Budget Resolutions
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says this country has a defence problem. Could he elaborate on the context of that defence problem, and perhaps reflect on the fact that it may have something to do with the under-investment that has left the Army with unprecedented levels of poor morale and left British soldiers unequipped to do their basic job of defending our country?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be short and sharp, and questions should be to the point.
Andrew Griffith
If time allows, I will be very happy to go into great detail about our record on defence. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we were proud to stand with the people of Ukraine, and to reboot the funding for defence. The test that the Chancellor failed was not my test; it was his own test. It was the Chancellor who resigned because the previous Chancellor and Prime Minister would not give our armed forces the proper funding for our defence.
Yesterday we needed decisive action, and all the Government delivered was a Budget of ducked decisions. The Chancellor has taken to heart the idea of, “Why do today what you can put off to next year or the year after?” Let us be clear that, as a result, Britain will be less secure, less fair and poorer for it.
Andrew Griffith
Labour Members try so hard, but the hole in their Budget is gaping wide open. The problem is that it is not just us on the Opposition Benches who can see that hole, but our adversaries around the world, leaving ourselves open. Not properly funding our armed forces is not going to scare anyone in Moscow and it will not deter Tehran.
The Defence Secretary has resigned once before, so we know he is not against resigning. Perhaps he could resign again on principle today. We on this side of the House are used to Labour breaking their promises, but to break the promises they made to our armed forces is a new low. If the Chancellor had any dignity, he would have resigned yesterday.
Despite their failure to fund defence, the Government have still raised the tax burden to the highest level on record—higher than in the aftermath of world war two and higher than even the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) raised it. Who remembers how this Government had no plans to put up taxes? How is that working? For the third Budget in a row, the tax burden is set to rise. All told, taxes are going up by a total of £75 billion a year: higher next year, higher the following year and higher in every single year of the forecast. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane, now says that Britain is “taxed out”. He also called the Chancellor “penny wise, pound foolish”. I am not even sure about the penny wise bit, to be honest. And where will that money come from? Families, small businesses, the self-employed, farmers, the people who work hard and want to get ahead. Why? To pay for those who do not—those who could work, but choose not to.
The damage does not just stop with the tax bill itself. It is the disincentives in the economy that do the most harm. Two years ago, the then Chancellor stood at that Dispatch Box and raised taxes on jobs. Now, we are in a jobs crisis, with over 170,000 jobs lost since July 2024, all because Labour does not understand that if you tax something, you get less of it. Now it is raising taxes on the banks, which provide mortgages, loans to small businesses and pay interest to savers. The Chancellor might think it is just a bank tax, but we know that, like every tax, it will end up being paid by ordinary working people: higher mortgages, lower returns on savings and bank branch closures in every constituency and every high street, and fewer jobs in this country.
The Budget also contains a vindictive tax rise on people who have done the right thing, those who have done what Governments have always told them to do and what this Government want them to do: save money. Yet for many, up to 49p in every pound of interest on hard-earned savings will now be taken by the Chancellor. It is the same story with landlords, who have already come under attack from this Government, and the OBR says that rents will go up as a result.
Of all that the Budget was missing, the lack of welfare reform stands out the most. Or at least, so we thought—because this morning the Chancellor told the BBC that there will be welfare cuts before the election. Perhaps a Treasury Minister could come to the House and clean up the Chancellor’s mess. His Budget has not even survived 24 hours.
Last week, the Prime Minister called the benefits bill a moral outrage; he was right then, but he is not doing anything about it now, because Labour Members are too afraid to say, “Enough is enough.” They do not have the courage to get a grip on welfare, because they are worried that it would cost them their jobs. Thanks to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, we know that for more than half of all Labour MPs, the number of benefit claimants in their constituencies is larger than their majority. It is true for the Chancellor, it is certainly true for the Defence Secretary, and it is true for the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. They will not get welfare under control because it would cost them their seats—they are putting their own interests before the country’s. [Interruption.] I am making progress. Don’t you worry—I am doing very well, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Fascinated as we all are, there are many people hoping to contribute this afternoon, so I hope the shadow Chancellor will be concluding soon.
Andrew Griffith
I read that the Budget had the most measures in it of any Budget, but also that they were the most inconsequential. I will try to crack through a few other things. [Interruption.] Labour Members are all chuntering, but I will tell you who else’s interests they are putting first: the trade unions.
While the Government are raising taxes on everybody else, they are handing out more than £40 million over the next two years to a union learning fund. I cannot even begin to imagine what they will be learning: how to run rings around the Health Secretary; what to do with those extra days off from working a four-day week; how to keep public sector pay rises twice as high as the private sector—[Interruption.] The Defence Secretary says, “How to keep the Conservatives out.” That is probably about right—that is probably exactly what they are doing! It is a political bung to their political allies. It is ridiculous. While families face tough choices in a cost of living crisis, this Government use their Budget to tax people and hand money to the trade unions.
It was not just the Budget we heard yesterday; we also heard the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and they really do show us just how bad things are. For the first time ever, the Government are planning to spend over 45p in every £1 in the economy. Government spending goes up every year of the forecast, debt is up every year of the forecast, and it is official: living standards are down. Real household disposable incomes are set to be lower next year than when Labour took office—£1,500 lower at the end of this Parliament than they were forecast to be under the Conservatives. It is not hard to understand why: inflation is up, interest rates are soaring and unemployment is up again.
The one-off £100 that the Government are putting into bank accounts will not touch the sides for most people, given the cost increases. The only thing that will put us on a path out of decline and deficits is growth. The Conservatives understand the value of growth. The Prime Minister has got his history entirely wrong. The mistake this country made was not to choose markets over socialism in 1979—it was not electing Mrs Thatcher—but giving up all that we achieved in the ’80s and ’90s.
In conclusion—Madam Deputy Speaker is very firm, so I will conclude—this Budget will go down as one of history’s great missed opportunities. It was an opportunity to undo not 40 years of neoliberalism, but the damage of the first two years of this Government—the mistakes made by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, who is now busy job hunting and discovering for the first time what it is like to receive rejection after rejection. Yesterday was a chance to put Britain back on the right track, and the Chancellor blew it. Higher taxes, higher spending, higher borrowing; lower growth, lower living standards, fewer jobs—I hope the Chancellor kept the receipt for the Budget, because I think he is going to want to return it.
The British people know that this is not the Budget we need. This is a great country whose potential is being held back. We have a Chancellor who ducks his choices, and a Prime Minister who wants to take us back to the 1970s. We cannot tax and regulate our way to growth. National security really does matter more than social security, and only by tackling the deficit can we back away from the fiscal cliff edge and do the right thing by future generations.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Wes Streeting)
I am proud to open this Budget debate on behalf of the Government, proud of the leadership of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor, who is offering this country breathing space today and fresh hope for the future.
Before I turn to that, I need to talk about the threat this country faces—one that sabotages our economy, pushes out misinformation and attempts to undermine people’s trust in government. For once, I am not talking about the Russians, but the Trussian, not least the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who I fear is part of a Trussian sleeper cell operating in the shadows of the Conservative party. He did not say much about his plans today, but I do not think we do not need to look very far. In fact, there is a book out that tells us all about the secret plans he is no doubt saving up for the next manifesto: “Bank Job”, it is called, written by one Liz Truss. The shadow Chancellor knows her well; it is the Liz Truss for whom he helped write the mini-Budget, which crashed our economy and damaged Britain’s reputation, and which he still says contained, “lots of good things.” Maybe that is why, when I tried to obtain a copy of “Bank Job” this morning, I found that there were no copies available in bookshops for miles around. Presumably, the shadow Chancellor has gone around and bought them all up, just in case someone finds out exactly what the Trussians stand for.
Because that is the danger, Madam Deputy Speaker: they walk among us, the Trussians, hiding in plain sight— deep-cover sleeper agents masquerading as responsible fiscal Conservatives. But we will not be fooled. We remember when the shadow Chancellor cheered Truss on, and we all know the consequences of their misjudgements. If we are not careful, the Trussians will be coming—they are already winding up to play their own game of roulette with our public finances once again.
All joking aside, I think it is genuinely appalling that the arsonists have the audacity to complain as the firefighters are clearing up their mess—never forgive, never forget, and never let the Tories do it again. In fact, in one of the low points of an otherwise dull and inaccurate contribution to this Chamber, the shadow Chancellor had the audacity to level low blows against my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Let me point out that, despite the economic global shocks that this country faces, along with security threats of a kind that we have not faced in generations, earlier this month the IMF upgraded its growth forecast for Britain for 2026. It said that the UK “stands out” among G7 nations, and it credited the Government’s responsible approach to handling the public finances. That is the legacy of my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her leadership, her experience and her hard-headed stewardship of our economy. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can tell that the Defence Secretary has had his Weetabix, because he is very loud at the Dispatch Box—but he has to be loud, because there is so much heckling. Can everybody just calm down a little bit?
Wes Streeting
They can shout all they like, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the former Chancellor restored the confidence of the markets after the Conservatives trashed Britain’s reputation with their catastrophic mini-Budget. She created the platform for our Labour Government to invest in public services, protect the most vulnerable, foster innovation and navigate the headwinds of the last two years. During her time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey established a record that the Conservative Front Bench could not begin to touch. Those are the facts.
