Middle East
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I want to update the House on the UK military operations in the middle east, but before I do so let me express my total disgust at the antisemitic attack in north London overnight. Our thoughts are with the Jewish community today. The House will have a statement on the attack from the Security Minister after this statement.
I will start this statement by thanking every single person across defence. They are working flat out, whether they are our senior leaders, our junior ranks—military and civilians alike—our planners in Permanent Joint Headquarters, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region or our sailors in the eastern Mediterranean. I say to them, on behalf of the House: you are proving yet again that you are the best of Britain in action.
In the fast-moving events in the middle east, we are maintaining a clear, consistent approach. As I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK Government’s decisions and actions are founded on three principles. The first principle is defensive and taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That is why I have been putting vital military assets into the region since January. The second principle is co-ordination with allies, and leading and co-ordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners, including the US, the G7, the E5 and Gulf nations. The third principle is ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. UK action remains grounded in those principles and our purpose: to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.
Iran is a threat to us all. It is lashing out, and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war it has attacked 12 countries, and has fired more than 3,500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in its sights. Oil refineries have been bombed, embassies and bases have been targeted, and commercial ships have been hit. Some allies, such as France and the United States, have had service personnel killed, and the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades. In conflict it is never possible to remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.
Iran’s attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House that in the early hours of Friday morning two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base. One fell short of its target, while the other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran’s reckless attacks. Iran must stop; it must de-escalate. We want to see this war end now.
My priority as Defence Secretary is the protection of UK personnel, and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. Those measures are reviewed daily by both the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. We know, however, that Iran’s aggression and intent reach beyond the middle east, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home. Over the last year we have been boosting our defence, including our cyber defences, and tightening base security. I want to thank the military police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest and then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter.
Let me turn to our UK defensive operations in the region. Since January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defences in the region. Those advanced preparations made a real difference, and meant that from day one we have been defending actively and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. When Iran started hitting out, putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship.
RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We have more jets in the region than we have had at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we are working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to co-ordinate the contributions of allies, including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and will tonight begin operational integration into Cyprus’s defence alongside allies. More widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity, and provided early warning to our armed forces and our allies operating across the region.
Our military and our industry in the UK have a shared mission: to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. Last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors, defence attachés and UK defence firms, and the Ministry of Defence has now established Taskforce Sabre with industry to support partners across the middle east with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, along with training, and we will deploy Rapid Sentry to Kuwait. Rapid Sentry is a battle-tested, ground-based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces in taking down drones in the region.
I turn to the strait of Hormuz. People and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war, and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend. Iran is holding the strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines, targeting ships—including red ensign vessels—and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support. The UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week that condemned in the strongest terms the attacks on unarmed ships, strongly backed the freedom of navigation, and expressed our readiness
“to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”
I discussed this matter with E5 Defence Ministers last week, and we have now deployed UK military planners to US Central Command to develop options. We are looking to accelerate new UK minehunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission that we have given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to missile sites and capabilities that threaten the strait of Hormuz. We are determined to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so that commercial ships can move freely and confidently again.
This House knows that the demands on defence are rising. While we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the middle east, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine, to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts, and to deal with Putin’s serious threats to the High North. This House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the middle east for their own gain. We will not let them. As a Government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.
John Healey
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel, and I recognise and respect those. He asked me, first, about the comments from President Trump today. I am sure the whole House will welcome President Trump’s statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the
“COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”,
and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants. That creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation, and the onus is now on Iran to respond.
The shadow Secretary of State went on to the strikes that I have reported on, or the missiles fired in the direction of, Diego Garcia. I just say to him that we have been blunt and open about the threat Iran poses—the threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partners—and to suggest otherwise is completely false. That is why we have been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the shadow Defence Secretary the chance to come into the MOD for a secure briefing. I welcome his thanks for that, but he, as a former Defence Minister, will know that no Government routinely comment on the detail of such threats, due to the nature of intelligence sharing. He will also know that no Government immediately confirm such events, partly because in any conflict events are fast-moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should bear that in mind for the future.
I want to reassure the public, however, on the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises about long-range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK, and to say, quite clearly, that there is no assessment that we are being targeted in the UK in that way. We have the resources and the alliances in place to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attack. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom. Our Navy, our RAF and our Army are all involved, and we operate our defence with other NATO allies. That layered defence against missiles or any other sort of threat is an important part of keeping this country safe.
It seems to have taken a war in the middle east for the hon. Gentleman to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. [Interruption.] No, because in the last year of his Government, they slashed defence spending on ground-based air defence by 70%. When he was Defence Minister, he promised a munitions strategy, which he never published and was never funded. It was down to this Government, last June, as part of the strategic defence review, to announce an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATO’s DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—air and missile defence initiative. It is this Government who in this year alone have boosted spending on counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government, and spending on ground-based air defence systems by 50%. It is this Government who are delivering for defence after 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous Government.
I have to say that I am still very confused about the Conservatives’ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must “go to the source” in Iran and that “we are in this war” whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:
“I never said we should join”.
The week after that, the shadow Defence Secretary said on Sky News that there are no easy answers to this.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talks about defence investment planning and spending. We are working to finalise the DIP, but he was, of course, the Defence Minister who left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes not on budget, not on time. He was the one who left a defence programme that was over-committed, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats we now face. It is this Government, a Labour Government, who are now delivering for defence: 1,200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses, and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Iranian regime is a threat to us all, not least to its own population. I implore Ministers to remember the importance of a debate in Parliament, just as we had on Iraq, if we move further in our involvement with Trump’s war.
John Healey
The Mother of the House speaks with long and deep experience of these matters. I would just say to her that the Prime Minister himself has said that while we are taking
“the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.”
