Armed Forces Day
Mark Francois Excerpts(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and when the announcement was officially made, I recall standing at the Dispatch Box and thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here today, for his work on it. It was a terrible privatisation—truly awful. It represented the worst value for taxpayers and it has doomed many of our forces families to appalling accommodation for far too long. Now that that privatisation has ended and we have brought those homes back into public control, we can invest in them. We need to do that at pace, because people are living today in accommodation with mould and damp. That is not good enough. We need to proceed at pace, and the Minister for Veterans and People who leads on this work in the MOD is as impatient as I am to see the improvements—as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, as someone who represents a military constituency.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the record, the shadow Defence Secretary is not here because he has a very important personal family commitment today. I am honoured to stand in for him.
Has the Minister seen our proposals for a ringfenced armed forces housing association, to provide better quality accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families?
Luke Pollard
I am sure the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is by no means a poor substitute for the shadow Defence Secretary.
We plan to publish our defence housing strategy later this year, which no doubt was not at all in the minds of the shadow Front-Bench team when they published their proposals ahead of time. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the full work to be published in due course, but improving defence housing has to be a priority, because for many years as a nation, we have not delivered what our forces deserve—that will now change.
This year, we extended the ability to reclaim the costs of wraparound childcare to many of those deployed overseas, and next year we will go further and cover all overseas areas to help make family life a little easier. We are legislating for an Armed Forces Commissioner—an independent voice to help improve service life. We made a manifesto commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law—a promise made by the nation that those who defend it will be treated fairly and will not be disadvantaged because of their service. That includes, for example, ensuring that service children have the same access to education as other children. We are transforming recruitment, and hope that many young people will be inspired to join up after attending Armed Forces Day events this weekend. We are also overhauling access to care and support for veterans through the Valour programme.
I turn to veterans because although Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to thank those people in uniform, we should also use it as an opportunity to thank those people who have served.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Given the topic, I am genuinely honoured to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the subject of Armed Forces Day. I had the honour to be present in New Palace Yard on Monday to watch members of the armed forces raise the armed forces flag in Parliament, in a ceremony presided over by Mr Speaker and his Chaplain, the Rev. Canon Mark Birch MVO. It was a joyous occasion, and I am pleased to say it was very well attended by many MPs.
My opposite number, the Armed Forces Minister, is the proud son of a submariner, and I am the equally proud son of Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, who served on the minesweeper HMS Bressay on D-day. We are both naval brats, as he put it—at least after a fashion.
It is now established that Armed Forces Day is held on the last Saturday of June. This Saturday there will be many ceremonies across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including in my county of Essex, and I hope to attend the celebration in Basildon, the town in which I grew up. This is a time when people across our four nations come together to celebrate the role of the whole armed forces family—regulars, reserves, veterans, cadets and, of course, their loved ones—in defending our country and our democratic way of life. I will say something about those four categories—regulars, reserves, cadets and veterans—in my remarks this afternoon.
Beginning with reserves, Armed Forces Day and, indeed, Armed Forces Week normally enjoy bipartisan—perhaps I should say tripartisan—support in Parliament. Touching on this allows me to say something about the value of the reserves to our armed forces. In doing so, I declare an interest having served as an infantry officer in the 5th Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, in the Territorial Army, in the 1980s during the cold war, when —this dates me—the Berlin wall was still up. I greatly appreciate the extremely important role that our reserves in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the RAF Volunteer Reserve and others play in supporting our regulars in the defence of the realm.
In that context, I recently saw an analysis showing that, following the 2024 general election, there are now 17 Conservative MPs who have served or are serving in either the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown. However, the Conservatives have no monopoly on military service, as the same survey rightly showed that Labour has 13 MPs in a similar position and the Liberal Democrats have eight. For completeness, I should add that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also served in the Territorial Army, so he is with us on that point. I sometimes feel that he is always with us—he is virtually omnipresent in the Chamber.
It is therefore true to say that the armed forces enjoy support across the political spectrum, at least from those of us who are here. I merely note in passing that, yet again, when defence is being discussed in this Chamber there is no Reform MP present to grace our proceedings. It is ironic and telling that Members of a party that likes to wrap itself in the flag—a flag it does not own—cannot be bothered to turn up to debate the service of those who loyally serve under that flag. Bluntly, Reform does not do defence. Nevertheless, I hope that most of what I say in the next few minutes will be broadly consensual, with perhaps one exception, which I will come to near the end.
The role of our armed forces in defending our way of life down the centuries is just as pertinent today as it has ever been, with the war in Ukraine, where brave Ukrainians continue to resist Vladimir Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of their country, alongside the continued turmoil in the middle east.
On the regulars, those who serve in our armed forces deserve our unstinting and ongoing support. Numerous studies show that the vast majority of people who serve in the armed forces benefit greatly from the experience. As well as serving their country, they often learn valuable skills and trades that make them highly marketable in the civilian jobs market—indeed, that can be a problem for retention, as the Minister intimated. When I served as a Defence Minister, albeit over a decade ago, one powerful statistic was that 80% of those who left the armed forces found a job within six months, and I believe the figures are equally good, if not better, today. People who are smart, disciplined and trained to turn up on time and to be resourceful are always likely to be attractive to employers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Veterans play an important role in my Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, where 11% of households include at least one veteran. However, female veterans are more than 10% less likely to be employed than male veterans. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must put more support into helping female veterans find the right employment after their service?
Mr Francois
I agree. We should do everything we can to help all veterans, whatever their gender, to find good employment after their service, and that certainly includes female veterans.
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as it is taking place in the hon. Lady’s constituency, why on earth are Kneecap being allowed to appear at the Glastonbury festival? Why on earth have the organisers allowed that to take place? [Interruption.]
Moving on, we need to bear in mind that without—
Sarah Dyke
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may just correct the right hon. Gentleman, the Glastonbury festival site is not in my constituency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think it is helpful to have the record corrected.
Mr Francois
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We need to bear employability very much in mind, as without skilled regular personnel to maintain and operate even the most expensive and sophisticated kit, from Typhoon and F-35 fighters to Type 45 destroyers and main battle tanks, we cannot achieve operational success. In short, without well trained people, the equipment counts for nothing and does not have the deterrent effect that we seek. When asked at the Royal United Services Institute earlier this week about the single biggest challenge that the Royal Navy faces, the fleet commander, Vice-Admiral Andrew Burns, replied:
“It’s people right now. It’s the quantity of people, and it’s not just recruitment, it’s retention.”
For context, this is not a uniquely British problem. All our Five Eyes partners face similar challenges, even the United States, and I shall return to that in a moment.
Let me turn to cadets. We in this country are fortunate to have an active and enthusiastic cadet movement, and while we welcome the proposals in the White Paper to expand the cadets even further, we would like to see more detail about how exactly that will be achieved. Cadet units play a vital role in fostering disciplined teamwork and a sense of service among young people, providing invaluable opportunities for personal development, and serving as a pathway to a career in the armed forces, should the young person desire that.
Whether we are Ministers, shadow Ministers or otherwise, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, so I pay tribute to the Army cadet detachments in Rayleigh and Wickford, which are part of C company in the Essex Army Cadet Force, both of which I have visited. I hope to see the Rayleigh detachment again shortly, not least as it appears that it will need to find a new home within the next several years. I also highlight the valuable work undertaken by 1474 (Wickford) Squadron of the Air Training Corps, and their sister unit, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps; I declare an interest in the latter, as I recently had the honour of being appointed honorary squadron president. Its motto is “Amanogawa”, which is Japanese for heavenly river, and I can confirm that they are in full flow.
Over the years, I have heard a number of hon. Members pay full tribute in the Chamber to their cadet units; I will chance my arm and say that I am sure we will rightly hear praise for more cadet units before the debate is out. They are a fundamental part of the armed forces family. I thank not only the young people who sign up, but those adults who give of their time, voluntarily, to provide instruction and leadership for these outstanding young people.
Let me turn to veterans. As one example of work that can be done to protect veterans, I commend to the House an initiative known as the Forcer protocol. The idea is named after Alan Forcer, who served in the British Army for a number of years in several theatres, but who sadly took his own life after a struggle with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. His widow, Claire Lilly, came to see me at my constituency surgery a number of years ago, and told me that she was determined to channel her grief in a positive way, by establishing a system to help find and protect veterans who go missing. When I met Claire, I was struck by her absolute determination to succeed, and I am pleased to tell the House that that is exactly what she did.
