Afghan Resettlement Scheme Data Incident: Update
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I would like to update the House on the proactive approach the Ministry of Defence has taken for a historical data handling incident affecting 277 individuals that applied to the Afghan relocation and assistance policy scheme in 2021 under the previous Administration.
Members will be aware this data handling incident involved group emails being sent to multiple individuals in September 2021. These emails mistakenly made recipients’ email addresses visible to all, instead of using the blind carbon copy function. After an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the then Minister for the Armed Forces laid before the House a written ministerial statement on 13 December 2023, detailing the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to financially compensate those directly impacted by the data incident.
Having reviewed this matter, it is my full intention to make good on the previous Ministers’ commitments. I can confirm to Members that the Ministry of Defence will be directly contacting those individuals who were affected by the data incident. Once a response is received and the affected individual’s identity confirmed, a single ex-gratia payment of up to £4,000 per individual will be made. The total cost is expected to be in the region of £1.6 million and every effort will be made to ensure payments are made as quickly as reasonably practical.
I cannot undo past mistakes, but I wish to assure Members that, in my role as Minister for the Armed Forces, I intend to drive improvement in the Department’s data handling training and practices. Defence’s record on these topics must improve and I am determined to ensure it does.
[HCWS781]
Defence
Luke Pollard Excerpts(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move,
That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
The draft order will address the constitutional requirement, under the Bill of Rights 1688, that a standing Army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, must receive the consent of Parliament. The draft order provides that consent by continuing into force for another year the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that governs the armed forces. This debate usually takes place in a Delegated Legislation Committee, before returning to the Floor of the House for approval. Given the significance to the country of both the armed forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament provides, it is fitting that the debate is today being afforded time on the Floor of the House. That enables all Members who wish to contribute to do so, for as the strategic defence review has shown, we must put our people at the heart of defence—I know that on all sides of the House there is strong support for our people.
Parliament is required to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation—the next armed forces Bill is required to have obtained Royal Assent by December 2026—and in the intervening years it is to approve an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today. The Act provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for the service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of armed forces personnel accused of committing an offence wherever in the world they are serving.
On that last point, I draw the House’s attention to the explanatory memorandum to the order, which states:
“The extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the British overseas territories except Gibraltar.”
There is a distinct difference between the extent of UK legislation and how the jurisdiction of service law is applied. The extent of any legislation is a statement about in which separate legal jurisdictions the legislation forms part of the law. Not extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 Act does not form part of Gibraltarian law. That is because Gibraltar has made an agreement with the United Kingdom that it will pass forward amendments to the Act in its own legislation. Conversely, service law applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, so effectively there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction with regard to our service personnel and, in some circumstances, civilians subject to service discipline, including those based in, or serving in, Gibraltar.
The 2006 Act provides the legal basis for offices such as the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the court martial, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court. It also sets out the processes for the accused to be dealt with by their commanding officer, or to be tried at court martial. Finally, the Act also contains provisions that cover non-service justice matters, such as service complaints and the armed forces covenant. As such, the next armed forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service justice measures and non-service justice measures. I look forward to working with Members across the House when it is introduced in due course.
In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued defence in the past, rooting out toxic behaviours that we see evidence of in our armed forces. There is no place for abuse in the UK armed forces.
Today’s debate comes against a backdrop of this Government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans, by putting people at the heart of our defence plans and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, combined with a whole-of-society approach to our national resilience. That is why, last year, we delivered the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years. We followed that up with another above-inflation rise recently. That is why we have secured a major housing deal to buy back over 36,000 military homes, improving houses for armed forces families and saving taxpayers billions. We are investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament.
That is why we have set new targets to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous Government, the results of which are clear already: inflow up 19%, outflow down 7%, and the Army experiencing a seven-year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life, and are making it easier for veterans to access care and support for our £50 million VALOUR network.
After all, the Government recognise that the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. The strategic defence review, published last month, will make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad, and sets a path for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and end the hollowing out of our armed forces that we have seen over the past 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have: stepped up and speeded up support for Ukraine; signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany; started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth; and implemented the deepest Ministry of Defence reform programme in decades. All of that has been underpinned by an increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year, and a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?
Luke Pollard
I would say to the right hon. Member that his Government left our forces hollowed out and underfunded, left our forces living in appalling accommodation, left a retention and recruitment crisis that meant that for every 100 people joining our forces, 130 were leaving, and left a situation where morale fell each and every year for the last decade in every one of our services.
We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track. That is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence, why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resource this year, and why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the recent NATO summit—something I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s party will, in due course, bring itself to do.
We need to be ready to deliver for our defence and to stand with our allies, and that is what we are doing today: we are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. As someone who values defence sometimes more than his party loyalty, as I saw in the previous Parliament, I hope the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Indeed, I hope he has the opportunity to do so in a moment, when he stands up to speak.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am not sure there is much point in us just blaming each other on this matter. There are historical parallels. In 1935 we were spending only 2.5% of our national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that and consensus on both sides of the House, and by 1945 we were spending the best part of 50% of national wealth on it. It would be much better if the two parties try to work together on this matter and realise that we are facing an existential crisis in the world, and that things are very different now from 2010 or 2015, or whenever, and that we should work together to massively increase defence spending.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, and I agree with what he says. It is precisely the reason that when the Defence Secretary was the shadow Defence Secretary, and when I was the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, we had a position of cross-party support on defence matters. It is really important, I think, that we get back to that place. When our adversaries look at the United Kingdom, they should see strong cross-party support, as indeed I believe they do when we debate Ukraine. There is a strong set of plans in our strategic defence review, with increasing defence funding getting to 2.5%, a figure we have not matched in the past 14 years. There is a real opportunity to send a united message from this House to our adversaries and to our people who serve. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the Front Bench were listening to his comments as closely as I was.
Members have the opportunity to approve this order today, knowing that the Government are delivering on our pledge.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a very serious note, the Opposition have been accused of being pro-Russia, pro-China and pro-Iran repeatedly by the Prime Minister, which the Minister has defended, because we dared to oppose the Chagos deal. If he wants unity, we need to see that on both sides of the House.
Luke Pollard
I think the unity we saw on the Chagos deal is that the Conservatives started a deal and we finished it; they agreed it was the right thing to start negotiations and held 11 rounds, and we agreed it was the right thing to complete that deal. We put our national security first in that respect, secured the future of the Diego Garcia base and won the support of our US friends, our NATO allies, our Five Eyes partners and India locally. It is up to the hon. Gentleman which side of the debate he wishes to be on—we choose the side of our national security.
Hon. Members can approve this order today, knowing that we are delivering on the pledge to rewrite the contract between the United Kingdom and those who serve in order to improve it. The Armed Forces Act—and, by extension, this order—underpins the very existence of His Majesty’s armed forces. It backs those who, like my old man—a Royal Navy submariner—and so many across this House, stepped forward to serve our country and protect our United Kingdom and our allies and partners in an era of global instability, to deploy globally in support of British objectives and to support our national security. With the consent of the House today, Parliament will acknowledge, pay tribute to and back their service.
Luke Pollard
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. It was a good one, and I will refer briefly to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, I detect strong support for our armed forces on all sides of the House, which is good to see, so I hope there will not be a Division. This debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House, but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader of the House and the Whips before I commit to any future such debates, because that is definitely outside my swim lane.
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for talking about cadets. It is absolutely right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the strategic defence review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. This is a strong investment in the future of our young people that provides opportunities to get lifelong skills and increased confidence, as well as a pathway for young people to serve in our armed forces in order to fully realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know that there is strong support for them in every part of the country. The hon. Lady talked about young people finding meaning through service, and I could not agree more. I am grateful to her for that contribution.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked me a number of questions. We have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years, and it will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation, especially as it will come in after the publication of the strategic defence review. He will be familiar with the fact that the strategic defence review made the case for a defence readiness Bill, and we are looking at all those details. I can reassure him that it is part of the commitment we have made that, following the wide consultation we undertook for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we will continue that in that spirit for future legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister’s questions today we had Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary replied to questions on a number of issues that he has asked me about. I refer him to those remarks because as he will know—if only because I say this every time he asks me a question on it—that these are matters for the Northern Ireland Office, although Defence clearly has strong equities and views on these matters as well.
Mr Francois
I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that.
Sir Julian Lewis
On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.
I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.
I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.
I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we have to procure an icebreaker to increase our footprint in that region?
Luke Pollard
I knew he was tempted to go into polar nerdery! I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about some of those aspects. Clearly, when it comes to the provision of our ships and capabilities, it is not just an MOD matter; it is one that we share, in particular with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, but I am happy to pick up those points with him.
