. Sometimes, we are ensuring that they can design, develop and manufacture for themselves in Ukraine, because that is the most effective way for Ukraine to reinforce its own armed forces and industry, and it is the quickest way of getting into the hands of frontline troops the necessary equipment and assistance to fight off Putin’s invasion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What worries me is that President Putin has said he will not accept NATO troops on the ground. In the absence of NATO troops on the ground, could we not be back to a 1939 Sudetenland situation where the aggressor takes a slug of territory and then moves in several months later? Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is absolutely convinced—perhaps he can also convince President Trump—that in the absence of NATO troops on the ground, this is a worthless peace?

[John Healey]

No one is talking about NATO troops, Madam Deputy Speaker. The coalition of the willing is a coalition of nations—many but not all of which are NATO members—willing to come together to discuss the military options and plan in close liaison with NATO because there are potential implications for NATO.

President Trump is leading the negotiations. President Putin is not yet negotiating seriously, and is therefore not in a position to lay down terms like those he mentioned. Securing the ultimate objective that President Trump, President Zelensky and we all want to see—not just peace, but a lasting, durable peace—will require reassurance and security support for Ukraine while it develops the strength of its own deterrents to do that for itself in the longer term.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done to secure extra funding for defence and for Ukraine. It is clear that Putin does not want peace and that all he is interested in doing is gaining Ukrainian territory. We have to send a clear message to him that neither we nor our allies are taking a step backwards. The only way we can get a just settlement for Ukraine is for Ukraine to be as militarily powerful as possible to stop the Russians taking more territory. I welcome the efforts that have been made so far and the additional funding, but, as I have said before, we will have to increase defence spending further. The 3% will not be enough by the next election.

[John Healey]

Although there are many experts on defence and security on both sides of this House, my hon. Friend is one of the leading voices, having followed it most closely for a great deal of time. I hear what he says, and I am pleased that he welcomes our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027—three years earlier than anyone expected—and to raise that to 3% in the next Parliament. I know he will also welcome the fact that we are putting an extra £5 billion into defence spending this year as a marker of that intent.

There was nothing in the discussions of the 51 nations and partners at the UDCG in Brussels, which I chaired with the Germans, or of the 30 nations in the coalition of the willing, which I chaired the previous day in Brussels, to suggest that the strength of the nations that stand with Ukraine is diminishing—far from it. We are stepping up and will step up further. We will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the fight, and we will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the peace.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I think the House had risen for Easter recess when President Zelensky announced that 155 Chinese troops had been deployed in support of Russian forces in Ukraine. I invite the Secretary of State to tell us how this major crossing of the Rubicon will change his Government’s approach to China, and how it might inform his discussions with his American counterpart.

[John Healey]

In the same way that President Putin is increasingly relying both on North Korean troops to fight his battles and on Iranian missiles to hit Ukraine, what this demonstrates is his underlying weakness, not his strength. Part of the very strong message that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave when he recently visited his counterparts in China is that we see the importance of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific as a matter not just for those nations in that region, and that the discussion on the future of Taiwan is necessarily one to be conducted by peaceful negotiation rather than by threats and conflict. There was also a very strong concern that the matter of stability, security and peace continuing in the Indo-Pacific is something of which we want China to be very well aware.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this topic, and not just in the UK but in Europe. My question relates to tactics. Over the weekend, I spoke on LinkedIn with a British sniper who was formerly in the Army but is now fighting for the Ukrainians on the frontline. He told me about the tactical changes that he has had to make to how he operates, but those changes are not reflected in our own sniper training in the Army, the Royal Marines and the British forces. Therefore, if we are talking about a coalition of the willing and UK troops potentially being involved in defence, when will we update the training syllabus for our own forces to reflect the tactics currently in use in Ukraine?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks on this from a position of great experience and authority. He points to something that hits at the heart of the strategic defence review, which is close to being finalised. Hardwired into the terms of reference in July, when the Prime Minister commissioned the review, is the fact that we need to learn the lessons from Ukraine, not in order to fight in Ukraine, but in order to recognise that the nature of warfare is changing—the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned the importance of drones—which means that the combination of forces needs to be more integrated. They need to be driven much more by technology, and that will have implications not just for equipment, but for training. I know that my hon. Friend will look forward to the publication of the SDR and that he will be on the case, including for the Defence Committee, to ensure that it is fully implemented. I welcome his contribution to those debates.

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

Coupled with the decision of the leader of the free world to describe Ukraine as the aggressor in this war is the news today that America may be considering no longer supplying the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO. Is the Defence Secretary looking forward as much as the rest of us are to hearing what President Trump has to say, if he comes to this Parliament in September, about how it is that the system that kept the peace in Europe for 50 years after the second world war is no longer applicable for the future?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman and I will both look forward to the President’s visit to this country when it is staged. I know that he is so experienced in this area, but I caution him against chasing these most recent comments, or regarding them as somehow profound. I would say that the US, led by President Trump—and this has been reinforced by Defence Secretary Hegseth—has rightly challenged Europe to step up on defence spending, on European security and on Ukraine.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

indicated assent.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. But Europe and other nations stepping up does not mean that the US is stepping away. When our Prime Minister was in the White House with President Trump, they had—in public and on camera—a detailed discussion about NATO, in which President Trump reaffirmed his total commitment to article 5 of the NATO treaty.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. It is clear that Russia’s aggression undermines our security right here at home in the UK. Does he agree that the outcome of this war matters deeply to every one of our constituents across the country?

