Nuclear Test Veterans
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate and for all her tireless work on behalf of our nuclear test veterans, and I want to extend my best wishes to her mum as well.
When we come to this House and when we speak, we have our intent, but it is very important that we acknowledge the impact of what we say, and I would just like to say very firmly on the record how deeply I feel about this issue and how committed I am to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency—excuse me. They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them. I would also like to extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his work.
Sir John Hayes
I rise principally so that the Minister can compose herself—her emotion and her commitment are evident. I have stood at the Dispatch Box over 19 years on both sides of this Chamber, and I know what it is like to be a Minister. I simply say to her, echoing the call of the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), that this is a real opportunity. It is an opportunity to right a wrong. The Minister would stand proud, and she would do the Government proud, but, most importantly, she will do the veterans and the country proud, if she can right that wrong.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important and tireless work on this issue.
The whole country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation, who helped to pioneer this technology at the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.
As a veteran who served in Afghanistan, nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know that it would be important to me to feel that the MOD had done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with in the things we were asked to do. I was happy to do them in defence of this country, but it was important to feel that the MOD would none the less be there for me too. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the rest of the Members in the House that I take these issues exceptionally seriously.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce the message, that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue. I want to repeat and emphasise “maximum transparency”, because it is abundantly clear that, over many decades, some nuclear test veterans have felt mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive Governments. That is something that we are addressing. Again, I repeat that I am a veteran and I am deeply passionate about this issue.
We published our veterans strategy last year, which outlines our ambitions for veterans in society: that they feel pride in their service, and that their lives and the challenges they face are better understood and valued. That is why, since we came to office, we have sought to build the relationship between the Government and the nuclear test veterans, because we want open dialogue and meaningful collaboration.
Helen Maguire
I totally feel the Minister’s empathy in this important speech. On collaboration, veterans have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, which has not yet been forthcoming. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to push a little further to try to get that meeting, because I know how important it is for the nuclear test veterans.
Louise Sandher-Jones
Absolutely. We are in constant dialogue with them about the right time to have that meeting. I am aware of its importance to the veterans.
The Secretary of State, as well as my predecessor as Minister for Veterans and People—the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and I have met nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. Just today, I met representatives to discuss the Environmental Information Regulations report, and to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing. My officials also meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. For example, in the last week alone, they have met with LABRATS and the Nuclear Community Charity Fund.
In addition, we have reviewed, and now twice extended, the criteria for the nuclear test medal to include the UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by other nations. More than 5,000 veterans or their next of kin have received medals in recognition of their service. “An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans” has also been recently completed. It is a vital document of veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences and how the nuclear programme has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans’ contributions to national security.
As I have made clear, the Government have committed to maximum transparency, and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades. That is why, in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK’s nuclear testing programme. Over 16,300 of them are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and that work is ongoing.
In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for the Armed Forces, launched an examination of the Department’s records in three key areas: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; the information that was captured from those tests; and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. My predecessor updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings in the very near future.
I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historical nuclear testing at Christmas Island. The release of that document aligns with the Government’s commitment to that transparency, which is very important to me and why I decided that the document had to be released. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, along with others, including LABRATS, have raised some very important questions about the document. They are incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what is in the document and the handling of the document, and to take action if necessary.
I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to those questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything that may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge—excuse me.
Sir John Hayes
I feel I am doing a service to the Government this afternoon. It is absolutely right that specific answers are given to the questions that were posed by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who I congratulate on securing the debate. The key thing is that we have met successive Ministers—I first met the now Lord Beamish when he was a Member of this House—and they were, generally speaking, sympathetic, but they were not always given the information. In truth, had it not been for David Cameron, who gave the money to the charity when I was at the Cabinet Office, and Boris Johnson, who met my friend the hon. Member for Salford—she is not technically my hon. Friend but she is my friend—in Downing Street, we would not have got the medal, so it sometimes does take those personal interventions. From what the Minister has said already, I am sure that she is more than capable of cutting through the bureaucracy, the red tape and the obfuscation, in order to get to the heart of the matter.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very conscious of how long the nuclear test veterans have been fighting for this, and of how many Ministers they have met. I recognise that the onus is on us to deliver, not just to say words.
I repeat that I do not wish to suggest anything that may need updating should new information emerge. However, I give the House my assurances that work is being undertaken, and that I will stress the system as far as it needs to be stressed to get to the answers.
Let me explain what I can say today. Initial investigations show that parts of the Ministry of Defence were made aware of the report in 2014, as were Government legal representatives. It is not yet established whether Ministers were made aware at the time. These are incredibly important questions and they must be answered—I say that specifically about those points.
On the scientific implications of the document, I note that it suggests the recordings showed an increase in levels of radiation, but that the cause of them could not be fully determined at the time. I also note the findings of the Clare report, the 1993 AWE report, which summarised environmental monitoring of nuclear tests on Christmas Island in 1957-58. The Clare report identified
“very localised and just measurable, but radiologically insignificant, fall-out activity”.
None the less, there are questions raised on those specific points by this AWE document that must be answered.
On the implications for the 2016 war pension scheme tribunal, I note that the approach taken in the 2016 case was to make a baseline assumption that the veterans had been exposed to radiation but that the levels of exposure were not significant enough to cause the health effects complained of. Again, the document raises very important questions about this and we will find the answers to them.
As I have noted, hon. Members and others have raised a number of important questions both today and in correspondence. I would quickly like to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who quite rightly said that this is not necessarily the only issue of this nature. We have significant work in progress, and I hope to be able to update her soon on that and to reassure her that I am paying very close attention to those issues as well.
The Secretary of State and I have directed officials to investigate at pace, again always working with the principle of maximum transparency. I will update the House in full when I have further information on those points. I reiterate that hugely important questions have been asked in this House, including about the Hillsborough law—many people have worked so long for that law. Members know of my military background and will know that I understand how important it is that every part of our Government are rightly held to account.
