Diego Garcia Military Base
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 days, 12 hours 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, I wish to make a statement on the Diego Garcia military base.
For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This afternoon, the Prime Minister has signed a treaty with Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius that guarantees full continued UK control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.
I pay tribute to the UK’s negotiators, to the teams from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence who supported them, and to the Mauritian officials who worked for two and a half years to reach this agreement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today laid in the House the full treaty text and his formal exchange of letters with the Foreign Minister of Mauritius that confirm the agreement and the financial arrangements between our two countries. A Bill will be introduced soon.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about this treaty, much of it fuelled by the Conservative party, but the simple truth is that our national security rests on securing a deal that protects the operational sovereignty of this vital military installation. By signing this treaty on our terms, the Prime Minister has ensured that the UK retains full control of Diego Garcia throughout the next century and beyond. It is a deal struck in the national interest and a deal that makes Britons today and generations to come safer and more secure.
The importance of Diego Garcia cannot be overstated. Some of the operations on our joint UK-US base are in the public domain; most, by necessity, are not. But all the work conducted from Diego Garcia plays a crucial role in protecting our nation, our armed forces and our trade routes. Diego Garcia is unique. We do things there that we simply could not do anywhere else. Its airfield allows for strike operations and rapid deployments to the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deep-water port supports missions from nuclear-powered submarines to our carrier strike group. It hosts surveillance stations that disrupt terrorist attacks, protect satellites and provide global intelligence capabilities, and it projects UK-US military power in the Indo-Pacific, to reinforce regional stability and security.
America is our closest security ally, and continued use of this base is fundamental to maintaining the special strength of that relationship. In fact, Diego Garcia is our nation’s most significant contribution to the UK-US security partnership that has kept us safe for nearly 80 years. As I have said, this is a joint military base, and almost every operation conducted from it is done in partnership with the US. That is why the treaty has the full-throated support of the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who has said this afternoon:
“This agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-UK military facility at Diego Garcia, which is critical to regional and global security.”
President Trump himself has described this as “very long-term” and “very strong”.
Diego Garcia also strengthens Britain’s economic security. Over one third of the world’s bulk cargo traffic and two thirds of global oil shipments are transported through the Indian ocean. Our constant presence in these waters serves to safeguard trade routes, keeping down the price of food and energy for Britons here at home. Diego Garcia is also the permanent location of critical comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty monitoring equipment—a network that watches every moment of every day for evidence of nuclear testing, to hold nuclear and would-be nuclear powers to account. Diego Garcia is one of just four locations in the world to operate ground station antennae for the global positioning system, which everyone from astronauts to motorists and our military rely on to navigate.
Quite simply, the loss of the Diego Garcia military base would be unthinkable. And yet, without action—without this deal—within weeks we could face losing legal rulings, and within just a few years the base would become inoperable. Some have suggested simply ignoring international legal decisions, but this is not just about international law; this is about the direct impact of law on our ability to control and operate this base.
Rulings against us would mean we could not prevent hostile nations from setting up installations around Diego Garcia, on the outer islands, or carrying out joint exercises near the base. No deal would mean we could not guarantee the safe berth of our subs, patrol the waters around the base, control the airspace directly above or protect the integrity of our communications systems. Such developments would deeply damage the security interests of the UK and our allies. It would be a dereliction of the first duty of Government.
Agreeing this treaty now on our terms means that the UK retains full control over Diego Garcia now and for the next century. We have laid before the House the full treaty and the associated costings. Those on the Conservative Front Bench will see how we have toughened the terms of the deal they were doing so it does now guarantee the UK’s national interest and national security. At a cost of less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget we have secured unrestricted access to, and use of, the base, as well as control over movement of all persons and all goods on the base and control of all communication and electronic systems. Nothing can be built within a 24 nautical-mile buffer zone without our say so, and we have secured an effective veto on all developments in the Chagos archipelago, and a strict ban will be imposed on foreign security forces operating on the outer islands—all provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.
I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal.
Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots.
Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure.
Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years?
When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?
Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must
“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.”
Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries?
As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [Interruption.] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern.
On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago.
And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”.
It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands—[Interruption.] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to interrupt, but Mr Gemmell, you are not being helpful to your cause. It is the worst day to be thrown out, so please, I want to hear no more from you—it has been continuous.
James Cartlidge
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was expecting to hear the strategic defence review, as all of us were, given the Government’s multiple promises.
Finally, the Chagossian community has been shamefully sidelined by this Government from start to finish, with only tick-box engagement by junior Ministers. Is it not the case that the treaty offers no protection to the Chagossians whatsoever?