I am not certain that the hon. Member is right on everything he said on drones, but none the less, he is certainly right that drone warfare has fundamentally changed how warfare is conducted. I am proud that we have a plan to return to 2.5% spending on defence—a figure not met since 2010. We do need to spend more on defence because we live in more dangerous times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to speak about the sacrifices that armed forces families make—it is something that we should not forget. Indeed, that is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we deliberately extend the powers of the commissioner to have a requirement to engage with the family members of our people who serve, which is important.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her contribution. We do indeed have a Government who honour the service of our armed forces every day, and I am proud to serve within it. She is also right to raise LGBT veterans. She will know that the prioritisation we have decided as Ministers is that the initial payments, as we stand up the system to make payments, should be directed at those who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation in the first instance, so justice can be done for those folk who may not see many more days. We are now standing up that wider system so that we can process that wider set of payments that we have committed to do, and we will continue to do so.
Finally, in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the future commando force strategy published under the last Government moved away from full commando assault to small raiding parties. That was the extant policy of the last Government and, because of that, I would be happy to speak to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines and to the multi-role strike ship, as set out in the strategic defence review, and I would be very happy to speak to him about that further. I have a Royal Marine base in my constituency, as he has in his—
Luke Pollard
I am afraid I have to conclude because of time, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further. I can reassure him that the Royal Marines have a very bright and strong future in our armed forces.
David Reed
What the Minister says raises a more fundamental question. Just like the release of the strategic defence review to trade bodies and to the press before its publication, we are reading about issues in the press but do not have the opportunity to discuss them in Parliament. While I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a conversation with him, why can we not have that conversation in the Chamber now?
Luke Pollard
I refer the hon. Gentleman to all the debates that I called on the future of the Royal Marines under the last Government, when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, to make the case that the Royal Marines have a bright future. We have a strong commitment to the future of the Royal Marines and to amphibiocity. He will know the changes that his Government introduced in the future commando force strategy. If we look at the lessons from Ukraine, the Royal Marines were well ahead of the learnings that we now see from there. I am happy to discuss that with him further and I am sure that he will want to table a Westminster Hall debate so that we can discuss this even more.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the future of the Royal Marines is safe and secure. We have strong commitment to amphibiocity. We need to ensure that all our fighting forces adapt to the changed environment in which they operate. As someone who represents Stonehouse Barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines, I feel personally about that commitment and I do not recognise the concerns that he raised. However, I am glad that there is strong cross-party support for our armed forces and for this draft order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsWednesday 2nd July 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 2 July 2025 - (2 Jul 2025)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.
Before I start, I place on record my thanks to all those right hon. and hon. Members who supported Armed Forces Day events at the weekend across the length and breadth of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending the national event in Cleethorpes, and I spent time with our armed forces community on Plymouth Hoe to see the fantastic turnout not just of armed forces personnel but of their families, veterans, and the charities and organisations that support everyone who serves and has served. Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition of our armed forces is a great honour, and provides a moment of reflection for everyone in this House on the great service that those in the military provide to the nation.
I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to this House. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the Bill already delivers what the other House had inserted. I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the Government amendment with other amendments, which I am afraid are deeply flawed. I will explain why.
To be absolutely clear, we are all in agreement about the intention behind the Lords amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected in coming forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our armed forces. This Government are committed to doing exactly that, which is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters of our people and legislating for an independent champion in the form of the Armed Forces Commissioner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward, and I understand the issue—I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. Lords amendment 2 deals with whistleblowers and protections for family members, which are necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand to the Minister that was facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one. Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are insisting on our amendment and not accepting the Opposition amendment made in the other place, because that amendment does not include family members. I agree that including loved ones—family members, for the purposes of the wording of the Bill—within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an important new step in providing not just members in uniform, but their immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany the Bill, with the opportunity to raise a general service welfare matter.
I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity to do so during the passage of the next armed forces Bill. However, I say to all Members that I am concerned that going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that will be used to tackle the very issues this amendment seeks to address. Namely, it holds up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, which was a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this Bill is prevented from becoming law, the greater the disservice we do to our armed forces and their families. I sincerely hope that today we can send a united message from this House that we do not wish to delay this vital legislation any further.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Like everyone else in this House, I am incredibly proud of our armed forces, and particularly of our relationship with them in St Helens. Just yesterday, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment paraded through St Helens town centre after being awarded the freedom of the borough—we are so incredibly proud. Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces, and give them the support they need?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for placing on the record the military events in his constituency. It is so important that we recognise the links and ties that so many of our military units have with the localities from which they recruit, where they are based and where they serve. I agree with his broader point; the time is right for us to pass this Bill, get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation in which we have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members.
The Government took on board the important debates in both Houses and proposed amendment 2A, to which this House previously agreed. That amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments in the other place and actually went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that are back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment, which was made early in the process and in good faith, following discussions and co-operation with the Opposition in the other place. Given the strong cross-party support for the Bill and clear arguments in favour of the amendment in lieu, we had been hoping that that would enable us to conclude proceedings. The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and will build trust and confidence among our armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments that are before us today.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law.
Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information.
The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today.
To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing?
Luke Pollard
That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.
Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.
Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.
Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.
More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process.
Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel.
Luke Pollard
I hope that this is not a party political issue, because many of the Members raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they recognise that cultural issues within our armed forces need to be addressed and to get clarity on what the Government seek to do. I hope that from the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has made to the other place, and from the remarks I have made at this Dispatch Box, colleagues can feel reassured that we take issues of culture, harassment and abuse seriously, and we are clear that there is no place for them in our armed forces.
We are updating the policies and procedures on whistleblowing and raising a concern from the policy we inherited from the last Government, so as to improve it and take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen that. I realise that the Opposition do not support the Employment Rights Bill, but we do, and it will further enhance the protections for whistleblowers. By updating these policies and by including the cross-Government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet Office are co-ordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy.
I hope that my placing that on the record here, as my noble Friend Lord Coaker will do in the other place when the Bill returns there, will be enough for those Members who are concerned to be satisfied that the Government have a genuine desire to address these issues and that the amendments, as drafted, create a narrower scope for the commissioner, and would prevent them from achieving their objectives, due to the wording. It is therefore time to let the amendments fall away so that the Bill can pass.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I assure him that he is not the only person who gets intervened on by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for clarification. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so.
We have deliberately drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible, and through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone who is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the intended functions of the amendments.
I make it explicitly clear that the powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the commissioner already exist in the Bill. In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter, such as fraud or criminal activity. Recognised protections are already in place for those matters. All defence civil servants are covered by the protections provided by PIDA, and all military personnel are provided those same protections through existing defence policy.
Our commitment to review and update defence policy and processes, in conjunction with the protections that are already in place for both civilians and members of our armed forces, plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the other place, mean that now is the time for both Houses to do the right thing and bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity. Lord Coaker and I will be writing to the Opposition spokespeople in the other place—I am grateful for the engagement that has already taken place, both between Baroness Goldie and Lord Coaker and between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), Baroness Kramer and me—to address their concerns in detail, to provide written assurances about the changes we are making that confirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and to invite their contributions as we seek to develop and renew the “raising a concern” policy.
I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to ensure that we can deliver this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families as soon as possible.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments.
I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate.
I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve.
Mr Francois
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies.
Question put.
Afghan Resettlement Schemes
Luke Pollard Excerpts(5 days, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
For two decades, more than 150,000 UK armed forces personnel served with great courage and distinction in a bid to bring stability and security to the people of Afghanistan. They were helped in this difficult mission by thousands of equally brave Afghans performing in a variety of supporting roles. We can be proud as a nation that, following the Taliban’s seizure of power in 2021, we have honoured our obligation to those who put their personal safety at considerable risk by offering one of the most generous Afghan resettlement programmes in the world. We can be equally proud of what that programme has accomplished.
Today I want to provide an update on the latest progress of the Afghan Resettlement Programme. The ARP was announced by the Defence Secretary on 18 December 2024 as a means of bringing together different resettlement schemes across Government—including the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—to drive efficiency and improve outcomes for UK taxpayers and our Afghan friends and allies. Through the ARP, the Government are continuing to honour our commitment to all Afghans eligible to come to Britain. So far, over 34,000 Afghans have successfully relocated to the UK and started rebuilding their lives in this country. This is an incredible achievement, and I would like to thank Members across the House for their support, as well as former Ministers.
While the Government will continue to support the ARP, we have said all along that these schemes cannot continue indefinitely. When announcing the launch of the ARP last year, the Defence Secretary told the House that we would update colleagues when the time came to stop taking on new applicants. I repeated that commitment to the House in May. That time has now come.
Throughout the past year, we have regularly assessed progress, and carefully considered the right time to stop taking on new applications. Four years on from the ARAP scheme’s launch we have now reached the right point. We are currently finding over 95% of first-time applications to be ineligible. This shows that we have honoured our obligation and commitment that we set out to repay when the scheme was established.
As of today, the Home Office has laid the necessary immigration rule changes where ARAP will no longer take on new principal applications.