To conclude, it is no exaggeration to say that the veterans who took part in these tests nearly 70 years ago played a hugely key role in preserving peace throughout the cold war, but it is important to recognise that their legacy has not ended. We know of the global security situation that we face today and, even in my time, what we have asked members of the armed forces to go and do. We are deeply thankful for everything those veterans have achieved and for everything that they have sacrificed. This Government are committed to working more closely with them and to listening to their concerns. That is also my personal commitment.
Our commitment to maximum transparency means that any new information will be released in a timely manner and that questions will be asked about that information. We will be as open as possible with the veterans and we will report back to Parliament as soon as we can. I will continue to welcome scrutiny from right hon. and hon. Members across this House, from veterans themselves, from their representatives, from the media and from all those who know how important our commitment is to serving our veterans.
Question put and agreed to.
Defence
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Our debate today reflects—or should reflect—the seriousness of the global security situation we now face. In eastern Europe, in the Mediterranean and around the world, our service personnel are working so hard, sacrificing so much and facing risk on our behalf. We have lived through—and I served through—a Government that refused to acknowledge the changing world, refused to take it seriously and refused to take the steps necessary to raise funding and invest. The architects of that neglect are sat in front of me. Sleeping on stag is a serious offence in the British military. In the Conservative party it was defence policy.
I shall now turn to the contributions made by hon. Members. I would like to remind those who have voiced their concerns about British bases that the threat of the growing situation in eastern Europe was clear in 2014—it could be argued that the signs were there in 2008—yet the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, chose to close down our bases in Germany and withdraw our armoured infantry brigade. We can now see what a mistake that decision was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the importance of fighting inequality. Like him, I see in my inbox the challenges that people face in my constituency, in his constituency and in the constituencies of Members across the House. We have seen what happens when instability around the world does not stay in eastern Europe or the Med, but affects us right here. It affects the energy bills we pay and the cost of goods. I am well aware of the challenges and the duty we have to face those challenges, but I say to him that sometimes war comes to you, and our armed forces are the ones who stand between us and those threats. It is vital that we give them the kit and equipment they need to face those threats and defend us.
Turning to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), that is the first time that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and Winston Churchill compared. We will see over the coming weeks, months and years who is correct, but I expect that that comparison will age like milk.
We had an obviously fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher)— I declare an interest, although I do not comment on operational matters—on the importance of looking at the defence economy in the round. He said that it is not armies that win wars but nations. I agree that it is young people who we send to fight wars, and we need to ensure that as a state we have invested in those young people—in the very children who will grow up to face the world that we are creating for them.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) raised the important need to grow our reserves. We are taking measures to do that and, indeed, we are reinvigorating the strategic reserve, of which I am a member, to ensure that it is ready to meet the challenges ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke about the importance of getting the DIP right. That is a crucial fact that we must all bear in mind—we must get the DIP right because jobs and capabilities depend on it.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right that we must support our SMEs. That is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to boost opportunities for SMEs and why we have committed to spend £2.5 billion with them by May 2028.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who always speaks up for those in his constituency who serve in our armed forces, rightly raised the importance of ensuring that we are able to recruit young people into our armed forces as quickly as possible. We are treating this as a priority and doing various things, such as improving the medical process and bringing in novel ways to enter the armed forces, such as through cyber direct entry.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke movingly about the child benefit cap, and I will return to that point in a while. He rightly noted the important role that Scotland plays in the defence of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the importance of space. It is important to mention the wonderful work being done by UK Space Command. As someone who used to work in a company that used a lot of satellite data, I understand the importance of it and welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we are spending on defence space technologies.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke eloquently, and I know that he is passionate about this matter. He is absolutely right when he says, “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.” The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke passionately, and I take his points on board. I have absolutely listened to every one of his points, but for me, what he said reiterates the importance of getting the DIP right. A lot is at stake, and we must get it right. I say to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that his law has given terrorists immunity. It is unlawful, and I am glad that we are changing it.
As the House knows very well, the Government are fixing the mess that we inherited, which included an equipment plan that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we now face. The Conservatives slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. The shadow Defence Secretary was the very Minister for Defence Procurement who left 47 out of 49 major programmes not on time or on budget.
I am reading those stats, but I lived through them, and this is deeply personal to me. I was serving when the previous Government were in office, and I could see the damage that they were doing all around me. While the threats to this country grew and grew, the Conservative Government refused to acknowledge that the world had changed. Labour is now fixing their mess, delivering for defence and for Britain. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election—86% of them to British businesses—including the £650 million upgrade to our Typhoon fleet, securing 1,500 jobs.
Louise Sandher-Jones
No, I need to make time.
Our £1 billion contract for new medium helicopters has helped to secure the future of the Leonardo plant in Yeovil, sustaining more than 3,000 jobs. We have spent millions more on drone procurement and development, including, earlier this month, an order for 20 uncrewed surface vessels, which will be built by Kraken in Hampshire and take us a step closer to our vision of a hybrid Navy.
That is not a frozen procurement pipeline; it is a Government delivering for British security and the British economy. It is possible only because we are investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and we are growing our defence industrial base by backing UK-based businesses and UK workers. That vote of confidence is matched by record foreign direct investment totalling £3.2 billion since the election and the most successful year on record for British defence exports, bringing a defence dividend to every part of the country.
The Opposition have got one thing right today: we do live in an increasingly dangerous world, and we see every day the skill, professionalism and expertise of our personnel in defending our people, allies and interests in the middle east. It is all the more staggering, then, that the Conservatives cut frigates and destroyers by 25%, cut minehunters, and—in the words of their former Defence Secretary—left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is their record, and today we have heard no acknowledgment of it, so it falls to this Labour Government to take action to put that right.
Last June, as part of the SDR, we announced up to £1 billion extra, above Conservative plans, for air and missile defence. We have been leading NATO’s initiative on delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—DIAMOND—and this year alone we have boosted spending on counter-drone systems by five times, and spending on ground-based air defence has increased by 50%. In an era of growing threat, we are delivering for defence, and we will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes.
