UK Military Base Protection

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Members will be aware of the news breaking in Qatar, with reports of explosions at 19.35 pm local time. This is a fast-changing situation, and we are monitoring it closely. Members will also understand that I will not be able to give details at this stage, but the UK Government utterly condemn any escalation. We have put force protection measures at their highest level to safeguard our personnel in the region. We have robust measures in place to protect our armed forces personnel, and their safety is our top priority. That is why we have been calling for de-escalation and diplomacy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will understand that I will try to keep this statement short, so that I can return to the Department to be fully briefed. However, there are a number of developments that I wish to update the House about in the meantime.

Earlier today, the Foreign Secretary made a statement updating the House on the military action undertaken by the United States, which conducted airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. No British forces were involved in those US strikes, but the UK and the US share an ambition that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. America is the UK’s closest defence and security ally, and our militaries will continue to work in lockstep every day. As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a critical moment for the middle east. It follows a period of escalating conflict in an already volatile region. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister urged Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis, and I echo that call. There is no route of Iranian military retaliation that brings this crisis to an end; the only off-ramp for Iran is to get serious and return to diplomacy.

The Ministry of Defence’s No.1 priority has been the protection of our people and our bases in the region. Working alongside the Chief of the Defence Staff, Ministers have directed commanders to take all necessary measures to protect our servicemen and women. Force protection is now at its highest state across all deployed units in the middle east. The additional RAF Typhoon jets announced by the Prime Minister have now arrived in the region to reinforce our posture, deter threats, and reassure our partners. I want to be clear that we will not rule out sending further capabilities if they are required, and that we will take all steps necessary to protect our people and our assets. As we recognised in the strategic defence review, we must always put our people at the heart of our defence plans, which is why we have acted swiftly to bolster our defences and ensure our forces are supported and protected. I thank all our outstanding personnel who have worked tirelessly over the past few days—often with little sleep—to support the UK’s response, both at home and abroad.

Further to media reporting over the weekend, I can confirm that we are in contact with the authorities in Cyprus regarding the arrest of a British man. Due to the ongoing police investigation, I am limited in what I can say, but I can tell the House that RAF Akrotiri was not breached. We are continually monitoring this fast-changing situation, and stand ready to respond to any threats.

I now turn to the protection of our bases at home. Last week’s illegal entry and criminal vandalism by the group Palestine Action at RAF Brize Norton was disgraceful. I can confirm that two RAF Voyager aircraft were damaged by paint, but there was no further damage to infrastructure or assets, nor has there been any impact on planned operations from Brize Norton. Not only was this action epically stupid; it was a direct attack on our national security. Our personnel stationed at RAF Brize Norton serve with total dedication and professionalism. They work tirelessly to support our armed forces deployed across the world and to deliver military assistance to Ukraine, and have been formally recognised for their contribution in flying humanitarian aid into Gaza. As such, this action does nothing to further the path to peace. It does nothing to further the Palestinian cause—it does nothing to further any cause—and everyone across the House is united in condemning it. This must never happen again.

I spoke earlier today with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff about this incident. Enhanced security measures across the whole of defence have been put in place since Friday, including on aircraft and airfield-operating surfaces. RAF patrols have increased, physical security has been improved at the suspected point of entry at Brize Norton and the Defence Secretary has ordered that a full security review be conducted at pace, not only at Brize, but across the defence estate. Counter Terrorism Policing South East and Thames Valley police are leading the investigation to establish the exact circumstances of the events and to identify those responsible. We will continue to work with the police and pursue those responsible for this unacceptable act of vandalism. This incident is subject to a live counter-terrorism investigation, so I hope the House will understand that I cannot provide any further details at this time.

This is more than just disruption. Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that is why the Home Secretary is today announcing that she intends to proscribe Palestine Action.

The instability in the middle east and the continued war in Ukraine show why this week’s NATO leaders’ summit in the Hague matters. We are living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This summit is a moment where NATO allies will pledge to step up on defence spending to boost our collective security. President Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte are right that the current NATO spending pledge of at least 2% of GDP on defence is a relic of an old era. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for defence and defence spending. That is why the Government announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. It is why this week at NATO we will discuss a new, higher spending target with our allies. The United Kingdom is up for that discussion. We will make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I entirely understand that it is a fast-moving situation in relation to Qatar. I am grateful for the limited update that he could provide. We join him in condemning any escalation and look forward to further updates in due course.

On Brize Norton, let me say what the Minister was unable to: the attack on RAF Brize Norton was not vandalism; this was sabotage, undertaken without regard to the consequences for our Royal Air Force and our ability to defend our nation. As a result, there must be consequences for those responsible. Can the Minister explain how on earth these saboteurs were able not only to break through the perimeter fence, but to cover a considerable distance to reach the precious airfield tarmac, inflict damage to our airframes and then get out of the base, all without being intercepted? What steps is he taking to ensure rapid reinforcement of perimeter and internal fencing, not just at the specific point of incursion at Brize Norton, as he describes, but throughout the base and at all other UK bases? What is he doing to ensure sufficient military policing personnel are in place to enforce security and that they have access to effective countermeasure technology?

On the drone threat, which is relevant, the Minister knows how quickly military technology is moving. In December, I asked him in a written question about the protection of UK bases, and asked whether he would accelerate testing of directed energy weapons, such as lasers, for drone interception on our military bases. He said that work was in development. What progress has he made in the six months since?

The protection of our bases is not just a priority on the UK mainland. Given the confirmation of reports that a man allegedly linked to Iran has been arrested on suspicion of espionage and terrorism offences in Cyprus, can the Minister confirm that all measures being taken to reinforce UK bases will be replicated with the same urgency throughout our overseas basing, Akrotiri in particular?

Can the Minister confirm what will be the financial cost and impact of this attack on the RAF? In particular, can he explain the immediate operational impact on the RAF? He says there has been no impact on planned operations from Brize Norton, but he will know that it could still mean that task lines are unintentionally reallocated to cover for the damaged aircraft. How long will the two aircraft in question be out of action for, if at all, and what has been the wider operational impact?

Turning to the perpetrators, what progress has been made on catching those responsible and have there been any arrests? Does the Minister agree that one way to defend our bases is to deter future incursion by ensuring that the full force of the law is felt by the individual saboteurs in question? Will he ensure that everything is done to work with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the offenders receive an appropriately robust response? I note, for example, that section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 provides for an offence of action that can “endanger the safe operation” of aircraft, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 12 of the National Security Act 2023 relates to sabotage, and again the offence carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment.

The review is welcome, but it needs to report urgently. Can the Minister confirm who will lead it and how quickly it will report? On the important issue of personnel, will the review consider how responsibility for the security of RAF bases is divided between RAF police, the RAF regiment, military provost guard service and private contractors?

I join the Minister in condemning Palestine Action without reservation. Its role in this attack on the Royal Air Force was totally unacceptable, and we welcome the steps taken to proscribe that organisation today. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to strengthening force protection more widely in the middle east, including through the deployment of RAF Typhoons, and particularly in light of the breaking news in Qatar.

To conclude, the Minister is entirely right that the MOD’s priority at this time must be the protection of our people and bases in the region. In his opening remarks about the airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities and, indeed, throughout multiple questioning in his media round today, it was totally unclear whether the Government support or oppose those US airstrikes. The Minister was asked seven times on LBC whether the Government support or oppose US military action. He failed to answer once. He is now in front of Parliament. These are matters of the utmost importance to the security of our nation, and he is the Minister for the Armed Forces being asked about the action of the armed forces of our closest military ally. I will conclude with a straight question: does he support the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities—yes or no?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he has asked his questions and for his support for armed forces personnel. It is important at this time that this House sends a united message that we will protect our people wherever they are in the world, but especially those serving to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe in the middle east.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I agree with him. I expect strong consequences for those responsible for the damage to our RAF Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton. The investigation is proceeding. A number of investigations are under way, including the one commissioned by the Defence Secretary to look into what happened at Brize Norton and to learn the lessons. I can already report that improvements at the point of entry have been made at Brize Norton. There are also investigations to look at what lessons can be applied across UK military estates in the UK and overseas.

I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has a strong interest in drones, and he is right to pursue questions around our counter-unmanned aircraft system activities. Since he asked me that question a number of months ago, we have published the strategic defence review, within which we outlined how we are looking to expand and roll out faster the deployment of the DragonFire directed energy weapon system. It will now feature in a funded programme on four of the Royal Navy destroyers. That will be a testbed for the technology, which we believe has wider applications, including against drones elsewhere across the defence estate.

I can confirm that in relation to the RAF Voyagers, the activities of the RAF were unaffected, because we were able to move assets to backfill those roles. One of the key things about having an agile air force is that we can do that. The investigation of the damage done to the aircraft by the people who penetrated the security is ongoing, and I will report when it has been firmed up more. It is right that we give Counter Terrorism Policing the space that will allow them to conduct their investigation of the incident at Brize Norton, and the hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not be able to provide a running commentary on that. As for the deployment of RAF Typhoons to the region, we currently have about 14 at RAF Akrotiri, and the Prime Minister has made it very clear that should further resources be required, we will not hesitate to roll them forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the position regarding the United States strikes. The United Kingdom did not participate in them, and the UK and the US have a shared ambition that a nuclear bomb should not be held by the Iranian regime.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think we all recognise that events are moving very quickly, but may I ask the Minister about two issues that concern many of us? First, we know that the Qataris were notified, and were able to notify the Americans, of the planned attack on their base. Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether any notification of the escalation of attacks was given to this country? Secondly, can he say a bit more about his plans for the NATO summit and our co-operation with our European counterparts? The events of this week showed very clearly that we need, in Europe, to be able to act strategically to defend our interests, and to work together and step up that work.

[Luke Pollard]

In relation to the events in the middle east, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I will need to be briefed further before I can give the House an accurate update. In relation to the NATO summit, she will be pleased to know that thanks to the European Union reset deal secured by the Prime Minister, we now have an opportunity to participate further in EU defence programmes. The strategic defence review makes it very clear that our priority for our security is the Euratlantic area, and that the largest threat facing us at the moment is Russia; but, of course, Russia works in collaboration with a number of countries around the world, and collectively they pose a threat to the rules-based order. We will continue to work with our European allies, and indeed our American friends, to ensure that we have peace and security across the continent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and, of course, understand the update that we have just received on developments in Qatar. In this Armed Forces Week, I want to begin by expressing my thanks to all those brave and committed personnel who serve in the defence of our nation. They deserve not only our thanks and praise, but the knowledge that just as they keep us safe, the Government have invested to keep them safe through adequate force protection.

I wish to address briefly the statement on those developments in Qatar, and the breaking news that Bahrain has also sounded alerts pending a potential attack there. Of course I welcome the commitment to the protection of our forces and assets, which is the first duty of Government. However, this development reflects our fears, following the US action on Saturday, that this may be turning into a protracted, full-scale conflict. What is the Minister’s current assessment of the risk to US allies in the region? Will he confirm that UK jets will be used only to protect UK assets and personnel? Can he tell the House what steps are being taken to signal to Iran that the UK’s operations are limited to this protective operation, so that it is clear that we are not being drawn into the offensive operations launched by Israel and the US?

The Minister also said in his update that Akrotiri had not been breached, but can he confirm that none of the other bases in Cyprus were breached in incidents over the weekend?

The authors of last month’s strategic defence review explicitly highlighted the need to bolster the security of our air force, yet, not even 20 days later, we have already witnessed an egregious breach of security at Brize Norton and the damage of RAF planes. This was a brazen and illegal act of vandalism, which raises alarming questions about the level of security at armed forces bases across the country. The Minister referred to the Home Secretary’s decision today to proscribe Palestine Action. Can he give the House a clear understanding of the evidence used to judge that it has crossed the threshold set out in the Terrorism Act 2000?

Returning to the subject of force protection, I would welcome the Minister’s response to the following questions. What initial assessment can the Government provide of how it was possible for the breach at Brize Norton to occur? When do the Government believe the damaged planes will be able to return to service? And is the Minister satisfied that he can sustain the immediate improvements that he described in order to insure the physical integrity of military bases across the rest of the country, including at Army and naval bases, against the full spectrum of threats?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and for his words in support of our personnel. Armed Forces Week gives us an opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in our armed forces, to celebrate their service and to make the case that a strong armed forces is good not only for ensuring our security, but as an engine for growth and something in which we can all take pride. I look forward to attending the Armed Forces Day events in Plymouth, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be doing the same in their constituencies.

Let me now respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. In his seven hours of negotiations in Geneva this weekend, the Foreign Secretary was very clear with the Iranian Foreign Minister about the purpose of UK military assets in the region, and also about the importance of de-escalation and of Iran’s returning to the negotiating table to getting serious, negotiating in good faith and reaching a diplomatic conclusion to this crisis. There is not a military retaliation option that delivers a solution to the crisis; we have made that very clear to Iran, as have our European E3 allies and our Gulf partners, and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about proscription. May I direct him to the written ministerial statement made by the Home Secretary today, which will deal with a number of his concerns? In the Home Secretary’s view, a threshold at which action would become necessary has now been passed, which is why she intends to take the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, as she has announced today.

In relation to the breach at Brize Norton, the hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic defence review. On page 115, the authors note:

“RAF Brize Norton should be a high priority for investment and improvement”—

a statement that we adopted in full when we adopted the strategic defence review and its recommendations. When the investigation has been fully concluded, we will be able to give the House further details of improvements that we wish to make, not just at Brize Norton but elsewhere on the defence estate.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I am concerned by the Government’s kneejerk reaction in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. This country has a long history of protest, as I mentioned in the Chamber last week; some of the protests have taken place at British military sites, and none of those protesters have been branded terrorists. Last Friday, Palestine Action spray-painted two aircraft at Brize Norton—the first time that the group had taken action on British military land. Yes, they were guilty of criminal damage, but not of terrorism. Even the former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer said that this action would not justify proscription. If there is evidence, show it. Can the Minister set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that peaceful protest activity is not wrongly categorised as a national security threat?