[John Healey]

In the high politics of international peace negotiations, and in the brutal drama and killing of the battlefield, it is often easy to overlook the fact that our ability as a Government, and our ability as a nation, to offer Ukraine such support depends on the well of support of the British people. My hon. Friend is right that this battle for the future of Ukraine and the huge courage that Ukrainian men and women—military and civilian alike—are showing in resisting Putin’s invasion matters to us in the UK. It matters not just because the defence of the UK and Europe starts in Ukraine; it also matters to the British people who opened their homes to refugee Ukrainians over three years ago when Putin invaded. It matters to people in this country because they recognise that the Ukrainians are fighting for what we also hold dear: the right to elect their own Government and to determine their own future as a country, and to do that without the menace of a big power and a dictator like Putin over their shoulder.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Defence Secretary has acknowledged MPs from across the House who have visited Ukraine. I wanted to briefly share my experience. When I visited a Ukrainian hospital, I met a man who was suffering from a chemical weapons attack, and doctors were struggling to treat him because they did not know what chemical weapons had been used. Can the Secretary of State please confirm what monitoring the MOD does of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Ukraine, and how is the UK raising that with international partners?

[John Healey]

We would abhor any use of chemical weapons. I am not aware of those reports, but I will check them out and write to the hon. Gentleman. He rightly points to the very sharpest end of this Ukrainian fight, which is those injured servicemen and women in Ukrainian hospitals. I am pleased to say that, from almost the first month, the UK Government were putting in place UK military medical support for the Ukrainian system. We stepped that up recently, three months ago, when I announced an increase in support and funding for it. It is an important part of the contribution we can make to keeping Ukraine in this fight.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the comments from my right hon. Friend about the need to spend more of our defence funds on buying weapons made in this country. It is a really helpful comment. The other day I was at BAE Systems, which is building a new factory in my constituency to produce artillery weapons, some of which I hope will go to Ukraine. Can my right hon. Friend commit that we will supply those weapons to Ukraine while-ever Ukraine wants them, and we will treat with a degree of scepticism and complete contempt the comments by Putin, trying to manufacture some sort of fake peace to suit his own ends?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend mentions a company in his constituency. I do not know whether he is also referring to Sheffield Forgemasters in his constituency, which is a proud industrial firm in Sheffield, in south Yorkshire, that will be making British steel to supply to a new Rheinmetall artillery barrel factory. It is a new investment in this country, directly as a result of the Trinity House agreement struck in October between the UK and Germany, and it will create 400 jobs in Britain. It will mean that we are able to produce gun barrels in this country for the first time in over 10 years. It is a good example of investment, just like the £1.6 billion that I announced a couple of months ago for new short-range air defence missiles for Ukraine. We will see over 5,000 of those produced in Northern Ireland, creating an extra 200 jobs in Thales in Belfast. It is a good example of where we can support Ukraine, strengthen our own national security and boost economic growth at the same time.

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

“Reassurance force” sounds like a euphemism for escalation that would expose our boys and girls to very significant risk, yet on 3 March the Prime Minister said to me, from the Dispatch Box, that we would not be deploying troops to Ukraine without a US backstop and without a US security guarantee. He was right, wasn’t he?

[John Healey]

I have already said this afternoon that the Prime Minister has made it clear to President Trump, as I have done to Secretary Hegseth in the US, that we support absolutely their bid to secure a negotiated peace and we expect there to be a role for the US in helping to secure that peace for the long term. What we are leading alongside the French is a determined effort—a coalition of the willing—that demonstrates that European nations like us and the French, with the capability to lead such a deployment, are willing to step up and do more. But, as I have said, Europe and nations like the UK stepping up does not necessarily mean the US stepping away.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The strength of unity these past few weeks in the Ukraine defence contact group and the coalition of the willing has sent an important signal at a critical time for Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is critical that we and allies express our unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to exist, its freedom and its national sovereignty?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might help me with some of my speechwriting, as he put it succinctly and much more sharply than I have done this afternoon. This is what is at stake as the Ukrainians fight for their future, fight for their country and fight for their freedom. It is down to us to provide them with the support that they need both in the fight and in the efforts to negotiate a longer-term peace.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. There is much in it by way of a helpful update, but the key element of it for all of us should be on the final page, where he says that we must not allow

“borders to be redrawn by force”.

That enjoys unanimous support.

I have a question on the £4.5 billion. How much of that is rolled over from previous commitments, and will the Secretary of State update the House on how much of it is consumed in this financial year? How much of it is in cash support and how much of it is in matériel?

When it comes to potential air policing in Ukraine, that will be on top of air policing in the south Atlantic, quick reaction alert from Coningsby and Lossiemouth, and air policing in the Baltic and the eastern Mediterranean. Would it not be unconscionable to try to do that without a substantial new order of Tranche 4 Typhoons?

[John Healey]

The hon. Member asks about the £4.5 billion. That is the scale of military support to Ukraine this year. It is more than this country has committed at any time before. That is a combination of £3 billion this year, plus £1.5 billion from the proceeds of the seized assets that we are also deploying. We are doing this according to a joint plan that we have developed with Ukraine for 2025 so that we look to supply what it needs most.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was quite right to say that the announcement by President Putin of a pause in fighting over the Easter weekend was a false promise. We have seen many false promises from Putin, and his aggression against not just Ukraine but the whole of Europe is really concerning. While we were on recess, he had to scramble RAF Typhoons to the Baltic to intercept an Ilyushin Il-20M spy aircraft. What more will he do to protect NATO air and maritime space from the aggression of Putin and Russia?