I was surprised to hear the Conservatives speak about morale, which plunged to record lows on their watch, when they slashed real-terms pay and saw record numbers of housing complaints. This Government have delivered the largest pay increase in two decades. We are investing record amounts in statutory services, including £9 billion in forces housing, and renewing and repairing nine in 10 forces homes. The Conservatives left serving personnel in damp and mould-infested homes. I am so pleased that we have funded 30 hours of free childcare for the under-threes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have taken more action in 20 months that the Conservatives managed in 14 years.
Let me address two points, if I may. As soldiers, we talk about how we fight, but it is also incredibly important to talk about why we fight. When I stood to become involved in politics, one of the things that I was most looking forward to—I knew that it would not be possible right away, but I hoped that it would be possible during this Parliament—was the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.
That vote—being able to walk through the Lobby to scrap the cap—has been one of my proudest moments, because we cannot balance the books on the poorest children in this country. In closing, with the highest—
Draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 January 2026. Their purpose is to give effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, a landmark reform for our armed forces and the families of those serving. The Act establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who will have the authority to visit Defence sites, request information and investigate welfare concerns, reporting directly to Parliament. By replacing the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a stronger, more proactive model, the Act strengthens transparency, accountability and trust. It also delivers a critical manifesto commitment of improving the day-to-day experience of those who serve and ensuring that their voices are heard at the highest level.
These Regulations formally establish the definition of “family member” for the Commissioner’s functions. This is central to ensuring that the Commissioner’s remit is clear and inclusive, and that it reflects the real-life experiences of armed forces families in today’s military. For the first time, families will have a direct route to raise welfare issues about how service life affects them, recognising that the welfare of serving personnel is inseparable from the wellbeing of their families.
The draft regulations introduce three main changes. First, they set out a broad and inclusive definition of family member: partners, including ex-partners and those in relationships akin to marriage; children; including adult children and those for whom the serviceperson or their partner has or had responsibility; siblings, including step-siblings; parents and guardians; and other relatives who are financially dependent, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are also included, provided they fit into one of those categories at the time of the serviceperson’s death. We have deliberately adopted an inclusive approach, because modern service life does not just encompass the traditional nuclear family.
Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to existing legislation, transferring functions from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the newly created Armed Forces Commissioner to ensure continuity and clarity in the service complaints system. Thirdly, transitional and savings provisions are included to ensure a smooth handover of responsibilities, so that ongoing cases and applications are managed seamlessly and without disruption.
These regulations are made under powers in the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999. The policy intent is to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families most likely to be impacted by service life, reflecting the wide variety of modern family structures. Following feedback from Parliament and stakeholders, we have deliberately made the definition broader than those typically used by the MOD. It is designed to ensure that those most impacted by service life are supported, while remaining specific to the commissioner’s functions and not affecting other MOD definitions. It is important to stress, however, that this definition does not bring family members into the scope of the service complaints system; it is solely for the commissioner’s welfare remit.
The Government consulted extensively with stakeholders, including the Families Federations, MPs and peers. Feedback indicated strong support for the Bill’s objectives and for the proposed definition, with key asks, such as the inclusion of bereaved family members and adult children, addressed in the draft. As the Bill’s measures are rolled out, families will be given guidance and help so that they understand their rights and how to engage with the commissioner. The approach is proportionate, consistent and clear, without affecting other MOD definitions of family member.
In summary, these draft regulations provide clarity, inclusivity and coherence for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit, ensuring that both service personnel and their families are supported. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the regulations. To answer his questions, the new Armed Forces Commissioner and his office are expected to be operational from April; I hope that also addresses some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about a possible gap with the service complaints process. Long-term relationships are, as he says, covered, and guidance will be issued in due course with the exact clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary makes a unique contribution to defence. We thank the maritime trade unions for their commitment to resolving the current pay dispute so that the RFA’s contribution can be recognised. The Ministry of Defence is implementing a workforce recovery programme for the RFA. This will improve the wider employee offer for those serving to ensure that the RFA can continue to perform its vital role. Since 28 February last year, officer applications are 30% higher and ratings applications are 26% higher. Outflow is down to 10.3% from a high of 13.4% in January 2023.
Kim Johnson
I welcome the Minister’s response. The RFA does play a very important role in the maritime sector. I welcome the Government’s progress in addressing the declining numbers in the RFA, but there is still a long way to go. MOD figures show that RFA seafarer numbers are still 12% lower than in 2019. Improving the pay and conditions of the RFA civilian seafarers is not only the right thing to do but essential to resolving the recruitment and retention crisis caused by the previous Government’s hostility towards public sector workers. Will the Minister commit to revisiting discussions with the Treasury if the current pay offer is rejected by RFA officers and ratings, particularly if they are drawn into the conflict in the middle east?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are continuing close and productive conversations across Government and with the maritime trade unions, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on ongoing negotiations. However, as I have said, this Labour Government recognise the extraordinary contribution and unique role of the highly skilled personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
Grahame Morris
I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), but I acknowledge that the Government have made substantial progress in addressing the ingrained recruitment and retention crisis they inherited affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the Royal Navy support ships. However, having resolved the previous pay dispute, the RFA’s overworked and underpaid seafarers have had to wait seven months before receiving a formal pay offer from their employer. I appreciate that the Secretary of State and his Ministers share the RFA trade unions’ commitment to a positive future for the RFA’s civilian crews, which is encouraging, but what reassurances can the Minister provide to the seafarers whom we rely on?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As we are continuing to work closely across Government and with the maritime trade unions, I do not wish to comment on the ongoing negotiations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I said, this Labour Government and I recognise the extraordinary contribution of our seafarers and are working hard to deliver for the highly skilled personnel of our Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Government have reset the relationship with our nuclear test veterans and the organisations that support them, and we appreciate the vital contribution that they made to keeping this country safe. We remain absolutely committed to listening to their concerns and working collaboratively to address them.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I know from my own time of service in the Army just how vital the Gurkhas are and their hugely high standards of professionalism. We in this country have a special relationship with them, which we must never, ever forget. I have met regularly, including recently, with representatives and will continue to do so, and I would love to visit her constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
In Devon and Somerset, we are home to some of the finest units of the British armed forces, from Devonport to Lympstone to 40 Commando at Norton Manor and to Royal Marines Barracks Chivenor in north Devon. The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting, and President Trump’s latest comments about NATO only underline the importance of a strong UK defence capability and strategic autonomy. It is often said that if you want peace, you must prepare for war, so after years in which successive Conservative Governments hollowed out our armed forces—QED—will the Minister outline how the Government intend to ensure that this country is properly equipped to defend itself in the event of a major conflict? [Interruption.]