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump’s illegal assault on Iran, and still there is no plan and no end in sight. It is not Trump or his partner in this ill-conceived war, Netanyahu, who is paying the price, but hard-pressed British families who are seeing it in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, billions around the world who are suffering the economic fallout, and more than 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalating the crisis, Trump is just making more threats; instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain.
There is much that I hope the House can agree on at this critical moment—most importantly, that Britain’s interests are served only by rapid de-escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view, which in many ways reflects the broadly responsible approach that this Government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region. None the less, the Government’s decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump’s war. It appears to be a significant shift in the Government’s position.
I therefore wish to ask the Secretary of State three questions. First, does he agree that the Government’s definition of “defensive” is different today from when the House last sat? Secondly, will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice that the Government have received about this latest expansion of the rights of US planes to use UK bases? Thirdly, will he support Liberal Democrat-proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases, to ensure that they are truly defensive in nature?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
This is just the politics of grievance from the SNP. This Labour Government have allocated £50 million to support growth in Scotland, including £5 million for the Arrol Gibb campus in Rosyth and—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. You have asked the question; at least listen to the answer, even if you disagree with it.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman did not want to hear about the £5 million for the Arrol Gibb centre in Rosyth, the £5 million for the Clyde engineering campus, and the extra funding for a defence technical excellence college that will create defence skills. I hope that, on reflection, he will ask his Government in Scotland to back what Scottish Labour has backed: the funding for two Scottish DTECs.
John Healey
I agree that the strategy is key; my hon. Friend is entirely right. This capital is matched by the biggest increase in defence spending from public investment and the public purse since the end of the cold war. We are ensuring that it leverages in not just additional sources of private investment, but record foreign direct investment. We have had £3.2 billion into this country since the election, and have had the most successful British exports year on record, winning fresh business, fresh contracts and fresh opportunities for British innovators and businesses.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am not sure that the Secretary of State heard the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), which was incredibly simple: will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises on 26 March?
John Healey
As the Prime Minister said, it will be published as soon as it is ready. This is not holding up major investments; there have been more than 1,200 major investments in contracts awarded since the election—and 86% of those contracts were awarded to British-based businesses, so we are boosting British security and the British economy at the same time.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the “get home” allowance that we made sure every one of our serving personnel could access at Christmas for the first time. We have delivered the highest pay increase for forces personnel for 20 years. The more than 10% pay rise over the first two years of this Government is part of making service life more affordable, including for those in Northern Ireland. I am proud to be the first Defence Secretary of this country who can say that no one working full time in UK military uniform is paid less than the national living wage.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the range of threats that the Iranian regime poses, especially, as we have seen, as it hits back after the first wave of strikes. Those hits are widespread, they hit countries not involved in the conflict and they are directed at civilian, not just military targets. I say to his constituents living as well as serving in Akrotiri that when I was out there about 10 days ago I made a point of asking our base commander if there was anything further he needed from us back in Britain, and he said, “I have got everything that I asked for to protect ourselves.”
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After having insulted Great Britain for our response in not joining his war and then claiming that he did not need British help after having “already won” the war, President Donald Trump has now sent an SOS to the world, including to the UK and other NATO allies, to help him protect the strait of Hormuz. I think it is in our national interests to stop the disruption to global shipping, because otherwise that will drive up the cost of goods and the cost of living for my Slough constituents and others across the country. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government’s response will be to the US President’s request? How will my right hon. Friend ensure the safety of British armed forces personnel if they are to engage in any such operations?
John Healey
Quite simply, we will do so by making a major contribution, as we are, to discussions about any multinational plans that may be put in place to safeguard for the future the commercial shipping that is the lifeline both of the international economy and of international security.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
British personnel in Cyprus, Bahrain, Iraq and across the middle east have been attacked by Iran and its proxies. In such circumstances, we must act quickly to protect our people and interests. Having served on Royal Navy vessels, I know it takes time to ready a ship, yet nearly two weeks passed before the Government sent a single destroyer— HMS Dragon—to help defend our forces in Cyprus. Why was that decision not taken sooner, and given that the Royal Navy had advised deploying assets earlier, which Minister took the decision not to act on that point?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her lobbying in favour of Carlisle as a location. Having visited Longtown, I have seen her constituents’ dedication and passion in supporting defence, as well as the opportunities there. We are making good progress on our commitment to allocate resources in this Parliament for six energetics and munitions factories. We hope to make a decision on the first wave of those in due course. I will be sure to keep all Members involved, including those who have made a good case in the Chamber today.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On that Chorley and Lancashire theme, it will not be possible to increase the defence skills in this country if the defence jobs of the future are not secure in that pipeline. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State talk earlier about British jobs, British industry and British innovation—he can probably gather where this is going, judging from the whispering on the Government Front Bench—so I was confused when there was bragging about ordering from British companies for defence as to why American F-35s were ordered, not British Typhoons. Given that we will need around 100 aircraft to maintain the workforce at Warton for Tempest in the future, I assume, whenever the defence investment plan is finally published, we will see an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF within it.
Luke Pollard
Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know what a champion he is, not just for large companies such as General Dynamics but for the wider supply chain. That is precisely why the Department has committed to increasing our direct spend with small businesses by 50% by 2028, ensuring that we are removing the barriers to small businesses being able to engage with the defence supply chain more and investing in the skills that those small and large businesses require to make the most of a rising defence budget. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents in relation to General Dynamics shortly.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?
John Healey
I praise my hon. Friend’s chairmanship of the Committee. He is absolutely right: as the strategic defence review said last year, Russia poses an immediate and pressing threat to this country. The UK and allies’ navies monitor, shadow and surveil activities of the Russian navy, and we are stepping up our surveillance of any activity close to our oil installations and pipelines.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?