In short, the Forcer protocol is now a standard operating procedure for many police forces. It is similar in some ways to the Herbert protocol for people who go missing with dementia, but it has special features that are designed specifically to assist former service personnel. In essence, it works like this. People who have a veteran in their family who they believe may be vulnerable can register their details confidentially, including known associates and favourite haunts, with an organisation known as Safe and Found Online. In the event that a veteran goes missing, the family, by releasing a PIN code, can make that information immediately available to the police, to assist them in their search for the potentially vulnerable veteran. The initiative was trialled by Greater Manchester police over six months. The trial was an outstanding success; GMP reported that it had allowed them to make positive and timely interventions that undoubtedly saved the lives of dozens of veterans in the Greater Manchester area.
As a result of that highly successful trial, the Forcer protocol is being rolled out across police forces nationwide. We had an event to encourage progress in the Commons in November 2024, and I am pleased to tell the House that at very short notice, the new Minister for Veterans and People attended to give his personal support, for which I thank him again today. In an equally bipartisan spirit, I pay tribute to the actor and TV celebrity Mr Ross Kemp, aka Grant Mitchell, for his unwavering support for that initiative, for the work that he has done for veterans more widely, and for his amazing documentary with the Royal Anglian Regiment—my old regiment—in Afghanistan. Thank you, Ross, for everything you do for our armed forces, past and present. We know your heart is absolutely in it, and we are grateful.
I am delighted to report that my constabulary in Essex is formally adopting the Forcer protocol today at a ceremony at Colchester. It is deliberately doing so in Armed Forces Week. Thirteen forces, including Essex, are now using that life-saving procedure. It is estimated that since the initial trial with GMP and the roll-out across other forces in this country, the process has saved literally hundreds of veterans. I commend Claire Lilly for everything that she and her loyal band of supporters have done to make this possible. We have another event in the Commons this November, by which time I very much hope that all 43 police forces in England and Wales will be fully signed up. Well done, Claire. Alan would be proud of you.
As I mentioned earlier, despite the tri-partisan nature of this debate, there is, I am afraid, one issue on which I feel that the Government and the Opposition will not agree: the Government’s proposed treatment of Northern Ireland veterans. More than 300,000 regular British soldiers served in Northern Ireland during the troubles between 1969 and 2007. That highly challenging task, known as Operation Banner, was one of the longest-running continual exercises in the history of the British Army. During that long and at times highly dangerous deployment, more than 700 British soldiers were killed assisting the Ulster Defence Regiment and the then Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Many thousands of soldiers were maimed for life by both Republican and so-called loyalist bombs, while trying to hold the line in an incredibly complex and dangerous situation.
I have seen many memorials in my time, but perhaps one of the most poignant was the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial at its headquarters in Knock, on which are commemorated hundreds of officers who gave their life, working alongside the Army, to attempt to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Imagine the utter dismay of those veterans who served in the British Army in that highly complex theatre at the news that the Labour Government intend to drive through a remedial order, under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998, effectively to remove key provisions in the Conservative-inspired Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That will have two very important effects. First, it will reopen the endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often via coronial inquests, to which many British Army soldiers have already been subject. Secondly—I wonder whether many Labour Members are aware of this—that same remedial order, which their Whips will urge them to vote for later this autumn, will make it easier for Gerry Adams and his associates to sue the British Government, and ultimately the British taxpayer. This is two-tier justice at its absolute worst.
The veterans have initiated a parliamentary petition, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which amassed more than 100,000 signatures in well under a month. As of noon today, the petition has achieved more than 145,000 signatures, and it is still going strong. As a result of that public support, we will debate that counter-productive policy, which is a looming disaster for armed forces recruitment and retention, in Parliament next month. We Conservative Members vigorously resist that wholly misguided remedial order, which is designed to aid Gerry Adams while throwing our brave veterans to the wolves. We warmly welcome the Daily Mail’s campaign, launched this morning, to defend our veterans. As the Daily Mail’s editorial powerfully put it this morning,
“It is profoundly unfair that frail ex-servicemen will continue to live in dread of a knock on the door, by the authorities, while IRA murderers sleep easily, with letters of immunity, handed to them by Tony Blair.”
I think that puts it rather well.
It is worth recording that many of the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland were recruited from what we might now call red wall towns, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley. They were then ordered across the Irish sea to help uphold the rule of law. Many of those surviving veterans are now in their 70s or even their 80s, and I suspect that many Labour MPs would find it extremely difficult to explain to them and their loved ones that they are taking this action just because their Government are literally obsessed with the Human Rights Act 1998. Conservative Members will bitterly oppose the remedial order; Labour Members will need to look into their consciences and, hopefully, when the Division bell rings, do the same.
With that important exception, I hope that hon. Members from across the House who are in the Chamber can agree that we value immensely the work of the whole armed forces family, and everything that they do to keep our country safe. Without those people who have the courage to take the King’s shilling, as the old phrase has it, put on a uniform and, if ultimately necessary, risk their life to keep this country free, we would have no guarantee of our precious democracy.
Perhaps the most fitting way to end my humble contribution will be to quote the words of Rudyard Kipling from his famous poem, “Recessional”, which was written in 1897 to commemorate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Those who know the poem will know that there is no hint of jingoism about it—indeed, quite the reverse. It warns about the power of divine judgment and the humility of kings. As Kipling put it:
“The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!”
Luke Pollard
Members who had to sit through my opening remarks will be pleased to know that I will not be repeating many of them, but I am keen to pick up on a number of points raised in their speeches, which were so ably summarised by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a time when it is easy to take political pot-shots across the Chamber on serious issues, today’s debate has shown that we can come together, cross-party, to support our people, to have a serious debate about the contribution our armed forces make to our national security, and to raise genuine issues of concern with respect and thoughtfulness. Sadly, not as many people will be watching this debate as watch other proceedings in the Chamber, but if did, they would see Parliament working effectively and properly.
Mr Francois
In a bipartisan spirit, perhaps the Minister will allow me to relay a brief apology. I promised the Chair of the Defence Committee that I would explain why he and some of the Committee are not here, when ordinarily they would be. They are on an overseas trip directly related to defence business. It would help keep me honest if the Minister allowed me to place that on the record.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman certainly does not want to offend the Chair of the Defence Committee, so I am glad that he has had the chance to put that on the record.
What I heard in the debate, and what I hope our forces will have heard if they were listening, was not only support for the men and women who serve, and advocacy for the armed forces as a brilliant career choice, but support for improvement to the transition from military life to civilian roles, and support for those who have served in the past; we heard stories of heroism and courage. That makes for a good debate, and I am pleased that a number of Members were able to pick out elements from the strategic defence review. The Government have adopted all 62 recommendations from Lord George Robertson’s report, and we will implement them in full. Further announcements will be made about what we are implementing and how we are taking forward not only the SDR’s recommendations, but its spirit.
As we set a path for increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament, and to 3.5% by 2035, and for spending 1.5% on resilience and homeland defence over in the same period, I hope there will be plenty of opportunity for Members to make the case that increased defence spending can mean spending not just on kit and equipment, but on our people. I expect that to be heard loud and clear across the House, so that when we hear conversations about renewing military accommodation, we know that there is an increased budget to pay for that work, and when we talk about valuing our people, we know there are above-inflation pay rises for them for the first time in a very long time. That is important.
There is one thing that I will expect to see and hear more about in future debates. We heard lots of mentions of our Army, Navy and Air Force and their traditional roles, but in future debates on the armed forces, I expect that we will hear more mentions of those who work in cyber and the digital defence of our nation. The cyber direct entry pathway that we have opened has been a success, and we look forward to announcing the passing out of the first cohort later this year. The ability for us —the armed forces and people who care about defence—to talk about cyber resilience and protecting our digital infrastructure is just as important as protecting against kinetic and more traditional military threats. Indeed, I expect that in future years there will be more discussion of how we keep our space domain safe.
I am glad that a number of hon. Members were able to talk about their role and participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am the Minister responsible for that, and I am proud of the way that the scheme has been expanded in the past year. I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for its support on that. The scheme is a superb opportunity for parliamentarians who have not served, and for those who have, to experience a different perspective on military life. It allows them to understand what we ask of our people; to listen and learn from them, their deployments and their experiences; and to bring that into the House and improve our work here.
I turn to comments made in the debate. I am glad that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), talked about the Forcer protocol. Indeed, I expect all Members of the House to ask their chief constables whether their police force is going with that. I undertake to do the same for Devon and Cornwall police, as will many of the other Devon MPs, I imagine. There is a real merit in the protocol, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House’s attention.
