Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â weeks, 5Â days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience. He is right that in the first six months of this year, the UK economy grew the fastest in the G7. I set out yesterday some early steps to back stronger growth in more places: backing innovation with more investment in fast-growth firms across the north; changing the Governmentâs Green Book discount rate so that projects across the country with long-term potential will get a fairer hearing; and taking an axe to the thicket of administration that too often slows down decisions, holds back growth and prevents the private investment that we need.
John Healey
After years of delay, indecision and often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project quite simply because the economic case stacks up and will help to bring growth.
John Healey
At the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) continued the freeze in the personal allowance, which was first brought in by the Conservatives, in order to help fund the improvements in health and schools that this country needs that the people voted for at the election just two years ago. We will keep all of this under review, as we always do. Reform is making promises that it simply cannot keep. The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have known him a long time; I say to him and to the country that he is also a man whose own party leader described as
âa man that believed in nothingâ.
Mr Speaker
The Chancellor does not need to worry; he has no responsibility for Reform.
I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), could he make a short speech today from the Dispatch Box to say that he does not plan to increase the tax burden further?
John Healey
I could have spoken a lot longer yesterday. I am grateful to the hon. Member for watching or reading it. In the two years of this Labour Government, we have started to see this country beginning to turn a corner. That is a corner after 14 years in which the previous Tory Governments had a record of low growth and high debt, and a mini-Budget that crashed the British economy and collapsed confidence in Britainâs fiscal strength. This country has huge strengths in its people, its businesses and its communities, who want to seize the future. This is a country in which interest rates have been cut six times since the election; in which borrowing, which is still too high, is down to a six-year low; in which growthâstill fragile and under pressureâwas fastest in the first half of this year in the G7; and in which productivity and investment are finally, after long Conservative years, beginning to tick up. That is the basis on which we now build.
John Healey
What an extraordinary claim! It is hard to take seriously the idea that somehow the Conservatives will save our high streets. We are, of course, concerned about the impact of business taxation. As a Government, we have put in ÂŁ4.3 billion to help cushion the changes, including in the right hon. Gentlemanâs area. We are in the process of taking further steps to review and reform the business rates system, and I will be able to set out more details at the Budget.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â months, 3Â weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
There is a serious point behind my hon. Friendâs question. Armed forces numbers are growing. We have turned the corner on recruitment and on morale, as he says, and satisfaction, in particular with military homes, has risen 12% in the last year. This Government are on the side of our forces and their families. This is a Government delivering for defence, and delivering for our armed forces.
John Healey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing more to expose the threats, and will do more still. The Russian threat against the UK is real and rising, and it is important for the public and Parliament to understand that. That is why I revealed last year that the Russian spy ship Yantar was monitoring our critical national undersea infrastructure, and that is why I exposed the month-long covert Russian submarine programme in and near UK waters. I say to Putin: we see you; we will expose you; and we will not stand for you targeting the UK.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion and his facts. With the Attorney General, I led a meeting of the 10 joint expeditionary force nationsâ legal military experts, in which we set out, discussed and shared the legal basis on which, individually and together, we can interdict and seize Russian shadow ships. We are ready to do so in support of our allies, as we have just supported France. Together, we are deterring Putin, and we are disrupting his shadow fleet operations.
John Healey
I remember that for at least six months after the election, the hon. Lady and her party were urging us to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. We have done better than thatâwe are hitting 2.6% next year, three years before anyone expected, including her party. We will go further, and I will look for her support when we do.
John Healey
I can indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friendâs support for the successful Northumbria bid in the first round of the VALOUR funding, which will help cover her constituency. [Interruption.] Given that one in eight of our ex-forces personnel are female veterans, we will ensure that the veterans strategy reflects those concerns, and that any round 2 funding as a result of the new application for bids is recognised.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members not to walk in front of a Member when the Minister is answering their question. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Middle East
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(6Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 ranksâmilitary and civilians alikeâour 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 Governmentâs 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.
Iranâs 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 Iranâs 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 Iranâs 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 Cyprusâs 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 attachĂŠs 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 shipsâincluding red ensign vesselsâand 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
âto contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.â
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 Putinâs 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 Stateâs 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 Trumpâs statement today, with its recognition that there is progress in conversations about the
âCOMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EASTâ,
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 posesâthe threat it poses to British nationals, British bases and British interests and partnersâand 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 ÂŁ1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left. It is the UK, under this Government, that has been leading NATOâs DIAMONDâdelivering integrated air and missile operational networked defencesâair 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 Conservativesâ position on the war in Iran. One week, the Leader of the Opposition said that UK jets must âgo to the sourceâ in Iran and that âwe are in this warâ whether we like it or not. Then the next week, she said:
âI never said we should joinâ.
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 Trumpâs 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
âthe necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war.â
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(6Â months, 1Â week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ÂŁ3.2 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.
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 electionâand 86% of those contracts were awarded to British-based businesses, so we are boosting British security and the British economy at the same time.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the âget homeâ 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.
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, âI have got everything that I asked for to protect ourselves.â
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.
John Healey
I praise my hon. Friendâs 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 alliesâ 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.
John Healey
We invested ÂŁ8 billion more in defence in our first year than the Conservative Government did in their last year, with a total of ÂŁ270 billion into defence in this Parliament alone and a vision for the next 10 years set out in our strategic defence review.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(7Â months, 3Â weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
John Healey
Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a ÂŁ450 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 âflat outâ 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 âhollowed out and underfundedâ 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.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for LancashireâI am fully behind her on thatâbut 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 ÂŁ450 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.
John Healey
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentlemanâs remarks before the House this afternoon â[Interruption.]
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(8Â months, 2Â weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 todayâs US operation and yesterdayâs 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 USâs 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 USâs 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 seasâalmost half the Russia shadow fleetâs overall capacityâwhile Russiaâs 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 Putinâs 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 Putinâs full-scale invasion of Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian peopleâmilitary and civilian alikeâstill 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 UKâs leadership on Ukraine. It started under the last Government and stepped up under this Government. Now weâthe UKâlead the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany, and secured ÂŁ50 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,
âThe purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraineâs security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever.â
Yesterdayâs declaration advances that work significantly. It confirms that the UK and France will âtake a leading roleâ: first, in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement; secondly, in supporting the development of Ukraineâs 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, âIf 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.â
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 Ukraineâs 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
âas strong as anyone has ever seenâ.
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. Greenlandâs 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 Ministerâs 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, yesterdayâs meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet. Yesterdayâs 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.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friendâs 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 Ministerâs 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 statementâa declaration of intent that is significant in advancing our work to secure Ukrainiansâ future, but nevertheless a political declaration. The House would then have the chance to debate in full Membersâ 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 forcesânot 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?
Todayâs 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 clearâas have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planningâthat 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 beyondâI 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 faceâan 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(9Â months, 1Â week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
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 Governmentâs that over-committed, and was underfunded and unsuited to meeting the threats that we will face in the future.
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 pagesâand no funding. His Governmentâs 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.
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 Parliamentâs Christmas recess, and on behalf of the House, I wish every member of our armed forcesâespecially those whose service will mean they are separate from their loved onesâa 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.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact âopens the doorâ to the âŹ150 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 yearâan extra ÂŁ10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and ÂŁ8 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(10Â months, 3Â weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
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 weekâs 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 landâ[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.
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 ÂŁ200 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.
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 Speaker
When I bring you in on a topical, it is meant to be short and punchy, not a âWar and Peaceâ question!
John Healey
I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supportedâdirectly and indirectlyâby defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I take my hat off to the firm in my hon. Friendâs constituencyâit is exactly those sorts of businesses that are the backbone of a strong British defence industry. Small or medium-sized companies, often with the potential to grow, have not in the past seen support from Government. That is why we have set up an SME support centre that is dedicated to making it easier to access Government contracts, and why we will ringfence ÂŁ400 million of direct defence investment that will go to SMEs. That will grow in each successive year.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
That is the story of my lifeâI am always the reserve, but I am always happy to step in. [Laughter.]
Boxer, Challenger 3 and now the gun barrel facility are going to be based in my constituencyâwell, I hope the latter will be in my constituency, but certainly in Shropshire. Will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks for all the work of the men and women âthe new engineers, the 100 new employeesâtaken on for the Boxer programme since March by Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land? Shropshire is a defence hub, and I ask the new ministerial teamâsome of them are here for me to welcome them todayâwhether the Government will continue to invest in Shropshire, recognising the link between local universities and colleges, and the defence supply chain.
John Healey
Far from being the reserve, the right hon. Gentleman is first up for the Opposition this afternoon, and I welcome that and the investment in Shropshire. I reassure him that the Government will continue to support that. I pay tribute, as he encouraged me to do, to the workforce in his area. When the defence industrial strategy is published, the House will see how we are looking to define not just the British industry, but investors, entrepreneurs and the workforce as an essential part of strengthening British industry and innovation, and the future for British jobs.
John Healey
The response of NATO has produced results exactly to the contrary of those President Putin would have wanted when he invaded Ukraine three-and-a-half years ago. NATO is now bigger; it is 32 nations strong. The commitment that all 32 nations made in the June summit to increase national security spending to 5% by 2035 is a strong deterrent message to Putin, Russia and other adversaries, and it will make NATO bigger and stronger in order to deter in the years ahead.
