Defence Industrial Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the defence industrial strategy. Today we fulfil another manifesto commitment by publishing our plan to strengthen our security and grow our economy. It is a plan to back British-based industry, create British jobs and drive British innovation.

Before I set out the detail of the strategy, I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her work in developing the strategy. I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who has joined the Ministry of Defence team.

This is a plan supported by £773 million of investment—a plan to make defence an engine for economic growth in every nation and region of our country. The men and women who serve our nation are rightly respected across the world for their dedication and professionalism, yet as we know from the war in Ukraine, when a country is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. The UK has one of the most advanced, innovative defence industrial bases the world over, but we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era of UK defence.

Our strategic defence review set out our vision to make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. Through our defence industrial strategy, we will ensure that we have an industry to deliver that vision. All the pledges made today can only be met because this Labour Government have committed the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war: 2.6% of GDP by 2027, and 3.5% by 2035, alongside our NATO allies. But with the promise to invest more comes the responsibility to invest better. By implementing our strategy, we will ensure that workers and businesses across the UK feel the benefit of the defence dividend.

In opposition, the now Defence Secretary told the House:

“Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 798.]

Today, ambition in opposition becomes action in government. Using every lever available to the Government, our strategy will prioritise British-based businesses. We will make it easier for British-based firms to do business with the Ministry of Defence. We will launch an office of small business growth to support small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing MOD contracts, and we will give greater clarity by sharing our five-year acquisition pipeline, allowing businesses to invest with confidence.

The £10 billion frigate contract signed with Norway last week was the biggest warship deal in our history—a demonstration that when we export defence capabilities, we not only strengthen our security abroad, but create high-skilled jobs at home. Through our strategy, we will back British businesses to go out and win—win more contracts and create more jobs. The new office of defence exports brings responsibility for defence exports back into the Ministry of Defence and creates a Government-to-Government exports structure that reflects what our allies and industry need.

Sustaining sovereign capabilities is the cornerstone of national security, so our strategy sets out the requirement to onshore key assets. We will maintain the advantages afforded by open international competition, but in a way that improves value for the British taxpayer. For the first time ever, we will introduce an offset policy, designed in consultation with industry. It will mean that when we buy from our allies, the UK economy will be strengthened in return through new jobs and novel technologies.

Our defence industrial base represents a commitment to innovation and excellence. Today, it supports over 460,000 jobs and over 24,000 apprenticeships across the UK, the vast majority of which are unionised. As a trade union member, I know that good, well-paid and unionised jobs are good not only for defence but for growth. The defence industry is a source of not only prosperity but pride; it proves that we are still a nation of makers. When I speak with defence workers, I see their deep sense of purpose in what they do. They are right to feel that way; their efforts keep our nation safe. Through our strategy, more people will be afforded the opportunities and rewards of working in this industry.

To ensure that the benefits of the defence dividend are shared across every nation and region of the UK, we are investing £250 million in defence growth deals. Our deals will build on inherent strengths in defence communities by improving skills and infrastructure. The first phase will be launched in Plymouth, where we will focus on advanced marine technologies and autonomous systems, and in south Yorkshire, where we will build on our recent investment in defence and steel. Further locations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced, because there is not only a defence dividend from our uplift in defence spending, but a Union dividend, strengthening our United Kingdom.

ADS analysis indicates that the defence industry workforce could grow by 50,000 people by 2035, when defence spending increases to 3% of GDP. To ensure that the UK can take full advantage, we must ensure that we have the workers with the right skills to fulfil those roles, so I am today announcing the biggest ever investment in defence skills: £182 million of new Government funding to establish five defence technical excellence colleges, so that we can promote to over 800,000 school pupils the benefits of a career in the defence industry; and our new defence skills passport, which will make it easier and faster for veterans and workers in other industries to move into the defence sector.