[Luke Pollard]

As there is an ongoing counter-terrorism inquiry into the activities of Palestine Action, which conducted a direct attack on UK military assets at a time of heightened tensions, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the full details. I will say to my hon. Friend, though, that the proscription of Palestine Action has been considered for a long time by my colleagues in the Home Office. It is a decision that they have taken after considering the facts—those in the public domain and those, perhaps, held privately. We are certain that this is the right course of action to keep our country safe in these difficult times.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My constituents in military establishments around Salisbury plain will not see this as an act of vandalism. They will see it as criminal damage. They will see it as sabotage. They will see it as terrorism. The Minister, who I respect, does himself no good by trying to downplay its seriousness.

There are 2,900 Ministry of Defence policemen in the country. In recent years, they have been employed largely in investigating relatively low-level fraud within the Ministry of Defence and in military establishments across the country, with a relatively low conviction rate. Does the Minister agree that they would be much better employed looking after our critical national infrastructure and military bases up and down the land, including those in my constituency, and will he consider ensuring that warranted officers are able to do a job of work for the MOD that cannot be done by regional forces? I am very confident that they would welcome the challenge.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member, who I also have a lot of time for. At no point have I sought to downplay the activities of Palestine Action. Indeed, today the Government have taken the strong step of proscribing Palestine Action, precisely because its activities are a threat to our national security. It is for that reason that the Home Secretary has made her decision.

In relation to the military bases near the right hon. Member’s constituency in Salisbury plain, and indeed to those in the constituency that I represent in Plymouth, the review of our security arrangements covers all military bases. From the Defence Secretary to the Chief of the Defence Staff and others in the Ministry of Defence, we are looking carefully at what lessons can be learned, what improvements can be put in place and—noting the conclusion of the strategic defence review that we need to invest more in this area—how we can implement the findings of the SDR as quickly as we can.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s points about policing, I would be very happy to discuss them further with him, because I know he is an expert in this area.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As I am taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF, I have had the greatest pleasure and incredible privilege of visiting many RAF bases over the last year, and I am in absolute awe of those who put their lives on the line to defend us. The events of last week were not only a breach of our defences; they were a massive demonstration of disrespect for service personnel who will have been delivering aid to people in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that we should thank them for their service and that it was right to proscribe Palestine Action?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right about the disrespect shown to our forces and their personnel. The threat to our national security posed by breaching the security of a military base and approaching military assets is something that we take incredibly seriously. The British public want to know that the full force of the law is being used to locate those responsible and bring them to justice, and I can confirm that the investigation is ongoing. The steps that the Home Secretary has taken today to proscribe Palestine Action are entirely consistent with the severity and seriousness of its activities.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The actions of Palestine Action at Brize Norton last week were utterly reprehensible and will have caused fear and alarm for military personnel and their families across the country, including in my own constituency, which has three substantial military bases. At the same time, though, the UK Government are not ruling out engaging in further military conflict in the middle east. The Minister mentioned the importance of the international rules-based order. How can the UK Government seriously be considering engaging in further military intervention abroad, given that years of under-investment has diminished security at bases right here in the UK, which causes concern for our armed forces personnel and their families?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and for his obvious concern for our armed forces. The statement that I made today and the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary over the past few days clearly underline that the deployment of UK military force in the middle east is to defend our people and our bases. It is worth reminding ourselves why we have a UK military presence in the middle east: to support regional stability and to undertake counter-Daesh operations in Iraq and Syria. They are the same operations that help keep the streets of Britain safe from terrorists. That is the reason we have a presence in the middle east—securing our allies—and it is why the Prime Minister flowed forward additional jets to provide cover and support for our armed forces personnel. As we assess what is taking place currently, we reserve the right to make further military changes to ensure that our people are kept safe.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to Standing Joint Command, based in Aldershot, for its contribution to UK resilience. In Armed Forces Week, I also pay tribute to the more than 3,000 serving personnel in my constituency, the home of the British Army. The Minister has been really clear about what force protection looks like when it comes to bases, but what will it look like for garrison towns like mine?

[Luke Pollard]

In my hon. Friend’s short time in this House, she has become a real champion of our armed forces—not just in her constituency, but across the country. She is right to pay tribute to SJC in Aldershot; General Charlie Collins is a superb leader of that part of our armed forces. The SDR makes it very clear that we wish to further enhance and upgrade the capabilities of UK homeland defence, and we will do so.

In relation to the security improvements that the review will seek to identify, that work will be based on the incident at Brize Norton, but it will also look at the threats that we face not just at that particular RAF base, but at all UK military establishments. I am certain that I will be back in the House to report on progress in due course.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Given the manner of infiltration at RAF Brize Norton, I am concerned that the MPGS across the defence estate is neither resourced sufficiently nor given the authorisation to engage potential saboteurs. The scope of its role allows lethal force to be used only if there is a direct threat to life. RAF Wyton in my constituency, which has the same issue, is protected by the MPGS and augmented by serving personnel. Given the sensitive information that it provides as the home of defence intelligence, can the Minister offer a guarantee that security levels there will be ramped up? Furthermore, RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury are both in my constituency. As USAFE—US air forces in Europe—bases, they operate under US rules of engagement, so lethal force is permitted at a far lower level. Why are US bases in the UK defended to a higher level?

[Luke Pollard]

In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I praise the hon. Gentleman for making a huge contribution to the way in which we look at defence in his short time here. We have made no cuts to the MPGS since taking office; indeed, the opposite is true: we seek to enhance and further support it. The review that the Defence Secretary has commissioned will look at all military bases, at what lessons can be learned from this incident and at how we can improve. To date, there has been a lot of focus on article 5 of the NATO treaty and how we will come to the aid of others if attacked, but we should have an equal focus on article 3 and how we ensure our own homeland defence. That is something that the SDR makes very clear, and this Government take implementing it very seriously.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The Minister will know from my earlier question about force protection how important it is to take that issue seriously, and it is right that that is the main focus today. But if I may, I want to address an issue that reared its head over the weekend, given that I am one of the only female veterans in this Parliament. Unfortunately, certain pathetic little people took the incident at Brize Norton and decided to come out of the woodwork to criticise people for doing their job while being female. As a woman serving in the armed forces, I know that every opportunity that has been given to women has been earned through our serving on operations and proving time and again that we are worthy to be there. When I was serving, I was very conscious that I had to be perfect, because any fault or flaw that I showed would be held not just against me, but against all the women I was serving with. Will the Minister stand up and say to every woman serving in the armed forces that we respect and recognise their service?

[Luke Pollard]

I commend my hon. Friend for her words and for her service. The comments that were made at the weekend about our serving military personnel are outrageous, and I notice that there is not a single Reform MP here for this statement. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that all parties present in the Chamber today back our forces. We do not take to Twitter to mock them. We respect service on a cross-party basis. We do not belittle senior officers based on their gender or experience. We need to be better than that. Just as we ask our armed forces to address cultural concerns, we need to be alive to that in our politics as well, and to call out misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head. Let us send a united message from all the parties present today that we back our armed forces, that we want to see a change in culture in our armed forces, and that we value the contribution of everyone who serves, especially those brave women who have done so much to secure our national security in recent years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. As it is Armed Forces Week, it is entirely appropriate for the Chair to have allowed the Minister to respond to that question, even though it was not strictly in line with the statement. But from now on, given the time that we have available, we have to come back to the statement itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I am not sure that this question is appropriate any more, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ironically, on Saturday the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) demonstrated his ignorance of RAF force protection by tweeting that Group Captain Louise Henton’s background in human resources led to last week’s infiltration of RAF Brize Norton. It was a disgusting attack on a senior officer—my previous squadron commander—who has dedicated her career to armed forces service and to bettering the lives and lived experience of our personnel. Will the Minister therefore join me in thanking all members of the armed forces and in condemning the remarks of the deputy leader of Reform?

[Luke Pollard]

Alive to your words, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones).

It is so important that, when we make the case for respecting our armed forces, we recognise that those who serve are not able to respond to comments made in the political arena. They are prevented from doing so, and Members of this House must therefore have our armed forces’ back. We must be able to call out behaviour that is not acceptable, just as we back our forces. I hope that all serving members of our armed forces will be able to see today the full-throated and full-throttle support of this House for those who serve.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I commend the Government for the swift action they took to proscribe Palestine Action after its brazen actions at Brize Norton. I would like to raise concerns about another related group called the Islamic Human Rights Commission. It has expressed support for proscribed terrorist groups and used UK platforms to spread anti-British propaganda. There is strong evidence that it is directly linked to the Iranian regime. Indeed, placards celebrating the ayatollah and talking of being on “the right side of history” were seen at protests at the weekend. What assessment have the Government made of threats to national security beyond Palestine Action, including from this group?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that a Government Minister’s usual line about proscription is that we do not comment on it except when, as today, I have been able to confirm that a group has been proscribed following the Home Secretary’s decision. I encourage my hon. Friend to have a conversation with the Security Minister, who is sitting next to me.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I must say that I am very surprised that the Home Secretary chose to put out a written statement, rather than making an oral statement, when we could have put to her some of these points about what exactly qualifies a group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

I entirely agree with the sentiment in the House that Palestine Action sabotaged these planes, caused criminal damage and could be liable to a charge of criminal conspiracy, and that the people who did the damage should be pursued for remuneration to the point of bankruptcy. However, it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done. My advice to the Government is to make sure, when these people are prosecuted, that it is not solely on the grounds of committing terrorist acts, rather than committing treasonous acts of sabotage.

[Luke Pollard]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a full debate in this House in the coming days as part of the proscription process, so in due course he and all Members will have an opportunity to debate in full the proscription decision the Home Secretary has taken. I can tell him that the decision to proscribe has not been made without considerable thought, or without reflecting on the information in the public domain and information that perhaps is not, and that it was underpinned by a very serious legal process. I would agree with his concern, but I seek to reassure him that those matters have been considered as part of the process.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have a substantial military footprint in my constituency, not least Redford and Dreghorn barracks, so I welcome the statement. I have two questions. The first is on the situation overseas. I really welcome the comments about force protection, but it would be good to hear whether the families back home are being kept up to date, because I am sure they are worried about our service personnel—their relatives—overseas.

On Brize Norton, this was an ill-informed and ill-advised attack by a group that, frankly, revels in lawbreaking, as we can see on its website. The irony is that all of us here oppose the humanitarian consequences of what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza; all of us are united in that. All of us are here to protect and respect people’s right to protest, but that cannot extend to leaving our armed forces personnel feeling threatened or equipment being put out of use, even temporarily. I welcome the base review, and no doubt that will include the bases in my constituency, but it would be good to hear about what is happening for families who are off-base. Will there be fresh advice for families, and when it comes to upgrading their military homes, will we be looking at security to make sure they are kept safe?

[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.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for the urgent review he has launched, and the Minister for the leadership he is showing. I join Members from across the House in condemning the appalling attack at Brize Norton, which I was privileged to visit earlier this year with the RAF parliamentary scheme.

As well as attacking military installations, Palestine Action has launched violent assaults on defence businesses, including in my constituency. As well as rightly holding a review of military base protection, will Defence and Home Office Ministers review what additional security measures and advice—through the MOD, the police and other bodies—our defence manufacturers may need in the coming years as we ramp up defence production?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing defence as the Member of Parliament for his constituency. He is exactly right in highlighting that Palestine Action has targeted not just military bases, but defence businesses—businesses employing people up and down the country and contributing to our national defence. He is right to do so, and I can reassure him that conversations between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, police forces and those in our defence supply chain happen regularly, and we will continue to keep them abreast of developments and the concerns we may have.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given that a female officer commands Blandford Camp, I totally echo the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones).

There will be a lot of concern among personnel in the camp and those who live in the communities around it that they are now targets for either home-grown domestic terror or those who may be described as “sleepers” in our country from countries and regimes that do not wish us well. Could I invite the Minister to find a way to confidentially ensure that Members of Parliament across the House who have military bases in their constituencies, as I do in North Dorset, are advised as to whether those installations pass the test of security or whether work needs to be done, and if it does, to what timeframe it will happen and what work is involved? There will be a lot of anxiety in those communities, and MPs across the House can play an important part in allaying those concerns in their communities.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he approached his question. I share his concerns to ensure that Members of Parliament are adequately informed about defence. Indeed, it was the Defence Secretary’s intent, when we took office, to renew and refresh the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Parliament with a more open conversation. We are endeavouring to do that with further briefings and I will take his suggestion on board as we look at how we implement the review.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

First, on Armed Forces Day, I want to thank all who serve and have served, including my own son, and recognise the huge contribution made by our armed forces, alongside all service families in Portsmouth, the very proud home of the Royal Navy. Secondly, I would like to say a huge “Thank you” for Armed Forces Day on Saturday, and for being able to take part in the flag raising in my city to show my gratitude and respect to all those serving.

Given the fast-changing landscape alongside the recent disrespectful incident at RAF Brize Norton, with so many armed forces personnel based in Portsmouth and personnel from Portsmouth based around the globe, can the Minister confirm whether wider action is being taken to review and strengthen security across all our military bases, in both the UK and abroad, and what force protection measures are in place to keep our personnel and their families safe here, abroad and in my city?

[Luke Pollard]

As the MP for Devonport, can I say to my hon. Friend, the MP for one of the Portsmouth seats, just how proud we are of our Royal Navy, no matter where those ships or capabilities are based? It is certainly true that the review commissioned by the Defence Secretary looks not just at what happened at RAF Brize Norton, but at the application of that lesson across the defence estate. The force protection of our people, both home and abroad, is a priority for this Government. We will be undertaking the review at pace and I suspect I will be back in front of the House in due course to announce further measures.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

On the proscription of Palestine Action, I remind the Minister that there are number of recent examples of juries finding defendants, in cases similar to the Brize Norton incident, not guilty based on a necessity defence, as people believed they were acting from a desire to prevent war crimes. Given those juries were clearly able to draw a proportionate line between direct action protest and serious crime, does the Minister agree that the use of the Terrorism Act in this case sets a dangerous and worrying precedent?