John Healey
I will indeed, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged, I hope, by the visit I paid to Turkey, and the initial agreement that I have signed with Turkey for a big new order of Typhoons, which will be built in Lancashire.
Afghanistan
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I welcome the tone in which the shadow Defence Secretary has responded, and I welcome his joining me in the apology on behalf of the British Government to those whose data has been compromised. I also welcome his acceptance that, as he put it, it was âentirely appropriateâ for the Defence Secretary, as part of a new Government, to look to update the Departmentâs assessment of the threat. I am very pleased that, as the House will have noted, he supports Rimmerâs conclusions and my policy judgments that the Government have announced today. The shadow Defence Secretary is right that, in simple terms, Rimmer gives us a revised, up-to-date assessment of the riskâin particular, the risk to those individuals whose data may be on that spreadsheet. He does confirm that it is highly unlikely that their name being on the dataset increases the risk of their being targeted.
The shadow Defence Secretary asked me three or four specific questions. He asked about the officialâit was a defence official. I cannot account for the improvements in data handling that previous Ministers may have made, but when I did his job in opposition, this data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes. I can also say that, in the past year since the election, the Government have appointed a new chief information officer, installed new software to securely share data and completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system.
On the ÂŁ7 billion figure, which I think the shadow Defence Secretary may have picked up from court papers, that was a previous estimate. It is related not simply to the Afghan response route but an estimate of the total cost of all Government Afghan schemes for the entire period in which they may operate.
On the significance of todayâs announcement and the policy decisions that we have taken compared with simply continuing the policy and schemes that we inherited, the taxpayer will pay ÂŁ1.2 billion less over the period, about 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country and, above all, proper accountability in this House and proper freedom of the media are restored.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Although I welcome it and his intent to inject parliamentary transparency and scrutiny, this whole data breach is a mess and wholly unacceptable. As I mentioned to the Minister for the Armed Forces during our recent secret briefing, I am minded to recommend to my Defence Committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate it to ascertain what has transpired, given the serious ramifications on so many levels.
As things stand, notwithstanding the contents of the Rimmer review, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that the Afghans affected, many of whom bravely supported our service personnel, will not be at risk of recriminations and reprisals?
John Healey
I can only recommend that my hon. Friend reads in full the public version of the Rimmer report, which I have published today. Rimmer sets out conclusions and an updated risk assessment, taking an up-to-date view, recognising that the situation in Afghanistan is nearly four years on from the point at which the Taliban took control and that the present regime sees those who may threaten the regime itself as a greater threat to their operation than any former Government official or serving official.
I recommend that my hon. Friend reads that report, and I expect that he, as the Defence Committee Chair, will want to take full advantage of this restored parliamentary accountability. I have always believed that our Select Committee system in this House is perfectly capable of, and better suited to, many of the in-depth inquiries that often get punted into public inquiries or calls for such inquiries. I hope he will have noted the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary also endorsed that view.
John Healey
I am sure Ministers will report to my right hon. Friendâs Committee if she invites us to do so. She is right to make the big argument that anyone providing data to the British Government has a right to expect that personal data to be stored securely, handled safely and not subject to the sort of loss or breach that we saw too often in the early days of the Afghan relocation schemes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
We will indeed. Amyâs experience is typical for many children of forces families: regularly moving as their parents answer the call and are deployed in different areas. We can do better by them. I am in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary about how we can do better by our forces families and forces children, but also about how we can do better for the cadets and the opportunities that they offer to all young people.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Last nightâs attack is a reminder of just how fierce the Russian onslaught on Ukraine is, but it is also a reminder that Putin has failed in his strategic ambitions. Three and a half years into this campaign, he has passed the gruesome milestone of 1 million Russian casualties on the battlefield, and he is failing to take the territory that he thought would fall to him. I am proud that the UK has stepped up with leadership on Ukraineâwith the coalition of the willing alongside the French and by chairing the Ukraine defence contact group alongside the Germansâand that we will spend more than ÂŁ4.5 billion this year on UK military aid to Ukraine, which is the highest ever level.
John Healey
Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislationâit has been rejected by domestic courts, and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles, whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks about, including our armed forces communities and veterans, to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties, in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about.
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman âhe would be a much better person to meet than me on this matter.
John Healey
I see a huge role. I hope that my hon. Friend took the commitment that the Chancellor and I made, alongside the spring statement, to set a new target for direct defence investment in SMEs, as a sign of that commitment. While I am in the business of committing my ministerial colleagues to meetings, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be only too happy to meet her and to draw on her expertise as part of the development of our defence industrial strategy.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
On defence spending, is not the truth that Labourâs promise to reach 3% of GDP, let alone 3.5% or 5%, is just smoke and mirrors, because there is no actual plan to pay for it? How can the Government claim that they will properly invest in our defence and keep the country safe when they cannot even deliver the limited savings they have promised on welfare? So I ask the Secretary of State: where is the money coming from?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to the Conservative Front Bench team, alongside his two very distinguished colleagues, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I gently say to him that, since the election, his colleague the shadow Defence Secretary argued 13 times for 2.5% by 2030. He only changed his tune after February, when the Prime Minister showed how it was going to be funded and said that we would do it three years earlier, in 2027. We have shown how we will raise the extra funding for this record increase in investment in defence since the end of the cold war. We have shown exactly how it is costed and exactly how it will be funded in this Parliament, and in the next Parliament we will do the same.
Government Announcements
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I was offered a briefing this morning, but I had already read it all in The Times; the only thing I was not offered is a copy of the strategic defence review. Business and the media have seen it. Who else might come out of the woodwork who has seen it? It is only right that Members of this House should now have an opportunity to see it, so that their questions can be informed by what is in the review. Secretary of State, are you happy to ensure that?
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have followedâ[Interruption.] You want an answer from me, Mr Speaker, and I will certainly give you this: we have followed the procedure from the last defence review, when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was a Defence Minister. I was the shadow Defence Secretary at that time. We had no advance copy of the defence review. We were not offered a briefing, which I have offered him and the other Front Benchers. I am really concerned to ensure that the House has proper access to the report, but we have been following convention. You are quite right, Mr Speaker, that copies of the defence review are in the Vote Office, as is established procedure. They would normally be made available when I sat down after my statement. In these circumstances, following your encouragement, I suggest that Members of this House be given access to them in advance of my statement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for that, and I am sure that Members will receive their copies as we speak.
Strategic Defence Review
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the strategic defence review. I have laid the full 130-page review before the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so and to make this statement on our first day back from the recess.
The world has changed, and we must respond. The SDR is our Plan for Change for defence: a plan to meet the threats that we face, a plan to step up on European security and to lead in NATO, a plan that learns the lessons from Ukraine, a plan to seize the defence dividend resulting from our record increase in defence investment and boost jobs and growth throughout the United Kingdom, and a plan to put the men and women of our armed forces at the heart of our defence plans, with better pay, better kit and better housing. Through the SDR, we will make our armed forces stronger and the British people safer.
I thank those who led the review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill,
âa politician, a soldier and a foreign policy expertâ,
as they describe themselves in their foreword. They, alongside others, have put in a huge effort. This is a âfirst of its kindâ, externally led review, the result of a process in which we received 8,000 submissions from experts, individuals, organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the shadow Defence Secretary. I thank them all, and I thank those in the Ministry of Defence who contributed to this SDR. It is not just the Governmentâs defence review, but Britainâs defence review. The Government endorse its vision and accept its 62 recommendations, which will be implemented.
The threats that we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. We face war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks, and daily cyber-attacks at home. Our adversaries are working more in alliance with one another, while technology is changing the way in which war is fought. We are living in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. Since the general election we have demonstrated that we are a Government dedicated to delivering for defence. We have committed ourselves to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, with an extra ÂŁ5 billion this year and 2.5% of GDP in 2027, and the ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament. However, there can be no investment without reform, and we are already driving the deepest reforms of defence in 50 years. Those reforms will ensure clearer responsibilities, better delivery, stronger budget control and new efficiencies worth ÂŁ6 billion in this Parliament, all of which will be reinvested directly in defence.
Our armed forces will always do what is needed to keep the nation safe, 24/7, in more than 50 countries around the world; but in a more dangerous world, as the SDR confirms, we must move to warfighting readiness, and warfighting readiness means stronger deterrence. We need stronger deterrence to avoid the huge costs, human and economic, that wars create, and we prevent wars by being strong enough to fight and win them. That is what has made NATO the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 75 years. We will establish a new âhybrid Navyâ by building Dreadnought, AUKUS submarines, cutting-edge warships and new autonomous vessels. Our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwings in Europe. We will develop the next generation Royal Air Force with F-35s, upgraded Typhoons, sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme jets and autonomous fighters to defend Britainâs skies and to be able to strike anywhere in the world, and we will make the British Army 10 times more lethal by combining the future technology of drones, autonomy and artificial intelligence with the heavy metal of tanks and artillery.
For too long, our Army has been asked to do more with less. We inherited a long-running recruitment crisis, following 14 years of Tory cuts to full-time troops. Reversing the decline will take time, but we are acting to stem the loss and aiming to increase the British Army to at least 76,000 full-time soldiers in the next Parliament. For the first time in a generation, we have a Government who want the number of regular soldiers to rise. This Government will protect our island home by committing ÂŁ1 billion in new funding to homeland air and missile defences, creating a new cyber-command to defend Britain in the grey zone, and preparing legislation to improve defence readiness.