When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government should not be surrendering strategically vital sovereign territory, especially when we face such threats, and they certainly should not be paying billions for the privilege. We would abandon this deal, but we would never abandon the Chagos islands. This is a bad deal for Britain and we will do everything possible to oppose it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide what is and is not shameful. I am going to say this once and for all: Mr Cartlidge, you have been pushing and pushing for quite a while. Emotions are running high, but I do not want a continuous barracking and that level of noise coming from you. You should be setting a good example as the shadow Secretary of State, keeping calm and being effective, not bawling.
John Healey
Quite simply, if you do not back the deal, you cannot back the base. There is no viable alternative option than this deal. The senior military figure who was part of the treaty signing this afternoon, General Sir Jim Hockenhull, confirmed that publicly. The shadow Defence Secretary knows that—he was a Defence Minister until the last election. He knows that that was the advice he and the previous Government were given. Even the spokesperson for his party’s leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politico’s “Playbook” reported:
“A spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.”
That is the job that we have done. The Conservatives conceded the principle that negotiation was necessary and a deal was required to safeguard the long-term protection and control of this base; they conducted 11 rounds of negotiations before the last election.
The hon. Gentleman talks about this being part of a pattern. The previous Government failed to deliver a trade deal with India, and we did it. They failed to deliver a trade deal with the US, and we did it. They failed to safeguard Diego Garcia, and we have done it. We picked up those negotiations and strengthened the defence protections for the UK, and we did the deal today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the money. Once again, he was not just a Defence Minister, but also a Treasury Minister before the last election—in fact, he was Exchequer Secretary when the negotiations first kicked off. He knows that the Government Actuary tells us that the full accounting cost of this deal over the 99 years is £3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established method—used under our Government, his Government and the previous Government—for accounting for long-term projects, like this base, the nuclear commissioning programme, big infrastructure projects and pensions liabilities. The facts for me, as Defence Secretary, are that the cost of this deal is less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget; that this is an essential deal for our national security that will ensure Britain is better equipped to face down the rising threats we face; and that our armed forces are stronger and safer because of the deal done today.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the Chagossians. We have been concerned, since we were elected just 10 months ago, to restore good communication and better relations with a wide range of Chagossian groups. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has met them regularly, and he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met them this morning. The negotiations, however, were between the Mauritian Government and the UK Government, just as they were under the previous Government. We have worked to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance that Chagossians attach to the islands, so we will finance a new £40 million trust fund for Mauritius to support the Chagossian community.
I will conclude where I started. I say to the shadow Defence Secretary: we have worked together on a cross-party basis on Ukraine, and we have offered him and his party’s leader security briefings on any of the big issues that we face. This deal is in the national security interest. That is why, when we were in opposition, we backed his Government when they set out to try to negotiate that deal, just as we backed his Government when he led the UK’s support for Ukraine. When he looks at the treaty, considers that there was no alternative and recognises that this is a tougher deal that is better for our base, better for our forces and better for protecting our British people in this country, I hope that he will back it.
John Healey
I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and he has been a loud and strong voice for Chagossians in this country. I hope he will recognise, first, that this has been a negotiation that the British Government have conducted with the Mauritian Government. I hope he will also recognise and respect the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have tried to set a new tone in relationships and communications with the range of Chagossian groups in this country. Finally, I hope he will recognise that that range of Chagossian groups includes a range of Chagossian views, some of which support this deal and see the need for it. I trust he will be strong in advocating for the use of the trust fund and the programmes we will put in place to help the Chagossian people.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats support the UK complying with international law, but the process for agreeing this deal has been more than a little bit bumpy. While the Conservatives have feigned anger, bordering on hysteria at times, despite it being their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement, this Government have failed consistently to provide any clarity on the progress of the deal. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need to know that public money is being used wisely.
It was also clear that the Government were prepared to give Donald Trump the ultimate veto over any agreement, without regard for the priorities of Chagossians themselves. As the deal has now been reached, can the Secretary of State confirm what issues Chagossians raised during their meetings with Ministers, and how the Government have responded to ensure their voices and issues have been addressed in this deal? In attempting yesterday to humiliate South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump proved once again his instincts as unreliable and an unpredictable bully. Having now confirmed this deal on a shared UK-US asset, how confident is the Secretary of State that Diego Garcia will not be used by this White House to advance foreign policy objectives that we deem contrary to our principles and interests?
Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government are reportedly willing to negotiate such significant sums paid to Mauritius at a time when the personal independence payment is being severely scaled back. Will the Secretary of State put on record today the proposed schedule of payments as they relate to the deal, and when it is expected that that schedule will commence?
