Armed Forces Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 2nd June 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 2 June 2026 - large print - (2 Jun 2026)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in.
As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness.
For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine.
Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery.
Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery.
Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind.
As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better.
That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause 5 formally.
Defence Readiness
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
National security should be the primary duty of every Government, and so I have been pleased to be present in this House while listening to the contributions made on defence readiness as part of the King’s Speech debate. When the world today is more dangerous than it has been for a long time and when too many people are struggling with the cost of living and young people are finding employment prospects particularly difficult, the speech highlighted this Government’s plan to create a stronger, safer and fairer Britain.
Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the award for overall apprentice of the year at the Juniper Training awards in my constituency. What struck me at that event was not simply the talent in the room, but the determination, resilience and ambition shown by those young people. They are proof of the potential that lies within our young people and we have a duty to invest in their futures. Juniper Training is an example of an organisation that provides a credible alternative to traditional school or college pathways for young people who would otherwise be at risk of not being in employment, education or training. Its programmes offer not only qualifications for young people but confidence, resilience and a sense of purpose, providing a route into secure employment.
Our young people deserve our full support, which is why I am pleased to welcome the Government’s new deal for young people as part of our wider youth guarantee. I am especially proud that my constituency sits within the new west midlands trailblazer area, where young people are already beginning to benefit from these initiatives. Through funding provided by the Get Britain Working programme, more than 800 young people across the west midlands have already taken their first steps on to the career ladder, with a further 1,200 expected to benefit from the £10 million committed so far by the end of 2027.
In Wolverhampton itself, our youth guarantee trailblazer proposal is focused on structured work experience and transition support, intervening early to provide that crucial support. The “Wolves at Work” open door programme supports the youth trailblazer initiative and has placed more than 135 residents into work experience, and more than 50 of those individuals have already gone on to secure paid employment. Behind each of these numbers lies a young person whose life has been changed—someone who has gained confidence, stability and hope for the future. This is an achievement that my city of Wolverhampton can be proud of.
More broadly, I am proud of the work that this Government are undertaking nationally to support young people into work. The expanded jobs guarantee, now set to support an additional 35,000 young people, will provide vital opportunities to those on universal credit while helping people to get back into employment, thereby reducing long-term welfare dependency. Moreover, this Government are expanding youth hubs across the country to ensure that young people looking for work can access the advice and support they need to find employment. Through a £725 million investment in apprenticeships, we are backing our small and medium-sized businesses by covering their full apprenticeship costs for eligible young people. In doing so, we are also supporting our businesses to create the wealth that this country so desperately needs. This Labour Government are providing security and control to working people, and I am proud to support that mission.
North Atlantic Submarine Activity
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on north Atlantic activity. Let me begin by thanking the many members of our armed forces who are currently deployed in over 30 operations across the globe. Their efforts are often unseen by the British people, but they are always appreciated. They defend the very freedoms that we enjoy.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary revealed details of one such operation. While the focus of many has been drawn to the middle east, UK armed forces, in partnership with our allies, have been deployed to deter the increased Russian activity that we have witnessed in the Atlantic. The specific operation involved a Russian Akula-class submarine and a concurrent deployment of two specialist submarines from GUGI—Russia’s main directorate of deep-sea research.
Last November, the Defence Secretary outlined to the House how GUGI vessels, including the spy ship Yantar, are directed by President Putin to engage in hybrid warfare activities against the UK and its allies, specifically around critical undersea infrastructure. Their mission is to survey pipelines and cables during peacetime and then potentially, if required, sabotage them in conflict.
In response to the Russian subsurface activity, the Defence Secretary deployed a Royal Navy warship and a Royal Air Force P8 aircraft alongside allies and partners to ensure that the Russian vessel was monitored during every phase of the operation. The Akula subsequently retreated home, having been closely tracked throughout, and we continued to monitor the two GUGI submarines when they were in and around UK waters and, of course, beyond. Our armed forces left them in no doubt that they were being monitored, that their movements were not covert as planned, and that their attempted secret operation had been exposed. The two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters and headed back north, and this operation, which lasted more than a month, has now concluded.