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
In just 18 months this Government have ended the disastrous 1996 Tory privatisation of military housing, which cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. We have repaired 1,000 military homes in the poorest condition ahead of schedule, and we have kick-started a landmark £9 billion repair and renewal of 36,000 forces homes. Does the Minister agree that this is more action in 18 months than the last lot managed in 14 years?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The last Government had 14 years to fix defence family housing and failed, delivering instead record low levels of satisfaction. We have reversed that disastrous privatisation of our military housing, we have a landmark housing strategy to renew or repair nine in 10 homes, and we are creating a new defence housing service. That is how to put the interests of British service personnel first.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituent, Vijay Odedra, has been telling me how his small business, CapnoTrainer, has been working with the Royal Navy to improve the fighting capacity and resilience of our sailors. While we wait for the defence investment plan, will the Secretary of State tell us what steps he has in mind to harness the innovation in our small and medium-sized enterprise sector?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that it is considering taking the veterans question off the census for 2031. Witnesses before the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill clearly thought that question provided important data about where our veterans are. Will the Secretary of State engage with the ONS to emphasise the importance of the veterans question?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to point out just how valuable that question is. It should be asked. It is valuable in setting out data to enable us to go forward. I will absolutely take up that issue.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In 2020, the now Prime Minister proposed legislation to ensure that any UK military action could take place only if there were a legal justification, a viable objective and the consent of the Commons. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principles outlined by his party leader, and will he therefore support my Armed Conflict (Requirements) Bill?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There is widespread concern about the Government sticking to the decision made in 2016 to shut Army Training Regiment Winchester, which trains 20% of our troops. Has an impact assessment been carried out, and have the Government spoken with commanders at Pirbright and Winchester to ensure that they can not only maintain training capacity but increase it if necessary?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The Government undertake detailed impact work. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no impact on training capability. I am pleased to say that we are increasing the number of people who are starting training—no thanks to the previous Government.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
A new partnership between New College Lanarkshire and Cairnhill Structures—a steel-fabricating company in Coatbridge—begins today. The Engineering Futures programme aims to give local people a start in engineering trades such as welding, fabrication and computer-aided design, which are all essential to strengthen our skills base and increase the number of defence jobs. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to promote similar schemes across Scotland?
Service Police Complaints Commissioner Annual Report 2024: MOD Response
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2024.
The commissioner’s report assesses the delivery of their functions and the work of the office in 2024. The response sets out the MOD’s comments on the report and approach to each of the four new recommendations made by the commissioner.
The MOD values the strong, independent oversight that the commissioner brings to the service police complaints process and is committed to having a system that our personnel can have trust and confidence in.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-03-12/HCWS1396
[HCWS1396]
NATO and the High Arctic
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for initiating this debate on the high Arctic and its increasing importance to our security—an incredibly important topic.
As my hon. and gallant Friend knows well from his time as a Royal Marine, the UK has a long and storied history in the High North, and for some 50 years the Royal Marines have practised Arctic warfare alongside our Norwegian allies. Indeed, he may have taken part in the rite of passage of plunging into the ice, as I believe the First Sea Lord did again when he visited troops there only last week.
As the threat from Russia has cast an increasingly long shadow over Europe, our High North capabilities have grown only more important, and today High North deployments of Royal Marines are up 40%, with year-round cold-weather operations. The reality is that we have a frontline with Russia in the North Atlantic, and the Russian threat is higher than it has been for decades. We have seen from the activities of the spy ship Yantar that Russia is an increasing threat to our critical underwater infrastructure. We see Putin rapidly re-establishing military presence in the region, including reopening old cold war bases. Last year, Russia and China conducted their first joint air patrol into the Arctic circle. China has declared itself a near-Arctic state and expanded its icebreaker and research vessel presence.
The changing military picture is fuelled by the changing climate and rising temperatures, and a number of Members rightly raised how pivotal it is to understand climate change and recognise the huge threat it poses to our security. It is vital to consider it in that way. The Arctic is warming up four times faster than the global average, and the strategic defence review projects the region to be ice-free each summer by 2040, opening new routes, trade dynamics and flash points. Our responses to those challenges were set out in the SDR: we need increased investment, new technologies and stronger alliances. We are prepared to meet those challenges.
Spearheading our capabilities is our littoral response group north, which is our specialised Royal Navy task group that deploys across the north Atlantic, the Baltic and the High North, with dedicated personnel, ships and helicopters to project power and respond to crises. We have also launched Atlantic Bastion, which is our groundbreaking programme to protect the UK from Russian undersea threats using an AI-powered network of sensors.
We are working ever more closely with our nine partner nations that make up the joint expeditionary force. We established Operation Nordic Warden with JEF allies, working together to track threats to undersea infrastructure from Russia’s shadow fleet—a responsibility now assumed by NATO. Last autumn, we conducted Exercise Tarassis, which was JEF’s largest ever military exercise, involving more than 1,700 British personnel, alongside air, land and naval forces from Scandinavian and Baltic nations.