Over the past few years, defence firms have expressed growing concerns about attending jobs fairs. The harassment and intimidation to which they have been subjected has forced companies to cancel events on university campuses. The campaign to boycott and target defence firms misunderstands the purpose of deterrence. We know the full measure of freedom and security in Britain because of what our defence industry does. The strategy will help the industry to attract the talent it needs by creating a dedicated presence on the UCAS website, a new defence apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, and a defence university alliance to strengthen careers in the sector.

The war in Ukraine reminds us that innovation is the central pillar of deterrence. To ensure that we meet our objectives of better capability and increased growth, we are committed to spending at least 10% of our equipment budget on novel technologies. The newly established UK Defence Innovation is backed by £400 million of ringfenced investment and has the authority to reallocate funding and resources, ensuring a focus on priorities and value for money. Today’s strategy outlines how we will employ UKDI to rapidly produce technologies that give our armed forces an advantage. We will set out the first of the innovation challenges that we want industry to go after, as well as how we will better support firms in testing their innovations.

This Government inherited what the Public Accounts Committee described as a “broken procurement system”. For too long, defence has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity, yet today we know that whoever gets technology to its frontline forces the fastest, wins. We have proved that we can do it for Ukraine; now we must do it for Britain. Our segmented approach to procurement sets ambitious targets to drastically reduce the timescales to get new projects on contract. As part of the biggest shake-up to the Ministry of Defence in over 50 years, we have created the role of National armaments director, and because we want UK firms to win not just at home but abroad, we will improve our export licensing system with a new digital platform, better training for staff, and reformed procedures, including allowing exporters to apply for licences during the bidding process.

Unlike previous strategies, our one is funded. It is also the culmination of months of detailed work and close engagement with industry, academia, and trade unions. Throughout the process, our aim has been to produce a strategy with the defence sector, rather than to it. With a clear plan backed by historic investment, our Government, alongside industry, will now deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.

I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.

The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The offset policy that we will shortly consult on with industry provides not just the opportunity for us to bring our industries closer together, but means that in circumstances where we have to buy from a foreign provider, which could be because of quality or specific opportunities, we have the ability to then invest more in UK businesses. This is commonplace and has featured in the Norway deal and in procurement by the Australian Government and South Korea. It is a model that works and it creates an environment where we can mesh our industries together more closely with those of our allies, helping to share research and development costs for new platforms and ensuring that when we are not able to spend money on British purchases, British industry still benefits from increased skills and increased investment in novel technology. This is an area that will directly benefit UK firms and our entire defence ecosystem, especially with those investments in skills, which will last a lifetime for the workers involved and show a real defence dividend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.

The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?

It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?

It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?

While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?

Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

May I ask Members to be brief, and the Minister to be even shorter?

Ukraine

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ukraine.

Before I begin, I inform the House that yesterday we secured a £10 billion contract to supply Norway with at least five Type 26 frigates. This is the biggest British warship deal in our history. It strengthens NATO and our northern flank, and supports 4,000 British jobs and 400 British businesses for years to come. It shows that this Government are making defence an engine for growth across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

Turning to Ukraine, a few days ago Ukrainians around the world came together to mark a special day: 34 years of their country’s independence—34 years as a proud and sovereign nation. Ukrainians, civilians and those from the military alike, continue to fight for that freedom with huge courage, three-and-a-half years on from the start of Putin’s brutal, full-scale invasion. A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine: its freedom is our freedom and its values our are values. That is why the UK stands with Ukraine, and why this House stands united for Ukraine. When Ukraine marks its next independence day, we all hope to see Ukrainians celebrate in a time of peace, not in a time of war.

Over the summer, the UK, with our allies, has been working hard to make that hope a reality. The Prime Minister hosted President Zelensky in London, chaired various coalition of the willing meetings with President Macron and joined European leaders with President Zelensky to meet President Trump in Washington DC. I have spoken with Defence Ministers across the coalition about stepping up military support and securing a peace after any deal. Our military leaders have met multiple times to strengthen international contributions to the coalition, also known now as the “multinational force Ukraine.”