I am proud to be Plymouth’s first ever out MP, and seeing the way that LGBT personnel and veterans are now spoken about in the House fills me with pride. When I was growing up, there were not always the role models or the public debate that enabled folk like me to feel that there was a place in the armed forces for them. The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and others were very powerful. He said that courage knows no gender or sexuality, which is absolutely right. We need to build that sentiment into our armed forces as we seek to change the culture, so that everyone is welcome and there is no place for abuse. As we move to warfighting readiness, we need the contribution of people from every background to our armed forces if we are to keep our nation safe.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for talking about the importance of payments to LGBT veterans. The priority order was established by the Minister for Veterans and People. The initial payments have gone to those over 80 and those who are sadly towards the end of their life, so that we can ensure that those payments are made before they leave this place. We have now established the procedure for paying the larger cohort of people who do not fit into that category, and the Minister for Veterans and People will make further announcements about how we will roll out the payments. We are pleased that the first payments have been made in full to the first cohort.
I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that Armed Forces Day is a starting point for serious change. I believe that change started on 4 July last year, but I take her comments in the spirit in which she made them. It is not enough to talk about change; we have to take action. Hopefully, she and Members from across the House will see the strategic defence review being implemented, the increase in defence spending, the increased pay for our forces, and the housing improvement, all of which will contribute to improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), who spoke about the armed forces covenant being our collective promise, which is exactly right. As we look to put that fully into law, there will need to be a conversation. If I may be cheeky, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties that questions on our armed forces covenant need not be directed only to the Ministry of Defence. If the covenant is to be effective, we need every Government Department to understand their role in putting the covenant fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People has been undertaking cross-Government work on that, and I imagine that there will be further such work in due course, as we build towards that legislation.
Mr Francois
In the hope that other Government Departments are listening, the Minister might recall that I said in my remarks that at noon today the Northern Ireland veterans petition had just over 145,000 signatures. I looked a few seconds ago, and the figure is now just shy of 148,000. Perhaps people were inspired by the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Will the Minister convey to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that we do not want to throw our Northern Ireland veterans to the wolves—and clearly, from this petition, neither do the public?
Luke Pollard
I will return to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, so he will not have to wait long for my response, but first I will deal with some other points.
I am grateful for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the national Armed Forces Day event, which I am pleased to see back. She has a passion for the event and is serious about her community. She also has pride in and a close connection to the folk she mentioned—it was a very powerful speech. I am certain that the ice cream will be on the Secretary of State, especially now that he knows he is going to the event, so she should expect plenty of dairy coming her way.
I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke about RAF Lossiemouth, the importance of how we base our people and valuing the wider community. I am grateful to him for mentioning HMS Spey; the offshore patrol vessel is doing a superb job in the Indo-Pacific, as is her sister ship HMS Tamar. Their contributions to upholding the international rules-based order and supporting our allies in the region are really important. She is a little ship with a big impact and is really very powerful there, so I am grateful for his comments.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to forget the opportunity to talk about resilience spending. He talked about the spending of other Government Departments and councils effectively enabling homeland defence. That is precisely why the spending pledge agreed at the NATO summit was that by 2035, 1.5% of GDP should be spent on homeland defence and other activities that bolster our resilience as a nation. I think he has a strong case to argue on that. NATO will shortly publish the full criteria, setting out what money will come into that, but I believe that the examples he gave are good ones to use in arguing his case, so I encourage him to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and I did indeed wave off HMS Prince of Wales when she left for her deployment to the Indo-Pacific. That was a good opportunity to meet members of her community in Portsmouth. The carrier and the carrier strike group include people from all parts of our country, who are all sailing together, alongside many of our allies, including our Norwegian friends, who have a frigate sailing on the entire deployment. When we celebrate the contribution of our armed forces, let us remember the contribution of our allies to keeping us safe today and in the past.
I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who spoke about Jack Dark’s 102nd birthday. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who spoke about Norman Ashford, a D-day veteran. It is really important that we value and take extra care of those final few folks from the second world war. We must ensure that we capture their stories and retell them, so that they are not forgotten. I am grateful for the contributions of all of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) correctly raised the issue of the RAF photographic reconnaissance aircraft. I can report that the Minister for Veterans has indeed met those involved in the campaign, as I suspect nearly every single person in the House has. If there were a public affairs award for best lobbying campaign, this campaign would certainly deserve it. I understand that progress is being made, and that the campaign group met Westminster city council to discuss the issue. The cost of what is being suggested would need to be met by public subscription, and I have no doubt that it would be, so I expect positive progress. There is strong support for recognition of the bravery of the people who undertook these roles in the second world war, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am also grateful to him for giving examples of service personnel who, in recollections of wartime stories, do not always get the attention that they deserve, including those from the Sikh community, who he spoke about.
It is good to have three Front-Bench speakers from Devon; that does not always happen in this place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who spoke about the contribution that her family made. On the issue of the time of flight, as it is referred to in the Ministry of Defence, that is the time from signing up to attending a training establishment. We inherited a situation in which that time was over a year for some of our services, and that is not acceptable. In July last year, we were losing 84% of people in the process, not because of medical problems or eligibility issues around nationality or criminal records, but simply because the process took too long. That is not acceptable.
I am strongly against the criticism made that our younger generation do not want to serve our nation, because that is not true. Last year, 165,000 people tried to join the British Army, and we hired 9,500 at the end. We lost the vast majority because the process is too long and slow. That is why we are reducing the time of flight. I am very happy to look into the casework matter that the hon. Lady raised if she writes to me. The “10 and 30” policy that I mentioned in my opening remarks should certainly make a difference when rolled out fully across all three services. I will certainly try to discourage the Minister for Veterans and People from reading the transcript of this debate; being regarded as a legend will no doubt boost his humbleness.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his concluding remarks, and for his story of nearly crash-landing in someone’s picnic. He did not tell the end of that story, but as he is here in one piece, let us assume that it all went well. I am also grateful for the way in which he summarised the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) raised valid questions from 216 Battery about training levels. We have inherited a situation in which training—for both regular and reserve forces—was often the first casualty of trying to manage in-year budget pressures over a number of years. We are very aware of that within the Ministry of Defence. We are conscious that the increase in defence spend could, in part, make a difference to that, but as we have a number of challenges to deal with, we need to look at the best way of delivering increased training—particularly adventurous training, which is what many of our forces want. I would be very happy to have a further conversation with my hon. Friend, so that she can raise with me the particulars of those issues.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), between making his speech and coming back, has changed his tie to look more like mine—I am very grateful for that fashion change. His remarks, particularly about the contribution of the US air force bases in his constituency, were a good reminder of the close friendship we have. I was at the US embassy earlier today as part of a conference organised by the Council on Geostrategy, looking at our transatlantic alliance. Our military-to-military co-operation underscores the value of our relationship with our US friends, and I know that America really does value the bases in the UK that it is able to operate from.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that our armed forces personnel should be paid properly, housed properly, posted sympathetically and granted stability. That is the intent of many of the changes we are making. On the stability point, I am thinking in particular about where we are with British Army deployments, because Air Force and Navy personnel generally have greater stability than their compatriots in the Army. We are aware of that issue and are looking at it, but I am certain that the hon. Member will be sending me lots of parliamentary questions—possibly before I have even sat down.
Let me turn to the very serious issue raised by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who spoke about Northern Ireland veterans. He will know—because we have spoken about it a number of times, and he has also spoken with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans—that we on the Government Benches feel very strongly that we need to support our veterans. We are seeking to navigate through that process at the moment. The debate on the petition mentioned by a number of Members will take place on 14 July. I welcome that debate, which will be an opportunity to make the case for those people who served our nation in support of peace in Northern Ireland.
There is more work to be done in this area. After the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, I read the article in the Daily Mail about the launch of the campaign that he referenced. It is certainly true that the Government seek to repeal the current Northern Ireland legacy Act, but what one has to get to the penultimate paragraph of the article to read is that we intend to replace it as well. The right hon. Gentleman chose his wording carefully about how that replacement needs to work.
The current Act is unlawful—it has been found to be so in a number of courts—and it has not prevented some of the things we are seeing at the moment, so we have to find a way forward in this area. The Northern Ireland Office is looking at it at the moment, and we in the Ministry of Defence continue to have conversations with our NIO colleagues—indeed, I think that was the point that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, was making in his intervention —and we will continue to do so.
Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England
Mark Francois Excerpts(4 days, 14 hours 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
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that aftercare is very important. On why recruitment levels have fallen, I would expand on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor made about the recruitment process and criteria, such as the medical requirements.
When Admiral Sir Tony Radakin spoke to the Public Accounts Committee in April, he clearly said that there is no shortage of people wanting to serve—as we know in the north-east—but too few of those applications are turned into recruits. The rigidity of medical standards is certainly an issue: 76,000 applications were rejected on medical grounds in the last five years, and the MOD’s website makes it clear that even a minor or historical health issue that does not affect daily life could disqualify someone.
Sir Tony is far more qualified than I am to speak about this, but he made a very compelling point that we are assessing people for 22 years of service when most will serve only 10. In fact, if we could take a more flexible approach and think about a five-year service interval, that would open the door to thousands more capable recruits willing to serve.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for his kind personal remarks. He is absolutely right, and I will be saying more about this point in my speech, but would he acknowledge that whatever colour of party is in government, all armed forces across the western world are now struggling to recruit and, particularly, to retain personnel? The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom, or indeed north-east England.
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Member has a point. Many countries struggle with recruitment, and perhaps the cuts to the armed forces and the delivery of the so-called peace dividend have been an issue in some countries. In the north-east in particular, however, which is the subject of this debate, there is no shortage of committed people desperately wishing to serve. Ultimately, it is the systems in place that are preventing them from doing that.
We are clearly in an increasingly hostile world. We have war in Europe, an increasing threat from China, and, of course, what is happening in the middle east. People are seeing that on their TV screens each evening and they are wanting to serve. We should make it easier for them to do that. If the right hon. Member wants a more direct answer, I think that the outsourcing of recruitment, which was fundamentally a cost-cutting measure as part of austerity, has weakened not just our public services, but our national security.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence took office, he inherited a system that had missed its recruitment targets every single year for over a decade—we had more people leaving the forces than joining. That is why I welcome his commitment to modernisation. We need to cut red tape, to scrap these outdated entry requirements, and to make it fundamentally easier for people to serve.
The strategic defence review recognises the scale of the workforce crisis with plans to invest in infrastructure and people. That includes the award of a 4.5% above inflation pay rise for personnel, which is the beginning of proper recognition of the professionalism and sacrifices of our armed forces, and the commitment of £1.5 billion for armed forces housing. I am sure that many hon. Members have been appalled by the current housing conditions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) mentioned, if we want to retain talent, we need to think more long term about how people are treated when they leave, and how their families are treated while they serve.
Every day, our armed forces keep Britain safe at home and abroad. They deserve more than gratitude; they deserve a system that works for them. Service personnel in Stockton, Billingham, and Norton know that they are fully supported by our local community, and I am sure they also know that they are now fully supported by this Labour Government.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate, and all hon. Members on their contributions. It is quite tough to follow them and to add anything, given the quality of the speeches that we have already heard.
It is very appropriate that we are having this debate in Armed Forces Week, and it was a pleasure to speak at the Armed Forces Week flag-raising event that was held in Stanley Front street on Sunday. Such is the passion for the armed forces in North Durham that Stanley gets two bites at the cherry, as there is also a ceremony this Sunday to mark the end of Armed Forces Week. Front street will be full of gazebos from different military units, cadet forces and veterans’ organisations.
As has been flagged already in the debate, North Durham is closely associated with our historic county regiment, the Durham Light Infantry—the DLI, known as the Faithful Durhams—whose record of service in the two world wars and further back in British military history is incredible. I pay tribute to the individuals involved in that, but also to the many others who answered the call to duty across all branches and units. When I go door to door or meet people in the street, it is like a quiz: do I recognise the cap badge or know something about the history of the different units that people have been involved in?
As other hon. Members have said, the north-east has contributed immensely to the defence of the UK. At the 2021 census, there were over 100,000 veterans in the north-east, and the statistics for my constituency are similar to those for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson): one in 20 individuals in North Durham is a veteran, and one in 10 households has a veteran in it. I am so proud to represent the many veterans, serving personnel, reservists and their families in my constituency, as well as what will hopefully be the next generation. I will just name-check the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street, where the headteacher was really proud of the pupils’ involvement.
As we rightly renew our nation’s defences in the face of a much more unstable and uncertain world, we must recognise that the most important element of our defence is its people. Sadly, the number of people serving in the UK regular forces decreased significantly under the previous Government, and the headcount at the end of April 2024 was down by over 15% compared with a decade earlier. As armed forces recruitment has fallen in recent years, the impact has been particularly acute in the north-east compared with other regions, perhaps because recruitment was disproportionately high in the north-east. Between 2015 and 2024, untrained intake into the armed forces reduced by 14% across the UK as a whole, but the reduction in the north-east was 34%.
I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to tackling not just recruitment in the armed forces, but retention. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have seen the largest pay rise for personnel in over 20 years, as well as recruitment reforms to scrap outdated policies and make the process more straightforward for those who wish to join our armed forces. We also now have the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, which is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee alongside the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Mr Francois
I am ever so sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but technically it is still a Bill. We are debating it in the main Chamber next Wednesday.
Luke Akehurst
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for correcting the record. It is indeed still a Bill, but soon to become an Act.
The introduction of a new independent armed forces commissioner is a key part of the Government’s plans for improving service life for personnel and their families. For too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling, as measured in the continuous attitude survey.
I also welcome the Government’s action on military housing, which has shamed our country for too long and has often been a factor in people leaving or being put off joining in the first place. Bringing the armed forces housing estate—more than 36,000 service family homes —back into public ownership is a decisive break with the past, reversing the privatisation made by Conservative Ministers in 1996, which failed British taxpayers, British service personnel and their families.
The members of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line for the safety and security of our country and people, give the greatest service possible. I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members, the veterans who serve on both sides of the House, whose contributions I have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) brings insights as a former member of the RAF. On that note, I will conclude and once again thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for so ably chairing the debate.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan, and to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition on the important subject of armed forces recruitment from the north-east of England.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing a debate on such an interesting topic, in Armed Forces Week to boot, and, if I may say so, on introducing it so very ably.
The British armed forces have a proud tradition of recruiting soldiers, sailors and, more recently, airmen from the north-east of England. I will take the Army as an example; being a former infantry officer, I hope that the hon. Member and the Minister will forgive me if I concentrate on infantry units. There are many proud regiments across the Army, both the teeth arms and those who support them, that historically have recruited from this corner of England.
To begin with, the Coldstream Guards, which is the oldest continually serving regular regiment in the British Army, takes its name from the village on the English-Scottish border where it was first formed in 1650. It was originally Monck’s Regiment of Foot, before becoming the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards following Monck’s death in 1670. It was, of course, instrumental in restoring royal rule after the civil war and proudly remains part of the Household Division to this day.
However, there are others. For instance, the Northumberland Fusiliers was first raised as an infantry regiment of the British Army in 1674. In 1751, it became the 5th Regiment of Foot and in 1836, after the Napoleonic wars, it was designated a fusilier unit and became the 5th (Northumberland Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot. This proud name is now incorporated into the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the deputy Regimental Colonel of which is now Colonel Jez Lamb, an excellent officer with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Defence.
There are other proud names, too. For instance, there is the Durham Light Infantry, which was formed under the so-called Childers reforms in 1881 and is today part of The Rifles, one of the largest regiments in the British Army. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) paid handsome tribute to the Durham Light Infantry and he was absolutely right to do so.
Of course, both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have also actively recruited from the north-east of England in the past. The RAF has maintained an active presence in the north-east of England, not least at RAF Boulmer in Northumberland, which I visited when I was a Defence Minister and which plays a vital co-ordinating role in the air defence of the United Kingdom. In short, the north-east has always played a part in the defence of these islands and no doubt always will.
As I am sure the Minister will go on to agree, armies across the western world find it difficult to recruit and especially to retain regular armed forces personnel. Given modern lifestyles, it is increasingly challenging to find enough people who wish to undergo the rigours of service life, including the pressure that it puts on their families. Indeed, we know from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, that although there are often a number of reasons why people leave the armed forces, the pressure of service life on family life is the greatest determinant of that decision and has been for several years now.