As Ukraine shows, a countryâs armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them, so this SDR begins a new partnership with industry, innovators and investors. We will make defence an engine for growth to create jobs and increase prosperity in every nation and region of the UK. Take our nuclear enterprise. We will commit to investing ÂŁ15 billion in the sovereign warhead programme in this Parliament, supporting over 9,000 jobs. We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months, allowing us to grow our nuclear attack fleet to up to 12 submarines and supporting more than 20,000 jobs. On munitions, we will invest ÂŁ6 billion in this Parliament, including in six new munitions factories and in up to 7,000 new long-range weapons, supporting nearly 2,000 jobs. The lives of workers in Barrow, Derby and Govan, where the Prime Minister and I were this morning, are being transformed not just by this defence investment but by the pride and purpose that comes with defence work. In the coming years, more communities and more working people will benefit from the defence dividend that this SDR brings.
Ukraine also tells us that whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the fastest will have the advantage, so we will place Britain at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. We will double investment in autonomous systems in this Parliament, invest more than ÂŁ1 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, and finance a ÂŁ400 million UK defence innovation organisation. To ensure that Britain gains the maximum benefit from what we invent and produce in this country, we will create a new defence exports office in the MOD, driving exports to our allies and driving growth at home.
The SDR sets a new vision and a new framework for defence investment. The work to confirm a new defence investment plan, which will supersede the last Governmentâs defence equipment plan, will be completed in the autumn. It will ensure that our frontline forces get what they need, when they need it. The plan will be deliverable and affordable, and it will consider infrastructure alongside capabilities. It will seize the opportunities of advanced tech, and seize the opportunities to grow the British economy.
As we lose the national service generation, fewer families across this country will have a direct connection to the armed forces, so we must do more to reconnect the nation with those who defend us. As the SDR recommends, we will increase the number of cadets by 30%, introduce a voluntary âgap yearâ scheme for school and college leavers, and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030. We must also renew the nationâs contract with those who serve. We have already awarded the biggest pay increase in over 20 years and an inflation-busting increase this year, and now I have announced that we will invest ÂŁ7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including ÂŁ1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes.
This SDR is the first defence review in a generation for growth and for transformation in UK defence. It will end the 14 years of the hollowing out of our armed forces. Instead, we will see investment increased, the Navy expanded, the Army grown, the Air Force upgraded, warfighting readiness restored, NATO strengthened, the nuclear deterrent guaranteed, advanced technology developed, and jobs created in every nation and region of this country. The strategic defence review will make Britain safer, more secure at home and stronger abroad.
John Healey
I welcome what the hon. Lady said on Ukraine. She will recognise that this Government have been supported by all parties in the House in providing steadfast support to Ukraine to fight Putinâs illegal invasion. She will also recognise that since this Government were elected in July, we stepped up the support for Ukraine. I hope that she will recognise that we have also stepped up the leadership that the UK can offer on European security more widely. As well as convening meetings, I chaired the first Ukraine support group meeting after 26 meetings in which the US had led the way. Alongside the French, we are convening the 30-odd nations that are looking at securing a long-term peace in Ukraine, if a ceasefire can be secured. This week at NATO, I will continue those discussions with Defence Ministers.
The SDR is a vision for the next 10 years and beyond. It can be delivered within the spending commitments that this Government have made. As the Prime Minister underlined this morning, those spending commitments were baked into the terms of reference, and have been confirmed by the reviewers. As he has said, we will spend what we need to deliver this review, and I am totally confident that we will meet the ambition of 3% in the next Parliament.
On military homes, the hon. Lady is right to mention the scandal, which has gone on for years, of making the families of those who serve live in substandard homes, which are often mouldy and damp, with leaking roofs and doors. We can change that, and we have acted to start to do that. This year, for the first time, we bought back family military homes, and we now control 36,000 of them. Last month, also for the first time, we set out a consumer charter, with the basics of what people can expect from the MOD as their landlord. We have also confirmed an extra ÂŁ1.5 billion over this Parliament to deal with the worst military family homes. We can start to develop for the long term, and build the homes that we need for our forces, and in the country more widely. We will be able to use better the huge asset that MOD land offers.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friendâs welcome for the strategic defence review, which recognises the threats that we face and maps out the framework for the investment decisions that will deliver it, make our forces stronger and make the British people safer. I will work with Members from all parties in the House whenever national security and the safety of our people are at stake. I welcome her support.
I also welcome my hon. Friendâs chairwomanship of the Treasury Committee. I hope that her Committee will take an interest in the defence investment at the heart of the SDR and at the heart of our plans. The record defence investment that the Government are making in this country not only reinforces our national security, but can drive economic growth and bring a defence dividend that will drive the mission of this Government to increase economic growth and bring jobs, business and new tech to every part of the country.
Diego Garcia Military Base
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 UKâs 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 nationâs 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:
âThis 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.â
President Trump himself has described this as âvery long-termâ and âvery strongâ.
Diego Garcia also strengthens Britainâs economic security. Over one third of the worldâs 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 equipmentâa 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 actionâwithout this dealâwithin 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 UKâs 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 islandsâall provisions that were not in the draft agreement that had been negotiated by the Conservative party before the election.
I just say to the parties opposite that anyone who would abandon this deal would abandon the base. They would weaken the security of the British people and weaken the strength of the British armed forces. By signing this deal, the British flag will fly over the Diego Garcia base well into the next century. By signing this deal, the relationship with our closest security ally will be strengthened. By signing this deal, our capacity to deter our adversaries and defend UK interests is secured for generations to come. As the world becomes more dangerous, Diego Garcia becomes more important. This Government will never compromise on our national security. With this deal, we have made Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
Mr Speaker
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 thatâhe 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 partyâs leader admitted in February that a deal was needed. Politicoâs âPlaybookâ reported:
âA spokesperson for Badenoch insisted she understands negotiations over the islands are needed due to the international legal position.â
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 electionâin 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 ÂŁ3.4 billion. That is the figure reported and laid before the House today.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-established methodâused under our Government, his Government and the previous Governmentâfor 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 ÂŁ40 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 partyâs 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 UKâs 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
John Healey
I will indeed. We congratulate the crew of HMS Dragon on their professionalism and skill, and they will welcome my hon. Friendâs championing of that skill in the House this afternoon.
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 coronerâs 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.
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.
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
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentlemanâs response to my statement. Labour backed the last Governmentâs 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%âthree years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentlemanâs own unfunded plansâand 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 nightâs 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 yesterdayâs 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 yesterdayâs 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. Friendâs support for the action that we took overnight. It was part of a sustained campaignâa 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.
Ukraine Update
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 5Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 6Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 courageâmilitary 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.
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ÂŁ40 million VIP helicopter deal, we have ended the pointless racing car sponsorship, and we have saved ÂŁ300 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 dealâhe agreed the contract and told the House that it was a âbrilliant partnershipâ.
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.
Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UKâs 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 UKâs 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 Navyâs 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 Yantarâs every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantarâstrictly as a deterrent measureâto 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 âreckless campaignâ 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 Russiaâs 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 Russiaâs 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: ÂŁ4.5 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 ÂŁ3 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
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 âbrokenâ 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 10Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
Over the last decade or more, we have been expecting more of those members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. They play a critical role in our maritime operations and they are highly valued as part of our services community. We see an important future for that service as part of building Britainâs defences for the future, and we are putting forces personnel and RFA personnel at the heart of our plans to ensure that we are more secure at home and strong abroad.
John Healey
I will not be drawn on details about long-range missiles todayâit risks operational security, and the only person who benefits from public debate is President Putin. As the right hon. Member rightly says, 10,000 North Korean troops are on the frontline in Russia. At the weekend, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack into Ukraine since August against infrastructure. I spoke yesterday to the US Defence Secretary about this escalation. I will speak to the Ukrainian Defence Minister about it later today. I want the House to be in no doubt: the Prime Minister has been clear that we must double down and give Ukraine the support it needs for as long as it needs. We will continue to work in close co-ordination with the US in our support for Ukraine.
John Healey
Our first step was to ensure that veterans who face homelessness have a more advantaged place in social housing provisionâthat was announced by the Prime Minister in his Labour party conference speech and will be followed up by the Deputy Prime Minister in changes to the arrangements for local authority guidance. On the eve of Remembrance weekend, we also made a pledge of ÂŁ3.5 million to help homeless veterans.
Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 10Â 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
Please remember that when I grant urgent questions, the time each person has is limited. It is two minutes for the main Opposition party and one minute for the other Opposition party.
John Healey
Fourteen years the Conservative Government had to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and there was not a plan or a pathway from the last Government, as the shadow Defence Secretary tries to claim. It was a political ploy that was announced four weeks before they called the general election. It was unfunded, and it was a con on the armed forces and on the British people, who gave their answer emphatically by sweeping away Tory MPs in many of the proudest military communities and constituencies across the country.
On the shadow Defence Secretaryâs accusations about a total spending freeze, I am putting in place a grip on the out-of-control spending that the last Government left. We are securing value for money, we are cutting waste and we are getting a grip on defence spending in a way his Government did not.