Al Carns
The hon. Member is absolutely correct. We took a six-week programme of deep refit and rearmed in six days—a remarkable effort from both the industry and the Royal Navy. I doff my cap to what they have done. That ship is now sailing to the middle east. At times of crisis, we can move things faster. We made a decision as quickly as possible, and if we need to, we will do the same again. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will recognise that an air defence destroyer is designed to protect a moving aircraft carrier. We may want to look into the investment in ground-based air defence over the last five to 15 years, and the lack of capability that we were left with. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I need to hear the next question. I will not be able to if there is chuntering across the Chamber.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
In Devon and Somerset, we are home to some of the finest units of the British armed forces, from Devonport to Lympstone to 40 Commando at Norton Manor and to Royal Marines Barracks Chivenor in north Devon. The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting, and President Trump’s latest comments about NATO only underline the importance of a strong UK defence capability and strategic autonomy. It is often said that if you want peace, you must prepare for war, so after years in which successive Conservative Governments hollowed out our armed forces—QED—will the Minister outline how the Government intend to ensure that this country is properly equipped to defend itself in the event of a major conflict? [Interruption.]
John Healey
We invested £8 billion more in defence in our first year than the Conservative Government did in their last year, with a total of £270 billion into defence in this Parliament alone and a vision for the next 10 years set out in our strategic defence review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry mentioned Exercise Titan Storm in the context of Ajax. On 1 January, I asked the Ministry of Defence a named-day question—which was due an answer by 7 January—about how many noise and vibration injuries had been sustained up to Exercise Titan Storm. Before Defence Ministers leave the Chamber, may I ask for your advice on how best to elicit an answer, which is now over two months late?
Mr Speaker
Does a Front Bencher wish to respond? No? I will deal with it, then.
This is totally unacceptable. A named-day question should be answered: I cannot believe that something asked in January has still not been answered. May I ask the Secretary of State to look into that and ensure that questions are answered? It is not good enough. Members are representing their constituents, including people who are serving and those who may be serving in this contract. Please, I say to the Government, take this House more seriously. Members of Parliament are having a very bad time from Government, who seem to have a total disregard for us.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mark Pritchard
It is. May I thank you for your comments, Mr Speaker?
The next Defence questions will be on 10 May. We are all aware of the recess, but our armed forces personnel will be in harm’s way during that period—many of them are my constituents, and they are all represented across the House. May I look to you, Mr Speaker, to allow for urgent questions and particularly statements where necessary, as you always do, to be given by the Defence team in that period? There is a very long period of time until 10 May, given that we have armed forces personnel on duty right now.
Mr Speaker
I am not going to carry on the conversation. I think the right hon. Member has put his point on the record.
Points of Order
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. However, since then it has been brought to my attention that in 2006 the Prime Minister was instructed to represent an individual by the law firm for which Mr Shiner was the principal solicitor. I would like to take this earliest opportunity to apologise to the House and correct the record.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 12.]
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for placing the correction on the record.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice, Mr Speaker, but during Health questions this morning the Minister said that for the first time ever there will be a children’s cancer strategy as part of the cancer strategy. However, the Government scrapped the children’s cancer strategy that we had put in place, so should the Minister not come and correct the record for having misled the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order, and we are not going to carry on the debate. It is not for me to say whether there was right or wrong. The hon. Member has certainly got the point on the record. I am sorry we did not get you in for a question—it might have saved us the point of order.
Bill Presented
Online Services (Age Restrictions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Munira Wilson, supported by Victoria Collins, Ed Davey and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict access to online services, including social media, by children in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 March, and to be printed (Bill 391).
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract; it was a decision made by the Secretary of State, and it was his decision alone.
As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that Conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022, and he knows that the MOD uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support operations and wider data analytics. I am sure he is not suggesting that we should not be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his Government were wrong to formalise the relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I do not think he is.
It is really important that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, the then ambassador unfortunately was not available to meet, or was not there, but the Prime Minister has been clear at the Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency. We intend to publish as much material as we can, as soon as reasonably possible. The Cabinet Office is working with the Met police and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents does not prejudice the Met investigation, or the UK’s national security and international relations. That process is under way, and that is in addition to the other actions that the Prime Minister has already taken.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In this evolving security environment, it is clear that developments in artificial intelligence and tech are changing the world at a rate of knots. Those things are integral to defence, but that must not come at the cost of transparency, trust and British businesses. Hon. Members who have served in this House for quite some time will know that dealings with Palantir have been the subject of intense scrutiny and speculation for several years. The key question is: why was this particular contract not subject to the usual competitive procurement processes?
Luke Pollard
The Palantir enterprise agreement was a direct award, justified under the Procurement Act 2023. The agreement covers existing services and areas in which there is a robust technical justification for using Palantir products and services for defence outcomes. All procurement procedures were followed, and a transparency notice was published.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said?
Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that investigations are under way. As the Government made clear to the House last week, we will co-operate fully with those investigations, and we will ensure that the information that the House requires to be published is published in a way that creates the transparency that we all seek. There are already safeguards in place around the use of artificial intelligence in Ministry of Defence decision making, and we are looking at ways to enable new opportunities, especially for UK firms, given the growing requirement in the Ministry of Defence for faster decision making and better data management. I understand her concerns about AI and safeguards, and I will continue to update the House as the AI strategy that Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published is rolled out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Most British scandals are fairly pathetic by international standards—they are about things like serving a piece of cake to the Prime Minister—but this scandal is monumental because it involves somebody in service to the Government using his position for commercial gain. In my long experience of such scandals, what brings down Presidents and Prime Ministers is not the original scandal, but the cover up. My advice to the Minister is to answer the perfectly sensible questions that are being put to him, particularly by the Chair of the Defence Committee about the lack of competitive process, and by the Opposition spokesman about the meeting in Washington. Will the Minister now answer the questions put to him?