To be clear, all applications received to date will continue to be processed. Those who are found eligible will still have their immediate family members—such as one spouse and children under 18—automatically considered for relocation. They will also still have 30 days from accepting their ARAP offer to make an application to relocate any additional family members to the UK.
We expect the current pace of arrivals to remain at the same level for the duration of this Parliament as we clear applications, process requests for an additional family member, and complete relocations. There remains a lot of work to be done, but it is our intention to finish the process and honour our obligation in full by the end of this Parliament.
As I stated in my written ministerial statement in May, we will also continue to progress phase 2 of the Triples review, and I will continue to keep the House updated on this.
Those within scope of phase 2 of the Triples review are not affected by this change. All of the cases within scope have already applied for ARAP and will in due course receive a new eligibility decision or a confirmation they remain ineligible.
Despite the programme’s achievements, however, I am also conscious that some ARAP cases have waited a long time for decisions. We inherited a large backlog of cases from the previous Administration, and colleagues across the House have contacted the Department raising ARAP cases over the years that have faced long waits for decisions. I share their concern, and I am determined to address every outstanding case as quickly as possible, while ensuring that each application is individually assessed. From the autumn, we will introduce key performance indicators for our ARAP caseload. This will help people understand where they stand in the process—and when they should receive a decision.
I am also announcing, on behalf of the Home Secretary, the closure of the Home Office-run Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme. This means that the Government will not launch any further pathways nor accept any further referrals. Over 12,800 people have been successfully resettled under the ACRS since 2021. More than half of arrivals have been children, and a quarter women.
To reassure those who have made a referral under the Separated Families Pathway but have not yet received a decision, the Home Office will continue to consider those referrals and issue decisions. Once again, we will honour our commitments to anyone found eligible. We will also honour our commitments to those who have already been found eligible for ACRS but are not yet in the UK.
Relocating over 34,000 eligible Afghans is no small feat and would not have been possible without the support of our partners both at home and abroad.
We are grateful to the local authorities and devolved Governments who continue to help deliver the ARP successfully. Working hand in hand with local government, we will continue our efforts to implement a fair approach to the dispersal of Afghan arrivals across the UK and to empower regions to ensure arrivals are placed in areas that best support their integration. We are also grateful for our international partners. The majority of those eligible have travelled via Pakistan, so I would like to thank the Government of Pakistan for their ongoing co-operation and support.
Finally, I would like to thank all those civil servants and military personnel who continue to work tirelessly to relocate eligible Afghans and to help them rebuild their lives in the UK.
Without the contribution of our Afghan friends and allies, UK personnel who served in Afghanistan would have had an even tougher and certainly a more dangerous job. The Government’s goal remains, by the end of this Parliament, to have safely relocated those eligible and honour in full our moral obligation to those who supported our mission in Afghanistan.
[HCWS763]
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(6 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
As the Defence Secretary has said, the cost of the agreement represents less than 0.2% of the annual MOD budget. This has secured unrestricted access to and use of the base on Diego Garcia, control over movement of all persons and good on the base, and control of all communications and electronic systems. It is a good deal.
Greg Smith
I do not know that I agree with the Minister that this is a good deal, although I am curious about the £30 billion. Does it count towards the new NATO target of 3.5%, or the additional 1.5% on top of that? As we have to inform the Mauritian Government before we do anything particularly useful from that base, should that cost actually be counted in the defence numbers at all?
Luke Pollard
Let me squash the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, which is wrong: we do not have to inform Mauritius before taking any military action. Under the treaty, we have to provide notification after the event. I have explained this 13 times in written answers to Members on the Conservative Front Bench, but I am afraid that they still do not get it. That underlines why they could not do a deal after 11 rounds of negotiation, whereas this Government did it after two rounds, securing the future of that vital base for UK and US operations.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Is it not the case that our closest allies—the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even India—have all welcomed this deal, precisely because they recognise the irreplaceable role of Diego Garcia in global security? What does the Minister think is going on with the Opposition, who think they know more about global security than the security services, the White House and the Pentagon?
Luke Pollard
This is important, because the future of Diego Garcia is absolutely vital. Having accepted the principle that sovereignty could be secured only by a negotiated settlement—that was the decision taken by the last Government—it is right that we secured a deal, and right that we protect the base for operations for more than 100 years. The deal is good value for the UK taxpayer, because it secures the most valuable piece of military real estate on the planet, and keeps it under UK control for the next century and beyond.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Following the disgraceful criminal vandalism that we saw at RAF Brize Norton, we immediately implemented a series of enhanced security measures at that air base and at other defence sites to ensure the safety of personnel, assets and operations. The strategic defence review highlighted Brize Norton as being in need of investment after the hollowing out of our armed forces over the previous 14 years. We have directed that a wider review be carried out at pace, to assess and ensure protective security at all defence sites. Phase 1 of that review was completed this weekend, and I will make further, wider announcements in due course.
Sarah Hall
To what extent is the Ministry of Defence working with other Government agencies to ensure a joined-up response to emerging threats to military equipment and infrastructure?
Luke Pollard
Counter-terrorism police are still investigating the incident at RAF Brize Norton, and it is right that we allow them the space to complete that investigation. The wider review looks at security at not just RAF Brize Norton, but all defence sites. We are looking with colleagues across Government at what investment is needed, and at how we can work with others to secure the safety of sites to ensure that the UK maintains operational security for all its assets.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Almost by definition, RAF sites have to have very long perimeter fences, so it is understandable that they could be overcome at one point or another. Why were they apparently not fitted with sensors, at least, so that any intrusion would have sounded the alarm?
Luke Pollard
I do not want to pre-empt the findings of all the reviews, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that our air bases tend to cover a large area. The perimeter fences we inherited on many of our air bases were not designed to keep everyone out with large things, but to be a perimeter defence. In the ongoing security work, we are looking at how technological solutions and changes in guarding might contribute to enhanced security, given the increased threat that we face.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The strategic defence review sets out that the UK will harness new technology through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems. We will always comply with the relevant regulatory framework and international humanitarian law. I can tell my hon. Friend that IHL compliance is absolutely essential as we look to use more artificial intelligence enabled weapons systems in the future.
Markus Campbell-Savours
The strategic defence review rightly emphasises the importance of autonomous weapons systems in augmenting the UK’s defence capabilities, but it also notes:
“The UK’s competitors are unlikely to adhere to common ethical standards in developing and using”
those technologies. What specific measures are the Government taking to help prevent and mitigate the potential harms of autonomous capabilities, both in the UK and abroad?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we maintain responsible AI systems in the face of adversaries perhaps using AI in malign ways. The UK will adhere to our legal obligations and the values of the society that we serve. Through the UN and other processes, we are actively engaging in international dialogue on responsible AI, lethal autonomy and related strategic challenges, but all our activities will be in compliance with international humanitarian law.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
All actions of the UK Government are in compliance with international humanitarian law. We want to see an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. We have fewer than five personnel from Israel on non-combat academic courses currently, but we keep all our training under review.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Excalibur will be an incredible autonomous asset. The strategic defence review sets out that crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems will be standard across our armed forces, and at the heart of the review is investment in the people who will be manufacturing and standing behind those systems. That is why, when the defence investment plan comes out later this year, there will be more opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, primes and businesses right across the country to invest in our uncrewed and autonomous future in a hybrid military.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what happened to the £4 billion earmarked for autonomous systems, including in Plymouth. That line was in the Chancellor’s spending review speech, but not delivered on the day. The Chief Secretary did not know. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this funding exists, and will he accept an invitation to Turnchapel Wharf, where exciting marine autonomy is being developed?
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Do the Government know if the US Government are still providing technical military intelligence support, such as electronic or imagery intelligence for Ukraine? If that were cut off by President Trump, would the Americans effectively restrict our British military technical intelligence support to Ukraine?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member will understand that we cannot talk about sharing military intelligence on the Floor of the House, but as he and I have an interest in this, I would be happy to have a conversation with him.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The strategic defence review, published this month, clearly states:
“The foundation of the UK’s approach to deterrence remains a minimum, credible, independent UK nuclear deterrent, assigned to the defence of NATO… The UK’s nuclear weapons are operationally independent.”
Somehow, in the last 29 days, the UK Government have decided that they no longer see their Trident nuclear missiles as a minimum credible deterrent. Why was that major change in policy not announced in the SDR?
Luke Pollard
The Government have made it very clear that our support for our independent nuclear deterrent is solid and is not changing. We are investing in new submarines, we are investing in the base in Faslane, we are investing in new nuclear reactors in Derby, and we are backing the people who keep our country safe with that guarantor of our security, the nuclear deterrent.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Since 14 June, an F-35B from the Prince of Wales carrier strike group has been stranded on the runway at the Thiruvananthapuram civilian airport in India. What steps are the Government taking to recover the plane, how much longer will that take, and how will the Government ensure the security of protected technologies on the jet while it is in the hangar and out of view?