On a visit to Norway last month, the Secretary of State went further still, announcing that Arctic and High North security will be strengthened against rising Russian threats as Britain steps up its presence in the region. He also announced a major joint expeditionary force, Exercise Lion Protector, which will see air, land and naval forces from JEF nations deployed across Iceland, the Danish straits and Norway, and trained to protect critical national infrastructure against attacks and sabotage, and enhance their joint command and control capabilities. The Secretary of State confirmed that the number of British troops deployed to Norway will double over three years, from 1,000 to 2,000 personnel.
Finland and Sweden’s accession has transformed NATO’s northern posture, meaning that seven of the eight Arctic states are now NATO allies. The whole alliance is consequently more focused on the threats and challenges to our north.
As can be expected from a Government who have put NATO first, NATO is at the heart of our response to growing threats and tensions in the region. The UK is playing a full part in NATO’s Arctic sentry mission, which is enhancing NATO’s posture in the Arctic and High North, and we currently have 1,500 commandos deployed across Norway, Finland and Sweden as part of Exercise Cold Response. Planning is at an advanced stage for Operation Firecrest, and the upcoming deployment will see our carrier strike group across the Atlantic and High North. Of course, we continually review threat levels and will change our policies accordingly. The thousands of personnel from the three services are spearheaded by HMS Prince of Wales, and parts of the deployment are under NATO command.
Our military co-operation in the Arctic is underpinned by key bilateral partnerships that have all been strengthened under this Government. Russia’s growing activity across the Arctic, High North and north Atlantic has changed the security picture for the region. The UK, with its 50-plus years of history operating in the Arctic, and through our deep partnerships with allies, including Norway, Sweden and Finland, will be at the centre of NATO’s northern response from day one.
In December, the Defence Secretary signed the historic Lunna House agreement with Norway, which will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a fleet of submarine-hunting Type 26 warships, expand joint Arctic training and pre-position British military equipment in Norway to be better prepared for future crises. We have stood resolutely with Denmark over Greenland, the future of which is for Greenlanders and Danes alone. I welcome the uplift in Danish Arctic defence spending, worth more than £10 billion.
We have also worked closely with the Finnish military, including through NATO’s Exercise Dynamic Front, with the British Army conducting its first live firing of our Archer mobile howitzer on Finnish soil—the Army is getting in on the High North joy. We currently have three P-8 Poseidon aircraft carrying out RAF NATO air policing from Keflavik in Iceland—the largest-ever P-8 overseas deployment.
Let me turn to a couple of questions that Members asked. We are working flat out to deliver the DIP. I am sure I do not need to stress to every Member here that it is important to get this hugely important piece of work right before we commit to it. We have ordered five Type 31 frigates, and HMS Venturer should be the first of those to deliver by the end of the decade.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Ireland. the Prime Minister is due to meet with the Taoiseach at the bilateral in just a few days’ time, and I know that the Secretary of State will call his counterpart and have discussions around some of the points the hon. Gentleman raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her contribution. She has been to Norway; I have never made it there—I have only been as far as Denmark—but I am sure there is time to rectify that. She is a doughty campaigner for families, and as we say in the military, although personnel join the military, their families serve too. It is within my purview to do everything I can to support families through the very difficult challenges they face when their loved ones deploy. My hon. Friend rightly noted the importance of not only the larger pieces of shiny equipment that we must procure, but simple items such as gloves. Having worn military-issue gloves, I concur. We must make sure that we have a good standard of personal protective kit and equipment.
Real tribute has been paid to the mighty Royal Marines, who have been excellent guardians of our Arctic warfare capability. It is a very difficult operating environment, and I pay tribute to those who operate there on our behalf to keep us safe. The Royal Marines are a fantastic career choice for those considering starting their careers or who might be interested in joining the reserves. Other armed services are available, including the British Army, should anyone be interested.
Politically and environmentally, the Arctic is in flux. While the eyes of the world are currently focused on the middle east, we are clear that there can be no national or global security without security across the Arctic and northern Europe.
Richard Foord
In its negotiations with the United States, Denmark pledged to raise defence spending from 2.4% of GDP last year to 3% of GDP this year and next. Does the Minister think that the example Denmark is setting is a good one for the United Kingdom?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very proud of the steps that the Government have taken to raise defence spending, which are very welcome off the back of many years of underspend. In fact, this is my very next line: defence spending will rise to 2.6% in 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 5% by 2035. Just as important as raising defence and security spending is making sure that we continue to pursue a NATO-first defence policy. We are a Government who are delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
Liz Saville Roberts
I appreciate that the Minister is talking about defence spend, but in my earlier intervention I raised a point about having a consulate. Many of our European neighbours are ensuring that they have a presence in the area, alongside China and the United States. Surely that would be an effective way of spending Government money at a time when we are looking to spend effectively for the future of the UK’s best interests.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure the right hon. Member will understand that consulates are a matter for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I will make sure that the FCDO is aware of her comments.
Army Reservists: Employment Rights
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate. I am grateful for his contributions and those made by other Members. I know, and can see and hear, that the right hon. Gentleman is a passionate champion of veterans and reservists’ rights. As a veteran myself, I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of those who have served and contributed so much to our armed forces.
As the right hon. Gentleman notes, the case of Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy raises important questions not only in law, but in how we recognise and support those who serve and have served our country, including through reservist service.
Let me set out the Government’s position: on 29 January 2026, the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland handed down its judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy, in which it upheld the earlier tribunal’s findings in relation to Major Milroy’s service and the application of employment protections to reservists. That judgment is being carefully considered by this Government. This evening I will explain the principles guiding the Government’s approach, the work already under way and the position we are taking to support reservists and employers.
First, I will speak on our commitment to reservists. Reservists are, of course, integral to the effectiveness of our armed forces. They bring vital expertise into Defence, strengthen operational resilience and provide specialist skills that cannot be generated or sustained in the regular forces alone. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last month, our reserve forces are crucial to Britain’s security and, if necessary,
“to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid…transition to war.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 644.]