Mr Speaker
Order. First, do not walk across the Member who is asking the question. [Interruption.] Just sit down. Secondly, if you have asked a question, please wait for the answer—do not keep interrupting. We have to treat people with respect and tolerance in this House.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the role of defence to keep our country safe; as part of that, we do procure lethal capabilities, but not all the capabilities we procure are physical capabilities to secure our national security. AI will continue to be an increasingly large area.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the transparency of our shareholdings, Defence Ministers have to publish all of our shareholdings with the relevant standards commissioner. I do not hold shares in Palantir, and no Defence Ministers are allowed to hold any shares in a company that interacts with defence businesses.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?
John Healey
Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a £450 million contract to Leonardo for a really important part of upgrading our Typhoon jets for the future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the supply chain to smaller and medium-sized firms is often mediated by primes such as Leonardo, which is why it is important that, since the election, we have let over 1,100 major contracts in defence, 84% of which have gone to British-based firms.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney.
Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?
John Healey
We are working flat out to complete the DIP, and the hon. Gentleman above all, having been responsible for defence procurement in the last Government, will appreciate just how overcommitted his own programme is. He will appreciate the truth of his former boss saying that, over 14 years, the Conservatives had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. We will deal with that overcommitment, we will deal with the underfunding and we will deal with the fact that his plans were unsuited to many of the threats we face.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.
More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:
“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?
What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants
“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.
John Healey
Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?
John Healey
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
As a fellow Unite member, I recognise the importance of good, well-paid, unionised jobs in our defence industry. The opportunities in autonomy were set out clearly in the strategic defence review. We believe that a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems—for not just some but all units of our armed forces—is the right future, in which we can increase our lethality and move towards warfighting readiness faster. When we do that correctly, as we will set out in the defence investment plan, more jobs will be created in British companies—and, potentially, at Leonardo—as they consider autonomous helicopters and uncrewed platforms working together to increase our armed forces’ lethality and ability.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important urgent question on behalf of his constituents.
The UK has retired Puma early, leaving a medium-lift helicopter capability gap. At the very moment our allies are accelerating procurement because the threat picture has worsened, the Government are still dithering on the replacement of that critical sovereign capability. Ministers keep hiding behind the forever-delayed DIP—the defence investment plan—but if they do not get on with it, they will be dealing with two more dips: a big dip in employment and investment in Yeovil and across the UK when Leonardo leaves because of Government inaction, and a dip in the capability of our armed forces, which will be left without a modern medium helicopter to call upon. Once an end-to-end helicopter-manufacturing workforce has drained away, we cannot magic up a new one when another crisis hits. Does the Minister recognise that if Yeovil is not sustained, we will lose those skills for a generation? Given that Leonardo is the only remaining bidder, will the Government stop dithering and get on with it now? Will the Minister commit to a new contract today?
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, and with thanks to you for allowing me to do so at this late hour, I wish to make a statement to update the House on today’s US operation and yesterday’s coalition of the willing summit in Paris.
Today the US conducted a military operation to intercept the motor vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic on its way to Russia. The UK, at the request of the US, supported this operation as part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions-busting and shadow shipping activity. The Bella 1 was falsely flagged and subject to US counter-Iran sanctions. The vessel refused to comply with the US’s exercise of its sanctions jurisdiction on 20 December, after which the US Coast Guard vessel Munro pursued the ship across the Atlantic. It is a sanctioned, stateless vessel that carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with both Iran and Russia.
Following a request from the US, I authorised the use of UK bases and the deployment of Royal Navy and RAF assets to support the operation, including airborne surveillance and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Tideforce. This was a US operation. No UK personnel took part in the boarding. I can update the House that the operation is ongoing, but the Bella 1 is now under the control of US forces, who demonstrated immense courage and professionalism in dangerous and deteriorating Atlantic sea conditions.
A stateless vessel may be lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state. The US’s enforcement action was based on counter-Iran sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from fuelling instability through the profits of illegal oil sales. The UK supported this action to achieve three objectives: first, to enforce counter-Iran sanctions; secondly, to tackle the global security threat posed by expanding shadowy maritime activity; and thirdly, to reinforce British homeland defence and security in this era of rising threats.
Let me expand. First, in 2024, the vessel was sanctioned by the US and subjected to a seizure warrant for illegally transporting Iranian oil. It has reflagged five times in the last five years and was falsely flying the Guyana ensign when it was intercepted by the US. Over a four-year period, reports suggest that the vessel moved some 7.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil, the proceeds of which are used to finance terrorism, threat and instability across the world.
The Iranian regime continue to export violence across the region through their proxies and partners including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias. They maintain support for Russia by supplying Putin with weapons for his brutal invasion of Ukraine, including the Shahed drones and missiles that target and kill Ukrainian civilians. It is telling that the vessel, in an attempt to evade the seizure warrant, changed its name and tried to adopt the Russian flag.
Secondly, the UK also supported this military operation to counter the expanding global security threat. The vessel is part of an increasing web of shadow shipping that fuels and funds instability across the world, that undermines global trade and that threatens our national security. We know that Russia operates a vast shadow fleet of its own to bankroll its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Last year, it is estimated that Russia sold $100 billion-worth of sanctioned oil: money that is directly funding attacks against Ukrainian civilians, such as the onslaught during Christmas involving 600 Russian missiles and drones that killed at least three people.
We owe it to the Ukrainians to step up action on those shadow operations, and we are doing so. That is why we are deterring, we are disrupting and we are degrading the Russian shadow fleet as a priority for the Government. To date, we have imposed sanctions on 544 vessels. According to estimates, sanctions against the shadow fleet by the UK and our partners have forced 200 ships off the seas—almost half the Russia shadow fleet’s overall capacity—while Russia’s critical oil revenues are now down 27% compared to October 2024. That is their lowest since the start of its full-scale invasion.