None the less, against the backdrop of the enormous challenges this country faces, the Chancellor, as he set out yesterday, is taking action to tackle the cost of living and give households breathing space today: help for 20 million households to heat their homes this winter; freezing fuel duty to keep prices down at the pump; helping with the everyday cost of the weekly shop so that people have more money in their pockets; action on energy bills; and the minimum wage, the national living wage and the state pension all going up to help people out. No one is suggesting that these measures solve everything for everyone, everywhere, all at once, but people can see that we are doing everything we can, as fast as we can, to give them breathing space today and fresh hope for the future; to show that this Government and this Prime Minister have got their backs; and to show that we can still do big things as a nation, that Government can make a difference to people’s lives, and that Britain is a country we can still believe in.
That is important, as we look beyond the optimism of the first 100 days of this new Government and our new Prime Minister to the brighter future that lies ahead for our country if we make the right choices. Yes, we face great challenges, but the character of a nation is not defined by the challenges it faces, but how it chooses to respond to them. And be in no doubt: it is a choice. We choose not to be daunted by the scale of the challenge, but to be motivated by it—to face the future not with fear, but with confidence, and to choose hope. We choose it because we know what hope can do.
Look at what this Labour Government have delivered in the past two years: half a million children out of poverty; waiting lists down by a quarter of a million; the asylum backlog down 60% in a year; small boat crossings at their lowest in six years; the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year; free breakfast clubs feeding 680,000 children; six train operators brought back into public ownership; and defence spending up by £14 billion compared with the Conservatives’ final year in office. Lots done and lots more still to do, but so many reasons to believe that our best days lie ahead.
Wes Streeting
I have just set that out. It is there in the Budget. The Government have reallocated from capital programmes across Government to ensure that defence is fully funded.
It is disappointing, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has become a running theme of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. When we sat on the Opposition Benches, I remember that Keir Starmer always made a virtue of standing with the Government on issues of national security and defence. We provided constructive challenge where we needed to, but we stood with the Government. This lot cannot help but try and score petty party political points at the expense of defence and national security.
What is even more extraordinary is the enormous brass neck of the Opposition, considering their record. Just look at it: we had the smallest army since the Napoleonic wars; every single recruitment target was missed; morale fell to a record low of 40%; almost every equipment programme was over budget or behind schedule, and often both; and defence spending faced a real-terms cut between 2010 and 2024, falling from 2.5% of GDP to 2.3%. [Interruption.] In the words of their own Defence Secretary, the armed forces were left “hollowed out and underfunded”. [Interruption.] And now the Conservatives have the audacity to turn up and criticise a Labour Government who are investing more, investing more quickly, and cleaning up their mess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Obese-Jecty, this is not good behaviour. After yesterday, Mr Cartlidge, I thought you would have had a much quieter voice. I cannot hear the Secretary of State. Can we just let him continue?
Wes Streeting
I am trying to make my voice heard from the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I have said from my first day as Defence Secretary, I trust this Chancellor to give us what we need to keep our country safe, and yesterday demonstrated why. His Budget proves why Labour can be trusted on defence—[Interruption.] It does say that here, because I wrote it. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. That was Labour’s record before the Budget; this Budget takes us even further, and next year’s spending review will take us further still. What a contrast with the abysmal record of failure staring us in the face from the Opposition Benches.
I appealed in my first statement to this House for national unity on national security. It is important that our allies and our adversaries know that we agree far more than we disagree. We all believe that we should spend more on defence; we all believe that we should stand with Ukraine; we all believe that we should invest in homeland security. What a pity, then, that the Leader of the Opposition and her ragtag band of political vandals choose to play politics with national security. For the Opposition to do that in the current environment is bad enough; to do so with their abysmal record in government takes some brass neck.
Mr Francois
If it is true that the Defence Secretary has a plan for 2030, I ask him why the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee said yesterday in reaction to the Budget:
“some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, may I point out that there are many people wishing to contribute? Hopefully his speech will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Wes Streeting
I have been too generous with allowing interventions, but let me take that point head on. I think that is completely unfounded criticism—
Wes Streeting
I don’t care if he is the Chair of the Defence Committee. I would say it directly to him, and I am sure I will get the chance to say it to the entire Committee. It would be fair criticism if this Government had not already made decisions that are leading to the fastest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—not in future years but already, on the basis of our first two years in power. The Chair of the Defence Committee is a good friend, and I am sure that, just as I can take his criticism on the chin, he will take mine. I will gladly accept criticism where I think it is fair, but I robustly reject it where I think it is wrong.
I have referred to the Conservatives’ record of 14 years in power. Let me contrast that with what I have presided over in the last 14 weeks: armed forces recruitment showing its longest run of growth for half a decade; 400 contracts signed, worth £4 billion; £400 million for spy drones for the Army; £135 million for Royal Navy torpedoes; £700 million for next-generation fighter jets; over £8 billion for our nuclear submarine fleet; and the UK’s sixth attack submarine and first ever space squadron launched. We have returned gun barrel manufacturing to the UK for the first time in decades; we are backing British industry to build the docks for our nuclear subs; we have increased monitoring of Russian vessels in the English channel; provided 50,000 apprenticeship opportunities for young people; welcomed record-breaking investment in Scotland; deployed our armed forces to help Saudi Arabia defend itself from Houthi attacks; bolstered support for Ukraine; and signed a landmark AI deal to access cutting-edge battlefield data. We have strengthened our NATO alliances, as I have visited Washington, Paris, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Reykjavík and Kyiv. We have mobilised with our allies in the Ukraine defence contact group, the E5 and the joint expeditionary force, and hosted our friends from Italy, Japan, Canada, Australia, Qatar and Oman as well as the NATO Secretary-General. And in case the Conservatives missed it, as their party leader seemed to yesterday, on top of the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, we have set out our target to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. That is our record, and it is a record that the Conservatives cannot begin to touch.
This is a Government who actually put our money where our mouth is—strengthening our armed forces, alliances and industrial base, and backing Britain by buying British. That is how to defend this country—not with the gimmicks and grandstanding of the Conservatives but by making this country ready with our allies to fight and win so that our adversaries think twice about launching an attack in the first place.
The truth is that this is a more dangerous world, and that makes greater investment essential. Delivering what the Chancellor announced yesterday requires choices and trade-offs. We will ensure that every pound that we invest is well spent and creates jobs and opportunities—not just a Ministry of Defence but one of growth and opportunity. We will help to deliver the Prime Minister’s domestic agenda—stronger regional economies, a rebuilt industrial base, good jobs and better opportunities for the next generation. We will have a more resilient United Kingdom built by the British people to keep Britain safe.
Spending on our defence is a measure of our commitment, but capability is a measure of our credibility. That is what this Labour Budget does, rooted in our values. It gives breathing space to working people. It gives us fresh hope for the future, and it strengthens the security on which we all depend. Building a Britain ready to fight and building a country worth fighting for—that is our record and plan. That is why I am proud to stand at this Dispatch Box and commend the Budget to the House.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have thanked the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement, but it was so redacted it was like reading it in the dark. The only numbers were the page numbers, quite frankly.
This is Labour’s third Budget in office—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the official Opposition, but if Members are leaving the Chamber, they should leave very quietly and very quickly.
Mrs Badenoch
This is Labour’s third Budget in office, this time with a new Chancellor. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I believe there is a term in rugby called a hospital pass, which sums up the inheritance he received from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Last year, she gave us the Budget for “Benefits Street”; I said that it would be her last Budget, and I was right. The Chancellor may want to blame external events, but Labour’s last two Budgets weakened our economy before any wars. He has got a big job to do cleaning up her mess, and this Budget fails to do it.
The Chancellor is giving this Budget at a time of great economic danger. We are spending more on debt interest than on the Army and schools combined. The rate of interest we pay on our debts is higher than that in Greece, Latvia, Slovakia and even the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Next year, under Labour, the tax burden will be the highest in our country’s history, and our benefits bill is going up by tens of billions of pounds because this Government have put welfare first. We are overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed and drowning in an out-of-control welfare system, and this is the Chancellor’s answer? It is simply not enough—not good enough, not strong enough, and not bold enough.
Last week, the Government published their resilience plan. I am afraid that three days of baked beans and a wind-up radio are not going to save us. Labour’s Britain has no resilience. There is no household resilience, because families are struggling to make ends meet. There is no fiscal resilience, because we are borrowing just to pay the interest on our debt. There is no economic resilience, because businesses have been taxed so much that they are closing down and shedding jobs, and there is no national resilience, because we are not ready to meet the security threats of today—certainly not after that speech. We all know why the Chancellor has delayed until tomorrow difficult decisions that he should have taken today. It is because the Prime Minister wants to keep the option of an early general election open, putting his party’s interests before the country’s.
There are, however, some things in this Budget that I welcome. Some of the Chancellor’s colleagues—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Energy Secretary—were calling on him to increase capital gains tax. I thank him for ignoring them—they were wrong. Tens of thousands of wealth creators have already fled Labour’s Britain, and if he had listened to his colleagues’ bonkers ideas, many more would be heading for the departure lounge. I am also glad that he has broken Labour’s manifesto pledge on the minimum wage for young people; that pledge was wrong, and breaking it is the right thing to do to help young people get jobs.