In often treacherous conditions, our pilots racked up over 450 flying hours and our frigates sailed several thousand nautical miles. Some 500 British personnel were involved in the response. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to every single person involved.
We exposed this military operation undertaken by Russia for three key reasons: first, to send a message to Putin that he failed to remain covert, and that any attempt to damage critical undersea infrastructure will not be tolerated and cannot be denied; secondly, to demonstrate that even with significant capabilities and personnel deployed in the middle east, we will always do what is necessary to protect our homeland; and thirdly, to highlight a significant operation carried out by our armed forces, who met this challenge with the characteristic determination and professionalism that we all know too well.
This operation reminds us why the seabed matters, especially for the island nation of Britain: it connects us to everything, and that connection is sustained beneath our waters without interruption through a vast network of cables and pipelines on which much of our way of life relies—much of the gas that heats our homes, 99% of international telecoms and data traffic, and trillions of pounds of global trade each day. Because the seabed matters to us, it is a prime target for our adversaries.
The UK’s undersea network is highly resilient, but the threats are increasing, so we are stepping up our action to defend it, including by providing an extra £100 million for our vital P8 submarine-hunting aircraft; launching our Atlantic Bastion programme to combine the latest autonomous technologies with the best warships and aircraft to create a British-built hybrid naval force; and making the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, after years of hollowing-out and underfunding by various Governments. The threat is clear, and our resolve to confront it is absolute. That is why this year we are deploying our carrier group where it is most needed—the north Atlantic and the High North—and supporting NATO’s new mission, Arctic Sentry.
I want to put on the record our thanks to our allies, with whom we have co-operated closely throughout this operation, including Norway. Our shared commitment to confront Russian aggression in the north Atlantic is at the heart of our Lunna House agreement, and together we are now building a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and new uncrewed systems.
Let me say a few words on Ukraine, from where I returned just last week. Today, two wars on two continents are being fought at the very same time. Putin wants us distracted while he steps up strikes on Ukraine relentlessly, and indeed at enormous scale, with around 7,000 attacks a day on the front line and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone. We must always remember our duty to Ukraine and recognise that Russian aggression is growing across Europe once again.
Let me finish where I began, with praise for our people. We have the very finest armed forces that a nation could hope for. They are second to none. As I speak, we have personnel deployed across every domain, every moment of the day, in every part of the world. They are in constant confrontation with our adversaries, from the depths of the seabed to the reaches of space. When a crisis erupts, as it has done in the middle east, I understand people questioning why all UK military assets and personnel have not been sent to deal with it. But as demands on defence rise, we must deploy our resources to best effect across multiple priorities.
Because of our increase in defence investment, we will be able to call on more and more resources in the coming years. As we defend our interests and partners in the middle east, we will tackle increasing threats in the High North. We will stand with Ukraine. We will meet our NATO obligations. Above all, we will always fulfil the first duty of government: to protect our homeland and keep the British people safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Al Carns
We can agree that no sabotage took place this time from the Russian sub-surface activity off the coast of the UK. We have backed our words with action when it comes to deterring Russia, with £4.5 billion in UK military support to Ukraine last year and a total of £21.8 billion. The Ukraine defence contact group just raised an astonishing $45 billion to buy weapons, munitions and capability for the Ukrainians. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to board any vessels that meet the criteria—there is a lot of misinformation out there. Having very expensive frigates escorting every vessel at such range is putting significant demands on the Russian fleet and degrading its capabilities. Let me add that we have spent £5 billion extra this year alone on the defence budget, and by 2028-29 we will spend around £73 billion on it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the Defence Secretary for his public statement, which have increased public awareness about the growing threats that our nation faces. On behalf of the Defence Committee, I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in disrupting the Russian activity around our critical undersea infrastructure. This incident underscores the growing threat that Russia poses, and the need to increase defence investment now and finally to publish the defence investment plan.
