Armed Forces Day

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am conscious that some Members arrived after the start of the debate. Ordinarily, that would preclude them from speaking, but I understand that the Prime Minister’s statement has slightly thrown our timings. My intention is therefore to accommodate all those in the Chamber who wish to speak, but inevitably those who arrived late will have to take their turn. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may just correct the right hon. Gentleman, the Glastonbury festival site is not in my constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think it is helpful to have the record corrected.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We need to bear employability very much in mind, as without skilled regular personnel to maintain and operate even the most expensive and sophisticated kit, from Typhoon and F-35 fighters to Type 45 destroyers and main battle tanks, we cannot achieve operational success. In short, without well trained people, the equipment counts for nothing and does not have the deterrent effect that we seek. When asked at the Royal United Services Institute earlier this week about the single biggest challenge that the Royal Navy faces, the fleet commander, Vice-Admiral Andrew Burns, replied:

“It’s people right now. It’s the quantity of people, and it’s not just recruitment, it’s retention.”

For context, this is not a uniquely British problem. All our Five Eyes partners face similar challenges, even the United States, and I shall return to that in a moment.

Let me turn to cadets. We in this country are fortunate to have an active and enthusiastic cadet movement, and while we welcome the proposals in the White Paper to expand the cadets even further, we would like to see more detail about how exactly that will be achieved. Cadet units play a vital role in fostering disciplined teamwork and a sense of service among young people, providing invaluable opportunities for personal development, and serving as a pathway to a career in the armed forces, should the young person desire that.

Whether we are Ministers, shadow Ministers or otherwise, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, so I pay tribute to the Army cadet detachments in Rayleigh and Wickford, which are part of C company in the Essex Army Cadet Force, both of which I have visited. I hope to see the Rayleigh detachment again shortly, not least as it appears that it will need to find a new home within the next several years. I also highlight the valuable work undertaken by 1474 (Wickford) Squadron of the Air Training Corps, and their sister unit, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps; I declare an interest in the latter, as I recently had the honour of being appointed honorary squadron president. Its motto is “Amanogawa”, which is Japanese for heavenly river, and I can confirm that they are in full flow.

Over the years, I have heard a number of hon. Members pay full tribute in the Chamber to their cadet units; I will chance my arm and say that I am sure we will rightly hear praise for more cadet units before the debate is out. They are a fundamental part of the armed forces family. I thank not only the young people who sign up, but those adults who give of their time, voluntarily, to provide instruction and leadership for these outstanding young people.

Let me turn to veterans. As one example of work that can be done to protect veterans, I commend to the House an initiative known as the Forcer protocol. The idea is named after Alan Forcer, who served in the British Army for a number of years in several theatres, but who sadly took his own life after a struggle with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. His widow, Claire Lilly, came to see me at my constituency surgery a number of years ago, and told me that she was determined to channel her grief in a positive way, by establishing a system to help find and protect veterans who go missing. When I met Claire, I was struck by her absolute determination to succeed, and I am pleased to tell the House that that is exactly what she did.

In short, the Forcer protocol is now a standard operating procedure for many police forces. It is similar in some ways to the Herbert protocol for people who go missing with dementia, but it has special features that are designed specifically to assist former service personnel. In essence, it works like this. People who have a veteran in their family who they believe may be vulnerable can register their details confidentially, including known associates and favourite haunts, with an organisation known as Safe and Found Online. In the event that a veteran goes missing, the family, by releasing a PIN code, can make that information immediately available to the police, to assist them in their search for the potentially vulnerable veteran. The initiative was trialled by Greater Manchester police over six months. The trial was an outstanding success; GMP reported that it had allowed them to make positive and timely interventions that undoubtedly saved the lives of dozens of veterans in the Greater Manchester area.

As a result of that highly successful trial, the Forcer protocol is being rolled out across police forces nationwide. We had an event to encourage progress in the Commons in November 2024, and I am pleased to tell the House that at very short notice, the new Minister for Veterans and People attended to give his personal support, for which I thank him again today. In an equally bipartisan spirit, I pay tribute to the actor and TV celebrity Mr Ross Kemp, aka Grant Mitchell, for his unwavering support for that initiative, for the work that he has done for veterans more widely, and for his amazing documentary with the Royal Anglian Regiment—my old regiment—in Afghanistan. Thank you, Ross, for everything you do for our armed forces, past and present. We know your heart is absolutely in it, and we are grateful.

I am delighted to report that my constabulary in Essex is formally adopting the Forcer protocol today at a ceremony at Colchester. It is deliberately doing so in Armed Forces Week. Thirteen forces, including Essex, are now using that life-saving procedure. It is estimated that since the initial trial with GMP and the roll-out across other forces in this country, the process has saved literally hundreds of veterans. I commend Claire Lilly for everything that she and her loyal band of supporters have done to make this possible. We have another event in the Commons this November, by which time I very much hope that all 43 police forces in England and Wales will be fully signed up. Well done, Claire. Alan would be proud of you.

As I mentioned earlier, despite the tri-partisan nature of this debate, there is, I am afraid, one issue on which I feel that the Government and the Opposition will not agree: the Government’s proposed treatment of Northern Ireland veterans. More than 300,000 regular British soldiers served in Northern Ireland during the troubles between 1969 and 2007. That highly challenging task, known as Operation Banner, was one of the longest-running continual exercises in the history of the British Army. During that long and at times highly dangerous deployment, more than 700 British soldiers were killed assisting the Ulster Defence Regiment and the then Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Many thousands of soldiers were maimed for life by both Republican and so-called loyalist bombs, while trying to hold the line in an incredibly complex and dangerous situation.