We greatly value the continuity of education allowance and greatly recognise the role it plays in helping avoid disruption to the education of the children of serving personnel. In line with how the allowance operates, we will continue to pay up to 90% of private school fees following the VAT increase in January. By uprating the cap, we will take account of any increase in spending.
On the Chagos islands, of course I know the details because I was heavily involved in the negotiations. This secures Britainâs military base, and it secures a military base for our US allies, which is why they welcomed it so strongly. I have said to the shadow Secretary of State and to the House that when it debates the treaty, this House will have the full information.
Nobody knows better the defence inheritance that 14 years of Conservative government have left us for the past four months than the shadow Defence Secretary: he was a Defence Minister at the heart of the problems, with billion-pound black holes, service morale at record lows, and a crisis in the recruitment and retention of personnel. Never again must a Government leave our armed forces in a worse state than they found them, and this new Government will make this country more secure at home and strong abroad.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We live in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, with hundreds of thousands of people dying or being injured on our own continent in Ukraine, and wars and conflicts raging in the middle east, Africa and beyond, not to mention the increased nefarious activity in the grey zone. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are dealing with exceptional circumstances and we need to grasp the gravity of the situation. I have a great deal of time and respect for the Secretary of State because I know that he gets it, but do others in government understand the gravity of the situation, because we need clarity? We need a timetable so that not only our allies, but those in our defence community, know where we are heading.
John Healey
Yes, they do. Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase, and it is increasing under this Government. It increased in the first Budget of this new Government by nearly ÂŁ3 billion for next year. Alongside that is the cast-iron commitment that we are a Government who will set a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
Ukraine
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine. I apologise for the delay in getting you and Opposition Front Benchers a copy of my statement; the responsibility is entirely mine.
I have just returned from three days of intense defence diplomacyâfirst, at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels, where we welcomed President Zelensky, and then at the G7 Defence Ministers meeting in Naples, where we had important updates from the battlefield, agreed that this is a critical point in the conflict, and stressed the need to step up and speed up support for Ukraine. The G7 joint declaration strongly condemned Putinâs illegal invasion and reinforced our unwavering support for Ukraine. It also rightly stated that
âRussiaâs aggression against Ukraine is posing a threat to international security, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and the rules-based international order.â
That is what is at stake for us all. If President Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop there. If big nations redraw international boundaries by force, the sovereignty and security of all nations is undermined. That is why the UKâs military, economic, industrial and diplomatic support, alongside that of our allies, is so important.
I have returned to the UK knowing that NATO and the G7 are united for Ukraine, just as the UK is united for Ukraine. Our job now is to turn the talks into action, which is exactly what the Government are doing. Today, the Chancellor and I are announcing that the UK will provide an additional ÂŁ2.26 billion to Ukraine. This is new money, which will be delivered under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. It is part of the $50 billion loan package from G7 countries to support Ukraineâs military, budget and reconstruction needsâloans that will be repaid using the profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets. Profits on frozen Russian money will support Ukraineâs fight against Putin, turning the proceeds of Putinâs corrupt regime against it and putting them in the hands of Ukrainians.
I want to be clear: todayâs new money is in addition to the ÂŁ3 billion a year of military support that this Government have committed to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. The money is in addition to that in the ÂŁ3.5 billion defence industrial support treaty that I signed with Defence Minister Umerov in July; that is money that Ukraine will use to procure military equipment from British companies, boosting British jobs and British industry. Todayâs new money is also in addition to the extra artillery, air defences, ammunition and missiles that we have announced and delivered in the first four months of this new Government. Ukraine is a first-order priority for me as Defence Secretary, and for this Government. We will continue to step up support, to lead, and to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
It is 973 days since Putin launched his full-scale illegal invasion, and Ukraineâs civilians and military alike have been fighting with great courage. There have been important battlefield developments in recent weeks. When I last updated the House, Ukrainian forces were one month into their remarkable offensive in Kursk. Three months on, they continue to hold Russian territory. Ukraineâs strategic surprise has put Putin under pressure, forcing the diversion of some Russian troops and equipment. Despite the increase in brutal Russian counter-attacks and aerial bombardments, they have so far failed to dislodge the Ukrainian incursion.
It is not just in Kursk that Ukraine is fighting back. Ukrainian forces have launched long-range attacks into Russian territory and on military targets that are directly supporting Putinâs illegal invasion. In September, Ukraine used long-range drones to attack four ammunition storage facilitiesâstrikes that successfully destroyed thousands of tonnes of ammunitionâand both the defensive thrust into Kursk and the strategic defensive strikes into Russia have had an impact on the battlefield. Russiaâs advance towards Pokrovsk in the eastâPutinâs main line of effort âhas been slowed.
Russian losses continue to rise. Since the start of the conflict, Russia is likely to have suffered 675,000 casualties. In September, the average casualty rate of Russians on the battlefield in Ukraine each day was 1,271âa record high, two and a half times the rate this time last year. As for equipment, Russia has now lost 3,400 tanks and 8,500 armoured vehicles, and 26 vessels in the Black sea fleet have been destroyed or damaged.
Despite the incredible resilience of the Ukrainians, they remain under great pressure from Russian forces across multiple fronts. Russian troops continue to advance and to attack Ukrainian infrastructure, targeting the important port of Odesa and striking energy infrastructure. As we head into winter, Ukraineâs energy generation capacity has been reduced by up to two thirds of pre-war levels. Russian industry remains on a war footing. Russian artillery is outfiring Ukraine by at least three to one, and Russia is recruiting an additional 400,000 troops this year. Defence will account for 32%âone thirdâof the total Government budget in Russia next year.
In a concerning new development, it is now highly likely that the transfer of hundreds of combat troops from North Korea to Russia has begun. For North Korean soldiers to support Russiaâs war of aggression on European soil is as shocking as it is desperate. North Korea already sends significant munitions and arms to Russia, in direct violation of multiple UN resolutions. The developing military co-operation between Russia and the Democratic Peopleâs Republic of Korea has serious security implications for Europe and the Indo-Pacific. It represents a wider growing alliance of aggression that NATO and the G7 nations must confront.
Despite this dangerous development, Ukraine remains determined to fight on its frontline in the east and in the territory in Kursk, and President Zelensky will continue to seek support for his victory plan. We want the plan to succeed, and we stand ready to work closely with the Ukrainians and allies to help it to do so. As we approach 1,000 days of this war, the conflict is at a critical moment, which is why the UK continues to step up its support for Ukraine. Ukrainians are fighting to regain their sovereign territory and to protect peace, democracy and security for the rest of us in Europe.
John Healey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Corporal Gill. I will pass them on to his widow and make sure that his family are aware of them and of the sentiments of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman is right about the enormous contribution that Corporal Gill made, including to the Interflex training programme, which I was proud to be able to commit to extending throughout 2025. The Chancellor and I visited the programme together on Sunday; we met Colonel Boardman, the commander of Operation Interflex, and the officers and soldiers of 3 Scots, together with instructors from Kosovo, Australia and Sweden, illustrating the way the UK is leading a multinational effort to support Ukrainian soldiers.
The hon. Gentleman is right and I suspect that there is unanimity in the House on concern about the developments in Russia and the growing alliance with North Korea, and that it is united in its determination to take the action required to respond and united in recognising that we must do so alongside NATO and other G7 allies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new loan funds available for Ukraine through the proceeds of the interest on frozen Russian assets. We expect those to be available and in Ukraineâs hands from early in the new year, which will put the UK ahead of many other nations participating in the scheme.
On the hon. Gentlemanâs final question, we remain totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We must do this to meet the threats that this country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed the commitment to set out a clear path to 2.5% in our first week in Government at the NATO summit in Washington. I gently say again to the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under a Labour Government, and that that level was never matched in any of the 14 Conservative years since.
John Healey
I welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee, who I believe now has a Committee to chair. I look forward to an invitation to give evidence and to discuss these issues with the Committee soon.
At the NATO Defence Ministers meeting, there was unanimity among the 32 nations that the important commitments that NATO nations made in Washington, particularly to the $40 billion of extra support for Ukraine, must be delivered. There was a recognition, too, that pledges made must be pledges delivered. One of the Ukrainiansâ striking concerns is that just a third of the equipment and support pledged has so far been delivered, so there was a determination to step up not just what we can provide, but how quickly we can provide it. That is something that as a new Government we did from day one.
On Storm Shadow, only Putin benefits from a discussion about this. There is no single weapon that has turned the tide of any war. Whether it is artillery, ammunition, armoured vehicles or missiles, the UK provides support to Ukraine to pursue its UN right to defend its territory and its people.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(1Â year, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that full details will be properly set out when the treaty comes before the House. At that point, the House can scrutinise the deal and approve it or not. Let me make it clear that we inherited a situation in which the long-standing UK-US military base was put at risk from problems to do with sovereignty and migration. We have made a historic deal that secures the UK-US base for the future, which is why my counterpart the US Defence Secretary so strongly welcomed it when we reached it.
John Healey
They will indeed. This is the way we can reinforce the UKâs security and economy. And yes, we can build, through the SDR, on the work that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did when he was Minister for defence procurement. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), I am really angry about the state of defence after the last Government: there are billion-pound black holes in defence plans; service morale is at record lows; and Army numbers are set to fall below 70,000 next year. We will work night and day to make our forces more fit to fight, and to make Britain more secure at home and stronger abroad.