Their contribution directly enhances Defence’s capability. The Government’s position is clear: reservists must be treated fairly, lawfully and with proper regard to both their military service and their civilian employment. That principle underpins our policies and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it is important to place the pension issues raised by this case into the correct historical context. The questions before the tribunal relate to an earlier policy framework and, since 2015, reservists have had access to the same pension scheme as their regular counterparts. Moreover, reservists have long been entitled to pension provision during periods of mobilisation, recognising the fact that they may be placed directly into harm’s way while serving on operations. That protection remains firmly in place today and should not be lost in the wider public discussion of this case.
Thirdly, on the judgment and the Government’s considerations of next steps, we must be clear about the particular facts of this case before the tribunal. It was found that aspects of Major Milroy’s reservist service engaged employment protections in a way that had not previously been recognised. Both the employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal expressly acknowledged that the level of service days in question was atypical. That finding raises legitimate and complex questions about how certain forms of reservist service are characterised in law, and how they interact with employment-related rights, including questions of pay and pensions in this individual case. As such, the Government are carefully considering its implications for the judgment. That work is ongoing and it is being carried out while the case remains within the statutory period during which an appeal may be brought. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Government’s final position at this stage.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I know that the hon. Lady has served and that she comes at this very much from a service background. Time is of the essence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a powerful point about three reservists who served with Major Milroy having passed away. I am not hearing today a clear timetable for implementation, I am not hearing that sufficient funding has been allocated, and I am not hearing that the Government are in the process of bringing forward an impact assessment detailing the number of affected reservists, the estimated financial liability and the Department’s plan for redress. Can the Minister go further and give hope to those reservists that the Government are actually going to do something?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are considering the implications of the judgment very closely, and I am mindful of the point that she and others have made about the need for speed in coming to this judgment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Of course, the Government are considering whether to appeal. I trust that they will not, but if they do not and this is the end of the legal road on this, they will be faced with the next stage, which is to determine what remedy model they are going to develop for this case. Could I appeal to the Minister that, in arriving at that model, the Government do not make it tight and narrow specifically to this case but base it on the emerging strong principle of this case that there has to be an acceptance that part-timers should have pension rights? That is the fundamental principle. If the Government seek to avoid that by focusing only on this case and on the reservists, while ignoring the wider cadre of individuals who are equally part-timers and denying them what they will have to give to this applicant, would that not be a very wrong-headed approach?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his point, and his comments have been noted. As soon as I have further details, I will provide an update.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. and gallant Lady. We understand that she has a personal intention to try to make things better. Whenever I met the pension people on Monday, they said that many part-time soldiers are not aware of their rights and the fact that they might be able to claim. Are the Government, and the Minister in particular, making any efforts to try to contact all those soldiers to ensure that they will be aware of their rights and can claim? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the longer this goes on, some people will pass away. The opportunity for money should also go to their relatives; it should be retrospective.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am not in a position to give details at this point, but I will absolutely take into account the hon. Member’s comments and ensure they are considered. I note his concerns.
Several Members have spoken about the importance of confidence—confidence among reservists that their service will be supported, and confidence among employers that the framework within which they operate is clear and predictable. The Government’s objective is a framework that supports reservist service, provides clarity for employers and is fully consistent with the law. Where the Milroy judgment indicates that greater clarity is needed, we will address that. Where it confirms existing arrangements, we will state that plainly.
Finally, on the wider message to those who serve, reservists across the United Kingdom make a substantial and valued contribution to our national defence. This judgment and the debate it has prompted reinforce the importance of ensuring that our systems reflect the realities of modern service and continue to command confidence.
The Government will give full and proper effect to the judgment in Advocate General for Scotland v. Mr Charles Milroy. We are considering its implications carefully and engaging with stakeholders, and we will act where action is required. We will do so in a way that is lawful, proportionate and firmly grounded in fairness. I again thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East for bringing this matter before the House, and everyone who has contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Points of Order
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. However, since then it has been brought to my attention that in 2006 the Prime Minister was instructed to represent an individual by the law firm for which Mr Shiner was the principal solicitor. I would like to take this earliest opportunity to apologise to the House and correct the record.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 12.]
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for placing the correction on the record.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans across this country are benefiting from record levels of investment. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans as a vital national asset; there is £50 million for Operation Valour, and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme, alongside Operations Courage, Restore, Fortitude, Ascend and Nova. We are committed to ensuring that our veterans can easily access the support that they deserve when and where they need it.
Catherine Fookes
Veterans in my constituency benefit from the stellar Monmouthshire veterans support hub in Abergavenny. Such organisations, and the volunteers who keep them running, are invaluable to our communities. We also have excellent branches of the Royal British Legion, and a veterans-informed GP service in Monmouth. As the Government’s Valour programme gets under way, will the Secretary of State accompany me when I next visit the Monmouthshire veterans hub, not only to sample its brilliant breakfast fry-up, but to see brilliant examples of what can be achieved by these support hubs?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is truly wonderful to hear about the great work being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency to support veterans. Far be it from me to get between the Secretary of State and a fry-up, but if I can, I may take his place on a visit.
John Whitby
What assessment has the Minister made of the adequacy of housing provision for military veterans, particularly those with service-related injuries or disabilities, in rural areas such as Derbyshire Dales, where there is severe pressure on our affordable and supported housing stock?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I wish the hon. and gallant Member a happy birthday.
Protecting the moral component of fighting power is a duty on those of us who have the huge privilege of serving as Ministers in this Government. I am sure that every officer will know that they have a role to play as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales has said that support for veterans to tackle
“substance abuse, mental health crisis and residential services do not exist within NHS Wales as they do in NHS England”.
What steps is the Minister taking to work with the commissioner and the Welsh Government to improve access to essential services? Will she encourage veterans to attend my event in Caernarfon on Sunday, which will bring together a host of key support organisations?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.
More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:
“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?
What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Apologies. The right hon. Member played a pivotal role in the previous Government’s disastrous record on looking after the armed forces, overseeing the horrendous decline in accommodation and real-terms cuts to military pay, and hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces, so I know he is not a details man. I gently remind him that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. The Prime Minister actually has a record of representing people who were wrongfully accused or killed on operations.
