Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
We are committed to maintaining and enhancing the security and resilience of critical undersea infrastructure. Just as the Defence Secretary called out the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar hovering over our undersea cables, let those who threaten the UK or our allies be in no doubt that we will defend our undersea infrastructure. This is one area that the strategic defence review is looking at in order to enhance our homeland security.
Nick Timothy
In January, I asked the Defence Secretary which single Minister is responsible for the security of offshore infrastructure. We know that Russia and China target interconnectors and undersea cables, we know that Russia places listening devices on our wind turbines to monitor submarines, and we know that China controls the tech in the turbines that the Energy Secretary wants to buy. The Defence Secretary could not answer me in January, and neither did the Prime Minister when I asked him earlier this month. When are we going to find out who is actually in charge?
Luke Pollard
There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister is responsible for the security of this nation, and he delegates different areas to different Departments. That is a completely normal way of dealing with our national security. Let us be absolutely clear: within Defence, we take this seriously and we work with colleagues across Departments to make sure that we are not only securing our infrastructure from a defence perspective, but using our trade routes to make sure that we are protecting and buying the right technology and using our planning system to make sure that, where there is development, it does not impinge on our national security.
Bob Blackman
The Minister will be well aware that 99% of internet traffic is carried on undersea cables. Clearly the Russians and other enemies would seek to disrupt that, so will the Minister look at utilising autonomous minesweepers that could be deployed to protect our undersea cables? In particular, will he commit to looking at introducing them in the Black sea, if there is a truce between Russia and Ukraine, so that those cables are protected as well? That is part of the NATO infrastructure.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is right that subsea fibre-optic cables carry about 99% of our data—many people believe it is satellites, but it is cables. As a country we are investing in new technologies and I expect that, as we get further towards the time when the defence review is published, he will see the ambition we have as a Government to invest more in autonomous systems, not only to support undersea cable protection, but to deal with the threat of Russian submarines and other capability, and other threats to our nations. We will ensure that we invest in our defence capabilities and in supporting those people who serve as well.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
With escalating threats to our critical infrastructure, I was concerned by reports over the weekend that our armed forces chiefs are apparently being gagged over the upcoming strategic defence review, which has been described by some as “limp”. I am fully aware that, recognising the dangers, the Government have announced the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the second world war, but at this critical time we certainly should not be sidelining our service chiefs or penny-pinching on our nation’s defence. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to reassure the nation that our strategic defence review, when published, will be bold, ambitious and anything but limp?
Luke Pollard
Absolutely. We live in incredibly difficult times, which is why this Government are meeting the moment with increased defence spending and the biggest reform of our defence in 50 years. We are investing in new technologies, and investing in the people who keep our country safe. From the most senior generals and admirals down to privates and sailors, we are giving all our armed forces a renewed determination to make sure they understand how we defend our country in its best interests, but also that the nation backs them in defending our country. There are further announcements to come, but let us all be in no doubt but that the whole House backs our armed forces and that we look forward to the further investment in defence that is coming.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the UK’s leadership on this issue. The proposed AQUIND interconnector raises serious concerns about the security of UK undersea infrastructure, particularly given the significant political donations made by its owners to various Conservative politicians. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), will the Minister confirm that protecting domestic security will be a central focus of the SDR?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I recently met a cross-party delegation, including the Labour MPs for Portsmouth—my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—and the Conservative MP for Fareham, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to talk about the AQUIND interconnector. It is part of a planning decision being taken by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, so it is difficult for me to comment on, but let me be absolutely clear that we take defending our underwater infrastructure very seriously, and we will continue to make decisions that support its defence.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a broken recruitment system from the Conservatives. We promised to take steps to fix it and we are: the largest pay increase in 20 years for those who serve; a 35% pay increase for recruits; the scrapping of over 100 outdated medical practices; the creation of a new direct entry cyber-pathway; a conditional offer within 10 days of applying; a training start date within 30 days; and the announcement of a new tri-service recruitment scheme to attract the very best to our armed forces.
Jim Dickson
I thank the Minister for his response. My constituency has a proud military history. Given the need to expand our armed forces, how can we help a new generation of young people in Dartford to access highly skilled and rewarding careers across all the armed forces?
Luke Pollard
Not only is a career in our armed forces good for a young person; it also offers training opportunities, with each of our single services appearing in the top five apprentice employers—the very best in our country. A career in the defence industry is also good for our young people. The ability to move between regular, reserve and industry more frequently and more easily not only secures the national defence of our country and provides more opportunities for our young people, but means that defence can be an even better and bigger engine for growth. Those are the proposals we will be coming forward with in due course.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
In recent years, for every 100 servicemen recruited, 130 have left. That is completely unsustainable. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we retain more troops, with not only the package within our armed forces, but competitive packages in the private sector?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the terrible state of armed forces retention that we inherited. We have seen armed forces morale drop from 60% in 2010 to just 40% last July. We need to invest more in our armed forces, which is why we have introduced the biggest pay rise in 20 years and why we are bringing defence housing back under public control, so that it can be invested in. It is also why we are creating the Armed Forces Commissioner, who will provide an independent champion for service welfare matters for those who serve. We do need to invest more, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I have created an armed forces recruitment and retention board within the MOD to focus efforts on improving service life for all those who serve and their families.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
UK defence networks face a range of state threats from malign actors. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre received 1,957 reports of cyber-attacks, of which 89 were nationally significant, with 12 severe in nature. The Government continue to improve resilience and response options to those threats.
Dr Pinkerton
As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, together with colleagues, I recently visited the 77th Brigade and learned more about the amazing work the men and women of the brigade are doing to tackle Russian disinformation in eastern Europe and elsewhere. The trip came just a few days after the United States President announced his decision to cease American offensive cyber-operations against Russia over disinformation altogether, which has led to growing concerns that willing countries do not have the capacity or ability to tackle that particular threat. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the capabilities that we have in the United Kingdom to tackle that threat, and does he agree that it places greater pressure on the 77th Brigade and other agencies?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The 77th Brigade does a superb job of tackling disinformation, especially by malign actors. We need to expand our provision and range of capabilities, which is precisely why we have created a new direct entry cyber-pathway to recruit people directly into our cyber-forces to support our national resilience in both defensive and offensive operations. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot talk about ongoing operations, but I can say that we are investing more in this area to keep ourselves and our allies safe.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
With GCHQ, the UK’s cyber-operations are genuinely world-leading. What assurance can the Minister give the House that we will continue to support Ukraine with our cyber-security?
Luke Pollard
We have made it very clear that we will continue supporting Ukraine, not only to put it in the best possible position on the battlefield and in any negotiations to come, but to secure its critical national infrastructure. We will continue working with Ukraine’s defence and civilian sectors, which are incredibly impressive in this area, to make sure that it has the technology, training and access to support to keep its country safe.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The UK is fully committed to the joint expeditionary force. I discussed the JEF on my visits to Denmark, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and the Netherlands last month. I meet regularly with the JEF partners’ defence attachés, including last week.
Jamie Stone
I thank the Minister for his answer. Clearly we have a particularly good relationship with the countries that make up the joint expeditionary force. The Minister and I have completed the armed forces parliamentary scheme and were both plunged into the snowdrifts in Norway at Bardufoss. Some of the kit that the Norwegians had was particularly impressive, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Could I press him on what work we can do with the countries in the joint expeditionary force on procurement, design and perhaps development of equipment?
Luke Pollard
Just to clarify for the House, they were different snowdrifts at different times—otherwise there could be stories! The more procurement we can do with our allies, the better—not only in how interoperable the equipment will be but in its interchangeability. With P-8s, F-35s and potentially Type 26 frigates being shared by common nations in the High North, there is a huge opportunity to work together more closely, creating more jobs and more effective deterrents against Russian aggression.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I fully agree with my hon. Friend and, on something as fundamental as body armour, we back our troops. I ordered immediate action to replace ECBA on the frontline, flying new body armour to units worldwide. Rapid testing of plates is under way. Our people should know that their safety matters to the Government, and we will act to keep them safe.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Concerns have been growing over China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. Given the strategic importance of the Taiwan strait to global security, what has been the Department’s response to those rising tensions?
Luke Pollard
We are certainly of the view that any difficulties in the Taiwan strait should be resolved diplomatically, without the use of force or coercion. The United Kingdom will deploy our carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific later this year as a projection of our responsibility to the region and to make it clear that difficulties are best resolved diplomatically.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
On Friday I was pleased to join colleagues from across the House to hear the Royal Marines band service in concert as part of the Mountbatten festival of music. May I invite the Government to reaffirm their commitment to the Royal Marines band service? It makes a huge contribution to defence diplomacy and combat operations.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Drug-resistant infections have been rising in Ukraine and remain a challenge in treating wounded soldiers and getting them back to the frontline. Such infections have also spread outside Ukraine and into Europe. In the context of conflict, what steps are the Minister and the Department taking to ensure that antimicrobial resistance is appropriately considered in the national security strategy?
Luke Pollard
It is important that we meet the threats we face, which are not just from state actors but relate to a range of issues. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her interest in this topic further.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
This afternoon I was contacted by the father of Theodore, who lives in Grayshott in my constituency. Theodore wants to go to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in September, but Capita has not sent the request for his medical record to his local surgery. Will the Minister look in general at how Capita is performing, and will he ensure in particular that Theodore can attend the foundation college in September?
Luke Pollard
I commend Theodore for his interest in attending Harrogate. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will happily to look into it. As he will know, Capita is not continuing the Army recruitment work. It is being replaced by a new tri-service offer that will come online in 2027.
Defence Industries: West Midlands
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is good to see you, Dr Murrison. As a former Defence Minister, you will know these subjects well. I might be a proud Janner—someone from Plymouth—but my great-grandfather, Alfred Carey, worked in the automotive industry making Hillman Minxes in the west midlands, so I feel that the debate has a connection with my past.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about not only why we need to defend our national security and learn lessons from Ukraine, but how we can spend the increased defence budget announced by the Prime Minister to create more British jobs and more opportunities for our young people to develop skills that will last them a lifetime and support the growth mission, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.
As a native of the area, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth knows better than most the importance of defence to the west midlands. Although it is clear that defence makes a considerable contribution to the west midlands in jobs, investment and prosperity, today’s debate also reminds us of the huge contribution that the west midlands makes to UK defence, and the possibility of doing even more. Billions of pounds are injected annually into west midlands defence enterprises by industry and Government, but we know that our military is only as strong as the supply chain that supports it. What we have heard today is not only a clarion call of support for the big defence companies in the west midlands—the Rolls-Royces, the BAE Systems, the Babcocks—but a call for further investment in SMEs, which I will come back to.
As a Government, we are determined to nurture and develop the region’s defence cluster and defence businesses. As part of that, we need to invest more in skills, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth spoke about that. We know the world is becoming more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. The Government also face the challenges of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out. That is why we launched the strategic defence review: to assess the dangers we face and determine the capabilities we need to meet them. It is why we brought forward our promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence to April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament when economic conditions allow. It is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy: to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth alluded to, there is a well-known phrase in military circles that soldiers win battles, but supply chains win wars. She was right to make the case that we need to invest more in our defence industry, because there are companies out there that will not regard themselves as defence companies.