John Healey
We have an unshakeable commitment to the right of Israel to defend itself and we have demonstrated in the past a willingness to stand with Israel, particularly when it has been under direct under attack from Iran.
Mr Speaker
We now come to points of order before the urgent questions. I will deal with them in a slightly different way from normal. I call the leader of the Scottish National party.
Ukraine
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I have said that Ukraine is my first-order priority, and I was in Odessa on my second day in the job. I have now had the privilege of meeting President Zelensky four times while in post, and I have met his Defence Minister six times. Like the previous Government, we consistently try to respond to the needs that Ukraine says it has for systems and ammunition. At the moment, above all, it needs new supplies of ammunition and stronger air defence systems capable of taking down Russian missiles and drones at different distances. While the US made a commitment at Ramstein last week to an extra $250 million in air defence systems, we made a commitment of an extra ÂŁ160 million through a short-range modern air defence systemâ650 LMMs, with production under wayâthe first of which will be delivered to Ukraine before the end of the year. We are stepping up the support that we pledged for Ukraine and speeding up the support that we deliver to Ukraine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Governmentâs increase in military aid to Ukraine for this year and the years ahead has Labourâs fullest support. Weekend newspapers reported that D-day celebrations are at risk from RAF cuts, and the latest MOD figures confirm that nearly 50,000 full-time forces personnel have been cut since 2010. The Defence Secretaryâs predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), admitted that this Government have âhollowed out and underfundedâ the forces. He is right, isnât he?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 6Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As you did, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces Minister at his last Defence questions. Since the last election, we have had five Chancellors, four Foreign Secretaries, three Prime Ministers and two Defence Secretaries, but only one Armed Forces Minister. He has been a rare constant in the turmoil of Government, totally committed to defence. We thank him for that and wish him well.
On the Indo-Pacific, we welcome last weekâs updated defence agreement with Australia, further progress on AUKUS, and todayâs 10-year plan for Barrow to support AUKUS. This is our most important strategic alliance beyond NATO, so why has the Defence Secretary given the leadership of key parts of AUKUS to the most junior Minister in his Department?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We condemn the deadly terrorist attack in Moscow on Friday, and our thoughts are with all those affected, but the attack must not become a Kremlin cover for Putinâs illegal war in Ukraine. In recent days, we have seen multiple Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities, yet the last UK air defence support was announced last year. When is the next one?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In the last year of the last Labour Government, we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, a level that has not been matched in any of the subsequent 14 Tory years.
Like the Defence Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and I were in Munich at the weekend, and the urgency of the need for more help for Ukraine ran through every discussion. Everyone was also profoundly moved by the words of Yulia Navalnaya, speaking even after the news of her husbandâs death at Putinâs hands. This is the brutality that the Ukrainians are fighting, and this is why UK support must not falter. We strongly back last monthâs UK-Ukraine security agreement, which the Defence Secretary has described as âa 100-year allianceâ. Will the Government take the necessary next step and provide an implementation plan for this year and future years, to ensure that Ukraine receives the help that it needs now and for tomorrow?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The agonies of the Palestinian people are extreme. We all want the fighting to stop now, for hostages to be returned now, for aid to be ramped up now, and a ceasefire that lasts permanently. What is the Defence Secretary doing to help his Israeli counterpart to accept that their threatened offensive against Rafah just cannot happen?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome what the Defence Secretary has to say. These attacks on Red sea shipping must stop. They destabilise regional security, disrupt international trade and put civilian and military lives in danger. We back the UK action with allies in the new maritime protection force, and the joint statement condemning the Houthi attacks that the Secretary of State just mentioned. He announced today but has not mentioned to the House that HMS Richmond is sailing to the Gulf. In the light of these escalating tensions, what other Royal Navy ships has he put on stand-by for the region?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In just five days last week, Russia fired 500 drones and missiles at Ukraine. Putin is stepping up his attacks, so we must step up UK support, but current military aid funding runs out in a matter of weeks. The former Defence Secretary saidâalthough not todayâthat without new money it is
âvery hard to continue the leadership the UK has been taking on Ukraineâ.
I asked the current Defence Secretary about the 2024 Ukraine funding in the House in November. The former Defence Secretary wrote about it eight months ago. Seven weeks from when I asked, I ask again: when will new military aid funding for Ukraine be announced, and will it be multi-year?
Ukraine
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 9Â 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
John Healey
Early on Saturday morning, sirens sounded across Kyiv for six hours. Families took to shelters and fear spread across the city. That day, 75 drones were launched on Kyivâthe biggest strike on Ukraine since Putinâs brutal illegal invasion began, as the Minister said. With attention on the middle east, this is a wake-up call about Russia. Putin can still unleash fresh horrors on Ukraine, still shows contempt for international law, and still wants to redraw sovereign boundaries by force. Six hundred and forty-two days on, Ukrainians are living with fear every day, fighting every day, and dying every day. The defence of the UK starts in Ukraine, because if Putin prevails, he will not stop with Ukraine. I pay tribute to the UK troops who are training Ukrainian forces, flying out military aid and reinforcing regional security through NATO.
Last month, the Defence Secretary said:
âLetâs not forget about Ukraine.â
So why did the autumn statement do just that? There was no 2024 military funding or action plan for Ukraine. At the very time when Ukraine needs confidence that it has strong, continuing support from allies, the Prime Minister is stepping back. UK leadership on Ukraine is flagging: this yearâs ÂŁ2.3 billion of UK military funding runs out in March, while this month Germany announced âŹ8 billion of military aid for next year. When will the Defence Secretary himself make a statement on Ukraine? When will Ministers announce the next delivery of UK weapons? When will the Government pledge funding for fresh military aid and publish a 2024 action plan for the military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine needs? When will the Prime Minister demonstrate by his decisions and actions that Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(2Â years, 10Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
After nearly three months, it is very good to finally welcome the Defence Secretary to the Dispatch Box for the first time. He reflects the deep concern about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the risks of wider escalation. Labour totally condemns Hamas terrorism. We back Israelâs right to defend itself, but require it to meet its duties under international law and lift the siege conditions, and we want to see the breaks in fighting extended to get much more aid in and the hostages out. We back the military deployments to the region to support wider security, but with attacks against US personnel rising, what action is the Defence Secretary taking to increase protection for UK personnel in the middle east?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary said recently that, despite middle east tensions, we must not forget about Ukraine. I welcome that statement, but the UKâs leadership on support for Ukraine is flagging, so will Wednesdayâs autumn statement, as a minimum, confirm the commitment to match this yearâs ÂŁ2.3 billion in military aid funding for next year?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We know that the Defence Secretary is with his close family today, and we in the Opposition extend our deepest condolences.
I also offer the Secretary of State our warmest congratulations. Over the years and in different roles, I have shadowed him and he has shadowed me, and we both know that the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. I will always look to work with him on that basis in his new job.
On personnel, levels of satisfaction with service life have plunged a third over the past 13 years. What is the plan to lift those record low levels of military morale?
Dr Murrison
The right hon. Gentleman paints an overly gloomy picture of life in the armed forces for most people. It is a rewarding career and they take with them the skills that they need into civilian life and prosper. However, we are aware of our need to compete in the workplace in the years ahead and, to that end, we have commissioned Rick Haythornthwaiteâs review, which we broadly agree with and will respond to very soon.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As Ministers know, UK unity on Ukraine stays strong and the Government will continue to have Labourâs fullest support on military aid. Ukrainians are now urgently asking for more to help their current counter-offensive to succeed, and since January, the Prime Minister has repeatedly pledged to accelerate Ukraineâs support. When will this happen?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In January, the Defence Secretary admitted that his Government have âhollowed out and underfundedâ our armed forces and, in the past week, a string of senior military figures have agreed. NATOâs second-in-command said that the British Army is âtoo smallâ, a former Chief of the Defence Staff said
âThe Army is now too weakâ,
and another ex-CDS said:
âThe hollowing out of warfighting resilience within the Armed Forces has been the single most obvious shortfallâŚsince 2010â.
Will the Defence Secretary halt this hollowing out in his new Defence Command Paper? Will it be published this month, as he has promised?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Prime Minister told last weekâs Ukraine recovery conference that
âwe will maintain our support for Ukraineâs defence and for the counter offensiveâ.
With the developments in recent days, surely now is the time to accelerate, not just maintain, our military support for Ukraine?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary is right, of course, that for strong maritime security, we need our Navy ships at sea, not in dock for repairs. For the last two years, he has been telling us that we are
âon track to deliver more days at sea for ships.â
Yet in last yearâs data, eight of the Navyâs active warships never went to sea at all, and the new Prince of Wales carrier has, since it entered service, spent just 267 days at sea and 411 days in dock for repeated repairs. Why is he still failing to get more of our ships at sea more of the time to keep Britain safe?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This week, like the Secretary of State, I will be meeting the Australian Defence Minister and discussing AUKUS with him. I want him to know that, while there may be a change of UK Government at the next election, there will be no change in Britainâs commitment to AUKUS. If done well, this pact could deepen our closest alliances, strengthen security in the Indo-Pacific and bring game-changing investment to Britain. What priority has the Defence Secretary given to building the first subs here, and when will the build plan be announced?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This month, the Government made important but, again, ad hoc announcements of more military help for Ukraine. We are still waiting for the 2023 action plan of support for Ukraine first promised by the Defence Secretary last August. Will he publish that ahead of the first anniversary of Russiaâs invasion next month?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 9Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
We welcome the Governmentâs commitment to job creation; the problem is that they are creating jobs abroad, including in Spain. The Defence Secretary has just picked a Spanish firm to build the Royal Navyâs three new fleet support ships. At least 40% of that work will go abroad and the best that the Defence Secretary could tell the Scottish Affairs Committee the other day was that the contractor will
âfully assemble the final ship in a UK yard.â
As a result of the Defence Secretaryâs decision, how many jobs will be created in Spain and not in the UK?