[Luke Pollard]

The dangerous and worrying precedent was set by Palestine Action when it breached an RAF base and vandalised Royal Air Force planes. I entirely respect those who wish to protest, raise arguments and use freedom of speech, but let me be entirely clear: vandalising and attacking RAF planes is not the way to do that. Indeed, it poses a direct threat to our national security. That—and for many other reasons that you will appreciate I may not be able to go into in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the reason the Home Secretary has taken that decision. When the debate on proscription comes forward, as it will in coming days, I hope the hon. Lady will be able to contribute to that debate and further understand why the decision was taken by the Home Secretary.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Given the gravity of the emerging situation, I do not think there is anyone in this House who would begrudge the Minister for needing to return to be fully briefed on what is happening. But while he is here, will he confirm whether wider action will be taken to review security across all our bases in the UK from extremist threats in the light of last week’s incident?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the encouragement to head back to the Ministry of Defence; I will be hightailing it back there as soon as this statement is over. The review commissioned by the Defence Secretary will look at what happened at RAF Brize Norton, but also at what lessons can be applied to our military bases, the defence estate across the UK, and our overseas bases. Keeping our people safe and keeping our ability to protect our country, safe and free from interference, is vital for this country. That is why we have undertaken the review.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

When organisations such as Palestine Action break into military bases, damage secure facilities and put our personnel at risk, they are not just protesting but sabotaging. With that in mind, if any other extremists had carried out those tasks they would rightly be described as domestic terrorists. Does the Minister agree that this is not legitimate protest, it is domestic terrorism and that any attack on our armed forces’ infrastructure should be seen thus?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I often find the phrase “Flip it to see it” is useful to identify whether there is inbuilt bias in how we approach a topic. As he suggests, if we were to flip Palestine Action to a number of other groups, it would clearly be regarded with the same seriousness with which the Government are approaching it. I am very glad that the strong message, on a cross-party basis, has gone out today that what we saw in Brize Norton is unacceptable and that it is right that we take measures to keep our national security safe.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could I ask the Minister to think carefully about the contributions made today by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) concerning naming somebody as a terrorist, when they are in fact protesting about the appalling events in Gaza and the treatment of children by Israeli forces? It is surprising that in the Minister’s statement, which described a lot about the military situation all over the middle east, he said not one word about the illegal occupation of the west bank, the illegal occupation of Gaza and the deliberate starvation, contrary to all aspects of international law, of the civilian population of Gaza. Can we not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the illegal activities of the Israeli Defence Forces in those scenarios?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks passionately for the Palestinian people and has done so for a very long time. This statement was about not Gaza but the force protection of our military units in the middle east. But as he has given me the opportunity to do so, let me say very clearly that it is this Government’s position that what we see in Gaza is intolerable. We need to see a restoration of the ceasefire, we need to see Hamas release all the remaining hostages, and we need to see aid at scale delivered to the Palestinian people and a step towards the lasting peace that comes with a two-state solution. There is a lot of work to do in that respect.

On the word “terrorist”, I was very careful with the language that I used in the statement. It is powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 that are being used. When the Home Secretary issued the written ministerial statement, she was also very careful about the language she used. The actions of Palestine Action have now crossed the threshold under provisions in that Act. That is why she has taken action today.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Armed Forces Minister was asked a direct question by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. It was simply this: do the Government support the United States’ actions in Iran over the weekend? The answer he gave was that he agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. That is not the answer to the question he was asked. What is the answer? Do the Government actually know whether they support the US action? If they do know their own mind, why will he not tell us?

[Luke Pollard]

The Foreign Secretary was very clear, when he was at the Dispatch Box for his statement earlier, that the UK and the US share the same long-term ambition to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Let me associate myself with the remarks about Armed Forces Week from Members across the House and the condemnation of the escalation of the situation in the middle east. Is the Minister able to explain to me if there will be any additional security measures at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, given the unique nature of what is happening there?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the college at Harrogate. It is a really important part of the defence family and I know that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sat next to me on the Front Bench, takes an especially keen interest in the affairs of Harrogate. As the review is conducted and we see what lessons can be learnt from the incident at Brize Norton, we will be taking measures possibly at all military installations, including training establishments across the country if that is suitable. But I am certain that the Minister for Veterans would welcome a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman in relation to Harrogate in particular.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that Willie Whitelaw famously offered his resignation after an intruder made his way into Buckingham Palace. Has the Minister considered his own position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Given the seriousness of the issues we are discussing, my focus, and the focus of every Defence Minister, is on ensuring the protection of our people. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is looking for a soundbite, but I believe he may have wasted a question where he should have been talking about how we can protect our people in the middle east and back home in a secure way.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I join with all Members of this House in thanking everyone who works so hard at RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, led very effectively by Group Captain Lou Henton, who is an example to us all. I very much respect and admire how the community in Carterton, right next to RAF Brize Norton, has pulled together at this stressful time—they have done a fantastic job. We have really underinvested in security at the base for a long time. Like many Carterton residents, I have walked the perimeter quite a few times, and know that that fence is not formidable. What assurances can the Minister give that this airbase and other defence facilities around the country and internationally will have their defences strengthened for air, sea and land attack?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the local community around Brize Norton, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the details of what occurred from our point of view and the measures that can be put in place. The initial actions taken by the Defence Secretary have identified a number of immediate steps that we are taking to further secure the base, but I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about that further.

The hon. Gentleman is right that much of our armed forces estate and our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded for far too long, which is precisely the reason that I welcome the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. Our armed forces are brilliant, and it is time they had first-class facilities.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Humza Yousaf, the former First Minister of Scotland, has invited those in this place to check their moral compass over the proscription of Palestine Action, but I think we have heard here today that no one is seriously suggesting that these people are anything other than saboteurs, and that anyone who expresses sympathy for them has their moral compass spinning like a peerie, as we would say in Scotland. Mr Yousaf further suggested that American aircraft using Prestwick airport in Scotland could leave us open to charges of war crimes, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees with me that that is absolute nonsense. Prestwick airport is owned by the Scottish Government—in fact, it is a civilian airport, although it is heavily used by our allies, in particular America and Canada. What can we do to protect those aircraft at that civilian airbase?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that airfield in question. Civil-military co-operation—using civilian infrastructure for military purposes—is a model that we may look to develop further, especially as we look to increase our warfighting readiness in the future, so the lessons about security need to be applied. Luckily, many of our European allies operate civil-military airfields, so there are good models that we can look to on how to do that.

On the accusation that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of a Member of the Scottish Parliament, let me say clearly that the UK military operates only in compliance with international humanitarian law. That is absolutely vital. If an order is given that is contrary to international humanitarian law, our armed forces are not required to follow it. It is that high standard that means our armed forces are respected worldwide.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The statement speaks of enhanced security measures across the whole of defence, so will the Minister review the recent decision to downgrade some of the security measures at Northern Ireland bases, including removal from the permanent base? On the strategic defence review, to allow our RAF personnel to respond quickly and effectively, are we looking at further utilisation of Aldergrove in my constituency?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the security changes that we have introduced at bases and reserve centres in Northern Ireland. It is certainly true that we had reservists guarding largely empty buildings, which is something we have addressed with increasing physical security measures to ensure that they are safe. We are looking across the defence estate as part of the review the Defence Secretary has commissioned, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman about Northern Ireland, should he want to.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

When an extremist minority spreads division and intimidation and now has even attacked our military, prioritising foreign regions and their interests above our own, it is an attack on our country. It is treason. The primary job of our Government is to protect the UK, so I welcome the announcement today that the Government are taking action to do just that.

I was proud to celebrate Armed Forces Week at the flag raising ceremony in Runnymede this morning. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all our armed forces staff and the work they do for us all?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he has provided to our armed forces in Armed Forces Week—a week to thank those who serve and celebrate their service. It seems only appropriate, on a day where I am at the Dispatch Box talking about the necessary force protection of our people, that we take that responsibility doubly seriously today and all this week. While there may be party political differences between Members across the House, I believe there are British values that we all share. One of those is respect for the rule of law, and another is respect for our armed forces. The pride in our armed forces that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces is the same pride that I see on a cross-party basis—pride in all the men and women who serve in our forces. Let us hope that across the country, in Armed Forces Week, we can all join in thanking everyone who serves and the families who stand behind those in uniform.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the MP for Surrey Heath, I am proudly the MP for all the recruits, cadets, staff and officers at Army Training Centre Pirbright and Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, a privilege that I share with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). I am sure everyone on those bases will be reassured to hear of the work that is being done to look at security; I think that is particularly the case where bases are highly integrated into local communities. I wonder whether the Minister might also be able to offer some reassurance to local cadet forces, who wear uniform on our behalf.

I want to focus my question on our forces in Cyprus. The Minister mentioned that Akrotiri had not in any way been infiltrated. Can he offer the same assurance of Dhekelia, as well as our other sites on Cyprus? What are the Government doing to ensure that all those in uniform on Cyprus, whether or not they wear blue berets, are being properly briefed and secured on our behalf?

[Luke Pollard]

Again, in the spirit of cross-party support, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he offers to those at the training establishments in his constituency. We have some truly remarkable people in our armed forces, and it is good to see cross-party support for their work.

On our sovereign base areas in Cyprus, it is essential that we look not only at how we can protect them, but at how we can protect them from the risk of Iranian retaliation, why is why we have enhanced the force protection measures on our bases in Cyprus. It is also why the Prime Minister has ordered the further deployment of Typhoons at our base at RAF Akrotiri, and why we are investing in ground-based air defence there. We will be looking at further measures in the months ahead as we seek to implement the strategic defence review, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the work looking at security will affect not just those at our UK bases, but our overseas personnel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Last but by no means least, I call the ever-patient Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for his clear commitment. I want to describe Armed Forces Week in Newtownards in my constituency. On Saturday, 60,000 people came to pay their respects to those who serve in uniform. Whether they serve in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy, they are part of our community, and the community showed its solidarity with them for their courage, bravery and dedication. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) was right, by the way. I met the lady who will take over at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn at the end of this year—again, an indication of the commitment of those women and ladies, who can do the job equally well as anybody else.

The actions of those criminals at Brize Norton may cause up to £30 million in damage, as well as the security measures that will have to put in place. However, the true cost of their actions cannot just be measured in money; it is the anger that right-thinking people have towards those pro-Palestine activists who would attack our military to make their political point. They are a threat to those of us who live in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This terrorism cannot be accepted. It reminds so many of us—especially those from Northern Ireland—of dark days gone by. Will the Minister acknowledge the righteous anger of the good people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Minister take to ensure there is not a repeat in Aldergrove, or indeed any other military base with British personnel here or abroad? Some of my Strangford constituents are stationed at these military bases, not just in the United Kingdom but across the whole world.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on Armed Forces Day in his constituency. Across the entire United Kingdom, there is real pride in the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Although this may be a difficult week for international affairs and we may be looking at more debates about force protection than we might ordinarily have, let us all take a moment out to make sure that we thank those people who serve, thank their families for the support that they offer, thank those people who work in the defence industries that equip our people with the cutting-edge gear that they need, and thank the society that stands behind them—because our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and the nation that stand behind them. I hope that everyone watching the debate will have been able to see the strong cross-party support for our armed forces and the strong sense of support as we seek to improve security measures to ensure that we protect our people, at home and abroad.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am sure that the whole House, on both sides, will concur with the Minister’s final remarks. I thank him and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.

Army Commonwealth Cap

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Commonwealth citizens^[1] have a long and distinguished history of service to this country, including during the second world war, which helped us to secure victory in Europe and victory over Japan, the 80th anniversaries of which we are commemorating this year. Today, citizens of over 40 Commonwealth countries are serving in our armed forces and play a vital role in the defence of the UK both here and overseas, bringing with them a diverse range of skills and different perspectives to planning and decision making. We hope they will continue to do so in the future, and we will continue to welcome Commonwealth personnel to join the armed forces.

As we set out in the strategic defence review, we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence that will make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. It signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence, in which we move to warfighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security in the Euro Atlantic. As the UK steps up to take on more responsibility for European security, we must have a “NATO first” defence policy and lead within the alliance. The UK will become the leading edge of innovation in NATO.

The operational effectiveness of our armed forces is central to this. We must therefore continue to bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the armed forces continue to be representative of the UK. We also need to ensure that we do not become overly reliant on personnel whose country of origin (citizenship) may object to where we need to deploy them.

As a result, in November 2018^[2], the MOD set a maximum limit of up to 1,350 Commonwealth citizens who can be recruited each year into our armed forces, and since February 2009^[3], the Army has had an upper limit of 15% on the number of Commonwealth personnel serving in each of its cap badges. That applied originally to just three (the Royal Logistic Corps, the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps and the Royal Army Dental Corps), but this was extended to all remaining cap badges from November 2018. Until now, this has been applied to the trained strength—those who have completed basic training.

However, we need to balance this approach against the need to maximise opportunities to serve for those Commonwealth citizens who wish to do so. I would therefore like to inform the House of an amendment to the way in which the 15% will be applied. Going forward, the upper limit of 15% will be determined by reference to the structure of the cap badge, and not the trained strength. Changing the way the 15% limit is applied will ensure that more roles will be available for Commonwealth personnel, including those who wish to transfer from one cap badge to another, thus helping to support efforts to retain additional people in our armed forces, while remaining within the overall annual limit of 1,000 new Commonwealth entrants in the Army.

^[1] “Commonwealth citizen” means anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen within the meaning of section 37(1 )(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981; a Commonwealth citizen is defined in section 37(1 )(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as including every person who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in schedule 3 is a citizen of that country. Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act lists the current member countries of the Commonwealth other than the UK.