Turning to the incident itself, I take on board the Minister’s words, but it has been widely reported, including publicly at the London defence conference, that Putin had explosives planted on our undersea cables. For the record, can he confirm whether Russians were involved in either sabotage or precursors to sabotage on or around our undersea cables?
Al Carns
The reality is that Russia failed on this occasion, and it failed because we exposed its activity, which meant that there was no way, shape or form that it could deny its activity in the first place. I was at the London defence conference and I heard certain discussions about undersea cables. I can confirm that no sabotage took place this time, but the Russians put a lot of effort into mapping and understanding our undersea critical national infrastructure, and we will do everything to map, track and expose it, should it take place.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world.
While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required.
As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure?
The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?
Gurkha Veterans
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Cameron Thomas, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit to start with, I call Lauren Edwards.
Nuclear Test Veterans
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response.
Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future?
In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report?
What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”?
When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns?
For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering.
This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it.
The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister, I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to the hon. Member’s mum.
Defence
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a bit of a pity, is it not, that we seem not to recognise what is going on today? It would probably help to recognise that defence spending was cut from the end of the cold war to 2022, when the whole NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I have heard today—I am sorry to some of my colleagues—was from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), because he had the honesty to stand up and point out what the choices are. I disagree with him, but he made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. I believe that if we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I am afraid that we are now in war, and things have to change.
I was in the United States last week in my role at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There are several concerns to bring back from that, not least that the American commitment to NATO is always predicated on saying to other members, “That is why we need you to spend 5%.” That gives it that little bit of wiggle room to say, “Well, if you’re not going to spend that, we can’t defend you any more.” Perhaps even more worryingly—this is where some of the dots need to be connected—one of the think-tanks that we were at made it clear that the Democrats, who will probably take the House in the mid-term elections, will use their leverage to control the amount of money that can go to the White House and the commander-in-chief. He can direct troops, but Congress has to fund that and it will say no. As a consequence, the President will say, “Well, I’ve already got assets and I’ve already got money, so I will use those,” which is to say in Europe. That should bring into sharp focus the threat that the defence of Europe faces.
What we are picking up in many of these debates, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said, is talk about article 3. A lot of people overlooked article 3 for a very long time. Article 5 was never about the United States guaranteeing European security; it was about ensuring that we all acted as one. Article 3, which obviously comes before article 5, says, “You must be able to defend your borders for three weeks.” There are very few European nations that can do that.
I will touch on Security Action for Europe, which I am afraid to say is becoming a single market issue. It is becoming about protecting the borders of the single market, rather than the borders of Europe. We really do have to stand back and say, “Do we think the single market would exist if the borders of Europe did not exist?” We need to wake up and realise what is going on.
In the Czech Republic, we were given the example of a company that makes drones. Some 25% of the materials used to build those drones came from Canada. The AI to run them made up 20% of the spend and came from the USA. Under SAFE, both would be shut out, because those countries are not willing to pay into the budget just to have access, and that will set us back. We should be more concerned about the fact that the NATO industrial base does not have the ability to deliver on what it needs. The Americans themselves had $135 billion of exported arms last year and $160 billion of domestic arms manufacturing last year, and that did not even scratch the surface.
What the Americans are good at, which we have frankly never been able to deliver in this country, is the diversification into small and medium-sized enterprises. It was recognised that the big companies do not have the flexibility to develop at the speed that is needed in a rapidly changing world. We visited a company in Nevada that is making energy-focused weapons—or lasers, as we might call them—that are used to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky.
I have very little time, and I could expand on so many more areas, but I make the point that we cannot fight the last war. We have pretty much used up all our munitions and weaponry in Ukraine, and the Russians know exactly how those weaponry and munitions work and how to defeat them. We cannot just restock what we have used before; we have to be able to develop, and that means that we need to be light on our feet. To be fair, in Bavaria in Germany there are drone factories that not only produce drones, but react quickly to the changes in drone technology.