I have seen many memorials in my time, but perhaps one of the most poignant was the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial at its headquarters in Knock, on which are commemorated hundreds of officers who gave their life, working alongside the Army, to attempt to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Imagine the utter dismay of those veterans who served in the British Army in that highly complex theatre at the news that the Labour Government intend to drive through a remedial order, under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998, effectively to remove key provisions in the Conservative-inspired Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That will have two very important effects. First, it will reopen the endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often via coronial inquests, to which many British Army soldiers have already been subject. Secondly—I wonder whether many Labour Members are aware of this—that same remedial order, which their Whips will urge them to vote for later this autumn, will make it easier for Gerry Adams and his associates to sue the British Government, and ultimately the British taxpayer. This is two-tier justice at its absolute worst.

The veterans have initiated a parliamentary petition, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which amassed more than 100,000 signatures in well under a month. As of noon today, the petition has achieved more than 145,000 signatures, and it is still going strong. As a result of that public support, we will debate that counter-productive policy, which is a looming disaster for armed forces recruitment and retention, in Parliament next month. We Conservative Members vigorously resist that wholly misguided remedial order, which is designed to aid Gerry Adams while throwing our brave veterans to the wolves. We warmly welcome the Daily Mail’s campaign, launched this morning, to defend our veterans. As the Daily Mail’s editorial powerfully put it this morning,

“It is profoundly unfair that frail ex-servicemen will continue to live in dread of a knock on the door, by the authorities, while IRA murderers sleep easily, with letters of immunity, handed to them by Tony Blair.”

I think that puts it rather well.

It is worth recording that many of the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland were recruited from what we might now call red wall towns, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley. They were then ordered across the Irish sea to help uphold the rule of law. Many of those surviving veterans are now in their 70s or even their 80s, and I suspect that many Labour MPs would find it extremely difficult to explain to them and their loved ones that they are taking this action just because their Government are literally obsessed with the Human Rights Act 1998. Conservative Members will bitterly oppose the remedial order; Labour Members will need to look into their consciences and, hopefully, when the Division bell rings, do the same.

With that important exception, I hope that hon. Members from across the House who are in the Chamber can agree that we value immensely the work of the whole armed forces family, and everything that they do to keep our country safe. Without those people who have the courage to take the King’s shilling, as the old phrase has it, put on a uniform and, if ultimately necessary, risk their life to keep this country free, we would have no guarantee of our precious democracy.

Perhaps the most fitting way to end my humble contribution will be to quote the words of Rudyard Kipling from his famous poem, “Recessional”, which was written in 1897 to commemorate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Those who know the poem will know that there is no hint of jingoism about it—indeed, quite the reverse. It warns about the power of divine judgment and the humility of kings. As Kipling put it:

“The tumult and the shouting dies;

The Captains and the Kings depart:

Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,

An humble and a contrite heart.

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service and his continued advocacy in this place for the armed forces. He spoke powerfully, and I agree with him. It is no small task to change the culture in an organisation; it starts and ends with leadership, so we must thank the leaders in our armed forces, who have done exactly as he said.

I will share the story of Rachel Webster. She is a Royal Military Police veteran from the north-east, and she is another example of how it is possible to break down barriers and overcome some really quite entrenched stereotypes. Rachel chose engineering over cookery when she was at school—that was her interest—but she was told that she would not be able to weld because she was a girl. I do not know if any hon. Members have ever had a go at welding, but I have; I am a boy, and I am terrible at it.

Rachel was unable to pursue welding at school, but, like me, she left school and joined British Steel. It was better at teaching her welding than it was at teaching me, because she took a four-year apprenticeship programme and learned how to weld. But her ambition was to enter the armed forces; she wished to join the Royal Engineers, where many of her compatriots on the British Steel apprentice scheme went, but when she applied she was told that women could not be in the Royal Engineers at that time.

Undeterred, Rachel joined the Royal Military Police in 1989. She trained with the Women’s Royal Army Corps, and then with the RMP, and she was deployed to Germany. Her career took her across the world, from Northern Ireland during the troubles to Afghanistan in 2001, but one of her proudest moments came in Iraq in 2003. She was helping to build a girls’ school and impressed the local men, who did not realise it was possible for women to weld—so she was able to use her welding skills on behalf of the Army.

Both Rachel and Kate have really powerful stories. They show us that courage does not know any gender or sexuality, and I hope that their stories will inspire my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton and people across the country. Let me take this moment to very much thank all our armed forces—particularly the Royal Military Police and its reservists in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country—for their valuable service to our nation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which was particularly timely. There are people who play a big part in our life at different periods; I know that my family are not alone in feeling that.

It would be remiss of me not to pause and remember the Grimsby Chums, the ordinary men from our community who volunteered together, trained together and, in July 1916, faced the horrors of the Somme together. As part of the 101st Brigade in the 34th Division, they stood shoulder to shoulder with battalions from Edinburgh as they launched the first wave of the British assault. At 7.28 am, the Chums advanced into what would become a day of unimaginable loss. Some managed to reach the German trenches, including Second Lieutenant Harold P. Hendin, who, with just five men, reached the enemy’s reserve trench and held out under relentless counter-attack. Of the battalion, 502 fell that day—15 officers and 487 from other ranks—with only two officers returning uninjured and barely 100 men left standing. Their bravery and sacrifice are an enduring legacy of our community’s contribution to peace and freedom.

Our losses are not just from that time. Over the last two decades, we have had a number of other losses from our community, such as Flight Lieutenant Smith, Marine Lance Corporal Ford, Trooper Pearson, Guardsman Major and Sergeant Telford, who should also be recognised.