[John Healey]

The simple answer is that we will do whatever is required as a UK contribution to the NATO alliance. I am proud of the leading role that the UK plays in NATO. I am also proud of the fact that NATO now is bigger, stronger and, with 32 nations, a better deterrent force than it was when Putin first launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That demonstrates how Putin’s strategic aims in launching the invasion have come unstuck and so far he has failed to secure any of them. As my hon. Friend has said, Putin says he wants peace and an end to the fighting; now is the time, for the first time, for him to demonstrate that, to match his words with his actions and to negotiate seriously for that long-term, lasting peace.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for taking the first opportunity to make this important statement? I congratulate him on his work with the coalition of the willing. It will be important in that—building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge)—to understand the terms of engagement if that is to happen and peace is to be secured. We cannot permit woolly thinking, because that could allow another situation like Srebrenica to happen again. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he is working hard, that what any terms of engagement would be is on the agenda, and that people are crystal clear about what those terms could be to secure peace?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I can, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right: the potential terms of engagement are an important part of any planning, as are the terms of any peace process and settlement. That will set the framework for the potential role of any reassurance force. I can say to him and to the House that at the appropriate point, this House will have a full opportunity to discuss and debate those matters.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the commitment of the Government—both past and present—to Ukraine. Just like this House, citizens in Norwich stand with the people of Ukraine. As the Secretary of State knows, £2.5 billion was promised for Ukraine after the sale of Chelsea football club by Roman Abramovich. As far as I understand it, that money remains frozen in a UK bank account. Will the Secretary of State update us on any progress in unlocking that fund, which is much needed for the people of Ukraine?

[John Healey]

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will double-check with my colleagues in the Department that leads on that and write to her with the latest position on the Abramovich billions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State always speaks softly but firmly; we thank him for that. He represents the views of the people. The news that Russia is seeking peace talks is certainly heartening, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that Russia understands that it is not, and never will be, peace at any price? The allies will continue to support Ukraine until a sustainable peace is achieved and will not force Ukraine to accept a deal that does not honour the sacrifice—of life, grief, the loss of education and hope of a future—that so many Ukrainians have made over so many years.

[John Healey]

If I may say so, that was a very moving contribution. Part of the power of this place is not just Ministers and Government accounting to Parliament, but Parliament finding its voice in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman said. He asks about my message to Putin. His own message and the message from this House this afternoon are strong and clear.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I recently led a roundtable of large defence manufacturers at BAE Systems’ base in Christchurch. They had one clear message, which is that they want to support Ukraine. Bournemouth stands too with Ukraine. I therefore particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment, announced today, of UK contracts worth £30 million for drones to support Ukraine. Will the Defence Secretary say how the UK will boost jobs and growth with defence spending to support Ukraine? Will he particularly say how Dorset defence manufacturers might be able to benefit too?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the message of support to Ukrainians from his constituents and businesses in Dorset. He is in a part of the country where some of the most innovative and creative companies in the defence and security fields are located. I am glad to hear of the company that has recently got the £30 million contract.

My hon. Friend might like to look at some of the detail of the Chancellor’s spring statement. Part of the confirmation that she and I made then was that, from this point, 10% of the defence budget will be allocated to developing, purchasing and supplying novel technologies for our own forces that the manufacturers that he cites from his constituency are involved in producing.

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

What planning is taking place among the allies to make up for the 40% of armaments that have hitherto been supplied by the United States to Ukraine, should it become necessary to do so?

[John Healey]

That was exactly the focus of the Ukraine defence contact group, and the purpose of pulling those 51 nations and partners together 10 days ago and securing the confirmation of a record €21 billion in extra military aid for Ukraine during the course of this year. That was supported by the US, with the presence of Defence Secretary Hegseth, who welcomed what he saw quite clearly as confirmation that European nations and others are stepping up to meet the challenge that he and President Trump have issued to us, quite rightly, and stepping up to meet the challenge that requires us to do more to keep Ukraine in the fight and strong for a potential peace that we all hope will be negotiated.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Keeping ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe means that we have to produce more fighting forces than Putin can, but traditionally this country has focused on producing exquisite and expensive platforms. Clearly that trade-off is changing, and we are seeing $1,000 drones in Ukraine destroying $9 million tanks. The production trade-off between expendable and exquisite platforms has to change across our allies and ourselves. Producing those drones takes months; it will take years even to upgrade our own Challenger tanks. Will the Secretary of State set out how that changing trade-off in production will be implemented and introduced in the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy to keep ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is spot on, and he provides the answer to his own question about how that necessary understanding from what we have seen in Ukraine, and in other conflict zones in the middle east recently, must involve a combination of the more traditional, sophisticated defence platforms that we have tended to procure, with much more rapidly updated, updatable and upgradable new technologies such as drones. That will be set out in the strategic defence review and captured in the defence industrial strategy, but I hope my hon. Friend will see the announcement that I referred to in the spring statement of a determination to earmark 10% of defence equipment spend from this year on for novel technologies such as the ones he cites.

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

I very much welcome the robust tone of the Secretary of State’s statement and his responses, but I am sure that deep inside he also regrets the fact that they are not reflected by many in the US Administration. Although across the House I am sure that we all appreciate the diplomatic challenges of dealing with President Trump and his Administration, it would be reassuring if the Secretary of State could confirm that at some level it has been conveyed that it is deeply unhelpful, and indeed disconcerting to the Ukrainian diaspora in this country, that President Trump does parrot Kremlin lines.

[John Healey]

President Trump has created this opportunity. He has created this opportunity of a ceasefire, which the Ukrainians, as a party of peace in this process, have declared they are ready to accept. He has created the opportunity for a negotiated lasting peace. Our job is to reinforce his efforts in doing so. We are doing just that. We are supporting the Ukrainians in those negotiations, and we are supporting the US and contributing to those negotiations where we can. The next stage of that will be in London tomorrow.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our Prime Minister has convened the largest, strongest group of countries yet behind a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the UK has a unique leadership role in securing peace, and that this extends beyond the provision of military assets to galvanising all our allies on upholding shared values, helping our friends to stand up to bullies, believing in sovereignty and protecting the rules-based system? In the widest sense, the long-term defence of the UK is happening in Ukraine.

[John Healey]

I agree. The UK does indeed have a unique leadership role, as my hon. Friend says, alongside the French in the coalition of the willing. In my discussions and involvement with military planners, Defence Ministers and others on this matter, I have been struck by how other nations recognise the unique role and responsibility of the UK and the French—they welcome it. In each case, every nation has a contribution to make, and that is what we are trying to marshal through the military planning detail and the reinforcement of the coalition of the willing.