People who work in data, digital or advanced manufacturing, or who support the wider supply chain, are defence companies in waiting. They are the innovative people who could support the next generation of military equipment and military operations. In making the case for investment in defence businesses, the Government need to be aware that if we get defence procurement right, we can expand the number of companies involved. That increases the economic benefits of spending, but also enables us to access skills, ingenuity and innovation, especially among SMEs.
Sarah Edwards
The Minister has mentioned the examples of the automotive sector and cyber-security, and how many people do not realise that they are working in comparable industries. As parliamentarians, how can we work to showcase the different ways that people are contributing to the defence industry, or could be working in it? How can we promote that? What does the Minister think we can do to make sure people realise that this is a wider, shared endeavour and that their skills are very transferable?
Luke Pollard
That is an excellent question. It comes down to how we implement the defence industrial strategy that my colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, is leading within the Department. That needs to tie in with the whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort for our national defence, which is something Parliament will need to speak more of in future. To defend our nation and support our allies, we will need this mission to be held passionately not just by people in uniform and the Ministry of Defence. We will need every Department to understand its contribution to that mission. When we invest in skills, we will have the opportunity to do that.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned the Type 26 builds in Scotland. As the MP for Devonport in Plymouth, where the Type 26s will be based, I know how incredible these frigates will be, how they will deter Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic, and how they will contribute directly to the security of our nation and our allies.
To build those frigates, we will need to invest in skills on a long-term basis. We are looking at how we can have multi-year budgets, to invest more in skills and supply chains, rather than having the annual cycle. Frankly, and as the Defence Secretary has made very clear, defence needs to spend money better than it has in the past. That is why he started a programme of defence reform to make sure we reform not only how we fight and how we are configured, but also how we procure. The recruitment for a new national armaments director is a significant part of driving the defence reform needed to support SMEs as well as primes.
Alex Ballinger
We are talking about procurement. Just this week I met Members of the European Parliament in Brussels to talk about our collective response to Ukraine. One of the challenges that Somers Forge in my Halesowen constituency faces is the struggle with European supply chains and the trade barriers between the UK and Europe. As we go through a new reset with Europe, will the Minister commit to push for greater access for defence industries to the European market?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Somers Forge and those opportunities. It is certainly something that my Cabinet Office colleagues, who are leading that reset work with Europe, are very conscious of. It is also something that the Defence Secretary picked up with High Representative Kallas from the European Commission yesterday. They looked at the opportunities for UK industry, which is already integrated across our European partners, to work without some of the obstacles in the way of delivering the defence capabilities we need to deter Russian aggression. There is an opportunity here.
A number of Members have spoken about the importance of SMEs in their constituencies and the jobs that they provide. Five years ago, the Ministry of Defence spent 5% of its direct spend with SMEs. In July 2024, we inherited a situation where that had fallen to 4%. The Department has now set an ambition to spend more direct spend with SMEs across the country. We are consulting on what the level should be, so that it is achievable but stretching.
We are working with organisations such as Make UK to understand what barriers need to be overcome and removed to support SMEs to access that direct spend—rather than just supporting the brilliant work of our primes as subcontractors—because we know that if they have a direct spending relationship with the MOD, they are more likely to be able to access overseas export markets. It is precisely for that reason that we are adjusting how we deliver defence procurement within the Ministry of Defence. It could not only spend the money better in the UK and create more jobs, it could also increase the size of our economy by receiving export orders from abroad.
In their interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, Members talked about how we can invest more. I am keen to invest more in SMEs, and I am keen that we speak about the opportunity for young people to find a brilliant career in defence. The zig-zag career proposal is absolutely vital. We need to make sure that we do not create cliff edges and that transferring from regular service to the reserves is easier, so that people can serve in our military, move into industry and then return to service without there being cliff edges that get in the way. There are huge opportunities.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth secured this debate and that we have had this conversation about how we can invest in our defence, grow our economy and provide jobs that will benefit our young people for their entire careers.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Military Co-operation with Israel
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 weeks, 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)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate, and for the way in which he opened it with his questions. I will try to respond to them all, but if I miss one out, given the questions from other hon. Members, I am happy to write to him after the debate to ensure I cover all his points.
I am sure we were all united this morning by our collective disappointment at the developments overnight. Let me be very clear: the reported civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s actions are appalling. We do not want to see a return to fighting. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Our priority is encouraging all parties to return urgently to dialogue, and ensuring that the ceasefire agreement is implemented in full and becomes permanent. Peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians lies down the path of a proper and respected ceasefire, of releasing the hostages and restoring humanitarian aid, and, ultimately, of a two-state solution.
We will step up our work with partners across the region to restore aid and secure the release of the hostages through negotiation. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. We are grateful to the Governments of Egypt and Qatar for the important role they are playing in facilitating the hostage release negotiations, and to the King of Jordan for his efforts to increase humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We have all welcomed the release of 38 hostages so far, including Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, and our thoughts are with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. I repeat our calls for the immediate release of all hostages and for a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
I now turn to the subject of the debate: our military co-operation with Israel. The UK shares an important, long-standing and broad strategic partnership with the state of Israel. Our defence partnership with Israel aims to support the security of an important partner and reduce tensions in the wider region. It incorporates a range of defence engagement activity, including defence education, joint training and capability development. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned, the role our RAF played in thwarting Iran’s co-ordinated missile and drone attack on Israel in April 2024, and again in October 2024, demonstrates our commitment to Israel’s security and to de-escalating regional tensions.
As the House has been updated previously, in the aftermath of the shocking attacks on 7 October, the RAF has conducted unarmed surveillance flights over the eastern Mediterranean, including in airspace over Israel and Gaza. I reassure hon. Members, because a number of them raised this point, including the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), that these flights are solely in support of hostage rescue. Only information related to hostage rescue can be passed to the relevant authority for hostage rescue. We will pass information only if we are satisfied that it will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.
As in the past, and as with other nations, any future defence activity with Israel will be subject to a rigorous overseas security and justice assistance assessment to assess compliance with human rights obligations and international humanitarian law. Although we recognise and respect Israel’s right to defend itself following 7 October, and condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas in the strongest possible terms, we have had, and continue to have, concerns about Israel’s conduct. The Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers continue to raise those concerns with their Israeli counterparts. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories three times since taking office, most recently in January, and has pressed for a ceasefire, adherence to international humanitarian law, the return of hostages and a broader resolution.
We are clear that the remaining hostages must be released, and the way to return them safely is through a deal. All parties, including Israel, must observe international humanitarian law. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we urge Israel to lift aid restrictions immediately and restore the supply of humanitarian assistance that the people of Gaza so desperately need.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), mentioned the west bank. We recognise Israel’s right to defend itself and the continuing threat posed by armed groups, but Israel must protect civilians and show restraint to ensure that the scale and conduct of its operations are proportionate to the threat posed. The Foreign Secretary has raised our concerns about Israeli operations in the west bank with the Israeli Foreign Minister. Our position remains that Israel’s actions in the west bank and Gaza must be in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that Israel is breaking international law. Does the Minister therefore acknowledge that its actions and our Government’s refusal to act against them, including by banning all sales of weapons, will be watched carefully by rogue states such as Russia and will be used as a template for the actions that are or are not allowed on the international stage?
Luke Pollard
Our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are at clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law, and we will continue to raise our concerns with Israel.
The hon. Member for Leicester South raised the issue of arms exports. In recent years, UK arms exports have accounted for less than 1% of total defence exports to Israel. As hon. Members are aware, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took office in July 2024, he ordered a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On 2 September, he concluded there was a clear risk that UK exports to Israel for use in military operations in Gaza could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations, at which point my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary took the decision to suspend relevant export licences to Israel.
Luke Pollard
I will make progress because I have only a few moments left.
As hon. Members are aware, the suspension of export licences does not include exports of components for the global F-35 programme. As previously set out to Parliament, it was necessary to exclude exports for the F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension because of the programme’s broader strategic role in NATO and its wider implications for international peace and security. Although the UK Government’s support for Israel remains steadfast in the face of aggression and terrorism, it is clear that we must have a robust export licensing regime. We keep all licences under close and continual review.
Hon. Members have mentioned the overseas territories. For operational security reasons, and as a matter of long-standing policy, the MOD does not confirm, deny or comment on any foreign national military aircraft movement or operation within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.
The events overnight were a major setback. Like all Members who spoke today, we want to see the fighting stop. The ceasefire must be re-established, there must be a return to dialogue, the remaining hostages must be released and a surge of aid must be delivered to the people of Gaza. Although the challenge is much greater today than it was yesterday, we will continue to work alongside our allies and partners towards those goals and a two-state solution that delivers security for Israelis, dignity for Palestinians and a lasting peace in the region.
I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Member for Leicester South after this debate about the points I did not get to because of the shortness of time.
War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for initiating this timely debate, which it is an honour to close, and I am grateful for all the superb contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I am especially grateful for the powerful advocacy of Members who have just returned from Ukraine; they shared their experiences of what is going on there, and told the story of the brutality of the Russian onslaught. I have been in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the air raid sirens sound, which is a sobering experience. It stays with you, and it must. It is a reminder of the daily courage of our Ukrainian friends as they resist Putin’s illegal invasion.
Today we have had the opportunity to reflect on the most unhappy of anniversaries. It is three years this week since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine—three years in which thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of Ukrainian families have seen their homes and communities destroyed, and Ukrainian children have been stolen by Russia. Although Russian troops continue to make small territorial gains, both nations have become deadlocked in a war of attrition. But this is a war that Putin believed he could win in three days. Thanks to the extraordinary resistance and courage of Ukraine, Russia has been humbled on the battlefield. Three days have turned into three years, and today marks 1,099 days.
Mr Francois
The whole House will recall that when Russian tanks were bearing down on Kyiv, President Zelensky was offered a ride out for his own personal safety. He famously replied,
“I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.”
That was Churchillian heroism, wasn’t it?
Luke Pollard
All parties in this House have rightfully praised President Zelensky, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. It is right that we continue to stand with him and his people for as long as it takes; I will come on to that in my remarks.
Putin’s resources have been drastically worn down, with over 860,000 Russian soldiers killed or wounded. The UK Government expect the grim milestone of 1 million Russian casualties to be achieved in the coming months. Nearly 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,400 armoured vehicles have been lost, and the damage and destruction of the once formidable Black sea fleet is testament to what a nation without a navy can now do with the right equipment and approach.
