Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024
Luke Pollard Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Opposition have no major problems with these proposed amendments to the armed forces rules, but I have a few questions for the Minister in relation to them. I think we all agree that we want a service justice system that works effectively, that can investigate and prosecute, and that has outcomes people trust, as well as one in which people can come forward with complaints. In that respect, the amendments that the Minister proposes seem eminently sensible.
My first question relates to the changes proposed to rule 32—persons ineligible for membership—which is on page 3 of the rules. A person is ineligible to serve on a court martial if they served in the same unit as the offender at any point from the commission of the offence, but they might have previously served with that offender in a unit for a long period of time. Is there a point before the commission of the offence when having served in the same unit would also make them ineligible to sit on the court martial? It seems to me that, at some point, there might be a longevity of relationship, and I wonder whether that is captured by any other provision or whether that is an area that the Minister could come back to. Secondly, does the rule include joint operations, where a person may not necessarily be in the same formal unit but might be assigned to work in a collaborative way, in a closely positioned operation and in a joint setting? Does “unit” capture things that are not in a formal regiment or structure but could be in a joint operation?
The new rules on lay members attending the review of sentence proceedings via live link seem entirely logical. Will the Minister set out where there is a minimum requirement for the number of lay members who must attend in person?
Because we do not get too many of these amendments, and the amendments seem eminently sensible, may I also ask why they were not included in the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2022, which were brought before this House as a result of the Lyons review? Many of the amendments in the draft rules seem to fit with the amendments that were in that previous statutory instrument, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what that means.
I agree with the Minister that bringing bits of civilian justice into the service justice system seems a good approach, and that is an opportunity for me to restate Labour’s position that murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK should also be included in the civilian justice system.
Finally, I want to make a point about the application of the legislation to Gibraltar. People who have heard me speak on SIs will know this point, but I am increasingly concerned that a body of armed forces legislation seems to apply to armed forces personnel everywhere around the world except Gibraltar, creating quite an application gap in Gibraltar. Has the Minister’s Department done any work to capture that deficit for service personnel who are serving in Gibraltar? It seems erroneous that, if offences are committed in Gibraltar rather than somewhere else, they are treated in a different and more dated fashion.
Ukraine: Military Equipment
Luke Pollard Excerpts(8 months, 4 weeks 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
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As we mark two years since Vladimir Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion began, it should be a source of pride to all in this House that the UK remains totally united and committed to supporting Ukraine. We must continue to stand with the Ukrainian people for as long as it takes for them to win.
On military help for Ukraine and on reinforcing our NATO allies, the UK Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support. At yesterday’s opening of the Paris summit, to shore up support for Ukraine, western leaders rightly made it clear that Russia is far from a spent force and that Putin will not stop at Ukraine if he wins. As Russia steps up its war effort, we must step up our support, and so must Ukraine’s other allies. Labour welcomes the 200 extra Brimstone anti-tank missiles and the £245 million artillery munitions package for Ukraine, which the Government announced this weekend.
Ministers favour ad hoc announcements over a fuller military aid plan for Ukraine, but how can industry invest and mobilise with confidence without a long-term plan to work against? On stepping up western support for Ukraine, how are we co-ordinating with our NATO allies to ensure that our munitions support provides Ukraine with the urgent and sustained help it needs? Of the £2.5 billion announced for 2024, can the Minister confirm how much is being spent on Ukraine and how much is being spent on UK operational costs at NATO bases?
Given the importance of the Paris summit for Ukraine, why was the Prime Minister unable to attend the event, unlike other key western leaders? There could be a change in Government this year, but there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, to confront Russian aggression and to pursue Putin for his war crimes.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for continuing to show solidarity, for the consensus that exists across the House and, in particular, for specifically mentioning the Brimstone gifting and the £245 million recently announced for artillery munitions.
The hon. Gentleman talks about our longer-term plan. Just to be clear, the war is happening today and the key focus of the £2.5 billion for Ukraine this financial year is getting support into the country as soon as possible, which is when they need it. Of course, we want to have a long-term plan too. I am clear that the UK will play a very significant role in helping Ukraine, when it is fully free, to get back to the level of prosperity it expects. For now, we have to focus on what is a very challenging situation.
Drones are one of the most important capabilities we have seen in Ukraine, and they have arguably transformed the nature of warfare in this conflict. Last week I was pleased to announce our own uncrewed strategy and, in doing so, I talked about the Malloy T150 drone, which has done an incredible job, lifting blood, munitions and other key supplies to Ukrainian marines on the bank of the Dnieper. We have provided 4,000 drones to Ukraine, and we will keep doing that—we have the £200 million. Yes, it is about shells and munitions, but we also have to provide a way to fight with them; we have to assist to ensure that we deliver that capability, which is why those coalitions are so important.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports us in the round, and we are sending a message that this House is united in supporting Ukraine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We have 24,000 fewer troops, 4,000 fewer sailors, 200 fewer aircraft and the removal of one in five ships. The Conservatives have failed our armed forces over the past 14 years, missing their recruitment target every year since taking power in 2010 and hollowing out our military. Does the Minister honestly believe that he can look the public in the eye and claim that five more years will fix the mess that they have created, or is it time for a fresh start?
Dr Murrison
Oh, I think the hon. Gentleman knows what I am going to say in response to his question, and that is to invite him to have a conversation with the shadow Chancellor to see whether she will commit to the same level of spending on defence that this Government are committed to and, indeed, are spending right now. Will he make a spending commitment here and now in the House of Commons? If so, I am all ears.
Afghan Relocations: Special Forces
Luke Pollard Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Afghan relocation and assistance policy eligibility for Afghan special forces.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on developments relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, and to answer the specific question raised by the hon. Gentleman in relation to former members of commando force 333 and Afghan territorial force 444.
Many colleagues across the House are passionate advocates for applicants to the ARAP scheme—whether they served shoulder to shoulder with them in Afghanistan, or represent applicants and their family members who are residents in their constituencies. We owe a debt of gratitude to those brave individuals who served for, with, or alongside our armed forces in support of the UK mission in Afghanistan. Defence is determined to honour the commitments we made under the ARAP scheme, which is why we have robust checks in place and regularly review processes and procedures.
Although many former members of the Afghan specialist units have been found eligible under ARAP and safely relocated to the UK with their families, a recent review of processes around eligibility decisions demonstrated instances of inconsistent application of the ARAP criteria in certain cases. The issue relates to a tranche of applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including members of CF 333 and ATF 444—known as the Triples. Having identified this issue through internal processes, we must now take necessary steps to ensure that the criteria are applied appropriately to all those individuals.