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

To what extent does the 39-member coalition accept that the United States is still the indispensable partner in any so-called peacekeeping operation? Unless a peacekeeping force in Ukraine is ready and prepared to fight and defeat the Russian armed forces, there is no point in it being there. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, it would be just a victim of another tragedy. On that point, to what extent would the primacy of NATO be recognised in any proposed EU-UK defence agreement? Again, we do not want inadvertently to send a message to the United States that NATO is over, we no longer need the Americans and we are going off on our own, because we will not be capable of doing that for decades.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right: NATO is the cornerstone of our European security. That is fundamental and the starting point for any future planning. The potential for the EU and the UK to strike some sort of defence and security pact or agreement is a recognition that the EU and the Commission also have a role to play, and indicates their recognition that the UK needs to be involved in those programmes, and industry procurements, and potentially—as the commissioner responsible for this has acknowledged—have access to the schemes and funding that may be available to underpin that.

On the US role, fundamentally what will secure Ukraine’s long-term future and a lasting peace is the strength of its own deterrent capacity—the strength of Ukraine, which it has shown in the past three years, to deter any future Russian attacks. That is one of the principal purposes of the planning for a reassurance force. However, as I and the Prime Minister have argued, and as we have said in the House, there is an indispensable role for the US in trying to foster and bring that negotiated peace, as well as in helping to secure it for the long term.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his ongoing leadership on this issue. I know that the people of Ukraine will be very pleased and hopeful, given the shared voice across this Chamber. Does he agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that the nature of warfare has changed, and can he confirm that the strategic defence review will incorporate those lessons into its findings?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I have been making that argument for some time, before and since the last election. My hon. Friend, who has unique experience, makes the same argument. Ukraine tells us that the nature of warfare is changing. It is changing faster than ever, driven by technology. We have to adopt and incorporate those lessons for our future ability to equip our own armed forces so that they are fit to fight in the way that will be required to deter adversaries and keep us safe.

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

I congratulate the Defence Secretary on co-chairing the 27th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group. While it was good to see the German Defence Minister also chairing, that role was carried out until 9 January by the US Secretary of Defence. Defence Secretary Hegseth did attend earlier this month, but it was remote attendance across a secure platform. If we see in the coming weeks any reduction in US air defence support for Ukraine or other matériel, how might the UK respond?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that I cannot possibly—and I will not start to—respond to such hypotheticals. Part of the challenge of the new US Administration to European nations such as the UK was to say, “Step up.” We were stepping up, but we have done more, and we will do more. One of the particular requests from the US Administration was that we take on convening and chairing the uniquely important and successful Ukraine defence contact group—which, the hon. Gentleman is right, was established and chaired up until the change of Administration by the US. We agreed to do that alongside the Germans. That is why the 27th contact group was convened and co-chaired by me and the German Defence Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Over recess, I delivered a message of solidarity from St Andrew’s church in Barrhead to St Andrew church in Bucha, the site of a horrific massacre. It was clear when I was in Kyiv that that brutality has meant the Ukrainians are still determined to fight, but again and again, they raised their concerns about their exposure and their overreliance on American air defence. What can we do to mitigate that, and what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating an integrated air defence zone in the west of Ukraine?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being out in Ukraine, demonstrating the solidarity of Government Members and the House in general. As he will have heard in his conversations with the Ukrainians, the overwhelming priority of the civilian population is air defence. That is why the announcement of the £1.6 billion that I put into new short-range air defence missiles—lightweight multi-role missiles, or LMMs—to Ukraine was so important. It is also why the work we have done in recent months alongside Denmark to develop Gravehawk, an innovative new technical system to help reinforce Ukrainian air defence systems that we will be able to roll out more generally, is so important. It is that combination of innovation, industrial speed and partnership with Ukraine that is reinforcing Ukraine’s ability to fight for itself and protect itself.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State rightly began his statement by condemning the Russian missile attack on Sumy on Palm Sunday, which killed civilians and children. However, he will be aware of Russian claims that this was a military target and that 60 Ukrainian military commanders were killed, as were NATO servicemen who were “in charge”. Can he confirm that we will not only provide increased military support to Ukraine, but step up efforts against Russian lies in the information war?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. These were men, women and children on their way to church; children were killed and severely injured in the attack. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you want short questions and short answers at this stage.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

With other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was in Ukraine before Easter, and there were three separate air attacks while we were in Kyiv. Fortunately, the air defence in Kyiv is particularly good, but that is not the case elsewhere in the country. Could the Secretary of State say more about how we are supporting Ukraine on air defence and whether we are considering supporting the new Sky Shield system?

[John Healey]

Alongside drones, we have given the highest priority to what we can do to support air defence systems in Ukraine. I have mentioned some of the recent commitments we have made and deliveries we are undertaking. During the course of 2025, we will develop and deliver more of those.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He quite rightly drew attention to the huge number of losses of Russian troops in the conflict, and the equally huge number of losses on the Ukrainian side. After the unsuccessful attempt at a ceasefire over Easter, does he see any prospect of anyone else intervening to try to bring about talks between Russia and Ukraine that could lead to a lasting ceasefire and ultimately a settlement? The late Pope Francis tried to intervene, as did the African Union and a number of Latin American leaders. This war cannot go on forever. Somebody has to intervene to try to bring about a process that will lead to a ceasefire that will stop the tragic loss of so many lives.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the war has to end and that there has to be a process that can lead to a political and negotiated settlement. My view, and the Government’s view, is that given the momentum behind the American-led negotiations at the moment, the best chance to achieve that is to throw our weight behind those negotiations to try to ensure they succeed.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I know that my constituents, not least the Ukrainian families who have found safety in our community, will have been horrified by Russia’s conduct over Easter. Does the Secretary of State agree that Russia’s actions over the Easter weekend show that Ukraine is still very much in the fight against Russian aggression and that Ukraine deserves our fullest support? Will he reassure the Ukrainian families in my community that that is exactly what Ukraine will have?