As the Government have previously confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security and its implications for the Exchequer. I hope this sets a valuable precedent that could be applied to future trade deals, for instance, so can the Secretary of State confirm when this House will have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed deal, as well as a chance to vote on its ratification?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Shaking your head and making comments —that is certainly not the example I want to see when I am looking to keep the House calm. I do not need the backchat; that has been going on for a while.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Conservatives started negotiations on handing over the Chagos islands because they understood the national security implications of not doing a deal. Indeed, they did 11 rounds of negotiations on this deal. Now, with our closest security partners—the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders—all welcoming this deal, why are the Conservatives playing politics with our national security?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
First, the new SME support centre, which we have announced and will set up shortly, will help with exactly those sorts of challenges. Secondly, the hon. Member is right to point to that low 4% level of direct defence spending into SMEs. That was the level under the last Government, and it went down for every one of the three years before the last election.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On behalf of the official Opposition, we send our best wishes to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on his ascent of Everest.
On defence procurement, we will all have enjoyed the Red Arrows fly-past as part of our VE Day celebrations, but the fact is that the Hawk jet needs replacing. Given that one of the publicly stated roles of the Red Arrows is “supporting British industry”, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the next jet for the Red Arrows will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom?
John Healey
I will indeed. We congratulate the crew of HMS Dragon on their professionalism and skill, and they will welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that skill in the House this afternoon.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I have previously raised, during Defence questions, my deep concern about the possibility that the Government would give away our fishing rights in order to gain access to the European Union rearmament fund, but in fact it is far worse than that. Is not the truth that we have surrendered our fishing grounds for at least 12 years and will become a passive rule taker, and that all we have in exchange is a glorified talking shop with not a penny of guaranteed defence funding?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right. We owe the Operation Banner veterans a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and, in many cases, sacrifices of their lives saved civilian lives and helped to bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys. In respect of Clonoe, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the MOD is seeking a judicial review of the coroner’s findings, and he will also know that I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the welfare and legal support that we have provided for veterans who are caught up in any investigations is reinforced further so that we can protect this special group of veterans from the impact of such investigations.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Times has reported that the UK has fewer than 10 tanks stationed in Estonia and that troop numbers have been cut from 1,650 in April 2022 to around 1,000 today. By comparison, Germany has 5,000 troops on track to be stationed in Lithuania by 2027. Is this correct, and is it a concern for the Minister?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman has set out some troop movement issues. We are moving to a lighter formation, but there is no reason why we cannot meet him and explain the situation in full, and I am very happy to volunteer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to do so.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In dodging last week’s peace talks in Turkey, President Putin proved once again that he has no interest in stopping the fighting; his goal remains the subjugation of Ukraine. Moreover, this afternoon’s reported phone call between Putin and President Trump once again presents the alarming possibility that, between them, the Kremlin and the White House will agree a carve-up of Ukraine, which would be utterly intolerable. What more are the Government doing to invest directly in Kyiv’s weapon production to ensure we strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist Putin’s war machine, resist attempts at a carve-up by Putin and Trump, and secure maximum leverage for any peace negotiations?
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On the highly topical subject of fishing rights, the Secretary of State will no doubt share my profound concern at reports that last week Mauritius and Russia agreed to deepen their co-operation on fisheries and other maritime issues. Does that not show that Labour’s policy of spending billions renting back a military base that we already own is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but a major risk to our national security?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is a regular attender in this House, and I suggest that he be here on Wednesday for Northern Ireland questions to put that question directly to the Northern Ireland Secretary.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
David Davis
I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that the Secretary of State is here. As we have heard today, a very successful parliamentary petition was put up by a member of the public just over a week ago, and was supported by a large number of regimental associations. In the middle of last week, an email was sent from the Directorate of Infantry to regimental headquarters. It said:
“With immediate effect”—
that bit is highlighted in red—
“please ensure that all of your communication channels (including Twitter/X etc) remove any feeds related to the Northern Ireland Troubles Act announcement and any associated petitions.”
Regimental associations are there to defend and look after the interests of, and to support, veterans. It is not for the MOD hierarchy to dictate what they can or cannot promote, particularly through legitimate parliamentary engagement. Veterans’ voices must not be silenced by bureaucratic interference. Is it appropriate, Mr Speaker, to pressurise regimental associations to remove content that supports democratic participation?
John Healey
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order. I was not aware that he was going to raise it, and I have to say that it is news to me; most regimental associations that I know cannot be pressured by anyone from outside. However, I am grateful to him for raising the issue in the House. Anything that interferes with the parliamentary process is of concern to all Members of the House, and I will certainly look into it and get back to him.