As such, I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence will undertake a reassessment of all eligibility decisions made for applications with credible claims of links to the Afghan specialist units. The reassessment will be done by a team independent of the one that made the initial eligibility decisions on the applications. The team will review each case thoroughly and individually. A written ministerial statement to that effect was tabled this morning, and I commend it to colleagues. A further “Dear colleague” letter will follow by close of business tomorrow.
It is the case, however, that ARAP applications from this cohort present a unique set of challenges for eligibility decision making. Some served in their units more than two decades ago, and some while the Afghan state apparatus was still in its infancy or yet to come into existence all together. It is also the case that they reported directly into the Government of Afghanistan, meaning that we do not hold comprehensive employment or payment records in the same way as we do for other applicants.
I fully understand the depth of feeling that ARAP evokes across this place and beyond. I thank Members from across the House for their ongoing advocacy and support for ARAP. We have that same depth of feeling in the MOD and in Government, and we will now work quickly to make sure that the decisions are reviewed, and changed if that is necessary.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The Triples Afghan special forces, trained and funded by the UK, are some of the top targets for Taliban reprisals. Around 200 Triples face imminent deportation from Pakistan to Afghanistan, and at least six members of the Triples are reported to have been murdered by the Taliban since the withdrawal from Kabul. Ministers have allowed media speculation to build for almost a week before setting out to Parliament today the Government’s plan to U-turn and look again at the applications.
The Minister highlighted inconsistencies in processing the applications—failures, flaws. How was that allowed to happen on his watch? How long will the reviews take, and what new information will be factored in? Tragically, today’s decision could be too late for many. Does the Minister know how many of the Triples who were wrongly denied support have already been deported to Afghanistan, tortured or killed? What conversations has he had with Pakistan to halt deportations of those who could now be granted sanctuary? There is no time to waste.
The least the Triples deserve is clarity over ARAP policy, but for months a public spat has played out between the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Armed Forces. We should all remember that the people who matter here are those Afghans who have been left in limbo, fearing for their lives and their futures. That is why clarity matters. Britain’s moral duty to assist Afghans is felt most fiercely by those in the UK forces who served alongside them, many of whom sit on both sides of the House. British personnel who have offered references to former Triples say that they were never even contacted by the Ministry of Defence. Many of their ARAP applications were denied. Will such basic errors happen again, or will that be reviewed properly?
The British public do not understand why Afghan special forces personnel who served and fought alongside our troops and who are eligible for safety have not yet received sanctuary here. Will the Minister now sort this out?
James Heappey
I know that the hon. Gentleman, who has been advocating for some cases and is as passionate about the matter as anybody, will feel aggrieved, as will many colleagues around the House. The responsibility of any Minister is to own any failure of process that happens in their Department, and I accept that responsibility.
The reality is that these are very difficult decisions to make. The hon. Gentleman said that the Triples were funded by the UK Government. That is not entirely accurate; they were funded as a donor alongside many other donors, into the Government of Afghanistan, who funded the units. As he will well know from colleagues on his own Benches who commanded units that worked closely with the Triples, top-up payments were made in order to generate loyalty and, frankly, to avoid the Triples being poached by other coalition partners, which had similar forces of their own.
The records of those top-up payments were very ad hoc. I take my responsibilities for accuracy to the House seriously, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that we have looked for employment records and none of those ad hoc records of additional payments is available to us. We have spoken to colleagues who have experience of these matters in the House and beyond, to ask for any records that they have, but even then a lot of the records produced are those that are put together by charities advocating for the Triples, rather than contemporary records of those top-up payments.
The reality is that whatever the challenges have been, some decisions were made in an inconsistent way. That is why they must be reviewed. We will aim to get the review done as quickly as possible—we anticipate that it will take around 12 weeks. Before that, we need to put in place the people who will do the review, who will be independent of everything that has gone before. In the first instance, it will be a review of the robustness of the decisions themselves, and where it finds that decisions were not robust, we will, of course, seek new information both from the applicant and from colleagues in the House who have advocated for them.
The shadow Minister makes some good points about what this means for people who are in Pakistan. It is impossible to say who, of those who were not already in the pipeline as approved applicants, has been deported. We do not track that, so I cannot answer his specific question but, of course, we will alert the Government of Pakistan to those who are included within the review, so that they can enjoy the same protection from deportation as those who have already been approved and are awaiting their onward move to the UK.
The shadow Minister necessarily points to the politics and the alleged disagreement among Conservative Members —that is the nature of his role—but I am simply not motivated by such things. The reality is that we are trying our best to bring as many people to the UK from Afghanistan as possible. Some decisions are relatively straightforward, because we hold the employment records, but others are far more complicated. Although there have undoubtedly been some decisions that are not robust and need to be reviewed, I put on record that the people involved in making those decisions, across the MOD, have been working their hardest and doing their best. I stand up for their service and for what they have done, and I take responsibility for their shortcomings.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Procurement has today confirmed that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, based in Devonport, which I am proud to represent, are still at risk of being mothballed. He said that no final decisions have been made, so the risk to these ships is real. When will a decision be made? Will the ships be cut, or will they be tied up alongside, flying the white ensign but never really putting to sea?
Grant Shapps
Of course anyone who is serious about the defence budget has to make the decision about whether to put into maintenance ships that have already served twice their intended lives—18 years and more, times two—and that would come out of that maintenance after brand-new ships were at sea. There is obviously a decision for the Royal Navy to make on that, but I remind the House that there are eight Type 26s and five Type 31s under construction or under contract.
Service Accommodation
Luke Pollard Excerpts(11 months, 1 week 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
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) for securing this debate, which is testament to what can happen when an MP who is elected by their constituents turns up to this place. They can raise issues that genuinely concern constituents. The figure that he cited—64% of service accommodation being of the lowest grade—is not just terrible; it is one of the worst in the entire UK. He is absolutely right to bring this matter to the House, and to ask the Minister what he will do about it.
It is important to recognise that poor-quality defence accommodation damages morale, recruitment and retention, and creates an atmosphere in which the families of those who serve fall out of love with military service. It undermines the moral contract between the nation and those who serve and their families. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he opened the debate, and for standing up for his constituents.
Our service personnel and their families deserve decent, safe, warm accommodation. That is key to the moral contract between our nation and those who serve in uniform. The armed forces covenant sets out that service accommodation should be of
“good quality, affordable and suitably located”,
but as we have heard today in a series of excellent contributions, the condition of service accommodation and housing is a straight-up scandal; the Conservatives are failing our forces and their families.
