Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

On defence spending, I am glad that UK-based defence firms will be prioritised for Government investment under the defence industrial strategy, which should boost British jobs in constituencies such as Slough and help to strengthen national security, but major defence programmes are currently in disarray, with only two out of 49 on time and on budget. What actions are the Government taking to fix the waste and mismanagement in the system?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Everyone agrees that more needs to be spent on defence to meet the increasing threats. He asks why only two out of 49 of the major defence projects are on time and on budget. That question may best be directed at the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was responsible for exactly that up until the election six months ago. There is of course a question about how much we spend, but there is also a challenge in how well we spend it. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was one of the strongest critics of the previous Government and of what he described as the “broken” procurement system. We are getting a grip of MOD budgets, driving deep reform in defence and ensuring that we reduce the waste and delay in procurement contracts.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on receiving a distinguished service order—we are all proud of him.

The Government have tied the announcement of their timetable for 2.5% to the publication of the strategic defence review, so we need it to be published as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify why he has pushed back the SDR’s publication in Parliament from the spring to the summer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Congratulations, Minister, on the DSO.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Government have already taken swift action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans’ housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England, and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We have launched a £75 million LGBT financial redress scheme; Op Fortitude, Op Courage and Op Restore are all progressing at pace; and we are currently reviewing how we can make veterans’ support more institutionally resilient. This demonstrates that we have a bias for action, and this Government are delivering for defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the German armed forces commissioner is part of the inspiration for the role. Dr Eva Högl is a superb example of how we can scrutinise and champion the armed forces and provide solutions and a voice to those who serve. She sits effectively as a Member of Parliament in the German Parliament, which we did not feel was appropriate for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner, but the independence and the way she has pioneered much of that work in recent years is a real inspiration to us. We hope that such a workable example from a key NATO ally—people can raise issues with her and shine a spotlight on those issues to improve service welfare matters and as a result improve morale and the operational effectiveness of the armed forces—will give strength to the independence of the role.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for that really important question. We have a duty of care to those from Afghanistan who are now living in the UK and we are absolutely committed to delivering on that. I will write to him in due course on the specifics of his question.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important, in addition to production for our own use. We are working very hard on the export campaigns. I cannot say any more than that at present, but I can assure him that we are working very hard. The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions. It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very important question. I would like to talk further about this. We have been working with the Department for Education—

[Mr Speaker]

Is the Minister happy to answer the question? I do not quite see how it links to the subject, but if he is happy—

[Al Carns]

I can take this discussion offline, and we can talk about this in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

We owe a debt to our nuclear test veterans, who delivered their service in a courageous and honourable way. I have already committed to looking into the records issue in detail, and to continuous engagement with all the charities and nuclear test veteran groups.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?

[James Cartlidge]

Correct, because it is a terrible deal.

[Mr Speaker]

What if I said: I call James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge]

My apologies. I am, like you are Mr Speaker, very passionate on this subject. We see this as a terrible deal. That is why we would have never signed it. The incoming US President opposes the deal, the Mauritians are seeking to renegotiate it, and by any measure it is terrible value for money for the over-taxed British public. Does the Secretary of State really think that it is in our national interest to spend hundreds of millions of pounds leasing back a military base that we currently own, instead of spending every penny of that money on our armed forces in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I absolutely agree. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change housing for our service families. It will save taxpayers £600,000 a day, and £230 million over the year. It gives us an opportunity to build back over the medium to longer term, and to deliver the deal that those families deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?