To be fair to the Minister, he outlined some of the things that need to be developed in the Royal Navy—a service that is close to my heart. There is no doubt that this is about decisions that have been made over a very long period of time. I will gently prod the Minister and say that when we are talking about Royal Navy procurement, I think of the story of the aircraft carriers, which was probably not the greatest moment of the Labour Government—they spent tens of billions extra by changing their mind. We have to be able to adapt quickly.
There is plenty more that I could say, but the war exists today. Talking about what has happened ever since the end of the cold war and trying to place the blame on the last 14 years, on the last 10 years or on what has happened from 1997 onwards is irrelevant; we are at war, and we have to be able to develop. I am afraid that in the current political climate, Europe will have to look after itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Sam Carling.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ben Obese-Jecty, on an immediate four-minute time limit.
Sir Ashley Fox
I do agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the additional time.
The legacy legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government intended to halt that injustice is now being repealed by Labour. That is disgraceful. Not only is Labour’s campaign against our veterans deeply unfair; it endangers us in future conflicts. In a more dangerous world, with a looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces. What signal are the Government sending to young recruits by prosecuting our veterans and showing that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare, with the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General?
The Minister knows that republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour’s naiveté to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events. I call on the Government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put.
Middle East: Defence
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have noticed that there are still a lot of people on their feet. I am aiming to finish this statement at around 6.45 pm. I call Richard Foord.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State made the distinction between permitting the use of British bases for offensive action and for defensive action. I understand the need to protect and defend British citizens in the middle east, but can the Secretary of State explain how he is seeking to maintain this distinction between offensive and defensive action, given that it would require a degree of control over US military activity that the British Government may not possess?
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It was a Conservative 2010 strategic defence and security review and subsequent basing review that took the Royal Navy’s repair facilities from three to one—an utterly reckless decision that was made worse considering that the Conservatives knew of the Type 45s’ power plant problems—creating an internal competition for the limited resource of the Royal Navy. Does the Secretary of State agree that it was reckless Tory risk taking that left the Royal Navy in this precarious situation—
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend; he speaks with the authority of someone who was serving at the time in 2010. In that first year, the Tories cut £2 billion from the defence budget, and in their first five years they cut £12 billion from defence. They underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over 14 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on the Iranian regime has shocked and disgusted our constituents, just like the Iranian regime’s crackdowns on opposition protests for decades. The horrors that we have seen reinforce the feeling in this country that international events are happening to us, and that since Brexit and since Trump re-entered the White House, we have had much less say in our future and security. Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls to empower us to take back control of our fate by issuing defence bonds, which would raise the cash we need to meet our defence spending, and by rebuilding our place in Europe through deeper co-operation with our European neighbours to reduce our dependence on the mad king in the White House?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of the first statement, it was indicated from the Chair that those who were not called on that statement would be prioritised in respect of this second statement. Did that happen? If not, why not?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. There has been a degree of prioritisation, but no guarantee. I am sure he understands that the time pressures in the Chamber are sometimes impossible. With three Government statements and an important debate, it is just impossible to call everyone.
Ministry of Defence
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, having previously served as the shadow Transport Secretary and in various roles. He is right to say that part of the solution is devolution. We must ensure that we empower local people to make decisions for the benefit of their communities.
We must also recognise a broader truth: although robust scrutiny is essential, persistent institutional scepticism towards defence investment risks becoming self-defeating. If the Treasury’s default position is one of mistrust and funding is withheld due to past failures, the armed forces will be trapped in a cycle in which they cannot modernise effectively. What we need is not permanent suspicion, but a new compact, stronger accountability within defence procurement, greater transparency in programme delivery and, in return, a willingness from the centre of Government to invest at the scale required in today’s strategic environment. Trust must be rebuilt on both sides, and we on the Defence Committee want to give the Treasury the opportunity to show that it is acting as a team with Defence, with the same goals and national interests at heart. Indeed, we have invited a Treasury Minister to appear before us and are waiting eagerly for a positive response to this invitation. I hope the Minister agrees that this is a constructive request to which the only reasonable answer is yes.