Broken boilers, leaky roofs, black mould, vermin and endless waits for basic repairs are all shockingly common. The examples given by the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), highlight that the issue is not isolated. It affects not some bases some of the time, but defence accommodation across our country. It damages the morale of those who serve, wherever they serve, if they are given accommodation for themselves and their families that is sub-par and below the standard that they should expect. The Minister and everyone in this debate knows that people have very different expections for their living conditions when they are deployed towards the frontline, and for where they and their family should live when at home. Things are not working at the moment.
To sum up the Government’s record, one in three personnel lives in the lowest grade single-living accommodation; complaints about damp and mould are up 40% this year; 800 families were without a valid gas safety certificate as of June; fewer than one in five personnel is satisfied with the repair work; there have been faulty heating complaints in the equivalent of half of service family properties since new maintenance contracts were awarded; and more than 1,300 personnel live in accommodation of such poor quality that the MOD does not even bother charging rent on it. Those conditions are not acceptable in civilian life, and they should not be acceptable for anyone who serves our country.
This debate becomes particularly important as temperatures drop and Christmas approaches. Last year, the Government sleepwalked into a winter crisis in service accommodation; even the Minister admitted that performance was not good enough. I am grateful for that honesty. We need that honesty about what can be achieved this winter as well.
One service family told me that they went without a working boiler for three weeks, and were forced to live in a hotel over Christmas and new year. Another posted on social media that he spent five days without heating, and had to wash his seven-month-old son with boiled kettle water. That is simply not acceptable for those who serve. Insultingly, military families were given as little as £1 in compensation for heating and hot water loss. Can the Minister assure me that this Christmas, no family will have to go without heating and hot water, or be forced out of their home because of maintenance issues? I asked the Minister that same question at Defence questions last month. He did not quite give me the reassurance that I was looking for, so I am giving him another opportunity to do so.
Also, how many service properties have experienced total loss of heating and water so far in December? How many of the 1,500 service homes promised boiler and heating upgrades in the Government’s winter planning statement have so far received that work? What other mitigations is the Minister putting in place? Damp and mould have been mentioned a number of times. Those issues affect housing across our country, but they do not have no solution. What is the Minister doing to tackle damp and mould, particularly in homes that are not covered by the work that he has so far announced? What happens to them? How long will they have to wait?
One service spouse wrote on social media recently that despite being six months pregnant and having a four-year-old child, she was still living in a mouldy home months after reporting it. That gets to the nub of the complaints raised by hon. Members. It is not that people who serve are not raising complaints; frequently, those complaints are not acted on, or if someone visits, it is so that they can tick a box on the response time, not so that they can complete the job and ensure that the complaint is dealt with properly.
After scrutiny from Labour, the Ministry of Defence admitted that about 700 forces families who were promised damp and mould mitigation will not benefit from the completed work until April 2024. Why is that taking so long? The MOD’s winter plan to help families through the coldest months will not even be fully delivered until the spring. That beggars belief. What is the Minister doing to speed that up?
People in my constituency live in Stonehouse barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines. I have had to raise repeatedly the issue of their loss of hot water and lack of heating. The Government intended to close that base, but are now delaying its closure from 2027 until 2029. Everyone who serves there should be given reassurance that they will be able to access hot water and heating, especially in buildings that are hundreds of years old. When we talk about “homes fit for heroes”, we mean homes that people can genuinely rely on to be safe and secure.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) raised the issue of gas safety certificates. We would rightly call for rogue landlords in the private sector to be prosecuted, and hauled over the coals. What happened to those people in charge of progress in getting gas safety certificates? Was any action taken against the contractors who clearly failed to do that, or was it just marked up as yet another problem in this area?
The hon. Member for North Shropshire, I think, mentioned empty properties. As a Plymouth MP, I have certainly been contacted about the large defence estate just over the boundary from my patch, in Plympton in south-west Devon, which has an enormous number of empty properties. There is real frustration about empty properties in the middle of a housing crisis. We all accept that the MOD must have a certain amount of properties to rotate, so that it can deploy people as and when required, but will the Minister set out how many empty properties the MOD has, and whether the figure is larger than normal? Locally, the number of empty properties seems larger than expected for the anticipated rotation, even in a military city such as Plymouth.
Poor-quality defence accommodation has a direct impact on morale, recruitment and retention. New MOD figures show that the number of troops in the armed forces has fallen to a record low, and satisfaction with service life has plummeted to the lowest level on record. Less than half of personnel are satisfied with their service accommodation, and fewer than one in five is satisfied with repair work. We will not be able to solve the problems of retention and recruitment without fixing defence housing. That is why Labour has said that when we are in government, we will deliver homes fit for heroes—by acting on the Kerslake review, an independent review of service accommodation; by getting tough on failing contractors; and by legislating to establish an armed forces commissioner, a strong independent voice for personnel with the power to investigate issues affecting them and their families. That should include defence housing.
As the son of a submariner, and as the representative of a military city, this is personal to me. When the Royal Marines are about to ship out on deployment, there is a surge of calls to my office from marines worried about whether the repairs that they have been chasing will be delivered before they deploy, and whether their families will be living in a dry, warm home while they are away. That should not happen in a country that values the armed forces as much as ours.
We need to rebuild our moral contract with those who serve. That is what my party has set out to do, and I believe fundamentally that that is what the Minister hopes he is delivering. I have to say, however, that the record discussed in this debate by Members from right across the House is not one of which the Government should be proud; indeed, they should apologise for it. In these more contested times, if we do not see action, how long will it be until we have a real crisis in retention and recruitment at a time when we need to deploy our military forces?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am shadowed by your twin and chaired by you: as a father of twins, it is a pleasure to experience.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) on securing his maiden Westminster Hall debate. I recently had an oral question from him about accommodation, so it is a credit to him that he is persisting, and that is true of other colleagues in the Chamber. He raised some very important points, primarily about the two bases in his constituency. On the overall point, which many colleagues made but he did in particular, I absolutely accept that this is a retention issue. Of course it is. It says a lot about the importance we place on the duty of our personnel to serve their country and our efforts to ensure that they have the best. I was quite open during oral questions, in referring to the winter plan, that we did not do well enough last winter. We have been determined to make up for that this year, and I will talk about the detail of that.