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s community and the welcome that his constituents have shown to Ukrainian families, who are now part and parcel of the community. I hope his constituents, including the Ukrainians among them, will be reassured by the strength of the House’s cross-party support for their continued fight, and by our determination to try to secure a long-term peace in Ukraine.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the Defence Secretary believe that reports that the US has withdrawn intelligence sharing with Ukraine are an exaggeration? If not, does he believe that the UK and our trusted partners in the coalition of the willing can do a work-around on intelligence sharing?

[John Healey]

There was a moment when intelligence sharing with Ukraine was paused, but it was restarted with the momentum behind the talks, at the point at which Ukraine and the US were back on the same page. I am proud to say that the UK played a part in doing that and those arrangements are an important part of Ukraine being able to withstand the onslaught from President Putin.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

To support our Ukrainian friends, we need a robust sovereign industrial base. One proposal to help finance that and enhance supply chain security is the creation of a multilateral armament bank, such as the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Government should explore that potentially game-changing solution?

[John Healey]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are. That is part of the preparation for the defence industrial strategy. We want to find ways to maximise the investment going to British firms and British jobs, while making an important contribution not just to the defence and security of our own country, but to those of our allies as well.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The House rightly spends a lot of time talking about Russia, but Russia cannot act without Belarus. Will the Secretary of State update us on the discussions about Belarus’s role, and whether that was discussed in his recent meetings?

[John Healey]

To be quite honest with the hon. Gentleman, Belarus was not discussed. Russia is doing the active invasion and the attacks. Belarus is certainly an ally of President Putin, but not an active participant in this attack on Ukraine.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State was right to link the record level of spending on Ukraine with the opportunities for UK industry, but I am sure he would agree that that opportunity is also a challenge for the scale-up of the industry and the development cycle for new technologies. In addition to the support for innovation and financing, will is the Department considering additional measures to support our supply chains to build capability, so that organisations like our own defence cluster in Teesside can take their rightful place in supporting both Ukraine and the UK?

[John Healey]

We are indeed. My hon. Friend is completely right, and his long experience in industry bears that out. Having a productive capacity that is sovereign and in the UK is one thing, but if it cannot be supplied by the essential components and materials required, the strategic strength is undermined. We are very conscious of that as we develop a new defence industrial strategy, which we have not had in this country since the one produced in 2021.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he set out what recent steps have been taken by the Government to support the Ukrainian prosecutor general in investigating and prosecuting domestic war crimes?

[John Healey]

The Speaker will be aware of this matter from his recent visit to Ukraine, particularly to Bucha. The hon. Gentleman will know that from the outset, the UK Government, under the previous and current regimes, have continued to support with legal expertise and funding, where it is helpful, the evidence gathering and potential case building that I hope will lead to the prosecutions he wants to see.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The Secretary of State spoke of sending a clear signal to Vladimir Putin—I hope that his US counterpart will not take that too literally. Regardless, I would prefer to send drones the way of President Zelensky, and some £25 billion of frozen Russian assets would buy an awful lot of drones. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but I plead with him to take the lead on this and let the Ukrainians win in their finest hour.

[John Healey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope he heard what I said in response to his Front Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), on that issue.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Media reports and statements from representatives of the US Administration in recent days have suggested various options for Ukraine’s post-war borders, many of which would see the ceding of Ukrainian sovereign territory. I appreciate that the Defence Secretary will not want to comment on media speculation, but given his commitment to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, ahead of the talks tomorrow, will he say what the Government’s red lines are regarding any peace proposal from the US’s mediator that recognises occupied Ukrainian territory as Russian? I include Crimea in that scope.

[John Healey]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he cites media reports then says that he does not expect me to comment on them, and I will not.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have once again stood firm with Ukraine as it fights to defend its territory and send a message to dictators that they cannot change borders by military force. The Secretary of State has been asked twice already about this today, but we are giving €21 billion-worth of munitions and so on to Ukraine, and billions of Russian assets were seized as part of the sanctions we imposed on the regime. We have not had an answer from him yet on what progress is being made on that. Does he not fear, like me, that given the transactional nature of the way in which President Trump approaches these negotiations, those assets could become part of the negotiations, which would mean that Russia could hold on to them, avoid sanctions and avoid paying for the carnage it has caused in Ukraine?

[John Healey]

As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), work is going on with allies on the question of the Russian assets. Our first focus in the Ukraine defence contact group was on what we could do now, what we could do quickly and what we could do in order to keep Ukraine in the fight today, because it is important that we do not jeopardise the prospects of peace by forgetting about the war. That is where the €21 billion—a record level of commitment—came from in that meeting in Brussels 10 days ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Lastly, I call John Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

I had better think of something quick. I will return to the question of fishing. It is right that we draw together with our European allies to fight and to bring this war to an end. However, it cannot be right for the French to leverage in fishing negotiations for defence spending. Will the Secretary of State press on the Prime Minister the need to defend our fragile coastal communities and make it clear to Paris that this cannot be helicopters for haddock or mackerel for missiles?

[John Healey]

That was worth waiting for. My first focus as Defence Secretary is securing a defence and security agreement and seeing that as the passport to more British firms and British jobs as we play our part in some of the Europe-wide procurement programmes and industrial developments that we need to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. I will allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

Defence Reform

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Written Statements

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

Today this Government are bringing in the deepest reforms in UK Defence for 50 years, which will fundamentally change the way defence operates.

Defence must change to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government’s recent announcement of the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the cold war—rising to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament—is crucial for our national security. It is also a huge opportunity, and responsibility, for UK Defence.

Alongside this significant investment, must come serious reform: to speed up our decision making, focus on outcomes, secure faster delivery and achieve the best value for money for our troops and taxpayers.

Under the Secretary of State and Ministers, UK Defence will now be led by a strengthened Department of State, a fully-fledged Military Strategic Headquarters, a new National Armaments Director Group, and the Defence Nuclear Enterprise.