Let me speak plainly: the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so.
Thirdly, this is not just about international security but about the threats to British national security. Iran presents a persistent danger not only to security in the middle east, but to us here in the UK. It poses a significant espionage threat, it sustains an aggressive cyber-attack campaign against us and, as our own Intelligence and Security Committee reported, since 2022 the Iranian regime has plotted at least 15 assassination or kidnap attempts on British soil.
More widely across Europe, we are seeing a pattern of flagrant maritime activity co-ordinated by Russia, so I applaud and welcome the fact that the Finnish authorities last week seized a Russian shadow vessel suspected of damaging a communications cable under the gulf of Finland. We have also exposed the Russian spy ship Yantar, operating in our waters and surveying our undersea cables. And, of course, by assisting our US allies in taking this ship off the seas, we are protecting the British people and our nation.
This is a stark reminder that our world is changing; it is less predictable and more dangerous. This operation and the shadow fleet show the global links between the security threats faced by the UK and its allies. The shadow fleet itself is vital to Putin’s ongoing illegal invasion and war in Ukraine, which brings me on to the second topic in this single statement.
Next month, we enter the fifth year of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—still fight with huge courage and defiance. I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine, that Britain remains united for Ukraine. We know that if Putin prevails he will not stop at Ukraine, and we know that a secure Europe depends on a strong, sovereign Ukraine.
I am also proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. It started under the last Government and stepped up under this Government. Now we—the UK—lead the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany, and secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. We, with France, lead the coalition of the willing, undertaking detailed military planning to help secure peace for the long term when a deal is agreed. I say to this House: let us make 2026 not only the year when peace is possible, but the year when peace is achieved.
This Government are leading that push for peace; this Government are building a new deal for European security. That is why in Paris yesterday, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing, with 39 nations, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron and President Zelensky, signed a declaration of intent. As the Prime Minister said,
“The purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraine’s security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever.”
Yesterday’s declaration advances that work significantly. It confirms that the UK and France will “take a leading role”: first, in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement; secondly, in supporting the development of Ukraine’s defence capabilities; and thirdly, in commanding a multinational force for Ukraine that plans to deploy to Ukraine after a ceasefire has been agreed.
The MFU plans to deploy units from nations in the coalition of the willing to carry out defence and deterrence operations in the air, on land and at sea, and to conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. The UK and France will also create military hubs to support that work across the country and build protected facilities within Ukraine for weapons and equipment. As the Prime Minister has said today, “If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”
Yesterday, at this largest meeting of the coalition of the willing, we agreed further significant steps, including the signing of a joint declaration. We will also participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. We will support the long-term provision of armaments for Ukraine’s defence, and we will continue to work with the US towards security guarantees to deter any further Russian aggression and to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. In Paris yesterday, US Special Envoy Witkoff described these commitments as being
“as strong as anyone has ever seen”.
I will travel very soon to Kyiv to continue these discussions with Ukrainian political and military leaders.
A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine, but we can only get a peace deal if Putin is ready to make compromises. Over the Christmas period, he showed that he was still not ready for peace, with hundreds of drones and missiles being fired into Ukraine and Russian attacks continuing on the frontline, so in 2026 we will continue with other nations to step up our military support still further. Our mission is to support the fight today, as well as to secure the peace tomorrow. In conclusion, our Government will always act in the interests of national security. We are committed to countering the threats posed by our adversaries, to standing by our closest allies, and to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
John Healey
We are working flat out on the defence investment plan. We will complete it and publish it as soon as we can.
The sovereignty of Greenland is not at issue: it is clearly Denmark that has sovereignty. It is clear that Greenland and Denmark are a part of NATO. Greenland’s security is guaranteed by its membership, and by all 32 nations of NATO. Any decisions on the future of Greenland are a matter for the citizens of Greenland and for Denmark.
Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s more extensive questions and points about the declaration of intent yesterday and the situation in Ukraine. I welcome his commitment to and support for a lasting and just peace. He pledged his support for all efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and I welcome his support for our work to do that. On the detailed questions, I will simply not go into detail on the nature of the activities in the deployment, the numbers of troops that are likely to be deployed to Ukraine or the commitments that other nations have made. As a former Defence Minister, he will understand that well. The finality of this will depend on the details of the peace deal. He quite rightly said that we will deploy only if there is a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Disclosing, let alone debating, those sort of details would only make Putin wiser.
On the deployment in future of any British forces, I am proud to say that whenever British forces deploy, including abroad, they meet the highest possible standards of international law and professionalism, and they will continue to do so.
On the number of nations committed to and involved in the planning of the coalition, as the Prime Minister has said, and as I said in my statement, yesterday’s meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet. Yesterday’s declaration of intent signifies not just an advance in our work towards the security guarantees and peace, but a gathering of momentum behind that.
Although the hon. Gentleman welcomes our support and pledges his own for efforts to bring peace, he questions aspects of this deployment and of this coalition of the willing, though his party leader has still not publicly backed the coalition of the willing, and has still not publicly said that she would support the multinational force for Ukraine. If and when she does, we will gladly see that as support for the security of Britain, the future of Ukraine and the strengthening of our work with allies.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Putin is not interested in peace. He is quite right to say that we will not, and should not, let up on intensifying the economic pressure. My statement dealt with the shadow fleet, which is part of that. We should not give up, or let up on increasing the pressure on Putin through the military aid and support that we provide to Ukraine. I can tell the House that I will co-chair the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside the German Finance Minister. We will do that at NATO next month, and we will look to ensure the strongest possible pledges throughout 2026, so that we can step up support for Ukraine, both for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the advance sight of the statement from the Defence Secretary, and I thank the Defence Minister for the operational briefing this morning. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s progress on the coalition of the willing. Of course, it does nothing to change the reality on the ground faced by our Ukrainian friends, nor the growing threats that we face. We await precise details, with respect to numbers. It is rumoured that approximately 7,500 British troops will be sent. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can allay my concerns about how our already overstretched armed forces will be able to meet their existing commitments, especially in Estonia.