Luke Pollard
We continue to work with our Indian friends who provided first-class support when the F-35B was unable to return to the Prince of Wales when on a flight mission, and I am certain that the security of the jet is in good hands because Royal Air Force crew are with it at all times.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
We are proud to be investing in Operation Renovator, our contribution to helping injured Ukrainian soldiers to recover and return to the fight to guarantee the safety of their nation, and we will continue to support that operation and our Ukrainian friends for as long as it takes.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Infantry regiments cite difficulty in recruiting in their traditional communities and recruitment grounds. Further to the exchange between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), may I ask what more can be done to encourage, specifically, young British men to join the Army?
Luke Pollard
Last year 165,000 young people tried to join the British Army. We hired 9,500 of them, but 84% left because the process was too long. We have a superb “attract feature”, but we need to be better at converting, and we are making progress in that regard, although there is more to be done. I am happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he has any ideas that might support that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sadly, we have all seen the devastation caused by modern missiles. Germany is preparing to receive the Arrow 3 missile defence system, ordered just two years ago, which can intercept intercontinental missiles at 2,500 km. What plans have the Government to equip this country similarly?
Armed Forces Day
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.
This week, our nation comes together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces, their families and veterans—the heroes who give and sacrifice so much for their country at a time when the world is becoming increasingly dangerous, unpredictable and insecure. Right now, our armed forces are helping Ukraine to defend itself against the might of Russia by supplying kit and equipment, nearly three and a half years into a war that Putin thought would be over in three days. Our armed forces are in Singapore with the UK carrier strike group led by HMS Prince of Wales, strengthening Britain’s ties with the Indo-Pacific. They are operating as part of every NATO mission alongside our allies, keeping the peace in zones of potential conflict, and our people are working in the middle east to de-escalate tensions and stabilise the region. Our armed forces are contributing to UN peacekeeping forces around the world, helping to bring hope to war-torn communities, and they are protecting our shores at home, ready at a moment’s notice to respond to any emerging threats.
The members of our armed forces are truly the best of Britain, recognised globally for their professionalism and dedication. This week, in Armed Forces Week, we have a chance to say thank you: to them for their service; to their families for their understanding at the times when they are away; and to the people in the defence industries, the supply chain and the technology companies who support our men and women in uniform and help them continue to have the fighting edge that keeps our country safe.
Apart from the years affected by covid restrictions, 2024 was the first since the inception of Armed Forces Day in which there was no national event. This Government are proud to have restored that this year, backing three days of celebrations in Cleethorpes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) knows, it is a community that carries a long tradition of not just honouring our armed forces, but shaping and supporting them. From the local RAF station at North Coates, which was home to the Coastal Command strike wing during world war two, disrupting enemy supply chains with great success, to today’s active veteran groups such as NEL4Heroes, which does outstanding work in North East Lincolnshire helping veterans to return to civilian life.
Although the biggest celebrations will take place in Cleethorpes, where the Defence Secretary will be this weekend, there are more than 180 other events taking place across our nation. Earlier this week, my ministerial colleague Lord Coaker was among the large crowds that turned out in Northern Ireland to celebrate Armed Forces Day.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was fortunate to be there and had the opportunity to meet Lord Coaker. I was clear to him, as were the 60,000 people who turned out to commend and celebrate such a wonderful occasion. Will the Minister outline later on what can be done to recruit more Territorial Army soldiers? Will there be flexibility with employers and jobs and courses that people can do to enlarge the numbers of cadets?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his years of service. It was in Westminster Hall yesterday that he added up all the years that he served in uniform. I think it was 14 and a half years in total in various roles.
Luke Pollard
I thank him for his service to our country. It is vital that we address the retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. We are making good progress in that regard. A key part of that is not only recruiting new people to our regular forces, but making it easier to join the reserves. Whether people serve full time, part time or in their spare time, there is an opportunity for people around the country to contribute to our armed forces.
The Minister for Veterans and People will set out further steps as to how we will improve our reserves as we approach the armed forces Bill in the next session of Parliament. He will make the case that improving our reserves makes us safer, but also provides more opportunity for the nation to have a closer connection with those people who serve as well.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the 180 events that the Minister mentioned will be Armed Forces Day in Andover, which I will attend on Saturday. As the Minister knows, Andover is home to the Army’s land forces headquarters. Will he reflect on the importance of the work of celebrating the armed forces in the communities that physically embrace their headquarters, camps and residences, to sustain that connection between the non-uniformed civilian population and those who protect them on a daily basis?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for his attendance at an Armed Forces Day event this weekend. As someone who represents Devonport, which is home to western Europe’s largest naval dockyard, I am acutely aware of the relationship, the important history and the connections today between our military, the civilians who, in Devonport’s case, support the fleet, and our wider community, including veterans. It is absolutely right that we tell the story of that connection, not just by looking back at the battles of previous years and those people who never returned from wars, but by making the case that investing in our defence today creates good, well-paid jobs. It provides opportunities for our young people and it is one of the sources of great pride that our Army, our Navy and our Air Force all feature among the top five employers of apprentices in the country. It is a huge opportunity to celebrate the skills that we have and the connections between our people. All our communities are proud of our armed forces, and this weekend is a great opportunity to say that again.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that recently I had the great privilege of visiting our base in Erbil, in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where I saw for myself the dedicated service of the troops and their officers, who are doing huge work to help that regional government, thereby enhancing regional and British security. They are a credit to this country and we owe them a debt of gratitude. We should also remember that there are so many servicemen and women overseas who are doing difficult work, sometimes in harm’s way. On Armed Forces Day, we must remember all those serving officers and soldiers as well.
Luke Pollard
May I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks? It is a good reminder that on Armed Forces Day and in Armed Forces Week, there will be parliamentarians from all sides of the House visiting local communities and making the case for the armed forces in their communities. There will be people from communities right around our country, however, who will not be at those celebrations because they will be serving on the frontlines overseas, helping to project UK power and influence, helping to stabilise regions and helping to ensure that we de-escalate tensions. The work that our forces do in the middle east may have been in the news quite a lot recently, but the work that they do that is often not covered in the news is just as vital for our national security and worthy of our praise and thanks. I am sure that there is cross-party support for the work that they do across the middle east.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will be in Liverpool this weekend, celebrating alongside her community of Liverpool Garston at Armed Forces Day events. The Minister for Veterans and People will be in Coventry, having completed a tour of many of our communities nationwide making the case for further investment in services to support our veterans. Indeed, supporting those who have served is a vital part of this Government’s work. Many celebrations will take place across Scotland and Wales, including in Edinburgh where the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) will be attending. I will be back home in Plymouth, which is home not only to Devonport but to Stonehouse, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines. We will be out in force on the Hoe on Saturday. For those people not familiar with Plymouth’s geography and our international viewers, the Hoe has a wonderful clifftop view of Plymouth sound—it is nothing more sinister than that.
As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I am proud to represent my home town, which is not only steeped in military history, but plays a pivotal role in protecting Britain today. Having grown up as a Navy brat, I know that many remarkable people in defence tend to dismiss their achievements as “just part of the job”—a humility that defines service in our country. But I know what they do, how they go well beyond the expectations of a normal day job, how they shoulder immense responsibilities with great modesty and, supported by their families, how they perform the ultimate public service.
Through the Government’s strategic defence review and defence reform, we are putting much more emphasis on our people and on renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. The most troubling thing I have seen recently in relation to our people was the continuous attitude survey, which revealed that only a quarter of our service personnel believe that they are valued by society. I encourage Members who have not read the latest continuous attitude survey to do so: it tells the story of what our people think. Although we are now seeing morale stabilising, after a decade of it falling across all three services, the fact that they do not feel valued by society should be a wake-up call for all of us in thinking about how we talk about and support our armed forces.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Minister referred to my constituency earlier. This weekend we will host the national Armed Forces Day event, which will be fantastic. He mentions remembering our veterans and our people, and Saturday will be a true celebration of all the work that so many people put into making sure that we are safe and secure every day.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she put into making the case for Cleethorpes to host the first of the renewed national day events. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to attending events in Cleethorpes this weekend and to hearing not only from those people who serve today, but the young people of the cadets in her community, who may be those who serve in the future, and the veterans who have served our nation. I am looking forward to events in Plymouth, but I know that the events in Cleethorpes will be the centre of our national attention this weekend, and rightly so.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that the UK’s armed forces are a visible manifestation of the philosophy and values that underpin the country? If society does not value the armed forces, would he concede that it might be because we have consistently failed to defend the principles and values that underpin our society? We should confront the accusations, for example, that this is an inherently racist country, which it absolutely is not, and that our history is not something to be proud of. Perhaps then wider society would appreciate the men and women who defend not just the physical country but our values, our history and our philosophy.
