Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Luke Pollard

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for being honest about the consequences of his time in service. It is so important that when any veteran who has served in our forces needs to access help, they know that it is available. It is platforming those experiences and being honest about them that enables more people to come forward, so I thank him for that.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to increase defence spending. I want to increase defence spending, we have already increased defence spending, and we will be spending 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. However, I entirely appreciate how he made his remarks, and the Minister for Veterans and I are happy to talk to him about his experiences to see if we can learn from them and help others in a similar situation.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

National security depends on more than conventional defence spend, because our democracies can be brought down by methods other than weapons. There are concerns that the public are not yet sufficiently aware of the risk and reality of foreign information manipulation and interference. How does tackling this aspect of hybrid warfare feature in a cross-departmental way within the Government?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to go beyond conventional defence. That is why we have conventional and nuclear deterrence as part of our armed forces posture. She will also have heard in my opening remarks about the investment we are making in cyber. This is not just a Ministry of Defence effort; increasingly, if we are to deliver the national security we need, we need a whole-of-Government approach. That means the MOD working with the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and the devolved Governments to be able to tackle the deliberate misinformation that we see our adversaries trying to pump into our newsfeeds. Let me be very clear that we do not accept in any way Russian interference or any interference in our democracy or our way of life, but across Government we are having a national conversation that enables people to be better equipped to identify and challenge it, as well as putting more pressure on social media companies to remove it and not have it on their platforms in the first place.

UK Military Base Protection

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Luke Pollard

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the support he provides to the armed forces in his constituency. The force protection measures we have introduced as a Government are there to keep our people safe. We are at the highest level of force protection for deployed forces in the middle east. As part of that, we have sought to draw down non-essential personnel to make sure that the footprint is as appropriate as possible. That includes families, but they are very limited in number given the theatre we are talking about. The investment in military housing that he mentioned is certainly a priority for this Government because, frankly, the state of the homes we inherited was not good enough, which is why we are investing £1.5 billion extra in this Parliament to provide homes that really are fit for heroes.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Direct action at military bases is nothing new, and we remember with respect the women who marched from Wales to Greenham Common and the thousands of women who joined them. They did not just march; they pulled down fences and criminally damaged infrastructure. So does the Minister recognise the risk implicit in proscribing as terrorist organisations protest groups calling out war?

[Luke Pollard]

I say to the right hon. Member that this is not a protest group, but people who have undertaken severe criminal damage to military assets and who are increasingly using violence as part of their modus operandi. The decision by the Home Secretary has not been taken lightly, and it reflects the seriousness of the intent of that organisation. I welcome free speech and I welcome debate and challenge, but vandalising RAF jets is not free speech; it is criminal damage. That intervention on a military base is, as I said in my statement, not only epically stupid, but a threat to our national security, and the Home Secretary was right to proscribe the group.