I want briefly to address the proposed defence readiness Bill. I hope Ministers will bring that forward from the intended date of 2027, because that delay matters and drift carries very real consequences. Public understanding is another vital component to success, and we must ensure that such a national conversation happens at pace, because at the present point in time we are not taking the public along with us.
I also want to address the issue of personnel reductions—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that many Members want to speak in this very important debate, and I am sure he will be bringing his remarks to a close shortly.
Mr Dhesi
I shall, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your kind reminder.
I would like to get a response from the Minister about the supplementary estimate that includes a request for an additional £9 billion to cover:
“Depreciation and impairment arising from non-routine accounting adjustments”.
The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I have been at pains to convey that to the Ministry of Defence, and I hope we can get a response about it.
The world is becoming more dangerous, more contested and more uncertain, and at this point we cannot let complacency and inaction be the driving force. We must match national unity with national urgency. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this urgently needed debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. After the next speaker, I will be introducing a time limit, starting with four minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mike Martin
If we want to do that now, it would cost 3.5% of GDP—it is basically a 50% increase on our current defence budget. When we talk about £2 billion here or £5 billion there, that is peanuts. If we want to lead in the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, we need an extra £30 billion for our defence budget now. The Government recognise the scale because they talk about 3.5%, but by 2035. If we are honest with ourselves, we think that is nonsense, because we need to be able to do it right now.
I was in Munich recently and I spoke to a lot of our allies. They all tell us that they want the UK to lead in the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. Absent the US, we are the only country that can do that. We have the nuclear deterrent, the strategic culture, the willingness to use force, and the willingness to take casualties. The one thing we do not have is enough military capability to take that leadership position, and this estimate falls far short of what we need to spend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call Amanda Martin, with a three-minute time limit.
Ukraine
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
With permission, I will update the House on Ukraine.
As we prepare for Christmas, the people of Ukraine are fighting. It is their 1,394th day of resistance since Putin’s full-scale invasion, and their fourth Christmas of the war. I would like to update the House on the work that we are doing to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine by ensuring that it is in the best possible position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. A small number of members of our armed forces are at the heart of that work, whether they are delivering military training in the UK, transporting kit to Ukraine, or helping to develop innovative new warfighting capabilities. Last week, our armed forces and our country lost one of our brightest and best, Lance Corporal George Hooley. He was a model soldier who was tragically killed in Ukraine observing trials of a new defensive drone system, well away from the frontline. I know that the whole House will have been moved by the final letter he wrote to his family, which they released yesterday to coincide with his repatriation, and that the whole House will join me in sending our heartfelt thoughts and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues.
This Government and this House will stand with our Ukrainian friends for as long as it takes. Twelve months ago, I set out five areas in which this Government would increase that support, and with the backing of Members across this House and the commitment of countless defence personnel, partners in industry and allied nations, we have delivered on all five. First, we have strengthened Ukraine’s military capabilities, with a record £4.5 billion military support package this year. That support package includes supplies of tens of thousands of rounds of advanced missiles and ammunition; 85,000 drones, up from the 10,000 gifted last year; and the new Gravehawk air defence system, co-developed with our Danish partners. Secondly, we have now trained more than 62,000 Ukrainians in the UK, alongside our Operation Interflex allies, and we have extended that programme until at least the end of 2026.
Thirdly, to boost Ukraine’s indigenous defence industrial base so that its destiny is increasingly in its own hands, I have led further trade missions to Kyiv. We have also signed new Government-to-Government co-operation agreements that have enhanced the sharing of battlefield technologies, and, in March, we facilitated the £1.6 billion deal for 5,000 lightweight air defence missiles. That supports 700 jobs at Thales in Belfast. This demonstrates how growing defence spending across the globe can act as an engine for growth across all our nations and regions in the UK.