We welcome President Trump’s dedication to bringing this terrible war to an end, and we strongly welcome his commitment to make security guarantees “very secure,” as he says, with the Europeans. At every stage, President Zelensky continues his support for a full, unconditional ceasefire and for talks on a lasting peace, yet Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks on Ukraine since the start of the war. During last week’s onslaught on Kyiv, at least 23 people were killed, four of whom were children, including a two-year-old. An attack on the British Council was an outrage: a Russian missile, fired into a civilian area, as part of an illegal war, damaged a British Government building, injuring a civilian worker.

It now appears that Putin is refusing a meeting with President Trump and President Zelensky, so while Ukraine wants peace, Putin wages war. President Trump is right: we must continue pushing for peace, as well as increasing pressure on Putin to come to the table. So we support measures to disrupt Russian oil revenues, and we welcome President Trump’s comments that he is weighing very serious economic sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary will have more to say on similar UK action very soon.

On the battlefield, intense fighting continues along the frontline. While Russian military activity has reduced in the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, as Russian ground forces relocate elements of those forces, over the past two weeks, they have advanced in the northern Donetsk region. Pokrovsk remains Russia’s focus and its forces are using a variety of methods to infiltrate Ukrainian positions, but Putin continues to make only minor territorial gains, at a huge cost.

The most recent assessment by UK defence intelligence estimates that at the current pace since January, it would take Russia another 4.4 years to seize the Donbas, at a cost of almost 2 million more Russian casualties. Despite that, the increasing escalation of Russia’s devastating drone strikes is a serious concern. In July, Russia launched approximately 6,200 one-way attack drones into Ukraine, another monthly record. In one night alone, over this weekend, Russia launched nearly 540 drones and 45 missiles.

The UK Government are stepping up our efforts for Ukraine. Our priorities are simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow. To support the fight today, we are providing £4.5 billion in military aid for Ukraine this year—the highest ever level. At the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, with over 50 nations and partners, in July, I launched a “50-day drive” to accelerate the assistance that we are giving. Fifty days on, the UK has delivered to Ukraine nearly 5 million rounds of munitions, around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, 2,500 uncrewed platforms, 30 vehicles and engineering equipment, and 200 electronic warfare and air defence systems.

We will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war. Next week, I will co-chair the 30th UDCG meeting with Germany’s Minister Pistorius, alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and 50 other allies and partners. I will host an E5 Defence Ministers summit in London next week, where we will be joined by the Ukrainian Defence Minister, and where together we will step up still further our support for Ukraine.

To secure the peace tomorrow, the UK continues, with the French, to lead the coalition of the willing. Some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations have helped design plans in the event of a ceasefire: plans to secure the skies and seas, and to train Ukrainian forces to defend their nation. This week, I will host Defence Ministers from across the coalition, with French Minister Lecornu, to further cement contributions to that coalition. For the armed forces, I am reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment. Peace is possible, and we will be ready. The Prime Minister and I will ensure that the House is fully informed of developments in the proper way.

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the driving figures of the coalition of the willing, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin? Today is his last day as the UK Chief of the Defence Staff. Tony has had a distinguished 35-year military career in the armed forces, serving in operations right across the globe. He is widely respected and a true friend of the Ukrainian people, as President Zelensky himself said last week. I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in thanking Tony for his outstanding service and wish every success to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Rich Knighton.

Let me end by saying that while President Putin likes to project strength, he is now weaker than ever. Since Putin launched his illegal invasion, he has not achieved any of his strategic aims. He has lost more than 10,000 tanks and armoured vehicles, and his Black sea fleet has been humiliated. He is forced to rely on states such as Iran for drones, North Korea for frontline troops and China for technology and components. He is using 40% of his total Government spending on the war, with interest rates now running at 18% and inflation at 9%. Moreover, Putin now faces a bigger NATO—32 nations strong, with an agreement to raise national spending on security to 5% by 2035—and a Ukraine that is more determined than ever to control its own future. A secure Europe needs a strong, sovereign Ukraine, and we in the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who, as he says, has given such impactful leadership and support for Ukraine. I also send my best wishes to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. It was a privilege to work with both of them at the MOD.