I welcome the Chancellor’s U-turn on ISAs. He is reversing his predecessor’s raid on ISAs—thank you—but his new tax on savers will penalise the prudent and all those people who have done the right thing. I am glad that he has agreed with our campaign on the previous Chancellor’s fuel duty rise. Motorists will be pleased—that rise would have inflicted real pain, especially while petrol prices are so high—but those prices will go up in July. Why? We froze fuel duty for 14 years; Labour can do better than that.
I know that Labour MPs probably did not like those bits of the Budget, but can I take a moment to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have been appalled to see the brutal briefing about him from his own side in this week’s papers? One Labour MP called him “slow”. “A dud.”
“Visibly out of his depth”,
said another. [Interruption.] We have all read it. They are not my words—they are Labour MPs’ words. One of them said it, and another came in after, but I can assure the Chancellor that he will not be hearing that kind of language from Conservative MPs today. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Most people in the country listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget will be thinking to themselves, “Is that it? Really, is that it?” The Prime Minister came in promising to reverse “40 years of neoliberalism”; instead, we got 4p off gherkins. Unfortunately, just like every other Labour Budget, the headline story is the same: more borrowing, more tax rises and—surprise, surprise—more money on benefits. This Budget does not come close to meeting the moment.
Last week, Labour MPs were asking for a Budget that did no harm. That shows how little ambition they have for this country. Let me tell them: the harm has already been done. Not facing up to the tough decisions we need to take is itself an act of immense harm. Many Labour MPs do not understand that our national debt is now more than £100,000 for every household in this country. They do not understand why it is a problem that a quarter of all working-age adults are now claiming some form of benefits. They do not understand that if Russia launches an attack on NATO in the next three years, as the Government’s own intelligence suggests, we will be at war without the means to properly defend ourselves. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Dawn Butler, Adam Jogee, and Mr Vince—what would baby Patrick say? Behave better than your child.
Mrs Badenoch
The Defence Secretary is chuntering; he could not even commit to 3% on TV the other day. He is still not doing his job. The fact is that there are huge problems coming down the road, and this Budget is simply trying to get through today. It is a Budget for getting by, not for getting on.
I was cautiously optimistic when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Chancellor. This is a man who once seemed to grasp the danger that Britain is now in. I thought that he was putting country before party when he quit as Defence Secretary—he will remember that I said he was a man of principle. Let me remind him what he wrote in that resignation letter in June. He said:
“I am certain that a…date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set.”
[Interruption.] I have not finished—Labour MPs will have to wait for the punchline. They are so slow. He went on to say that if that did not happen, he would be
“forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.”
Today is the day he should have set that date. He is the man who has failed to set a plan for 3%. [Interruption.] Today is the day that we should have got the plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not sure which side is the most noisy. The Defence Secretary will have to have a lie down in a dark room if he carries on like that.
Mrs Badenoch
The Chancellor should have set out a plan for 3% today. Now he is the man who is increasing risk to personnel on operations. He is the man who is making our country less safe. He has failed his own test. This is on him, and no one will ever forget. If he had any decency, he would resign again today. Yes, the Chancellor has funded the defence investment plan, and that is welcome, and yes, there is more support for Ukraine, and that is welcome, but he said himself in June that that was not enough. He has given himself a bit of breathing space until next year. Instead what we have is a plan to have a plan. I bet Putin is really scared now.
We know that finding the money is difficult, but it can be done. On the Opposition Benches, we have found the savings to get to 3%, because we know Britain is facing very serious threats. The defence funding that the Government have announced today relies on more borrowing. Let me explain why that will only make us weaker. The OBR confirmed today that Britain’s national debt is forecast to increase again. We are borrowing just to pay the interest on that debt. The credit card has been maxed out and the Chancellor is taking out new credit cards just to pay the interest on the old ones. The three Labour Budgets will have added more than £260 billion to the national debt. Our great grandchildren will be paying for Labour’s total lack of self-restraint.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is fantasising about rejoining the EU. There is just one problem: under Labour, Britain is now borrowing so much that we would not even qualify for EU entry. The Chancellor clings to the IMF’s praise of the Government’s deficit reduction plans, but the truth is that the IMF has to take at face value the idea that Labour will cut public spending massively just before the next election. Really? Are these MPs signed up to the cuts in those plans? These are the same MPs who voted down the most modest welfare reforms in the history of this House. They are never going to cut spending. That is why this month, the IFS described the Government’s plans as “a work of fiction”.
I can tell the House who else is not fooled by Labour’s fantasy figures: the bond markets. Britain is now paying more to borrow than at any point in the past 30 years. Those borrowing costs are hurting people today. Businesses are struggling to afford loans because of rising interest rates. Five-year mortgage rates are now above 6%. Rates are far higher now than they ever were under us. We have the utter cheek of the Chancellor and Labour MPs raising the mini-Budget when Government borrowing rates are far higher now. They are higher than under any Conservative Prime Minister. These are their interest rates; these are their borrowing costs; and this is their mess—they need to own it. The Chancellor knows that next week interest rates are expected to rise again. Only the Labour party would think that the answer is to spend more money. [Interruption.] I know the Education Secretary cannot count, so she thinks this is all fantastic. Come on, have you got something more to add? Can you add?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We have to showcase the best of ourselves. Our constituents are watching. [Interruption.] I really do not need any help. Ms Emily Darlington, you are normally so polite and so well behaved, but today is not a great day.
Mrs Badenoch
They love to dish it out, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they cannot take it. [Interruption.] What was that from the Education Secretary? I am sorry, but I cannot hear her, because the rest of the class are making too much noise.
Inflation is eating away at our standard of living. Labour’s friends in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have said that this could be the worst Parliament on record for living standards, but Labour has looked after its people. There have been plenty of pay rises for the unions. Benefits will go up. [Interruption.] It is true, there have been plenty of pay rises for Labour’s friends in the unions. Benefits will go up by inflation in April, but private sector wages this year are below inflation. People in the private sector are getting poorer. They can all feel it. Those on benefits are getting an increase, while those going out to work will not. That is not fair.
The problem is that Labour is addicted to spending other people’s money and addicted to welfare. The welfare Secretary said it himself. Talking about Labour MPs, he said:
“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’”
Since the last Budget just 11 months ago, the equivalent of the entire city of York has signed on to disability benefits. And why would they not, when sickness benefits pay more than the minimum wage? Jobs have been destroyed by Labour, and this Government have made it easier than ever to claim. It is honestly like their policies are designed to get people off work and on welfare. Just because it is called universal credit does not mean that everyone in the universe should be on benefits.
The issue is not just about cutting the benefits bill. This welfare burden is deeply unfair to those who are working hard and making ends meet—those people making tough decisions about whether they can move home or afford to have children. How do Members think they feel when they hear that working-age welfare is now costing every taxpayer £4,000 a year?
Cutting welfare is not just about saving money. A million young people in this country wake up with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Unemployment among 20 to 24-year-olds is now higher in London than in Bulgaria, the second-poorest country in the EU. Labour is creating a lost generation, isolated and powerless over their futures.
Britain is about to collapse under the weight of welfare. We have to start showing people some tough love. Deep down, the Chancellor knows that spending more money is not the answer. He talks about giving people breathing space, but the Government are the ones choking the economy. We have seen £70 billion of new taxes in just two years, and they have put them up again today. He said he would not be putting taxes on working people. That is what the last Chancellor said, too, but he has, because the Government are taxing everything that they can get their hands on. They have taxed jobs, pensions and cars. They have taxed the rental market today. They have taxed savings, investments and homes. He asked me whether I support the action that they are taking today. No, I do not support the action that they are taking today.
The Chancellor also said that this is a Budget for business that will unleash enterprise. That must be why the entrepreneurship adviser quit this week. There is nothing for business here. He wants to charge them more for the union learning fund, was it? Business does not want these random new schemes. Let me tell him: business confidence is negative not just this quarter, and not just the last quarter, but for seven quarters in a row. That has never happened before. In case Labour MPs do not understand what that means, the last time business confidence was positive was when we were in charge.
The Chancellor says that he is helping with the cost of doing business. Businesses need cheaper energy, flexible labour markets and lower taxes. They are getting none of those. Nearly half of businesses say that they have cut employment because of Labour’s jobs tax. There are now fewer vacancies in the economy than at any point in the last 12 years, outside the pandemic. Graduate vacancies are down by almost 50% this year. They were the worst on record last year, and under Labour they are again even worse—the worst on record this year. I was hoping that the Chancellor would do something on plan 2 student loans today, but he has not even done that. When was the last time any of them spoke to a graduate looking for a job? Parents are watching their children receive rejection after rejection. Companies report 140 applicants chasing every job. Unemployment has risen by a quarter of a million people since Labour came in: a quarter of a million people, under this lot.