Mr Speaker
Order. Work with me, Secretary of State; I want to work with you. You have given very long answers during questions, and we are now into topicals. We have to be short and sweet. Lots of Members on both sides wanted to get in earlier but failed to because of the long answer. Please, let us work together. I call John Healeyâbriefly, please.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
At todayâs Cobra meeting, will the Defence Secretary tell Ministers in other Departments that too often they use our armed forces to bail out their Departmentsâ failings, especially when he is making further deep cuts to the Army? In addition to those deployed on overseas operations, whom he has mentioned, how many of our forces will be deployed or on standby over Christmas in response to requests for military assistance to which he has already agreed?
Mali: UN Peacekeeping Mission
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 10Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statementâhe always treats this House with great courtesyâbut I have to say that I was disappointed, Mr Speaker, as you will be, that nearly three hours before I received a copy of the statement I was reading about his decision on The Times online.
MINUSMA is the UNâs deadliest peacekeeping mission, with 281 fatalities to date, so I want to start by paying tribute to all those British troops who have been deployed with the UN in Mali since 2020 and all the RAF air and ground crew who have been deployed in Mali since 2013.
The UN Security Council only renewed the Mali missionâs mandate, which Britain strongly supported, in June. What now for the UNâs MINUSMA force without the UKâs long-range specialised reconnaissance? What now for the UKâs contribution to stabilising the Sahel, which experts say has become the new epicentre of terrorism? What now for the neighbouring states of Mali, which look to the UK for support in the face of increasing activity from Islamic extremist groups? And what now for the westâs capacity to balance the Russian Wagner Group mercenaries in the region?
Will the Chinook deployment continue to support the UN mission? The Times reported that this has already been withdrawn, although the Minister has not mentioned it this afternoon. And when exactly will the current Royal Scots Light Dragoons on the ground in Mali be withdrawn?
This statement is long overdue. France announced the withdrawal of troops from Mali back in February, and when I asked the Defence Secretary about this days later he said the UK was
ânow reviewing our next steps.ââ[Official Report, 21 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 17.]
I got the same answer when I asked again nearly four months later. Now, fully nine months after France, and eight months after Sweden, why has it has taken Britain so long to make the same decision? We need strategic planning and foresight from Ministers for this region, not a tactical silence while they work out what on earth to do.
President Macron marked the end of the French Operation Barkhane last week by pledging a new strategy within half a year for working with African countries. Is the UK working with France on this new strategy? Will the Government produce a similar UK strategy?
In the Governmentâs 2020 integrated review there was just one passing reference to the Sahel and two short factual statements about Mali. Will the current IR update make good the Sahel-shaped gap in UK strategic security thinking?
Finally, ahead of the autumn statement, todayâs decision on reducing our commitment to UK United Nations peacekeeping is a reminder of the importance of clarity over UK defence spending. The Defence Secretary agreed the current spending settlement, giving the Ministry of Defence back in 2020 a ÂŁ1.4 billion real cut in day-to-day spending. He now says, as he told the Select Committee on Defence, that
âthe inflationary pressure on my budget for the next two years is about ÂŁ8 billionâ.
How much does Defence actually need from the Chancellor on Thursday to plug the Defence Secretaryâs budget black hole?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Minister comes in, I have seen what has been given to The Times, and I am disappointed. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but it is pretty appalling that somebody decided to hand to The Times, for it to put online, exactly what he has just given to the House. I hope that he will look into that and that whoever in the Department passed it to The Times will be reprimanded and reminded that Members of this House come first, not the media.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(3Â years, 10Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It was an honour to join you, Mr Speaker, the Canadian Speaker, the Defence Secretary and other Members of the House earlier today for the opening of the constituency garden of remembrance. At last weekâs Defence Committee, the Secretary of State was asked when the MOD would sign a contract to make the new next-generation light anti-tank weapons that are needed both for Ukraine and to restock the British Army. He said:
âWe have signed the first contract for next year.â
If the Defence Secretary was correct, Saab would have notified the market, but it has not. Would the Defence Secretary like to correct the record, and will he confirm when the MOD will get its act together and get that contract in place for new UK production, as this is day 257 of Putinâs war on Ukraine?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretaryâs news that the vanity project of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)âthe flagshipâwill be scrapped, and the spending switched to purposes that will help defend the country. Ahead of the Chancellorâs autumn statement, the Defence Secretary told the Select Committee last week
âI need money to protect me from inflationâ,
yet in the current spending settlement, Defence is the only Department with a real-terms cut in its revenue budget. Why did he ever agree to that?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Defence Secretary and his team on ensuring that there has been continuity in defence while the rest of the Conservative Government have collapsed in chaos? Let me also say, lest this prove to be their last session of oral questions in their current jobs, that whatever our other disagreements, the Secretary of Stateâs cross-party working on Ukraine has helped to ensure that the UK has strong, unified support for the Ukrainians.
The right hon. Gentleman has been Defence Secretary since the Prime Minister, nearly two years ago, boosted defence spending and boasted that that would create 10,000 jobs every year. Only 800 new defence jobs have been created since then. Why the failure?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
When the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), answered my urgent question on Thursday about new public allegations about British special forces in Afghanistan, he said that,
âthe Secretary of State is clear that he rules nothing outâ.
He also said:
âI am certain that the House will hear from him in the near future.ââ[Official Report, 14 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 494.]
With the summer recess starting on Thursday, when will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on this?
Ukraine: UK and NATO Military Commitment
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Today marks day 117 since Russia began its brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is now a grim, grinding war of attrition. NATOâs Secretary-General warned last week that the alliance
âmust prepare for the fact that it could take years.â
Everything that can be done must be done to help to maintain the Ukrainian militaryâs morale, weaponry and personnel. The Government will continue to have Labourâs full support in the military assistance they provide to Ukraine.
In April, when responding to the Defence Secretaryâs statement in this House, I urged the Government to move to supply
âthe new NATO weapons that Ukraine will need for Putinâs next offensiveâ.â[Official Report, 25 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 463.]
In these last two months, what NATO-standard stock has been supplied from the UK to Ukraine, and how many new contracts for missiles or ammunition production have the MOD now managed to sign and start?
On Friday, as the Minister said, the Prime Minister offered to train 10,000 new Ukrainian soldiers every three months. This is exactly what is needed. Did President Zelensky accept Britainâs offer? Will these Ukrainian recruits be trained in Britain? Which other NATO nations will be involved in such training?
As we mark the start of Armed Forces Week, the Labour leader and I had the privilege of visiting NATOâs maritime command and our UK Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood this morning. We wanted to thank our personnel for the service they give to our national and NATO commitments. However, there are serious growing concerns about the UK meeting its NATO commitments, with the failure to reboot defence plans in response to Ukraine, delays to a fully modern warfighting division until 2030, continued uncertainty over Ajax and, of course, further deep cuts to Army numbers.
The new head of the Army said in an internal message to troops last week that
âthere is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battleâ,
so why are Ministers pushing ahead with plans to cut another 10,000 soldiers? When will they halt these cuts, and when will they start to rebuild the strength of the British Army to meet the threats that our country and our NATO allies face?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
NATO meets in two weeks to agree its masterplan for the next 10 years, yet there are growing concerns about the UK meeting even its core NATO commitments. Is it true that the Defence Secretary warned the Chancellor that Britain risks missing its 2% spending commitment? What is the Defence Secretary doing about Ajax, given that the Public Accounts Committeeâs new report states that the MoD
âis failing to deliver theâŚcapability that the Army needs toâŚmeet its NATO commitmentsâ?
Why has the Defence Secretary failed to set out a vision to ensure that Britain continues to be NATOâs leading European nation?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On the eve of the 40th anniversary, we remember the sacrifice in liberating the Falklands and we reaffirm the significance of the islands to our future security.
During the Defence Secretaryâs visit to Kyiv in recent days, two Brits fighting with the Ukrainians have faced a Russian show trial and another has been reported killed. How many former British forces personnel are fighting in Ukraine?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 5Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The UKâs anti-tank and anti-air weapons are proving vital to the Ukrainians in fighting the Russian invasion. The Prime Minister pledged at NATO last week that we will supply a further 6,000 missiles. Both NLAW and Starstreak are made in Britain by British workers, as the Minister for Defence Procurement said in response to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on Question 17, but has production started to replace the British stockpiles of these missiles?