Mr Speaker
May I say thank you to the Secretary of State for answering that point of order? It saves me from getting involved, but we recognise how important organisations are. Nobody should be stifled.
UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.
When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.
The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his in-person briefing beforehand.
I am glad that our brave service personnel who were involved in yesterday’s strike have returned home safely, and that the precision sovereign strike has destroyed the drone factory with no civilian casualties. I agree with the Secretary of State that Houthi attacks since 2023 have tragically killed innocent merchant mariners, led to a shocking 55% drop in shipping through the Red sea costing billions, fuelled regional instability, and exacerbated the cost of living crisis here in the UK and across the globe. However, on the basis of current intelligence, how confident is he that following yesterday’s strike there will be freedom of navigation and that there will be no further loss of life because of the Houthis?
John Healey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action that we took overnight. It was part of a sustained campaign—a US campaign that we are working alongside. There is no overnight solution to this, but according to the evidence reported by the US military about this new sustained, intensive campaign, it seems to be having an effect on the pace, the rate, and the threat that the Houthis pose. Our action last night was designed to reinforce that campaign, to support the push for regional stability, and to protect the domestic economy and protect against the impact of the disruption in international shipping and its effect on prices for ordinary people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today.
The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes.
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties?
Ukraine Update
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The SDR, as we have said many times, is close to completion. It is being finalised, and it will be published in the spring.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Although it was saddening to hear about the continued colossal death and destruction in Ukraine, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Indeed, I welcome his leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, which by pledging a record €21 billion, has demonstrated that the 51 allies are firmly committed to helping our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need. He mentioned the many shorter ceasefires that were agreed and then broken, and the question we need to ask ourselves is: when President Putin says he wants a ceasefire, is that actually the case? However, if a much-needed ceasefire is agreed, how confident is the Secretary of State of convening and then keeping the coalition of the willing together?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The first line of defence for the UK and for Europe is in Ukraine. The Ukrainians share our values and are fighting with huge courage—military and civilians alike. It is our job to stand with them during that fight to safeguard their future and their ability to make their own decisions as a country. If and when they go into the negotiations, we will stand with them then, and we will stand with them after a negotiated peace, which we all hope President Trump is capable of securing.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Paddy Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much?
On the potential peacekeeping force for Ukraine, we have heard from the Secretary of State that it is jointly British and French. In fact, in every one of his answers he stressed the amount of work we are doing with France. Is it therefore not extraordinary that, at the very same time, France should be working to undermine our defence industry by having us excluded from a £150 billion European defence fund, which will include other non-EU states?
Al Carns
That is a great initiative. Service beyond service is something that we should be promoting, and I will take that as best practice, have a look at it and see whether we can roll it out across the nation, so that when people leave the military they can secure at least a first interview for a role in the fire service, the police, the NHS or any other public services.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Veterans who served in Northern Ireland will no doubt welcome the Veterans Minister’s decision—first suggested by the shadow Defence Secretary—that the MOD should judicially review the recent coroner’s verdict regarding the shooting of several IRA terrorists at Clonoe. Well done, I say, but why not go further to protect veterans, and drop the plans to revoke large parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which would only serve to facilitate yet more inquests of this type?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is right that subsea fibre-optic cables carry about 99% of our data—many people believe it is satellites, but it is cables. As a country we are investing in new technologies and I expect that, as we get further towards the time when the defence review is published, he will see the ambition we have as a Government to invest more in autonomous systems, not only to support undersea cable protection, but to deal with the threat of Russian submarines and other capability, and other threats to our nations. We will ensure that we invest in our defence capabilities and in supporting those people who serve as well.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
With escalating threats to our critical infrastructure, I was concerned by reports over the weekend that our armed forces chiefs are apparently being gagged over the upcoming strategic defence review, which has been described by some as “limp”. I am fully aware that, recognising the dangers, the Government have announced the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the second world war, but at this critical time we certainly should not be sidelining our service chiefs or penny-pinching on our nation’s defence. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to reassure the nation that our strategic defence review, when published, will be bold, ambitious and anything but limp?