So let me tell them some home truths. They have made wages expensive with their jobs tax. They have made energy expensive with their net zero policies. They have made capital expensive by increasing the cost of borrowing. What happens when wages, energy and capital are expensive? Nothing gets built. That is why the economy is grinding to a halt. Labour said that it was going to build 1.5 million new homes. I remember when the Housing Secretary first started, and I told her that she had been stitched up. Do you know what she is saying now, Madam Deputy Speaker? She says that now there is a “slim chance” that Labour will build 1.5 million new homes. They are not going to build them. They are not even going to build as many as we did, despite their lofty ambitions. They promised to secure the future of Britain’s steel industry. Now taxpayers are spending £1.3 million a day propping up British Steel alone. They promised to create 650,000 clean energy jobs. Where are they? Nothing has been created except unemployment.
Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what has actually happened since last year’s Budget for “Benefits Street”. Inflation—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Government spending—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] They can join in now on the Labour side, because they know the words—we heard them. Debt interest—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Mortgage rates—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Benefits claims—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Unemployment—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Welfare spending—[Hon. Members: “Up!”]
The report card is not looking good. They are making the same mistake with banking that they made with oil and gas: tax one of Britain’s flagship industries until it packs up and leaves. The result? The country gets less money in tax. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Gemmell, yowling for so long will be very bad for your throat, so simmer down.
Mrs Badenoch
I see that the Minister for Pensions is leaving. I guess he could not handle the truth.
Everything in our economy is being made more expensive by Labour’s taxes. Next year, under Labour, Britain will have the highest tax burden in our country’s history—higher than in the 1970s, higher than in the second world war, higher than in the Napoleonic wars. [Interruption.] She asks, “Whose fault is that?” It is your fault. She is asleep at the back of the class. The Education Secretary might want to take a look at that student.
What have we learned from the Office for Budget Responsibility today? Growth next year: downgraded. Inflation: up every year until 2030. Real household disposable income: lower every year. We have learned that the Chancellor’s debt interest bill will be £14 billion higher than expected, and the debt will be higher in every single year compared to the previous plan. How is this giving us breathing space?
There is a better way that would actually deliver for the people of this country. There is a logical order to creating growth in an economy. You have to create value, prosperity and wealth first, before you distribute it. That is how it works. Labour is only interested in the distribution; it has no plan to create any value at all. We on the Conservative side of the House want to see Britain richer, more prosperous and thriving—not just a little bit of breathing space. That is why Conservatives are proposing tough love. We will cut spending by £70 billion, including £36 billion from welfare—cuts that are fair to taxpayers, and fair to those who really need support. We would use half of that money to cut the deficit, so that Britain does not go bankrupt and borrowing rates start to come down. That is how we get cheaper mortgages. And we will fund our defence properly, because keeping our country safe should be the first priority of any Government.
Getting the public finances under control and living within our means will allow us to cut taxes, because that is what really gives people breathing space. Scrapping the carbon tax to bring down energy bills, scrapping stamp duty, abolishing inheritance tax on family homes—that is what people want. So let us cut spending, cut the deficit, fund defence, and cut people’s taxes. That is the Budget that the Chancellor should have delivered today. That is the Budget that Conservatives would have delivered. And that is going to be the choice at the next election.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I was very pleased to see the Chancellor announce £5 billion more in the Budget for defence research and development, which—[Interruption.]
Chris Coghlan
Does the hon. Member agree that the announcement of £5 billion more in the Budget for defence R&D through the British Business Bank could have profoundly positive implications for our national security and growth, as I have urged, if the Government scale it further from here?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The House will be determined to know how this Budget is going to benefit Harlow. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £100 direct payment into the bank accounts of Harlow residents will make a huge difference this winter? By the way, it will help over 39,000 households in council tax bands A to D.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am surprised that the hon. Member failed to get the Chancellor to use the word “Harlow” multiple times during the Budget statement.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—I say that just to up his constituency’s mention count. Around 48,000 households in my constituency households will benefit from the council tax rebate for those in bands A to D. I am assuming the Government took this approach because it is a simple way of getting the money into people’s pockets, but how that works will need a lot of unpicking. It is an instructive figure, in fact, because people think that London’s streets are paved with gold, but one in two children in my constituency are living in poverty, it is among the top three for the pensioners deprivation index, and it has a very high level of deprivation overall, while there are also challenges with the cost of living.
Dame Meg Hillier
I have given way several times, and a lot of Members are waiting to speak.
Whitehall is often just too distant—not just physically and geographically, but in attitude—from communities and towns up and down the country. I always say that we should not make decisions about people without people. However good our civil service is—and I pay great tribute to the many civil servants I have quizzed over the years about public spending—there will still be a challenge if we do not have the right people around the table, and that may be because they just do not know what is going on in a geographical area.
Our mayors have a very important role, but if money is to be devolved to them, there needs to be very strong local accountability. Of course, the last Government abolished the Audit Commission, which I think is a great sadness, and we have seen huge challenges in local government audit. The Mayor of London has the strongest accountability, with 25 London Assembly members able to challenge him openly and regularly about his spending, and powers to delve into the detail, but mayors in other areas do not have that.
I would say to the Government and the mayors that there is very good reason to have very strong accountability. First, a mayor will want to prove to their constituents that they have spent money effectively, and to be transparent about that, so that when they come up for re-election, people know that their mayors are not frittering away their hard-earned tax pounds and that they are delivering the things they want. Secondly, if a mayor spends money well in their area, they might prove to the Government that they can get more bang for the taxpayer pound than Whitehall achieves by doing it from a distance. Dare I say it, but there may even be times when the Government of the day do not give quite enough money to deliver what was promised, and mayors need the figures to prove that they have been short-changed. In all those circumstances, we need a stronger accountability process, and I hope that we do not go so fast in the drive towards devolution that we do not have those checks and balances in place.
I am very pleased about the moves on cheaper energy and clean power. The Chancellor mentioned GB Grid, which is a start, but about 400 projects are needed to upgrade the grid, and I believe that GB Grid covers 10 or 11 of them, so there is still a huge challenge to get the grid up to speed to meet the target of net zero by 2050. I think the pledge to buy and build only when new technologies will lower bills and be connected to the grid may be an important driver in that area. We may want to quiz the Chancellor about that—as, I am sure, our sister Committee, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, will want to do with the relevant Ministers in due course. I welcome the energy cost reductions for businesses, because I think all Members across the Chamber have heard that businesses have been really struggling in that regard. I have also been pushing for the closure of the loophole on VAT for online marketplace sales, so I am pleased to see that.
On the face of it, this Budget looks as though it has done a good job, but the devil is of course in the detail, so I again put the Chancellor on warning that we will be looking through that detail over the next few weeks. We have the Office for Budget Responsibility before the Treasury Committee next week, alongside other economists, and we will have the Chancellor himself on 11 November, when we will have had a chance to go through all the figures in detail and can challenge him on what he has promised today and the promises for the future.
Overall, I think we must see cross-party support for the approach to support households in these challenging international times, when a lot of the things that buffet the Government are very difficult for them to control. We must support small businesses. Quite rightly, we all are lobbied a lot by our small businesses. People invest their energy in their businesses, and they need support. We need a long-term vision. Part of our challenge as scrutineers of the Government on the Committee corridor is to hold them to account for their 10-year plan—which we have yet to see—for reshaping the state and devolution. I again warn all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench that the Budget may feel good after the statement today, but we will be challenging them in detail about the money they are spending, whichever Committee they appear before.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. As I said earlier in my introductory remarks, Sir Bernard, we do not intervene on Front-Bench speeches. The odd thing is that we went through this scenario this time last year. [Interruption.] We did, we did—yet here we are again.
Ed Davey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room.
As I was saying, our economy is being held back by Brexit, so the biggest single thing the Government could do to fix our economy is to fix our trading relationship with Europe and take us back into the single market and a customs union, giving us the growth and the money to cut people’s taxes. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Gareth Snell, moving three rows back does not mean I cannot see you or hear you. Let us try to simmer down.
Ed Davey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Unless and until a Government have the courage to do just what I have outlined, I am afraid that any Budget will only be tinkering around the edges, because it will not provide the growth our country so desperately needs.
The Prime Minister, to be fair, has rightly talked about the economic damage caused by Brexit, but in answer to my questions he still refuses to drop Labour’s red lines set down by Keir Starmer more than five years ago. The world has changed so much since then and it is long past time that Labour policy changed with the world. I welcome the Prime Minister talking more openly this week about the need to move forward on Europe, but can I say to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that it is just too urgent to wait until the next Parliament? Today’s Budget shows why.
I remember when 2% growth was nothing special. When we were in government that was the average, but since we left the EU, it has been less than half that—less than 1% growth a year. Today’s forecasts show things starting slowly to move in the right direction, but they still show growth well below 2% every year for the next five years. What used to be average growth now feels like a pipe dream, so we need a real growth plan with Europe at its heart: a plan that only our party has set out—an economic plan to make Britain richer, safer and stronger.