^[2] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-05/debates/1811051000007/ArmedForcesCommonwealthRecruitment

^[3] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2009-02-02/debates/0902029000080/ArmyNationalityPolicy

[HCWS707]

Armed Forces Commissioner

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am today announcing the launch of the recruitment campaign for the UK’s first ever Armed Forces Commissioner—an important step in this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve.

As we set out in the strategic defence review, people are fundamental to UK defence and to delivering the transformation to which this Government are committed.

The creation of the AFC is a move of unprecedented support for our armed forces personnel and their families. The role will be subject to a full public appointment process, regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

The AFC will be an independent champion for service personnel and their families, with authority and discretion to investigate a wide variety of welfare issues that impact service life. This could include issues related to kit and equipment, unacceptable behaviours, or service accommodation.

The commissioner will have new powers extending beyond anything seen before, including unprecedented access to UK defence sites to observe activity, access information and speak to personnel of all ranks and grades. The responsibilities of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces will also transfer across to the AFC, who will continue to drive improvements and strengthen the fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the service complaints system. It is critically important to ensure the highest confidence for the armed forces community in the handling of the service complaints process, in particular the independence and transparency of the system.

The preferred candidate to become the AFC will also be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the House of Commons Defence Committee. This will allow the Committee to scrutinise the position of the preferred candidate and publish a report setting out its views on their suitability.

In addition to being independent from the Ministry of Defence, the commissioner will strengthen Parliament’s oversight, knowledge and scrutiny of issues facing our armed forces personnel and their families by producing annual and thematic reports into the welfare issues they face. This will enable Parliament to hold the Ministry of Defence to account to ensure changes to policy and process can be brought about to improve lives.

Applications for the AFC will close on 11 July 2025, with the option to extend by two weeks depending on the diversity and quality of the candidate field. Sifting, shortlisting, and interviews will follow. The preferred candidate is expected to be identified by October 2025, with the HCDC pre-appointment hearing expected in November 2025. The successful candidate would then receive a confirmed offer of appointment subject to appropriate security clearance. We expect to have the new commissioner appointed by early 2026.

[HCWS700]

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising this issue, and for presenting his argument in the way that he did. We have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, so he will know that I take responsibility for making sure that we make the correct decisions on ARAP. When I was on the Opposition Front Bench, where the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is now sitting, I raised concerns about the functioning of the ARAP scheme. In office, we have made changes to the scheme to make sure that it functions better, which I will come to. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned communications, and I believe the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) quoted the Secretary of State’s comments on the Triples review, but I will address the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the first instance.

I very much appreciate the right hon. Member’s advocacy for the individual involved, and his passion for Afghan resettlement in general. He is absolutely right to say that we owe an obligation to the people who served alongside UK forces. What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about elements of that, which I will seek to address.

As a former Minister, he will know that I will not be able to address the individual circumstances of the case without permission, so I will make some more general remarks in respect of that individual case. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have met previously on this matter, and I very much understand and appreciate his ongoing engagement. I have to be honest with him and say that when he and I first spoke about this case and I was briefed on it, I too was surprised by the decision that was made. That is why I undertook to take it back to the Department and to check on the eligibility of the case, which I did. Having done that, I am confident that the officials have followed the published criteria and applied them correctly to the evidence provided. The decision is appropriate and should stand. I should also be clear that there are no plans to ask to expand the criteria, which were implemented by the previous Government.

I do, however, recognise the context of this particular matter, and I am happy to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge to see whether exceptional routes may be available. I do not want to give him false hope—I am not certain there will be such a route—but having spoken to him previously about this, I know the seriousness of the matter he raises, and I am happy to see whether we could look at additional opportunities to provide support in this case.

When it comes to the published criteria for ARAP, we must be absolutely clear about eligibility, and it is my job as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement to make sure that decisions are made correctly against the published eligibility criteria. Where decisions have been made, an individual has access to a review, and where there is a concern over an individual’s security while that review is ongoing—especially circumstances in which the life and safety of that individual are threatened—there is the ability to request an expedited decision.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The Minister’s civil servants will be proud of him. I think the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was making was that when the computer says no and the Minister knows that the computer is wrong, does he not have an obligation simply to go away and change the system?

[Luke Pollard]

First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this.

On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so.

There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment.

I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I know that the Minister sincerely cares about all of this, and I am sure that he really wants to do his best, however the key point being made by my hon. and right hon. and gallant Friends is that, if the criteria do not cater for a situation in which senior British military personnel give first-person testimony that somebody saved British lives by taking exceptionally courageous steps in our support, the criteria need to be adjusted. That is what should be done, as I hope he is going tell us that it may have been adjusted for the Triples.

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is going with that argument. Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.

Let me turn to the Triples, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I believe that the quote of the Secretary of State when in opposition was in relation to the very concerning situation—I believe it was a concern to him and to me when in opposition—that decisions were made in respect of the Afghan special forces, the Triples, that were inconsistent with the evidence that was being provided. We backed and called for the Triples review, which was initiated by my predecessor in the previous Government. Phase 1 of that review has now completed and we have achieved an overturn rate of around 30%. A written ministerial statement on that was published— I think last month—should the right hon. Gentleman want to refer to the full details.

In that work, we interrogated the data that was available. The record-keeping of that period was not good enough, as I have said from the Dispatch Box a number of times since taking office. As part of that trawl, we discovered information in relation to top-up payments, which previously had been excluded from the criteria because they did not constitute the relationship with the UK Government that would have created eligibility. Our belief is that the way those top-up payments were applied may now constitute a relationship that needs to be re-examined, so phase 2 of the Triples review, which will be the final phase of the review, is looking at top-up payments. It was right to do that, because there was a clear point.

In the case raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am very happy to try to see what is available to support it. I feel very deeply that we need to honour our obligations to those people who served alongside our forces, from the Afghan translators and interpreters who live in the constituency I represent, to the people who fought, and in some cases died, alongside our forces. The ARAP scheme is a generous scheme, but it was not intended, at its point of initiation or now, to cover all Afghans who fought in that conflict over 20 years. It was designed to support those who we can evidence had a close connection to UK forces, often defined by a contractual or payment relationship—in blunt plain-English terms—where a sizeable commitment has been made. That draws a line for some individuals who were employed by the Afghan national army, the Afghan Government and elements of the security structures that the Afghan Government had at that time, for which eligibility is not created despite their role. The Taliban regime has created chaos, instability and terror through many communities in Afghanistan since our departure. That is why, as a Government, we are trying to accelerate and deliver the Afghan scheme.

The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned communications. That is entirely right. It is something I have been raising since becoming a Minister. We will introduce, from the autumn, a new series of communications designed to help people understand where their application is in the process. The new performance indicators will kick in from September time—roughly in the autumn—and that will seek to help people to understand where they are in the process. There is concern around understanding for how long a case will be dealt with. I also hope the performance indicators will have time-bound targets to help people be able to rate the performance of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly, when the Defence Secretary published his statement on the Afghan resettlement scheme at the end of last year, he made the case that we need to complete our obligation and bring the schemes to a close, and it is our objective to do so.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Wendy Chamberlain]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We are close to running out of time, I understand that. If I may, I just stress that the failing I am referring relates to the fact that the officer who commanded the garrison met this man regularly and had him at meetings in which they discussed future operations. He was trusted. He fed them intelligence. He helped support them, so that they did not go into areas where they should not have gone. The major who worked with this guy also made a statement about how important he was, even though, officially, there was not some kind of P45 that tied him to our pay structure. The reality is that he served us. All I ask is that the Minister recognises that, goes away and says, “This is not good enough. This individual needs to be saved very soon.” He may be dead. We do not have much time.

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to continue the conversation with the right hon. Gentleman in the days ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 2 and 3, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 4 to 7.

[Luke Pollard]

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to the House. I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were proposed by the Government in the other place, as well as Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were proposed by the Opposition and to which we have proposed an amendment in lieu to strengthen them.

Before I start, I would like to recognise the publication of the strategic defence review yesterday, which signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence. We made clear then, as I do today, that our people are at the heart of defence. The strategic defence review sets out our mission to look after our people better, to unlock their full potential, and to build a “one defence” culture that is focused, inclusive, respectful, and centred on valuing all contributions. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner is a key part of that mission.

I thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. It is a landmark step in this Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind those who serve our nation. I extend my thanks in particular to Lord Coaker, the Minister in the House of Lords, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place. I also thank Baroness Goldie, the Earl of Minto, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord Stirrup, Lord Stansgate, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Beamish and Baroness Newlove, to name just a few who made valuable contributions in the other place on this important piece of legislation.

Seven amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Before I turn to them, I remind colleagues that this Bill is part of a manifesto commitment made by Labour during the general election to improve the service life of all those who serve and, importantly, to provide for the very first time an opportunity for family members to raise concerns about service welfare as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think all of us in the House very much welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner. We have a new commissioner in Northern Ireland who is doing an excellent job. There is also a role for local councils to deliver the armed forces covenant. For councils in Northern Ireland that are perhaps hesitant—I am being very gentle with my words here—to fully integrate the covenant, will they be encouraged to embrace in totality the opportunities that the Bill provides? Everything in the Bill is good, and I think the Government need to be congratulated on all they are doing.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented.

For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill.

I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.

It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.

I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns. Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.

Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The Minister mentions family members and other individuals raising complaints, but some of the complaints will be about devolved issues such as health, education and other issues that affect families. Can he reassure me that the Armed Force Commissioner will have an effective method of working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the concerns of armed forces across the UK can be addressed?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right that defence is a reserved matter, and so it is appropriate for this place to introduce a UK-wide Armed Forces Commissioner. It is also right that whoever is appointed to the role of Armed Forces Commissioner is able to raise issues of concern with the Administrations in every part of the United Kingdom—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Equally, they should be able to engage with local councils. The Armed Forces Commissioner role builds on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, who already has a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations, so I am certain that whoever is appointed to role will be able to build on that and make sure that, for instance, if a housing issue is highlighted by someone based in Scotland, that can be raised with the appropriate individuals in the Scottish Government.

Lords amendment 7 will ensure that the language in section 340N of the 2006 Act is also updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is no inconsistency in the legislation.

I will now turn to Lords amendments 2 and 3 and the debate that took place in the other place about whistleblowing. I thank Baroness Goldie, one of the previous Defence Ministers in the House of Lords, in whose name the amendments were tabled, for her characteristically considered and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage and for raising a serious issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new general function for the commissioner

“to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members,”

and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this Bill.

We believe that the amendments, while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matter that they choose; anyone can raise an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie’s amendment; and the commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence, and reports directly to Parliament and not to senior officers nor to Ministers.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I acknowledge the many merits of the Bill. However, it seems that Baroness Goldie was seeking to ensure that women such as those abused at the army college in Harrogate, near my constituency, and other victims have a clear and well-known route called whistleblowing. I urge the Government to not underestimate that whistleblowing presents a real opportunity to encourage people to come forward.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation.

I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu.

One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls.

On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it.

The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that.

None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right. We have to have that zero tolerance approach, not only because it is right for our service personnel who sacrifice so much and for their families, but because it strengthens our whole armed forces. That is why it was so important to see that focus on personnel in the strategic defence review. Will the Minister reflect briefly on the connection between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the strategic defence review in turning around the issue we have had with retention in our armed forces and finally getting to grips with that crisis?

[Luke Pollard]

Certainly, the consequence of one of our proposed objectives with the Bill—making it easier for people to raise an issue about service life and to have that addressed—is improved retention. We know that people have concerns about service life. Housing is a good example, and yesterday’s strategic defence review allocated £1.5 billion to improve it. However, we need to make sure that we are reflecting on our approach, and for me there is a good reason we do so, which is based on warfighting. In the event that our people are asked to commit to combat, every member of our forces should know that regardless of the skin colour or religion of the people standing beside them in the trench, or of who they love, they will have their back, and they will have their back consistently. That equality of service is vital to military discipline and to upholding our values, and it is also something that we still need to work on. For that reason, we need to make sure that the Bill passes and can be implemented swiftly.

We want people to trust the commissioner and feel confident that their issues will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences as a result of coming forward. As such, I have tabled an amendment in lieu that would go further than Baroness Goldie’s amendments and ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I note with interest the Government’s amendment in lieu. Does the Minister agree that, in all of this, which is unobjectionable in the main, there is a concern not around the person making the complaint but around the person about whom the complaint is made? As we live in an increasingly litigious society—the number of service complaints are going up and the number of cases considered by the ombudsman has been going up—it is likely that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s work and the number of people complained about will go up. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient support for those about whom complaints are made, since the distress that it causes when those complaints are unfounded, or unfounded in part, is significant?

[Luke Pollard]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has experience as a Minister who covered this area in the last Government. He is right that we need to reflect on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are looking after our whole force.

It is true that there are issues that we believe are not being addressed because there is not a sufficient spotlight being shone on them. It is for that reason that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill provides for a reporting function not to Ministers or the Chief of the Defence Staff, but to Parliament. Indeed, I believe the Defence Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is likely to receive those reports. It is precisely for those reasons that I believe the commissioner may be able to offer a view as to how the system they oversee will be able not only to protect victims and perpetrators, and seek justice with perpetrators, but deal with people who may be falsely accused. Largely, I expect general service welfare matters to be the predominant piece of activity for the commissioner, rather than necessarily looking at individual aspects of abuse or misbehaviour for which there is already a legal system within defence that can address some of those. As a whole, however, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

In addition to the amendment that we have tabled in lieu, the Government have also committed in the other place to updating their current Raising a Concern policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under the policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. That will include provisions related to anonymity and confidentiality, and ensure that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to the raising of that concern.

Further, the Government will conduct a thorough communications campaign to ensure that members of our armed forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how to access their office, how it interacts with existing policy protections and policy, the type of issues that can be raised, and how they will be dealt with.