Al Carns
I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the last question. The violence against women and girls taskforce is taking best practice from the rest of Government and ensuring that it is replicated in defence, but it is actually going one step further and putting a structure in place. As I always say, I was very young when I joined the Marines, and I was caught up in this hierarchical situation. Where do you go to make a complaint? You don’t actually have anywhere to go to make a complaint. The taskforce will provide a safe space, so that if people want to pop out of the chain of command to highlight a concern, it can be elevated quickly and dealt with rapidly.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I welcome the creation of the violence against women and girls taskforce, which is an important step towards enabling complaints to be heard and addressed outside the chain of command, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for raising this important issue. Like the taskforce, the Government have committed to a new veterans strategy focusing specifically on the experience of women who have left the service. Will the Minister outline the timescale for the development and implementation of that strategy, given how vital it is that women come and serve in the armed forces, and that they feel safe and secure in doing so?
John Healey
Indeed, I can. My hon. Friend makes an important point. This period is critical for Ukraine and for European security. I hope that he sees a UK Government who are stepping up to provide stronger support for Ukraine, co-ordinating allies to do more, stepping up on European security, and above all stepping up on defence spending.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening defence ties with our European partners, but they need to go further and faster to ensure that the UK does not get left behind. Has the Defence Secretary spoken with his counterparts in the EU about the value of the new stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, which will enable the UK to better influence decisions around new finance programmes, such as a rearmament bank to support defence investment across Europe?
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
If our forces go to Ukraine, it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission, but, as the Veterans Minister reminded us earlier, Operation Banner was also described as peacekeeping, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts. Our soldiers in Iraq were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. If our forces go to Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider a derogation from the European convention on human rights so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?
Ukraine
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 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
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that this has to be a just peace, and that those who have committed war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine need to be pursued for them.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Yesterday, the leader of my party warned the Prime Minister that we might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945. The hours since have confirmed our fears. This is a moment of great peril for us all. Does the Minister agree that the US’s actions are a betrayal of our Ukrainian friends, who have fought so hard for their freedom, of the UK, and of all our European allies? Will the Government step up and show British leadership, starting by passing urgent legislation to seize frozen Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine whatever the US does? Clearly, in the light of the events of the past 24 hours, the Government need to look again at defence spending. Does she agree that the decision of the previous Government to continue with a cut to the Army of 10,000 troops at a time when war is raging on our continent now looks utterly unforgivable?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with that, and we have no intention—I think in any part of this House—of doing so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker —I am surprised to be called so early.
Jim Shannon
No, no—I will grab the chance.
I thank the Minister for her answers. It is obvious to me and other Members of this House that she has a heart that wants to help those in Ukraine, and we appreciate that, especially since it comes from Government. I welcome the potential peace that might come, but of course it has to be a peace of justice; it has to be fair to the Ukrainians, and we hope a way can be found. Does she agree that any signs of negotiation are to be welcomed, but that there can be no doubt that Ukraine retains the support of this House? She has said that, and everyone has said it. What role will the UK have in ensuring that the people of Ukraine have security from further Russian aggression when Putin recalibrates his forces a year or two from now?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
In my time in the Army, I saw at first hand blokes not getting the kit and equipment that they needed to operate efficiently. It angered me to read this weekend that the previous Administration wasted £5 million on McClaren mudflaps. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will not take the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Secretary of State, you will have the Floor after the next two questions, but I have not called you yet. Come on, Mr Stone.
Will Stone
To return to my question, I angers me that the previous Administration wasted £5 million, when blokes like me did not have the kit and equipment that they needed to operate—[Interruption.] That is a fact. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will put service personnel and our nation’s security first?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks from experience in the Rifles, and he is completely right. The issue is not just how much we spend, but how we spend it. The Government are delivering for defence by getting a grip of defence budgets, tackling Ministry of Defence waste and investing in the kit that our frontline service people need. We scrapped the £40 million VIP helicopter deal, we have ended the pointless racing car sponsorship, and we have saved £300 million from an out-of-control consultancy spend.
John Healey
I can indeed. We have to get a grip of out-of-control defence waste and out-of-control defence budgets. I am pleased to have been able to put an end to that pointless racing car deal, which delivered free race-day tickets and MOD-sponsored branded mudflaps instead of the kit that our frontline troops need. Of course, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Minister responsible for that deal—he agreed the contract and told the House that it was a “brilliant partnership”.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
You will know, Mr Speaker, the importance of secure communications, and this is Defence questions, so before I ask my question, may I say that Conservative Members were sent all the Ministry of Defence’s answers to our oral questions in advance? I do not know whether we should be grateful or concerned. We have been forewarned.
Mr Speaker
I thought that Ministers thought up the answers themselves. You have shocked me.
James Cartlidge
I thought that it would benefit the House to know that, given the importance of secure communications. I turn to my question, which involves secure communications. It says everything about the Government’s priorities that they are delaying increasing defence spending to 2.5%, but accelerating their terrible Chagos deal, at a cost of up to £18 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister justified the deal by stating that without it,
“the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should”.