Our plan would also tackle one of the great hidden tax injustices not just of this Budget, but of every Conservative and Labour Budget since 2021: frozen income tax thresholds. They are a stealth tax rise that has dragged millions of the lowest paid into paying income tax and millions of ordinary people—nurses, teachers, police officers—into the higher 40p tax band. Millions are paying higher taxes for the cost of Government economic failure. I have to say to the Chancellor that this Budget, which freezes the income tax allowance of people in work while raising the personal allowance for some pensioners, is not the answer. Income tax thresholds should rise for everyone—the fairest tax cut possible—letting people keep more of what they earn, rewarding hard work and giving individuals more power in our economy. That is a profoundly Liberal thing to do. If we grow the economy by trading more with Europe, we can afford to do that—a real plan to turn the economy around and cut taxes fairly.
Our plan would also tackle one of the biggest headaches the Chancellor is facing in this Budget: the cost of Government borrowing. We clearly cannot go on spending £1 in every £12 just on interest payments on the national debt. That is money that should be going on schools, on hospitals, or back into people’s pockets. We just cannot go on with the Government borrowing money at interest rates of over 5%. Some of the cost is down to global factors, as the Chancellor talked about, and a lot of it is down to Donald Trump’s war with Iran, but there is no doubt that the bond markets would look more favourably on the UK if our growth prospects were better. Just as for growing the economy, the single biggest thing the Government could do to cut their own borrowing costs, and the interest rates faced by homeowners and businesses, would be to take up our growth plan, and join the single market and customs union.
Just look at the alternative put forward by the terrible twins of British politics, the Conservatives and Reform. They are in a bidding war of unfunded fantasy promises. We have seen where that sort of fiscal irresponsibility ends; Liz Truss’s mini-Budget sent mortgage rates rising. Yet now we face the threat of a Tory-Reform Government doing it all over again. The British people simply cannot afford that.
That brings me back to the cost of living. Why are so many bills going up again? Because Donald Trump chose to start his idiotic war with Iran, which has pushed up our energy bills and hiked diesel and petrol prices to painful levels. When that war began, the Conservatives and Reform were lining up to say that Britain should be backing President Trump. Just imagine if they had been in charge. We would have been dragged into fighting a war that no one wants and paying for it with even higher bills and higher taxes. Britain needs a Government who stand up for British interests, not one who make us ever more dependent on an unreliable, out-of-control American President.
With Donald Trump pushing up petrol and diesel prices, the Chancellor’s freeze on fuel duty is welcome, but it is not enough. I urge him to look again at our emergency transport package, which would cut prices at the pumps by 12p a litre and bring down the cost of travel by bus, train and electric vehicle, too—a real breathing space for families and businesses. With energy bills forecast to rise by more than 25% in January, the Chancellor’s promise to break the link between gas prices and electricity bills cannot come soon enough, but he is right to reject the siren song from those on the Conservative and Reform Benches who want Britain to be even more dependent on dirty fossil fuels and their volatile prices. Once again, they are copying Donald Trump, and their energy plan would be a disaster for our environment, our economy and for everyone struggling with the cost of living. The right answer is to invest instead in clean home-grown renewable power, energy efficiency and battery storage, so that the prices we pay do not depend on Trump’s latest Truth Social post, but instead come down quickly as technology continues to slash the cost of renewable energy and of batteries.
In a world where Trump is deserting Ukraine, praising Putin and selling out on European security, we must move far more quickly on defence. When the Defence Secretary says we must be ready for war within 1,000 days, our armed forces cannot wait years for the investment they desperately need now. The Chancellor’s announcement of some extra funding is welcome as far as it goes, but why has he not taken up our plan for defence bonds to invest £20 billion in Britain’s defence over the next two years? And since he has ruled out joining Canada’s defence bank, will he now take up our plan and push for a European rearmament bank that goes so much further than what he announced today? Instead of signing up to one country’s version, surely the right answer is to bring our allies together behind a shared vision of defence investment to protect our continent from Putin.
The defence of our country needs serious answers like these, not fantasy pledges like the Conservatives’ “iron dome”, which they say is not an iron dome—except when it is. What a shambles! No wonder they left Britain’s armed forces in such a mess, something for which they have not yet apologised.
It will not surprise the House to hear that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are delighted to hear talk of fiscal devolution. Taking money and power out of a few hands in Whitehall and giving it to communities to make their own decisions is something that we, as Liberals, have always championed. There is a right way to do devolution and a wrong way, so we will have three tests for the Government’s plan as it develops. First, does it give councils enough money to fulfil the responsibilities they are being given? Secondly, does it reach beyond mayors to councils and communities everywhere? Thirdly, is it fair, so that those areas that are already struggling do not find themselves with even less? Done properly, this could be the start of something really big; done badly, it is simply passing the buck.
The same goes for welfare reform. Of course it needs to be done, but it needs to be done right: cutting the bill by helping people into work and giving people the care and support they need so that they can work, like fixing carer’s allowance to help people juggle care with work. I am glad that the Chancellor has listened to carers on the need to scrap the unfair cliff edge of carer’s allowance. As I said to the Prime Minister earlier, this cannot wait another four years, and we cannot see a 100% tax rate on working carers. I urge the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to look at our alternative plan instead, which we put forward to Liz Sayce when she did her review. I hope to bring it to the meeting that the Prime Minister has promised.
Whether on carer’s allowance or other benefits, let us reform welfare right, so that the system helps people into work and then rewards them for working. The country needs this new Chancellor and Prime Minister to succeed, because the livelihoods of everyone in our country are at stake. The Liberal Democrats will work constructively with the Government wherever we can. We will oppose them when they get things wrong, of course, but we will also support them when they get things right and push them to go further when they are too timid.
In that spirit, I say to the Chancellor that this Budget is far too timid. The Government have recognised the scale of the challenge, but like Keir Starmer before them, they still have not risen to it. They have not fixed the terrible damage that they did with their tax rises, from the family farm tax to the jobs tax. I urge them to be bolder—be bolder on energy and defence; be bolder on devolution, and get it right; be bolder on cutting income tax; and be bolder on Europe and growth—because after so many years of pain, so many years of being held back, the British people need real change, and fast.
Sir Mel Stride
I am just concluding now.
When Members hear the Chancellor talking about being steady as we go, they should read into that complacency. When we hear him say that we need time to get things right, we should read into that kicking the can down the road. We face huge challenges as a country, and this Budget has been grossly complacent. It is a lost opportunity. It has failed our economy, and it has failed the British people.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, after which there will be a speaking limit of eight minutes.
Iran
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Ninety or 19? [Laughter.]
A lot of people say we cannot be reliant on the petrochemical dictators, but we are utterly reliant on the Chinese, who are no more reliable than the petrochemical dictators. All our processed materials for renewables come through China. Why? It is because they are cheap, and because China has cornered the supply and the market.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you cannot comment from the Chair, but I urge people to look at your work in this place to understand exactly how the Chinese make those products so cheaply. I am not sure whether you are still sanctioned—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I do not mean to be speaking for you, but I know that this is something you are passionate about. You have been sanctioned because you have called out the human rights record of the Chinese and the way they have been exploiting the Uyghur population to fund and put forward the energy on which we now rely.
What was going to be the second topic of the Opposition Day debate—we were not allowed to debate it today, although this debate is clearly not quite as urgent as the Leader of the House made out—was how we have taken terrible decisions on our energy policy. We are leaving ourselves more and more exposed to other areas. Yes, we cannot control the price of oil and gas, and we all know that it is traded on the international markets, but it would help to secure the supply. All the gas goes directly into our system. I think 3% of our gas comes from LNG. We could start to reduce that risk.
Iran has a huge malign influence which has a direct effect on us all and we must ensure we are ready to defend ourselves. The point I really want to get across today is this. We have to make decisions that are really, really unpopular and controversial. We have to slash an out of control welfare bill and we have to spend on defence. People say, “Where would you get the money to pay for defence?” We have been crystal clear about that, no matter how unpopular or popular it is. The point is not just coming from our side; Lord Robertson has also said that such spending is vital.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak is in his place. I was just saying, and he will be able to look it up in Hansard, that I think he makes some very important points about having a hybrid force. We must ensure that we invest in what is needed, and recognise the projects, such as Ajax, that have just failed and work out how we are going to do things differently.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that Britain should be the leader and at the forefront of any negotiations and international coalitions, not just because we have the skills and the history to be able to do so but because that would demonstrate to our European allies—perhaps even more importantly, to the Americans—that we as a country are willing to stand up and do our bit.
The Government really must ensure that the right decision they have taken is implemented swiftly, defended robustly and enforced effectively. The decision has been made; now, the test is the delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It would be remiss of me if I did not put on record my thanks to Godfrey and Margaret—my Nigerian mum here—in the Tea Room.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to Members for their valuable interventions in this debate, and I will endeavour to respond to all the points raised. I may leave the Oxford Union point to Opposition Members, if that is okay—there was extensive debate about who won what debate. I am very glad that we are going to have a Cambridge Prime Minister, rather than an Oxford one, so perhaps we do not need to go quite so much into previous debates.
Defence Investment Plan
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, I will make a statement on the defence investment plan.