Mr Francois
Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is well known in the House that the Prime Minister was a human rights lawyer, so obviously he wrote in connection with that. What really stands as a testament to the Prime Minister’s support for veterans is the fact that this Government are delivering record spending for veterans and rolling out £50 million for valour hubs. I think that speaks for itself.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. The strategy is backed by a record £9 billion investment over a decade. That work will be driven by the Defence Housing Service. We have already rapidly improved military homes by delivering our charter commitments, including transforming 1,000 of the very worst homes.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the new publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which is already improving conditions for service families by bringing 4,688 of the 5,088 military homes in the eastern region back into public ownership for upgrade and renewal. Does the Minister agree that we must continue investing in our armed forces—the backbone of our national security—and that after years of neglect under the last Government, Labour’s £9 billion military housing strategy is finally delivering the homes and support that our service families deserve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the previous Government, forces families were severely let down on housing. Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will, as he rightly notes, be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is massive improvement in forces housing, but there is a site at Ballykinler that has been lying vacant for, I understand, five years. It is heated, and it has new windows. There has been lots of work done. I have written to the MOD, asking whether it is possible for properties that are not being used to be used for another purpose. For instance, they could be used for youth camps, for youth groups or for social housing, because this site in Ballykinler is secure. The Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but I would very much appreciate an answer on that.
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot provide an update on that specific instance now, but I will get an answer for him. We are exploring how we can make best use of the existing estate.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans of Operation Banner, like all veterans, are benefiting from record levels of investment by this Government. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans with £50 million for Operation Valour and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme.
Joy Morrissey
Today was my brother’s birthday. He was a veteran who died at age 36, and he would be proud that today I am talking about the 250,000 veterans of Operation Banner. Those veterans put their lives at risk to fight to keep us safe and free and they deserve our support, so will the Minister explain why the Government no longer believe those veterans deserve to be protected from more years of lawfare?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I note the service of the hon. Lady’s brother. As she well knows, this Government are bringing in real protections for veterans, and if she wishes to support legislation that gives blanket immunity to terrorists, that is of course her prerogative.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Armed forces families play a vital part in supporting members of our armed forces and helping them to perform their role of defending our national security. Our ambition is for our Valour hubs to support not only veterans but members of our wider armed forces communities, including families.
Sarah Smith
Another important factor in support for our brave troops is the provision of military clothing. The previous Conservative Government tied us into a contract whereby about 90% of Army clothing is secured through overseas suppliers, and a significant amount is secured from China. In my constituency of Hyndburn, the home of textiles, many businesses are eager to meet the needs of our British troops. Will the Minister review this and look into whether British companies can meet those British needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point. I have received updates from officials, and I will push for a further timeline on which to update her.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Allied health professionals play a crucial role in supporting the treatment and rehabilitation of armed forces personnel in the UK and on operations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
Just last week, we launched the single living accommodation review, which is designed to get at exactly these issues to ensure that our serving personnel have the accommodation they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?
Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I will take a minute to put on record my deep sadness about the death of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney on Sunday. My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone here, are with his loved ones.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for initiating this important debate, and for highlighting the unduly negative light in which defence can sadly sometimes be viewed in investment and academic circles. All hon. Members here, including me, care deeply about our society, environment and good governance, but I welcome this opportunity to set out why defence, rather than being incompatible with those values, underpins all three. I am sure that if we asked families in Ukraine whether greater spending on defence and deterrence over the last decade would have had a positive or negative impact on their society, environment and governance, we would get only one answer.
I will speak quickly to some of the points raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Windsor rightly spoke about the importance of more money for SMEs in the defence industry. The Government have a target of spending £7.5 billion with SMEs by 2027-28, which is a 50% increase. As somebody who used to work for an SME that had some interest in defence customers, I know how difficult a challenge it can be in that space, without any unfair negative attention being paid to the industry we were in.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about the importance of support for Leonardo and for helicopters, and I will make sure that his comments are passed to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. The Secretary of State met representatives from Leonardo last week, and I know that the Minister will continue the dialogue with them and the hon. Member. I will also ensure that the comments of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) are passed to the Minister.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his excellent work on this issue, and for working with other hon. Members across parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), to highlight how important it is that we understand how defence is underpinning environmental, social and governance issues, rather than acting in opposition to them. He rightly highlighted the positive impact SMEs have in his constituency, and particularly noted Needles and Pins Aerospace and Edmund Optics. It can be difficult for the average person to understand exactly what we mean when we talk about defence SMEs, and he highlighted their work in areas as niche as helicopter insulation or lens manufacturing, and in training support.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also rightly spoke about debanking. Whether it is access to funds, access to banking or access to any other financial services, it is important that we understand exactly the issues that SMEs may be facing. He was also right to highlight the particular challenges for SMEs that come from the long payment cycles of primes. Again, having worked in an SME, I know how frustrating it can be when an SME has a product that the customer wants and that the SME can provide, but what would be a good deal is prevented by a long payment cycle and difficulty with funding.
I will no doubt speak to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) after the debate about his point on Beyond the Battlefield. He noted the proud history of Northern Ireland and Belfast in the defence industry. I am delighted that the lightweight multirole missiles contract has further secured that industry, and I know that the future continues to be bright. He also highlighted the huge importance of the defence industry for apprenticeships and having those highly skilled, technical pipelines where young people leave education and start on fantastic careers where they learn skills and earn a decent wage. Apprenticeships are hugely important in his and my constituency, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members here, so he is right to note them.
Let me turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on the impact on the planet. As he knows, the MOD and our partners are absolutely committed to safeguarding our national security first and foremost. However, we must also recognise the impact of addressing climate-related risks, and when we look at the intersection of climate-related risks and defence, we know they are inextricably linked.