Fourthly, the UK has ramped up our international leadership, with the Defence Secretary stepping up in the spring to co-chair, alongside Germany, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group of over 50 nations. Since then, our UDCG partners have pledged over £50 billion of military support for Ukraine, and at Tuesday’s UDCG meeting, we confirmed the UK’s biggest single-year investment in air defence for Ukraine. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the UK is providing £600 million-worth of air defence systems, missiles and automated turrets to shoot down Russian drones and defend Ukrainian civilians. This includes Raven systems to protect frontline units, Gravehawk systems that reinforce Ukraine’s ability to protect key infrastructure from Russia’s deep-strike barrages, and counter-drone turrets designed specifically to defeat Shahed-style attack drones at scale and at lower cost.
Fifthly and finally, alongside our allies we have significantly ramped up sanctions and economic pressure on the Russian economy. We have sanctioned Russia’s largest oil majors; lowered the crude oil price cap alongside EU partners, contributing to a 35% fall in Russia’s oil revenues year on year; introduced a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will be phased in over the next year; and announced our intention to ban the import of oil products of Russian origin that have been refined in third countries.
Just this morning, we announced a further 24 sanction designations across the Russian oil, military and financial sectors to further ramp up economic pressure on Putin. As the Prime Minister said to the coalition of the willing last month, the UK is ready to move with the EU to provide financial support for Ukraine based on the value of immobilised Russian assets. We are working with EU and G7 partners to advance this aim, and I hope for further positive discussions on it today.
We have tightened sanctions, strengthened alliances, boosted industrial co-operation, delivered military training, and provided the biggest annual package of UK military support for Ukraine to date. Yesterday, we went further, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary calling time on Roman Abramovich’s inaction. The Government have issued a licence that enables the transfer of more than £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club to benefit the victims of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We urge Abramovich to honour the commitments he made over three years ago or face court action.
Twelve months ago, I pledged that this Government would provide iron-clad support for Ukraine. That is what we have delivered, and it is what we will continue to deliver for as long as Putin continues his barbaric assault on the Ukrainian people. I know that that support will continue to enjoy cross-party support in this House.
What was not on the table last December was peace talks. On Monday, the Prime Minister was in Berlin with European leaders to advance President Trump’s peace initiative. The leaders welcomed the significant progress that has been made, and reiterated their commitment to work together to provide robust security guarantees and support economic recovery as part of any peace agreement. We have worked determinedly with our French counterparts to establish a coalition of the willing, which now consists of 36 countries, and a Multinational Force Ukraine, which is an essential pillar of the credible security guarantees required to deter Putin from coming back for more territory in the future.
It has been the position of this Government from the outset that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any peace talks. That is what we have worked to achieve—not just because that is what our values and our international norms and laws dictate, but because practically, Ukraine is too militarily powerful and too determined to defend its sovereignty for peace to be built over the country’s head.
While a pattern has emerged of Russia claiming battlefield successes at opportune political moments, its claims have been exposed as disinformation time and time again. Russia has suffered over 1 million casualties to gain around 1% of Ukrainian territory since the stabilisation of the frontline in 2022. In more than a year of fighting for the comparatively small city of Pokrovsk, Russia has advanced only 15 km—equivalent to 40 metres a day—and although Putin claimed to have finally taken that city ahead of the recent visit of the American negotiating team, it is our defence intelligence’s assessment that pockets of Ukrainian resistance continue to operate there. Right across the frontline, it is Ukraine’s continued strength on the battlefield that gives it strength at the negotiating table, so we will continue to work with our allies to boost that strength and secure the credible security guarantees needed to underpin a just and lasting peace.