Our armed forces represent the very best of us, from our sailors patrolling the High North and protecting the seabed, to our pilots, aircrew and air defence teams in the middle east defending the skies, our Paras in the south Atlantic and our Marines in the channel. As I speak, we have personnel supporting the humanitarian mission in Venezuela, submariners beneath the waves maintaining our unbroken chain of protection, and planners at Permanent Joint Headquarters making the most extraordinarily complex challenges appear routine. Our servicemen and women rightly inspire respect, gratitude and pride across the House and across the nation. We all recognise that they serve at an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable moment in history. The central purpose of the defence investment plan, which we publish today, is to ensure that they have the kit and the technology they need in order to do the difficult job we ask of them. I know at first hand just how important that is, and when I was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago I promised to get it right. Today, I make good on that promise.
Before I set out the details, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many hundreds of colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, in and out of uniform, who have worked so hard to prepare this plan. Over the last few weeks it has been a privilege to work with them, as it has been to work with my ministerial team. In particular, I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who I know has invested many months in getting the plan right.
I also want to place on the record my profound thanks to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for their support, and for the spirit of good will that has guided our negotiations over the past fortnight. They have, for two years, demonstrated steadfast commitment to our national security, and as a consequence our armed forces are better prepared and better supported today. It is important to add that Ukraine is still strong in the fight, and that over the past two years Britain has proved itself to be a reliable ally and a trusted partner.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who, as Secretary of State, dedicated his time and worked in order to deliver this plan. He set out to the House in clear terms why he could not support an earlier version of the plan; I will lay out what has changed, and why I can support it.
This plan now commits more investment in our armed forces: £298 billion over the next four years. That includes an additional £15 billion on top of last year’s spending review settlement, of which most is extra day-to-day spending for training and improving the availability of ships and aircraft to increase our warfighting readiness. That is £1.5 billion more than when I took up this job just a couple of weeks ago, and it means that defence spending will now increase in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30. That is a bigger increase across a Parliament than any present Member of this House has ever seen. It means that the £74 billion allocated to our armed forces next year is now £20 billion more than the allocation in the last year of the previous Government, and it means that by the end of the decade the proportion of GDP spent on defence will be greater than it has been at any time during the last 30 years.
We have made some difficult but necessary decisions to fund this, but our fiscal rules have been upheld and day-to-day spending on frontline services has been protected. All Departments were asked to contribute 1% of their capital budgets from this year, while those with larger resources—the Department for Transport with its roads budget, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—were asked to make further contributions. Full details are set out today in a written ministerial statement. To reinforce that additional investment, this Labour Government are announcing a new £50 billion defence export facility to support British defence firms in winning contracts across the globe.
More money matters—of course it does—but so do the choices that we make on how to spend it. I have therefore decided to reprioritise a further £1 billion in the plan, to ensure that it better reflects the way in which war is waged today. It will provide our service personnel with the capabilities that they need to deter and fight, now and in the years ahead. The war in Ukraine has seen battlefield technology advance faster than at any time in history, and few have done more to ensure that our armed forces have kept pace than my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I thank him for his service, and for the work that he did as a Minister. He will know that artificial intelligence, autonomy and uncrewed systems are no longer capabilities of the future, and through the DIP they will now receive the sustained investment that reflects their strategic importance.
Today, we commit the UK’s largest ever investment in drone warfare: £5 billion for strike, protector and surveillance drones across the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force; anti-submarine vessels, uncrewed ground vehicles and fighter jets; a new uncrewed systems taskforce to rapidly develop and field new autonomous capabilities; and funding for Europe’s biggest drone testing site, the Uncrewed Systems Centre in Swindon, which I opened on my very first day in the job. That project is thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone). We will also invest nearly £2 billion to integrate our armed forces through a new digital targeting web, underpinned by the most advanced AI and software, cutting the time from decision to strike faster than ever before, along with £100 million for the defence AI taskforce and another £115 million to raise our defences against the threats from AI.
It would be reckless to ignore the lessons from Ukraine, but it is important to remember that we are not Ukraine. We are a member of NATO, and a nuclear power. In this year alone our armed forces have been deployed to the High North and the middle east, and they are now readying themselves for the prospect of regenerating Ukraine’s forces and reopening the strait of Hormuz. All the while, they protect our island home and retain the ability to respond to crises in dangerous and distant lands.
Britain needs a flexible, hybrid, integrated, “high-low” force that can deter and fight across every domain. That is why we are committing £8.6 billion to the global combat air programme, proudly in partnership with our allies, Japan and Italy. This next-generation stealth fighter jet is in addition to the £1.1 billion Typhoon upgrade, and will ensure that our RAF retains control of the skies. We will invest £26 billion to fund the most extensive naval base upgrades for nearly half a century, including at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport; £790 million to protect the UK homeland and our overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats; and £11 billion in munitions and weapons to increase UK stockpiles, including long-range strike capabilities, low-cost cruise missiles and one-way effectors. By 2030, we will build at least six new energetics factories.
Today, we commit £64 billion to fund Dreadnought and AUKUS submarines, a new warhead and other crucial nuclear work. Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security, and in providing the funding to renew it, we extend that promise long into the future. We will also purchase F-35As and join NATO’s nuclear mission. Our security is now contested in every domain, so we will invest over £3 billion in space capabilities, £2.5 billion in cyber, and £400 million to protect our undersea cables and pipelines.
In the end, it is people who win wars and preserve peace. By delivering three above-inflation pay rises, extending childcare provision and putting fully into law the armed forces covenant, this Labour Government have demonstrated our commitment to what matters most. Building on the work already done to fix 1,200 of the worst homes, today we commit £9 billion over a decade to raise the condition of military family housing to a standard that matches the service and sacrifice of those living in it. Through a new Defence Housing Service, we will implement the defence housing strategy in full, fulfilling our moral obligation to personnel and their families.
The DIP represents significant progress in implementing the vision set out in our strategic defence review. We will invest more and target better, but there is much more work to be done. It was not for nothing that the UK made a promise to our allies, just as they did to us: 3.5 by ’35. In a more dangerous world, our commitment to NATO is absolute. I gave my word to the Secretary-General and all our allies that our promise will be met, and a credible plan will be produced to ensure that it is. We will reach 3% in the next Parliament, with funding set out at the next spending review, in which defence will be the No. 1 priority. Britain has always met our NATO spending commitments, and under this Government we always will. Britain has always stood with our allies, and under this Government we always will. This plan accelerates the development of deep precision strike weapons and close support artillery with Germany, and it creates an amphibious combined fleet with the Netherlands. We will also invite Joint Expeditionary Force nations to join our Northern Navies initiative and build a hybrid force together.
I now have a responsibility to make the plan work, not least given what Cabinet colleagues have forgone from their budgets in order to support mine. My commitment to them, and indeed to the British public, is that with the requirement to spend more on defence comes a duty to spend more wisely on defence. This plan includes a pledge to make substantial savings by the end of this Parliament, as well as a commitment to drive down fraud and error across defence.
I am grateful to our partners in industry for their counsel and support during this process. I know that recent months have not been easy, but with the DIP now published, I am relying on the full spectrum of our industrial base to make it a success: primes and small and medium-sized enterprises; workers and trade unions; and innovators and investors. Together, we will ensure that the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the United Kingdom. We will develop sovereign and dual-use technologies, increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy.
Today, I am proud to confirm that with the publication of the DIP comes the promise of greater security for families and new opportunities for our young people. According to MOD analysis, this plan will support nearly 60,000 additional good, skilled jobs right across our Union. That will be achieved alongside a culture shift in procurement.
Ultimately, the success of this defence investment plan will be measured by whether it commands the support of the amazing men and women who serve in our armed forces. They remain our most important asset—respected by those who stand with us, and feared by those who stand against us. We know that they are equal to any task, and with this defence investment plan, we give them the means to match their courage. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Secretary of State, it is good form to let the Speaker’s Office know if one is going to speak for more than the allocated time. I will now have to give extra time to the other Front Benchers as well. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his service in government. He did an excellent job as Defence Secretary, and I absolutely aim to build on the work he did. I know he will share the pride that this Government have in the commitment we have already made of £298 billion over the next four years, with £15 billion of new money in this plan and an increase in defence spending in real terms of 27% up to 2029-30.
However, my right hon. Friend is right: we do need to do more. We will need to spend more on defence, and that is why there was a clear commitment that that will be a No. 1 priority at the next spending review. We have an absolute obligation to our armed forces and to our allies. When I talk to my NATO allies, they look to the United Kingdom for leadership. We have provided that leadership over a number of years, including under the previous Government, and this Government will continue to provide that leadership.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, albeit 14 months late and one Defence Secretary later.
The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in the technologies reshaping warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Our armed forces must be more agile and better equipped to deal with the threats we face. However, let us be clear: this defence investment plan is too little, too late. After years of Conservative neglect, Britain needed a Government willing to match the scale of the challenge. Instead, we have had months of delay, and we now have a plan that still appears to have a significant gap between the ambition and the resources required. In particular, it is hugely concerning to see how little is allocated to air defence. It is hundreds of millions short of what was recommended in the strategic defence review, and inadequate to protect our islands and, indeed, our allies.
The Prime Minister himself has warned that Russia could pose a direct threat to NATO by 2030, yet the architects of the strategic defence review, General Sir Richard Barrons and former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, have both made it clear that the current funding is not enough. Just weeks ago, the Defence Secretary resigned because he believed the funding settlement on offer was not sufficient to keep Britain safe. The new settlement does not bridge that gap, yet the new Defence Secretary claims it is enough. Were both the experts and the former Defence Secretary wrong about this, or does the Defence Secretary truly believe this is enough funding to keep Britain safe?