Ukraine Update
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 6Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary and his team for the way they have kept Members in all parts of the House updated and informed, and I thank him for his statement this afternoon. President Zelensky spoke for his country when he told us yesterday:
âWe will not give up, and we will not lose.ââ[Official Report, 8 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 304.]
His address, like his leadership, was deeply moving and deeply inspiring. Ukrainians are showing massive braveryâmilitary and civilians alikeâand we must do all we can to support their resistance. The Government have Labourâs full backing for providing military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine to defend itself.
I welcome the Defence Secretaryâs statement and the detail of the further weapons and equipment that Britain has been able to provide Ukraine to defend itself. I also welcome the role we are playing in co-ordinating help from other countries for Ukraine. Can I urge him to conclude the examination he is now giving to the provision of Starstreak missiles as quickly as possible? These are exactly the sort of ground-to-air missiles needed to defend against Russian air attacks. Can I ask him more broadly whether these supplies to Ukraine are coming solely from our UK stockpiles, or is the MOD also purchasing from other countries to respond to Ukrainian requests? Have other non-NATO, non-European countries with weaponry or well-trained air forces yet been involved?
It is clear that President Putin miscalculated the resolve of the Ukrainian military and the strength of his own Russian forces. He planned for a short campaign without the provision of logistics for protracted fighting and occupation. What is the MODâs assessment of how far the Russians have now rectified this? I think the Secretary of State said 65%, but can he confirm what proportion of Russian forces that were on Ukraineâs borders and off her coast have now been deployed into Ukraine?
This is only still week two. Russia has such crushing firepower, and Putin has such utter ruthlessness, that we must expect more than one of his military objectives to be taken over the next few weeks. We must expect greater brutality, with still further civilian casualties. Our thoughts and prayers are with the residents of Kyiv and those other great Ukrainian cities as they face encirclement and bombardment from Russian forces.
Whatever the short-term gains Putin secures, we must make sure that he fails in the longer run through Ukrainian resistance, tougher sanctions, more humanitarian help, wider international isolation, justice for the war crimes being committed and, above all, lasting western unity. We must be ready to deal with the consequences of this invasion for many years to come. It is clear, however, that Putin has also miscalculated the international resolve to isolate Russia and the strength of western and NATO unity. Labourâs commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and the Government again have our full support for reinforcing NATO nations on the allianceâs eastern border with Russia. The Labour leader and I fly out tonight to Tallinn to reassure Estonia of the united UK determination to defend its security and to thank our British forces deployed there from the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Welsh battlegroup.
It was Labourâs post-war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who was the principal architect of NATO and in particular of its article 5 commitment to collective defence. Today is the anniversary of Bevinâs birth in 1881, so today let President Putin be in no doubt that our commitment to article 5 is absolute. Let him not mistake NATOâs restraint for any lack of resolve. NATOâs response force has been activated, as the Defence Secretary has said, in response to this aggression. We welcome the detail of the UKâs contribution to that, but what role could the UK-led joint expeditionary force play? Is it not time for NATO to issue an initiating directive to the Supreme Allied Commander to plan future options as part of overhauling NATO, necessarily, for the decade ahead? Could the Defence Secretary also confirm what I think he said, which was that the 1,000 UK troops put on stand-by before the invasion are still in Britain and still on stand-by, and that we have received no requests for the humanitarian help that they were designed to respond to?
It is not the job of British forces to protect the failing Home Secretary or Border Force, especially at this critical time of conflict, but yesterday the Defence Secretary said that help for Ukrainians fleeing the war had ânot been quick enoughâ. He also said that he was offering MOD assistance to the Home Office. Has this offer been accepted? Can he tell us what role military personnel will play, where, and for how long?
As we confront aggression abroad, we need to strengthen our defences at home. A national resilience strategy was promised a year ago. When will this be published? The integrated review, published a year ago, made the Prime Ministerâs first focus the Indo-Pacific. It neglected the need to rebuild relations with essential European allies and the European Union, and it planned to cut the British Army still further. Will the Government now rethink such fundamental flaws in their integrated review?
Finally, if I may, Mr Speaker, we expect a big budget boost for Defence in the Chancellorâs spring statement in two weeksâ time. With Russiaâs full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Government must respond to new threats to UK and European security, just as Labour in government did after the twin towers attacks on 9/11. If the Government act, they will again have Labourâs full support.
Mr Speaker
I am going to make mention of this important issue: Front Benchers have to be in line with the rules, and I have to enforce the rules. The rule says five minutes, but that was seven. If you want me to grant urgent questions and if you want me to support statements, you have to work with me to ensure that we do not take the time from other agendas. I do keep clock of the time, and I do not want to get into an argument about itâthe Labour Front-Bench spokesman took a lot longer. This is an important matter and I want to keep it on the agenda, but you need to work with me. Or change the rules and make my life easier!
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(4Â years, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I extend a warm Labour welcome to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and her team this afternoon?
The Government have Labourâs full support in assisting Ukraine in confronting Russian aggression and pursuing diplomacy even at this eleventh hour, and we also fully support moves to reinforce the security of NATO allies, as the Labour leader and I told the Secretary-General at NATO HQ earlier this month. However, although the doubling of UK troops in Estonia is welcome it looks like an overlap in rotation, not a reinforcement; for how long will this double deployment last, and beyond the steps already announced what more is the Secretary of State willing to do to reinforce allies on NATOâs eastern flank?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(5Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I want to ask the Defence Secretary about the Ajax armoured vehicle, the biggest defence procurement failure since the Nimrod. What did the Defence Secretary know about the Ajax flaws when he published the integrated review in his Defence White Paper in March, scrapping Warrior, scaling back Challenger and fully backing Ajax?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(5Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said back in November that the current four-year funding for defence would create â10,000 jobs every yearâ. Six months on, how many new defence jobs have been created?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(5Â years, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentions nuclear proliferation in relation to Iran, but I am disappointed that he makes no mention of New STARTâstrategic arms reduction treatyâwhich President Biden rescued last week, particularly as Britain is a beneficiary of the stability that it brings to Europe. He made no mention of New START when it collapsed with President Trump last year. He was also silent when the US pulled out of the 34-nation open skies treaty, so why has Britain become a bystander while the international rules-based order has been breaking down? While it remains essential to maintain our UK nuclear deterrent, will he also use the integrated review to reboot Britainâs commitment to help forge the next generation of necessary arms controls and security agreements?
Mr Speaker
May I just remind Front Benchers that topicals are meant to be short and punchy so that we get through the list?
Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(5Â years, 10Â 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 I call the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want to put on record our thanks to our armed forces for what they are doing during this pandemic. Personally, I appreciate it.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the continuing covid pandemic.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(5Â years, 10Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that topicals are meant to be short and punchy? We have got to get into that habit.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As we have seen this afternoon, there is growing cross-party concern over the Secretary of Stateâs overseas operations Bill. Will he now accept, after 10 Committee sittings, that it is clear that the Bill simply does not do what it says on the tinâto protect British troops overseas from vexatious litigation and repeat investigations? Will he also accept that, as we have seen this afternoon, the Minister in charge is in denial about the Billâs flaws and dangers? Will the Secretary of State himself therefore join me tomorrow for Report stage so that we can work together on the changes needed to make this legislation fit for purpose?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the Front Benchers once again, if you are going to ask questions in topicals, they have got to be short and punchy. That is the idea of topicals. I call the Secretary of State.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(6Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome, too. It is a privilege to take on this role, which has always been so important to the Labour party. We will do right by our armed forces and veterans and we will promote their role as a force for good at home and abroad. Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to our militaryâs essential role in helping the country to respond to the covid crisis. They are keeping us safe, and it is right that we do everything we can to keep them safe.
The US Defence Department has increased its testing capacity to 30,000 military personnel a week. It has set out a strategic testing plan and has now tested everyone deemed a priority for national security, including strategic deterrence, nuclear deterrence, anti-terror forces and healthcare as well as, of course, its entire covid support force. Has the Secretary of State done the same here in the UK?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Member. May I place on record a tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who did a great job as shadow Defence Secretary, sometimes in difficult circumstances? We have done it slightly differently from the United States with testing our personnel. We have no problems whatsoever testing whoever we want, when we want. The best example I can give is that, before embarkation, we tested all 799 of the crew of the Queen Elizabeth carrier. We will test them again throughout their period of sailing and when they return.
We have a strategy around protecting the national security-vital parts of our forces, which involves testing and quarantine. That is also being carried out in areas that I will not particularly comment on; nevertheless, the right hon. Member mentioned what the Americans view as strategically important. We do not have a mass programme; we have testing that is availableâwe do not have any problems acquiring itâand, as we bring forces up to either readiness or deployment, there is an opportunity if required, if quarantine has not done the job, to test them as well.
John Healey
The Secretary of State talked about testing who we want when we want, but he gave no definition of that. The last published figures show that we had tested just 1% of our entire military personnel. This is about keeping our armed forces safe and safeguarding our national security. There is no fix for coronavirus without mass testing, and we really expect the Ministry of Defence to lead the way, not lag behind, so will he get a grip of this? Will he produce a plan for testing our military, set a target for the number of tests and publish the results, just as our allies in the US have done?