Let me turn to Ukraine. It is being widely reported that in his speech to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit today, Vladimir Putin said that the understandings reached at his meeting with President Trump in Alaska were opening the way to peace in Ukraine. How utterly cynical. What followed the summit in Alaska was not peace, but the brutal bombing of innocent civilians across Ukraine. In particular, just days ago, Putin unleashed the second-largest aerial attack of the whole war, killing at least 23 people, including four children, as the Secretary of State just confirmed.

Bomb damage included the British Council in Kyiv. We join the Government in utterly condemning the attack on the British Council and pay tribute to all its staff, who are playing their part in our national endeavour to support Ukraine. We pass on our best wishes to the member of staff who was injured in the attack. We note that the chief executive of the British Council, Scott McDonald, promised to continue operations wherever possible. Can the Secretary of State outline to what degree that has been achieved and what support the Government have provided to assist?

If Putin really wants to open the way to peace in Ukraine, as he said, he should recognise that the blame for this war lies squarely with his territorial ambitions, and that all the civilian and military bloodshed that continues is wholly the result of his unprovoked and illegal invasion. The reality is that Putin does not accept that basic fact. In his speech today at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit, Putin is widely quoted as blaming others for the war, in particular his long-standing refrain that the war was caused by

“the West’s constant attempts to draw Ukraine into NATO.”

Without ambiguity, we and all our allies must see that the war in Ukraine is a question of a free and sovereign democracy invaded without provocation by a bullying dictator. That is why, when we were in office, it was right to provide such strong support to Ukraine from the outset of the invasion—indeed, even before it commenced —and why in opposition we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in continuing that policy. That is why we need to keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline.

The Euro-Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constraint Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin from getting his hands on military equipment, so I am glad that the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on sanctions very soon, as the Secretary of State for Defence said. Can he confirm whether the timeline is directly linked to US action? Would the UK go ahead with those plans for tougher sanctions if the US for some reason did not?

On any potential end to the fighting, we all desperately want to see peace in Ukraine, but we are clear that it must be a lasting, sustainable peace. That is why security guarantees are so important. The Secretary of State referred to President Trump’s commitment to make security guarantees “very secure” with the Europeans. What further detail is he able to share on the likely shape of any such US security guarantees?

The Secretary of State states that the coalition of the willing would

“secure the skies and seas”.

That seems to miss out the land force element. Does that mean that the Army would be sent to Ukraine only in a training role? He also said that he is

“reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment”.

Does he expect that funding to come from the Treasury reserve or the existing MOD budget? On reviewing readiness, what is the timescale of the review? Is it yet at the stage where urgent operational requirements are being considered?

Finally, I strongly welcome the news that Norway has selected the Type 26, which is made in Scotland, for its future fleet. That is a huge deal that will support thousands of jobs, but it has been many years in the making, with significant input and progress under the previous Government. In December 2023, I had the pleasure of visiting the Norwegian MOD in Oslo, and I assure the House that the Type 26 was very much at the top of the agenda. To remind hon. Members, that was in the same week we announced that Britain and Norway would lead the maritime coalition supporting Ukraine’s navy, underlining the strength of our naval alliance and our joint commitment to Ukraine.

It is clear that a key reason for Norway’s decision is that it faces the same Russian threat that we do from Russian submarines and wants the best possible capability to respond, maximising interoperability with the Royal Navy. However, that Russian threat arises entirely from Putin’s pursuit of aggression, rather than peace. Until that situation changes in reality rather than in rhetoric, we must continue to be robust in doing everything possible to support Ukraine.

Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues will note that this is a very time-limited debate, so I call for brevity from both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There are far too many Members wishing to speak for me to squeeze in before the debate concludes. There will be a sharp speaking limit of four minutes for Back Benchers to begin with, but please note that many colleagues will be disappointed. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

It is always a great privilege to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree with him more. I thank him for his intervention.

In the far east in particular, there were troops from all different faiths: Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and many others all fought as one to defeat Japan. I have learned that my wife’s grandfather received the Indian Distinguished Service Medal as part of the 7th Battalion of the 16th Punjab Regiment. While moving through the Burmese coastline, he was suddenly surrounded by Japanese soldiers.

My wife’s grandfather was Lance Corporal Samundar Khan. His platoon was ordered to attack uphill so that the lead platoon could retreat. Carrying a Bren gun, Lance Corporal Khan led his men up the steep slope as heavy Japanese grenades rained down on them. With the gun at his hip, and despite being seriously wounded in the chest, he led the charge and drove the Japanese from the top. Khan, who was 18 and who lied about his age so that he could enlist to fight and to defend our nation, was wounded three times in two months. Khan’s story of bravery and heroism, though special, was not unique. To all those who fought against tyranny and defended democracy so that we can stand here today in the mother of all Parliaments, I say thank you.

As we look at the increased instability in the world, we should remember those brave soldiers who fought for our liberty and our freedom, and for the principles and freedoms that were underpinned in the Atlantic charter: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. They all matter today, as they did then. Those principles set a new world order. Although there are those who seek to divide us and who try to prey on our differences, we must draw inspiration from the heroes who sacrificed everything and who gave their lives for a better world. They rejected populism, they rejected tyranny, and they rejected the politics of hate.

Those who fought and died in the second world war truly were our greatest generation. I urge the Minister, on top of everything else the Government are doing, to encourage her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that the stories and lessons from the war, including the struggle against Japan, are never forgotten. I also ask that the Government build on the deep-rooted relationships with our allies who stood with us, so that we can stand up to those who would divide us today.

As we reflect on the war’s conclusion, I look forward to colleagues’ contributions. We must remind ourselves that our right to be here and to represent our constituents is possible only because of the brave men and women from across the world who laid down their lives for this country. Once again, I say thank you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. There is now a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, after whom Back Benchers will be on a three-minute speaking limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is through our veterans that our collective memory of the second world war is best preserved, but as their bright flame is flickering it is important that a new generation—my generation—commits to re-telling their stories.

As a schoolboy, one of the pieces of work that has stuck with me the most was the “man behind the name” project, because it is impossible to think of the 5 million British young men—25% of adult men—who fought in the first world war; that is 55 full Wembley stadiums. The “man behind the name” project was so powerful, with the general point being, “Go and pick a name on your local cenotaph.” For me, that was the one I passed on the way to Mrs Wood’s history lesson at West Hill school. We were told, “Choose a name and research that man, because when you learn about that young man—where he was born, his sweetheart, his job, his kids, not too dissimilar in age to yourself—you realise that it is not an abstract number, but 5 million young men with their own lives. It hits home.”

The man behind the name for me was Benjamin Ford, my great-great-grandfather. He died in Mesopotamia fighting the Ottomans. What struck me particularly was that I heard a lot about the western front but little to nothing about this other front where men like Benjamin died for King and country. It rather strikes me that the Pacific front in the second world war is often similarly overlooked. Today’s debate is important for highlighting those men who fought and died in the far east, particularly those fighting after VE Day had passed.

Just this weekend I was speaking to Theresa Haggart, a former local headmistress and stalwart of Windsor civic society, about her father, the late Charles Snelling; I want to take this opportunity to highlight the man behind that name. He passed in August 2016, aged 92. He came from a family with a proud tradition of national service. In the first world war, he was a regimental sergeant-major as part of the Canadian imperial forces, and in the second world war he was a radar engineer and operator. He spent time hopping from ship to ship, making repairs to essential equipment, and, like 365,000 other British troops, found himself thousands of miles away in the Pacific. Unable to share his precise location with his family, he sketched drawings of the local culture and the people he met on blank postcards, which he sent to his parents, letting them know he was okay.