Our new leadership “Quad”—the Permanent Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff, National Armaments Director, and Chief of Defence Nuclear—will drive a defence which is more concentrated on strengthening warfighting readiness and deterrence. They will shift an organisation which too often has been obsessed with process to one focused on outcomes—in which information flows quickly, individual accountabilities are clear, and results are demanded.

The key features of our new system will be:

The Permanent Secretary will lead a more agile Department of State. In line with wider civil service reform, this area will be lean and highly skilled, unleashing the exceptional capabilities within Defence by making the systems and processes around us more efficient and empowering. This area will be responsible for providing policy muscle and clear strategic direction to ensure that Defence is focused on outcomes and delivery. The Department of State will contain a streamlined set of four DG roles reporting to the Permanent Secretary, focused on strategy and transformation, people, policy and finance.

Our armed forces show great courage and collaboration in the work they do on operations to keep our country secure at home and strong abroad. The UK armed forces’ most senior officer, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), will, for the first time since this role was created, now command the service chiefs and head a newly-established Military Strategic Headquarters as the single point of force design and delivery of the armed forces. The new MSHQ will support the journey from a “joint” to an “integrated” force that better harnesses all five domains of maritime, air, land, cyber and space. They will be supported by a small central team integrating across activity and force design, prioritising investment to improve warfighting readiness and lethality.

The National Armaments Director Group will fix the broken procurement system and make defence an engine for economic growth in every corner of the UK. It will bring together teams delivering the national “arsenal”, the Government’s defence industrial strategy and end-to-end acquisition under one leader, the National Armaments Director. This new structure will enable collaboration by bringing together Defence Equipment and Support, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Digital and parts of Defence Support. The group will also include roles focused on international collaboration and exports, commercial and industry, options and commissioning, and corporate, with the Enterprise CIO moving to the group by 1 July 2025. These roles will work together, and with industry, academia, international partners and allies to develop and deliver innovative solutions to departmental problems.

The Chief of Defence Nuclear is responsible for cohering across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), in addition to leading the Defence Nuclear Organisation (DNO) and its arm’s length bodies. The DNE unites the Royal Navy, Strategic Command and DNO, with its ALBs including the Submarine Delivery Agency and AWE—the partnership of organisations that maintain, renew, and sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent which keeps us and our NATO allies safe 24/7. The financial nuclear ringfence ensures nuclear spending is prioritised and allows a focus on delivery and outcomes. Under Defence reform, CDN will act as the clear point of accountability for the ringfence, working closely with industry and the MSHQ finance teams to ensure effective management.

We will have four new budget holders, one for each of the Quad. Funding and spend will be categorised into invest, readiness and operate—with the NAD holding the invest budget and MSHQ responsible for the operate budget and the readiness budget of the frontline commands. Balance of investment decisions will be made across the whole Department, set against Ministers’ strategic priorities to ensure resources match ambitions. The principal accounting officer will delegate multi-year budgets, in line with HM Treasury’s departmental spending settlement, to each area. Financial year 2025-26 will be a transitional year, with quarterly reform programme milestones through the year and the bulk of the transformation complete by financial year 2026-27. The drive to reform Defence will continue throughout this Parliament.

The far-reaching changes in this Defence reform programme will help cut waste, boost British growth and jobs, and fast-track the technologies of the future into the hands of our frontline forces.

This is the start of a new era of UK Defence.

[HCWS 573]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of accommodation for service families.

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

On behalf of the House, I would like to mark the passing of Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, the last surviving battle of Britain pilot—one of those strikingly few brave young men who turned the tide of the war and kept our nation safe from Nazi invasion.

The fire sale of military family homes by Conservative Ministers in 1996 was probably the worst privatisation ever. The Government were paying £600,000 a day to rent back the homes and then paying all the repair costs, with no power to plan or to do the major upgrades needed. We bought back 36,000 forces homes in January, we started the defence housing review in February, and we aim to publish our housing plans in the summer.

[Lillian Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. The men and women of our armed forces perform the ultimate public service. They and their families make considerable sacrifices to keep all of us in the UK safe and secure. Does he agree that the least we owe our servicemen and women is decent housing that they can proudly call home?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right; the sacrifice that those who serve in uniform make to keep us all safe is exceptional. The least that their families deserve is a decent home—it is, after all, the heart of all our lives. The steps we have taken with the buy-back of the Annington homes is a decisive break with the past, and we will now put in place the necessary plans to upgrade forces family homes for the future.

[Clive Jones]

The Ministry of Defence owns more than 300 houses in the former Arborfield garrison in my constituency. Only a handful of them are occupied by service families; the remainder are let privately. But increasingly they are being left vacant, which, with the estate not being maintained, is affecting the lives of constituents. I am told that no decisions can be taken on the future of the site until a housing strategy is completed. Can the MOD make an early decision on the Arborfield housing, to stop the neglect and return much-needed, affordable housing to the market?

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the specifics, I will certainly look into that. He sets out for the House the character of some of the neglect and decline that we have seen in our forces housing for so long, and the bind that previous Governments have been in, without the power or control to make the upgrades and plan for wholesale renewal for the future. That is what our housing review will start to fix. We cannot fix these deep-seated, long-running problems overnight, but we are determined to do better than we have done in the past.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure forces families in North Durham that the Labour Government are ending the previous Conservative Government’s failed approach of papering over the cracks, and are instead taking action to deliver new, high-quality family homes for our service personnel over the years to come?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. My hon. Friend and I stood on a manifesto, on which we were elected as a Government, that committed to ending the scandal of forces family homes. The buy-back that we have put in place is the start of delivering on that promise for armed forces families and delivering, as we are doing on a number of fronts, for defence.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The litany of complaints I receive from service families in accommodation in Gosport include damp, black mould, unsafe electrical wiring and waste water flowing into homes. One constituent wrote to me that:

“The overall condition of our flat is unfit for purpose, unhygienic and quite frankly a threat to our safety.”