In that vein, I welcome the commitments from the Government that show their determination to improve the lives and welfare of military serving personnel and their families, and particularly the forces accommodation improvements. Having lived in service accommodation, I can confirm the difference that it makes to have a good-quality home. The properties of some of my friends were not in such a good state. They were bringing up children, but were having to keep on top of some pretty terrible structural issues while their partners or husbands were away on service.

I also acknowledge the additional funds for homeless veterans, which will be invaluable for ex-servicemen and women who become homeless after struggling to adjust and make changes later in their life, and who perhaps feel that their community is not as strong as it was when they were in the forces. Making sure that we have the precision funding to support them is incredibly important.

This weekend, as the Red Arrows fly over Cleethorpes beach, hopefully I can share an ice cream with the Secretary of State, or perhaps a pint; there will be lots of pints drunk this weekend. As our community celebrates with parades and displays of remembrance, we will feel a fierce pride in our past and present, and a sense of unwavering support for our armed services. I know that I speak for everybody in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes when I say thank you to those who served, who serve now, and who are preparing to serve. Their bravery and sacrifice is written into the soul of our nation, and into the streets, homes and families of our communities. Let us honour them, not just on Saturday, but through the values we champion, the support we offer, and the remembrance we preserve for generations to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

UK Military Base Protection

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. As is the custom, the Minister’s statement will be circulated to both sides of the House, but before we proceed, Members will notice that it will not be complete, in the sense that the Minister delivered a preamble prior to going into what will be circulated. That was to try to reflect the fast-moving nature of the situation. I understand that, courteously and properly, the Front Benchers have been informed of that. I hope that everybody understands that and will make allowances for it. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

In relation to the events in the middle east, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I will need to be briefed further before I can give the House an accurate update. In relation to the NATO summit, she will be pleased to know that thanks to the European Union reset deal secured by the Prime Minister, we now have an opportunity to participate further in EU defence programmes. The strategic defence review makes it very clear that our priority for our security is the Euratlantic area, and that the largest threat facing us at the moment is Russia; but, of course, Russia works in collaboration with a number of countries around the world, and collectively they pose a threat to the rules-based order. We will continue to work with our European allies, and indeed our American friends, to ensure that we have peace and security across the continent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I commend my hon. Friend for her words and for her service. The comments that were made at the weekend about our serving military personnel are outrageous, and I notice that there is not a single Reform MP here for this statement. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that all parties present in the Chamber today back our forces. We do not take to Twitter to mock them. We respect service on a cross-party basis. We do not belittle senior officers based on their gender or experience. We need to be better than that. Just as we ask our armed forces to address cultural concerns, we need to be alive to that in our politics as well, and to call out misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head. Let us send a united message from all the parties present today that we back our armed forces, that we want to see a change in culture in our armed forces, and that we value the contribution of everyone who serves, especially those brave women who have done so much to secure our national security in recent years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. As it is Armed Forces Week, it is entirely appropriate for the Chair to have allowed the Minister to respond to that question, even though it was not strictly in line with the statement. But from now on, given the time that we have available, we have to come back to the statement itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Again, in the spirit of cross-party support, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he offers to those at the training establishments in his constituency. We have some truly remarkable people in our armed forces, and it is good to see cross-party support for their work.

On our sovereign base areas in Cyprus, it is essential that we look not only at how we can protect them, but at how we can protect them from the risk of Iranian retaliation, why is why we have enhanced the force protection measures on our bases in Cyprus. It is also why the Prime Minister has ordered the further deployment of Typhoons at our base at RAF Akrotiri, and why we are investing in ground-based air defence there. We will be looking at further measures in the months ahead as we seek to implement the strategic defence review, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the work looking at security will affect not just those at our UK bases, but our overseas personnel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Last but by no means least, I call the ever-patient Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for his clear commitment. I want to describe Armed Forces Week in Newtownards in my constituency. On Saturday, 60,000 people came to pay their respects to those who serve in uniform. Whether they serve in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy, they are part of our community, and the community showed its solidarity with them for their courage, bravery and dedication. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) was right, by the way. I met the lady who will take over at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn at the end of this year—again, an indication of the commitment of those women and ladies, who can do the job equally well as anybody else.

The actions of those criminals at Brize Norton may cause up to £30 million in damage, as well as the security measures that will have to put in place. However, the true cost of their actions cannot just be measured in money; it is the anger that right-thinking people have towards those pro-Palestine activists who would attack our military to make their political point. They are a threat to those of us who live in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This terrorism cannot be accepted. It reminds so many of us—especially those from Northern Ireland—of dark days gone by. Will the Minister acknowledge the righteous anger of the good people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Minister take to ensure there is not a repeat in Aldergrove, or indeed any other military base with British personnel here or abroad? Some of my Strangford constituents are stationed at these military bases, not just in the United Kingdom but across the whole world.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on Armed Forces Day in his constituency. Across the entire United Kingdom, there is real pride in the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Although this may be a difficult week for international affairs and we may be looking at more debates about force protection than we might ordinarily have, let us all take a moment out to make sure that we thank those people who serve, thank their families for the support that they offer, thank those people who work in the defence industries that equip our people with the cutting-edge gear that they need, and thank the society that stands behind them—because our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and the nation that stand behind them. I hope that everyone watching the debate will have been able to see the strong cross-party support for our armed forces and the strong sense of support as we seek to improve security measures to ensure that we protect our people, at home and abroad.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am sure that the whole House, on both sides, will concur with the Minister’s final remarks. I thank him and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.

Points of Order

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important.

On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary.

However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined.