As we approach the fifth year of fighting since Russia’s full-scale invasion, this Government are in no doubt that the frontline of UK and European security continues to run through Ukraine. Twelve months ago, there was no clear route to ending the war; today, the US-initiated peace process represents the brightest path towards securing a just and lasting peace that we have seen since the start of the full-scale invasion. To support those diplomatic efforts, we are accelerating joint work with the US on security guarantees. The Defence Secretary directed military chiefs this week to review and update the Multinational Force Ukraine military plans, so that we are ready to deploy when peace comes. That includes revising and raising readiness levels as we continue to work with allies to maximise pressure on Putin’s war machine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield and to grow its defence industrial base.
Russia’s economy is getting weaker: military spending is around 40% of the budget. Its VAT is rising and its social spending is falling. We will continue to work with our allies to tighten the screw on the Russian economy, to provide more support for Ukraine and to lay the foundations for the just and lasting peace that the Ukrainian people so deserve and want. With increasing grey-zone attacks across Europe, Ukraine’s security remains our security. I commend that approach, and this statement, to the House.
Luke Pollard
I wish a merry Christmas to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I thank him for his support for the investment that the UK is making in Ukrainian air defences; we are spending £4.5 billion on Ukraine this year—the most that we have ever spent as a country. It is a really important statement, and the more powerful because it is backed on a cross-party basis. I appreciate his comments about Ukraine in that respect. It is absolutely right that we support Ukraine in shooting down Russian drones and missiles that are targeting civilians in particular, as well as protecting its frontline.
It is important that we value our alliances, and we continue to do so. We have a NATO-first defence policy, as set out in the strategic defence review. We are very clear about our priority focus on the Euro-Atlantic, securing our backyard. That includes working more closely and deeply with our European friends, our NATO allies, our Joint Expeditionary Force partners and Ukraine, as well as supporting and continuing to work with our friends in the United States.
When it comes to the DIP, I believe the right hon. Gentleman was at Defence questions on Monday and will have heard the Defence Secretary say very clearly that he is working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise it. He continues to do so. On industry, we will continue to sign contracts. We have signed over 1,000 contracts since the general election, 83% of which have gone to British companies. We will continue to back British defence companies. We continue to sign those contracts. I recognise the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asked for clarity on behalf of industry. We are working with our industrial partners to do that. Indeed, there are many contracts that his Government chose not to sign, which we are still working our way through to make sure that we can deliver the updated defence posture that the strategic defence review set out so clearly.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are a Government who have delivered a plan to increase defence spending: there was £5 billion extra in our Budget this year, and it will reach 2.5% of our GDP by April 2027—three years earlier than anyone projected. We will achieve 3% in the next Parliament. We have made a commitment alongside our NATO allies for 3.5% on defence, as part of 5% on national security by 2035.
The right hon. Gentleman will also remember from when he was a Defence Minister—it was a wee while ago—that it is very normal to do business-as-usual budget management in-year. We are fixing the mess that his party left us in defence, but for the purpose of this statement I do not wish to make party political jibes. I wish to reinforce the cross-party support that this House can show for our friends in Ukraine. We will continue to do that, and I look forward to that further support being on show next year and every year afterwards.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The final letter from the late Lance Corporal George Hooley is moving, poignant and inspirational. We will remember him.
The Defence Committee wholeheartedly supports the Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, their approach to a just and lasting peace, and the robust security guarantees for our Ukrainian friends. Putin and Russia have illegally invaded a sovereign European nation and should pay the cost, rather than the lion’s share of the burden falling on my Slough constituents and the British taxpayer. Rather than prevaricating, when will the Government and their European allies finally use the frozen Russian assets to punish Putin and properly support our Ukrainian friends?
War in Ukraine
Judith Cummins Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Gilmour
I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken.
It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses.
Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost?
This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations.
As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back.
Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works.
Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic.
That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin.
This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role.
We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security.
Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order.
To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You sit in the Chair and are not allowed to speak, so many in the House may not realise your role in all this. You have visited Ukraine with me and others, and you have been a stalwart champion of all that we have been debating today, so I wanted to make sure that the House recognised the incredible attention and support that you have given.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members here for speaking in support of Ukraine, and for making such important speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.