Luke Pollard
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for telling our nation’s story. To tell our full story, we have to explain the good bits and, sometimes, the bad bits, but at all times we can look at the bravery, courage and service of our armed forces as a source of national pride. I also look at our armed forces today as the embodiment of some of our British values. I believe in equality: it is very important to me personally. When I think about our soldiers operating in Estonia at the moment, ready to deter a Russian move across the border, the colour of their skin, their religion, where they come from or their accent do not matter. All that matters is that in that unit, everyone has each other’s backs and is proud of our country, proud of their service and proud of the reasons they are there.
Armed forces week is an opportunity to remind people of the difficult jobs we ask our people to do and to thank them for it. The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the values that stand behind the uniform and why the flag they carry on their arms matters so much—it is not just a piece of cloth; it represents British values that we should all be proud of.
For that reason, it is important that we recognise that our service personnel need to feel more valued. The figure has plummeted over the past 12 years. We know that words will not address the problem. Only action will, and that is why it was so important to award our service personnel their biggest pay rise for more than two decades and to follow that up with another above-inflation pay rise this year. It is a source of great pride to me as the Minister for the Armed Forces that, for the first time, we can say that every single person in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case, but sadly it was not; it is now.
Our armed forces deserve a lot more than just a decent salary. The cold, damp and mouldy homes that many have been living in are a betrayal of their service. After buying back 36,000 homes from the private sector that were sold off under a previous Conservative Government and saving taxpayers more than £600,000 a day in rent payments, we are delivering a generational renewal of military accommodation, with at least £7 billion of funding in this Parliament to tackle the poor state of forces housing.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to mark an important week for our armed forces. I welcome everything my hon. Friend says about support for our armed forces and their families by way of investment in their homes and more money in their pockets. Does he agree that supporting our armed forces goes way beyond just the equipment that they need on the frontline? It is about making sure that their families are valued through the support that the Government can give them and that they receive from the communities they live in.
Luke Pollard
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more: that is so important. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, but many of our defence debates have been about kit, platforms and—if I have anything to do with it—frigates. We talk about the equipment, but we need to talk about our people. At the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government’s policies, is talking more about the families of those who serve. That is why I hope that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will become law soon. It puts an emphasis on allowing service families to access the commissioner to make the case that it is the whole defence family—those who serve in uniform and their family members who back them in their service—that needs to be valued by this nation. I believe that view is shared on a cross-party basis, and we now need to ensure that it is featured in our legislation and in the day-to-day operations of our military. There is more to do on that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On the selling off of military homes and the buying back of them by the Labour Government, will the Minister acknowledge that the negotiations for that deal started in May 2024 under the Conservative Government and were completed by the Labour Government?
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and when the announcement was officially made, I recall standing at the Dispatch Box and thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here today, for his work on it. It was a terrible privatisation—truly awful. It represented the worst value for taxpayers and it has doomed many of our forces families to appalling accommodation for far too long. Now that that privatisation has ended and we have brought those homes back into public control, we can invest in them. We need to do that at pace, because people are living today in accommodation with mould and damp. That is not good enough. We need to proceed at pace, and the Minister for Veterans and People who leads on this work in the MOD is as impatient as I am to see the improvements—as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, as someone who represents a military constituency.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the record, the shadow Defence Secretary is not here because he has a very important personal family commitment today. I am honoured to stand in for him.
Has the Minister seen our proposals for a ringfenced armed forces housing association, to provide better quality accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families?
Luke Pollard
I am sure the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is by no means a poor substitute for the shadow Defence Secretary.
We plan to publish our defence housing strategy later this year, which no doubt was not at all in the minds of the shadow Front-Bench team when they published their proposals ahead of time. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the full work to be published in due course, but improving defence housing has to be a priority, because for many years as a nation, we have not delivered what our forces deserve—that will now change.
This year, we extended the ability to reclaim the costs of wraparound childcare to many of those deployed overseas, and next year we will go further and cover all overseas areas to help make family life a little easier. We are legislating for an Armed Forces Commissioner—an independent voice to help improve service life. We made a manifesto commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law—a promise made by the nation that those who defend it will be treated fairly and will not be disadvantaged because of their service. That includes, for example, ensuring that service children have the same access to education as other children. We are transforming recruitment, and hope that many young people will be inspired to join up after attending Armed Forces Day events this weekend. We are also overhauling access to care and support for veterans through the Valour programme.
I turn to veterans because although Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to thank those people in uniform, we should also use it as an opportunity to thank those people who have served.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I very much welcome the work being done to bring the covenant into wider, and legislative, effect, with consequences where it is not applied. That will be important in delivering services to our armed forces right across the public sector, but there is a financial consequence. Parliament and Government need to seriously consider how that financial consequence is borne and distributed to ensure that those public services are empowered and financed to support armed forces personnel and, just as importantly, their wider families in the best way they can.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that the pledge is made in action and deeds, not just words. If we look at the implementation of the armed forces covenant across the country at the moment, some areas are exceptional and have embraced not just the words of the covenant but the spirit behind it, and others are perhaps a little further behind on the journey. When we look at central Government compared with local government, there is a distinction between the services and the offer. That is why we are putting it fully into law. I hope that one thing we will be able to do in having a debate on putting the covenant fully into law is to share the best practice we see in local councils up and down the country.
In this place, there is sometimes a temptation to believe that all good ideas must come from the Dispatch Box. I certainly do not believe that, when I can see brilliant councillors of all parties making the case for improving the lives of veterans, those people who serve and, perhaps most importantly, their families. Where the covenant grips most successfully is where we can improve provision for children who may suffer disadvantage because their parents who serve move around so frequently, which means they sometimes do not get the same access to educational support, special educational needs and disabilities support and other aspects. When that debate happens—it will probably be later this year or the beginning of next year—I hope that all hon. Members will be able to participate and take something from that debate to amplify the work of their local councils. Probably each and every Member in this place will have something good to share about the work being done in their area.
We owe a substantial debt of gratitude to all those who have served their country. The Government have an enduring duty to recognise their extraordinary contribution and to support them after service. The majority of veterans go on to have successful careers and lives. We are helping them to make the best use of the diverse skills and experience that they have gained—for example, through the career transition partnerships and Op ASCEND—but a minority do not find the transition easy and may need extra support. We are creating a new £50 million network of Valour-recognised support centres across the UK to give veterans easier access to essential care and help.
Just today, we launched the Valour pilot in the north-west region, at the Imperial War Museum North. We have announced £75 million to recognise the historic wrongs experienced by LGBT veterans in the armed forces, which is significantly above the level recommended in the Etherton review. We have also committed additional funding to maintain veterans’ homelessness support programmes, ensuring that those at risk of homelessness have continued access to specialist help.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I appreciate that the Government are working on this issue, but could the Minister update us on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth service personnel?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member will know that the Ministry of Defence recently published a written ministerial statement on how we can improve recruitment from the Commonwealth. It is not just about how we expand the pipeline coming into our armed forces; we also need to recognise and support those who might be at the end of their service to get the support they need. We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretary about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.
The magnificent VE Day commemorations, as well as the equally historic 80th anniversary of VJ Day in August, have been widely acknowledged as perhaps the last major opportunity to thank those who fought in the second world war. But we are also slowly losing the generation who did national service after the war and, with them, the living bridge they provide to our armed forces. We need to reconnect society with our armed forces and widen participation in national resilience. This weekend’s festivities are a great way to kick-start that process, but, as our strategic defence review made clear, we have to be much more proactive as a country about rebuilding those connections, particularly with young people.
Half of the Army’s current crop of regimental sergeant majors were once cadets, so we will boost the cadet forces by 30% by 2030, creating opportunities for 42,000 more young people to be a cadet. We will introduce a voluntary gap year scheme for school and college leavers and develop a new UK strategic reserve by 2030—a fitting objective considering that yesterday was Reserves Day, when we were able to thank the many thousands of reservists who serve this country. They greatly bolster our capability at times of crisis, serving across defence, from the back office to the frontline. They give us the skills, scale and ability to meet the threats we face at home and overseas in a cost-effective way, as the Minister for Veterans and People can attest after serving alongside them on various tours.
I have seen personally the enormous benefits that experience with our armed forces can offer people, particularly young people: purpose, adventure, social mobility, and a unique sense of camaraderie and self-achievement. For many people, it is a route to a much better life. We want to make many more young people aware of the opportunities on offer and the chance to see where service life can take them.
As I noted earlier, we are taking decisive action to address the recruitment crisis that we inherited. The tortuously slow process that caused so much frustration is being transformed. For example, we have eliminated more than 100 outdated medical recruitment policies and we are slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours. Our objective is to reduce the time of flight from application to starting at a training establishment. The new 10-30 policy introduced by the Secretary of State, which means applicants will get a decision on a provisional application within 10 days and a start date within 30 days, is a good step towards improving this process, but we know there is much more to do.
Army recruitment has been completely restructured, and we have acted to keep hold of valued staff who are most at risk of leaving—for example, by introducing retention payments for Army privates, lance corporals and aircraft engineers. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up by 19% and outflow is down by 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruitment target, and Royal Air Force applications are up by a third compared with early 2024. Applications to join the Army are at their highest level for seven years.