Taken together, our Government amendment and the additional commitments that I have outlined today and that Lord Coaker outlined to the House of Lords will establish genuine protections for people wishing to raise concerns anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their family members in a way that we cannot envisage would be achieved by Lords amendments 2 and 3 on their own.

This Bill is a critical step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. For the first time, we are providing them and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised in due course by Parliament, and in turn for the Government—this Government and any Government in the future—to be held to account. That can only be a positive thing. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

In Southend and Rochford I have had the pleasure of meeting many veterans and service people, men and women, who keep our country safe. An Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for those serving and their families, and will have direct authority to investigate welfare complaints from housing to kit to issues affecting family life. As a former soldier myself, I know that losing a lot of kit happened often, but I digress. This role comes alongside record amounts of funding for the armed forces and housing, so I am sure that colleagues across the House are extremely proud—

[Mr Alaba]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure colleagues across the House are extremely proud of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that this Bill is an opportunity for us to show a united Chamber in support of our armed forces and that colleagues should support it?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments.

For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call shadow Minister Mark Francois.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate in the time that we have left. On behalf of the Government, I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is widespread support for the principle of introducing an Armed Forces Commissioner, for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit to include relevant family members, and for us to get on and implement the Bill well, which I can assure the shadow Minister is our intention.

I will refer to a number of the points that have been raised in today’s debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) that we need to ensure that the system works. The Bill in front of us is not designed to adjust the procedures, policies or process of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces as it transitions into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s Office, but it is designed to expand the powers of SCOAF. The current Service Complaints Ombudsman has been asking for that in her annual reports, and we have provided an expanded remit in the Bill in front of us. I share my hon. Friend’s determination to see an improved system, and I place on record my thanks to Mariette Hughes, the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, for her work in reducing the backlog of service complaints that were not being addressed. In Committee we heard about the progress that has been made, which was very welcome, and I am certain that that improvement will be embedded in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner as well.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, and we owe our veterans from Operation Banner a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and helped bring about peace. There will be no rewriting of history. However, the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help those veterans. Over and over again, it was found to be unlawful by the UK courts, and any incoming Government at the last general election would have had to repeal and replace that unlawful legislation—it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

We must ensure that the legacy mechanisms in place are fair, lawful and proportionate, and we are working hard to ensure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and we can minimise the impact on this unique group of veterans. As we replace the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act, we will prioritise and strengthen the protections to ensure the dignity and respect of veterans, and I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will look forward to further discussions on this issue should the Petitions Committee grant a debate.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It has often been said that the courts rejected the legacy Act, at least in part. I am not aware of which part specifically they rejected, but I would like to remind the ministerial team that in 2017 the then Defence Committee examined in great detail whether it would be legal to have a statute of limitation that would put an end to these prosecutions. Four professors of law, including Philippe Sands, agreed that it would be, as long as there was an investigative process, possibly embodied in a truth recovery process. When the Government bring forward whatever alternative legislation to the legacy Act they propose, will they make sure that a statute of limitation is part of it?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.

[Mr Francois]

Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?

[Luke Pollard]

I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.

I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.

However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.

However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.

The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for this chance to set out the Government’s total commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which has been the bedrock of our national security for nearly 70 years. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will shortly outline the details of the strategic defence review to the House, and that review will be underpinned by our nuclear deterrent, which is part of our blueprint for a new hybrid Navy, in which next-generation Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarines, and up to 12 SSN-AUKUS conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, will serve alongside best-in-class warships, support ships and new cutting-edge autonomous vessels, building on the £15 billion investment set out for the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme in this Parliament. This is not only a manifesto promise delivered; it is our most important military capability secured for generations to come. This investment will also deliver a defence dividend of highly skilled, well-paid jobs across the country. Our nuclear warhead programme alone will create and sustain over 9,000 jobs, along with thousands more in supply chains.

To ensure that the demands of our nuclear programme can be met, we are working closely with industry partners, and are aiming to double defence and civil nuclear apprenticeship and graduate intakes. That will mean 30,000 apprentices over the next 10 years; they will be part of this historic renewal of our nuclear deterrent and our communities across the country.

The first duty of every Government is to keep their people safe. In a more dangerous world, peace and security are best achieved through deterrence and preparedness. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I thank our outstanding submariners who patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe. We know that threats are increasing, and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression in particular. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security. The Defence Secretary will momentarily make a statement giving further details, but our proposals are possible only because of the Government’s historic decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2027—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Government have the will, the plan and the means to secure the nuclear deterrent for generations to come. We are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for his response, and your good self, Mr Speaker, for kindly granting the urgent question.

Following the report in The Sunday Times that the Ministry of Defence is looking to purchase American fighter jets that are capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential that the House gets clarity on the Government’s nuclear deterrent policy—an issue of critical national importance. How have the media got hold of such sensitive information on future nuclear deterrent plans, and what steps are the Government taking to investigate the leak?

If the Government are pursuing an air-launched tactical nuclear capability, that is a huge deal. It would represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. Indeed, it would be the UK’s most significant defence expansion since the cold war. This raises serious concerns about our sovereignty when it comes to nuclear weapons, about strategic coherence with our current doctrine, and about the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence.

Despite the defence nuclear enterprise accounting for around 20% of the defence budget, it remains largely outside meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, including by our Defence Committee. This must change, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how Parliament will be enabled to scrutinise changes to the UK’s nuclear programmes? Have discussions taken place with the US, and what role would it play in this capability? Will the Minister confirm that the UK will retain full operational control over any nuclear weapons? Given that tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, what assessment has been made of the risks of escalation? Will the Minister confirm that only the Prime Minister would have authority to use them, and only in extreme self-defence? Finally, has there been consultation with NATO allies on this potential shift? Decisions of this magnitude must be transparent. The future of our nuclear deterrent must be based on clarity, credibility and, above all, British control.

[Luke Pollard]

I do not want to eat the Secretary of State’s sandwiches, and I am acutely aware that the statement that he is about to make—

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t worry: The Sunday Times did it for us.

[Luke Pollard]

The Secretary of State will shortly lay out more details of the strategic defence review, but I am happy to answer a few of the questions from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee.

Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the outcomes of Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review via the House of Commons Defence Committee. I know that my hon. Friend will have the reviewers in front of his Committee shortly and will be able to ask them difficult questions. I am aware that there are proposals for how we scrutinise more sensitive and classified issues, and conversations between the House and the Government on that continue.

We of course continue to have conversations with the United States—our most important security partner—and with our NATO allies, but my hon. Friend will understand that I will not be able to detail the precise nature of those conversations to the House at this stage. I reassure him that we retain full operational control of our independent continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—the backbone of our national security.

As I mentioned, it is the first duty of any Government to keep our country safe. The nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our national security and our safety. I can confirm that only the Prime Minister has the power to launch nuclear actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this important urgent question. Following comments in the press last month from Sir Simon Case, former head of the civil service, that the UK should consider air-launched nuclear capabilities, I wrote in the Express on 25 May that our nuclear deterrent needed to be made even more resilient, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also

“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”

I believe that it would be right to diversify our methods of delivering nuclear strike, because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and it has the ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able do the same.

We support in principle moves to widen our nuclear capabilities, on the assumption that we do so working closely with our NATO allies. However, I gently suggest to the Government that they may need our support to carry that decision. I remind the Minister that eight of his Front-Bench colleagues voted against the renewal of our nuclear deterrent in 2016, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and others. If the Minister was hoping that he could rely on the Liberal Democrats, let me say that not only did all but one of their MPs vote against Trident renewal in 2016, but as a condition of supporting the coalition Government, they shamefully demanded that we delayed the renewal of our nuclear submarines, leaving us to rely on older boats for far longer. That led to longer maintenance periods, and above all, directly contributed to the punishingly long tours of duty for our CASD naval crews.

Having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for nuclear, and having chaired the Defence Nuclear Board, I understand why the Minister needs to choose his words carefully, but can he at least recognise that 204 days for a patrol is far too long, and that in addition to any plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, we must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times? Finally, will he confirm what the estimated cost will be of delivering an air-launched option, and say by when he would expect that to be in service?

[Luke Pollard]

Let me again put on record my thanks to all members of our Royal Navy who go out on patrol, not just on our Vanguard-class submarines, but also on our Astute-class boats—and the previous T-class boats—that defend our deterrent while at sea. They guarantee our security by ensuring that there is a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent every day, and have done so for over 70 years. Every Labour Member was elected on a manifesto commitment to a triple lock for our nuclear submarines: first, we will continue to support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; secondly, we will build four Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines at Barrow, which we are committed to delivering; and thirdly, we will maintain and provide all the upgrades that are required for the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. That includes the renewal of our sovereign warhead, which the Defence Secretary will get to when he makes his statement on the strategic defence review later today. I am determined that we will guarantee our national security, and we will work across Government to do so.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), on securing this important urgent question. He and the Minister referred to the need for full scrutiny by the House of such sensitive matters—something that has been pursued for over a year, under the previous Government and this one. Can the Minister provide any reassurance that that is finally progressing, after some delay when there was a change of Government?

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I can. The Defence Secretary is open to those conversations, though there may still be a difference of opinion about the best way of scrutinising some of our most sensitive matters. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue her conversations with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We face a once-in-a-generation set of threats, including an imperialist Putin and a completely unreliable President Trump, who we cannot depend on to support our defence. Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?

[Luke Pollard]

The United States remains the UK’s most important security partner: no two nations on earth are as integrated in their defence, intelligence and communications systems as the United States and the United Kingdom. That is a position that this Government intend to continue, because it is in our national interest to ensure we remain strongly connected with our partners in the United States. I am open to conversations about how we bolster our deterrence. Indeed, I believe the Defence Secretary may have more to add on that matter in his statement on the strategic defence review.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I support the increase in defence spending and I recognise the reasons behind it, but will the Minister indicate what impact it may have on the non-proliferation treaty?

[Luke Pollard]

This Government are proud to be increasing defence spending, with an additional £5 billion in our budget this year and an extra £13 billion by 2027, compared with the situation we inherited in cash terms at the last general election. It is right that we invest not only in our nuclear deterrence capabilities but in others. As a nation that abides by the rule of law, we will continue to do so in all matters, including those relating to nuclear proliferation.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The review has identified a gap in our capability to have tactical nuclear weapons in place, and that gap will have been noted elsewhere, among our adversaries. Will the Minister assure the House that the gap that has now been identified in British military power is being filled by other NATO allies until we are able to fill it ourselves?

[Luke Pollard]

This Government have a “NATO first” defence policy, so it is vital that we support and are enabled by our allies, especially those in NATO, and we will continue to do that. The strategic defence review may set out words in that regard. I do not want to get ahead of the Defence Secretary’s statement, so I will not give the full details here.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

There is a consensus in this place about the importance of an independent nuclear deterrent to keep us safe, but there is far less understanding about the need and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Does the Minister agree that we need to foster a much better understanding of how the logic of deterrence works, and how it can be and is being undermined by countries like Russia? Only then can we explain why our nuclear deterrence needs to change to remain effective in protecting us.

[Luke Pollard]

A fundamental part of the conversations about the strategic defence review that Lord Robertson and the review team have been having since the Labour Government came to power is how we reinforce the concept of deterrence, and why the concept of deterrence is so important to our security. Our armed forces—some of the best in the world—have capabilities that should deter any aggression, and we will be further enhancing that through the measures set out in the strategic defence review, as the Defence Secretary will announce shortly. We want to deter aggression but, if necessary, we need to have the capabilities to defeat it, and that is what the strategic defence review, which will be announced shortly, will detail to the House.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As it was this issue that brought me into politics many decades ago, it is an absolute pleasure to hear the full-throated commitment of both the Government and the Liberal Democrats to the strategic nuclear deterrent. If the future of the American commitment to NATO were not in doubt, we would not need to think about tactical nuclear weapons ourselves, because that role has always been fulfilled by US tactical nuclear weapons allocated to the defence of NATO. Will the Minister assure the House that we have sufficient confidence in the willingness of the United States, despite the present Administration’s attitude to NATO, that the co-operation that we need for the future of our strategic nuclear deterrent is not in doubt?

[Luke Pollard]

I can indeed. The defence partnership we have with the United States, particularly on nuclear deterrence, is a strong one. We know that President Trump and the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, have reaffirmed their support for article 5 of the NATO treaty. As we build towards the NATO summit in The Hague, the UK will set out not only how we plan further to enhance our deterrence, but how we plan to ensure that collectively, across the NATO alliance, we are more lethal and more able to deter. The reason why that additional deterrence is necessary is the increased threats that we face as a nation, both conventional and cyber-threats, and increased nuclear threats.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The UK is one of five nuclear countries that are members of the non-proliferation treaty. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps his Government are taking to reduce the number of nuclear deterrents that our country carries, which is one of our obligations under the treaty?

[Luke Pollard]

As part of our commitment to non-proliferation, we continue to abide by all the measures of the treaties we have signed. Our renewal of our nuclear deterrent is necessary in a more dangerous world. As the ultimate guarantor of our security, it will be central to this Government’s defence plans in the future.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

In pursuit of deterrence, will the Minister recommit to first use when either the strategic or tactical situation demands it?

[Luke Pollard]

If I read out our nuclear playbook at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first people to raise concerns, so I decline that polite invitation to detail our nuclear strategy. That ambiguity is absolutely certain, but we do not have a first-strike policy, as he will know. As the only European NATO member to dedicate our nuclear deterrent in the defence of all NATO member states, we maintain that capacity not only in support of the United Kingdom. That is an important part of our collective deterrence.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Far from the claims by successive British Governments that Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent, is the reality not that it is entirely dependent on the United States both technically and politically? Instead of spending billions more on nuclear weapons while public services face real budget constraints, should we not honour our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by working towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons?