No. 10 later briefed that that was a reference to satellite links. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that there is an operational threat to US and UK military satellite communications at Diego Garcia?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.
Mr Speaker
We have stretched that answer out well, haven’t we? Let us go on to Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Al Carns
The covenant will come into law in the next two years or so, on the back of the armed forces Bill. That will result in a great expansion, with all Government Departments falling in line with the covenant, so that no individual who has served is disadvantaged because of that service.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Forces Pension Society has already stated that levying inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits would be wholly counter to the armed forces covenant, and we Conservatives wholly agree. The consultation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on that proposal closed on 22 January. On what day did the MOD submit its response to that key consultation—presumably in defence of service families’ interests—and will the Minister place a copy of that response in the Library?
Luke Pollard
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his passion is also felt on the Government Benches, and the ministerial team want to support all our veterans. The issue that he raises is difficult for me to comment on as it is subject to ongoing legal matters, and he will appreciate that it is hard for a Minister to comment in such circumstances—
Mr Speaker
Order. I reassure the Minister that there are no legal restrictions on this case. It is not the courts; it is only a coroner.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question none the less. The Ministry of Defence is continuing our conversations with the Northern Ireland Office, which is the lead Department for such matters. We will continue to support our veterans, and we will continue conversations with the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner as to how we can support veterans in Northern Ireland in particular.
Luke Pollard
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches share the same passion that all veterans should get the support they need. We will continue to discuss that aspect with our Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who take the lead on this matter. I encourage him to continue to raise questions, because it is important that we support all our veterans, no matter where they served across the United Kingdom. That is a matter that the Secretary of State and I, as well as the Minister for Veterans and People, will continue to discuss with colleagues across the Government.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
If we want to strengthen our armed forces, we must fix the recruitment delays. One young recruit signer, Jimmy, applied in September 2023 but will not start until January 2025. That is largely due to medical record hold-ups and poor communication. I welcome the aim for applicants to receive a decision within 10 days, and a training start date within 30 days, but how will Serco deliver that in practice? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that recruits get clear, timely responses and are not lost in the system?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his useful comments. We have launched our Raising our Standards programme, which will take standards from where they were and raise them. We will make Defence the most inclusive career and, indeed, the most rewarding for any part of society to join. The Defence Committee will hold us to account on some of that. When the covenant comes into place, that will also cover certain elements of standards, too.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Recent weeks have seen troubling headlines for LGBT personnel, and we on the Lib Dem Benches believe that everyone is welcome in our armed forces, regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity. Can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to promote the British values of inclusion, particularly for the LGBT community, among our NATO allies? Will the Minister provide an update on the compensation scheme for LGBT veterans who were impacted by the military’s anti-gay ban?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right about the High North. We will continue to maintain a strong defence profile and posture. Both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be taking part in Exercise Joint Viking.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months 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
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s words about Holocaust Memorial Day. His Majesty the King has been in Auschwitz for the 80th anniversary, and he spoke for the nation when he said that we will remember this evil long after the survivors of the Holocaust have passed.
I have set out clearly that, in the spring, we will lay out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We will also publish a strategic defence review, setting out what we will spend the money on and how we will respond to emerging threats. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Defence Secretary’s statement last week, we will make it absolutely clear to those who threaten us that we will use the formidable capabilities available to us to defend the UK and our allies.
We inherited a situation in which, during their entire time in power, not a single Conservative Government spent 2.5% of GDP on defence. The last time that 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government. We have inherited falling morale; a retention and recruitment crisis; service personnel living in mouldy, broken homes; and a hollowed-out and underfunded military. That is what the SDR will seek to fix, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us his full support.
Having listened to last week’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that those who die on active service are exempt from the inheritance tax provisions. He will also know that the Defence Secretary has uplifted CEA support to 90% for those who privately educate their children while serving in the military. We will continue to support our armed forces, renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. We will publish the defence review in the spring, when we will also set out our path to spending 2.5%.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We live in an increasingly volatile world, so I thank the Minister for his clarification on defence spending. Surely the cost of fighting a war, notwithstanding the human cost, is significantly higher than that of having a credible deterrent force. The Prime Minister recently told me at the Liaison Committee that the strategic defence review has to be completed before the path to 2.5% can be plotted, so why have there been discussions about the timeline for that path before the SDR has been published?