John Slinger
As we are discussing the armed services’ recruitment problems, does my hon. Friend agree it is very helpful that this Government were able to deliver an above-inflation pay rise of 4.5% for service personnel, recognising their extraordinary professionalism? In combination with last year’s 6% headline award, that represents a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024, which can only help with the issues he is discussing.
Luke Pollard
It absolutely does. The strategic defence review talks about a whole-of-society approach, and I view that from both an inside and an outside perspective. As a society, we need to value our armed forces more, recognising that we all have a role in building resilience and improving how our nation is defended, but we must also recognise that armed forces personnel need to feel more valued by the whole of society. Ensuring that our people are paid well and live in decent homes is the foundation of that, and I hope that one day this House will not need to debate the quality of our military accommodation, because the quality will be such that, when we ask our people to move around the country—whether into single living accommodation or service family accommodation—it is simply a given that it is decent. That is our objective, but we have a lot of work still to do.
I hope that Members across the House will join our armed forces and our communities this weekend to celebrate the work of our service personnel. As we set about reconnecting the nation to its military, we must remember that service and sacrifice are not values confined to the history books; they are just as important today as they have ever been, and they are just as visible if we tell their stories. Those values are embodied in Britain’s armed forces. There has never been a more important time to thank them for the fantastic work they do, or to promote the benefits of an armed forces career to young people. To all who serve, all who have served and all their families, we give our deep thanks. To those who might serve in the future, we say: come along to an event this weekend and find out what our brilliant armed forces could do for you.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
Members who had to sit through my opening remarks will be pleased to know that I will not be repeating many of them, but I am keen to pick up on a number of points raised in their speeches, which were so ably summarised by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a time when it is easy to take political pot-shots across the Chamber on serious issues, today’s debate has shown that we can come together, cross-party, to support our people, to have a serious debate about the contribution our armed forces make to our national security, and to raise genuine issues of concern with respect and thoughtfulness. Sadly, not as many people will be watching this debate as watch other proceedings in the Chamber, but if did, they would see Parliament working effectively and properly.
Mr Francois
In a bipartisan spirit, perhaps the Minister will allow me to relay a brief apology. I promised the Chair of the Defence Committee that I would explain why he and some of the Committee are not here, when ordinarily they would be. They are on an overseas trip directly related to defence business. It would help keep me honest if the Minister allowed me to place that on the record.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman certainly does not want to offend the Chair of the Defence Committee, so I am glad that he has had the chance to put that on the record.
What I heard in the debate, and what I hope our forces will have heard if they were listening, was not only support for the men and women who serve, and advocacy for the armed forces as a brilliant career choice, but support for improvement to the transition from military life to civilian roles, and support for those who have served in the past; we heard stories of heroism and courage. That makes for a good debate, and I am pleased that a number of Members were able to pick out elements from the strategic defence review. The Government have adopted all 62 recommendations from Lord George Robertson’s report, and we will implement them in full. Further announcements will be made about what we are implementing and how we are taking forward not only the SDR’s recommendations, but its spirit.
As we set a path for increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament, and to 3.5% by 2035, and for spending 1.5% on resilience and homeland defence over in the same period, I hope there will be plenty of opportunity for Members to make the case that increased defence spending can mean spending not just on kit and equipment, but on our people. I expect that to be heard loud and clear across the House, so that when we hear conversations about renewing military accommodation, we know that there is an increased budget to pay for that work, and when we talk about valuing our people, we know there are above-inflation pay rises for them for the first time in a very long time. That is important.
There is one thing that I will expect to see and hear more about in future debates. We heard lots of mentions of our Army, Navy and Air Force and their traditional roles, but in future debates on the armed forces, I expect that we will hear more mentions of those who work in cyber and the digital defence of our nation. The cyber direct entry pathway that we have opened has been a success, and we look forward to announcing the passing out of the first cohort later this year. The ability for us —the armed forces and people who care about defence—to talk about cyber resilience and protecting our digital infrastructure is just as important as protecting against kinetic and more traditional military threats. Indeed, I expect that in future years there will be more discussion of how we keep our space domain safe.
I am glad that a number of hon. Members were able to talk about their role and participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am the Minister responsible for that, and I am proud of the way that the scheme has been expanded in the past year. I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for its support on that. The scheme is a superb opportunity for parliamentarians who have not served, and for those who have, to experience a different perspective on military life. It allows them to understand what we ask of our people; to listen and learn from them, their deployments and their experiences; and to bring that into the House and improve our work here.
I turn to comments made in the debate. I am glad that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), talked about the Forcer protocol. Indeed, I expect all Members of the House to ask their chief constables whether their police force is going with that. I undertake to do the same for Devon and Cornwall police, as will many of the other Devon MPs, I imagine. There is a real merit in the protocol, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House’s attention.
I am proud to be Plymouth’s first ever out MP, and seeing the way that LGBT personnel and veterans are now spoken about in the House fills me with pride. When I was growing up, there were not always the role models or the public debate that enabled folk like me to feel that there was a place in the armed forces for them. The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and others were very powerful. He said that courage knows no gender or sexuality, which is absolutely right. We need to build that sentiment into our armed forces as we seek to change the culture, so that everyone is welcome and there is no place for abuse. As we move to warfighting readiness, we need the contribution of people from every background to our armed forces if we are to keep our nation safe.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for talking about the importance of payments to LGBT veterans. The priority order was established by the Minister for Veterans and People. The initial payments have gone to those over 80 and those who are sadly towards the end of their life, so that we can ensure that those payments are made before they leave this place. We have now established the procedure for paying the larger cohort of people who do not fit into that category, and the Minister for Veterans and People will make further announcements about how we will roll out the payments. We are pleased that the first payments have been made in full to the first cohort.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that Armed Forces Day is a starting point for serious change. I believe that change started on 4 July last year, but I take her comments in the spirit in which she made them. It is not enough to talk about change; we have to take action. Hopefully, she and Members from across the House will see the strategic defence review being implemented, the increase in defence spending, the increased pay for our forces, and the housing improvement, all of which will contribute to improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), who spoke about the armed forces covenant being our collective promise, which is exactly right. As we look to put that fully into law, there will need to be a conversation. If I may be cheeky, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties that questions on our armed forces covenant need not be directed only to the Ministry of Defence. If the covenant is to be effective, we need every Government Department to understand their role in putting the covenant fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People has been undertaking cross-Government work on that, and I imagine that there will be further such work in due course, as we build towards that legislation.
Mr Francois
In the hope that other Government Departments are listening, the Minister might recall that I said in my remarks that at noon today the Northern Ireland veterans petition had just over 145,000 signatures. I looked a few seconds ago, and the figure is now just shy of 148,000. Perhaps people were inspired by the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Will the Minister convey to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that we do not want to throw our Northern Ireland veterans to the wolves—and clearly, from this petition, neither do the public?
Luke Pollard
I will return to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, so he will not have to wait long for my response, but first I will deal with some other points.
I am grateful for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the national Armed Forces Day event, which I am pleased to see back. She has a passion for the event and is serious about her community. She also has pride in and a close connection to the folk she mentioned—it was a very powerful speech. I am certain that the ice cream will be on the Secretary of State, especially now that he knows he is going to the event, so she should expect plenty of dairy coming her way.
I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke about RAF Lossiemouth, the importance of how we base our people and valuing the wider community. I am grateful to him for mentioning HMS Spey; the offshore patrol vessel is doing a superb job in the Indo-Pacific, as is her sister ship HMS Tamar. Their contributions to upholding the international rules-based order and supporting our allies in the region are really important. She is a little ship with a big impact and is really very powerful there, so I am grateful for his comments.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to forget the opportunity to talk about resilience spending. He talked about the spending of other Government Departments and councils effectively enabling homeland defence. That is precisely why the spending pledge agreed at the NATO summit was that by 2035, 1.5% of GDP should be spent on homeland defence and other activities that bolster our resilience as a nation. I think he has a strong case to argue on that. NATO will shortly publish the full criteria, setting out what money will come into that, but I believe that the examples he gave are good ones to use in arguing his case, so I encourage him to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and I did indeed wave off HMS Prince of Wales when she left for her deployment to the Indo-Pacific. That was a good opportunity to meet members of her community in Portsmouth. The carrier and the carrier strike group include people from all parts of our country, who are all sailing together, alongside many of our allies, including our Norwegian friends, who have a frigate sailing on the entire deployment. When we celebrate the contribution of our armed forces, let us remember the contribution of our allies to keeping us safe today and in the past.