I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail.

This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR.

The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him—

“We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]

His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record.

We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary:

“In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?”

Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Look, he just—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order!

That said, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has given the Foreign Secretary notice of his intended point of order, but I think that that is a matter that he will have to raise with the Foreign Secretary himself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair cannot answer for Ministers, but he has made his point.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, many colleagues in this House spoke of compassion, sympathy and understanding. Unfortunately, the same compassion, sympathy and understanding were not extended to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). His father-in-law, my constituent Mr Adrian Lawther, was nearing the end of a very full life, and he rightly wanted to be with his wife and her family at that time. He sought a pair for Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill from the promoter of the Bill and the Government Chief Whip, as well as seeking advice and support from the Speaker’s Office.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was with the hon. Member at the departure gate waiting to return to Northern Ireland when his wife called to tell him of her father’s passing. It now appears that other Members were able to avail themselves of proxies in the hands of Government Whips. The hon. Member should not have been forced to travel to this place to have his vote recorded. I seek your advice, Sir, on the best approach to seek a remedy to ensure that we in this place can support each other to the best of our ability and at times of great personal need.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.

[Robin Swann]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Speaking at the Labour party conference in Liverpool in 2022, the Prime Minister said:

“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough law on the statute book”.

The Prime Minister said “the Hillsborough law”, not “a Hillsborough law”. This was an actual Bill that had its First Reading in March 2017, tabled by Andy Burnham and written by expert lawyers.

As the parliamentary lead for the “Hillsborough Law Now” campaign and a Hillsborough survivor, I want to put on record the campaign’s grave concern about the status of the Hillsborough law. The Prime Minister missed his 15 April deadline after a replacement Bill was shown to lawyers involved in the campaign, who made it clear that it contained none of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and did not deserve the name, and it was rejected out of hand.

It is rumoured that the Government could be about to table another replacement Bill, still without any of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and without allowing Hillsborough lawyers, families or survivors to see it. Government officials have even suggested that parliamentary procedure means that they are not permitted to first share it, despite the fact that that is what they did with the previous draft in March. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance on whether the draft can be first shared, as it was before, to give us a chance to raise any concerns before there is another betrayal of Hillsborough families and survivors, and all victims of state cover-ups.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It will not surprise him to know that I did not attend the Labour party conference in 2022. The King’s Speech announced that the Government would deliver their manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law by introducing legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, up to the Government to decide how they go about preparing legislation, and that includes whom they consult and when. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play a major part in the scrutiny of the legislation when it is presented to Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, I do. Defence against air and missile threats has played a key role in our recent thinking, and with our NATO-first approach to policy, putting integration with our allies at the heart of our defence plans makes sense and is a vital part of ensuring our security going forward.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the United Kingdom, preferably in tandem with our European colleagues but if necessary bilaterally with the United States, align with the United States in permitting Ukraine to use the missile defence systems that we have supplied as it sees fit in its own defence?

[Maria Eagle]

Absolutely. We intend to align with our allies in making sure that Ukraine can make use of the capability that has been offered by those who have committed support to that country in its fight.

Ukraine

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Her very words were spoken by several Defence Ministers in Brussels. Defence of the UK and of Europe starts in Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for the same values and for the rest of us in Europe.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In sharp contrast to the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General at Putin’s summit in Russia, which sent out all the wrong signals, this statement is hugely welcome, so I thank the Secretary of State. Further to the question that the Chairman of the Defence Committee asked, is it not now time that not only Storm Shadow but all the matériel supplied to Ukraine by the western alliance should be used by Ukraine in the manner that it sees fit?

[John Healey]

We provide Ukraine with the weaponry and support to defend its country, freedom and people. There is a consistency in that and there is no bar to Ukraine striking Russian military targets, so long as that is consistent with international humanitarian law and part of the proper defence of the country. I spoke about the long-range drones and the successful attacks they have been making—defensive attacks, but nevertheless on military targets in Russia. It is for the Ukrainians to determine how best to defend their country, and we will support them in whatever ways we can.

Defence

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. There are 10 Members still seeking to speak. There is considerable expertise in the Chamber tonight—I appreciate that—and I am sure that all Members will want to make a succinct contribution. Frankly, the Chairman of the Defence Committee confined his remarks to 12 minutes, and I hope and expect that other colleagues on both sides of the House will do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I will have to put a 10-minute time limit on speeches after the next speaker to get everybody in. That is not an invitation, Mr Jones, to speak for more than 12 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I want to develop some points that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made. I will make a few points about deterrence, and about the type of warfare we are facing. I will say a little about procurement, about Ukraine, and whether we are in a pre-war era and how useful that idea is.

The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made about deterrence was profound: the fundamental problem of the past century is that we failed to deter. We fought two world wars and just about won them both, so to us they are glorious things. Actually, both were catastrophes, in terms of power and in terms of lives lost. Half of my grandparents died: my German grandmother was killed by the Soviets, and my British grandfather, a colonel, was slaughtered while leading his regiment in north Africa. Winning wars is appallingly expensive; losing them is a catastrophe, clearly. But even fighting them when we can deter instead is a huge strategic error. Fighting two world wars effectively destroyed the British empire, which I think was in many ways a force for good—but let us not go there at the moment.

My right hon. Friend made the point that even spending 10% on deterrence is potentially much cheaper than spending 50% of our GDP to fight an existential war for our future, which is what Russians are being dishonestly told that they face. Around the Solent—of course he knows this—are Palmerston’s follies, the forts to protect the fleet at Portsmouth, on the Isle of Wight and on the south side of Hampshire. They are seen as a colossal waste of money because they were never used, but I think Palmerston’s follies were wonderful because they were never used. It was about deterrence. We do not know whether they deterred anybody, but the fact remains that they were there and that fleet was not attacked, and we lived through decades of peace from the end of the Napoleonic wars through to world war one. I will come on to this in a second, but we are potentially entering a new period of great instability.