As the Minister may recall, this is a subject I know a little about. After I left the MOD, where I served as the Armed Forces Minister, in 2017 I was commissioned by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to write a report about how to improve recruitment into the armed forces, which was submitted to No. 10 in 2017. It was entitled “Filling the Ranks”, and it is still available on my parliamentary website. Following that work, I was recommissioned to do a further study on retention. Even when looking at recruitment, we soon become involved in discussions about retention, because in effect they are two sides of the same coin. To put it another way, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tab if we cannot put a retention plug in the sink. Partly as a result of that work, I was recommissioned by the same Prime Minister to write a second report on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?”, which was submitted to No. 10 in February 2020, albeit to a different Prime Minister and just a month before the country went into lockdown because of covid.
I am pleased to say that the previous Government actioned the vast majority of the recommendations in both reports, including those designed to help recruiting by taking a more realistic attitude to minor medical ailments that previously disbarred some enthusiastic potential candidates from joining the armed forces. However, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) ably pointed out, there is still much further to go. As the Minister knows, one of the principal challenges to speeding up the recruitment process is gaining access to candidates’ GP medical records. I have to say that it has at times been like trying to cut the Gordian knot. There must be more that can be done in this area, even if it means—and I do not say this lightly —amending the GP contract.
As the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor correctly pointed out, the challenges faced by people living in the north-east of England who want to join the armed forces are not so different from those around the rest of the country. In 2012, the Army decided to outsource its recruiting to a consortium led by Capita. At the same time, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force decided to stick, as it were, and retain their recruitment in-house. Although I admit that it happened under a previous Conservative Government, the outsourcing contract was not an outstanding success. The number of soldiers actively recruited into the Army, including from the north-east, began to fall dramatically shortly after Capita took responsibility for that function, and it has hardly ever hit its recruitment target since. Before the Minister leaps to his feet to intervene on me and point out that that happened under a Tory Government, I would simply offer that I served on the Defence Committee for seven years, during which there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me.
We now have a situation in which personnel, including those from the north, are leaving the armed forces faster than we can recruit them. Indeed, Ministers have said several times in the past few months that for every 100 who join across all three services, 130 leave. Against that background, the MOD has recently decided to relet the recruiting contract to a new consortium led by Serco. However, that does not fully go live until April 2027, and there will be a transition period during which Serco will prepare to take over from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and will work in tandem with Capita as it runs down the current recruiting contract. In a very knowledgeable contribution, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) rightly touched on that point.
I want to take the opportunity to express real concern about the process and, in particular, the period of joint working between Capita and Serco. All experience suggests that if Capita is unable to hit its targets during the interregnum, there is likely to be a great deal of finger-pointing between the two companies. But it will be the strength of the regular Army, including recruitment from the north-east of England, that suffers, so I very much encourage Ministers to be alert to that.
There is a further challenge to recruiting, including in the north-east, and it is one for which a previous Conservative Government cannot be blamed: the current Government’s plans to use a remedial order to excise parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As of 15 minutes ago, 137,953 UK citizens have signed a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which we will debate in this Chamber next month. Suffice it to say that I believe all the contributions made by Labour Members have been entirely genuine—indeed, passionate—and I have to believe, therefore, that they would be very reluctant to go through the Lobbies this autumn to vote for a proposal that not only opens up our Northern Ireland veterans to prosecution, but would make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government.
Although I am an Essex Member of Parliament, I am also a bit of a military history buff, so I know that there are counties in the north-east of England that have a proud tradition of providing personnel for what are now His Majesty’s armed forces. I conclude by congratulating again the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor on securing such a timely debate. I look forward with genuine interest to what the Minister has to say to us.
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the work of 361 Gateshead air cadets. What he has just done speaks to the critique, which I often hear, that young people are not interested in service. Nothing is further from the truth. Our young people are absolutely determined and feel a sense of pride, but as a country we have not provided the vehicle for them to be able to serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) gave the stat that three in four people leaving the recruitment process because it takes too long, but it is worse than that. In the situation we inherited from the previous Administration, 84% of people left the recruitment process because it took too long. The time of flight, which is how we categorise the period between the application form and donning the uniform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor described it, is far too long—in some cases over a year. That is not an acceptable time of flight.
We are determined to cut that, which is why we have introduced the 10/30 policy. That means that we want all applicants across all forces to have an indication of whether they are acceptable within 10 days—have they passed the nationality check or do they have a criminal record that would disbar them?—and to have an approximate start date at a training establishment within 30 days. That is so important because it provides people with the certainty to understand how long they will have to wait.
The targets that we are setting internally in the Ministry of Defence to reduce the time of flight are serious and substantial, because we know that we lose too many good people as the process takes too long. That is why we are working not just to enhance and cut the time taken to access medical records, but to do security vetting and to make sure that people know when they can start. That will make a big difference to our ability to help people to understand whether they can take a part-time job or go travelling, or whether they need to wait a bit longer or have time for additional study before they start. The lack of certainty poisons our recruitment process; we are taking steps to deal with that properly.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke about digital warfighters because it is true that, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), said, we need to have troops to hold ground, but we also need people with cyber and digital skills to deal with the threats we face every single day. Luckily, we are not under missile attack every day, but we are under cyber-attack every single day from hostile states, from those that wish to undermine our security, and from criminal networks that can be state-backed. The new direct entry into cyber that we have begun is a pioneering scheme. We have had a huge number of applications, including from people from the north-east. We will make further announcements about that success as the cohort starts its training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was right when he spoke about many of our people being snapped up by the private sector. That is what happens with austerity and pay pressure, which mean that our armed forces personnel have faced real-terms pay cuts—as many of them have for the last 14 years, under the previous Government—and their wages have not kept pace with their market value. That is why we have introduced two above-inflation pay rises for our people since coming to office.
That is also the reason why we are looking at zigzag careers, so that people serving in a regular role in our armed forces can undertake reserve work and apply for the reserves while they are serving—rather than having to leave and apply, as they do currently—so that they can then undertake work in our private sector, in our defence contractors, after which they will be able to rejoin. At the moment we zig, but we do not zag. We need to improve the system. That is what we are seeking to legislate to deliver. That will mean an increase in people being able to return.
Keeping people within our larger defence family is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) was right to speak about the importance of investment in our defence industries. At the moment, we spend approximately £380 million in the north-east, which is not enough. It is the determination of this Government to make sure that we spend more of the Ministry of Defence’s increased budget with British companies, creating good, well-paid apprenticeships throughout the country and making sure that we can create the products that we can sell to the world, not just to ourselves.
Mr Francois
As the hon. Member is well aware, many of those who served on Operation Banner were recruited from what we would now call red wall constituencies, many of them in the north-east of England. As we have many north-east MPs here this afternoon, will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not proceed with their totally counterproductive remedial order to throw those veterans to the wolves?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member has made his point; I am turning to the points raised by other Members, if he will forgive me.
We currently spend £380 million, but we want to spend more. To do that, we not only need defence companies to invest more in manufacturing facilities; we need many of the companies that already operate in the north-east to realise that they could be defence companies. They might be able to support the provision of gizmos and gadgets for our equipment, or they might be technology companies that could expand into providing new services. That is why the new defence industrial strategy, which we are publishing later this year, will help to direct more attention and more spending towards our industries in Britain, including those in the north-east.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for talking about the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which is going through Parliament. I want it to achieve Royal Assent soon. The ping-pong needs to come to an end. We need to get it passed into law, complete the recruitment of the Armed Forces Commissioner and get on with providing an independent champion for the people who serve. It is vital to restore trust and confidence.
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, for talking about the need to address culture, because the toxic culture within our military is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in our politics and it should not be acceptable in our armed forces. However, I point out to him that the Fusiliers do not wear Labour colours. It is a proud hackle that came from their traditions—it just happens to be red. It is important that at this time we do not seek to politicise any of our armed forces, because they should enjoy cross-party support. He gave me a fair challenge, though, about whether we need to do more work or defend the homeland now. The answer, of course, is both. That is why the SDR sets out 62 recommendations, which we have accepted in full, to do more to defend our country, to develop new technologies to replace the old capabilities, and, perhaps most importantly, to invest in our people.
Finally, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised a number of topics that are of concern to many people. I welcome the debate that will be taking place in this Chamber very shortly. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Office, as he is aware, but my colleague, the Veterans Minister, takes a great deal of interest in this matter as well; I am certain that he will be able to contribute further.
At this very moment, there will be people up and down our country, including in the north-east of England, wondering whether to join our armed forces—wondering whether a career in uniform will support them and their aspirations, and will provide the opportunities for them to start a family and to buy their own house, and contribute to a lifetime of skills. Let the message go out clearly from this debate: whether you join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, there are incredible skills on offer in our armed forces, and incredible opportunities to travel and to keep our country safe.