Let us not forget that over these three years, the UK has often been the first to step up to help Ukraine. This year, we will spend £4.5 billion on military assistance—more than ever before. To date, the UK has provided £12.8 billion of support and trained over 51,000 Ukrainian personnel with our allies as part of Operation Interflex, and we have committed to £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
We have continued to strengthen Ukraine in recent weeks. Earlier this month, we announced a new £150 million firepower package, including drones, tanks and air defence systems. On Monday, the Defence Secretary announced that we are doubling our support for Ukraine’s lifesaving defence medical services, with a £20 million uplift in funding for Project Renovator. The UK has been repairing and upgrading a military rehabilitation hospital in Ukraine, and providing training to Ukrainian surgeons, doctors and nurses, and the funding will provide a major boost for this project. It will help Ukrainian soldiers to recover from frontline service, and help those who have suffered life-changing injuries while defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.
We also heard on Monday from the Home Secretary that we are turning the tables on Putin by blocking Russian elites and oligarchs from entering the UK, and the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions since the early days of the conflict, which aim to hit Russia’s revenue and hamper Vladimir Putin’s military machine. Standing alongside our allies, we will do what is necessary to support Ukraine, and keep Europe and Britain safe. The UK is solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January; bolstering co-operation on defence and security, and more; and, importantly, signalling our confidence that in 100 years’ time there will still be a free and sovereign Ukraine.
I turn to some of the important questions that have been raised in today’s debate. On negotiations, while Russia is weakened, it remains a significant military threat, not just to Ukraine, but to the whole of Europe, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine is the frontline of freedom, and our defence and security begin on that frontline in eastern Ukraine. That is why the decisions made in negotiations over the coming weeks and months will define not only the outcome of this conflict, but the shape of European and global security for decades to come.
Everyone wants this war to end, none more than the Ukrainian people, who need a chance to rebuild their shattered nation, so the efforts by President Trump’s administration to find a solution to the crisis are welcome, but the resulting peace cannot be achieved at any price. That would be an insult to Ukraine, the armed forces of which continue to fight with enormous courage and skill, and the population of which continues to ensure unimaginable hardships. When the fighting stops, it must be followed by a strong, stable, durable, lasting peace. That means a deal that safeguards Ukraine’s sovereignty and ends Russian aggression—not a temporary ceasefire before Putin finds an excuse to return to violence, but a lasting and durable peace. An insecure peace risks more war, and a US backstop is the only way to achieve a durable and lasting peace.
The Government’s position is clear: negotiations about Ukraine cannot happen without Ukraine. At the same time, it is right that the UK and Europe play our part in securing the peace. It is our security that is being negotiated, as well as Ukraine’s. We have to work together with the US to achieve a sustained peace and protect the democracy that both the US and Europe hold so dear. That is why the Prime Minister has said that a US security guarantee in Ukraine is critical to stop Putin attacking again. It is welcome that we are now talking about negotiations, but as a Defence Minister, let me remind the House that we must not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.
President Trump has long expressed his wish for Europe to step up and take more responsibility for its own security, and he is right. Indeed, we are responding to that challenge, and we are stepping up. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are bringing forward our Labour manifesto commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence to 2027—back to a level that has not been achieved since 2010, when Labour was last in government. Ahead of his visit to Washington today, the Prime Minister also announced that, subject to our economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% in the next Parliament.
Through our strategic defence review, which will be published in the spring, we are assessing the threats that Britain faces and building the defence capabilities we need to meet them. We are also cutting waste in the Ministry of Defence, and reforming procurement and recruitment, including by addressing some of the outdated medical standards that have been raised in this debate. We are prioritising investment in UK defence industries. As a result, our armed forces will once again become fit to fight a modern war, learning the lessons from Ukraine and adapting to the evolving threats we face, because we know that strengthening defence is the only way to win peace—by deterring conflict, but also by preventing defeat in it, if necessary. We are also stepping up in NATO, and encouraging all our NATO allies to spend at least 2% on defence. With Britain spending 2.5% on defence from 2027, we are also setting a new benchmark for others to follow.
Two weeks ago, I was leading a UK trade delegation in Ukraine with our Dutch and Norwegian colleagues. We talked about more joint ventures, more investment, more tech transfers of knowledge and data sharing in both directions. This week, I visited Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark and the Netherlands to discuss with our close allies how we step up our collective support for Ukraine.
The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up the debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government are delivering for defence with strong measures to protect our underwater critical national infrastructure. We have declassified the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar. We have called out its activities by saying, “We see you. We know what you’re doing,” and we will robustly defend our critical national infrastructure.
Bradley Thomas
The Secretary of State agrees that the threat to critical undersea infrastructure is serious, so will he prioritise development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, including under pillar 2 of AUKUS, and will he increase research and development investment into systems that could protect that critical undersea infrastructure?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question—it is a good one. We are seeing more risks posed to our critical underwater infrastructure by players who wish harm to our national security. We already have brilliant capability in RAF Proteus, which is able to support our infrastructure and that of our allies. When the strategic defence review is published in the spring, I am sure that there will be more developments in that direction.
Harriet Cross
The Secretary of State recently outlined to this House the serious situation with the Yantar—a clear example of the threat posed to our critical undersea infrastructure, and of the work that we need to do to defend ourselves and deter potential attacks. Does that not show that we need to increase our defence spending as quickly as possible to defend our crucial infrastructure and protect national security?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is right. We are increasing our defence spending. In the Budget, we increased defence spending by £3 billion, and in the spring, after the publication of the strategic defence review, we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence.
Damien Egan
Our undersea cables are critical to the economy, public services and social order in this country. Given the hostile activity undertaken—the surveying of our cables—can Ministers give assurances that the full needs of our Navy will be reflected in the strategic defence review, so that we can defend our homeland security?
Luke Pollard
As a Navy brat and representative of a naval constituency, that is foremost in my mind. It is not just the Royal Navy that defends our critical national infrastructure; in the case of the Yantar, that was done by the RAF, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Navy, as well as a joint integrated operation of all our forces working together to defend our interests. Anyone threatening our infrastructure should be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities to defend itself—and we will.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting His Majesty’s naval base Clyde with a number of my colleagues from across the House. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is working with the Scottish Government to address the capacity and retention issues at the base, and that the Scottish Government are engaging positively on the industrial defence strategy?
Luke Pollard
Clyde is an important base for our national security. It is one of our critical military assets, and we work closely on it, not just with the Scottish Government and local councils, but across the entirety of Government. The success of our defence does not rely just on the actions and decisions of the Ministry of Defence; it is a whole-of-Government approach that keeps our nation safe. In these more difficult times, we will ask for more of a whole-of-Government approach, to ensure that the men and women of our fighting forces, and the civilians who support them, have what they need to keep our nation safe.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
The proposed AQUIND interconnector between France and England will slice through my constituency, causing huge disruption, but of more significant concern is the fact that the Ministry of Defence has raised serious national security concerns about the proposed submarine power cable. Does the Minister agree that we cannot do anything to jeopardise our national security, and will he formally lodge an objection with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who will consider the proposal?
Luke Pollard
I am familiar with the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has raised similar concerns. If the right hon. Lady writes to me about that, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.
Mr Speaker
We have stretched that answer out well, haven’t we? Let us go on to Tom Tugendhat.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government are delivering for Defence by addressing the deep retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Conservatives. Last week I announced more detail on a brand-new fast-track cyber entry to boost UK cyber-defence, bolstering our capabilities in response to the growing threats and addressing a global shortage of cyber-talent. I also announced the award of a new contract for a tri-service armed forces recruiting service.
David Taylor
West Herts college in my constituency offers a great selection of courses, including computing courses that offer a pathway to a career in cyber-security. For young people in Hemel Hempstead considering a career in that field to defend our country, can the Minister outline further details of the steps that he took last week to boost recruitment to cyber-security in this country?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the enthusiasm of young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency for a career in cyber. Last week, the new cyber direct entry pathway for our armed forces was opened for the Royal Air Force and the Navy—the Army entry will come online next year. That allows people to join directly to pursue a career in cyber. By changing the entry requirements, it will bring on board the cyber-expertise that we need to keep our country safe. The frontline of the future is not tomorrow; it is today—it is the cyber-frontline. Young people across the nation should look on the Royal Navy and RAF websites at a career in cyber. It is well paid and will keep our country safe.
Peter Swallow
I welcome the news that the MOD has signed the British Dyslexia Association’s dyslexia-friendly workplace pledge. Does the Minister agree that, to address the recruitment crisis, it is vital that the armed forces remain inclusive for recruits from all backgrounds and with all experiences, while rightly continuing to demand high standards?
Luke Pollard
I am pleased to confirm that the Ministry of Defence signed the dyslexia-friendly workplace pledge at the end of last year, making us the first UK Government Department to do so. It is a fantastic step forward that signals that the MOD is a top employer for people with dyslexia. Whatever someone’s ability, there is a role for them within our armed forces, because our armed forces need people with a whole range of abilities, backgrounds and expertise to keep our nation safe.
Sarah Edwards
In my constituency we are proud to host the Defence Medical Services at Whittington. We are looking forward to a fresh date being set for a visit from my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People so that he can see its brilliant work for himself. What steps is the Minister taking to build on the success of such centres of excellence in any new recruitment programmes?
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we seek to invest in Defence Medical Services, especially as we live in more difficult and contested times where we may need to use its expertise and that of the national health service across the UK to support a warfighting effort. I know the Minister for Veterans and People is looking forward to visiting Whittington later this year. I hope that when the strategic defence review comes out, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) will see the path to investment and support that we are offering Defence Medical Services as we look to create a whole-of-society approach to our defence.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Soldiers will be leaving the Army, rather than being recruited, if we continue to allow the persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. Last week’s coroner’s report into the Clonoe and Coalisland shootings was 51 pages of facts and eight pages of naïve speculation, which led right into the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. Without the Northern Ireland legacy legislation, how will the Secretary of State prevent that, because if he fails, what should be a process of peace and reconciliation will turn into a vindictive, vengeful pursuit of men whose only sin was to serve their country with honour, heroism and skill, and in the most terrifying conditions? If we cannot prevent that, all the recruiting efforts will fail.
Luke Pollard
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his passion is also felt on the Government Benches, and the ministerial team want to support all our veterans. The issue that he raises is difficult for me to comment on as it is subject to ongoing legal matters, and he will appreciate that it is hard for a Minister to comment in such circumstances—
Mr Speaker
Order. I reassure the Minister that there are no legal restrictions on this case. It is not the courts; it is only a coroner.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question none the less. The Ministry of Defence is continuing our conversations with the Northern Ireland Office, which is the lead Department for such matters. We will continue to support our veterans, and we will continue conversations with the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner as to how we can support veterans in Northern Ireland in particular.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Following on from the previous question, does the Minister accept that recruitment is bound to be disincentivised by a finding, 30 years on, that people who did their duty and encountered armed IRA terrorists on murderous active service, and protected the public as a consequence, find themselves vilified 30 years later by the coroner’s service? How can that be right, and what steps will the Government take to protect our armed forces not just now but going into the future, including what happened in the past?