The Secretary of State talked about types of warfare, which is critical. If this £75 billion extra is simply going to buy another half dozen frigates that will survive an extra three minutes in the middle east, in the Red sea, before they are destroyed by swarm drones, there is little point having the additional kit. If there is any lesson of not only the Ukrainian war, but the Azerbaijani-Armenian war—the first war where cheap drones destroyed expensive Russian kit from above—it is that cheap mass kit is very good at destroying much more expensive kit.

As a power that seeks to use conventional force and that does not tend to think like revolutionaries, as the Russians or the Iranians do or as terrorist organisations do, I am concerned about the type of war we are planning to fight. If we are just going to buy more expensive kit that does not survive the battle, there is no point having it. We need to invest in the stuff that will not only protect destroyers and aircraft carriers, but enable us to turn the tide—to do as the Ukrainians are doing and to think like a nimble adversary facing a greater power, perhaps using mass drones ourselves to destroy larger forces in future, be they Chinese, Russian or others. It is a question of the type of warfare we are fighting.

To those of us who have read Russian doctrine, the first characteristic of modern conflict is the integration of military and non-military tools—information, spying, cyber or economic. This is the world of the 21st century, and the Secretary of State was right to point out that each century or each generation redefines war. This is a redefinition of conflict for our own era, and we are seeing it from China. The Russians are very conflict-minded, but so far the Chinese place less emphasis on physical, conventional force and more emphasis on the tools of economy, using Huawei, cyber-attacks and so on.

Even with China, however, if we are entering a pre-war phase, we see a build-up towards a potential attack on Taiwan in the next few years. How are we thinking about the type of warfare that the Taiwanese will need to fight to defend themselves? They will need not only cyber, to survive the first minutes of mass cyber-attacks, but mass drones to shoot down and destroy Chinese ships and aircraft if they attack.

That brings me to procurement. I am sure the Secretary of State was going to answer this, but did not because the Deputy Speaker cut him off when I was asking about radar on the Isle of Wight. Our procurement has to be smart. We have an absurd debate in this country: one minute we say, “Why, oh why, isn’t everything made in the UK?”, and the next minute we say, “Why, oh why, does everything cost so much more?” We have to get the balance right. We have to invest and sell stuff into export markets where we have that lead—in submarines, potentially in radar and in other really good things where we still have the cutting edge—and we have to be much smarter about what we do and how we do it.

Most airmen and most people in the armed forces would tell us that the A400 is a pretty disastrous piece of kit. Maybe they have ironed out those problems in the past few years, but most people in the armed forces would much rather have kept the Hercules and run it with, I think, the C-14 or the Galaxy—[Interruption.] The C-17, sorry. It is a beautiful plane—gorgeous. They would rather have the Herc and the C-17. We had a better build deal with the Herc in this country, but for political reasons we bought the A400, which is deeply unpopular and cannot do much of the work, especially in the more rarefied ends of the military, that the Hercules could do. It is about smart procurement—not necessarily committing to buy everything British, but committing to do as much as possible British, as long as it is also delivering value for the taxpayer. That is an important distinction.

Moving on to Ukraine, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell is right that it is shameful that the US is doing so much of the heavy lifting; it is appalling. He is also right about how little Europe is doing. Russia is gaining ground and gaining in confidence, which is a significant problem we face. An old friend, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, is doing great work highlighting some new tactics on the eastern front, probably the most important of which are the use of glide bombs and CS gas. As a chemical weapon, CS gas is low level, cheap and less offensive to humanity than sarin. By using it on the frontline, the Russians are forcing Ukrainian troops out of their bunkers and their positions, so they become more vulnerable to wave attacks by Russian troops and to mortar and artillery fire.

We know that the artillery ratios at the moment are something like 10:1, so for every shell the Ukrainians fire, the Russians are firing 10 back. That will soon even out to 5:1 or maybe 3:1, but the use of CS gas is still proving to be a highly significant threat. A question I would like to put to the Secretary of State is, although I know we are being generous and doing lots of great things with kit, can we supply gas masks to the Ukrainians? Can we enable British companies that produce gas masks to sell them more quickly to the Ukrainians? They need that kit. From what my friends in the Ukrainian armed forces tell me, the Soviet-era gas masks are not fit for purpose and are costing lives.

On UK supply and support to Ukraine in relation to artillery shells, I do not want to keep banging on about this point, but the more there is transparency of supply, the more the Russians will see that we are in this for the long term. The Gucci kit—the high-end kit—is important, but the stuff that is going to enable Ukraine to hold its positions and not allow a Russian breakthrough of the kind we saw in Kharkiv is going to be the supply of 155 mm artillery shells, preferably with fewer types of western kit. The Ukrainians are running 17 different types of artillery kit that use a variety of shells, which is causing massive logistical issues. It is a remarkable achievement that the Ukrainians are even doing that.

I am delighted the AS-90s have gone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, that raises the question of where that kit is, but it has been put to good use. However, those barrels do not last. There are only two or three retooling plants in Europe, so why have we not opened one? The war has been going on for two years. Why do we not have a production line for artillery shells? Why are we not re-barrelling or offering to re-machine kit? If we are, can we say so? That kit is so important; it is the bread and butter of this war.