I am grateful to all Members across the House for contributing to the debate. They have made the case for improvements in recruitment, highlighted the armed forces as a great career to join, and supported Armed Forces Week.
National Armaments Director
Mark Francois Excerpts(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on obtaining it, very properly in Armed Forces Week, to highlight some of the issues. I will try to answer a few of his questions. I have had an interesting read of the 32nd report of his Committee; he and I used to serve together on the Committee many moons ago, so I take PAC reports very seriously.
Although it is true that there has been no equipment plan for the last two years—during which time both Governments have been in power—because of some of the disruption around the election and the wholesale reordering of the way in which the MOD works, I recognise the fact that his Committee is not satisfied with the current state of affairs, and I agree that it cannot stay how it is.
Ministers are committed to increasing transparency, and I undertake to work closely with the National Audit Office and the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to try to work out a suitable arrangement going forward that they will be happy with. We are not seeking to undercut transparency or to fail to report properly to Parliament, so I hope that will give him some reassurance. Of course, we have only just received his report; I think we have a couple of months to ensure that we reply to its recommendations properly, and I will take an interest in ensuring that we do so.
I recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his excellent speech. He asked where all the money is coming from—one or two others have asked a similar question, with varying levels of outrage. What I can say is that in this Parliament, we have already committed an extra £5 billion this year and resources to get up to 2.5% in the core defence budget—more than £10.9 billion extra in real terms. I do not think any of the Defence Ministers have turned up at NATO today with a fully set-out plan for getting to 5% by 2035. Each country has its own way of producing budgets and will do so over different periods, and I think it is quite reasonable for us to say that during the election we had a manifesto commitment to get to 2.5%, we have set out how we are going to do that and how we will pay for it. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that he regretted the way in which that commitment is being paid for, but we have made that choice—difficult though it is—in order to make it clear where the money that we have committed to in this Parliament is coming from.
We have always met our NATO commitments. That goes for parties on both sides of the House; when the Conservatives were in government, they met our NATO commitments, and we have always met them and will continue to do so. The way that our spending commitments will be funded in the next Parliament will be set out during that Parliament, but we cannot set a path directly from this Parliament into the next one. NATO will be looking at that. [Interruption.] Well, I would say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that we do not budget for that length of time in the future, and neither did his party when it was in office. It is not how we do budgeting in this Parliament and it is not how his Government budgeted either.
Maria Eagle
I mean, the right hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. If he wants to start heckling me, I am happy to have a discussion with him in the Tea Room afterwards, but there is no point in him heckling me from a sedentary position when he has not taken part in the debate. [Interruption.] It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to continue my speech. I am trying to answer questions posed by the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose debate this is.
We know that NATO will—as it usually does—check each nation’s spending against its expectations on a yearly basis, so that will be an obvious way in which we can see progress being made towards our goal. We will also continue to report, as ever, and I have no doubt that we will get to 3% in the next Parliament and that there will be a trajectory towards 5% overall, with the 1.5% security and resilience spending. Instead of making allegations about that commitment being smoke and mirrors, it would be better for the Opposition to say that they would do the same if they were in Government. If they did so, we would have a proper consensus to give industry certainty that this is what we are committed to do as a nation. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats said that they would commit themselves to that goal.
I look forward to engaging with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the recommendations in the report, and I intend to make sure he is satisfied by what we come back with. He had some particular requests about Ajax—we all know that notorious name—including when the 180 vehicles would be delivered. The initial operating capability of Ajax will be by December 2025; I am hoping it might be sooner, but as far as I am aware, that commitment is on track and at least 180 vehicles will be delivered by that time. Morpheus and the broader land environment tactical communications and information systems programme has been a troubled programme in some respects. It is a £6.5 billion, 10-year programme. It involves lots of things fitting together, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. We are trying to make sure that the programme delivers what it is supposed to deliver.
Some of the programmes we have inherited have troubled histories. That is one of the reasons why we are committed to defence reform. One of the problems with our procurement and acquisition system—this was mentioned, including by those who have perhaps experienced it in their professional life, whether in the forces or in the Department—is that it is not fit for purpose when it comes to doing things quickly and delivering what it says it will. The defence reform agenda is not about reorganising for the sake of it. That is not what we ought to be doing. Were the system in perfect order, we would not be reforming it. This reform is about ensuring that the national armaments director is accountable to Ministers and the services for delivering the equipment that the services need in a timely fashion, because that is not what happens now. Currently, each service goes off on frolics of their own. They have their equipment budgets and top-level budgets, and know what they want, and they never really talk to each other across services. As the hon. Gentleman said, a programme might get started because people think that they want the equipment, and it is a 10-year programme that is not funded right to the end, so money gets wasted. We have to do better.
One way we will do better is by having much clearer accountability. The NAD is a tremendously important figure in that. We will also make sure that we shorten our acquisition timescales. We cannot just have CADMID— concept, assessment, demonstration, manufacture, in service and disposal—for everything, with pre-contract phases and so on. We cannot do that any longer. We are not in times when we can get away with taking 10 years to produce something that is not quite what we wanted in the first place. There has been too much of that, and that is why we are segmenting our acquisition budget. The NAD will be in charge of delivering the capabilities that all our services need in much shorter timescales.
As for drones and that kind of capability, we are trying to get to contract within three months. By standing up UK Defence Innovation with a ringfenced budget of £400 million this year, and 10% of our investment budget in future, we aim to ensure that there is the money to innovate fast and get lethality into the hands of our warfighters faster. That is essential. We need to shorten the time it takes to get there, even for nuclear submarines. Members will have seen the aspiration in the SDR to get the time to contract down from an average of six years for those kinds of things to two years. That is a challenging aim.
On spiral upgrades and the new radars for our existing capabilities, we need to make sure that we get the time to contract down to a year. We need a much faster pace of innovation, change and improvement. The NAD will be responsible for that. There will be direct lines of accountability, and direct budget lines for which he is accountable. We have to ensure culture change to empower those at a lower level, so that we do not slip back into the old way of doing things. That is a challenge, but we need to meet it, given the times we are in.
War Memorials
Mark Francois Excerpts(5 days, 14 hours 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
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, as we debate the important topic of war memorials and the fallen whom they commemorate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing this debate. It seems fitting that we are debating this topic in Parliament during Armed Forces Week.
According to estimates from the War Memorials Trust, a charity that works to protect and conserve war memorials, there are more than 100,000 war memorials across the United Kingdom. They range in size and style—from the Cenotaph in Whitehall, around which we centre our national act of remembrance every November, to the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, down to the humblest war memorials in small hamlets across the country, and even the individual headstones in churchyards throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
My first official duty, when I had the privilege of becoming the Veterans Minister in the Ministry of Defence back in 2012, was to travel to the National Memorial Arboretum and to lay a wreath to commemorate the sacrifice of our armed forces personnel down the ages. There are now over 100 different types of memorial at the arboretum, and we have heard from several hon. Members of further ones to follow, which I welcome. I was there most recently last August, when a special ceremony was held to mark the presentation of a cheque for £250,000 from Mr Craig Moule, the industrious chief executive of Sanctuary housing association, to the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association—commonly known as SSAFA—whose tie I am honoured to be wearing this afternoon.
A crucial role in the preservation of war memorials is undertaken by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which was founded by royal charter in 1917, before the first world war had even ended. It works on behalf of the Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom to commemorate the 1.7 million men and women from the Commonwealth who lost their lives in now two world wars. The commission’s declared mission is
“to ensure those who died in service, or as a result of conflict, are commemorated so that they, and the human cost of war, are remembered for ever.”
Down the years I have visited a number of the commission’s memorials, particularly those on the western front, such as the one at Thiepval, which commemorates the fallen at the battle of the Somme, and Tyne Cot for those who fell at Passchendaele.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Member for Surrey Heath, I am proud to have Brookwood military cemetery, one of the largest Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites in the UK, in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the work of the commission in not only preserving our history and heritage, but advancing the education of young people so that they remember the sacrifices of those who have gone before us?
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me, but for the avoidance of doubt, most certainly—I am a great fan of the commission.
In total, the commission cares for large memorials down to individual graves in some 23,000 locations, encompassing more than 150 countries and territories around the world. I recently visited Rayleigh cemetery in the heart of my constituency. It has a number of individual wartime graves, which are beautifully tended by the commission.