This has been going on for decades, under successive Governments, and our service people and their families quite simply deserve better. What I want to know from the Secretary of State, on behalf of my constituents, is when we will begin to see tangible differences. Pinnacle and VIVO are not fit for purpose; when will we see them replaced with an organisation that can do those repairs, and do them properly? I invite him to visit Gosport to see some of that appalling service family accommodation for himself.

[John Healey]

The hon. Lady is right; it is shameful. Her Government had 14 years to fix the problem; we are now doing that job. We have a policy in place that means that no one should be let a home with apparent damp and mould problems. There is a special, dedicated report line for those problems, and if they are severe, service families should be offered alternative accommodation. The defence housing review, which is now under way and will report in the summer, will set out plans for a long-term overhaul of these deep-seated problems, which are overdue and have been neglected.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that UK military aid is adequate to meet Ukraine’s capability requirements.

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

As a new Government, we stepped up and speeded up the delivery of UK military aid to Ukraine. This year the UK will provide £4.5 billion in military support, the highest ever sum. We are fully behind President Trump’s pledge to bring a lasting peace to Ukraine, and we want to see success in today’s talks, but we will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Over the weekend, President Trump’s special envoy dismissed the Prime Minister’s plan for an international force to support the ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it

“a posture and a pose”.

Whatever the wisdom of those remarks, does the Secretary of State see a future in which UK forces could deploy on peacekeeping operations in Ukraine without a US security guarantee?

[John Healey]

As the Chief of the Defence Staff said over the weekend, no one should doubt that the work that the UK is leading with France to pull together a coalition of nations willing to step in and help ensure lasting peace in any negotiated settlement in Ukraine is critical and substantial. The UK is determined and will lead that effort.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

This year, the UK is providing Ukraine with more financial aid through military support than at any time since Putin’s illegal invasion. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial to wider European security, and to our own security here in the UK, that we continue to support Ukraine and ramp up the pressure on Putin?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. Putting the Ukrainians in the strongest possible position as they choose to go into discussions is part of the responsibility and commitment of this Government. We plan very closely with Ukraine the support we provide, and our 2025 plan to support Ukraine has been developed with the Ukrainians and reflects what they need most: drones, air defences and ammunition. That is why this month the Prime Minister announced a £1.6 billion deal to supply more than 5,000 lightweight multi-role missiles for air defence that were built in the UK, both backing the Ukrainians in their fight and boosting British jobs and business.

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

In this age, when the plot of “The Manchurian Candidate” appears more like a documentary on US politics than a work of fiction, have the Government received any indication that their efforts militarily to support Ukraine would be actively opposed or blocked by the Trump Administration?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that, in the context of a negotiated peace, the security arrangements or guarantees in Ukraine will need US support. I have made the same point strongly in my discussions with Secretary Hegseth. As Defence Secretary, my job now is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by continuing levels of UK military aid, encouraging other nations to do more, and developing—alongside the French—plans for multinational support to maintain the long-term security of any peace in Ukraine.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Rochdale’s Ukrainian community is fervently proud of what the Prime Minister has done in recent weeks, and not just on the diplomatic front but with the record support for Ukraine militarily. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to call out the Russian lies and propaganda that have been propagated of late, including the lie that somehow Ukraine is not a real country, but a fake country, and to call out the lie that Britain’s security does not also depend on Ukraine’s security?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. The first line of defence for the UK and for Europe is in Ukraine. The Ukrainians share our values and are fighting with huge courage—military and civilians alike. It is our job to stand with them during that fight to safeguard their future and their ability to make their own decisions as a country. If and when they go into the negotiations, we will stand with them then, and we will stand with them after a negotiated peace, which we all hope President Trump is capable of securing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Paddy Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much?

On the potential peacekeeping force for Ukraine, we have heard from the Secretary of State that it is jointly British and French. In fact, in every one of his answers he stressed the amount of work we are doing with France. Is it therefore not extraordinary that, at the very same time, France should be working to undermine our defence industry by having us excluded from a £150 billion European defence fund, which will include other non-EU states?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly a glass-half-empty type of guy. The European Union, when it produced its defence and security white paper last week, set in place specific arrangements for any third nation, such as the UK, that strikes a defence and security partnership with the European Union. That is exactly what we went to the country with, promising to undertake that as a UK Government. Any country with a partnership in place then potentially has access to those sorts of programmes and that sort of funding, and that is what we will try to negotiate for this country and our industry.

[James Cartlidge]

I can assure the Secretary of State that I am full biftas behind our armed forces and the UK defence industry. Is not the point that we provide our nuclear deterrent unconditionally to European NATO countries 24/7, our Army is in Estonia defending Europe’s eastern flank, and we have done more than any other European nation to support Ukraine? Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand up to President Macron and stress to him that this is the worst possible time to prioritise fishing rights over Europe’s collective security?

[John Healey]

I just ask the hon. Gentleman to drop that Brexit rhetoric. We are leading efforts with the French Government and the French military to meet the challenge of the US and the requirements of Ukraine to have a coalition of countries willing to stand with Ukraine in the context of a negotiated peace, to help them secure enduring stability and deterrence, to prevent Russia re-invading that sovereign country.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

12. If he will make it his policy to negotiate a defence and security agreement with the EU.

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

When the British public elected us as the new Government, we said that Labour will seek an ambitious new UK-EU security pact to strengthen co-operation on the threats that we face and will rebuild relationships with key European allies. With NATO as the cornerstone of our security in Europe, that is exactly what we are doing.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Given President Trump’s increasing unpredictability and shifting policies, can the Secretary of State share how the Government are strengthening defence procurement agreements with European partners to enhance our capabilities and reduce our reliance on the United States?