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed plans to sort out the sorry state of forces housing, so it is concerning to hear reports that funding is being found by raiding existing defence budgets, including for military housing. If that is true, what message does the Secretary of State have for serving personnel and their families still living in mouldy homes? Is this genuinely new investment or simply moving money from one overstretched budget to another?
The last thing our armed forces and defence industry need is more uncertainty. Between delays to the DIP, a change of Defence Ministers and now a new Prime Minister incoming, they have already dealt with a lot. It is reported that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who looks certain to become Prime Minister in the coming weeks, is sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat plan for defence bonds. Despite the Prime Minister appearing to rule it out in his speech today, can the Secretary of State confirm whether defence bonds are at least under consideration to provide the injection of funding our armed forces so desperately need?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his work in this area. I know he has a particular percentage in mind, and I am keen to discuss it more with him. I hope that he will acknowledge today, though, that the DIP brings forward the largest ever investment in drone warfare: £150 million more for homeland counter-drone defences; £50 million more over the next 12 months for the Army’s taskforce Rapstone; £150 million for a new uncrewed vehicle programme for the Army; and £150 million for the Royal Marine Commandos, with the same hybrid model of crewed and autonomous insertion craft and drones. I hope he will acknowledge that there has been a refocusing and a sharpening of the plan over the past couple of weeks to ensure that we learn the lessons from Ukraine. But I know, because he has been around the block a bit, that he will also understand that while we must learn the lessons from Ukraine, we are not Ukraine and we still have other responsibilities as a major power within NATO. That is why what I have to do is ensure we have a balanced set of capabilities. I am confident that that is the balance we have achieved today.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Many wonder whether aircraft carriers are going to go the way of the old battleships, uniquely vulnerable to drones that cost a tiny fraction of their cost. To protect aircraft carriers, we need destroyers and frigates. Moreover, in two world wars we relied completely on destroyers and frigates to protect our food supply, so will the Secretary of State say more about the replacement of our ageing frigate and destroyer fleet, particularly with regard to the Type 45 and Type 83 destroyers?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Father of the House, not least because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who serve at sea and do extraordinary work in the service of the Royal Navy. As an island nation, the capabilities they provide are mission critical for us. That is why, between now and the end of 2030, we expect the Royal Navy to take delivery of five new warships and the final Astute class attack submarine; and in the same period we will bring our first large autonomous surface and sub-surface autonomous platforms into service. Those who work in the Royal Navy do exceptional work on behalf of our nation and we will make sure that they have the resources and capabilities they need to keep our country safe.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the ministerial briefing beforehand and for allowing Defence Committee members advanced sight of the defence investment plan. I also welcome that we now have a fully funded plan, backed by the Treasury, that is scalable for key facets such as housing, training, workforce recovery, AI, integrated air and missile defence, and munition stockpiles.
However, there is no clear pathway to reach 3% of GDP spend. Despite assurances that the DIP would go further than previous defence equipment plans, it actually contains less detail: there is no full 10-year expenditure plan; there is no breakdown between procurement and support costs; and much of the investment appears to be backloaded beyond 2030. Will my right hon. Friend commit to fight for more funding for defence, so we reach the 3% of GDP spend by 2030? Will he commit to building more in Britain to stimulate sovereignty and economic growth? What operational risks have been accepted in the interim while there have been cuts to investment in certain areas? When will our Committee be furnished with the full details, so that effective parliamentary scrutiny can be undertaken?
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I welcome that this Government are prioritising the delivery of our nuclear deterrent, including investment in not only the current but the all-important future submarine programmes. The shadow Secretary of State said it was too little, too late. The price that the Liberal Democrats demanded for the coalition Government of 2010 was not renewing our nuclear deterrent, and the Conservatives were happy to pay that price so, yes, they are really bloody late! Part of the cost of that decision is being paid by our submariners, forced to remain at sea for over 200 days in an ageing fleet.
We have to be honest with the people of Great Britain: our food supply chains are being tested, our energy infrastructure is being mapped—
Michelle Scrogham
Our MOD is under a cyber-attack every day. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we told the public the truth, they would be more willing to go along with those difficult decisions?
Dan Jarvis
I would be happy to have a more detailed conversation with the right hon. Gentleman offline about his points. He will know that a massive programme of transformation has recently been set out by the First Sea Lord. We are working through the detail of that to ensure and satisfy ourselves that we have the right capabilities. As I have said, I pay tribute to all those who serve in our armed forces, particularly those who serve at sea in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described. It is an important capability, and we will ensure that we have the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have had the opportunity to look over defence equipment plans for the last 13 years, and have repeatedly seen—a profiling from over a decade—huge optimism about savings and efficiencies, which is how plans get across the line of affordability. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of the plan, through the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Committee and, hopefully next week—if Ministers from both the Treasury and Ministry of Defence agree to attend—the Treasury Committee, at a meeting including Defence Committee colleagues?
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to say that the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the UK; it will increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy. I am proud to represent KNDS in Stockport, which manufactures military bridges and Boxer armoured vehicles. I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry for visiting me in October for a factory tour. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the benefits of this investment are felt right across the UK, including in Stockport and Greater Manchester? In addition, Stockport is just a short drive from Barnsley; will he join me on a visit to KNDS?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the representations he has made on behalf of KNDS. I understand its important work well. He is right to emphasise the importance of ensuring that this significant investment of £15 billion, sitting in the continuum of investment that we have seen, needs to provide economic growth and jobs right across the country—and it will. It will provide nearly 60,000 new jobs. We should be hugely proud of that, not least because a significant proportion of those jobs will be spread right around the country. I would be very pleased to visit his Stockport constituency.
Armed Forces Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 22nd June 2026
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 June 2026 - large print - (22 Jun 2026)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank everybody who has helped bring to the Bill to this stage, in particular the parliamentary staff, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and officials in the Ministry of Defence, especially the Bill team. They have all worked diligently to deliver it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and all Members on both sides of the House for their constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to my predecessor, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for all his hard work and dedication in getting the Bill to this stage.
The first duty of any Government is the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a duty carried out every day by the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces, with the support of their families, who together make immense sacrifices to keep our nation safe. Too often, however, those who serve and the families who stand beside them feel undervalued. This Government were elected on a promise to change that and to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through the Bill, we are delivering on that promise.
The Bill not only fulfils our constitutional responsibility to renew the legal basis for the armed forces, but delivers meaningful reform across four key pillars: extending the armed forces covenant legal duty, establishing the Defence Housing Service, expanding our pool of reserves, and reforming the service justice system to boost protections and support for serving personnel.
First, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant—the promise that those who serve and their families should face no disadvantage because of that service.
Secondly, the Bill addresses long-standing concerns about defence housing. The quality of accommodation is not a peripheral issue; it is central to recruitment, retention and family life.
Thirdly, the Bill recognises the increasingly vital role that reservists play in modern defence. They are essential to our operational capability. Deployed alongside regulars and reserves, our strategic reserve gives us wider access to the specialist skills we increasingly need in the face of a shifting landscape of threats. The measures in the Bill help to support mobilisation, improve flexibility and ensure that reservists are properly integrated, valued and supported. They will therefore strengthen not only our military capability, but the essential connection between our armed forces and wider society.
Finally, the Bill delivers important reforms to the service justice system. Discipline, fairness and confidence in the system are fundamental to operational effectiveness and morale. The changes set out in the Bill aim to modernise and improve victim support and boost protections for those serving.
Taken together, these four pillars reflect our commitment to improve service life in a practical and lasting way. At a time of growing global uncertainty, we are asking more of our armed forces than ever before, so it is right that we match that ask with action to protect, support and value those who serve.
The Bill not only renews the legal foundation of our armed forces; it renews our national commitment to them. I end by paying tribute to the courage, professionalism and dedication shown by the men and women of our armed forces. We are proud to count them as the finest in the world and, above all, this Bill is for them. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Defence Investment Plan
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.
The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.
The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?
Luke Pollard
As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.
Luke Pollard
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?
Richard Tice
Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.
Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?
Luke Pollard
indicated dissent.
Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsTuesday 2nd June 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 2 June 2026 - large print - (2 Jun 2026)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 8 and 9.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who —
(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.
(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.
(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.
(4) Under this section, “a plan” means —
(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;
(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;
(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;
(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”
This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.
Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—
(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,
(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and
(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.
(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”
This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.
Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—
(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and—
(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.
(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—
(a) the transfer of patient records,
(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.
Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—
(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,
(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and
(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.
(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.
Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) the time and costs associated with current practice,
(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendments 10 to 24.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendment 25.
Clause 4 stand part.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
Government amendments 26 to 30.
Clause 7 stand part.
Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert—
“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police
(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force.
(3) In this section—
“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;
“relevant offence” means—
(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or
(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendment 31.
Clause 13 stand part.
Clauses 14 to 19 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.
Clause 20 stand part.
Government amendment 32.
Clause 21 stand part.
Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.
Government amendments 33 and 34.
Clause 25 stand part.
Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.
Government amendments 35 to 37.