Make no mistake, the provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation for service personnel is a key priority for us. Horror stories such as we have heard, with rats, dry rot and so on, are disturbing. I reassure colleagues that, appalling though such instances are, they are unrepresentative of the experience of the vast majority of service people. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, for example, 96% of service family accommodation meets or exceeds Government decent home standards, which is almost identical to the national figure.
In the time available, I want to set out some of the key measures we have taken to rectify the situation to ensure that we improve our armed forces accommodation. I will start with single living accommodation. The Department provides a total of around 171,000 permanent, temporary and training bed spaces worldwide. As of 16 October, 92,000 service personnel were living in SLA. There have been longstanding concerns, rightly, among frontline commands that SLA is not up to scratch, which is why we are now implementing plans across the Navy, Army and Air Force to eliminate the worst accommodation. A Defence minimum standard has been established, which all SLA is expected to meet. As of 13 November, some 84% of rooms met the standard. That means that 13,347 did not, which falls well short of where we need to be. However, the intent is that, by April 2024, a further 30% of those will be upgraded. In the longer term, the Department will invest around £5.3 billion in SLA over the next 10 years to get homes up to standard. That will see us deliver approximately 40,000 new or refurbished bed spaces.
As Minister for Defence Procurement, I am well aware that day-to-day maintenance issues are unavoidable. They are the cause of considerable correspondence that I receive from colleagues from all parties. So it has proved in the past year, with several thousand issues relating to heating and hot water being reported. Any reports of vermin in SLA or service family accommodation —which I will come on to shortly—should be made to the national service centre, which will arrange for appropriate action including pest control if required, although I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about his experience with multiple contractors and so on.
Turning to SFA, the Government continue to invest significant sums to improve the quality of UK service family accommodation. Our Defence Infrastructure Organisation received an investment of £400 million over this financial year and the next as part of the defence Command Paper refresh. The £380.2 million forecast for this year is more than double last year’s investment in maintenance and improvements. As we have heard today, hon. Members are well aware of some of the issues, but it is investment that ultimately will lead to the change.
I want to set out some of the mitigations we have undertaken this year. We have established a dedicated hotline to address specific concerns with damp and mould, and we have improved the initial triage process to prioritise cases. That includes an onsite visit to apply initial treatment, to assess the need for follow-up and to decide whether a professional survey is required. We have also been working hard with our contractors to deliver around 4,000 standardised damp mitigation packages—I will come to the point about the remaining homes shortly—which include measures to increase insulation, replace guttering, upgrade extractor fans, replace radiators and reseal windows and doors. To date, more than 1,360 have been completed, and around 700 further packages are planned to be delivered early in the next financial year. The remaining homes with less severe instances of damp and mould are being dealt with through simple maintenance visits, so the vast majority of these tasks have already been completed.
Furthermore, our plan for this winter includes boiler and heating upgrades for about 1,500 homes. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, we are now entering wintertime, and I recognise colleagues’ concerns and how anxious they will be for reassurance that there will be no repeat of the slow response times during last year’s cold snap. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire rightly spoke about telephone waiting times. We cannot have people left hanging on the phone in freezing homes waiting to speak to an engineer. On that front, it is worth pointing out that Pinnacle’s national service centre continues to maintain a strong performance. The average speed to answer rates in November were, for the ninth consecutive month, well within the 120 second average. The hon. Gentleman asked how many extra call handlers Pinnacle has taken on. The answer is 65, which means that most calls are now answered within 29 seconds—a very significant improvement.
I have another very important point to make to the hon. Gentleman. Before I respond to some of the other contributions, I want to update him on the status of Chicksands military base in his constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. Like me, he will be aware that rumours have been flying around about its future. I can confirm that, from 2030 onwards, it will be disposed of, but that will happen only when everybody has been relocated as part of a significant commitment to defence intelligence. The schedule will be refined as construction gets under way, and we will keep him informed as it progresses. Of course, I will write to him with full details, because I know how important it is for him. That will enable him to engage with his constituents and the service personnel based there.
Luke Pollard
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire will be grateful for the information about his local base. Is that a change just for that one base, or is it part of a wider changing of closure times that will affect other bases around the country and that the Minister may wish to update the House about?
Former Afghan Special Forces: Deportation
Luke Pollard Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks 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
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on former Afghan special forces facing deportation from Pakistan to Afghanistan.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I thank the shadow Minister for asking this urgent question.
The Afghan relocations and assistance policy is far more generous in design than predecessor schemes such as the ex-gratia scheme. None the less, ARAP is a specific scheme intended to support those who worked for, with or alongside the UK armed forces in support of the UK mission or national security objectives in Afghanistan. While we are acutely aware of the difficult circumstances in which many Afghans find themselves, not everyone will be eligible even if they worked for the Afghanistan security forces. Many Afghans have worked in proximity to UK armed forces but this may have been in service of the Afghan Government, in a nation-building capacity, or though working directly with other nations.
CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were Afghan-led taskforces set up to counter drug trafficking and organised crime and they reported into the Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs. They are therefore a component of the Afghan national security forces and are not automatically in scope for relocation under ARAP. Regrettably, we cannot relocate all former members of the Afghan national security forces under the ARAP scheme. That means that some Afghans, whose bravery and heroism are in no doubt whatever—indeed, I served alongside many of them myself—such as certain members of the CF333 and ATF444 taskforces, will not be eligible for relocation under ARAP. Each ARAP application is assessed on a case-by-case basis. All applications, including those from former members of the Triples, are scrutinised on their own merits and in line with our published policy and eligibility criteria, available on the Government website, and in line with the immigration rules. All applicants, irrespective of job role, will be eligible only if they individually meet these criteria outlined in the published policy.
I must emphasise this point for the record: any suggestion that we are making blanket decisions—eligible or ineligible —for any cohort of applicant, or that we have any preconceived position on any application to the scheme, is simply untrue. That is not the approach that Defence takes on processing applications as a matter of policy. The MOD consults the evidence provided from each applicant and our own internal records and engages with internal stakeholders and other Departments when determining eligibility in line with the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the immigration rules.
Luke Pollard
Since before the fall of Kabul, the Government’s treatment of Afghans who worked alongside British troops has been a shameful saga of failure. Ministers have failed to deal with the ballooning backlog of ARAP applications, broken housing promises, data breaches and Afghans stuck abroad in limbo fearing for their lives. Today, we have learned from reports that former Afghan special forces who served alongside British troops are possibly facing deportation back to Afghanistan. Let us be clear: that means that lives could be put at serious harm from the Taliban.