Luke Pollard
We have said that we will publish the strategic defence review in the spring, and we will also set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I do not recognise the publication timeline suggested by my hon. Friend, but he is right that deterring a war is cheaper than fighting one. That is why we are continuing to support our allies in Ukraine, and making sure that we have a NATO-first defence policy—to deter aggression facing the United Kingdom and our allies, and, if necessary, to defeat it with formidable capabilities.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been shrouded in delay and uncertainty. At a time when Europe faces its gravest security crisis in decades, this is unacceptable. Promises without a clear path are hollow, and the Government should commit to setting out by Easter a detailed and credible plan for reaching 2.5%.
We must also make the right spending decisions, and the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to the Army? He mentioned retention, which is another critical issue. Improving the living conditions of our armed forces must be a priority if we are to attract and keep the talent we need.
Finally, the ongoing problems of inefficient defence procurement undermine our readiness, so what is the Minister doing to tackle those long-standing problems? The Government must stop dragging their heels, set out the pathway to 2.5% and end the uncertainty.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we have been very clear and consistent that we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I remind her that when her party was in government, instead of increasing defence spending by £3 billion, as Labour did, the Liberal Democrats’ and the Conservatives’ first Budget cut defence spending by £2 billion, and cut it by 20% across the Parliament in which her party was in power. I support the hon. Lady in wanting a better deal for our forces, but I remind her to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally.
Mr Speaker
Order. While we are talking about mirrors, can the hon. Gentleman look at me occasionally, so he is not just staring one way?
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is interesting that Members on the Opposition Front Bench seem to have forgotten that when they left office, they left us with the smallest Army since Napoleonic times, a lack of ships and aeroplanes, some of the poorest equipment and many problems with procurement. It is important that we keep to the timetable on the SDR, but given the rumours we are hearing and the stories in the press, will the Minister provide an assurance that he will keep this House fully informed on progress on the SDR, not provide that information through the press?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I support the work of the private sector businesses that do so much to support our armed forces. The needs of our armed forces will change and are changing; that means changed capability, but it also means a change in how we buy our kit. Certainly, if we look at some of the absolute procurement disasters under the last Government—only two of 49 defence procurement projects are on time and on budget—we see that we need not only to buy the right kit, but to buy it better. That is something that the last Government clearly failed to do; the shadow defence procurement Minister himself, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, described the defence procurement system as “broken”. We need to take steps forward, and the SDR and the defence industrial strategy will set out how we will improve defence procurement.
Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s response to recent Russian maritime activity. [Interruption.] I am glad that the House waited for this statement.
A foreign vessel, Yantar, is in the North sea, having passed through British waters. Let me be clear: it is a Russian spy ship, used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure. Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the past two days, the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel, every minute, in our waters, and I have changed the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track Yantar.
So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation, but this is the second time that Yantar has entered our waters in recent months. In November, the ship was also closely watched, and was detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure. To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps at that time as part of a clear, direct response to the Russian vessel. Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft, alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus, were deployed to shadow Yantar’s every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantar—strictly as a deterrent measure—to make it clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering, and sailed down to the Mediterranean.
As colleagues will understand, I will not comment further for reasons of operational security. However, I thank all the personnel involved for their dedication and professionalism. I also want President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. With our NATO allies, we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships and aircraft cannot operate in secrecy near the UK or near NATO territory.
This activity is another example of growing Russian aggression, targeting our allies abroad and us at home. The heads of MI6 and the CIA recently made a joint statement, saying that Russia is waging a “reckless campaign” of sabotage across Europe. We are seeing periodic incursions of Russian military aircraft into airspace for which we are responsible, and on Christmas day the EstLink 2 undersea cable between Finland and Estonia was damaged. Many analysts believe that that was caused by a vessel in Russia’s shadow fleet.
Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak. In Ukraine, it has suffered devastatingly high rates of casualties over three years in a war it thought it would win in a week. Compounding the humiliation, Putin has been forced to turn to North Korea to reinforce its frontline fighters. While the strategic defeat in Syria has exposed Russia’s diminishing power on the global stage, at home the Russian economy faces crippling strains.
Nevertheless, Russia remains the most pressing and immediate threat to Britain, and I want to assure the House and the British people that any threat will be met with strength and resolve. First, we are delivering on the foundation of security in our plan for change by making Britain secure at home. Yantar has now passed through the Dover strait and is in Dutch waters. In September, RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept two Russian Bear F aircraft operating near the UK. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is also playing an indispensable role in safeguarding offshore infrastructure with its multi-role ocean surveillance ship, RFA Proteus.