The UK’s support today for our US allies enforcing sanctions in the Atlantic demonstrates the strength and value of alliances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and Denmark to determine, and that any attempts by a NATO ally to seize NATO territory would not be in our collective interests, and least of all in America’s interests?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work chairing the Defence Committee. He, I and the Prime Minister are entirely at one: the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland. It is under the sovereignty of Denmark, a nation that is a full-scale, valued member of the NATO alliance.
My hon. Friend is right to question me on UK deployment and our commitments. He will get the chance to question me directly; I look forward to appearing before his Committee later this month. As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, the House will have the opportunity to debate the issues in detail if and when there is any commitment and decision to deploy troops, following on from what he made clear was a political statement—a declaration of intent that is significant in advancing our work to secure Ukrainians’ future, but nevertheless a political declaration. The House would then have the chance to debate in full Members’ concerns, the consequences of any future deployment to Ukraine, and the terms on which we would make that deployment.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary.
We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security.
Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume?
Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?
John Healey
I think my statement made it clear that I took the decision to allow US forces to base themselves in the UK after we made an assessment of the legal basis for and the purpose of the planned US operation. That was a responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concerns on that front.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening co-ordination with allies. In many ways, he is also right to say that the Ukrainians are fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values, and for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine its own future.
On the circumstances of any deployment, the Prime Minister has been clear—as have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planning—that the decision to deploy, and the military plans that are prepared, will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed. That is one of the reasons that I stressed in my statement that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as the long-term peace that we all hope will follow.
The hon. Gentleman urges me to support his argument on the imperative of increasing defence funding to 2.5% and beyond—I support it entirely. He will welcome the fact that this Government have made the difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid and into defence. We have done so because we recognise this new era of threat that we face—an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.
Finally, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment to move beyond that to 3%, and we have made the solemn commitment, alongside all other 31 nations in the NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, and a total of 5% on general defence and national security by 2035. That is a sign of the strength and unity of the NATO alliance, and its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, congratulating the brave men and women on the successful operation, and paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his clear leadership in the defence of Ukraine? My question is this: is there anything more we can do to ensure that Vladimir Putin is serious about peace?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: his constituency hosts not only some important big UK defence primes, but many very small innovative firms. That is why, as a new Government, we said that we would set a new target for the proportion of defence investment going directly to British SMEs. We set up a new SME growth centre to help them deal with Government, which has previously been too difficult.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his efforts so far, but our efforts are still puny compared with those made when there was last a major threat, in the 1930s. In 1933, we spent just 2.2% of GDP on defence. Remember George Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party, who wanted to abolish the RAF altogether? By 1938, we were spending a massive 7%. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a whole new gearing-up of our efforts? He could start by recommissioning the RAF bases that were open in the 1930s, but have now been closed, such as RAF Scampton.
John Healey
We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of this House, he will appreciate, from serving on the Defence Committee, the scale of the decisions that we need to make. He will also appreciate the scale of the problems that we face, including those to do with a programme of the last Government’s that over-committed, and was underfunded and unsuited to meeting the threats that we will face in the future.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country.
I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?
John Healey
The House will know to take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was in government, his munitions strategy was often promised and never published. His drone strategy had more pictures than pages—and no funding. His Government’s defence funding plan was published as an election gimmick just weeks before the election and was never delivered in 14 years. We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the work on the defence investment plan.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Tom Harrison House. I have heard many times of the unique nature of the support that it provides. We must support veterans in using that particular service, and see what we can do to further such support. I would be more than happy to visit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as:
“A direct threat to national security.”
Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?
Luke Pollard
I disagree with my hon. Friend. If we look at the people dying in Ukraine—dying for Ukrainian freedom and for our freedom—because of a Russian war machine, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar loitering over our critical underwater infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. If we look at the cyber-attacks on our defence infrastructure, we see that the threat is real. Our entire economy is supported by our national security, which is why the Government are investing in it, and we make no apology for doing so.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The NATO Secretary-General, our service chiefs and intelligence leaders have warned repeatedly about the growing risk of conflict with Russia, yet the recent Budget did not reflect that reality. In fact, the MOD is cutting £2.6 billion in-year, and we have discovered this week that it is cutting overseas training just to try to balance the books. When the Minister speaks to service chiefs about the defence investment plan, does he ask them to plan for credible deterrents, or simply to accept that there is no cash behind the Government’s rhetoric?
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
During 2025, the Labour Government have been delivering for defence and for Britain, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the largest level of military support for Ukraine, the largest pay increase for forces personnel in 20 years, the largest investment in forces housing for 50 years, the largest ever British warship deal, and the largest typhoon deal for a generation. We have the strategic defence review to move us to warfighting readiness; the defence industrial strategy to drive defence as an engine for growth across the UK; new defence agreements with the EU, Norway and France; new investment in technology, with Atlantic Bastion, cyber and electromagnetic command and drones; and over 1,000 major new contracts signed. In 2026, we will deliver further. Today, on the eve of Parliament’s Christmas recess, and on behalf of the House, I wish every member of our armed forces—especially those whose service will mean they are separate from their loved ones—a peaceful and safe Christmas.
Mr Speaker
I call Antonia Bance. [Interruption.] Sorry, I call Julian Smith. The answer was that long, I had forgotten about him.
Sir Julian Smith
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about our armed forces having a fantastic Christmas, wherever they are. The strategic defence review talked about the need for a “national conversation” on defence. What steps are the Government taking to support that national conversation, particularly so that our constituents and the population are faced with the trade-offs needed to increase spending on our armed forces?