Charles did not discuss his service, although he did feel that while VE Day commemorations continued to draw national attention, VJ Day came and went almost as an afterthought. I gently say to Ministers that this sometimes feels to be the case on the 80th anniversary—and that is regrettable. Victory over Japan marked the true end of the conflict, and no less was the sacrifice of those who gave their lives there, so let us all in this House play our part so that these stories, as they come down from generation to generation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Unfortunately we have run out of time and I need to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Defence

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I rise to raise an important point that has been reported in the media over the last 24 hours about the future of the Royal Marines. As a former Royal Marine and the Member of Parliament who represents the commando training centre in Lympstone, I think this is an issue that we need to discuss now. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers.

It has been reported that the Royal Marines are moving away from their conventional amphibious operations and that large-scale beach landings and traditional force protections from sea are being replaced with small, flexible teams designed to operate alongside special forces. Let me be clear: adaptability is vital, and I am sure that there are many merits in the direction of travel, but it is important that the Minister tells the House about this and gives us the opportunity to discuss it. I worry that abandoning hard-won capabilities without a clear and credible replacement is not adaptation; it is risk.

I would like to put some questions to the Minister. Are the Government removing the United Kingdom’s amphibious warfare capability? If so, what replaces it? What is the long-term plan to project force from sea to land if not through the Royal Marines in their traditional role?

We have no delivery dates for the multi-role strike ships that are meant to underpin the new commando force concept. There is also no detailed plan and no answer on whether they will provide genuine operational flexibility or simply be a scaled-back presence. Will the MRSS be able to deploy full commando units at scale in high-threat environments or are they designed purely for small team operations? If it is the latter, is that now the full extent of our national amphibious ambitions?

That brings us to special forces support, which I know is not an issue that we can discuss in the Chamber with the Security Minister, who served with the special forces support group, in great detail. However, it has been reported that 40 Commando has been tasked to operate alongside the Special Boat Service in sensitive national missions, including evacuations and hostage rescue. What does that mean for the Royal Marines’ contribution to the special forces support group? Is the SFSG being restructured or reassigned?

That speaks to a deeper point regarding our NATO allies. We talk in the strategic defence review about being “NATO first”. NATO has long counted on the UK’s high-end amphibious expertise. It matters to our national resilience in a world where rapid deployment from the sea is often the only option. Above all, it matters to the men and women who serve, and they deserve clarity about their future roles, mission and identity. I therefore urge the Minister to come forward with honest, detailed answers—not slogans or spin, but clarity on capability, posture and intent—because defence policy cannot be made in stealth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final contribution, I call Robin Swann.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this order. I have just a few questions for him in regard to contributions made by other hon. Members.

Many Members have talked about the value of our cadet services in promoting young people, the value that they provide and the additional skills training that is given. It was concerning when I met some cadets in Northern Ireland that their senior officers reported that there was a fall in the core financial support—the core grant—that they receive from the Ministry of Defence. May I have clarity from the Minister, under this order, that if that is true, he will take the opportunity to reverse it? It is not a large sum of money in relation to the Ministry of Defence’s overall spend or, indeed, in relation to the projections talked about today. The cadets provide a valuable service and the financial support that is given to them should recognise that.

On continued support, the Minister and I have had, and will continue to have, many exchanges on the investment not just in our service personnel, but in the facilities and the bases. I refer specifically to Northern Ireland. The Minister knows about Aldergrove and the facility that it can be for all our armed forces as a strategic location in our national defence. I would like to hear, even if it is under the SDR, that there is the possibility of further investment there.