All of us in this House want to see the Government finally and fully honour the commitments given by Britain as a nation to these Afghans. That is why we are all here today. Urgent detail is now needed from the Minister about this escalating situation. First, how many former Afghan special forces who served alongside our forces are at risk of imminent deportation from Afghanistan to Pakistan? What assessment has been made by the Ministry of Defence of the threat to these Afghan elite forces if they are deported back to Afghanistan? What assessment has been made of the threat to their families, and is it as grim as we all fear?
What is the current backlog in ARAP cases? In a parliamentary question answered last week about the safety of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the Government said that they had
“received assurances from the Government of Pakistan that Afghans being supported…under the Afghans Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) and Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) will remain safe in Pakistan while they await relocation to the UK.”
In light of today’s news, what were the original assurances given to the UK by the Pakistani Government? Can the Minister confirm that zero Afghans pending ARAP or ACRS application decisions or relocations will be sent back to Afghanistan?
General Sir Richard Barrons, who served with the British Army for 12 years in Afghanistan, described the failure to relocate these former Afghan special forces to the UK as a “disgrace” and a “betrayal”. He is right, is he not? There can be no more excuses. Ministers must fix their ailing Afghan schemes and honour the commitment given to our Afghan friends before they are deported back to Afghanistan and potentially killed by the Taliban.
James Heappey
I am not sure where to start on that. What the hon. Gentleman I think is knowingly doing is conflating a number of separate issues. There is the issue over the processing of those who can legitimately come to the UK under the ARAP scheme. Finding those applicants in among tens of thousands of applications —many of which are duplicates and many of which are bogus, though plenty are not—has been a heck of a task for the team within the MOD that have been tasked with that over the past two years. However, we are getting to the bottom of the pile.
Crucially, those who are eligible under category 2, which is those who worked directly for the British armed forces, whether as patrol interpreters or cultural advisers and so on, are known to us. We have the employment records, so, as I have said to the House many times, we have been able to go into the list of applications, find those whom we are looking for and whom we know to have worked for us and accelerate their approval. As we get through the tail end of the applications, we are seeing lots of rejections, because frankly we have already gone ahead and found those who matched the employment records that we had from our time in Afghanistan. On those who are eligible for the core of the scheme, I have a great deal of confidence that we really are reaching the bottom of the list, and we are moving at pace to bring them out. I will first answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the deportation of those who are eligible.
I spoke to both the UK high commissioner to Islamabad and the Pakistan high commissioner to London this afternoon before coming to the House. Both are entirely comfortable with the assurances we have received from the Pakistan Government that those for whom we have made an eligibility decision will not be deported. I know of one case where somebody who had received a rejection was deported before their appeal was heard. I am not sure that there is necessarily anything we can do to mitigate that—Pakistan is, after all, a sovereign country and has every right to say who can and cannot be in the country—but that person, whose review was successful, was successfully brought back into Pakistan and is now waiting to come to the UK.
As for those in Islamabad, wider Pakistan or any other third country and who may have worked for the Afghan special forces, the answer is that we cannot possibly know that, because we do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces. Therefore, we cannot say who did and did not work with them. We know who has applied to ARAP, and every time someone does, we make an individual judgment about what that person did. Were they just a member of the Triples—heroic and important, but not necessarily working directly for and with us—or were they a member of the Triples who routinely worked with UK special forces or the intelligence community, who would thus be eligible under ARAP category 4? I appreciate that that is a suboptimal answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but if we do not know who worked for the Afghan special forces because they work for the Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs or the Afghan Ministry of Defence, it is impossible to say how many of those people may or may not now be in Pakistan.
Nuclear Test Veterans: Medical Records
Luke Pollard Excerpts(12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on the way she introduced the debate. I congratulate her on being persistent, calm and very clear about what justice looks like, what the veterans of those British nuclear tests deserve, and what can be done about it. This is not the only debate where she has done so; she has done that over many years. She speaks for many hon. Members, from Government and Opposition parties, when she makes the very simple case for justice, for transparency, and for an understanding that those people involved in the tests are currently being denied. I thank her for that effort.
I echo the thanks to the “Fleet Street Fox”, Susie Boniface of The Daily Mirror, for her persistent and dogged campaigning. If it were not for her arguing for the column inches, articles and time to investigate over many years, this issue would not be as loud or as prominent as it is today. Many people owe to her journalism the justice that I hope they will get in future.
Sir John Hayes
I entirely endorse that. I described my constituent Douglas Hern as having inspired me. Had that Mirror journalist not cajoled and informed me over such a long period, I do not think I would have maintained this campaign with quite so much vigour. He is entirely right to pay tribute to her.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I also echo the thanks to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for her time in the shadow Defence team, and welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is shortly taking over that role. I am merely a stand-in today, but I should like to add my thoughts and experience in Plymouth to those shared today.
Our nuclear test veterans served our country with pride and distinction. They made a vital contribution to the creation of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, which continues to keep us and our NATO allies safe today. It is a contribution that our nation should be proud of, and for which our nation owes a huge debt of gratitude and honour. That is not an abstract honour. When those words are used it is like a fog that descends, but I do not think it is. I think that debt of honour is a promise for action. Just as our Armed Forces Covenant says that no one who served should suffer disadvantage because of their service, it is clear that these veterans are suffering disadvantage because of their service.
Those of us who argued for the armed forces covenant and a sense of decency and respect for those who have served and serve today, should honour that with action. Defence Ministers should work to ensure that, as much as possible, transparency and respect are shown to those nuclear test veterans and the lasting consequences their families have suffered. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) put it clearly when she talked not only of the test veterans but their children and grandchildren. This is not a cohort that deserves justice before they die, although they do. This is a cohort whose experiences in the Pacific will last generations to come, if we do not provide that clarity and understanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) described it as unfinished business, and he is right. It is business that this Minister and this House can do something about. As has already been referenced, there are reports that nuclear test veterans are considering suing the Government to access their medical records if they are not forthcoming. It should not take legal action to access the truth. Indeed, the words that some Ministers have used around this legal action suggest that that is the only way to get the truth, because there is nothing that Ministers can do in the meantime—or nothing that they want to do.
That does not sit well with me or Members of the House—that this group of veterans must be prepared to pay for lawyers to get at the truth. What does it say about our democracy that that is the only way for them to access the justice that they deserve? Reasonable questions have been asked of the Minister in this debate. I want to echo a few that have been put so far. What discussions have he and his colleagues had with the nuclear test veterans and affiliated veterans’ groups about access to the requested medical records? This is not just about parliamentarians on both sides of the House asking those questions. There are groups of determined individuals out there, making that case consistently, calmy and coolly.