Supported Housing
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(8Â years, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the Prime Minister made an announcement at Prime Ministerâs questions, ahead of our Opposition day debate today, that the Government will drop their plans for a crude cap and cuts to supported housing, have you or Mr Speaker had any indication that Ministers, when they make the full announcement next week, which the Minister has just mentioned, will come and make the announcement to the House with an oral statement? In the light of the unanimous support for our motion tonight and the widespread concern about the Governmentâs plans over the past two years on both sides of the House and across the sector, it is clearly really important that Members can question Ministers on the announcement in full that they make.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The one thing we can be sure of is that I have been given no notice that anybody is coming forward and I do not think Mr Speaker will have been given notice at this stage. What I would say is that the right hon. Gentleman has certainly put on record his concerns. His views and opinions have been recorded. As he would expect, it is not for the Chair to look at the decision on the vote. That is a matter for the House and certainly not the Chair.
Housing
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(10Â years, 9Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker
In which case, it should be a very short intervention. I do not think we need to hear any more, because I want to get you on the list.
John Healey
The statistic that matters most is the number of homes that were actually built. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 2009 saw the lowest level of house building under 13 years of Labour, but that figure was still higher than that in the best year in the past five years of a Tory Government.
There have been five years of failure on every front, by every measure and in every area. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech in which housing was a central theme. He saidâI am not making this upâthat
âthis is a government that deliversâ.
Well, it does not deliver on housing. The Government spent the last five years blaming Labour, but they have their own track record nowâand it is one of five years of failure on housing under Conservative Ministers.
The Chancellor gave his autumn statement and spending review three weeks ago and, again, housing was a central theme.
John Healey
Search me, guv. Ask Zoopla. I have to tell the hon. Gentlemanâ[Interruption.] Iâm not sure Iâll bother, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not listening anyway.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is a very good point. I am struggling to hear the shadow Minister express his views on housing. Can we please be a bit more tolerant and have less shouting?
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I also say that a lot of Members want to speak? If we are going to have interventions, let us make them short.
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes a really important point that I hope will be a point of debate this afternoon. A serious question that must be asked in respect of the plans before us is whether it is the right use of public money to subsidise the demand for new housing, at a time when the housing market in many parts of the country is already out of control.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(13Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.
John Healey
Indeed so, Sir Edward.
As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.
Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.
Too often in recent years, employersânot just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midlandâinstead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.
Financial Services Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(14Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not failing as an opposition, so I do not think that is parliamentary.
John Healey
I have not seen the hon. Gentlemanâs amendments to make the measure not permissive, but a requirement of the GovernmentâMr Speaker must not have selected it. Clearly, anything in statute would be a significant step forward, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, has argued. Those on both sides of the House who have an interest could use a permissive measure in future.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6âDetermination of central and local sharesâ
â(1) In determining the central share and the local share for any relevant authority, the Secretary of State must have regard toâ
(a) the level of need in that authority, and
(b) the likely capacity of the authority to benefit from business rate growth.
(2) Any assessment of the level of need shall includeâ
(a) the ranking of the local authority in the Index of Multiple Deprivation,
(b) the level of unemployment within the authorityâs area,
(c) the proportion of adults within the authorityâs area who have a limiting long-term illness,
(d) the number of adults within the area who are in receipt of social care,
(e) the number of looked-after children within the authority, and
(f) the level of child poverty within the authorityâs area.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay his assessment before the House at the same time as the Local Government Finance Report.â.
New clause 11âNational business rate policy changes: consultationâ
âThe Secretary of State may not make any changes to national business rate policy which impact on local business rate yields without first consulting with all interested parties.â.
Government amendments 15 to 17.
Amendment 62, page 12, line 13, schedule 1, leave out âeach yearâ and insertâ
âeach financial year until the end of the financial year beginning 1 April 2014â.
Government amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 63, page 23, line 40, at end insertâ
â(ca) by reference to the volatility caused by rating appeals following a revaluation;â.
Government amendments 20 to 41.
Government new clause 8âPayments to and from authorities.
John Healey
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, and amendments 62 and 63.
My purpose with new clause 1 is to encourage the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Government, that the necessary powers exist in legislation to make tax increment financing work in future, and also to confirm Ministersâ intent and commitment to using those powers. The case for TIFsâtax increment financing schemesâis unarguable. I myself have been arguing it for a number of years, first in the Treasury and then in the Department for Communities and Local Government. There are local government regulations in Scotland to allow six TIF pilots to go ahead. The use of TIFs is widespread in Canada and the US, particularly in areas where regeneration is required; indeed, only one state in the USâArizonaâdoes not have TIF legislation. TIFs build on the commitment that Labour made in government, in the Budget 2010, a commitment that was backed by a capital down payment of ÂŁ120 million.
However, if the TIFs system is to workâthat is, if local authorities are to borrow money for up-front infrastructure investment against the anticipated increase in business rate income as a result of the new infrastructure âthere must above all be certainty for those long-term investments to be made. There needs to be certainty for a clear business plan and then an investment plan to be put in place; otherwise TIFs will not get off the ground and will not work. That certainty is required over a 20 to 30-year time scale, which is why it is needed in legislation. As the Centre for Cities said in response to the Governmentâs consultation:
âWhen the Government introduces Tax Increment FinancingâŚit should be based on âOption 2ââa ringfenced TIF which is best suited for local investment finance within the proposed business rate retention system.â
That point was echoed by the British Property Federation, which said:
âFailing to ring-fence the income stream for that length of timeââ
its submission referred to a 25 to 30-year periodâ
âwould generally render the upfront investment unbankable, because the risks associated with it become too difficult to model, understand and price. TIF will only work with the sort of total ring-fencing proposed under Option 2â.
The Government made the commitment to ring-fencing, stating in the White Paper of October 2010:
âWe will introduce new borrowing powers to enable authorities to carry out Tax Increment Financingâ.
In response to the consultation, the Government also made a commitment to
âallow a limited number of Tax Increment Financing Projects to be exempted from any levy and reset for 25 years.â
That is the crucial commitment that I want to test against the content of the Bill before us. I expressed my concern about the freedom of the ring-fencing from any effects of reset to the Secretary of State on Second Reading on 10 January. He had no answer: either he did not know, or he did not want to say.
Let me therefore point the Minister to the source of my concern, which relates to paragraph 37(1)(d) of schedule 1 on page 32. This deals with the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State, referring to regulations that can
âprovide for that amount or that proportion to be disregarded for the purposes of calculations under any of the following provisionsââ
in other words, regulation-making powers that can lead to the disregard of a proportion of business rates in specified areas, namely TIF areas, for particular payments that would otherwise be due. The provision goes on to identify payments to the central share, payments by billing to precepting local authorities, levy payments, safety net payments, payments on account and payments that follow from changes either to the local government finance report or to an amending report of a local government financing report. There is no power, however, to make regulations to exempt payments as a result of changes through a reset.
If I am mistaken, I would like the Minister to indicate where that power lies. If no such provision exists in the legislation, will he confirm that the Government will honour the commitment they made in their response to the consultation and will amend the Bill so that any payments resulting from a reset can be disregardedâand disregarded in fullâfor the purpose of the TIF areas? The Minister would be welcome to accept my new clause if he needs to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. [Interruption.] Orderâthe hon. Gentleman must not test my patience even more. Interventions are welcome, and I am prepared to give a little leeway, but the hon. Gentleman is almost making a speech.
John Healey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got the gist. I welcome this Bill and I want it to work. My fear is that without the certainty around potential resetsâwe do not know when or how often they might happen; we do not know whether they will happen every 10 years; we do not know how they will work in futureâthere will be huge risk and uncertainty in the system. It is not a question of whether I am satisfied by the provision; it is a question of whether the potential investors, who will determine whether the TIFs work or not, are satisfied. I am trying to convey the sentiment that I have picked up from my discussions with banks, commercial organisations, the British Property Federation and some of the Cityâs policy experts, who all say, âLook, we require a ring fence; it must be totalâ. Thus leaving out the reset, which the Government promised they would not do, does not make sense if we want the provisions to work. I hope the Minister will be able to provide the confirmation we need and be able to build it into the Bill. This issue will certainly need to be confirmed at later stages of the Bill.
Amendment 62 is designed to get to the heart of the relative share of the business rate take as between central and local government. The figures for projected resource spending on local government under the current spending review demonstrate a significant reduction for next year and the year after thatâof nearly half a billion between this year and the next, and of more than ÂŁ1.5 billion between next year and the year after that in nominal terms. Alongside that, the projected yield from business rates is set to go up by nearly ÂŁ1 billion next year and by more than half a billion the year after that. That means that the gap between the projected business rates yield and central Governmentâs commitment to resource spending on local government is more than ÂŁ2 billion for next year, and ÂŁ4 billion for the year after that. There is a significant and growing gap between the business rates yield and spending on local government.
Pub Companies
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey(14Â years, 8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him and the Committee on the report. Does he think that the code will help Mr Wild, who runs a very popular pub in Rotherham, whose business is being throttled by the terms of his tenancy? He tried to arrange with Enterprise Inns to buy his cask ales free of tie. He was told it would be ÂŁ10,000 to ÂŁ15,000 negotiable but was then told, three days later, it would be ÂŁ20,000 non-negotiable. He asked for that to be put in writing but was refused. He was then told that the agreement would be for each one of his cask ales, not all five, and that it would be not a one-off payment but an annual payment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A lot of Members want to get in, so we need shorter interventions.