Clause 29 stand part.
Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.
Government amendments 38 to 41.
Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations.
(2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes.
(3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.”
This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A.
Amendment 6, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Notice periods for recall
(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days).
(2) For the purposes of this section, “Army Reserve Group A” has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”
This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days.
Clause 33 stand part.
Clauses 34 to 41 stand part.
Government amendment 42.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clauses 43 to 51 stand part.
Government amendments 43 to 46.
Clause 52 stand part.
Government amendment 47.
Clause 53 stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Clause 54 stand part.
Clause 55 stand part.
Government new clause 4.
New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—
“A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”
This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.
New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—
“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.
New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—
“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—
“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).
(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.
(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—
(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;
(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;
(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;
(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;
(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.
(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may —
(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;
(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;
(c) publish reports and recommendations.
(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.
(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and
(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.
(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.
(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of —
(a) incapacity,
(b) misbehaviour, or
(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.
(11) In this section—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””
This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.
New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—
“11A Fees may not be charged
No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.””
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces.
New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—
“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—
“14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations
(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.
(2) In this section—
“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;
“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””
This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.
New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—
“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) catering provisions,
(b) personal hygiene provisions, and
(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).
(4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.
New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.
New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.
(3) The retention strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,
(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and
(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”
This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces.
New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,
(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,
(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and
(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.
New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—
“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.
(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.
(4) In this section—
“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;
“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.
New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—
‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.
(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.
(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.
(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’”
This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer.
New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards—
“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.
(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—
‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.
This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.
New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—
‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards
(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).
(2) The national standards must—
(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,
(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and
(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.
(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.
343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.
(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—
(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,
(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,
(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and
(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.
(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.
343AEC Reporting and measuring framework
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.
(2) The framework must include—
(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,
(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,
(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and
(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’”
This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.
New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—
(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,
(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and
(c) include recommendations for improvement.’”
This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.
Government amendments 49 to 56.
Schedule 1.
Schedule 2.
Government amendments 57 to 84.
Schedule 3.
Schedule 4.
Government amendments 85 to 87.
Schedule 5.
Schedules 6 and 7.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.
The Chairman
Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.
Al Carns
I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards.
Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.
Al Carns
That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well.
We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward.
All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill.
I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development.
Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are exceptionally important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation. The systems are different, the legal frameworks are different and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.
Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support.
Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system.
Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction.
Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards.
Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total.
Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels.
Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?
Mr Francois
I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech.
I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April.
The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.
Defence Readiness
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard
The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.
Luke Pollard
No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest.
We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver.
I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough.
This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed.
In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities.
There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.
James MacCleary
The right hon. Member enjoys raising the coalition quite a lot. You are talking about the nuclear submarines, aren’t you? That is what you asked about.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I was not talking about anything. Please do not use the words “you” or “your”.
James MacCleary
The Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to our nuclear deterrent repeatedly, and we will continue to do so.
The defence investment plan is still not published. Industry is still waiting for certainty, and our allies are still waiting for clarity. Our armed forces are still waiting for the investment that they need, so it was deeply disappointing that the promised defence readiness Bill was not included in the King’s Speech. It speaks volumes that the Government’s own Bill on readiness is itself delayed. That matters, because defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild capacity in industry at the flick of a switch. We cannot train personnel, repair readiness, modernise equipment, strengthen supply chains and restore deterrents with vague promises or “working at pace”.
James MacCleary
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending.
Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more. For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow.
If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors. It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change.
Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine. We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe.
The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads.
National security should not be subject to short-term political games. That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience.
The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation. That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it.
The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life. That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
After the next speaker, we will go to a speaking limit of seven minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Murrison
I am following the hon. Member’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He mentioned the reserves, and I am a reservist. Would you give the Government credit where it is due for carrying over the Armed Forces Bill, which will advance the age of retirement for reserves to 65, and agree with me that we can probably go further in looking at people, especially the reserves, who are skilled in particular areas and may be able to help us address the challenges of the future, rather than those of the past?
Mike Martin
I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and as well as increasing the scope of who can be called up, it creates a consolidation of different types of reserves and allows zig-zag pathways for specialists who can come in and out of the reserves, so it is absolutely a step in the right direction.
One thing that is missing at the moment might create the political space for an increase in defence spending. I was slightly waylaid by the right hon. Member who intervened, but I should have said that to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic area, we are talking about a 50% increase in defence expenditure, not £1 billion here or £2 billion there. A 50% increase in defence is the scale we are talking about.
Mike Martin
I will not, if that is okay, because we are short on time.
To create the political space for some of these trade-offs, because that is a huge amount of money—£30 billion extra every single year—we need to have the national conversation on defence that was announced in the strategic defence review, but has been notable by its absence. That is why I, together with the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Richards in the other place, have formed the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We hope to raise public awareness not just of the threats, because I think the public understand the threats we face, but of the lack of capability, and the diminishing capability, in the UK military.
I recently went to a school in my constituency to talk to sixth-formers, and I have asked this question in several schools since, but they all assume we have a fleet of about 50 or 100 ships. When I tell them that we have 14 frigates and destroyers—surface combatants—they are shocked. The general public do not know the state of the British military, which is entirely incommensurate with the threat we face.
In conclusion, because time is very short, our military is a paper tiger. Sooner or later, we are going to be found out, and when we are found out and the battlegroup in Estonia is overrun or an aircraft carrier is sunk, Suez will pale into insignificance. This King’s Speech falls far short of what is required.
Gurkha Veterans
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is crucial that we continue to recognise the invaluable contributions of the Gurkhas, both militarily and in our communities, and I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and explaining eloquently the issues that the Gurkha community faces. We need to continue the conversation about the important role they play in our society.
The Gurkhas in my constituency of Ashford and Hawkinge have been a model of dedication and contribution to the wider community, and I could not be prouder to have a thriving Gurkha community in my constituency. Many members of that community are veterans and their families, and many own businesses that contribute to local growth on our high streets, enhance our local culture through Nepalese food, festivals and celebrations, and organise charity events such as litter-picks and walks around the parks in my constituency. Often, veterans take the lead to provide help to the rest of their community through organisations that bind us closer together at a time when we risk becoming more fractured than ever before.
Our shared history with the Gurkhas is demonstrated most clearly by their 200 years of distinguished service as part of the British Army, including their bravery and sacrifices in both world wars, most notably during the north African and Burmese campaigns in the second world war, where they earned 12 Victoria Crosses, and their service against the Ottomans in the first world war, among many other campaigns. The Gurkhas have continued to serve in modern peacekeeping operations, such as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and still serve bravely to this day. I saw that at first hand when I participated in various visits as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which my colleagues have mentioned.
I know that the Gurkhas’ dedication to service is recognised by all Members across this House and by this Labour Government. Part of that recognition involves ensuring the dignity of Gurkha veterans. That is why I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People to ask what measures would be taken to explore the welfare needs and long-standing pension issues of Gurkha veterans. I was pleased that, in her response, the Minister outlined the Government’s commitment to explore measures to address the welfare needs of Gurkha veterans, in both the UK and Nepal, and that Ministry of Defence officials have been instructed to continue discussions with the Gurkha veterans’ representatives. I urge the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is on the Front Bench today, to update us on how that is progressing.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war.
With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.
Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities.
The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible.
This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved.
There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much.
We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously.
The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given.
Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness.
At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain.
Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.
Cameron Thomas
I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have seen very well-mannered contributions from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and DUP Members, including the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), with her ode to the Gurkhas. We heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—history will remember him as a man who stood on his principles—and from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph).
We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who is also a fan of Gurkha cuisine. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), is a student of military history, and he always expresses himself with such character. I always enjoy my conversations with the Minister, and I am thankful to him for turning up today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was perfectly short and sweet.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.
Defence
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not require any correspondence from the Minister, although it is always welcome.
Al Carns
Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.
What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war
“whether we like it or not”.
The following week, she says,
“I never said we should join”,
and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.
However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been an interesting knockabout. On the question of what we are achieving, I refer the Minister back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the Conservatives were in office, on the numerous wastage scandals in defence procurement. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years; I go back so far that I remember Lord Levene being appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We are never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement. We have the sixth biggest defence budget in the world, but we do not get bang for our buck. I do not have any instant solutions, but is this not something we can all unite around? Can we not just insist that we stop these huge projects, which are not fit for modern warfare, and go back to actually being able to fight a war?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister responds, I note that many colleagues wish to contribute; no doubt he is coming close to his conclusion.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We are moving in that direction; the national armaments director is providing professional oversight now and is looking at reviewing the system. I think we can all collectively agree on whether we have got value for money over the past 14 to 20 years. We need to make sure that we do get value for money in the future; if we had in the past, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.
In closing, this motion asks the House to express regret about a Government who are delivering the largest increase in defence spending, leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed to protect British lives, the Opposition offer a motion built on a record they would rather forget and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring but a time for leadership, and this Government are providing it. I urge the House to reject the motion.
James MacCleary
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [Interruption.]
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?
Mike Martin
On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Forgive me; I was slightly distracted. We now have a speaking limit of eight minutes.
Brian Leishman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times.
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy.
Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers.
Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.