In this context, I highlight a book published earlier this year by the acknowledged author Dr Tessa Dunlop, entitled simply, “Lest We Forget” with the subtitle “War and Peace in 100 British Monuments”. This excellent book summarises a whole variety of war memorials, commemorating events dating back to Roman times, right up to the present day. For the avoidance of doubt. I am not on commission from Dr Dunlop’s publishers, but I did meet her during the production of the book, not least because the 99th in her century of war memorials is located in my constituency at a place called Aaron Lewis Close in Hawkwell. Lieutenant Aaron Lewis was a commando gunner from 29 Commando Regiment, who was tragically killed during a mission in Afghanistan back in 2008. Working with the local authority, Rochford district council and the then-developer David Wilson Homes, we managed to arrange for a small square on that new development to be named in Aaron’s honour. At its centre is a memorial garden with a carved bench which commemorates Aaron’s service. For her book, Tessa Dunlop interviewed Helen Lewis, Aaron’s mother, who along with her husband Barry, have channelled their understandable grief at the loss of their son to create a wonderful charity called the Aaron Lewis Foundation, which has helped to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds, including to provide rehabilitation equipment for wounded service personnel.
Similarly, we now also have Samuel Bailey Drive in Hockley, named after Squadron Leader Sam Bailey, an RAF navigator who died in a tragic mid-air collision between two RAF tornadoes flying out of RAF Lossiemouth over a decade ago. There are 2,000 or more military charities in this country, ranging from the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and SSAFA, down to individual charities often founded by family members following the death of a loved one in combat. Clearly, it would be impossible, to name all of those charities this afternoon, but nevertheless, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all of them collectively. To paraphrase that famous wartime medley, when talking about the plethora of military charities we have in this country, perhaps I could just say, “Bless them all, the long and the short and the tall”. Dr Tessa Dunlop has written an exceptional book, and I can thoroughly commend it to anyone who is interested in the whole subject of war memorials and everything they represent.
I think we have 13 minutes left, Mr Stuart, so I will just take two more.
Mr Francois
Although I have already mentioned the National Memorial Arboretum, I would be failing in my duty as an Essex MP were I not to highlight Essex’s own version, which is known as the Living Memorial, at White House Farm in Rettendon. It was founded by enlightened landowners, Peter and Fran Theobald, a former RAF servicewoman, in 2009. I have visited a number of times down the years, including at the dedication of a memorial organised by the Rayleigh branch of the Royal Naval Association, of which I have the honour of being a member.
Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy
Mark Francois Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree with those words the Secretary of State for Defence said previously. I hope he was speaking to highlight problems with the Government, as those in opposition must do; I am afraid that my Government did not resolve that issue. At the end of my speech, as the Minister will know, I will pitch to him how things should be different.
The bureaucracy of the scheme is astonishing. Thousands of applications remain unresolved, some of which were submitted as far back as 2021. Many of these people have had to flee and hide with their families, because they risk death—I will come back to a particular case that highlights all that. The long lack of transparency and the long delays have left these individuals in personal and collective danger.
The scheme has narrow and inconsistent eligibility criteria. Individuals who have served alongside UK forces have been excluded due to narrow definitions and specific eligibility categories that rule them out. Others have been denied protection because they were employed by subcontractors rather than the Ministry of Defence, yet they carried out the same vital work and faced the same risks as others who were directly employed.
Then there are the broken promises. The UK Government assured those who served with the British forces that they would not be left behind, yet lives are still at risk. First-hand reports from Afghanistan show that former allies are now being targeted by the Taliban. I did not serve in Afghanistan—I did serve in the British military, a fact of which I was proud—but there are some in this Chamber today who did serve there and who know from first-hand experience what was going on.
Throughout all of this, as I lay out the individual case, there is a very simple theme: we must stand by those who stood by us, because if we do not, we are not worthy of being British or of the freedoms we uphold and fight for. Those who stood by us fought for those freedoms, too; they supported us in those fights, and we cannot abandon them, given the threats they now face. The fact that they are in hiding, fearful for their lives, is an absolute travesty, and the idea that we could have forgotten them should be a badge of shame for any British Government and for the British establishment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he cannot intervene from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Mark Francois ExcerptsTuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 3 June 2025 - (3 Jun 2025)
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best.
As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise.
To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled.
A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they?
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. I have sat in this House on, I think, all the occasions when we have been discussing defence, and I was also sorry to note that there were no Reform Members here for either the VE Day debate or the Remembrance Day debate. Does he agree that that shows the complete dereliction of a party that aspires to govern?
Mr Francois
For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.
At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.
That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that
“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.
He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.
The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.
The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?
Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.
To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.
Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.
In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.
I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.
Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.
Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform—
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.
Mr Francois
Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?
Luke Pollard
I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.
I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.
However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.
However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.
The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Francois Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?
John Healey
I hesitate to turn this into a party political debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has just done that. He must accept that the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help veterans. It was found unlawful over and over again, and any incoming Government last summer would have had to deal with that legacy, which is what we are doing. I am working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am looking to ensure that we minimise the impact of any investigations on this special and unique group of veterans, who served—with great distinction in most cases—to keep the peace, secure long-term peace and protect civilians.
Mr Francois
Labour could have appealed those judgments to the Supreme Court but chose not to. Labour MPs and peers have already voted for this barmy process in the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 February. Labour will now be expecting all its MPs to vote for it again this autumn. Given that many of the young soldiers who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland were recruited from “red wall” seats—from Barnsley to Blackpool, and from Bolton to Burnley—how on earth do this Government expect any Labour MP to do Gerry Adams a favour at the expense of the veterans who opposed him, and then to go back to their own seats and look their constituents, including veterans and their families, in the eye?
John Healey
The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful time and again. We have to deal with that problem, and any Government would. My concern is for the UK service personnel who served in Northern Ireland over a period of 38 years, who were there to protect the peace, protect civilian lives and prevent civil war. We support anyone who is now caught up in investigations or litigation with welfare and legal support, and I am determined that we will protect them further. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary as part of the plans for replacing the legacy Act arrangements, and we will ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans who have served our country so well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Francois Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Veterans who served in Northern Ireland will no doubt welcome the Veterans Minister’s decision—first suggested by the shadow Defence Secretary—that the MOD should judicially review the recent coroner’s verdict regarding the shooting of several IRA terrorists at Clonoe. Well done, I say, but why not go further to protect veterans, and drop the plans to revoke large parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which would only serve to facilitate yet more inquests of this type?
Al Carns
The right hon. Member makes an important point. Having visited Northern Ireland just two weeks ago, I share the concerns of many veterans who have served in Northern Ireland, particularly concerns about the misinterpretation of the challenging context in which many of these inquests and inquiries are taking place. I remind Members on both sides of the House that not so long ago, in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, there were major explosions in every major city in the United Kingdom and assassinations across the UK. Killings were a regular event in Northern Ireland, and we sent our service personnel there to protect peace, save lives and, indeed, prevent a civil war.
Mr Francois
The Minister mentioned both sides of the House. Revoking the legacy Act would encourage a system of two-tier justice—one for our Army veterans and another for alleged IRA terrorists, including those given so-called letters of comfort by the Blair regime. With many of those veterans having served in proud regiments that traditionally recruited from red wall northern constituencies, why should a Labour Government assist Gerry Adams to sue the British taxpayer? How is that supporting those who served their country valiantly on Operation Banner?
Al Carns
Let us be absolutely clear: the right hon. Gentleman is looking at an individual who served his country on Operation Banner, so I understand the issues for all our veterans and I have been working very hard with the Northern Ireland Office to make sure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and that we can minimise the impact on what is quite a unique group of elderly veterans.
Military Co-operation with Israel
Mark Francois Excerpts(3 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
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. In accordance with parliamentary tradition, may I congratulate the new hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate? As I understand it, he is a graduate of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, so I hope he will appreciate it if I make a few points in my speech about the defence-related events that have taken place recently at some British universities.
Perhaps I can begin by making some general comments about the situation in Gaza, as raised by several hon. Members this afternoon. I was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 January 2025 when the Foreign Secretary delivered the statement to Parliament concerning the ceasefire deal. Clearly, the events last night, including the bombing of targets in Gaza, are very concerning, as several hon. Members have already highlighted.
The release of the remaining 59 hostages held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 is key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and to building a better future. The British Government should be directly involved in efforts to find a way through this very difficult moment. The international community must also reiterate that there can be no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future.