When was the last time the Minister met that group, and when is he planning to meet them next? If those medical records are being withheld, is there a good reason for doing so? It was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) that it is around cost. If it is around cost, it is about money. All of us understand that money is about where we put our political priorities. It is clear that there is a political priority and an interest from Members on both sides of the House to resolve this. If it is about cost, can the Minister help to unblock that?
What support is in place for the war pension applications from nuclear test veterans who have not received their full service medical records so far? And how does the awarding of a medal—that medallic recognition—tie in with their campaign? Does the Minister regard the medal as a full stop at the end of the campaign, or does he regard it as a platform that shows how we, as a nation, recognise that service and must now do more to resolve the final issues with that group?
Labour is proud to give its full support to nuclear test veterans’ campaign for their medallic recognition. It is important, and has support from both sides of the House. As a party, we are proud that the Leader of the Opposition was the first political leader to meet the nuclear test veterans, back in 2021, as part of that campaign. However, it should not have taken decades for a medal to be awarded to the 22,000 veterans who served during Britain’s nuclear tests.
Everyone who served—those alive and those who have passed—deserves recognition for their service during the tests, but it is not just about receiving the medal; it is also about how those medals are received. At present, many nuclear test veterans receive their medal through their door in plain packaging in second-class post. They deserve better than second-class post. They deserve better than a medal arriving in the post. They deserve a proper ceremony.
I helped Mr Tony Carpanini, an 88-year-old constituent of mine, to receive his medal after he struggled to get it from the Ministry of Defence. He said, “If I had received the medal 60 years ago, it would have meant a lot more, but it is much better late than never.” Mr Carpanini is right about his medal, but so many people he served alongside will not be able to get that medal because they are no longer with us.
We must learn from the experience with medals and offer the experience of justice that many people are seeking in this debate. The strong sense of injustice with which Mr Carpanini left me is something that we have heard in interventions from both sides of Westminster Hall—from people standing up for their constituents. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about his constituents; the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), who is no longer in his place, spoke about his constituents; and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about a person in his constituency. This affects all our constituencies. If we divide 22,000 veterans by 650 Members of Parliament, there are enough in every constituency to make every single MP do something about this. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it very well when he asked for the doors to be opened and for that relationship with data to be published. “Make it clear; release all the records,” is how he put it. That is a strong ask, and I encourage the Minister to look at it.
Returning briefly to the medal ceremonies that have been so missing, I would like the Minister to join me in congratulating Councillor Alan Dowson in Peterborough —whom I met on a visit to Peterborough with Andrew Pakes—Fred Thomas in Plymouth and Catherine Atkinson in Derby, who have been organising medal ceremonies in their communities because the Government did not provide a medal ceremony for nuclear test veterans, notwithstanding a knees-up in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs today. There should be a ceremony for every veteran to receive their medal after so long being denied it. What Fred, Catherine and Alan are organising is a ceremony in their own communities, asking the mayor or lord mayor of their local council to present the medal to those veterans, to say thank you for their service on behalf not just of a grateful nation but of a grateful community.
The Minister could do something really quite special with that, even if he says no to many of the requests we have heard today. He could encourage every local authority to hold a medals ceremony to award those medals to nuclear test veterans in their community. Councils do not know how many nuclear test veterans there are in their community. I do not know how many there are in mine in Plymouth, but I know that they are everywhere. The census showed us that there are veterans in every one of our communities. The best thing about that, which will not get me in trouble with the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), with the Minister or with the Chancellor himself, is that it will not cost the Ministry of Defence a penny. We can encourage our friends in local authorities to do this; they want to do it to recognise the service of those people in their communities.
Sir John Hayes
Of course, the descendants too, because I hope that the medals can be awarded posthumously to descendants such as those of my constituent Douglas Hern. I will get that medal for his descendants—so the Minister had better agree it now, or we will have to have a disagreement.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right: it should be about those people who are descendants of nuclear test veterans. I believe that the terms and conditions of the applications make provision for those people who are no longer with us to have that medal awarded posthumously. That in itself, though, provides a set of principles that we should apply equally to their service elsewhere. In this debate we have heard from Members across the House, just asking questions. We have heard fair questions asked today on behalf of constituents who just want to understand the truth about what happened to their blood and urine tests and why the “truth” in the statements from the Ministry of Defence has changed so often over time. If the Minister cannot give us answers to those questions today, will he set out a journey that he and his Department can go on which will provide comfort and confidence to the families and to Members from both Government and Opposition parties that the Ministry of Defence takes this seriously, and give a general sense that direction, clarity and understanding can be achieved even if all answers cannot be offered?
I conclude by going back to the start of what I said. I am proud that my party stands with our nuclear test veterans, but proud also that hon. Members from both sides of the House stand with those veterans. They served our country with pride and distinction, and we owe it to them to be transparent about the risks they faced and the lasting consequences that their families have suffered. The Minister could do more, and I hope that he will be able to give peace of mind and a sense of justice to those who are affected by our nuclear testing programme.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a new Defence Secretary, but it is the same old story in service accommodation, with reports of broken boilers, black mould, leaky roofs and painfully long waits for repairs. Last Christmas, one service family told me that they went without a working boiler for three weeks and were forced to live in a hotel over Christmas and new year. Can the Minister assure me that no one who serves our country in uniform will go without heating, or be forced out of their home this winter because of the dire state of their military accommodation?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I repeat the point: we recognise that performance was not good enough last winter, which is why the Secretary of State made it an absolute priority to get the extra investment in. Having done that, I am pleased to say that the winter plan does include boiler and heating upgrades for about 1,500 homes.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the past year, the number of veterans claiming universal credit has increased by 31.6%, which is nearly a third. Does the Minister recognise that the King’s Speech failed to help veterans in receipt of universal credit to cope with the increased cost of living caused by his Government’s economic failure? And does he further recognise that some of the long-term sick who his party has been attacking in the media over the last few days are veterans with physical and mental health challenges? What advice has he given his colleagues about the Conservative party rhetoric, and about lending their full support to our veterans and all those who have served?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman will know that universal credit is an in-work benefit. Within the system, there are allowances that we offer to our veterans that can be improved. As he knows, that is why we have instituted the quinquennial review and the independent review of veterans’ welfare services, which we will be responding to shortly.
Ukraine
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. War in Europe is a harsh reminder that to be secure at home we must be strong abroad, and that our allies are our greatest strategic strength in doing so.