I was going to make another point, but I will not; I will wind up there because I am running out of time. Finally, on messaging, people think it is a waste of time trying to message the Russians, but I wonder if we should be trying to do that more. If we look at the number of people who are actively supporting this war in Russia, as opposed to people who simply accept Putin’s power, there are lots of people in Russia who seem to be sitting on their hands. If we can try to manipulate Russian public opinion, it would be to our benefit.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before we start the debate, I should inform the House that while the Chair has no power to impose a time limit on opening speeches, Mr Speaker has made it plain that he expects those speeches to be kept to a maximum—not a minimum —of 15 minutes. In order to assist the opening speakers, I will now put the clock on at 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Although there are not that many hon. Members present in the Chamber, it is immediately clear that there is a considerable amount of defence expertise present. That means we are likely to have a well-informed debate, which is not always the case. That being so, I will impose a 13-minute limit on speeches. That should enable all Members to have their say, and allow time for a full and proper response from the Front Benches. I hope that will satisfy all Members. It will be a formal time limit, which means the usual injury rules will apply. If Members take interventions, time will be added.

Ukraine

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their pertinent and appropriate contributions touching on all the important subjects. The key point coming out of the debate is our strength of purpose, as the Minister illustrated, in standing by Ukraine. Each and every Member has mentioned that.

I thank the Armed Forces Minister not only for his gallant service but for his clear commitment and for setting the scene so well today. Many of us thought that he would be called to higher office, which may still happen, but we are very pleased to see him in his place and to hear his contribution.

The UK Government have stood fast by Ukraine, and they have committed themselves to the military help that is needed. They have done so much, and they have never been found wanting. Over the last few weeks and months, I have been somewhat concerned about the apparent weakness of the Biden Administration, bearing in mind that their overarching interest may be not only in helping Ukraine but in reminding Russia that it cannot simply do as it pleases. Through our conversations and speeches today, we are encouraging our Government and the whole of the west to stand firm. There must be a clear message.

Like other Members, I care about the personal suffering of those men, women and children who are victims of Putin. They have lost loved ones, lost their homes, lost years of education, lost confidence and lost themselves. I care for those people who refused to cower before Putin’s demagoguery, and for all the Ukrainians who are defending their homeland, their way of life and, ultimately, their freedom. Their battle for freedom is our battle for freedom, too. The job we have to do is clear.

I have been reading a lot of commentary on the current situation in Ukraine, and I was struck by a comment in the Telegraph outlining the scenario if Ukraine cannot stay strong and bring Putin to the negotiating table:

“If anything like this scenario plays out, a humiliated West will need a robust damage-limitation strategy. This would involve building up Nato forces, which still has not yet been seriously approached on either side of the Atlantic. There is no indication, for example, that Germany is budgeting to reach the minimum Nato defence spend of 2 per cent of GDP, despite promises. The UK continues to make further cuts to its undersized army.

A second prong would be continued economic warfare against a weakened Russian economy, to emphasise the price for waging aggressive war and undermine Moscow’s ability to rearm.”

That is the view of the commentator in The Telegraph. I cannot disagree with the fact that more does need to be done and that the countries that are not stepping up need to do so to bring Putin to the negotiating table. Not enough is being done to step it all up.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) referred to an incident where one Ukrainian was killed and seven were injured. The one good thing—if anything good comes out of war—is that, because the healthcare and response times have been so significant and helpful, many people who are injured do not die now, as they have would have perhaps in the past. The medical treatment is so significant that they live. The medical progress has empowered the emotional and post-traumatic stress disorder support that is given.

I am proud of our Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme and the fact that Ukrainians have been able to come over and be safe here, in my constituency and in others. But I also know that many of those I have spoken to want to have a safe place back home. Some who are here will probably stay; many others want to return home. They want their children to return and they want to work in Ukraine. They want to go home and rebuild, and they want us in this place to help them to do that. So the Government and the west have to be thanked for their clear commitment to rehousing and to rebuilding. I want to put on record my thanks to Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct in my constituency, which have offered jobs and even accommodation to Ukrainians, and were among the first to make that available. The Ukrainians have integrated greatly into society in my constituency, and I am very pleased that the Government have made that happen.

We need to encourage fellow NATO countries to change what they do, to contribute more and to give the full commitment. Words have never impacted Putin, but action does. As a nation, and as a full member of NATO, we need to increase the military equipment. We need to act on behalf of not only the Ukrainian people, but the ideal of democracy and a free world. Russia is not the only superpower that watches us. The statement earlier today referred to China. The Chinese are very aware of the steps that have been in the news over the weekend. It is clear that the message that has been sent is not a deterrent—it could, should and must be.

As chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I wish to comment on the evidential base coming out of Ukraine that shows that the Russians have persecuted Christians and those of the Ukrainian Church. I am a member of the Baptist Church, and my church and the Baptist religious groups also support many missionaries out in Ukraine. We were aware early on in the battle for Ukraine that some pastors had disappeared from the eastern part of Ukraine. They have never been found, but no action has been taken to try to find out what happened to them. We suspect that they have been murdered simply because of their religious belief. I know that this is not the Minister’s remit, but I must put on record my concerns about those persecuted Christians and other ethnic groups in the east of Ukraine, where Russia has taken over and systematically, brutally and violently killed and displaced many, many people. We have seen attacks upon the faith, religion and churches in Ukraine, and the theft of historical and church artefacts. Again, I have great concern over where we are. Like others, I hope that the day will come when we can see the retribution and the accountability—something in the process that makes Russia accountable, financially, physically and emotionally, in every way possible.