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have met Richard Parker and seen his passion and determination for driving more growth in small businesses located in the west midlands. There is a huge opportunity as we increase defence spending, and standing up the new office for small business growth in the new year will provide more opportunities for west midlands businesses to access defence contracts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?
John Healey
We were talking about the strategic defence partnership agreement. We wanted to follow that up with an agreement on Security Action for Europe, but that proved impossible to negotiate in a way that was good value for the British defence industry and the British taxpayer. That will not stop us from promoting the cause of the British defence industry and doing the record defence export deals that we have done over the past year—an extra £10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and £8 billion through the biggest Typhoon deal in a generation. We will do more alongside the European Union, which is a valued partner; in particular, we will do more on Ukraine, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
As the space nerd in the ministerial team, I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in space. Working with Baroness Lloyd, the Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we have a real opportunity to renew our space strategy, because the strategy we inherited was out of date and ineffective and was not supporting our industry. We are seeking to support our industry to go further, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss space further.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
In light of the United States’ new national security strategy, which fundamentally alters its global defence positioning, does the Secretary of State accept that relying on US-owned nuclear weapons for the recently announced new F-35A jets compromises British operational security, given that the UK will require explicit US authorisation to use them? Given that the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the Ministry of Defence does not know the full cost of the F-35A programme—effectively, it is a blank cheque—how can this represent value for money if the United States could deny UK use of this capability in a crisis? Will the Government publish their assessment of that risk?
Luke Pollard
Having been a shadow fisheries Minister when the botched Brexit deal went through, I know that much of the extra fish is paper fish that cannot be caught. The new restrictions that were put on our fishermen mean that it does not work. This Department is focusing on improving our defences and increasing defence spending—something the right hon. Gentleman never did when he was in government. [Interruption.]
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Many LGBT veterans, including those in my constituency, were seriously affected by the indignity they faced during the pre-2000 ban on LGBT personnel. What progress has the Department made in delivering the financial reparations to LGBT veterans affected by that ban?
Russian Ship Yantar
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I once again remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements be made to the House in the first instance, not the media. This applies to Secretaries of State. It is disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence made a speech on television yesterday, yet no statement from the Government has been made in this House. I hate to say this, but the House went up at 3 o’clock yesterday. There was a huge gap that could have been filled.
This is the third time in a row from Defence that a statement has been made to the outside—to the media—rather than to the House. We are elected Members of Parliament. All Ministers serve this House, not Sky News or the BBC, so I hope that message is going back. The ministerial code is not fit for purpose if this continues to happen, so I hope that it will be used, and that Ministers will take it seriously. Please, as I stated yesterday: matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come to this House first.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say this gently to the Minister: unfortunately, it is not a statement—that is what I had wished it would be. He is answering an urgent question, and I think that is the big problem; somehow, different Departments have decided that statements do not matter. I know that is not the Minister’s position, but I hope that people are listening and that the message about how important it is that this House comes first will go back to the Defence Secretary.
Al Carns
Mr Speaker, I will pass the message on to the broader team.
I would like to make some comments on the Russian main directorate of deep-sea research programme, known as GUGI. As the Secretary of State for Defence described yesterday, the Russian research vessel Yantar is part of this programme, and is used for gathering intelligence and mapping undersea infrastructure, not just in the United Kingdom but across many other nations, both in Europe and across the globe. The UK understands that the Yantar is but one ship in a fleet of Russian vessels designed to threaten our critical national underwater infrastructure and pose a threat to our economics and our way of life.
Russia has been developing a military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. GUGI is developing capabilities. It is deployed from specialist surface vessels and submarines that are intended to be used to survey underwater infrastructure during peacetime, but then damage or destroy infrastructure in deep water during a conflict. Russia seeks to conduct this type of operation covertly without being held responsible. Such capabilities can be deployed from surface vessels like the Yantar. That is why Defence directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture, so that we can better track and respond to the threats from this vessel and many others.
The Yantar has been operating once again—for the second time this year—in and around the UK’s exclusive economic zone. During that time, she was continuously monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset and the RAF’s P-8s.
We will ensure that the Yantar is not able to conduct its mission unchallenged or untracked. But that has not been without difficulties: a laser assessed to be originating from the port side of the Yantar was directed at British personnel operating one of our P-8s in a highly dangerous and reckless attempt to disrupt our monitoring. The P-8 continued to monitor the Yantar’s activity. Post incident, when its personnel arrived back safe in the UK, they were medically assessed. No injuries were sustained and no damage was sustained to the aircraft or her equipment.
Russia does not want us to know what it is doing or what the Yantar is up to; it does not want the world to know what it is doing. But we will not be deterred; we will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure. We will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses. I finish by saying a great thank you to the brave men and women of our Royal Navy and RAF who continue to keep us safe at home and abroad.
Al Carns
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.
Since coming into Government, we have signed the Trinity House deal with the Germans and renewed the Lancaster House deal with the French. We have done the world’s biggest-ever frigate deal with the Norwegians, bringing in tens of billions in investment. We have done a Typhoon deal with the Turkish, and we have secured a UK-EU security and defence partnership. We have led the coalition of the willing with the French. We have taken on the UDCG, which has generated billions of investment for Ukraine. We have done deals with the EU, US and India. I would argue that this is like an episode—a really bad one—of “Deal or No Deal”.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
May I begin by joining the Minister in thanking our service personnel for their bravery and dedication? The use of lasers in this instance was a brazen act of aggression by Russia that endangered the lives of RAF pilots. Have the Government identified the Russian officials and military personnel who gave the order to engage so that they can be held accountable and sanctioned? What assurances can the Minister give that Russia understands the consequences of repeating this aggression towards the UK?