Our commitment to Ukraine must be long lasting. Fine words do not defeat the tanks of an invader; only weapons, training, courage and determination stand up to them. The Ukrainian war effort in recent weeks and months has been slow going, but effective. Despite deeply dug in and heavily mined Russian defences, the Ukrainians are steadily getting the upper hand on the battlefield in the south of the country by targeting supply lines and outlying areas in the western Zaporizhzhia oblast and Robotyne. In its defence, the Ukraine operation is also diversifying the ways it is hitting its enemy—airfields at depth in Russia, targets in Crimea and Russian ships in the Black sea. Some have criticised the slow pace of Ukraine’s counter-offensive, yet Ukrainian forces are making a similar rate of progress as British troops did in the days after D-day and the Normandy landings. Now, as then, it is brutal conventional trench warfare, and I want to pay tribute on behalf of all on the Opposition side of the House to the extraordinary heroism and resilience of the Ukrainian military in the face of Russian aggression.
In contrast, Vladimir Putin is fighting a war on a number of fronts with a military battlefield and a political one, too. He is fighting to fix his failing war strategy as Russia’s armed forces continue to fight on the back foot in Ukraine, without the supplies they need, the leadership they need and the rotation of troops they need. Putin is fighting increasing hostility on Russian soil, with a growing number of drone attacks and economic headwinds facing the country because of the grip of sanctions. He is fighting increasing scrutiny of his leadership, as we saw in the aborted coup over the summer, as concerns about the war continue to grow in Russia. However, more than 18 months on, there is no sign that his strategic aims have changed, nor are there any signs that he is any closer to achieving a single one of them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Going back to the hon. Member’s comments about D-day and Normandy, the Americans and Brits were bogged down in hedgerow country there, and the way they broke out and started to make real progress was with overwhelming aerial superiority and bombardment. That is exactly what the Ukrainians need.
Luke Pollard
It is telling that neither Ukraine nor Russia enjoys air superiority over the contested parts of Ukraine at the moment; nor does either enjoy superiority in the electronic warfare spectrum or in uncrewed aerial vehicles. That contest in EW and the airspace makes the contest on land even more brutal, so the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring that we continue to support our friends in Ukraine not just with artillery systems but with the shells and spare parts required to ensure the artillery can keep firing. We must also ensure a continual supply of aerial combat systems—not only F-16s, but the uncrewed drones, which Ukraine is using with such effect—and training. This is a long-term commitment, and while there is no air superiority we need to make sure that every single available advantage that Ukraine can have from the provision of western support is available to it. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Putin believes that the west will not stay the course, as the Minister suggested, but Putin is wrong. Those who call for the Ukrainians to sue for peace and negotiate are doing Putin’s dirty work for him. In over 20 years, Putin has never given up territory he has taken by force. A ceasefire now would cede territory to Russia, allowing Putin’s forces to regroup, deepen the occupation and pretend there is legitimisation for the regime of torture, rape and execution, including the theft of Ukrainian children and their removal to parts of Russia.
The threats we face from Putin are long term, and our resolve must equally stand the test of time across Parliaments, across changes of Ministers and across changes of Governments. There may well be a change to Labour next year, but let me say clearly that there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
The defence of the United Kingdom starts in Ukraine. The support that has been offered to Ukraine by the UK should make us all proud, and I agreed with the Minister when he set out clearly the contribution that has been made by UK forces through Operation Interflex, with the training of our Ukrainian friends and the provision of military systems. Now it is time for Ukraine’s allies to double down on that support, because this is a long-term fight. The UK does deserve credit for its support for Ukraine and the leadership shown among allies to get them to do more, but it is vital that we are able to say the same thing in six months’ time, because stockpiles are being depleted, energy levels are lowering and there is a risk of fatigue. We cannot afford that fatigue, and that is why we must be in this for the long term.
Once Ukraine has prevailed, the rightful place for Ukraine is in NATO, alongside the allies that share common views on democracy, freedom and territorial integrity. That is the rightful place for Ukraine once it has prevailed. However, let me also reiterate that the UK Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support on military aid to Ukraine and on reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s support for NATO is unshakeable, and our backing for Ukraine is solid and firm.
Ukrainians are now urgently asking for more, to help with their current counter-offensive and ensure that it succeeds. Since January, the Prime Minister has repeatedly pledged to accelerate UK support for Ukraine, but one concern on the Opposition side of the House is that momentum behind our military help is faltering. The 14 Challenger 2 tanks that the UK sent to Ukraine may be seen as top of the range, but our effort has now been dwarfed by other European allies. Poland has committed 324 tanks, the Czechs 90, and our friends in the Netherlands 89. There is an urgent need to help Ukraine ramp up its domestic industrial production of key weapons and equipment such as ammunition and shells. BAE Systems’ move to set up a local entity in Ukraine is a start, but the Government could be doing far more to help facilitate deals from a variety of partners, so that Ukraine can produce both modern and Soviet-era systems closer to the frontline, so that they can be used quicker.
Ministers are also yet to provide accelerated support on new drone technologies, including counter-drone measures such as electronic warfare systems and armoured vehicles, despite there being a clear need to do so. Finally, our friends in Ukraine need further support with their de-mining capability—that was raised earlier by a number of Members across the House. It is important that such de-mining support continues, not only on the frontline to ensure a breakthrough, but in the liberated areas to ensure that proper economic activity can return.
Now is the time when the UK should be stepping up support for the Ukrainian offensive. Will the Minister clarify how the new Defence Secretary will be accelerating UK assistance to Ukraine, and will he set out the scope of assistance that Ukraine can expect from us as part of that acceleration? How is he removing some of the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent partnerships between UK industry and our friends in Ukraine from taking place? The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) raised a similar point during Defence questions, and this is about breaking down the barriers between businesses and allies, rather than a simple intergovernmental transfer of support being required. Boxing clever here could produce good results. To be the lead nation in providing support for Ukraine, we must be faster in delivering the support that is required.
On help with rebuilding Ukraine, the European Union has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, Canada has passed laws allowing it to do the same, and now the US has also drafted a Bill to do so. The Government said in July that they support using frozen assets to rebuild Ukraine, so what is causing the delay? When can we expect frozen assets to be used for that purpose? If Ministers come forward with a workable plan, it will enjoy cross-party support. This Parliament will be agreed on it, so when will that happen and what will it look like?