Luke Pollard
This is a matter that the Ministry of Defence has discussed today with the Northern Ireland Office—it is a Northern Ireland Office lead, and we will be working closely with it on that. Announcements have already been made in relation to this by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that a career in the armed forces is a brilliant career for anyone looking at it. This Government will continue to support those people who serve, and those who have served, to ensure that they get all the support they need to defend our country in service, and benefit from that service after they have left uniform.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the points made by right hon. and hon. Members, if we are going to have recruitment, we need to have protection. If we are to have protection, we must ensure that the disgraceful scenes—the SAS killed four IRA men who were returning from a bombing and shooting attack on a police station, trying to kill. The SAS were confronted by those killers, murderers, terrorist scum that they are, who were armed to the teeth with a machine gun that could fire 500 rounds in a minute and an AK-47. Is it not right that our soldiers should be protected? They were confronted by the enemy. That enemy was never going to surrender, and they got their just deserts.
Luke Pollard
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches share the same passion that all veterans should get the support they need. We will continue to discuss that aspect with our Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who take the lead on this matter. I encourage him to continue to raise questions, because it is important that we support all our veterans, no matter where they served across the United Kingdom. That is a matter that the Secretary of State and I, as well as the Minister for Veterans and People, will continue to discuss with colleagues across the Government.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
If we want to strengthen our armed forces, we must fix the recruitment delays. One young recruit signer, Jimmy, applied in September 2023 but will not start until January 2025. That is largely due to medical record hold-ups and poor communication. I welcome the aim for applicants to receive a decision within 10 days, and a training start date within 30 days, but how will Serco deliver that in practice? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that recruits get clear, timely responses and are not lost in the system?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady is right that we need to speed up the recruitment process. We inherited a situation where it takes, on average, more than 250 days from the point of application to turning up at a training establishment, often without any understanding of how long that will take. That is why the Secretary of State introduced the 10/30 policy, which means a provisional offer within 10 days of starting, and a provisional start date within 30 days of application. We are doing that to reduce the time of flight, including working cross-Government to improve speed of access to medical records. There will be further announcements in due course. We are making progress on that, but there is a lot more to do to fix the damage to the recruitment process that was run by the last Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Afghan resettlement programme is a cross-Government delivery programme that will bring existing resettlement schemes into one single pipeline. Under such schemes, more than 30,000 eligible Afghans have relocated to the UK. As confirmed in my recent written parliamentary answer to the hon. Gentleman, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of relocation figures by job role, including those who worked directly for British forces.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Having admitted 30,000 Afghans into the country as part of the Afghan resettlement programme, it is concerning to learn that the Ministry of Defence has no idea how many of them actually ever worked for British forces. The Government’s own figures estimate the total number of local Afghans employed by British forces during Op Herrick to be around 7,000, only 2,850 of whom worked as interpreters and translators on the frontline—a fraction of the 30,000. If the MOD does not know why they are eligible to be let into the country, the MOD presumably also does not know who they are or what they have been doing in Afghanistan over the past decade. Can the Minister confirm that the Afghan resettlement programme has not been exploited by criminal, terrorist or hostile state influence?
Luke Pollard
Can I thank the hon. Gentleman not just for that question, but for his ongoing interest in this area? We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan. This programme was started by the last Government, and this Government are proud to continue it. Everyone who is brought to safety in the UK from the Taliban under the Afghan schemes has been vetted in relation to that. There are a variety of roles that cover support to our armed forces in relation to our UK mission in Afghanistan, but I can reassure him that I pay close attention to this area. If he would like to meet to discuss this further, to deepen his interest and to help him in his inquiries, I am happy to do so.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis, which must be addressed across all different cohorts. Increasing female representation benefits our warfighting and readiness, but we are still some way from where the hon. Lady and I would like us to be on the issue. The latest figures from October 2024 show 11.9% female representation in the regular forces and 15.9% in the reserves.
Sarah Dyke
A balanced workforce in the armed forces is good for British defence, but women still face a raft of challenges, making it harder to attract and retain female talent. What steps is the Minister taking to accelerate progress towards the women in defence charter ambition of 30%, and to make the armed forces a better workplace for women?
Luke Pollard
This is an important topic, and it really matters. Implementing the recommendations of the Atherton review and raising standards, as the Minister for Veterans and People has spoken about, will benefit everyone in the armed forces, but women in particular. We need to improve culture and behaviour, and focus on women’s health and wellbeing. New policies are being brought forward to address that. We are also standing up more work on calling out crimes and behaviour that is unacceptable in our armed forces. Everyone should have a place in our armed forces, because defending our country requires a whole-of-society approach. We must not neglect any part of society.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Eskdalemuir seismic array in my constituency monitors compliance with the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. At the moment, there is a restriction on wind farm development in the vicinity of the array, but wind farm developers are lobbying hard to have those restrictions relaxed. Can Ministers give a guarantee that they will not be relaxed if there is any suggestion that that would interfere with the array’s effectiveness?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I was dealing with this issue before I came to the House earlier today. Supporting our national security is the No. 1 priority of the Government. We need to keep our nation safe. There is a variety of means by which we do so, and the array is an important contributor. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the details of the issue he raises.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister pointed out earlier, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service has taken a prominent role in protecting our subsea infrastructure. I welcome the settlement of the RFA pay dispute. Will that help the Minister to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis that saw numbers of RFA seafarers fall by 30% under the previous Government?
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we value the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and we have done so by settling the pay dispute and making it very clear that there is a bright future for seafarers in the RFA. Its work with RFA Proteus in relation to the Yantar has been exceptional, but each and every day those seafarers are supporting our Royal Navy on global operations. They have the support of our ministerial team, and I am sure that they have the support of Members on both sides of the House.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
With the Russians using drones to drop CS gas into the trenches of the Donbas, and Avon Protection in my constituency ready to manufacture the residue of the 300,000 gas masks that Ukraine requested, will the Government put in an order as soon as possible, please?
Armed Forces Recruitment
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
As the world changes, and the threat the UK faces evolves, we must ensure our armed forces recruitment is right for the 21st century.
Recognising this, we are today announcing two new initiatives to remove outdated and unnecessary barriers and fast-track bright candidates into UK defence.
The first is a brand new fast-track entry into military cyber careers to boost UK cyber defence.
Cyber represents a new frontline, with our military systems targeted every day by adversaries. UK networks are facing growing numbers of “sub-threshold” attacks—more than 90,000 in the last two years.
Fast-tracking cyber warriors into our military will help bolster our capabilities in response to these growing threats and address a global shortage of cyber talent.
The new, bespoke entry route we are opening today will see basic training reduced from 10 weeks to around one month, after which recruits will undergo three months of specialist training. This will be conducted at the Defence Cyber Academy in Shrivenham.
By the end of 2025, new recruits will be embedded into operational roles, either securing Defence’s networks and services at the digital headquarters in Corsham or conducting cyber operations to counter those who would do the UK harm as part of the National Cyber Force.
The scheme is open to any aspiring cyber professionals and those with existing digital skills and will play a crucial role in maintaining a competitive edge in our national cyber defence capabilities.
Secondly, we are announcing the award of the contract for the new tri-service armed forces recruiting service (AFRS). Joining the armed forces will become quicker and easier under a new first-of-its kind recruitment service that cuts red tape and transforms the way people sign up to serve.
The first ever tri-service recruitment service will provide a streamlined, single-entry point for prospective recruits, with the aim of attracting the best talent from across the country into the armed forces to strengthen national security. The service will launch in 2027, replacing the individual schemes run by the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force.
Existing processes have struggled to meet the evolving needs of modern recruitment, with inefficiencies and delays leading to fewer than 1 in 10 applicants joining in 2023.
Under the innovative new recruitment service, candidates will complete one application and one medical evaluation via a single, digital system—offering a more straightforward process that seeks to retain applicant interest.
Our ambition is for those who apply to serve our country to receive a conditional answer within 10 days and a training start date within 30 days.
The new contract will ensure better value for taxpayer money and better outcomes for our armed forces. The Ministry of Defence will mimic the Cabinet Office’s standard model services contract, allowing for decisive action on supplier-caused performance issues through profit-based performance goals and contract break-clauses.
Developed in partnership with Serco, the new programme will ultimately help to ensure that the UK military remains ready to face emerging threats while enhancing the support for those who serve.
AFRS will also see service personnel playing an active role in the recruitment process, leveraging their unique skills and experience to engage the next generation of military professionals.
This Government are deeply proud of those who serve our country and we are determined to fix the crisis in recruitment and retention we inherited.
These are just the latest actions this Government are taking to put people at the heart of defence. Since July we have delivered the largest pay rise for service personnel in over 20 years—including a 35% pay increase for new recruits—scrapped more than 100 outdated policies that slow down or block recruitment, and are progressing through Parliament legislation to establish an Armed Forces Commissioner to champion service personnel and their families.
By making it quicker and easier for people to sign up to serve, while maintaining the very highest standards, we will strengthen our armed forces and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad.
[HCWS422]
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of Government fiscal policy on defence.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government’s plan for change says that we will
“set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring”.
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. It gives me the opportunity to reiterate what the Prime Minister has said, what the Defence Secretary told the House on Wednesday last week, and what the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry repeated in the House on Friday, which is that this Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and that we are already delivering for defence by increasing defence spending. At our first Budget, we announced an extra £3 billion on spending on defence in the next financial year.
James Cartlidge
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the specifics, I hope you will indulge me and allow me to say on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we join all colleagues today in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. May we never forget or be complacent about the lessons.
Last Wednesday, the Defence Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and laid bare the extent of the Russian grey zone threat. This is not a distant threat, but one that has been lurking in our own waters, threatening the United Kingdom and our critical infrastructure. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and responded by confirming that he had our full support in standing up to the Russians. I said that this showed why we urgently needed to increase defence spending. But there is one big problem. The rest of us were listening, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not. Despite all the evidence before our eyes of the growing threat, we learned this weekend from multiple sources that spending 2.5% will be delayed beyond 2030. Can the Minister disown such talk, and specifically confirm that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament?
The Treasury is not just failing to back more defence spending; it is hitting our armed forces with higher taxes on death in service benefits and education. The Secretary of State confirmed on Friday that the application of inheritance tax to death in service benefits for the armed forces would go ahead. We understand that to be causing deep alarm throughout the forces community.
As for the education tax, we knew that the continuity of education allowance would not be uprated to 100% of the VAT impact, leaving many service personnel thousands of pounds out of pocket, so since the summer I have called for a full exemption for children of armed forces families. However, in a written answer to me in November on the continuity of education allowance and schools VAT, the Minister for Veterans and People said that
“the new VAT policy does not offer any exemptions”.
Yet on Friday we learned that children of US armed forces families serving in this country and attending British independent schools are exempt from VAT on their UK school fees. I do not begrudge them that—US forces are based in our country to defend us—but we want the same treatment for our people.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will bang on the door of No. 11 to demand, first, that the tax on death in service benefits be dropped and, secondly, that British forces families be treated the same as their American colleagues and granted a full exemption from education VAT? Is it not time that Labour backed our armed forces with action, rather than just words?