I pay tribute and give thanks to all current and former service personnel. The shadow Minister made reference to the debate in this place on 14 July. I encourage all Members of the House to participate so that our veterans can see their support. Finally, I will turn to the local, as other Members have done. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal British Legion branches in Ballyclare and Randalstown? This year, they have celebrated the 100th anniversary of the support they provide to service personnel who have been through wars, and they continue to support service personnel today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

National Armaments Director

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £36,416,759,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Maria Eagle.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Yes, I can. The Defence Secretary is open to those conversations, though there may still be a difference of opinion about the best way of scrutinising some of our most sensitive matters. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue her conversations with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We face a once-in-a-generation set of threats, including an imperialist Putin and a completely unreliable President Trump, who we cannot depend on to support our defence. Our nuclear deterrent remains the best and ultimate guarantor of the UK’s security. We must ensure that it meets the scale of those challenges, so it is right that the Government should look at ways to guarantee its effectiveness. Delivering the Dreadnought class on time is crucial to that, and I welcome the update that the Secretary of State provided before the recess on those timescales. Looking ahead, it is important that the House understands the purpose of any future addition to our nuclear deterrent, so will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had on how further additions to the deterrent would positively bolster the UK’s security?

Strategic Defence Review

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Questions are very long, and the answers are getting longer as well. We need to get many colleagues in, so can we please keep it short?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is tempting to remind the Secretary of State about the 4.5% to 5% of GDP that was spent on defence by Conservative Governments throughout the cold war years of the 1980s, but instead may I ask whether, like me, he would endorse what Admiral Lord West wrote in the national press last week, when he stated that the Chagos deal was a “disgraceful decision”, and that as a former chief of defence intelligence, he did not accept that the move is

“absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence”

as the Prime Minister claims? He is a former Labour security Minister and current House of Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he knows what he is talking about, doesn’t he?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[John Healey]

We are strengthening our armed forces to secure the peace, not to fight the war. We deter the attacks that we fear by being strong enough to defeat our enemy. I say to the hon. Lady that our deterrent has helped to keep stability and peace in Europe for over 75 years, it has been the ultimate guarantee of our national security and it is what Putin fears most. We are the only European nation in NATO that commits its deterrent in full to the protection of other NATO allies. We play a unique role and we make a unique contribution. I would like the hon. Lady to recognise that, even if she cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The statement has been going on for well over an hour and we will have to conclude in the next 20 minutes, so questions will have to be short, as will the answers.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has set out an ambitious strategic defence review. As soon as possible after the spending review next week, will he set out a defence investment plan in some detail, so that the Public Accounts Committee can examine whether the funds match the equipment that he has talked about today, and whether the ambitious plan can be delivered and is affordable?

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As you can see, quite a few people wish to contribute, so I will have to put in place a time limit of five minutes to begin with.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Members are bobbing who were not in the Chamber at the start of the debate. We have made a note of all their names and the time that they arrived and they will not be called to speak. If they do not know whether that means them, they should speak to their Whip. I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure.

I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option?

[John Healey]

I thank the Chair and the members of the Defence Committee not just for the work that they are doing, but for the work that they are willing to do outside this House. I thank them for the visit that they paid to Lossiemouth to see for themselves some of the essential work that our forces personnel and civilians are doing in defending this country. He asks about the Finnish investigation into the EstLink 2 cable damage. That is for the Finns to complete and to confirm the findings of their investigation. It will be at that point that we can draw out and discuss any lessons that there might be for the UK.

We defend more fiercely than perhaps any other nation in the world the freedom of navigation in our seas. Ships of all states may navigate through our territorial waters. They are subject to the right of innocent passage, and so some of the steps that the Chair of the Defence Committee might urge the Government to take are simply not available to us under the United Nations law of the open seas. It is for that reason that we take the steps and actions that I have reported to the House—to make sure that we monitor, we watch and we track, so that those who might enter our waters with malign intent, or try to undertake any malign activity, know that we see them and know that they will face the strongest possible response.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.

Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.

The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.

To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.

We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive.