The Government finally decided last week to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation, but on 20 February this year I stood at the Dispatch Box and called for Wagner to be designated as a terrorist organisation. Labour colleagues have been doing that for some time, and the European Parliament voted for it late last year. Complacency could be the enemy of success in Ukraine, so why has it taken six months since Labour called for it to happen for Ministers slowly to grind into action? Why now, only after Prigozhin has been killed, has Wagner been proscribed in that way by the United Kingdom? That is a lengthy delay, and it would be useful to understand why we were so out of step with our allies when it came to Wagner. Will the Minister provide an assessment of the risk that Wagner troops pose to Ukraine, including the thousands still based in Belarus?
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, I and Labour colleagues have responded eight times to debates, statements or urgent questions concerning Ukraine. Time and again in such debates we have reiterated the urgent need for a stockpiles strategy to sustain support for Ukraine and rearm Britain. Time and again, the Government have failed to provide a coherent long-term stockpiles strategy. That is not good enough. Our generosity to Ukraine, correct as it is, is depleting our current military stockpiles, and despite the Government having known about this problem for over a year, they continue to act too slowly to replenish them. The capability gaps that are being created are concerning, because if we want to be in this for the long term—and I believe that on a cross-party basis we do—we cannot afford capability gaps. Nor can we afford to empty our cupboard to ensure that the front line is well supplied, while having nothing for our own defence, that of our allies or the continuing support we need.
Next generation light anti-tank weapons have been vital to Ukraine, and it was 287 days after the invasion before the MOD got its act together and signed a new contract, with the first newly made NLAWs not due until 2024. What active steps are the Government taking to improve the British magazine depth, as the Americans would describe it, and our stockpiles? Does the Minister accept that the UK needs a stockpiles strategy so that we can finally shift parts of our defence industry and MOD procurement on to urgent operational footing, to ensure that that we have the supplies of both the armaments and the military systems that we need to ensure long-term support? At the moment the Government are continuing to fall short on that front.
Jim Shannon
I have been listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about NLAWs, and there was a very quick response—some credit should be given to Thales for its response when the Government put the order in. Almost straight away Thales was able to respond, manufacture those NLAWs and get them out to Ukraine. Some credit must be given to the Thales factory and the workers back in Belfast, for what they were able to do.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to thank not only those in Britain’s military industries who have been supporting the effort in Ukraine, but those in Plymouth who are supplying the parts that go into some of the missile systems that are made in the factory mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. This is a long-term effort, and that is why we need a stockpiles strategy to ensure that investment is going in across the United Kingdom, especially in missiles and missile systems that are proving their worth on the battlefield in Ukraine, but that were developed, designed and built many decades ago, and that we have been using as part of our stockpiles ever since.
The Government need to show us that they are learning the lessons from the war in Ukraine, and part of that is about our homeland defence and how we better protect these shores. There was a brief mention of that in the defence Command Paper refresh published recently, but in light of developments in missile technology and the weaponisation of drones that has been on display in both Ukraine and Russia, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the Government are doing to protect the UK and our own homeland defence from such threats. Our cities are as vulnerable as Russian cities to those kinds of attacks, and as we begin the autumn and winter months we must learn from the experience of the attacks in Ukraine last year, especially Russian targeting of supply chains and, importantly, civilian energy installations. What are we doing in advance to ensure that those energy installations are better defended, and that there is an ongoing supply of power? I realise that there will be things the Minister cannot say, but I am sure there are things he can say to ensure certainty in this House. Russia will try to force Ukrainians into darkness once again. What additional support can the UK provide for increased Ukraine air defence, which is critical to ensure that Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure survives over the winter?
Ukraine must win this war, and Russia must lose. The former Defence Secretary understood that well, and his successor must now give that his full focus when he can. The new Defence Secretary has taken this job at a time when political leadership is just as vital as military leadership. Earlier this year, his predecessor conceded in the Commons that successive Conservative Governments had “hollowed out and underfunded” our forces. Since 2010, the Government have cut 25,000 full-time soldiers from the British Army, removed one in five ships from the Royal Navy, and taken more than 200 aircraft out of RAF service in the last five years alone. As the new Defence Secretary takes his place, he should pursue an accelerated UK plan to help support Ukraine and defeat Putin. First, he must accelerate military support, secondly he must redouble UK defence diplomacy to help maintain western unity, and thirdly he must spell out the long-term security guarantees announced with G7 partners at the recent NATO summit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman is giving full solidarity, and the pledge on behalf of the Labour party to continue the Government’s policy in Ukraine is extremely welcome and will be heard around the world. Does that extend to guarantees on funding for defence? I appreciate that this is a loaded question, but will the hon. Gentleman match whatever the Government promise to spend on defence?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman invites me to write Labour’s manifesto from the Dispatch Box, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), would not be too keen on me doing that. Let me say clearly that Labour in power has always spent what is required on defence. When we left power we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, a figure never matched by Conservative Governments in 13 years. It is important that when it comes to defence, we not only have a reasonable budget for security, but that the money is well spent.
What we have seen recently, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a huge amount of waste in MOD procurement. That is not only on wasted systems, but through money going to foreign contractors that in the Opposition’s mind should have gone to UK contractors, because we believe in building in Britain first and foremost. As we have seen from the recent Royal Fleet Auxiliary solid support ship contract, which was sent abroad rather than to a UK supplier in its first instance, we are seeping money out of our system when we allow such contracts to go abroad. We need to make sure that as we build new platforms, there is an adequate work share for all partners involved. There is a balance to be struck, but I take the challenge that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am afraid he will have to wait for our manifesto for those commitments.
The final thing I will do is to thank all the communities up and down the country that have been supporting our Ukrainian friends throughout the 564 days since Putin’s illegal invasion. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have been supporting people in your constituency in Doncaster and met some of them to thank them for their support. Members from both sides of the House have been supporting their communities over the summer recess, including in making sure that Ukrainians who have come to the United Kingdom can remain here. In particular, I pay tribute to some of the Ukrainian young people in Plymouth who have succeeded in achieving GCSEs and A-levels, despite the enormous pressure upon them and their families. In many cases, they were studying subjects in a new language and a new country while their friends and families are facing bombing and attack in Ukraine. It is an incredible achievement, and I put on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of the entire House to all those British families who have been making Ukrainians welcome here in Britain.
We still have a lot more work to do, and our commitment needs to be long term, not only in our military support for Ukraine, but in our support for Ukrainians for whom it is unsafe to go home. For as long as it is unsafe, we need to make sure there is a safe home for them here. Should there be a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no change in Britain’s support for Ukraine. We must rise to the same heights as our Ukrainian friends to ensure that Putin loses and Ukraine wins.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.