[Luke Pollard]

Every Member on the Government Benches stood on a manifesto in support of the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and in support of a continued at-sea nuclear deterrent, building four Dreadnought-class submarines and providing the upgrades necessary to ensure the effectiveness of that system. That is a manifesto commitment that we can all be proud of, and it is one that this Government will stick to.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

As the Minister has mentioned it, as has my predecessor as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), it is now over a year since the Public Accounts Committee produced a report on how sensitive scrutiny could be carried out in this House. This is really important, and it feels as though we are being given the run-around. Will the Minister commit to setting a date when the Government will give a decision on the matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

As I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), conversations continue between Members of this House and the Defence Secretary. He is open to further conversations to try to find a way forward, and I am certain that he would welcome a conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to highlight the nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defence capability, but it is also a national effort. Will he join me in commending the unsung scientists and engineers at the Atomic Weapons Establishment for their world-leading and highly confidential work that ensures the ongoing independence of the UK’s nuclear deterrent?

[Luke Pollard]

I am very happy to do so. It is not just the scientists and engineers at the AWE who support our nuclear deterrent, but the engineers and apprentices in Devonport in my constituency who refit our nuclear submarines. The entire supply chain, from Rolls-Royce to BAE Systems, Babcock and countless other companies and organisations involved in this national endeavour, helps to keep our country safe. I commend all of them for their work and their contribution to our national security.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

When we discuss the nuclear deterrent, we sometimes forget that this is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, which, if it was ever deployed, would quite literally end civilisation as we know it. The Minister might not agree, but does he accept that opposition to nuclear weapons is a legitimate, moral position of conscience held by most people in most nations in the world? Will he and his Government colleagues stop trying to demean and insult those who simply and legitimately want nothing to do with these evil weapons and want them gone from their country and their community?

[Luke Pollard]

I recognise that there is a range of views on nuclear weapons. I also recognise that there are thousands and thousands of people in Scotland whose jobs are dependent on supporting our nuclear fleet, who do superb work at the bases on the Clyde and support not just the submarines, but our entire nuclear supply chain, through small and medium-sized enterprises and larger companies in factories, engineering workshops and other businesses across Scotland. I am certain that, although the hon. Gentleman and I might disagree on nuclear weapons, he was not speaking for those people when he made his point.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, along with a cross-party delegation of MPs on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited Faslane. That was a very important visit for me, because the nuclear reactors on the V-boats are made in my constituency, but it was particularly concerning to hear about deployments that are now lasting over 200 days. That is totally unacceptable, so can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to reduce the length of those deployments while maintaining our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent?

[Luke Pollard]

As a Government, we are seeking to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. In particular, for those submariners who are involved with our nuclear patrols, reducing the length of those patrols is a key part of what we have to do. One aspect that I can tell my hon. Friend about in this House is the investment going into our nuclear submarine refits. Ensuring that we can refit the submarines in time, on schedule and on budget is essential to rotating between the four boats. Previous Governments delayed renewing our nuclear boats; we are taking the decision to support the Dreadnought renewal, which will provide the cutting-edge capabilities necessary for our nuclear deterrent to continue in the future. I commend all those involved in our nuclear enterprise, from engineers to the submariners who serve on our submarines, for keeping our country safe.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that any party that aspires to government in this country should be wholeheartedly and unambiguously committed to our independent nuclear deterrent? I am afraid that that was not always the case when we had a coalition under the Conservatives because of our coalition partners, but I am very pleased that they have repented now. Is it not absolutely extraordinary that a party that now presents itself as some kind of alternative Government cannot even send a single Member of Parliament to sit in this House while we are debating this existential issue for the security of our country?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any party aspiring to government must not just understand how dangerous our world is, how the threats are increasing and how our nuclear deterrent is the backbone of our national security, but must also be part of those conversations. I note that Members from the party he refers to are absent from today’s debate.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all want to live in a world in which a nuclear deterrent is not needed, but sadly we all recognise that we do not live in that world, and we are further from it than we were a decade ago. Does the Minister agree that whether we are discussing the UK’s nuclear capacity or any other capacity, we must have a NATO-first defence policy and lead within the alliance? While I am here, can I also congratulate the Veterans Minister on his epic feat up Everest last week?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend’s question gives me an opportunity to thank the Veterans Minister and celebrate his work in completing Operation Mountain Goat, the speed climb of Everest. I commend him and all those who did so on their aspiration to raise £1 million for veterans’ charities—that is something I think we can get behind on a cross-party basis.

It is absolutely essential that we continue to support our national security. The more that we can do so on a cross-party basis, the more the power of our deterrence is something we can shout loudly and proudly about, especially when it relates to directing increased defence spending towards UK companies, creating jobs nationwide and using defence as the engine for growth that it truly is.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I am in favour of this new method of delivery, which gives us more options and probably makes it less likely in the long run that nuclear weapons will be used. However, cost is key, and with 20% of the defence budget already taken up by the defence nuclear enterprise, it is clear that our conventional capabilities are suffering. Can the Minister tell us whether the increased cost of these new warheads will come out of the Ministry of Defence’s budget, or out of a special Treasury reserve, as has sometimes been the case previously?

[Luke Pollard]

The increase in defence spending that we have secured, which the Prime Minister announced in February, provides us with the opportunity not to just renew our conventional capabilities, but look at how we can further support our nuclear deterrent and build our cyber-capabilities. Taken together, that is how we will build that collective responsibility. I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an incorrect answer, so I will write to him about the point that he raised.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his robust stance on the UK nuclear deterrent, which I welcome. From a Whip’s perspective, I am interested to know how he plans to bring his parliamentary party on side when so many have voted against the nuclear deterrent and Trident.

[Luke Pollard]

Well, it was a question of two halves. I agree with the hon. Lady on the first half, and I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we can achieve here. It is a source of great pride to all Defence Ministers that our strong support for our nuclear deterrent and our national security was in the Labour manifesto, which enjoyed incredible support at the last general election. We are not only bringing forward a strategic defence review that will update our capabilities, but bringing forward our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP to April 2027—three years before anyone thought that was possible. It is thanks to the brave decision by the Prime Minister that we can renew our capabilities and increase our deterrent capability as a country.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It was a Labour Government led by Harold Wilson in the 1960s that initiated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it was during the cold war that the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by the five declared nuclear weapon states. This announcement by the Secretary of State, and today’s talk of increasing nuclear warheads, is in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is at variance with the global nuclear ban concept of getting rid of nuclear weapons. How is the world made safer by the ability to destroy it more times over than exists at present? Where is the strategy for nuclear disarmament? Where is the strategy for peace?

[Luke Pollard]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman’s question comes from a heartfelt and personal belief in nuclear disarmament. On this side of the House, we support international disarmament obligations to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. I gently say to him, however, and to all hon. Members, that we are facing increased nuclear threats as a nation not just from established nuclear powers, but from the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, especially as that technology becomes more mobile, portable and miniaturised. It was precisely for that reason that that featured as part of the strategic defence review that the Defence Secretary will detail further shortly.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are not due to hit 2.5% of GDP for two years, and 3% is by no means guaranteed. With the continuous at sea deterrent ringfenced, spending on conventional forces is well under 2% and in the bottom third of NATO countries. Introducing an air-launched nuclear weapon into our arsenal is a significant change to our doctrine and might fundamentally change the way that all our forces operate. We spend less on defence than other NATO nations with a nuclear deterrent, so when will we achieve parity regarding spending on conventional forces specifically?

[Luke Pollard]

I am normally reasonably impressed by the hon. Gentleman on defence matters, but let me say politely that we have £5 billion extra in the defence budget this financial year thanks to the decisions by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. By 2027, we will have over £13 billion more in cash terms compared with the situation that his party left. When it comes to increasing defence spending, we are doing it three years earlier. It is worth reminding him that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under the last Labour Government. It is something that his party never achieved for a single day when it was in power.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Most military operations require an element of surprise, and the Government certainly achieved that by delivering the news of the return of tactical nuclear weapons through the medium of The Sunday Times. That marmalade-dropping moment aside, what impact will the apparent purchase of F-35 Lightning fighters from America have on the global combat air programme that we are putting together with Italy and Japan—or should I wait for the “You read it here last” strategic defence review?

[Luke Pollard]

In the spirit of the day, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the Defence Secretary’s statement that is coming soon. I am very aware that when people go to a gig, they want the main act, not the warm up, so I look forward to him speaking in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking with his international counterparts to improve troop mobility across Europe.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

As we speak, Exercise Hedgehog is currently demonstrating the rapid deployment of the 4th Brigade by road, rail, sea and air to Estonia as part of NATO’s forward land force, with nearly 2,000 British service personnel in addition to those already permanently deployed to Estonia. To keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad, we are working with our EU, NATO and JEF partners to enhance military mobility.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the Minister for his answer. The new Rail Baltica, under construction from Warsaw to Estonia, is a potentially useful project to assist troop movement, if needed in the future. Does the Minister agree that we and our allies need to be agile to respond to the threats emanating from Russia, particularly in support of Baltic states such as Estonia?

[Luke Pollard]

I met the Estonian ambassador and, indeed, all ambassadors from JEF nations on board HMS Sutherland last week, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right: fast, deployable forces are vital deterrents against Russian aggression. They underline our key commitment to NATO’s eastern flank, and particularly our strong commitment to our friends in Estonia. We will continue to have their backs and to ensure that we have forces deployed there, securing that nation’s freedom.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to support jobs in the defence sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve support for LGBT veterans.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am sure the whole House will join me, on the death of Lord Etherton, in passing on our condolences and sympathy to his friends and family. His legacy will continue to shape an inclusive and fair future for our armed forces community. The LGBT financial recognition scheme has a budget of £75 million, which is 50% higher than that set by the previous Government. The Ministry of Defence has made £90,000 available for grants to charities, including Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride, to support LGBT veterans in completing their applications.

[Claire Hughes]

One of my constituents was outed and then dismissed from the RAF when he was just 21, an experience that affected his whole life, so I was very pleased to hear that last week his application for compensation under the LGBT financial recognition scheme was accepted and that he is due to receive his payment shortly. It is great to hear that the Labour Government are getting on with the job for these veterans who were so badly dealt with by the state, but can the Minister give an update on the progress of the scheme?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue and that case. It is vital that no matter who you fall in love with, there is a place for you in our armed forces. I am pleased to announce that since the LGBT financial recognition scheme was launched on 12 December 2024, we have now made a total of £1 million in payments to the dismissed or discharged, to people who are terminally ill, or the over-80s who were dismissed or discharged due to their sexuality. Some 964 applications for non-financial restorative measures have been received and are being processed. The recruitment of the independent panel and appeals board is complete, so payment for the LGBT FRS impact payments can begin shortly.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with NATO allies on European security.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

17. What recent discussions he has had with NATO allies on European security.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

The Secretary of State and I are in regular and close contact with our NATO allies on strengthening Euro-Atlantic security. Last week, the Secretary of State and I were both in Germany discussing closer co-operation and how to further enhance bilateral defence co-operation. The Secretary of State attended a meeting of the E5 Defence Ministers driving European leadership in Ukraine, and next month will meet allies in preparation for the Hague summit in June.

[Uma Kumaran]

NATO has never been more vital for Britain’s defence and security than in this era of global instability and volatility. I was therefore alarmed that certain Green party politicians have suggested that the UK leave NATO, abandoning our commitment to our allies, including other European nations, and the defence of Ukraine and of our shared democratic values. Will the Minister reassure this House that this Labour Government will recommit to working even more closely with our allies for our collective defence, and will he confirm that unlike certain other parties, Labour will always put the security of our citizens first?

[Luke Pollard]

Let me be absolutely clear with the House: NATO is the cornerstone of our security, and this Government’s commitment to the alliance is unshakeable. The Greens, if that is the case, would be out of step with the British people, who recognise the importance of NATO membership. We should also be clear that the only person who would benefit from taking apart the NATO alliance sits in the Kremlin: President Putin. That is a victory we will not give him.

[Andrew Lewin]

The Ukrainian military’s response to Putin’s invasion has been formidable. One of the ways it has been so impressive is through its innovation in drone technology, with Ukraine now a world leader in strategic and tactical drones. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the UK, along with our NATO allies, continues to invest in the Ukrainian military, so that it can continue its fight for freedom and so that we can benefit from the advances in technology that the Ukrainian military has brought forward?

[Luke Pollard]

I absolutely agree. The UK is co-leading the drone capability coalition with Latvia, and we are improving and learning from the experiences of our friends in Ukraine. Drone technology in Ukraine iterates every two to three weeks, so it is absolutely vital not only that we create the environment for new investments in drone technology, but that the UK military looks at those lessons learned. I would expect a large part of the strategic defence review to be looking at the lessons that we can learn from Ukraine and applying them to our own military.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Unlike certain other institutions, NATO is an alliance of separate sovereign countries. I thank the Minister for his strong support of NATO, but does he agree that we should follow the example of the frontline NATO states like Estonia and Poland, which recognise that the difference between deterring a hostile Russia and actually having to fight a war is the difference between spending 4% or 5% of GDP on defence, as we did in the 1980s, and 40% or 50% if, God forbid, we ever have to engage in open hostilities?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. This Government are delivering for defence with increased defence spending. By April 2027, we will be spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which includes an extra £5 billion for defence in this financial year; that will rise to 3% in the next Parliament, when economic conditions allow. What we spend that money on is just as important, and that is what the strategic defence review, when it is published, will set out.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

At the end of March, the US Secretary of State told the Foreign Ministers of the Baltic states that the US wanted to continue participating in EU defence procurement initiatives. What has the UK discussed with the EU about any exclusion of US companies linked to the security and defence pact?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that right across Europe, there are European and American firms providing the capabilities we need to keep our people safe. It is right that we continue those discussions with our European friends to look at how UK firms can participate, because UK firms are already present around Europe, providing resources, as indeed are our American friends. We all need to spend more on defence and we all need to renew our capabilities. We are working together to ensure that we have the frameworks and structures to enable that renewal of our forces to take place.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to improve armed forces housing for military families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve recruitment and retention in the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

We inherited a recruitment and retention crisis from the last Government, but since July we have taken decisive measures, slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours and restructuring the Army’s recruitment organisation, and it is working. Year on year, inflow is up 20% and outflow is down 8%, the Navy’s yearly recruiting target has been exceeded, Royal Air Force applications are up 34% compared with early 2024, and the Army is seeing a seven-year high in applications.