So I ask the Minister to firmly outline how we are going to take even more decisive action, that words are not enough and that the actions that we take are the strong ways of doing things. The long-term security of the free world will rest on decisions taken not just by our Government, but by NATO as a whole and our allies. These decisions must be taken soon, before Putin and China decide to press on against what appears, in some eyes, to be a weakened west. We must stand strong for Ukraine and for the freedom, liberty and democracy it has, because the threat to it today is a threat to us tomorrow.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Global Military Operations

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

In addition to the Front Benchers, there are 10 Members seeking to take part in the debate. I am putting on an immediate time limit of six minutes on speeches. If Members take too many interventions and attract injury time, that may have to come down still further.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I very much welcome this debate on defence, in Government time. That is an exceptional thing these days. Ever since the implementation of the Backbench Business Committee, that has not been the case, so the Government are taking their responsibilities very seriously. I appreciate that it is about global military operations. The debate I asked for was one devoted solely to Ukraine. I hope we will still have a debate about Ukraine.

Much of the discussion has actually been about defence policy, which ironically was the original title of the debate. Defence policy tends to be a term that either covers everything in defence, or is treated as theory which the rest of the Government confine to policy wonks and the Ministry of Defence. In today’s world, however, defence policy needs to be about delivery and delivery across the whole of Government, and that is lacking at this time. The war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call to the democratic countries of the world. We can no longer take for granted the peace and freedoms we have enjoyed since the end of the cold war. All is threatened by belligerent states, of which Russia is just one.

The UK Government’s leadership—admirably supported by the Opposition parties—in providing state-of-the-art military assistance to Ukraine has been exemplary. But this has also exposed the inability of the Government and the MOD to rebuild relevant military and industrial capability. I very much welcome a great deal that was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), but I think it has a price tag on it, and if he ever becomes Defence Secretary, I suspect he would have as much difficulty as have my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench in getting money out of the Treasury. Perhaps there should be an honest bipartisan discussion about that problem.

There is a very real possibility that war could spread to our NATO allies. The UK cannot wait for that to happen before implementing a different and far more dynamic defence policy. The ability to ensure our own national security and that of our allies demands a transformation of effective cross-Government collaboration. There should be a new national body for co-ordinating the use of all forms of power, underpinned by a strategic mindset, as well as a process of implementation and of constant reviewing and learning. Government and Opposition should agree to lead a national conversation about the nature and danger of war in today’s rapidly changing world. This must be supported by a robust intellectual effort to assess how to restructure our forces so that they remain the very best and most effective.

This is not about being able to put an overwhelming number of boots on the ground. War is no longer confined to military conflict. Instead, we need to strengthen our intelligence system to give us better warning of impending threats, whether armed, cyber or informational, and there must be a much greater political appetite for challenge and for hearing unwelcome truths from our intelligence services. We also need a civil service that has established defence expertise from the bottom to the very top. The idea that generalists in the civil service can run anything was tackled in the 1960s by the Fulton report, but that culture has become even more prevalent in today’s Whitehall.

We need a military that has the ability to adapt to rapid and drastic changes in warfare, and the flexibility to expand and contract rapidly, dependent on our need. Importantly, we need an acquisition system—everybody talks about defence acquisition these days—that can effectively support the military system in all its aspects, under direct state control to ensure fluid supply chains and protecting itself from espionage.

The MOD must develop armed forces that are capable of dealing with threats both immediate and in future. The MOD’s intention is to focus on the need to prepare for wartime effectiveness, but it has become imbued by a peacetime mentality and a lack of urgency, and it is preoccupied with a misplaced notion of cost control, which tends to add to project risk and to cost. The MOD ties up too much of its resource in trying to build and maintain a fixed arsenal of weaponry. It should spend perhaps substantially more on the ability to expand any capability rapidly, so that we can neutralise new threats quickly, when they arise. The MOD is too reliant on a few defence prime contractors. More of that capability should be brought back in-house, where acquisition risk can be better understood and managed. Nor should we be so dependent on offshore supply chains for crucial capability, which can be choked off at times of crisis.

This new defence policy, which I look forward to the Government bringing forward, should be co-ordinated with an effort to bring to our population a greater understanding of defence, security and international affairs. Working with our higher education institutions, we must support defence and security-related courses and educate more graduates in the disciplines essential to our collective defence.

I will reiterate the point I made in an intervention. We should be prepared to co-operate bilaterally with EU forces in order to carry on the work that we need to do in the Balkans at this particular time.

If I could add one further point, we must look after our veterans. I am joining the campaign to get certain documents released from the Ministry of Defence and the National Archives at Kew, concerning the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram disaster during the Falklands war. It is now 40 years since that conflict. The veterans, the survivors and their families desperately need closure. Why is the issue still being hidden? What is the purpose of hiding the truth? Maybe there are truths that people will not want to hear, but—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry but I have given the hon. Gentleman as much time as I can.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I believe the United Kingdom needs to have a military presence across the globe. I am particularly thinking about the South China sea and the threat presented by China, which has been alluded to already. I am conscious of the situation in that area, which is called the East sea by the Vietnamese, and I am acutely aware of the threat to Taiwan, which is apparently escalating. I welcome the fact that the Navy has two ships permanently in the region and that the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth has recently visited the area. I recognise that things have moved on since the integrated review, which heralded the Indo-Pacific tilt, but still there needs to be concern about that important part of the world, well into the future, given the increasing influence of China and the importance of the area for Britain’s trade.

Equally, it is important to say that today Europe has to be our main focus. NATO is, and will remain, the cornerstone of our defence, and we must be resolute in our support of Ukraine. It may well be a long struggle, but it will be necessary. However long it takes, we must stand four-square behind the people of Ukraine and its Government, and take note of the increasing threat. For example, we note that Russian nuclear weapons have now been moved into Belarus. It is incumbent upon us all to watch the situation very carefully.