[John Healey]

When I spoke last week with High Representative Kallas and Commissioner Kubilius, that was exactly what I discussed: closer defence collaboration that will see a stronger European effort, with the UK and the EU, but within the NATO framework, which is the cornerstone for all of us to keep ourselves safe.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

My constituents have steadfastly supported the people of Ukraine since Russia’s illegal invasion. Can the Secretary of State confirm that collective support for Ukraine will be a major focus of his discussions with EU counterparts and that under this Government the UK will always lead the way in stepping up support for Ukraine?

[John Healey]

Indeed, I can. My hon. Friend makes an important point. This period is critical for Ukraine and for European security. I hope that he sees a UK Government who are stepping up to provide stronger support for Ukraine, co-ordinating allies to do more, stepping up on European security, and above all stepping up on defence spending.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening defence ties with our European partners, but they need to go further and faster to ensure that the UK does not get left behind. Has the Defence Secretary spoken with his counterparts in the EU about the value of the new stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, which will enable the UK to better influence decisions around new finance programmes, such as a rearmament bank to support defence investment across Europe?

[John Healey]

Yes. Last week I met with High Representative Kallas and spoke with Commissioner Kubilius, and that was exactly the subject of our conversations.

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

13. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the joint expeditionary force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

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

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

A lot has happened since the last defence oral questions six weeks ago. The Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, hitting 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. I chaired the Ukraine defence contact group of nearly 50 countries—the first European Defence Minister to do so—which secured an extra €1.5 billion of military support for Ukraine. With France, the UK is leading plans to put together a coalition of the willing to secure a peace deal in Ukraine; 31 nations joined a planning meeting last week at the permanent joint headquarters, and there are further meetings there this week as we accelerate that planning. This is a Government stepping up on European security, on Ukraine, on defence spending and in all areas. This is UK leadership in action.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

The Government’s commitment to use defence procurement to strengthen our industrial sector is welcome. Will the Secretary of State please outline how the Government are supporting local manufacturers across the UK and ensuring that defence contracts contribute to long-term industrial growth and job creation? In particular, how are they encouraging and supporting companies such as Pargat Housewares in my constituency, which is a private, ethnic minority-owned business and one of the UK’s largest producers of pots, pans and bakeware using advanced and extremely energy-efficient techniques?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right that SMEs are often the drivers of productivity and innovation. We recently announced that we will be setting targets for an increasing share of defence contracts to go to SMEs, alongside the formation of a new defence innovation office.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

If our forces go to Ukraine, it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission, but, as the Veterans Minister reminded us earlier, Operation Banner was also described as peacekeeping, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts. Our soldiers in Iraq were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. If our forces go to Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider a derogation from the European convention on human rights so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?

[John Healey]

If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace, not a shooting war. Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies and to ensure safe seas. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course not. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour Government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11, and a country in Europe has derogated from the ECHR since 2015. That country is Ukraine, and that is because there is a war on. Surely he recognises that, even if it is a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats, and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. Surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment.

[John Healey]

Our armed forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the hon. Gentleman, we, alongside France, are putting together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. We are responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give it the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. That is a worthy mission, and it is one that the UK is leading. I hope that it has the support of both sides of the House.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T2. Our troops must be able to trust the body armour that they wear to keep them safe. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces update the House on how withdrawing cracked enhanced combat body armour is going and on when everyone in our forces can expect to know that their body armour is safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

T5. With the UK frozen out of the EU rearmament scheme while defence contractors and security firms in Albania, Norway and South Korea stand to benefit, what estimates has the Secretary of State made of the potential loss of economic activity in the UK as a result?

[John Healey]

The strongest argument for saying that there needs to be UK collaboration and co-operation with the EU and across Europe is that some of our best capabilities, from the Typhoon and the Meteor to Storm Shadow, have been developed through multinational efforts including the UK. It is that sort of collaboration that we want to secure for the future, and the EU White Paper gives us a basis for starting to negotiate that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

We are incredibly proud of our veterans in Peterborough. Will the Minister join me in recognising the work of Councillor Jason McNally, our armed forces champion, and his predecessor, Councillor John Fox, and tell us what more the Government can do to help them to support more people signing up to the armed forces covenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T8. President Macron has blocked British firms from the new EU defence fund. What are the Secretary of State’s views on this act of solidarity?

[John Healey]

That is just not accurate. There is a new proposal for a strategy from the European Union, and it has opportunities for third countries such as the UK to participate. Our discussions demonstrate the importance of the UK being able to collaborate industrially and as a Government to meet the threats we face.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that when we discuss procurement and British-made weapons, we also need to consider our responsibilities and legal duties in relation to the issuing of arms licences? Does he agree that now is the time to talk about ending all arms sales to Israel?

[John Healey]

We keep all our arms exports constantly under review. We have made decisions on a limited number of exports in relation to Israel. That position of keeping things under review continues, but we have no plans at this stage to make any change.

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

Staff Sergeant Peter Cluff died in February 2016, with an in-service designation to that death. His widow, Kirsty, and his children, Meredith and Heather, were in the benefit of the armed forces pension scheme and remain so. However, the scheme made a miscalculation and have sent debt collectors to them to try to recover a fairly small sum. I asked about the matter three months ago and have not had a response from the Department. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss this unedifying advert for the Ministry of Defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary should know that the whole House supports the Government’s actions to preserve peace in Ukraine, but that was not the point that the shadow Secretary of State was making. He was asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises that it has a duty of care towards soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare and the misuse of the European convention on human rights. Will the Ministry do something to protect those soldiers?

[John Healey]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to our duty of care and to standing by our forces. We also recognise that the previous Government put in place legislation—the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021—to deal with any concerns in this place.

Ministry of Defence Contingency Fund Advance: 2024-25

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Written Statements

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

The Ministry of Defence new cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2024-25. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.



The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Ministry of Defence will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £250,000,000 and £250,000,000 of capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

This is separate and additional to the advance sought on 6 January 2025 to fund the transaction to purchase 36,347 properties from Annington Property Ltd.

[HCWS468]