[Jamie Stone]

It may or may not come as a surprise to the House that I was once a Royal Navy cadet. I believe that the cadet force is hugely important to retention and recruitment. The trouble is getting people to step forward to help run cadet forces. I wonder whether the Government will consider some form of inducement scheme to encourage veterans—we know that every community has them—to step forward and help organise the cadets.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is a role model for what someone can do by serving in the cadet forces. They are a fantastic way of growing in confidence, learning new skills and, for many young people, finding a career in the armed forces. Supporting those people who work with our cadets and help train them is vital. We know that there is a huge opportunity in expanding the cadets and investing more, and that is what the Government intend to do.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to help support veterans into employment.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

The Government are expanding UK-wide employment support for the armed forces community through Op Ascend, a free advice service for veterans and their families launched earlier this year. We also continue to offer tailored employment support via the career transition partnership.

[Damian Hinds]

National insurance relief for employing veterans comes at really quite a low cost to the Treasury, but it is effective, not just in its financial incentive but because it opens up conversations within employers. In written answers of late, the Government have been slightly equivocal about the future of the programme. Can the Minister confirm that this programme of relief will continue to support veterans’ employment beyond the next year?

[Luke Pollard]

It is vital that we support our veterans. We have extended the national insurance relief for a further year. I am very happy to arrange a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman and my Treasury colleagues if he would like to make a further case, and I am sure he would join a chorus of voices in doing so.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

In January 1945 in Darlington, William McMullen, a Canadian air pilot, was flying a plane across the densely populated town when it set fire. He steered it away from the populated area and evacuated his six crew mates, unfortunately losing his life in the process. This act of heroism has not been recognised by the Canadian Government because it was a training exercise, so I urge the Secretary of State to join my campaign, with local veterans in Darlington, for a posthumous recognition.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she raises that case; it is certainly something that the whole House can get behind. Telling the stories of the bravery and courage of those who served in that golden generation is vital to ensuring that we learn lessons from it and understand their sacrifice. I would be happy to arrange a meeting between her and the Veterans Minister to see what we can do with our Canadian friends.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

T3. With the defence review coming, alongside the welcome extra investment in defence, how will things change so that more school leavers in Bristol can learn about the opportunities in the military and across Bristol’s wider defence sector?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

A career in the armed forces or a defence industry is a good career for any school leaver in Bristol, in Plymouth or anywhere across our country. I commend my hon. Friend on the work that he and people in Bristol are doing to promote a career in our armed forces and the defence industries. There are good, well paid careers available in every part of our country—indeed in every single constituency—in defence.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Last week’s “Panorama” documentary brought fresh allegations of war crimes by Special Air Service and Special Boat Service forces, raising grave new questions about the conduct of the special forces during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the vital importance of promoting transparency and accountability across our armed forces. In the light of these developments and the ongoing public inquiry, will the Secretary of State consider looking at how Parliament could scrutinise the work of the special forces?

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T4. I met Major Eales and the Derby and Derbyshire Ex-Services Association, who do so much with fellow veterans at events all year round. Following the launch of Operation Valour, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work that it and other associations do and tell us what is being done to encourage and recognise volunteers who support our veterans?

[Luke Pollard]

I am delighted to pay tribute to Major Eales and so many other volunteers who are working to support our veterans. Valour marks a departure from the PR-focused postcode lottery diet of short-term funding for headlines that we were fed by the last Tory Government. No more sticking plasters for veterans; long-term, sustainable funding on a nationwide basis is what Operation Valour is delivering.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T2. Will the Minister tell the House how much of the European Union’s €150 billion rearmament fund he anticipates will be available to our defence companies, who provide high quality jobs, and to our armed forces?

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T5.   Over the weekend, a drone attack was launched targeting a number of regions, including Kyiv. It was arguably the biggest drone strike since the full-scale invasion began. While I am pleased that significant headway has been made between Russia and Ukraine regarding a possible prisoner swap, does the Minister agree that the Government must continue to urge for a wholesale ceasefire to ensure that no more civilian lives are lost?

[Luke Pollard]

A sustained, unconditional ceasefire is the quickest way to stop the killing while creating the space for serious talks to achieve a lasting peace. President Zelensky has consistently shown his commitment to peace. Putin has refused to meet Zelensky in person while continuing barbaric attacks on the Ukrainian people, as we saw once again over the weekend. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

If the Government end up paying a fee for British companies bidding for European defence contracts, will they charge the EU a fee when its companies want to bid for British defence contracts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

T6. The recent E5 meeting marked a significant step towards greater strategic autonomy in Europe, with the security of Ukraine being central to that. Does the Minister agree that, given the changing nature of the threats we face, working ever more closely with our NATO allies is crucial to keeping the UK secure and safe abroad?

[Luke Pollard]

I do indeed. Our commitment to NATO is unshakeable, as is our commitment to our European friends, especially those along NATO’s eastern flank that are being threatened by Russian aggression. We will continue to work with our friends, including: with Germany via the new Trinity House agreement; through the refreshed Lancaster House agreement; and with our EU friends via the security and defence agreement signed today. That is a really important part of keeping Britain safe at home and secure abroad.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State delay putting before the House the remedial order until he is certain that the Government have a way of delivering the Prime Minister’s commitment to preventing Gerry Adams from claiming compensation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T8. Joining a cadet force offers young people a fantastic opportunity to develop key skills, including enhanced communication skills, and to improve their self-confidence and physical and mental wellbeing. What steps are the Government taking to support the cadets, and to encourage more young people to join and obtain life-changing skills?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend: joining the cadets is a great opportunity for any young person, and provides a lifetime’s-worth of skills. The Government are looking to make further announcements in support of our cadets, because the work that they do nationwide is exceptional, and the cadets are a superb platform for young people to build a career on.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The British defence company Babcock employs over 2,000 people from my constituency. The long-awaited strategic defence review is due any day now, so will the Secretary of State set out how the Government will do more to prioritise British defence jobs, and British firms that will not only provide training and employment opportunities in the UK, but help to develop the vital sovereign capability that has never been more critical for our national security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I had the privilege last week of spending time on board HMS Sutherland, alongside the Armed Forces Minister. Will he join me in commending her captain and crew for their vital service safeguarding our subsea infrastructure? What steps are the Government taking to protect our critical undersea communications?

[Luke Pollard]

As HMS Sutherland is a Devonport-based warship, this Devonport-based MP says: congratulations to the crew, the ship’s company, the captain, and all those who made the visit to London so successful. The cross-party delegation visit was warmly received by the ship’s company. It is vital that we continue to invest in our capabilities, not just for protecting undersea infrastructure, but for anti-submarine warfare. Perhaps more important than the ship and the steel is investment in our people, and the Government are making precisely that investment.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I recently dropped in on an Armed Forces Network community event in my constituency, one of many organised by Lee Chapman, a veteran. The network is supported by the council and local volunteers. I have been made aware that there is no official system automatically recording and publishing statistics on veteran suicide in the UK. A petition has been launched, but will the Minister look into that, and see what action can be taken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

UNCLOS––the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—is an incredible international anti-piracy and anti-drug-running tool, but as the House of Lords discussed in 2022, it needs upgrading to include measures on modern slavery and human trafficking. What work are the Government doing on that in the international sphere?

[Luke Pollard]

The UK promotes UNCLOS, freedom of navigation and the UNCLOS rules. I would be very happy to have a meeting with the hon. Lady, but a conversation with the Department for Transport, which owns that relationship, may also be beneficial.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

The Minister may know that I have spent months convincing British scale-up Aeralis to choose Prestwick as the location at which it will build a proposed Hawk replacement—the first British jet built in 50 years. That would create 4,000 jobs. Will she do all she can to bring Aeralis to Prestwick, and make the Red Arrows British and Scottish?

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I welcome last week’s written statement confirming that the cases of many of the Triples—the Afghan commandos who served shoulder to shoulder with UK special forces—will be reviewed. What guarantees can the Minister offer that those individuals will be protected, wherever they are, and that their evidence will be heard by the public inquiry relating to Afghanistan?

[Luke Pollard]

We concluded phase one of the Triples review last week, in which there was an overturn rate of approximately 30%. The second phase will consider where we hold records relating to top-up pay. On the second part of the hon. Lady’s question, if anyone globally has any evidence that they feel should be submitted to the Haddon-Cave inquiry, the Government encourage them to do so. There is no geographical limit on who may submit evidence, and we are working through Afghan relocations and assistance policy cases to ensure that everyone gets the correct decision, based on their circumstances.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my work in the charity sector in Harlow, I saw that post-traumatic stress disorder is a huge barrier to not only getting veterans into employment, but supporting them once they are in it. What will the Minister do to support veterans into and in work?

[Luke Pollard]

It is absolutely vital that we support veterans who encounter difficulties in transitioning from military service to civilian life. The vast majority transition successfully, but support schemes are available nationwide for people who have served in our armed forces, especially through Operation Valour, which was announced by the Minister for Veterans and People last week. There is more to do in this space. I would be happy to arrange a conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and that Minister very soon, when he is down from operation mountain goat on Everest.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Following my statement in the autumn of last year, I would like to further update the House on the progress of the Triples review.

In my previous statement on the Triples review, on 14 October 2024—Vol. 754, c. 612 of the Official Report —I committed to updating the House on the review’s progress. I can now announce that the case work within the initial scope of the review has been completed, with approximately 30% of those decisions now overturned. We have continued to relocate and settle eligible Triples who supported the UK mission in Afghanistan to restart their life in UK. All eligibility decisions are made against policy considering the individual circumstances of the applicant, in line with UK immigration rules.

However, the work of the review is not yet complete. As I set out in my previous statement, officials have continued to analyse and strengthen their understanding of the payment records that the Ministry of Defence holds relating to members of Afghan partner forces.

Following further advice, I am now satisfied that, in addition to the payment records that for some Triples have been sufficient to evidence a direct employment relationship with HM Government, for others, top-up pay will also be sufficient in this context to demonstrate that they have worked alongside us. Further, it will mean that, in some cases, evidence of certain top-up payments will also be sufficient to demonstrate a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s military or national security objectives in Afghanistan due to the nature of the work undertaken by those individuals. This revised approach will make it more likely that some Triples previously found ineligible will secure a positive decision, if they can also demonstrate that they meet the other conditions for eligibility.

So I am today announcing that the Triples review will move into a second and final phase to ensure that all those impacted by this change in approach will have their case reviewed. This will include some applicants who were in scope of the original review, but also others who were not.

Further details on phase 2 of the review are available in the terms of reference, which will be published online in the coming days alongside the Afghan relocations and assistance policy criteria. We are also publishing more details of the earlier work, which will be known as phase 1 of the review.

I want to reiterate that I am committed to getting this right and I believe that launching a second and final phase of this review is the right thing to do, to ensure that we deliver on our moral obligation to all those who should be eligible. I can assure the House that all those who have already had their application reviewed under phase 1 and have had a fresh decision made have either been contacted or will be contacted in due course, and that all those who have decisions made throughout phase 2 will be contacted on a rolling basis.

All decisions made in phases 1 and 2 of the Triples review will also carry a right to have this decision reviewed. I am not going to fall into the trap, as the previous Government did, of committing to a timeline that is clearly not deliverable, but I will keep the House updated on progress, and I am personally invested and remain committed to completing this as quickly as possible.

Finally, as the Defence Secretary set out in his statement in December, the Government intend to reach a position where the UK Afghan resettlement schemes can be closed. We will update the House on this accordingly.

[HCWS645]

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

We are committed to maintaining and enhancing the security and resilience of critical undersea infrastructure. Just as the Defence Secretary called out the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar hovering over our undersea cables, let those who threaten the UK or our allies be in no doubt that we will defend our undersea infrastructure. This is one area that the strategic defence review is looking at in order to enhance our homeland security.

[Nick Timothy]

In January, I asked the Defence Secretary which single Minister is responsible for the security of offshore infrastructure. We know that Russia and China target interconnectors and undersea cables, we know that Russia places listening devices on our wind turbines to monitor submarines, and we know that China controls the tech in the turbines that the Energy Secretary wants to buy. The Defence Secretary could not answer me in January, and neither did the Prime Minister when I asked him earlier this month. When are we going to find out who is actually in charge?

[Luke Pollard]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister is responsible for the security of this nation, and he delegates different areas to different Departments. That is a completely normal way of dealing with our national security. Let us be absolutely clear: within Defence, we take this seriously and we work with colleagues across Departments to make sure that we are not only securing our infrastructure from a defence perspective, but using our trade routes to make sure that we are protecting and buying the right technology and using our planning system to make sure that, where there is development, it does not impinge on our national security.

[Bob Blackman]

The Minister will be well aware that 99% of internet traffic is carried on undersea cables. Clearly the Russians and other enemies would seek to disrupt that, so will the Minister look at utilising autonomous minesweepers that could be deployed to protect our undersea cables? In particular, will he commit to looking at introducing them in the Black sea, if there is a truce between Russia and Ukraine, so that those cables are protected as well? That is part of the NATO infrastructure.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is right that subsea fibre-optic cables carry about 99% of our data—many people believe it is satellites, but it is cables. As a country we are investing in new technologies and I expect that, as we get further towards the time when the defence review is published, he will see the ambition we have as a Government to invest more in autonomous systems, not only to support undersea cable protection, but to deal with the threat of Russian submarines and other capability, and other threats to our nations. We will ensure that we invest in our defence capabilities and in supporting those people who serve as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

With escalating threats to our critical infrastructure, I was concerned by reports over the weekend that our armed forces chiefs are apparently being gagged over the upcoming strategic defence review, which has been described by some as “limp”. I am fully aware that, recognising the dangers, the Government have announced the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the second world war, but at this critical time we certainly should not be sidelining our service chiefs or penny-pinching on our nation’s defence. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to reassure the nation that our strategic defence review, when published, will be bold, ambitious and anything but limp?