I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who spoke about Jack Dark’s 102nd birthday. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who spoke about Norman Ashford, a D-day veteran. It is really important that we value and take extra care of those final few folks from the second world war. We must ensure that we capture their stories and retell them, so that they are not forgotten. I am grateful for the contributions of all of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) correctly raised the issue of the RAF photographic reconnaissance aircraft. I can report that the Minister for Veterans has indeed met those involved in the campaign, as I suspect nearly every single person in the House has. If there were a public affairs award for best lobbying campaign, this campaign would certainly deserve it. I understand that progress is being made, and that the campaign group met Westminster city council to discuss the issue. The cost of what is being suggested would need to be met by public subscription, and I have no doubt that it would be, so I expect positive progress. There is strong support for recognition of the bravery of the people who undertook these roles in the second world war, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am also grateful to him for giving examples of service personnel who, in recollections of wartime stories, do not always get the attention that they deserve, including those from the Sikh community, who he spoke about.
It is good to have three Front-Bench speakers from Devon; that does not always happen in this place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who spoke about the contribution that her family made. On the issue of the time of flight, as it is referred to in the Ministry of Defence, that is the time from signing up to attending a training establishment. We inherited a situation in which that time was over a year for some of our services, and that is not acceptable. In July last year, we were losing 84% of people in the process, not because of medical problems or eligibility issues around nationality or criminal records, but simply because the process took too long. That is not acceptable.
I am strongly against the criticism made that our younger generation do not want to serve our nation, because that is not true. Last year, 165,000 people tried to join the British Army, and we hired 9,500 at the end. We lost the vast majority because the process is too long and slow. That is why we are reducing the time of flight. I am very happy to look into the casework matter that the hon. Lady raised if she writes to me. The “10 and 30” policy that I mentioned in my opening remarks should certainly make a difference when rolled out fully across all three services. I will certainly try to discourage the Minister for Veterans and People from reading the transcript of this debate; being regarded as a legend will no doubt boost his humbleness.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his concluding remarks, and for his story of nearly crash-landing in someone’s picnic. He did not tell the end of that story, but as he is here in one piece, let us assume that it all went well. I am also grateful for the way in which he summarised the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) raised valid questions from 216 Battery about training levels. We have inherited a situation in which training—for both regular and reserve forces—was often the first casualty of trying to manage in-year budget pressures over a number of years. We are very aware of that within the Ministry of Defence. We are conscious that the increase in defence spend could, in part, make a difference to that, but as we have a number of challenges to deal with, we need to look at the best way of delivering increased training—particularly adventurous training, which is what many of our forces want. I would be very happy to have a further conversation with my hon. Friend, so that she can raise with me the particulars of those issues.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), between making his speech and coming back, has changed his tie to look more like mine—I am very grateful for that fashion change. His remarks, particularly about the contribution of the US air force bases in his constituency, were a good reminder of the close friendship we have. I was at the US embassy earlier today as part of a conference organised by the Council on Geostrategy, looking at our transatlantic alliance. Our military-to-military co-operation underscores the value of our relationship with our US friends, and I know that America really does value the bases in the UK that it is able to operate from.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that our armed forces personnel should be paid properly, housed properly, posted sympathetically and granted stability. That is the intent of many of the changes we are making. On the stability point, I am thinking in particular about where we are with British Army deployments, because Air Force and Navy personnel generally have greater stability than their compatriots in the Army. We are aware of that issue and are looking at it, but I am certain that the hon. Member will be sending me lots of parliamentary questions—possibly before I have even sat down.
Let me turn to the very serious issue raised by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who spoke about Northern Ireland veterans. He will know—because we have spoken about it a number of times, and he has also spoken with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans—that we on the Government Benches feel very strongly that we need to support our veterans. We are seeking to navigate through that process at the moment. The debate on the petition mentioned by a number of Members will take place on 14 July. I welcome that debate, which will be an opportunity to make the case for those people who served our nation in support of peace in Northern Ireland.
There is more work to be done in this area. After the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, I read the article in the Daily Mail about the launch of the campaign that he referenced. It is certainly true that the Government seek to repeal the current Northern Ireland legacy Act, but what one has to get to the penultimate paragraph of the article to read is that we intend to replace it as well. The right hon. Gentleman chose his wording carefully about how that replacement needs to work.
The current Act is unlawful—it has been found to be so in a number of courts—and it has not prevented some of the things we are seeing at the moment, so we have to find a way forward in this area. The Northern Ireland Office is looking at it at the moment, and we in the Ministry of Defence continue to have conversations with our NIO colleagues—indeed, I think that was the point that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, was making in his intervention —and we will continue to do so.
Chris McDonald
Coming, as I do, from a constituency in the north-east, let me say that members of our community, of course, served in Northern Ireland for many years, so the issue of Northern Ireland veterans is just as important to those of us on the Government Benches as it is across the whole House. I was in the House on 21 May when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Government came into office committed to remedying the failure of the legacy Act. That gave great assurance to me, and I am sure it gave great assurance to veterans in my constituency. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State’s comments?
Luke Pollard
I entirely agree—there is something that is not right, and it needs to be resolved. I do not doubt the passion that Opposition Members, and indeed those on the Government Benches, feel about this issue. I share that passion. We need to find a solution to this issue that can provide peace of mind as well as the ability to address community concerns. There is a path through, but we need to go carefully to make sure that we are cognisant of all the strong views, but I am certain that will happen. I am also certain that we will continue our conversations outside the Chamber as we work with Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who have the lead in this policy space. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington for raising the issue in this debate.
This has been a good debate for Armed Forces Day. Support comes not just from the Members who can speak in this debate; I am conscious that a number of Members present have been unable to speak, due to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash), who sits behind me as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. She is attending Armed Forces Day events at the Motherwell United Services club on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) was the Whip on the Government Benches earlier, and I am conscious that there are Whips on both sides of the House who might not be able to contribute verbally, but who I am certain will be supporting Armed Forces Day events in their constituencies across the country.
We need to ensure that the warm words and well-crafted speeches we have heard today are put into action all year round. It is not enough to have a day where we celebrate our armed forces; we need to recognise their service each and every day. As the nation sees an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world on their TV screens and on their phones, it is the men and women of our armed forces who are at the pointy end of the defence of our nation, but we can all do something to increase the resilience of our defence.
If everyone in the House updated the operating systems on their computers and phones, Britain would be more cyber-secure than it was beforehand. We all can do something. In this place in particular, Members of Parliament from all parts of the House can continue to make the case for our people, for defence families, for investment, for better pay and for better equipment for our forces. That is this Government’s intent, and from the sentiments I have heard from all parts of the House today, we can see that has cross-party support. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and I wish everyone a successful Armed Forces Day on Saturday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.
Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. You and I being in the same room will probably alert the Whips—they will be keeping an eye on us both very shortly. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for introducing this debate, putting this on the record and being a proud champion of the north-east and of the men and women from the north-east who serve with such distinction in our armed forces. He has done his constituency and his region enormous credit with the way that he introduced the debate. I will turn to some of the points he raised in just a moment.
Let me say how warmed I am by the contributions to this debate from all parts of the House in Armed Forces Week. It is so important at this time that we take a moment to thank the people who serve, celebrate their service and highlight that a career in the armed forces not only provides the opportunity to keep our country and our allies safe, but provides someone with a lifetime of skills that, as we know, are in demand in the private sector and will give them pride in what they do. One of the members of the armed forces that my hon. Friend spoke to said that the armed forces had trained, trusted and invested in him. That is exactly what we seek to do for all the members of our armed forces.
I must declare an interest as the son of a Royal Navy submariner, albeit one based in Devonport in Plymouth rather than in the north-east. I am confident that, wherever we are in our proud United Kingdom, we can all feel a sense of pride in the service of the people in uniform and, importantly, the families that stand behind them. The people of the north-east have a long and proud tradition of doing just that—a tradition captured by the permanent exhibition at Newcastle’s Discovery museum, reflected in the annual military parade in Sunderland, which is traditionally the largest outside of London, and honoured earlier this month by 100 soldiers from the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who departed King’s Cross in their scarlet tunics and bearskin caps to make the symbolic pilgrimage to Berwick-upon-Tweed, where they were formed 375 years ago and where they were received today with great pride.
Service personnel from the north-east have been and continue to be central to the history of our armed forces. They are central to the missions we deliver today to keep our country safe and central to the future of our armed forces. As Britian moves to warfighting readiness through the commitments set out in our strategic defence review, we have placed defence personnel at the heart of our plans.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm speech about the pride of the various regiments in the north-east of England, but there is a big gap at the moment. A number of years ago, the Durham Light Infantry lost their national memorial when the building that was housing it was no longer fit for purpose. That is a sad loss to our region. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the new Reform Durham county council to pick up the plans previously put down by local people to recreate a fitting memorial for the Durham Light Infantry in our area?
Luke Pollard
I commend and thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is so important that we tell our story. We have not just accidentally arrived today—we are here because of the contributions of the generations that came before us. It is right that we acknowledge and remember the sacrifices of the people who served in uniform in countless battles and wars in the past. To have a permanent, fitting memorial where people can see that contribution seems a very good campaign, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman and all Members present to get behind it. I hope that the council he referenced will understand its value.