This episode has shown once again the lengths to which Putin will go to undermine Britain’s defence. It follows the reports of Russian sabotage of Poland’s civilian railway this week. Can the Minister tell the House what conversations Ministers have had with fellow European Ministers to agree a collective response to Russia’s hybrid attacks, including to protect Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure? Recognising also that our Ukrainian allies are on the frontline of Putin’s aggression, will the Minister take forward my private Member’s Bill, which calls for the unilateral seizure of Russian assets in the UK so that they can be used to fund Ukraine’s defence?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Like her, I am very excited about the defence industrial strategy, and she is right to urge me to ensure we take an early decision about the replacement of the Hawk trainer. We will, because that is a long-overdue decision that should have been taken years ago by the previous Administration and the previous Defence Procurement Minister.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend.
We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to recognise remembrance as a time when we recognise not just the service of those in the past, but those who serve today. We make demands on them that none of us would have to meet. We ask them to deploy at a week’s notice to the other side of the world, and we ask them to move with their families every few years around the UK. The very last thing they should worry about is whether their wives, husbands, partners or kids are living in cold, damp and leaky homes. We are ending what my hon. Friend says is the Tory scandal of unfit forces housing, and we are getting Britain building the homes that we need on surplus defence land—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will want to catch my eye for his own questions. He should not use up all his ammunition just yet.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the £9 billion investment in military housing, but can the Secretary of State reassure Members, those serving and their families that responsive repairs will not be put on hold in the hope of a new bathroom, kitchen or heating system?
Al Carns
I recall that a quadcopter landed on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth when she set sail several years ago, and since then investment in taking out uncrewed air systems has been relatively limited. However, in the strategic defence review we have pledged £1 billion to integrated air defence here in the UK, and my hon. Friend will see many procurements moving forward in the defence investment plan.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
According to their own written answer, the Government ordered only three drones for the British armed forces in their first financial year. At June’s Defence oral questions, I suggested that Labour could find the money to buy drones at the scale we need by scrapping the crazy Chagos deal. They rejected my proposal then, but given that the Secretary of State has just failed to deny £2.6 billion of cuts at the MOD this year, is it not even more urgent that they scrap their crazy £35 billion surrender and spend every penny on the uncrewed revolution for our own armed forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right that we must celebrate everybody who contributes to our armed forces, no matter their gender or other protected characteristics. The commitment of this Government to protecting and serving those who serve this nation is total.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, said at the weekend,
“if potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, why risk joining at all?”
He was speaking about Labour’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which could see Northern Ireland veterans, without whom there would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, in the dock again by next year. The Minister called opponents of this “naive”. What is her response to the former head of the British Army and the brave soldiers he led—were they all naive, too?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember the really serious issues that are at stake here. The priorities of this Government, as we have shown repeatedly, are to do right by the families of more than 200 British service personnel who were murdered in Northern Ireland and to ensure that we have protections and appropriate measures in place to defend our veterans; we have five protections in law and a sixth that we have control over ourselves. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman again that the Government’s commitment to veterans is total.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
May I begin by associating myself and my party with the sentiments reflected by the Secretary of State about the terrible events in Huntingdon at the weekend?
The Secretary of State’s ambition to reverse the outflows from our armed forces is absolutely right, particularly considering the damage the last Government did to our military, but it is far from clear that the Government are doing enough to achieve the necessary changes. There continue to be more service personnel leaving the Army year on year than are joining. In order to strengthen our defence, we need to give more people better incentives to join the armed forces. Will the Minister consider accelerating recruitment properly and tackling outflow rates by backing Liberal Democrat proposals for a £10,000 signing bonus to attract new recruits?
John Healey
Indeed, we are a year on from the Trinity House agreement, and our co-operation over the next year will only deepen further. Within weeks, we will have German P-8s flying out of Lossiemouth. We have a new cyber programme to conduct joint activities. We have accelerated work on a new 2,000 km deep precision strike missile, and a new £200 million bridging deal to support the British Army. I have to say that this agreement is more important now than when we signed it a year ago.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be
“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]
Will he keep that promise?
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We want to direct more of our increasing defence budget at British companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to see how we can encourage her business to win more defence contracts and to feed back on how we can be better in allowing SMEs to access the defence funding that we provide.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We have already heard about the sentencing last week of Warrant Officer Michael Webber for the sexual assault of Gunner Jaysley Beck, and I am sure that all who heard them were deeply moved by the dignified words of Jaysley’s parents as they described how that abuse and the failure to address it contributed to her death five months later. Will the Minister for Veterans and People, whose personal commitment to these issues is not in question, update the House on the implementation in full of the Atherton report’s recommendations, and specifically on creating a fully independent complaints procedure and providing access to civilian courts for sexual abuse offences?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right: the continuation of the Scottish nationalist Government in Scotland is a threat to our security and to future prosperity and jobs in that country.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the multitude of security threats that we face, especially in the grey zone of cyber-attacks, it is abundantly clear that we need to accelerate investment in defence, but the Government are just not able to move fast enough. Our German friends, renowned for their fiscal prudence, have relaxed their fiscal rules just for their Defence Department. In the run-up to the Budget, what discussions has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary had with the Chancellor on relaxing fiscal rules for the Ministry of Defence in order to meet the moment?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Two giants of the Labour and anti-nuclear arms movement would have been 100 this year: Tony Benn and Mick McGahey. I never had the pleasure of meeting either, but I think they would have recognised that an industrial strategy based on militarism is flawed. The defence sector is less than 1% of the UK workforce, so militarism is not a UK-wide industry and it serves war, not peace. What happened to choosing welfare over warfare, and to choosing jobs in sectors that will promote real economic growth and actual social benefit?
Mr Speaker
When I bring you in on a topical, it is meant to be short and punchy, not a “War and Peace” question!
John Healey
I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supported—directly and indirectly—by defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK.