Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire]

This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House.

The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role.

The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation.

Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach.

The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community.

New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line.

Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind.

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support.

Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community.

Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill.

It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken.

Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny.

That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked.

The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down.

The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them.

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

I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the Chair of the Defence Committee agree that it is a question not merely of scrutiny but of approval? If the Committee, which he so ably chairs, decides that the persons brought before them are not fit for that role, is it not up to the Secretary of State to find somebody else who can obtain the approval of Committee?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond?

My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that, under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point.

The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments.

I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate?

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I stand to speak to amendment 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). As the Member of Parliament for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, I am proud to represent a constituency with a deep and enduring military history. It is home to Brecon barracks, the headquarters of the British Army in Wales, and 160th (Welsh) Brigade, alongside the Sennybridge training area, where thousands of British service members train in the Brecon Beacons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

On defence spending, I am glad that UK-based defence firms will be prioritised for Government investment under the defence industrial strategy, which should boost British jobs in constituencies such as Slough and help to strengthen national security, but major defence programmes are currently in disarray, with only two out of 49 on time and on budget. What actions are the Government taking to fix the waste and mismanagement in the system?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Everyone agrees that more needs to be spent on defence to meet the increasing threats. He asks why only two out of 49 of the major defence projects are on time and on budget. That question may best be directed at the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who was responsible for exactly that up until the election six months ago. There is of course a question about how much we spend, but there is also a challenge in how well we spend it. The shadow Armed Forces Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), was one of the strongest critics of the previous Government and of what he described as the “broken” procurement system. We are getting a grip of MOD budgets, driving deep reform in defence and ensuring that we reduce the waste and delay in procurement contracts.

Service Accommodation

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to present the Defence Committee’s first report of this Parliament, which is on service accommodation.

As we approach Christmas, we would all hope that the brave servicepeople who put their lives on the line for our country would all have decent housing, where they could celebrate in the warmth, without fear that their living conditions would put their health or their families’ health at risk. However, that is not always true, as our report and other reports have found. What is more, there is not yet a robust funded plan to put the situation right.

Before I say more about the Committee’s findings, I want to put on record my immense gratitude to my fellow Committee members in reaching strong recommendations on a cross-party basis. I thank members of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, including the now shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who took the evidence that informed this hard-hitting report. In particular, I thank Robert Courts, the former Member for Witney, who originally proposed and led the inquiry. I put on record my gratitude to the House of Commons staff whose hard work made the inquiry possible, especially Sarah Williams, who managed the inquiry with curiosity and care, from conception to report.

Our armed forces personnel dedicate their lives to protecting this nation, often at great personal sacrifice. Ensuring they have access to safe, comfortable and well-maintained accommodation is not just a matter of duty—it is a moral obligation. The Committee’s investigation has revealed a deeply concerning situation that has developed over many years. The condition of both service family accommodation and single living accommodation falls far below the standard our servicemen and women deserve.

We have found instances of dilapidated housing, inadequate maintenance and unacceptable living conditions, including some truly appalling persistent problems with damp and mould; cases of total loss of heating, hot water and cooking facilities for months in winter; flooding; and rodent infestations. Such substandard living conditions directly affect the morale and operational readiness of our armed forces. They are also a significant challenge to recruitment and retention.

Our report highlights systemic failures in the management and maintenance of service accommodation. The current system is plagued by lack of clear accountability and has reached a point of crisis, following insufficient funding over decades. Satisfaction with service accommodation is very low. That is hardly surprising given that a third of single living accommodation and two thirds of service family accommodation are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose.

The Committee has put forward several key recommendations to start to address this situation. We call for detailed funded investment plans for service accommodation, which are crucial to address the backlog of repairs and to bring the housing stock up to acceptable modern standards. Such plans are also crucial to enable effective planning for how best to manage the interim situation in which so much defence housing remains substandard.

For all accommodation maintained under contract, we call for the Ministry of Defence to review the assurance processes and performance measures for those contracts as part of a plan to improve the management of accommodation. There needs to be much more focus on the satisfaction of servicepeople and their families. That must include making sure that complaints processes are accessible and fit for purpose. Better communication with servicepeople and their families is absolutely key, alongside better delivery of real improvements that people value.

The Committee also examined recent developments relating to the allocation of family accommodation—namely, the botched mismanaged nature of it. Both the proposed changes and the subsequent pause in their implementation have caused significant uncertainty for service personnel and their families. The situation underscores the need for clear, consistent communication and highlights the importance of thorough consultation with those affected by such changes.

I want to emphasise that this is not about apportioning blame but about recognising a shared responsibility across Governments, over many years, to do better for those who serve our country. However, it is now for the current Government to put things right. The challenges are considerable and require a meaningful plan of investment and effective delivery and communication.

I warmly welcome the announcement on Tuesday that the Government are buying back the service family accommodation portfolio. The decision back in 1996 to sell the portfolio was a major mistake and was compounded by the terms of the deal, which has been described by the Public Accounts Committee as “disastrous”. It left the public purse billions of pounds worse off and the Government responsible for maintaining and upgrading an estate that was, in effect, owned by somebody else. That is why the situation was a nettle that needed to be grasped.

Buying back the portfolio is the right decision and has the potential to be a real game changer. However, essential though that is, the buy-back will not, in itself, directly improve things for servicepeople and their families right now. Along with my colleagues on the Defence Committee, I will be looking closely at the plan that follows and how it is funded and delivered. I commend the report to the House.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I put on record this Government’s support for the report that my hon. Friend has just published. The state of military housing is not good enough. Too many of our military families are living in poor-quality accommodation, and that is precisely why the Government seek to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. That is why we are bringing Annington homes back into public ownership. That will save the taxpayer £600,000 a day, which is money that can be used to better support our service families. I am grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his work in support of the deal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this decisive break from a failed past is just our first chance to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve? I hope he will keep the Government honest on our commitments to improve service life and accommodation. Through the work we are legislating for with the Armed Forces Commissioner, I hope his Committee will be able to support and provide ongoing scrutiny of service family accommodation, because decent housing is the least that all our armed forces and their families deserve. This Government are intent on delivering on that.

[Mr Dhesi]

I welcome the Minister’s comments and, indeed, we will be supporting and scrutinising the work of Government. We look forward to working with the Armed Forces Commissioner as and when they are appointed. As I intimated earlier, Tuesday’s announcement is very welcome, but there is a great deal of work for the Minister and his colleagues to do. The proof will be in the planning and the delivery.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats fully support the findings of the report and we hope it will mark the beginning of a much better and fairer deal for armed forces personnel. For too long, they have been failed by successive Governments. Does the Chair agree that this is a long-overdue change, welcomed by our party and across the House? Our service personnel, who at times put their lives on the line for this country, should at the very least expect to have a warm, safe and secure place to call home. Does he also agree that the backlog and repairs to the basic services he has highlighted are unacceptable and should not be allowed to recur in future?

[Mr Dhesi]

I could not agree more with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is completely unacceptable that we expect our brave servicemen and women, and their families, to be housed in such substandard conditions. We have instances of damp, mould, rat infestation— I could rattle off so many other things that are completely unacceptable. I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman and look forward to the Government taking immediate and urgent action to remediate things.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the report and I am proud to be part of my hon. Friend the Chair’s team, who have so well encapsulated the witness testimonies and the work that was done by the previous Committee. I join him in warmly welcoming the announcement from earlier in the week and the forthcoming work to bring about a service commissioner to oversee the process and ensure such injustices do not befall our service personnel in future. Does he agree that service housing is the foundation upon which our service personnel serve and commit to our country, and that this is the start of a journey of repairing a very damaged contract that this country has with its service personnel?

[Mr Dhesi]

I concur fully with my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Given his vast experience of having served in our armed forces, his contribution as a member of the Committee will be substantial, and I know he will bring that experience to bear as we look forward to remediating things. He is correct that service accommodation is the foundation on which we must ensure that our servicepeople have the very best facilities that we as a nation can offer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

For the record, I declare an interest: I participated in the inquiry while serving on the Committee in the previous Parliament. I thank the Committee Chairman for kindly pointing that out. Also for the record, we welcome the Annington decision, partly because we had done a lot of work on that prior to the election. I thank the Minister for playing fair on that.

Now that we have hopefully resolved the issue of the ownership of the estate, there is still the question of its management. Changing the ownership does not fix the boiler. Will the Chairman of the Committee be pleased to hear that, in the same bipartisan spirit, we are happy to work with the Department and Ministers to see if we can provide proposals for improving the management of the estate now that, hopefully, we have resolved the ownership question?

[Mr Dhesi]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed right, not only in his considerable contribution to the deliberations relating to the service accommodation report, but in preceding years, when he served in such a distinguished manner on the Defence Committee, which, by the way, works on a cross-party basis and the report was agreed unanimously. He is also right to highlight that the management of the contracts will be essential. The Committee’s report has identified the serious problems and now the ball is in the Government’s court as to how they manage that. However, it is great to see the cross-party working and I hope that will help to address the issues in a more timely manner.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Committee’s “Service Accommodation” report and recommendations, but I am not surprised by its findings. I also welcome the Government’s move to purchase back housing stock that should never have been sold off and the hundreds of houses that will bring back to Portsmouth. However, the issue of Ministry of Defence housing is huge, because of the years of managed decline under the previous Government. There has been no real investment, just sticking plasters.

Portsmouth in particular has been underfunded, and those in naval properties miss out more than most, because they can be in their homes for longer than those in other services as they are based at the port. There is a cap on void works, which means that, if a family moves out, the house needs renovating and it will be withdrawn. This causes undue stress to families who have already selected schools, sorted out their removals and left jobs. There is not always a guarantee of a house in the same area.

There is so much to say on behalf of Portsmouth service personnel, but, lifting words from the pages of the report, I invite the Committee and the Ministers to meet me, the contractors and service personnel in Portsmouth to see the reality of the situation.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% right. She is also speaking with considerable experience, because of the importance of Portsmouth to our nation’s defence, and the sheer scale of its service accommodation. Indeed, I look forward to visiting Portsmouth. The Defence Committee, along with its staff, will be visiting the city very soon. And, yes, every instance of substandard accommodation is unacceptable, and we must collectively work to rectify matters.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Some 40 years ago, I was growing up in army accommodation, because my dad was serving in the Royal Signals. Even then, I remember my parents talking about the problems that they were having with their accommodation. It is extraordinary that all this time later, things have probably got worse, rather than better. I want to put on record that this is about not only service personnel but their spouses and children who live in the accommodation. When service personnel are serving away from home, often for months at a time, the family’s health and mental health is impacted by the quality of their accommodation. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the impact on mental health is important?

[Mr Dhesi]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. She has got to the nub of it. If our brave servicemen and women are anxious about what is going on with their families when they are serving around the world, that affects their mental health. It also affects the mental health of the families themselves—the partners and the children. It is extremely important that we rectify matters, otherwise armed services personnel will vote with their feet and walk away.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support this excellent report of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee. May I also ask them to look at the issue of housing for veterans, which is a very important matter? Many veterans in Reading live in poor-quality, rented accommodation, despite the fact that Reading borough council has prioritised their needs in the council house waiting lists. There are simply not enough council houses to go around. We have particular problems with our British Gurkha community who are struggling in poor accommodation. Will the Select Committee look into that matter?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of veterans, particularly Gurkha veterans. I know that he recently visited Aldershot and many other places, including Westminster Hall, to champion their cause. He is right that veterans’ issues need to be resolved. I think that he, along with his constituents, will have been happy with the Government’s recent announcement of homes for veterans, but we must keep pushing to ensure the best possible outcome for our veterans.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish you a merry Yorkshire Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for the Committee’s report. As we are admitting things, let me say that, in the 1980s, I, too, lived in armed services accommodation for a brief period. It is important for us to remember how many children live in armed services accommodation. I have been raising this issue since 2018, at the time of the CarillionAmey contract. Catterick garrison in Yorkshire has one of the largest stocks of armed forces housing, and I know that my hon. Friend knows how poor much of the maintenance work has been. He has already mentioned mould, rats, and conditions that are unfit for children, or anybody, to live in. Does he think that service families who suffered the most egregious examples of poor maintenance should be able to receive compensation from those private companies?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members, speaks with a great deal of experience having lived in service accommodation. When I had the honour recently to visit Catterick, I was able to see for myself some of the service accommodation. We do need to ensure that people are held to account. I have no doubt that the Government will put pressure on those management companies to ensure that compensation commensurate with what people have suffered should be forthcoming.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That concludes the Select Committee statement.

Ukraine

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence.