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s words about Holocaust Memorial Day. His Majesty the King has been in Auschwitz for the 80th anniversary, and he spoke for the nation when he said that we will remember this evil long after the survivors of the Holocaust have passed.
I have set out clearly that, in the spring, we will lay out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We will also publish a strategic defence review, setting out what we will spend the money on and how we will respond to emerging threats. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Defence Secretary’s statement last week, we will make it absolutely clear to those who threaten us that we will use the formidable capabilities available to us to defend the UK and our allies.
We inherited a situation in which, during their entire time in power, not a single Conservative Government spent 2.5% of GDP on defence. The last time that 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government. We have inherited falling morale; a retention and recruitment crisis; service personnel living in mouldy, broken homes; and a hollowed-out and underfunded military. That is what the SDR will seek to fix, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us his full support.
Having listened to last week’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that those who die on active service are exempt from the inheritance tax provisions. He will also know that the Defence Secretary has uplifted CEA support to 90% for those who privately educate their children while serving in the military. We will continue to support our armed forces, renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. We will publish the defence review in the spring, when we will also set out our path to spending 2.5%.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We live in an increasingly volatile world, so I thank the Minister for his clarification on defence spending. Surely the cost of fighting a war, notwithstanding the human cost, is significantly higher than that of having a credible deterrent force. The Prime Minister recently told me at the Liaison Committee that the strategic defence review has to be completed before the path to 2.5% can be plotted, so why have there been discussions about the timeline for that path before the SDR has been published?
Luke Pollard
We have said that we will publish the strategic defence review in the spring, and we will also set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I do not recognise the publication timeline suggested by my hon. Friend, but he is right that deterring a war is cheaper than fighting one. That is why we are continuing to support our allies in Ukraine, and making sure that we have a NATO-first defence policy—to deter aggression facing the United Kingdom and our allies, and, if necessary, to defeat it with formidable capabilities.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been shrouded in delay and uncertainty. At a time when Europe faces its gravest security crisis in decades, this is unacceptable. Promises without a clear path are hollow, and the Government should commit to setting out by Easter a detailed and credible plan for reaching 2.5%.
We must also make the right spending decisions, and the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to the Army? He mentioned retention, which is another critical issue. Improving the living conditions of our armed forces must be a priority if we are to attract and keep the talent we need.
Finally, the ongoing problems of inefficient defence procurement undermine our readiness, so what is the Minister doing to tackle those long-standing problems? The Government must stop dragging their heels, set out the pathway to 2.5% and end the uncertainty.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we have been very clear and consistent that we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I remind her that when her party was in government, instead of increasing defence spending by £3 billion, as Labour did, the Liberal Democrats’ and the Conservatives’ first Budget cut defence spending by £2 billion, and cut it by 20% across the Parliament in which her party was in power. I support the hon. Lady in wanting a better deal for our forces, but I remind her to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally.
Mr Speaker
Order. While we are talking about mirrors, can the hon. Gentleman look at me occasionally, so he is not just staring one way?
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is interesting that Members on the Opposition Front Bench seem to have forgotten that when they left office, they left us with the smallest Army since Napoleonic times, a lack of ships and aeroplanes, some of the poorest equipment and many problems with procurement. It is important that we keep to the timetable on the SDR, but given the rumours we are hearing and the stories in the press, will the Minister provide an assurance that he will keep this House fully informed on progress on the SDR, not provide that information through the press?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our armed forces were hollowed out and underfunded over the past 14 years of Conservative Government, but the Defence Secretary will come to the House to report the strategic defence review and announcements will be made by Government about the path to 2.5% of GDP. I understand the enthusiasm, especially that of Conservative Members, to listen to anonymous briefings, but we have been clear that this Government will treat the House with respect. We will be in the House to make announcements on the SDR and on the path to 2.5% of GDP to be spent on defence.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have a simple question: would it be compatible with the military covenant to make compensation payments to former members of the IRA?
Luke Pollard
That is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence and it is not within my portfolio, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will ensure Northern Ireland Office officials respond to him. However, I do not think there will be strong support for such action from much of the House.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
On our journey to increasing defence spending, it is crucial that we keep the public on side, especially given our dire financial inheritance from the Conservative party and the hollowed-out state of our armed forces, as Conservative Members have acknowledged. That is why I welcome the Government’s break from tradition in informing this House and the British people about their steps to deploy a nuclear submarine to respond to Yantar, the Russian spy boat, along with the Plymouth-based RFA Proteus. What steps will the Government take in the future, over the coming weeks and months, to keep the British public informed, so that they stay on side as we increase defence spending to respond to the threat from Russia?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. He is right that last week we declassified information about the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar, including revealing details of the surfacing of a Royal Navy submarine to deter the Yantar’s activities loitering above our critical national infrastructure. It is absolutely right that this Government make the case that warfare has changed, especially when it comes to the protection of our critical underwater infrastructure. Making the case that we have formidable abilities, but also being clear in the SDR about how we will invest in those capabilities alongside our allies, is essential. The SDR will be published in the spring, when I am sure he will be able to see more about that.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am going to surprise the Minister and say that I think he is right that the armed forces were not big enough when we left Government, and that every Chancellor since the end of the cold war slashed spending because it was the easy thing to do. Once the Ukraine war started, because of Russia’s illegal invasion, we put tens of billions of pounds into the response, so my question to the Minister is simple: if the strategic defence review suggests that we have to spend more money, are we going to spend that money or will it be directed to ensure that the amount does not rise above 2.5%?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the forces were hollowed out and underfunded, which we are seeking to address by increasing defence spending. We have provided £3 billion in the Budget and the path to moving from 2.3% to 2.5% will be laid out in the spring. The SDR will set out what capabilities we need to have to meet the threat environment, against that pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The last Conservative Government did not spend 2.5 % of GDP on defence at any point during their 14 years of power. Unfortunately, the increase that will come will have to address a lot of the damage that that Government did to our Army, our Navy and our Air Force. Does the Minister agree that it takes a Labour Government to deliver those spending commitments?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under a Labour Government. The Tories cut defence spending as a percentage of GDP over their time in power. It is important that the strategic defence review wins cross-party support when published. I hope that the shadow Defence Secretary will be able to offer the Government a common position, so that what is published will be not just Labour’s defence strategy but Britain’s defence strategy, and we can be strong at home as well as secure abroad.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If Labour colleagues are going to insist on reiterating that the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence it was by a Labour Government, I suppose I have to point out that the last time 3% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government, and the last time 4% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government. Both those figures were some time after the fall of the Berlin wall. When the Berlin wall was still up, under the present accounting system we were spending up to 5.5% on defence, so please can everyone stop obsessing about 2.5% and when it will come in, because we need a lot more?
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. He did not plug his “Shifting the goalposts?” Defence Committee report, which clearly set out changes in GDP spend on defence. I believe that he used the report to argue for more defence spending when his party was in power. Now that we are in power, we are doing it: we increased defence spending by £3 billion in the Budget and will lay out a path to 2.5% in the spring.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day. Does the Minister agree that this solemn day is a reminder of what we are fighting to defend, and the need to always protect our values and freedoms?
Luke Pollard
Today is a day when we remember not just all those who were killed in the Holocaust, but those killed in genocides since. It is a day when there is unity and cross-party support for tackling hate, in whatever form and wherever it comes from. It underlines why we must stand with our friends in these difficult times, why we need strong defence, and why we need to root out hate wherever it rears its ugly head.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me reiterate what the Minister is not quite saying: we are looking forward to a defence review that will set out what we need. It will not then be circumscribed as a percentage of GDP by some artificial ceiling; the Government will spend whatever is necessary arising from the defence review, and his Department will send a defence review to the Treasury untrammelled by any spending constraint. We need to address the desperate threat situation that the country is in.
Luke Pollard
Lord Robertson is conducting the externally led strategic defence review based on the terms of reference that were agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson will publish it in the spring. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to it as much as I am.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Under the last Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to get to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system that we inherited in defence?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that we inherited a broken defence procurement system; I think broken was the word that the shadow defence procurement Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), used when he was on the Defence Committee. It must make for awkward team meetings, given that the man responsible for the broken procurement system, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is sitting in those meetings as his boss. We have set out clearly that, as part of our defence reform work, we will create a new national armaments director. The new defence industrial strategy will be published in due course, which will set out how we will spend more with British companies, supporting not just the primes but small and medium-sized enterprises in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Let me try to help the Minister understand where the Opposition’s concern is coming from: it is because of the realisation, or suspicion, that the arbiter of when and how 2.5% is realised is not the Secretary of State for Defence but the Chancellor. This is a Chancellor who scarcely understands the fundamentals of economics, much less the fundamentals of defence and the threat environment that these islands face. What will the path to 2.5% look like? Is there a date, or is it when certain criteria are met? Also, the Minister be clear on who the final arbiter will be? Is the Treasury saying, “2.5% when you need it,” or “2.5% when we decide it”?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman invites me to make the announcement that I am saying will come in the spring. To answer his concerns, I point him to the fact that the path to 2.5% will be set out in the spring.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
During my recent visit to Britannia Royal Naval College with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I saw the vital role that investment in defence plays in supporting our armed forces and creating skilled jobs. Does the Minister agree that unlike the Conservatives’ inconsistent defence strategy, this Labour Government’s £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce shows a clear commitment to strengthening our national security and growing our economy?
Luke Pollard
The armed forces parliamentary scheme is a brilliant scheme that introduces Members across this House to the important work done by our armed forces. As a Navy brat myself and the proud MP for Devonport in Plymouth, I know the importance of a strong Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The £9 billion announcement last week is an important part of securing our nuclear future, backing jobs across the country and supporting jobs across the entire supply chain—it makes Britain stronger.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The armed forces covenant is a promise—a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect. How is the imposition of inheritance tax on death in service payments of some families of deceased soldiers fair and consistent with that?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that we have a manifesto commitment to put the armed forces covenant fully into law. That will come forward in the armed forces Bill in due course. We set out from the Dispatch Box last week that the inheritance tax does not apply to those members of our armed forces who die on active service. The other areas are subject to a Treasury consultation, and the Treasury will make an announcement in due course.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Is it not the reality of the past 14 years that we have fewer soldiers and fewer Navy and Air Force personnel and that, in an uncertain world, we need to reverse that trend and grow our military forces to deal with those threats?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that this Government inherited an armed forces that, as world-class as they are, were struggling with falling morale, poor housing and capability gaps thanks to 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out. The strategic defence review will set out what capabilities we need to meet the threats, and the path to 2.5% will set out what will be spent on those capabilities. We also need to improve how we spend because the defence procurement system is broken— something that was well highlighted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) when they were in government. That will be fixed, and we will ensure that we have a strong set of armed forces able to deter aggression and defeat it if necessary.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister says the strategic defence review will be announced in the spring, but is that the astronomical spring, which he will note ends on 21 June, or the meteorological spring, which ends, from memory, on 31 May? He talks about a “pathway to 2.5%”. That is a carefully crafted phrase from the Dispatch Box. Is the pathway short or long? Can he not give an answer to a straight question: when will we hear about 2.5%? When will it be announced? What is the date and the year?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review will be published in spring this year, and the path to 2.5% will also be announced in spring this year.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for setting out the need for increased defence spending because, like so many here, I believe we are living through a change of era where the assumptions of globalisation and multilateralism are being refuted by reality, and it demands the renewal of our modern productive power in defence and the civil economy. The simple reality is to that build strong alliances, we must maintain and build our autonomy. Is it not the case that the one key fact about all this is that to maintain a good relationship with the United States, we will have to spend more on defence?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to spend more on defence. I think everyone in this House agrees with that, and that is why this Labour Government are spending more on defence: an extra £2.9 billion as announced in the Budget and a pathway to spending 2.5% of our GDP, which will be announced later in the spring.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It was the Minister’s assessment of costs that drove the decision to decommission Bulwark and Albion. But if the Brazilians are going to buy them, they cannot have been that bad, can they?
Luke Pollard
Let me say very clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that we inherited a position where it was not planned that Albion and Bulwark would go to sea for a single day before they were decommissioned—that was the plan we inherited from the Conservative Government. We are looking at new capabilities as part of the strategic defence review, and the Defence Secretary has also committed from this Dispatch Box to the multi-role supply ship project, to provide littoral and landing capabilities for our brilliant Royal Marines, who have a bright future in the strategic defence review.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I think both sides of the House can agree that our peace and security are founded on strong armed forces. Will the Minister therefore welcome the fact that we are spending £3 billion more on defence this year, as well as our firm commitment to get to 2.5% of GDP?
Luke Pollard
I agree that it is important that we spend more on defence. That is why the Chancellor laid out from this Dispatch Box that we will spend an additional £2.9 billion on defence in the next financial year. It is also why the Government have laid out our plan to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. This is about not just kit and equipment but people. Addressing falling morale and poor-quality defence housing matter to our armed forces, and that is why this Labour Government are addressing those issues.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
A trained and skilled workforce is central to a successful defence policy, and I saw that at first hand during my visit to RAF Valley, where I met Babcock apprentices who attend Grŵp Llandrillo Menai. The Babcock programme supports young people to develop skills, so can I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that any increase in defence spending includes significant investment in training and apprenticeships?
Luke Pollard
As someone who has a large Babcock premises in his own constituency in Devonport, I understand the importance of making sure that there is investment in skills. It is absolutely right that, just as we invest in the skills of our armed forces personnel, we also invest in the skills of the civilians who support them. That needs to happen not just in the primes but across the entire supply chain, and that is what is being set out in the defence review and the defence industrial strategy, which will be published in due course.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
I am a strong supporter of making sure that we reach 2.5% of GDP on defence. However, may I remind Conservative Members that one of the first things this Government did was to scrap a £40 million contract with a helicopter company that transported Conservative Ministers around the country? Does the Minister agree that that will help to ensure that our defence spending goes on defending the nation, not on assuaging the egos of Conservative Members?
Luke Pollard
The shadow Defence Secretary was certainly a regular user of the helicopters, so he will be able to advise colleagues whether they were good value. It is true that the Government need to demonstrate our support for our armed forces. We are doing that by making sure that we invest more in defence, and we have also given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years. Recruits’ pay is up 34% under this Labour Government, and we are creating a new direct entry to cyber to make sure that we can get the people we need in the future. It is not just the kit and capability but the people that this Government are investing in, and we will continue to do so. I expect to see more of that in the defence review published in the spring.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I would like to see slightly more humility from all political parties on the subject of defence spending. [Interruption.] Thank you. The Minister is right that defence spending was cut under the coalition, but we are in a different world now, with a great power attacking Europe. I would also like to inform him that one of my best friends, Captain David Hicks MC, was killed in Afghanistan in 2007, in part because of the atrocious level of military kit provided to our armed forces there. So I think all political parties need to reflect on their records.
Luke Pollard
I think that the whole House will want to pass on its condolences to the hon. Gentleman and the family of Captain Hicks. It is right that one of the Government’s objectives is to have a strategic defence review that is also the nation’s defence review—one that is not just Labour’s defence policy, but that can be supported cross-party. For that reason, I have laid out clearly the path and the timetable for our publication of the SDR and the 2.5% pathway in the spring. When that happens, I hope we can have a debate about how those capabilities match the threats and how we can support the SDR as a cross-party-backed defence review that gives our troops and our industry the direction and support they need to keep our nation safe.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On the Floor of the House today, the Minister has stated that he wishes to have more money for the armed forces, and he has been very critical of previous procurement exercises by the former Government. Can I therefore ask him whether he agrees that giving away the Chagos islands, and paying to do so, is a bad deal, and that that money would be better spent on investing in our armed forces?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman might have missed the debate in which it was set out clearly that the deal we have secured to ensure the long-term future of the Chagos islands began under his Conservative Government—11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservative party, I think it was. The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is strategically important, which is why it is absolutely vital to secure its long-term future free from any constitutional threat. That is what the deal does, and I hope that when it comes before the House the hon. Gentleman will be able to back it, just as I will.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Which comes first, the strategic and operational needs of our armed forces or fiscal parameters set by Treasury bureaucrats?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review will set out clearly what threats the nation is facing and what capabilities we need. I would expect to see renewal of our capabilities, because we have seen from the war in Ukraine that warfare has changed. Some of the assumptions about how we structure our armed forces and how we fight have been challenged by the experience of warfare in Ukraine, and that is one of the reasons why this SDR is so important. It will set out the evolving capabilities that we need and how we will deliver them to keep our nation safe.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Given that the vast majority of the Ministry of Defence supply chain is in the private sector—for example, BAE Systems in Fylde at Warton and at Samlesbury, with jobs across Lancashire—and that those private companies have seen significant increases in costs following the Chancellor’s Budget squeezing their payroll costs, as well as increasing regulation through the employment Bill and in other areas, we will be able to buy considerably less kit for 2.5% at the end of the defence review than at the start of it. As the Government go through the defence review process, are they cutting the shopping list or planning to go above 2.5%?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I support the work of the private sector businesses that do so much to support our armed forces. The needs of our armed forces will change and are changing; that means changed capability, but it also means a change in how we buy our kit. Certainly, if we look at some of the absolute procurement disasters under the last Government—only two of 49 defence procurement projects are on time and on budget—we see that we need not only to buy the right kit, but to buy it better. That is something that the last Government clearly failed to do; the shadow defence procurement Minister himself, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, described the defence procurement system as “broken”. We need to take steps forward, and the SDR and the defence industrial strategy will set out how we will improve defence procurement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am the new Member for many places.
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I ask him very respectfully whether he agrees that the story in the press this week about the proposed sale of Navy ships to Brazil, when our fleet already appears depleted, is worrying? There is a need to increase our defence spending, not simply to fulfil international obligations but to be in a position to defend ourselves in the frontier of the cyber-security world, and in the physical world as well. Will the Minister reassure this House that the decisions that are made have been future-proofed with our security in mind—the security of all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and prioritised as such?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely the reason why the Prime Minister commissioned the strategic defence review within two weeks of coming to office, to assess the changing context that we are facing but also the changing capabilities that we need, as a nation, to keep us safe. That includes retiring old capabilities, especially capabilities that were never planned to go to sea again—a decision made under the last Government. We have already increased defence spending in the Budget—it is up by £2.9 billion—and we will set out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsTuesday 21st January 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks 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: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 January 2025 - large print - (21 Jan 2025)
Mr Francois
I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow.
In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and all who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is a landmark step towards fulfilling this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve by strengthening support for our armed forces, and their families, who stand behind them. Our forces face a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale that this Government inherited after 14 years of a Conservative Government; only four in 10 of our service personnel report being satisfied with service life. We need this Bill to establish a champion who can shine a light on the general service welfare matters most affecting our people, so that we in this House can understand those issues and hold this Government and future Governments to account.
I will turn to each of the amendments proposed. New clause 1 in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to bring those going through the recruitment process into the commissioner’s remit. We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis. That is why the Secretary of State laid out a number of policies to improve our recruitment policy early doors. One of them is the 10-30 policy, so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey): the policy that a provisional offer will be made within 10 days of an application to the armed forces, and a provisional start date will be given within 30 days. That is a substantial step forward for those joining our armed forces. Some 84% of those who seek to join the armed forces drop out of the process because it takes too long. That is an utter scandal that this Government are determined to address. That is why the 10-30 policy was put in place, and why the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People and I have focused on improving our retention and recruitment policies. It is also why I have to resist the hon. Lady’s amendments—because the focus of this Bill is on those who serve and their families. They have been neglected for far too long. That is why this Bill is relentlessly and unapologetically focused on providing an independent champion for them.
I understand why the hon. Lady seeks to include recruits in the scope of the Bill. That would mean 150,000 candidates every single year being added to the workforce on which the commissioner is focused. Our job as a Government is to make it easier to convert more of those applicants into military personnel, and the new lateral entry into cyber work announced by the Defence Secretary is a good example of that, but the commissioner’s focus should remain on those who serve and their families.
New clause 2, on veterans, tabled by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is about ensuring decent engagement with veterans commissioners across the country, and with the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The manifesto commitment on which the Bill delivers is clear: it is a commitment to addressing the gap in support for military personnel. The commissioner is to highlight the issues affecting personnel today, not matters from the past.
I understand why the hon. Member tabled the new clause, and with the Government’s new role of Minister for Veterans and People, we have made clear our intention of improving the support that we offer veterans, but the commissioner’s role is to support service personnel and their families. It is also the role of the commissioner to decide independently which general service welfare matters they should investigate. That freedom and independence are vital to the role, so it is important to keep the commissioner’s freedom to decide whom to engage with. However, I reassure the hon. Member that I would expect that once the commissioner was established, their terms of reference would be established for engagement with a variety of organisations from the charitable and military charity sectors, including bodies that represent veterans, and veterans commissioners across the UK. I therefore think that the effect of what he seeks will be provided in our implementation of the Bill, so the new clause is unnecessary.
Amendment 7, on the covenant, is also well intentioned. It is important to realise that this is not a stand-alone Bill; it amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, part 16A of which deals with the covenant. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has sought to make the covenant apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but I reassure her that as this Bill will insert provisions relating to the Armed Forces Commissioner into the Armed Forces Act, they will already grip in that way. I further reassure her that later this Parliament, the Government will bring forward proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on our manifesto commitment of putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. I therefore feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but I understand and entirely appreciate why she wanted to bring it forward. I hope that all of us can lend our support to the further implementation of the armed forces covenant, so that it grips not just local but central Government.
On amendment 8, which is on independence, I hope that there is no doubt that the intention that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for our armed forces and hold this and future Governments to account is clear in the legislation, and from commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have made at the Dispatch Box. I therefore generally welcome the principle of the amendment, which we discussed in detail in Committee. The Bill already has a number of provisions to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct their inquiries separately from Government. Those provisions include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate, their reporting powers, their power of entry to defence sites to carry out their functions—without notice, in some circumstances—and an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner. Many of those functions will be transferred from the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The ombudsman has highlighted in her evidence that she already feels a strong degree of independence from the Ministry of Defence on decision making. That matters, and I have echoed that in the Bill.
There are important circumstances where it is critical that the commissioner cannot act purely on their own initiative—I refer to the Secretary of State restricting access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason to do so. A legal power for the commissioner to act without influence or interference would make that impossible. Certainly in previous conversations, the Opposition have been keen to ensure a suitable qualification to the power to access secret and very sensitive sites, and the amendment would actually go against the argument that they have made elsewhere, so I hope that they will not press the amendment.
I thank the House for its views on amendments 5 and 6 from the Liberal Democrats on the appointment of the commissioner. It is our intention that the commissioner will be in place in 2026. The reason why we have had not only Second Reading and a full Committee stage but Report so soon into this new Government is that we want the commissioner put in place as soon as possible. Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.
Let me briefly refer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee. We expect robust scrutiny of any candidate that the Secretary of State puts forward for this role. We expect the relationship that the commissioner has with the Defence Committee to be above and beyond other relationships, because when the commissioner publishes a report, under the Bill, it will not be sent to the Ministry of Defence to decide what to do with it—except in the case of a national security scrub, and I am certain that every Member in this House will understand why that is. It will be sent to Parliament, including to the Defence Committee. In that respect, the relationship between the commissioner and the Defence Committee will be more enhanced than perhaps the relationship between the Service Complaints Ombudsman and the Committee.
On the robust decisions that the commissioner will make, my hon. Friend may be aware that on page 9 of the Bill, paragraph 7 of schedule 1 includes a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to interim roles if the full appointment process has not been completed. Given the powers afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the ability of that organisation to function is greatly restricted if there is a vacancy in that office. We have learned from that, and provided a power to ensure that the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner could continue in the absence of a permanent post holder. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am eager for the commissioner to be established, and for their office to be operational as soon as practically possible.
On amendment 3 on funding, the Bill has been designed to ensure that the commissioner has the tools, funding and support that they need, now and in future. The Secretary of State has an obligation in the Bill to give the commissioner any reasonable assistance that they request to conduct their work effectively. Should the commissioner feel that their funding—estimated to be in the region of £5 million a year—is insufficient, they can raise this in their annual report, which is one of the mechanisms for providing additional scrutiny to Parliament.
On the family definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, she will be aware that we have committed to setting out the definition of family members in secondary legislation, so that it can be updated if necessary. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and when trying to define “family”, it is important that we consult and get views from a wide range of people. We want to make sure that the definition in the legislation is as accurate as possible, and includes bereaved family members of service personnel, so that they can still access the commissioner. I hope that gives her reassurance.
On the inclusion of minority groups, speaking as someone who represents one of the minority communities that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, let me be clear that we want the commissioner to engage with a whole range of different communities in our armed forces family. It is important that they do. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a non-exhaustive list that left out people with disabilities would be a concern, because I think the hon. Lady’s intention is to focus on minorities. We would expect the commissioner to be able to make a decision themselves in order to deliver that engagement.
Helen Maguire
I know the Minister will have read amendment 2 in detail, and is aware that it includes the words “including but not limited to”, and therefore includes individuals with disabilities and others. That is what the hon. Members for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), were concerned about.
Luke Pollard
That highlights the danger of a list. In future amendments that the hon. Lady tables, I would expect her to veer away from lists to avoid that problem.
Briefly, on the inheritance tax that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, the Minister for Veterans and People has replied to him, as I said he would in Defence questions on 6 January. Provisions in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 will continue to ensure that attributable deaths of active members are exempt from inheritance tax. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Treasury, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the result of the genuine consultation being conducted by Treasury colleagues. He may need to wait until the Treasury has had a chance to consider the matter. I expect, nonetheless, that he will push his amendment to a vote, because there is a certain level of politics that I appreciate he has to play. It is certainly true that our armed forces deserve better than they have experienced over the past 14 years. Hollowed out and underfunded services, servicemen and women living in accommodation that, frankly, is not good enough, and morale falling every single year of the past 14 years—these are the areas that this Government seek to change.
The landmark Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will deliver a better service for our armed forces and, importantly, their families. We have a lot of work to undo the damage, but I hope the message goes out loud and clear from this House that the creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner—a champion for those serving in our military and for their families—is a good thing that enjoys cross-party support. I urge all colleagues to support the Bill.
Helen Maguire
I am happy with the reassurance received from the Government, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4
Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare
Amendment proposed: 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”.—(Mr Francois.)
The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a privilege to open the Third Reading debate and to reach this next milestone in establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. At the heart of that security are the dedicated men and women of our armed forces, and the families who support them. It was a priority for this Government to move quickly and introduce the Bill in our first Session. I am grateful to all Members across the parties for their co-operation in getting the Bill this far in the short space of a few months.
I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage, particularly the parliamentary staff who have worked on the Bill, and the officials in the Ministry of Defence who have moved at pace to deliver it.
It can be an all-too-rare occasion for this House to find itself in agreement, so I am grateful to Members on all sides, including those in the official Opposition, for their support for the Bill and for the role of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), alongside all members of the Bill Committee, for their constructive scrutiny throughout. This is testament to the pride that is felt in all parts of the House in our exceptional armed forces and our shared recognition of the service and sacrifices that they and their families make to keep us all safe.
I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, Mariette Hughes, who has provided invaluable feedback, drawing on her time in office, and showed such enthusiastic support for what the Bill is trying to achieve. I must thank her and her team for all their hard work in rescuing much of the service complaints system and getting it in the good shape that it is in today.
I say thank you to the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, SSAFA, Cobseo, the Defence Medical Welfare Service, the Army Benevolent Fund, the Royal Marines Charity, the RAF Benevolent Fund and the Army Families Federation, not only for their valuable and thought-provoking participation at Committee stage, but also for their tireless work representing our service personnel and their families. Their views will be crucial to ensuring that the commissioner is a success.
I think it is clear from the evidence that we have heard and from the views shared in this House that an independent Armed Forces Commissioner is the champion that we need to improve service life and to represent our serving personnel and their families.
At a time of increasing instability and heightened tensions, we are asking more of our serving personnel, but they have been badly let down and we are facing a crisis in recruitment, a crisis in retention and a crisis in morale. For the past two years, more people have been leaving our armed forces than joining, and morale hit a record low under the previous Government. Our forces and their families have been failed for far too long. That is why this Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step forward.
I previously mentioned to the House that the Bill was inspired by the long-established German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. I pay tribute to Dr Eva Högl, who is a superb example of how we can champion and provide a voice to our armed forces. Our proposed Armed Forces Commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of welfare issues that may impact service life. They will be a direct point of contact for our forces and their families.
The Bill before us grants the commissioner the necessary access to personnel, information and defence sites to be able to proactively launch investigations, shine a spotlight on issues facing service personnel and their families, and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to investigate individual concerns and launch wide-ranging thematic investigations. The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. As we heard from the current ombudsman in Committee, her remit is too narrow and does not allow her to explore the “So what?” behind the complaints she oversees. The new powers will allow the commissioner to do just that, situating the service complaints system in a wider landscape of service welfare and providing that coherent, independent view of those issues facing our serving personnel and their families.
At this time of increasing threat, it has never been more important to raise awareness of the service and sacrifices made by our armed forces and the issues facing the families who stand beside them. We have discussed on the Floor of the House today, and in Committee last month, how critical it is for the commissioner to be independent and impartial, with the discretion to decide what welfare issues they investigate. I hope there is no doubt that our intention is that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for the armed forces and hold this Government and future Governments to account. They will challenge Ministers, strengthen parliamentary oversight and raise awareness of the issues facing our forces.
Several hon. Members from across the House have spoken about the Bill’s application to veterans. I am grateful for those questions and particularly for the contributions of those who have served our armed forces. I would like to reiterate that the Bill is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on those who are currently serving and their families. Looking at the continuous attitude surveys, that is where the crisis we are facing in recruitment, retention and morale is. There are specific issues that need to be addressed for those people who serve in uniform today and their families. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner as an independent champion for our forces is significant and long overdue.
The issues facing our veterans population are distinct and, as the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, we are certain that a more effective way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law—work that is already in train, led by the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns).
In conclusion, we must renew the whole nation’s contract with those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step in commencing that important work. This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
UK Air Defence
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for calling this debate and for the seriousness with which he has approached it. I share his general analysis of the context that we live in more difficult, unsettled and challenging times. That is the reason why, on coming into office, the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Robertson to begin the strategic defence review to look at our capabilities and to set those against the threats we are facing as a country. I will return to some of those areas, and indeed to the questions the right hon. Gentleman asked.
There is a real challenge when it comes to integrated air missile defence, the threats from drones and the threats from one-way effectors and long-range strike, as we have seen every single day in Ukraine, with the brave people of Ukraine being on the receiving end of onslaughts from Putin’s illegal invasion. Those are the lessons we are seeking to learn in the strategic defence review to make sure not only that we can support our friends in Ukraine with the equipment they need, but that we can adapt our own ways of war fighting and defending to deter aggression if at all possible, and to defeat it if necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, and I will come on to those in my remarks if I can, but I am sure he will keep me honest if I have missed any by the time I reach the end of my response to him. His analysis of the context of the political challenges in this debate is certainly true. When he was a Defence Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, the current Defence Secretary and I made that argument. Having heard from the Government Dispatch Box that defence had been hollowed out and underfunded, we argued that we needed a different approach.
I do not like the approach the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of having to “make do and mend—we always have”. I recognise it, but I do not think we should accept it, especially in more difficult times. Precisely because of that, the SDR needs to be bold, and that is in effect the remit given to Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that it falls to this Government to make those decisions, and we have already made a number of decisions about retiring old platforms. That is sometimes difficult, and he raises the interesting challenge of how we renew technologies without offending or upsetting the established norms. As an example, Watchkeeper, a 14-year-old drone system used by the British Army, has been retired because it cannot keep pace with the modern challenges of electronic warfare jamming and other things we would be asking it to do if it were to be deployed on a frontline. That is certainly something we feel incredibly strongly about.
I have just returned from the E5 Defence Ministers meeting that took place in Warsaw in Poland, and it is clear to me that our NATO allies are all taking integrated air and missile defence seriously. If we look at the experiences of the nations on NATO’s eastern flank—particularly Poland and the Baltic states, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—we are seeing very real concern about protection of their airspace. Protection is being built up through what they are seeking to procure and the support they are asking for from allies in providing a protective bubble over their countries. Britain’s island geography may have deterred aggressors throughout much of our history, but it is no shield against sophisticated weapons and modern air warfare, and for that reason the SDR has been commissioned.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. From the discussions the Minister had at the E5 conference, does he think our allies are confident that we are playing our part in air defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank my fellow Devon MP for that question. He will be able to read the joint statement by the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Poland when it is published on the Ministry of Defence website on the conference’s conclusion. I made the point clearly in the press conference afterwards that the UK is calling on all NATO partners to increase their defence spending. We have a plan to increase our defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5%. Where any increased defence spending goes matters, because it needs not only to deter aggression, but to defeat it and—perhaps most importantly and relevant to this debate—to be interoperable with our allies. We need to ensure that any investment in defence has an increase in our deployability and our lethality as we fight together. It is the assumption of this Government, with a declared NATO-first policy, that we will be supporting our NATO allies in any defensive measures. That is the reason we have the British Army in Estonia with Operation Cabrit. It is the reason we have NATO air policing in a variety of states along NATO’s eastern flank.
Integrated air and missile defence is an area that all NATO members need to develop. There is not one answer that everyone has reached for yet. It is a difficult, wicked problem that requires investment and a change in strategy. That is part of the reason why that is being addressed by the SDR. That is a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope it provides him with the clarity he needs.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister represents a city and a football club that are close to my heart. I also thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing forward this important debate. I am heartened to hear that the Minister views the interoperability of our workforce and our assets alongside our NATO allies. Do the Government view the defence of UK airspace not singularly but, as I do, as the western front of European air defence?
Luke Pollard
I would certainly be happy afterwards to take up any discussion about Plymouth Argyle and a post Wayne Rooney world.
It is certainly true that the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks. Part of the challenge we have with integrated air and missile defence and the threats that the UK and our allies face is that the definitions of what are the close and the deep have fundamentally changed, because of the experience of the Ukraine war. I recognise that there are Members in this House and this debate who served in our armed forces, and they will be familiar with the broad definitions of close and deep.
It is certainly true that what we previously regarded as close and deep have fundamentally changed. The distances have increased enormously. We are seeing that in Ukraine, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments. Having the ability to project power and fire at distance is one reason that we have supported Ukraine with so many weapons systems. It is also the reason why the SDR is looking in particular at this area and how any forces and capabilities can meet the threat we are facing. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) understands that the SDR will address many of the answers to his broad question. Our responsibilities are more than just securing the UK homeland; they are about supporting our allies, and indeed it is our allies’ role to support not only their own country, but their NATO partners, including the UK.
The threats posed to our security continue to proliferate and converge. With technologies rapidly developing, protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging. Let me be absolutely clear: adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities contributing to our integrated air and missile defence, along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies. We have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has seen the quick reaction aircraft, as I have, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth and seen the incredible speed, dedication and professionalism of our teams there responding to threats approaching the United Kingdom. Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 destroyer against different air threats in the recent operations in the Red sea in particular. That included shooting down drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine.
In relation to the specifics of our capabilities, I have had the privilege of visiting UK forces stationed forward in Poland using the Sky Sabre system, supporting the NATO logistics hub that supports so much of what we provide to Ukraine. Operation Stifftail has now concluded, and that mission has been a success. I thank all those members of the Royal Artillery in particular who supported that mission.
The Sky Sabre system that was in Poland has been returned to the UK and is being reconstituted. The Sky Sabre system that we have in the Falklands provides continuous air defence to the islands, protecting the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. Having seen that system up close and personal on my recent visit to the Falklands, I thank those members of our armed forces protecting the skies above the Falklands. We will need to ensure that integrated air missile defence is more than just a bubble over Poland and protection of the Falklands.
I think that is at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise in the debate. It is also one of the challenges that the strategic defence review seeks to answer. I will not steal Lord Robertson’s sandwiches in terms of what I expect to see in the strategic defence review, but certainly enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR, and I would expect him and his review team to be making recommendations about how that should be done in the SDR when it is published in the spring. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring. Hopefully, that will enable us to look at those two parts together to ensure that we are, in his words, meeting the challenge of stepping up. I agree that there are no free passes, and as a nation we have relied on our strategic depth for a great many years, but we cannot rely on that alone today. That is why our capabilities need to match that challenge.
Our NATO-first approach means ensuring that we deliver not only on the article 3 responsibilities in the NATO treaty to protect our own homeland, but on article 5 and be able to support our NATO allies. That is why we will continue to support our deployments around the NATO area of operations.
As a country, we are leading the way with initiatives such as DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—which will improve air defence integration across Europe and strengthen NATO’s air and missile protection. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on missile capabilities, which is a catalyst to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine and address the burgeoning security threat to NATO members as well.
We are also forging deeper relations with individual European partners. Hon. Members may have seen the landmark Trinity House agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Germany, which will see us turbocharge a series of major projects across air, land and sea, working in partnership to strengthen air defences and better protect European airspace. We are also working more closely with France, with our most recently signing a letter of intent for the European long-range strike approach—the ELSA initiative—at France’s request. Such initiatives demonstrate our determination to support Ukraine, counter the threat posed by Putin and reconnect Britain internationally.
I realise that I have not got to every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but if he will forgive me, I will write to him and place a letter in the House so that all Members can be certain of these matters. Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values and our allies in more uncertain times.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
This Labour Government are delivering for defence and the landmark Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is the first step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. The commissioner will be appointed following the passage of the primary legislation establishing the role. The Bill passed Committee stage in the Commons in December and I look forward to Report stage in due course.
Will Stone
I thank the Minister for his response. As an ex-rifleman, I have seen at first hand the negative impact of shoddy care and equipment on service personnel’s mental and physical health. What will installing an armed forces commissioner do to make their standard of living better?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. It is absolutely vital that the voices of armed forces personnel and their families are listened to more. That is why we are establishing in the commissioner an independent champion for armed forces and their families. The commissioner will have an independent role, be able to scrutinise the actions of the armed forces and report to Parliament rather than to Ministers, and will not be beholden to the whims of either any Government of the day or the chain of command. That independence will allow the commissioner to scrutinise general service welfare matters, shining a spotlight on the issues that really matter to those who serve in uniform and their families.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Government have said that part of their inspiration for the Armed Forces Commissioner was such a role in Germany, yet Germany has a parliamentary armed forces commissioner. Why is there that difference and why, in line with what the Minister said in an earlier answer, can we trust the independence of this new appointment?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the German armed forces commissioner is part of the inspiration for the role. Dr Eva Högl is a superb example of how we can scrutinise and champion the armed forces and provide solutions and a voice to those who serve. She sits effectively as a Member of Parliament in the German Parliament, which we did not feel was appropriate for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner, but the independence and the way she has pioneered much of that work in recent years is a real inspiration to us. We hope that such a workable example from a key NATO ally—people can raise issues with her and shine a spotlight on those issues to improve service welfare matters and as a result improve morale and the operational effectiveness of the armed forces—will give strength to the independence of the role.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?
Luke Pollard
As the right hon. Gentleman will recall from the Bill Committee, which in parliamentary sitting days was only a few days ago, we are raising issues around a number of things, including the one he raises. It is subject to a consultation, as he knows, so a decision has not been made. It is a responsibility for the Treasury, rather than the Ministry of Defence, but I undertook to write to him, and I will do so.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Labour Government are delivering for defence by stepping up and speeding up support for Ukraine. In December, we announced an additional package of artillery, air defence and drones. The Defence Secretary holds regular discussions with his US counterpart on how best to support Ukraine, most recently on 16 November.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for his reply. Last year, Bath and North East Somerset council entered into a formal agreement with the city of Oleksandriia, providing medical support as well as strengthening cultural and community ties. In talks with the incoming US Government, will the Minister ensure that they are aware of the enduring and deep solidarity that the British people feel towards the people of Ukraine in their effort to defeat a brutal aggressor?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member—my fellow south-west MP—for her advocacy of that as well as the people of Bath who have opened their homes to so many Ukrainian families, as have families right across the country. It is vital that we continue to support not only Ukraine to stay in the fight to protect its sovereignty and freedom but those Ukrainians in the United Kingdom and in Ukraine to ensure that they can go about normal life as much as possible. The Government support that work and will continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the Minister have put Britain’s military production capability at the heart of the Government’s support for Ukraine. I wonder what opportunities the Minister spies for transatlantic co-operation in that regard. May I make a special plea that the whole defence team discuss plans for developing our industrial capacity with regional mayors so that jobs and factories can be set up and developed around the country, including in regions like my own?
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we continue to support Ukraine and build our industrial capacity in the United Kingdom and across the NATO alliance to ensure that Ukraine can fight not only tonight but tomorrow. Part of that is about increasing the industrial supply of not just UK manufacturers but indigenous manufacturers within Ukraine itself. Building that greater industrial capacity is something that the Government take seriously. That is why the Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry have published the outline of the defence industrial strategy. We will continue to work with partners at both national and international level—and additionally at a regional and local level—to ensure that we have the industrial capacity and skills required to restock our own supply and continue to support Ukraine.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is important that the strategic defence review is able to report its recommendations. It is certainly true that we inherited armed forces with capability gaps, falling morale and a recruitment and personnel crisis, which is why the SDR is so important in setting out a clear direction for the future. This Government back defence and will continue to do so, ensuring that those capability gaps are filled.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that this Government inherited a recruitment and retention crisis from the Conservatives. Morale was falling. That is why we are renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. There will be more announcements about that in due course.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
As the Prime Minister has made clear, Britain is back on the world stage, and we are deepening our defence relationships with our European allies. That means continuing to implement the Trinity House agreement between the UK and Germany. There is also the new UK-Estonia road map, and there is more to come: we will refresh the Lancaster House agreement with our friends in France as well.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Luke Pollard
We have laid out clearly that this Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That means committing £3 billion a year, as we have done, to make sure that the Ukrainians have the equipment and ammunition they need to stay in the fight, as well as deepening our defence relationships with them. We are taking that across the NATO alliance to all NATO members, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Since Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, our European Union allies have contributed €47.3 billion in funding to the Ukrainian military. One of those integral allies is Poland, which has just assumed the presidency of the EU Council, having started on 1 January. Will the Minister set out in a little more detail how we are working in lockstep with crucial allies like Poland at this dangerous time for the continent?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that it is vital to deepen our relations with our European friends. Poland is a key European ally for us, not only in defence exports but in operational deployments. I have visited Poland twice recently, including to see the amazing work of the British Army in Operation Stifftail, which used our Sky Sabre system to help to defend Polish airspace. There will be further such joint deployments of our armed forces in due course.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
There were reports over the weekend of NATO worries that the UK is not contributing enough to the European defensive shield. That leaves us vulnerable to a missile attack. I hear what the Minister has said about the strategic defence review, but what assurance can he provide that he will look at our defence spending commitments with sufficient speed to provide good enough defence for our country?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady is right to raise the capability gaps that this Government inherited from the Government she served in. The strategic defence review is looking at those capability gaps and at what is needed to protect ourselves and our allies in the future. When that is set out later in the spring, she will be able to see how we plan to address those gaps, ensuring that we support British industry while also addressing the security challenges that we and our allies face.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
As a great supporter of the British-American alliance, I am disappointed to have to ask this question, but, given some of the recent tweets from people associated with the incoming US Administration, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the UK’s exposure of our defence capabilities, given that there may be some changes in the White House?