We must also be mindful of two things. When we look across the globe, we look to the United States of America. There is the possible re-election of former President Trump. We all know what happened when he was President last time: concern was caused by his comments about NATO, and about Montenegro in particular. Who knows—dare I say, God forbid—President Trump might be in the White House again.

We also have to bear in mind the long-term desire of the United States to have a greater focus on the Pacific, and its wish for Europe to be collectively more proactive in its own defence. Therefore, the debate about how much money we and our European allies spend on defence is extremely important, and something we cannot and should not avoid.

A few weeks ago, I visited Estonia, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and two other senior figures from the Labour movement. We had a series of wide-ranging meetings with fellow social democrats, trade unionists, the national defence committee of the Estonian Parliament and many others. The visit was extremely worth while. I was struck by the absolute unanimity among everyone we met and spoke to about the concerns they had about Russia’s activities, the war in Ukraine, and the potential and actual threat it could pose to Estonia.

In 2016, the United Kingdom’s enhanced forward presence was agreed for Estonia and since 2017 the UK has deployed an armoured infantry battalion to Estonia, with 800 to 900 personnel, which was doubled in size in 2022. Our presence in Estonia, in conjunction with that of our NATO allies, is extremely valued. That was another clear message that was given to us by a whole range of people whom we met in Estonia during our visit.

Looking to the future, we are in no doubt of the UK’s resolute support for NATO, but we should recognise that we need to be much stronger in developing foreign policy and military co-operation with our close allies in the European Union. Intergovernmental co-operation must be increased, and also at the very least there needs to be a dialogue with the European Commission so that there is coherence between our approach and that of our allies.

Again looking to the future, we ought to focus our minds on the nature of our future military equipment and how it is manufactured. Of course the US is our closest ally and will remain so, but we need to be prepared to develop our own specific sovereign capability and from time to time, if necessary, also co-operate more closely with our European allies. In this country we are developing the sixth-generation aircraft that will eventually succeed the F35, and we have, for instance, the Tempest programme, but the European Union has the Future Combat Air System initiative. There needs to be the possibility of consideration. Nothing is certain about the future—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

May I not? I have little time left and I know others on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House particularly want to speak.

At the start of world war two—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Perversely, the debate is under-running slightly at the moment. Having admonished hon. Members earlier, if the hon. Gentleman does wish to give way, I think the House would understand.

[Richard Drax]

In that case, may I reverse my decision? I would be delighted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Bill. It was a privilege to serve as a member of the Committee. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for the Bill, and for all his tireless work and efforts to ensure that our veterans and their families are supported. It is no surprise that the Bill has received wide support, including from the Government, which reflects the utmost respect that Members across the House have for our veterans, and our subsequent strong desire to ensure that the highest possible standards of support are provided to them.

As Winston Churchill once said:

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]

I welcome that the Bill reflects that belief, and the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place to live for the whole armed forces community—something I wholeheartedly support.

In Bexley, where I am proud to serve, there are 4,958 veterans, which is approximately 2.5% of the population. I welcome that for the first time that data has been made available through the 2021 census, which also highlighted the difficulties that veterans sometimes face. For example, in London, 12% of veterans self-reported their general health as “very bad” or “bad”. That is more than three times the level in the general London population, with only 4% self-reporting in those categories. The difficulties that veterans face are not only in the area of physical and mental health but also, as we have heard, with housing, employment and welfare, which is a direct consequence and reflection of the sacrifices they have made for our country. We therefore owe it to them to ensure they are appropriately supported in those areas, and to help them live secure and healthy lives with a purpose. I welcome that the Bill achieves that.

The veterans advisory and pensions committees have played an important role by providing vital advice and support at a local level for veterans, including the 4,958 veterans who live in Bexley. However, VAPCs are limited in the scope of the advice they can provide, and in which veterans can access them. The Bill therefore seeks to address the need for reform to create more robust and broader services for all veterans and their families, as well as to adapt to the new need for veterans to access advice on how the armed forces covenant affects them being put on a statutory footing. I thank all those businesses that have looked to increase their support for veteran communities across the UK. Through the Bill, the scope of the VAPCs’ advisory powers would go beyond compensation schemes to modernising the VAPCs to take account of the changing social and legal framework, which is so important to offering holistic and consistent support to our veterans.

Furthermore, it is clear that serving in the armed forces means that extra support may be needed not only for wounded, sick or injured veterans, particularly as they transition to civilian life, but for veterans and their families. I welcome the fact that this Bill recognises the need to extend the statutory scope of VAPCs’ functions to include all veterans and their families. The landscape in which VAPCs operate has changed considerably over the past 10 years, so I also welcome the fact that this Bill not only adapts to that landscape, but enables the Government to make changes to the VAPCs’ statutory functions more easily in the future. That will allow us to meet the needs of veterans more readily for years to come, something that is crucial in ensuring that veterans receive the highest possible standard of support, as they deserve.

In conclusion, our veterans have played a vital role in keeping this country safe and it is our duty to ensure that those who have served our country receive the best possible care. I welcome the fact that, at its heart, this Bill helps to deliver on that duty, as reflected in the support it has received from brilliant veterans’ charities, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA—the Armed Forces Charity, Help for Heroes and, in my local community, East Wickham & Welling War Memorial Trust, which does wonderful work each year to support local causes and local veterans. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy again for his clear passion to ensure that all veterans receive the support they deserve after they have made such honourable sacrifices for our country and our safety.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.