Since coming into office, we have taken a number of decisive steps to deal with the serious retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Administration. We have sought to make recruitment more efficient. We have eliminated over 100 outdated recruitment policies already. We have slashed the time to access medical records from weeks to hours with a new digital pilot that we hope to roll out across all our services. We have restructured Army recruitment, and are moving towards a tri-service recruitment scheme, which will make recruitment easier, more efficient and, most importantly, faster for the people involved.
We have made a career in our armed forces more attractive by awarding service personnel the biggest pay rise in more than two decades. Importantly—this is a source of great pride not just to the Defence Secretary but to all Defence Ministers and, I imagine, all Labour MPs—for the very first time, every person who serves in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case. It was not, but it is now. That is the difference that this Government are making.
I am pleased that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), spoke about the importance of upgrading military accommodation. It was a national scandal that so many of our people and their families are being asked to live in housing that is, frankly, not fit for purpose. The £7 billion that we will invest in military accommodation, including an extra £1.5 billion to be spent in this Parliament, will make a substantial difference by upgrading military accommodation nationwide.
We are trying harder to keep the valued people who are most at risk of leaving. We have introduced a £30,000 retention payment for about 5,000 eligible aircraft engineers and an £8,000 retention payment for around 12,000 eligible Army privates and lance corporals. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up 19% and outflow is down 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruiting target, Royal Air Force applications are up 34% compared with early 2024, and the British Army has recorded a seven-year high in applications.
We are determined to go faster and further, starting with cadets. I was pleased to hear from hon. Members about how cadets contribute to their communities and provide people with opportunities to understand that a career in the armed forces is good not only for their employment, but for their mental health and their community. The cadet experience raises awareness of exciting careers and opportunities. Former cadets account for around 40% of officers and 35% of other ranks, and on average those who have served in our cadets serve six years longer than their peers. That is good for our armed forces.
The commitment to increase our cadet forces by 30% is an important SDR recommendation. I encourage all Members, whether or not they are in the north-east, to be part of the expansion of our cadet forces and to work with their local cadets, whether they are sea cadets, air cadets or whatever else—a number of varieties are on offer—to encourage people to get involved. Most importantly, let us tell the story for those communities that do not always access the cadets, especially those from some of our poorest and most deprived communities, where participating in the cadets could have a profound and positive effect for their entire lives.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response. I had a conversation with the Minister for Veterans and People some time ago, and he told me personally that extra money would be available for the cadets in the Northern Ireland, specifically to recruit another 1,000 cadets. The cadet forces and others have told me that that money will ensure that the 1,000 other cadets can come in. I welcome that commitment by the Veterans Minister to Northern Ireland—which I think he told me before he announced it.
Luke Pollard
Don’t be saying that we have been out telling people things before we announce them—we will get in big trouble for that, as the hon. Member will know. He is exactly right to talk about the possibilities that come from further investment in cadets and was right to raise those issues with my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People. We are not undertaking Operation Mountain Goat, climbing up Everest; the Minister is certainly powering the expansion of our cadets and activities in reserves.
Mark Ferguson
While the Minister commends the work of cadets, will he join me in commending 361 Gateshead air cadets for the critical role they played in remembrance services by leading the parade through the centre of Gateshead last year? Does he agree that the role of the cadets in remembrance is incredibly important in building a sense of community and a sense of the role that we all must play in remembrance, alongside the cadets?
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the work of 361 Gateshead air cadets. What he has just done speaks to the critique, which I often hear, that young people are not interested in service. Nothing is further from the truth. Our young people are absolutely determined and feel a sense of pride, but as a country we have not provided the vehicle for them to be able to serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) gave the stat that three in four people leaving the recruitment process because it takes too long, but it is worse than that. In the situation we inherited from the previous Administration, 84% of people left the recruitment process because it took too long. The time of flight, which is how we categorise the period between the application form and donning the uniform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor described it, is far too long—in some cases over a year. That is not an acceptable time of flight.
We are determined to cut that, which is why we have introduced the 10/30 policy. That means that we want all applicants across all forces to have an indication of whether they are acceptable within 10 days—have they passed the nationality check or do they have a criminal record that would disbar them?—and to have an approximate start date at a training establishment within 30 days. That is so important because it provides people with the certainty to understand how long they will have to wait.
The targets that we are setting internally in the Ministry of Defence to reduce the time of flight are serious and substantial, because we know that we lose too many good people as the process takes too long. That is why we are working not just to enhance and cut the time taken to access medical records, but to do security vetting and to make sure that people know when they can start. That will make a big difference to our ability to help people to understand whether they can take a part-time job or go travelling, or whether they need to wait a bit longer or have time for additional study before they start. The lack of certainty poisons our recruitment process; we are taking steps to deal with that properly.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke about digital warfighters because it is true that, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), said, we need to have troops to hold ground, but we also need people with cyber and digital skills to deal with the threats we face every single day. Luckily, we are not under missile attack every day, but we are under cyber-attack every single day from hostile states, from those that wish to undermine our security, and from criminal networks that can be state-backed. The new direct entry into cyber that we have begun is a pioneering scheme. We have had a huge number of applications, including from people from the north-east. We will make further announcements about that success as the cohort starts its training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was right when he spoke about many of our people being snapped up by the private sector. That is what happens with austerity and pay pressure, which mean that our armed forces personnel have faced real-terms pay cuts—as many of them have for the last 14 years, under the previous Government—and their wages have not kept pace with their market value. That is why we have introduced two above-inflation pay rises for our people since coming to office.
That is also the reason why we are looking at zigzag careers, so that people serving in a regular role in our armed forces can undertake reserve work and apply for the reserves while they are serving—rather than having to leave and apply, as they do currently—so that they can then undertake work in our private sector, in our defence contractors, after which they will be able to rejoin. At the moment we zig, but we do not zag. We need to improve the system. That is what we are seeking to legislate to deliver. That will mean an increase in people being able to return.
Keeping people within our larger defence family is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) was right to speak about the importance of investment in our defence industries. At the moment, we spend approximately £380 million in the north-east, which is not enough. It is the determination of this Government to make sure that we spend more of the Ministry of Defence’s increased budget with British companies, creating good, well-paid apprenticeships throughout the country and making sure that we can create the products that we can sell to the world, not just to ourselves.
Mr Francois
As the hon. Member is well aware, many of those who served on Operation Banner were recruited from what we would now call red wall constituencies, many of them in the north-east of England. As we have many north-east MPs here this afternoon, will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not proceed with their totally counterproductive remedial order to throw those veterans to the wolves?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member has made his point; I am turning to the points raised by other Members, if he will forgive me.
We currently spend £380 million, but we want to spend more. To do that, we not only need defence companies to invest more in manufacturing facilities; we need many of the companies that already operate in the north-east to realise that they could be defence companies. They might be able to support the provision of gizmos and gadgets for our equipment, or they might be technology companies that could expand into providing new services. That is why the new defence industrial strategy, which we are publishing later this year, will help to direct more attention and more spending towards our industries in Britain, including those in the north-east.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for talking about the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which is going through Parliament. I want it to achieve Royal Assent soon. The ping-pong needs to come to an end. We need to get it passed into law, complete the recruitment of the Armed Forces Commissioner and get on with providing an independent champion for the people who serve. It is vital to restore trust and confidence.
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, for talking about the need to address culture, because the toxic culture within our military is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in our politics and it should not be acceptable in our armed forces. However, I point out to him that the Fusiliers do not wear Labour colours. It is a proud hackle that came from their traditions—it just happens to be red. It is important that at this time we do not seek to politicise any of our armed forces, because they should enjoy cross-party support. He gave me a fair challenge, though, about whether we need to do more work or defend the homeland now. The answer, of course, is both. That is why the SDR sets out 62 recommendations, which we have accepted in full, to do more to defend our country, to develop new technologies to replace the old capabilities, and, perhaps most importantly, to invest in our people.
Finally, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised a number of topics that are of concern to many people. I welcome the debate that will be taking place in this Chamber very shortly. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Office, as he is aware, but my colleague, the Veterans Minister, takes a great deal of interest in this matter as well; I am certain that he will be able to contribute further.
At this very moment, there will be people up and down our country, including in the north-east of England, wondering whether to join our armed forces—wondering whether a career in uniform will support them and their aspirations, and will provide the opportunities for them to start a family and to buy their own house, and contribute to a lifetime of skills. Let the message go out clearly from this debate: whether you join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, there are incredible skills on offer in our armed forces, and incredible opportunities to travel and to keep our country safe.
I am grateful to all Members across the House for contributing to the debate. They have made the case for improvements in recruitment, highlighted the armed forces as a great career to join, and supported Armed Forces Week.
UK Military Base Protection
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.
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.
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?
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?
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(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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]