[John Healey]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives a whole new meaning to “running to the defence”.

[John Healey]

But Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for the UK contribution to the Baltic Sentry NATO operation. We play a leading role in NATO and we will play a leading role in this operation in the Baltic. It reinforces our allies, and by doing that we reinforce our own defences and strengthen collectively the deterrence that we can, as NATO nations, offer to any future aggression and aggressive intent from President Putin.

The hon. Lady urges us to work hand in glove with allies over the support for Ukraine, which is what we are committed to do. It is why the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last week, when he confirmed the record level of funding for this year to support military aid to Ukraine and when he signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Finally, he made the commitment that I think the hon. Lady is looking for, when he said that, whatever happens next, our job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position both on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That is what I, as Defence Secretary, am determined to do for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That concludes proceedings on the statement. I will give the Secretary of State a moment so that he can walk out—not run, as he did earlier on.

Bills Presented

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Pat McFadden, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Georgia Gould, presented a Bill to make provision about the prevention of fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities; about the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 167) with explanatory notes (Bill 167-EN).

Consular Assistance (Journalists) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Blair McDougall, supported by Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Rachel Blake, Mr Connor Rand, Alex Sobel, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Phil Brickell, Chris Law, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Tom Tugendhat and Ms Marie Rimmer, presented a Bill to make provision for a right to consular assistance for British journalists abroad who have been detained or held hostage; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed (Bill 168).

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

The ombudsman who came to speak to us the other day gave a clear account of the challenges and issues that she faced and elucidated on a number of challenges around addressing the specificity of any individual complaints that she had been made aware of, due to the distance between the complaint and her appearance before the Committee. I think it is worth reviewing the entirety of her evidence because, for me, it did nothing more than emphasise the need for the Bill to be passed as drafted and to take note of my challenges to the amendment.

On the wider status of the service complaints system, efforts to enhance consistency and accessibility are ongoing. I take this moment to thank the ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work to improve the service complaints system. It was clear from her responses to our questions last week that she was conscious of the need to continue improving the system throughout the transition to a new commissioner.

I am sure the Ministry will continue its work to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman’s office, particularly in ensuring that there is a single entry point for complaints and a consistent approach in the recording of all the grievances across defence, as laid down in successive annual reports.

On amendment 6, the Government are committed to swiftly establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner through a rigorous appointment process, ensuring that the role is filled by a highly qualified and security-cleared individual who can advocate effectively for the armed forces community. Although the Bill does not detail a specific implementation timetable, which colleagues will know is typical of primary legislation, this is a priority for the Government. I believe that colleagues from all parts of the House will recognise that the appointment process must be done correctly. The appointment will be subject to a full public appointments process, regulated and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This process will include necessary vetting and security clearances, building trust among armed forces personnel that the appointment—[Interruption.] The implementation timeline will also account for the passing of the secondary legislation and a smooth transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new Armed Forces Commissioner—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Does the hon. Member require a moment?

[Mr Bailey]

No.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Are you happy to continue?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Wonderful.

[Mr Bailey]

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner will provide a powerful voice for service personnel and their families, ensuring that their concerns are heard and addressed at the highest levels. As we move forward with the Bill, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to improve service life, address systemic issues and uphold the highest standards of behaviour within our military. The success of the new role demands, and depends on, our continued support and scrutiny. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that this Bill will have on the lives of those who serve our nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “Your leadership” refers to me, and it is up to the Chair to determine what is in scope. For the benefit of other colleagues, it is up to the speaker to accept or decline an intervention. Do you have more to say, Mr Bailey, or shall I return to the shadow Minister?

[Mr Bailey]

No thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about.

This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter:

“I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.”

However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well.

I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due.

Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However, I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well.

The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA.

Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be

“to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.”

I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board.

We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic.

The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would

“monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.”

The spending review—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, please do not read out all the quotes, but come to your conclusion.

[Mr Francois]

I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.