We must also look at reducing environmental impacts, and I know I am not the only Member of this House who has fond memories of doing their bit by picking up brass from training areas. However, we must make sure that the MOD is also doing work across the board to ensure we understand and consider its impact on the wider environment. My hon. Friend will know that our financial reporting is aligned with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures frameworks, ensuring that we understand climate risks to both the MOD and our supply chain, which are ultimately not acting in opposition, but are inextricably linked.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend’s point on compliance policies. We are absolutely committed to mobilising private investors to take a fresh look at defence. That comes alongside the certainty of our own record long-term uplift in defence spending. That is particularly crucial for SMEs looking to scale up their concepts, ideas and prototypes. As with any bank-to-SME relationship, we recognise that there will be commercial considerations and compliance processes, which will include ESG and no doubt other regulatory considerations. None the less, we welcome the Financial Conduct Authority’s statement, which confirmed that there are no rules in its regulations that prevent
“investment or finance for defence companies.”
The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—which the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry launched this week in Scotland—the £2.5 billion spending target by 2027-28 and the defence innovation unit all mean that, as well as proactively engaging the investor community to further build market confidence, we will collaborate on investment opportunities.
Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), I note her underlining of the importance of defence for the nation. It is not always helpful to conflate ESG and diversity and inclusion. None the less, I thank her for raising the previous Government’s record of failure on recruitment and for highlighting their poor record on defence exports and their failure to improve our sovereign energy capability.
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her strong statement that ESG and defence are not contradictory. As she rightly notes, there are challenges for the defence industry, and having stability is hugely important. She also raised the importance of continuously assessing threats, so I think she will note my comments about the need to balance long-term stability with assessing threats—there would be a balance and trade-offs between the two. Along with other hon. Members, she also mentioned the defence investment plan, and I can assure her that we are working flat out to deliver it as soon as possible.
Let me turn now to the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). His commitment to this topic is plain to see, and he is evidently passionate about it. He rightly noted the importance of allocations of capital, and that we must act equitably in this space and underline the important role the defence industry plays in the security of this nation and the prosperity of the individual nations within it. He also rightly noted the importance of defence industries being able to go into academic spaces such as universities. We of course note the right to peaceful protest, but companies should none the less be allowed to go into universities and show the huge opportunities they can offer those who seek careers in defence. Finally, he rightly noted that we should not equivocate between dual-use military technologies and core defence capabilities. He was right to say that weapons and ammunition are just as important as helicopter insulation, and we should not equivocate between the two. I note his call for us not to do that. I will make sure that his wider suggestions are passed to my colleague the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry for full consideration.
The Government believe that investing in defence, and the deterrent effect that that buys, provides the stable foundation on which everything else in this nation depends, from our economy to our ability to go about our daily lives. Across this House, we must never stop reminding people that defence investment prevents wars, and for only a tiny fraction of the cost of fighting one.
Therefore, in our more dangerous and unpredictable world, as we implement the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, and move towards a footing of warfighting readiness, we must dismantle all barriers that might hold back defence investment. That is why we have come into government determined to forge a much closer partnership between industry, innovators and investors, and to work together to find ways to unlock that investment.
Although we acknowledge the debate raging about the extent to which ESG considerations can be a brake on investment in defence, it is important to note the FCA’s statement on how its own rules do not prohibit financing investment in the defence sector. However, we have to note the anecdotal evidence that negative perceptions and a lack of understanding of the rules are acting as a drag on defence investment by individuals and financial institutions.
As part of our consultation on our defence industrial strategy, we heard from smaller defence suppliers about their difficulties with access to finance, whether in opening a bank account or securing a loan. That is wrong; it harms British jobs, British firms and our national security.
We have been loud and clear about the valuable economic and social contribution of the defence sector. Indeed, my colleague the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is frequently heard to use the phrase “engine for growth” as he talks about the importance of defence investment. I have already spoken about the work he did on Monday in launching the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which will work with small and medium-sized businesses to address the barriers hampering them at the time when we need them most.
Through the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, we have been clear about the societal value of defence investment. We have been very clear—I say this on the record and as clearly as possible—that defence is an ethical investment. We have illustrated how defence investment has repeatedly led to huge leaps forward in dual-use technologies, from advanced materials and computing to clean energy technologies. In a high-tech age of artificial intelligence and quantum computing, such dual-use opportunities are magnified, as in turn is the potential for defence investment to stimulate jobs and economic growth.
When we discuss ESG, it is important that we do not completely dismiss ethical concerns. We have only to look at Russia’s bombardment of Ukrainian cities to understand that there can be a basis for legitimate concern about how weapons are used. This Government believe that the answer to such concerns in relation to UK-made equipment lies in robust export controls and international law, not in harming our own security by starving our defence industrial base of the investment it needs.
We have set in train an evidence-led approach to dismantling the barriers we have talked about. We have a much closer partnership with the financial sector, and are working together to find new ways to unlock investment. The Defence Secretary convened a first-of-its-kind meeting with venture capitalists last April. We brought together venture capitalists, private equity and other key financial services at our defence investment summit in September, and that group of experts is also helping to inform our defence finance and investment strategy. That will reflect the work we are doing with the FCA and the Pensions Regulator to explore the impact of all regulations on defence financing and investment.
We will also set out steps we can take to tackle the perception, which some hold, that defence is an unethical investment. Many of us have spoken about the importance of the pipeline of skilled and talented innovators, so we must make sure we address negative perceptions of defence in the education sector. To do so, we have committed to establishing the defence universities alliance, which will bring together a network of universities, the MOD, armed forces and the wider sector to promote defence careers and support defence research.
For too long, the defence sector has had an unearned and unfair reputation that is likely to have harmed defence investment. This Government are determined to change that narrative, and we are working hard to do so. Yes, war is brutal, but the best way of avoiding it is to invest in deterrence, which means investing in defence. In doing so, we fuel the virtuous circle of investment, jobs and growth, benefiting communities right across the country and making ourselves more secure at home and stronger abroad—something that I know everybody in this room can get behind.