[Luke Pollard]

Absolutely. We live in incredibly difficult times, which is why this Government are meeting the moment with increased defence spending and the biggest reform of our defence in 50 years. We are investing in new technologies, and investing in the people who keep our country safe. From the most senior generals and admirals down to privates and sailors, we are giving all our armed forces a renewed determination to make sure they understand how we defend our country in its best interests, but also that the nation backs them in defending our country. There are further announcements to come, but let us all be in no doubt but that the whole House backs our armed forces and that we look forward to the further investment in defence that is coming.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the UK’s leadership on this issue. The proposed AQUIND interconnector raises serious concerns about the security of UK undersea infrastructure, particularly given the significant political donations made by its owners to various Conservative politicians. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), will the Minister confirm that protecting domestic security will be a central focus of the SDR?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I recently met a cross-party delegation, including the Labour MPs for Portsmouth—my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—and the Conservative MP for Fareham, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to talk about the AQUIND interconnector. It is part of a planning decision being taken by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, so it is difficult for me to comment on, but let me be absolutely clear that we take defending our underwater infrastructure very seriously, and we will continue to make decisions that support its defence.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

6. What steps he is taking to protect female members of the armed forces from sexual harassment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to increase recruitment to the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

We inherited a broken recruitment system from the Conservatives. We promised to take steps to fix it and we are: the largest pay increase in 20 years for those who serve; a 35% pay increase for recruits; the scrapping of over 100 outdated medical practices; the creation of a new direct entry cyber-pathway; a conditional offer within 10 days of applying; a training start date within 30 days; and the announcement of a new tri-service recruitment scheme to attract the very best to our armed forces.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the Minister for his response. My constituency has a proud military history. Given the need to expand our armed forces, how can we help a new generation of young people in Dartford to access highly skilled and rewarding careers across all the armed forces?

[Luke Pollard]

Not only is a career in our armed forces good for a young person; it also offers training opportunities, with each of our single services appearing in the top five apprentice employers—the very best in our country. A career in the defence industry is also good for our young people. The ability to move between regular, reserve and industry more frequently and more easily not only secures the national defence of our country and provides more opportunities for our young people, but means that defence can be an even better and bigger engine for growth. Those are the proposals we will be coming forward with in due course.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

In recent years, for every 100 servicemen recruited, 130 have left. That is completely unsustainable. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we retain more troops, with not only the package within our armed forces, but competitive packages in the private sector?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the terrible state of armed forces retention that we inherited. We have seen armed forces morale drop from 60% in 2010 to just 40% last July. We need to invest more in our armed forces, which is why we have introduced the biggest pay rise in 20 years and why we are bringing defence housing back under public control, so that it can be invested in. It is also why we are creating the Armed Forces Commissioner, who will provide an independent champion for service welfare matters for those who serve. We do need to invest more, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I have created an armed forces recruitment and retention board within the MOD to focus efforts on improving service life for all those who serve and their families.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to support defence personnel affected by domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

11. If he will make an assessment of the potential impact of the pause in offensive cyber-operations against Russia by the US on security in Europe.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

UK defence networks face a range of state threats from malign actors. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre received 1,957 reports of cyber-attacks, of which 89 were nationally significant, with 12 severe in nature. The Government continue to improve resilience and response options to those threats.

[Dr Pinkerton]

As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, together with colleagues, I recently visited the 77th Brigade and learned more about the amazing work the men and women of the brigade are doing to tackle Russian disinformation in eastern Europe and elsewhere. The trip came just a few days after the United States President announced his decision to cease American offensive cyber-operations against Russia over disinformation altogether, which has led to growing concerns that willing countries do not have the capacity or ability to tackle that particular threat. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the capabilities that we have in the United Kingdom to tackle that threat, and does he agree that it places greater pressure on the 77th Brigade and other agencies?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The 77th Brigade does a superb job of tackling disinformation, especially by malign actors. We need to expand our provision and range of capabilities, which is precisely why we have created a new direct entry cyber-pathway to recruit people directly into our cyber-forces to support our national resilience in both defensive and offensive operations. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot talk about ongoing operations, but I can say that we are investing more in this area to keep ourselves and our allies safe.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

With GCHQ, the UK’s cyber-operations are genuinely world-leading. What assurance can the Minister give the House that we will continue to support Ukraine with our cyber-security?

[Luke Pollard]

We have made it very clear that we will continue supporting Ukraine, not only to put it in the best possible position on the battlefield and in any negotiations to come, but to secure its critical national infrastructure. We will continue working with Ukraine’s defence and civilian sectors, which are incredibly impressive in this area, to make sure that it has the technology, training and access to support to keep its country safe.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

12. If he will make it his policy to negotiate a defence and security agreement with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

13. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the joint expeditionary force.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

The UK is fully committed to the joint expeditionary force. I discussed the JEF on my visits to Denmark, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and the Netherlands last month. I meet regularly with the JEF partners’ defence attachés, including last week.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Clearly we have a particularly good relationship with the countries that make up the joint expeditionary force. The Minister and I have completed the armed forces parliamentary scheme and were both plunged into the snowdrifts in Norway at Bardufoss. Some of the kit that the Norwegians had was particularly impressive, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Could I press him on what work we can do with the countries in the joint expeditionary force on procurement, design and perhaps development of equipment?

[Luke Pollard]

Just to clarify for the House, they were different snowdrifts at different times—otherwise there could be stories! The more procurement we can do with our allies, the better—not only in how interoperable the equipment will be but in its interchangeability. With P-8s, F-35s and potentially Type 26 frigates being shared by common nations in the High North, there is a huge opportunity to work together more closely, creating more jobs and more effective deterrents against Russian aggression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T2. Our troops must be able to trust the body armour that they wear to keep them safe. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces update the House on how withdrawing cracked enhanced combat body armour is going and on when everyone in our forces can expect to know that their body armour is safe?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend and, on something as fundamental as body armour, we back our troops. I ordered immediate action to replace ECBA on the frontline, flying new body armour to units worldwide. Rapid testing of plates is under way. Our people should know that their safety matters to the Government, and we will act to keep them safe.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T3. Last week, it was announced that the SNP Government are sending more shipbuilding contracts abroad. Seven CalMac ferries that could be constructed on the Clyde will instead be built in Poland. Will the Minister share how many warships the United Kingdom Government are currently building in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Concerns have been growing over China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. Given the strategic importance of the Taiwan strait to global security, what has been the Department’s response to those rising tensions?

[Luke Pollard]

We are certainly of the view that any difficulties in the Taiwan strait should be resolved diplomatically, without the use of force or coercion. The United Kingdom will deploy our carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific later this year as a projection of our responsibility to the region and to make it clear that difficulties are best resolved diplomatically.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

On Friday I was pleased to join colleagues from across the House to hear the Royal Marines band service in concert as part of the Mountbatten festival of music. May I invite the Government to reaffirm their commitment to the Royal Marines band service? It makes a huge contribution to defence diplomacy and combat operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

Drug-resistant infections have been rising in Ukraine and remain a challenge in treating wounded soldiers and getting them back to the frontline. Such infections have also spread outside Ukraine and into Europe. In the context of conflict, what steps are the Minister and the Department taking to ensure that antimicrobial resistance is appropriately considered in the national security strategy?

[Luke Pollard]

It is important that we meet the threats we face, which are not just from state actors but relate to a range of issues. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her interest in this topic further.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

This afternoon I was contacted by the father of Theodore, who lives in Grayshott in my constituency. Theodore wants to go to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in September, but Capita has not sent the request for his medical record to his local surgery. Will the Minister look in general at how Capita is performing, and will he ensure in particular that Theodore can attend the foundation college in September?

[Luke Pollard]

I commend Theodore for his interest in attending Harrogate. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will happily to look into it. As he will know, Capita is not continuing the Army recruitment work. It is being replaced by a new tri-service offer that will come online in 2027.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see you, Dr Murrison. As a former Defence Minister, you will know these subjects well. I might be a proud Janner—someone from Plymouth—but my great-grandfather, Alfred Carey, worked in the automotive industry making Hillman Minxes in the west midlands, so I feel that the debate has a connection with my past.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about not only why we need to defend our national security and learn lessons from Ukraine, but how we can spend the increased defence budget announced by the Prime Minister to create more British jobs and more opportunities for our young people to develop skills that will last them a lifetime and support the growth mission, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.

As a native of the area, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth knows better than most the importance of defence to the west midlands. Although it is clear that defence makes a considerable contribution to the west midlands in jobs, investment and prosperity, today’s debate also reminds us of the huge contribution that the west midlands makes to UK defence, and the possibility of doing even more. Billions of pounds are injected annually into west midlands defence enterprises by industry and Government, but we know that our military is only as strong as the supply chain that supports it. What we have heard today is not only a clarion call of support for the big defence companies in the west midlands—the Rolls-Royces, the BAE Systems, the Babcocks—but a call for further investment in SMEs, which I will come back to.

As a Government, we are determined to nurture and develop the region’s defence cluster and defence businesses. As part of that, we need to invest more in skills, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth spoke about that. We know the world is becoming more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. The Government also face the challenges of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out. That is why we launched the strategic defence review: to assess the dangers we face and determine the capabilities we need to meet them. It is why we brought forward our promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence to April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament when economic conditions allow. It is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy: to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth alluded to, there is a well-known phrase in military circles that soldiers win battles, but supply chains win wars. She was right to make the case that we need to invest more in our defence industry, because there are companies out there that will not regard themselves as defence companies.

People who work in data, digital or advanced manufacturing, or who support the wider supply chain, are defence companies in waiting. They are the innovative people who could support the next generation of military equipment and military operations. In making the case for investment in defence businesses, the Government need to be aware that if we get defence procurement right, we can expand the number of companies involved. That increases the economic benefits of spending, but also enables us to access skills, ingenuity and innovation, especially among SMEs.

[Sarah Edwards]

The Minister has mentioned the examples of the automotive sector and cyber-security, and how many people do not realise that they are working in comparable industries. As parliamentarians, how can we work to showcase the different ways that people are contributing to the defence industry, or could be working in it? How can we promote that? What does the Minister think we can do to make sure people realise that this is a wider, shared endeavour and that their skills are very transferable?

[Luke Pollard]

That is an excellent question. It comes down to how we implement the defence industrial strategy that my colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, is leading within the Department. That needs to tie in with the whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort for our national defence, which is something Parliament will need to speak more of in future. To defend our nation and support our allies, we will need this mission to be held passionately not just by people in uniform and the Ministry of Defence. We will need every Department to understand its contribution to that mission. When we invest in skills, we will have the opportunity to do that.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned the Type 26 builds in Scotland. As the MP for Devonport in Plymouth, where the Type 26s will be based, I know how incredible these frigates will be, how they will deter Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic, and how they will contribute directly to the security of our nation and our allies.

To build those frigates, we will need to invest in skills on a long-term basis. We are looking at how we can have multi-year budgets, to invest more in skills and supply chains, rather than having the annual cycle. Frankly, and as the Defence Secretary has made very clear, defence needs to spend money better than it has in the past. That is why he started a programme of defence reform to make sure we reform not only how we fight and how we are configured, but also how we procure. The recruitment for a new national armaments director is a significant part of driving the defence reform needed to support SMEs as well as primes.

[Alex Ballinger]

We are talking about procurement. Just this week I met Members of the European Parliament in Brussels to talk about our collective response to Ukraine. One of the challenges that Somers Forge in my Halesowen constituency faces is the struggle with European supply chains and the trade barriers between the UK and Europe. As we go through a new reset with Europe, will the Minister commit to push for greater access for defence industries to the European market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Somers Forge and those opportunities. It is certainly something that my Cabinet Office colleagues, who are leading that reset work with Europe, are very conscious of. It is also something that the Defence Secretary picked up with High Representative Kallas from the European Commission yesterday. They looked at the opportunities for UK industry, which is already integrated across our European partners, to work without some of the obstacles in the way of delivering the defence capabilities we need to deter Russian aggression. There is an opportunity here.

A number of Members have spoken about the importance of SMEs in their constituencies and the jobs that they provide. Five years ago, the Ministry of Defence spent 5% of its direct spend with SMEs. In July 2024, we inherited a situation where that had fallen to 4%. The Department has now set an ambition to spend more direct spend with SMEs across the country. We are consulting on what the level should be, so that it is achievable but stretching.

We are working with organisations such as Make UK to understand what barriers need to be overcome and removed to support SMEs to access that direct spend—rather than just supporting the brilliant work of our primes as subcontractors—because we know that if they have a direct spending relationship with the MOD, they are more likely to be able to access overseas export markets. It is precisely for that reason that we are adjusting how we deliver defence procurement within the Ministry of Defence. It could not only spend the money better in the UK and create more jobs, it could also increase the size of our economy by receiving export orders from abroad.

In their interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, Members talked about how we can invest more. I am keen to invest more in SMEs, and I am keen that we speak about the opportunity for young people to find a brilliant career in defence. The zig-zag career proposal is absolutely vital. We need to make sure that we do not create cliff edges and that transferring from regular service to the reserves is easier, so that people can serve in our military, move into industry and then return to service without there being cliff edges that get in the way. There are huge opportunities.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth secured this debate and that we have had this conversation about how we can invest in our defence, grow our economy and provide jobs that will benefit our young people for their entire careers.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).