Secondly, we are making Britain strong abroad, working with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. The UK activated Nordic Warden with JEF partners after the EstLink 2 cable damage. The operation is tracking potential threats to undersea infrastructure, monitoring the movements of the Russian shadow fleet and sending out real-time warnings of suspicious activity to JEF allies and to NATO. Today, I can confirm that the RAF will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to join the new Baltic Sentry NATO deployment to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic sea.
Thirdly, with allies we are piling the pressure on Putin. This year, the UK will provide more financial aid in military support to Ukraine than at any time since the full-scale invasion began: £4.5 billion to deliver military support, enhance training and strengthen industrial collaboration. The UK is also leading the way in finding ways to put pressure on the Russian economy, including sanctioning more than 100 ships in the Russian shadow fleet, which is more than any other nation; working with other countries to stop the Russian military acquiring the goods, equipment and technologies it requires to continue its fight and war against Ukraine; and with allies, exposing the activities of the Russian intelligence services, expelling Russian intelligence officers and sanctioning individuals responsible for hostile activity against the UK.
Russian aggression will not be tolerated at home or in Ukraine. That is why one of the first acts of this Government was for the Prime Minister to launch the strategic defence review, why the Government have increased defence spending next year by almost £3 billion, and why we will set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the spring. This new era of threat demands a new era for defence. Change is essential, not optional, and the Government are determined to meet the challenge and determined to deliver for defence. We will protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure and we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
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
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On defence spending, I am glad that UK-based defence firms will be prioritised for Government investment under the defence industrial strategy, which should boost British jobs in constituencies such as Slough and help to strengthen national security, but major defence programmes are currently in disarray, with only two out of 49 on time and on budget. What actions are the Government taking to fix the waste and mismanagement in the system?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Everyone agrees that more needs to be spent on defence to meet the increasing threats. He asks why only two out of 49 of the major defence projects are on time and on budget. That question may best be directed at the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was responsible for exactly that up until the election six months ago. There is of course a question about how much we spend, but there is also a challenge in how well we spend it. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was one of the strongest critics of the previous Government and of what he described as the “broken” procurement system. We are getting a grip of MOD budgets, driving deep reform in defence and ensuring that we reduce the waste and delay in procurement contracts.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on receiving a distinguished service order—we are all proud of him.
The Government have tied the announcement of their timetable for 2.5% to the publication of the strategic defence review, so we need it to be published as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify why he has pushed back the SDR’s publication in Parliament from the spring to the summer?
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government have already taken swift action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans’ housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England, and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We have launched a £75 million LGBT financial redress scheme; Op Fortitude, Op Courage and Op Restore are all progressing at pace; and we are currently reviewing how we can make veterans’ support more institutionally resilient. This demonstrates that we have a bias for action, and this Government are delivering for defence.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the German armed forces commissioner is part of the inspiration for the role. Dr Eva Högl is a superb example of how we can scrutinise and champion the armed forces and provide solutions and a voice to those who serve. She sits effectively as a Member of Parliament in the German Parliament, which we did not feel was appropriate for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner, but the independence and the way she has pioneered much of that work in recent years is a real inspiration to us. We hope that such a workable example from a key NATO ally—people can raise issues with her and shine a spotlight on those issues to improve service welfare matters and as a result improve morale and the operational effectiveness of the armed forces—will give strength to the independence of the role.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for that really important question. We have a duty of care to those from Afghanistan who are now living in the UK and we are absolutely committed to delivering on that. I will write to him in due course on the specifics of his question.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?
Maria Eagle
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important, in addition to production for our own use. We are working very hard on the export campaigns. I cannot say any more than that at present, but I can assure him that we are working very hard. The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions. It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for a very important question. I would like to talk further about this. We have been working with the Department for Education—
Mr Speaker
Is the Minister happy to answer the question? I do not quite see how it links to the subject, but if he is happy—
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
We owe a debt to our nuclear test veterans, who delivered their service in a courageous and honourable way. I have already committed to looking into the records issue in detail, and to continuous engagement with all the charities and nuclear test veteran groups.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?
James Cartlidge
My apologies. I am, like you are Mr Speaker, very passionate on this subject. We see this as a terrible deal. That is why we would have never signed it. The incoming US President opposes the deal, the Mauritians are seeking to renegotiate it, and by any measure it is terrible value for money for the over-taxed British public. Does the Secretary of State really think that it is in our national interest to spend hundreds of millions of pounds leasing back a military base that we currently own, instead of spending every penny of that money on our armed forces in the UK?
Al Carns
I absolutely agree. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change housing for our service families. It will save taxpayers £600,000 a day, and £230 million over the year. It gives us an opportunity to build back over the medium to longer term, and to deliver the deal that those families deserve.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?