The Foreign Secretary argued back in January that the only viable long-term settlement of this issue is via a two-state solution, which would permit the creation of a credible Palestinian state not under Hamas control, alongside an Israel with secure borders, free from terrorist attack. That has long been my view too. We all want to see an end to the suffering in the middle east, particularly in Gaza, but I believe it is only via a two-state solution that that can ultimately be achieved.
As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the Opposition believe it is necessary to retain a viable defence manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, both for strategic reasons and because the defence industry plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s prosperity. In economic terms, the Aerospace, Defence and Space trade body estimates that in 2022-23 defence work contributed approximately £38.2 billion to the United Kingdom economy, with exports reaching £38.7 billion. ADS also estimates that the defence, aerospace, security and space sectors combined supported 427,500 direct jobs in the same year.
In addition, it is worth recording that the UK’s defence industry has been a key supplier of equipment for the defence of Ukraine. For example, the new light anti-tank weapon, NLAW, was used very effectively by Ukrainian troops in the defence of Kyiv in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Not only were many of those weapons manufactured in Belfast, but for years, Britain had been training Ukrainian troops, following the first invasion of Ukraine, including Crimea, in 2014.
It was a combination of British military training and British-supplied equipment that helped prevent Russia from overrunning the capital of Ukraine in the first few days of that invasion. It is probably true to say that had we not provided the Ukrainians with those NLAWs and, crucially, trained them to use them in complex anti-tank ambushes, the Russians would probably be having dinner in Kyiv this evening.
There is an inscription on the Korean war memorial in Washington, which says quite simply, “Freedom is not free.” That freedom has to be defended, and in the modern world that requires military technology. While I can understand the passion articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester South in this debate, I say to him most respectfully that he is able to make those arguments in a democratic forum and publicly criticise the Government of the day because he is fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy. That is not something we can say of all the countries in the middle east.
Moreover, yesterday saw the death, at the age of 105, of the last remaining battle of Britain fighter pilot, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, DFC. We pay tribute to his brave service in Parliament today. Importantly, had we not had a defence industry in 1940, manufacturing Spitfires and Hurricanes, this debate would not even be taking place. We need a defence industry, and we need people at university to be allowed to freely choose to enter it without fear of intimidation.
War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary
Mark Francois Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable.
The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war.
It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did.
On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them.
I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that.
There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem.
Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Factually, the article 5 mutual defence clause of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once in its history. That was by the United States after 9/11, when President Bush ruled that America had been attacked and NATO in Europe—particularly Britain—came to its aid. Does my right hon. Friend think it is worth bearing that in mind as these very important discussions take place in Washington?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Of course it is. Article 5 has been the reason that western Europe has been able to grow and settle, and America has also been able to pursue its own ends because of the mutual defence pact that exists between us. I remember that Sir Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister at that stage, did not waste any time; he came out immediately to support America, so much so that he was able to get into the debate that took place in the Congress and was welcomed as a friend, which was quite right. The reality is that the UK was the first to push for article 5 to be invoked, and George Robertson was the head of NATO at the time and moved it for the first time. That was very much the right thing to do, and that is what underpins this.
Before I continue, I want to come back to some of the after-effects. I went to see those who are looking after, and are responsible for, prisoners of war in Kyiv. What is fascinating is that the abuses that are taking place in Russia trash the Geneva convention on support for prisoners of war. Russia spends its time moving Ukrainian prisoners of war around and does not allow the Red Cross full access at any stage. That is against the convention, and the Red Cross has complained—although I do not think it has said it loudly enough—that some Ukrainian prisoners of war are being used as human shields. Some are being used to clear mines in certain areas, which is also against the rules.
We also know that in a number of cases, after serious interrogation of those prisoners of war, which is also illegal, their families in Ukraine are being bullied and threatened. They are told that unless they start spying or carrying out damaging acts in Ukraine, their loved one—their husband, son or daughter—in the prisoner of war camp, if such a thing exists, will be tortured and dealt with. This is going on quite regularly now and has been discovered by the Ukrainians. It is illegal under the Geneva convention, and I urge the Government to speak seriously to the Red Cross about making a much more public statement about how prisoners of war are being treated, because it really is quite shocking. There is a lack of accountability on this and the Red Cross needs to do much more.
We must not underestimate the fact that there has been a change of regime in the United States, and that President Trump has made it very clear that he wants the war to end and that we have to drive to that. I think all of us in this House would support that position; we want to see an end to war. In fact, the Ukrainians want to see an end to war. Nobody wants to carry on fighting if there is a possibility of a good peace deal that, as I have said, contains justice and freedom for the Ukrainians. However, President Trump sees this as a sideshow; he says that he is more focused on China, Taiwan and other issues, and I think he wants to make savings on the United States’ spending in some of these areas, which is reasonable.
However, the problem is that, for all our support for Ukraine, the reason why this war has gone on for three years is that we, the allies, quite honestly have dragged our feet on supplying the weapons and equipment that Ukraine needed from day one. In fact, there was a period in 2023 when Russia was on the rack and having real problems. It was short of munitions, it had lost territory to the Ukrainians—certainly in the east, around Kharkiv—and that was the moment at which Ukraine might well have been able to deal properly with Russia and push it back.
Strangely enough, at that stage two things seem to have happened. First, I do not believe that the attack on Israel by Hamas was just a stand-alone item; I think that Iran, China and others had realised that Russia needed a distraction. The Americans, of course, immediately moved to support Israel—which is what they will do—and supplied arms to the Israelis. I was in the Congress around that time, looking to see whether America could get the money through. Some of the Republicans did not agree with the Bill and were blocking it. We did manage to persuade a few and they did push it forward, but my point is that they said, “The war in Israel is our war; Ukraine is your war, not ours; and we are keenly concerned about Taiwan.”
The point I made to those Republicans, which I make again now, is that, in reality, we cannot separate Taiwan from Ukraine, or in a way from Israel. My personal view is that China’s hand is in all of this, and that distraction—that moving of equipment—has meant that Russia has been able to regain its strength and reach a rapprochement with North Korea. Interestingly enough, the scale of weapons that North Korea is now supplying is breathtaking—I think that well over 5 million artillery shells have been supplied since it signed the agreement with Russia. It now has thousands of troops in Russia who are defending the Russian position, and it is planning to supply even more weapons and missiles. This is a chain of totalitarian states that is working to support each other, and we are losing on this, because we ourselves do not focus on that linkage between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
I give one small warning. It is something the Americans need to face, and I hope that the Government will raise it with them. It is simply this: Russia in reply is giving significant technology to the North Koreans, particularly for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The security services here know about that, but it is a serious and significant shift. If the North Koreans have that technology, they will be able to take their nuclear weapons out to sea, which will bring all the American continent directly under target from those missiles. That will change the whole nature of the Pacific in terms of how we see geostrategic defence. It is a major change, and Russia has been giving the North Koreans that technology. It would be useful for the Government to say that this matter is not separable. Ukraine is the reason for that move. The road to Taiwan runs right through Ukraine, and we cannot and must not separate them.
I make the simple point that when we speak about the money, it is a huge amount. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) will want to speak on this, but the reality is that we have had debates before on the huge amounts of money we have sitting here. Those are assets belonging to Russians—not just the oligarchs, but also the state. Some $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen within the G7 and the EU. Some $25 billion of Central Bank of Russia reserves are frozen in the UK alone. That is managed by Euroclear, and there is Euroclear money in Canada and other countries.
The Government said the other day that they are prepared to use the money earned from that capital for Ukraine. I argue that if they are to use the money earned from the capital, they also have a right to use the capital. We should not just freeze the capital sitting in the banks, but seize it and use it for reparations, damage repair and the work that is necessary. I think we would see a major change immediately.
Wendy Morton
Always present, isn’t he?
The UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has provided sanctuary to thousands of Ukrainians fleeing war. I pay tribute to the British families who have opened their homes, including those in my constituency, and the communities that have welcomed them with open arms. Their kindness reflects the very best of our country. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider some sort of recognition scheme or way of thanking those families at the appropriate time for their kindness and generosity.
This week, as we mark this grim anniversary, we must ensure that those displaced by war continue to receive the support they need, both here and in Ukraine. We must remain resolute in holding Russia accountable, and our response must be unwavering, ensuring that we tackle all aspects of Russian aggression. Let’s be clear: Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand by Ukraine today, we strengthen our own security for the future. If we falter, we embolden aggressors everywhere.
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.