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

I am grateful to the diligent Minister for advance sight of his statement. It was good to chat with the Secretary of State on his return from Ukraine, and I welcome his pledge, while there, of a £225 million package of support for Ukraine, because as the Minister rightly highlights, Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline of our own security. Can the Minister provide further detail, however? After the UN Secretary-General’s statements last week about turbocharging defence, can the Minister provide further details of discussions with NATO and other allies, in particular our US friends, including recent discussions between the Prime Minister and President-elect Trump, on the international defence steps being taken at this critical juncture?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the military package outlined today. The UK Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP, and a path for that increase will be laid out in due course at future fiscal events. We will publish the strategic defence review, which will set out, perhaps more importantly, what we seek to spend any money on; we can then look at what capabilities we need to develop and how that takes us further. We continue to speak with our NATO allies through the SDR process, to make sure that the UK’s defence offer is a “NATO first” offer that allows more interoperability and supports our NATO allies, especially on NATO’s eastern flank. I look forward to being able to speak more about that in due course to my hon. Friend’s Committee.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is of great significance for defence and has strategic international significance. Steps must be taken to ensure that its legal status is secure in the future, and of course the voice of the Chagossians must be central in any future arrangement. It has been reported that President-elect Trump has reservations about the proposed treaty, and newly elected Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius has ordered a review into the treaty. What further representations have been made to both our partners to ensure that we have the support of our international partners?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The continuing operation of Diego Garcia is in the interests of UK and US national security, and this deal secures that operation. I congratulate Dr Ramgoolam on his election. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 15 November, he noted his commitment to completing the negotiations, and Jonathan Powell was in Mauritius this week to start that process.

UK Air and Missile Defences

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for obtaining the chance to debate this vital matter, and I commend him on his comprehensive diagnosis of the threats we face.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have entered a period of global instability not seen since the cold war. First, there is Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, where the threat continues to escalate and the damage continues to spread. We must answer Russia with a European, transatlantic and UK-based response that adapts to the evolving threat of warfare—be that through technology, on land, in the sea, in the air or in space. I am proud that my constituency of Stevenage plays an integral part in the UK’s response to Putin, as the place where Storm Shadow missiles are refitted for use by Ukraine.

Secondly, there is the ongoing instability in the middle east—with the risk of escalation to an all-out regional conflict that will implicate allies around the world. We must also assess our preparation for the vastly different challenges that ongoing chaos in the region will cause.

Regardless of the conflict, and the differing threats posed, it is clear that NATO, Europe and the UK are not where we need to be to confidently say we can protect our interests at home and abroad. On air defence alone, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity needed to protect Europe from a larger attack.

This matter is of deep importance to me and my constituents in Stevenage. As a former local armed forces champion, I am proud to represent a constituency where MBDA is based. The company produces Sea Ceptor and Sea Viper, which bolster our naval-based air and missile defence capabilities and are integral to the UK’s missile defence strategy—both in protecting our ground-based assets at home, and for our blue water naval capabilities wherever they may be deployed across the world.

Primes in Stevenage, such as Airbus, also support the UK’s thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector. One of those firms supplies MBDA with the thermal batteries that allow its missiles to sit dormant under pressure before going off quickly when activated. We must not downplay the role that our industry partners play in our air defence. Without the ingenuity of industry, such as that in Stevenage, we would not be able to maintain—or scale up—our missile response. It is the proud international role that my town plays in the defence sector that inspired me to take up a role as part of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and for the past week I have been at the NATO summit in Montreal discussing these exact issues with international partners. The consensus across NATO is clear: growing threats lead to growing strength, faster evolution and a more unified response than ever.

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

It is clear that war in Europe—war on our continent—has fundamentally shifted defence priorities and key areas for our focus. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff’s recent comment that a key area for future investment should be integrated air and missile defence, so that we better address growing global challenges and threats?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, and I absolutely agree. We must have interoperability across all our services—not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space, which is not just the next frontier but brings it all together. We must not forget that.

Currently, the UK, alongside 22 other NATO allies, is meeting the NATO contribution requirement of 2% of GDP. I am pleased that this Labour Government have a commitment to increase that to 2.5% following the strategic defence review. In undertaking that review, the Department will be looking at the many ways in which we can develop strength where we are weak and efficiency where we are slow—and develop strength we must. It is integral to that that the UK bolsters its air and missile defence capability, especially as we saw only last week Putin’s first use of intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles in Ukraine. We must ensure that our constituents and the infrastructure on which we rely are protected from missile attack, and the threat of such attacks will continue rising for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the only way we can upscale our capability effectively is by working with both our strategic partners in NATO and our geographically-closest partners in Europe. I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and across Europe. As a third partner currently, we run the risk of not just the UK Government but our industry being locked out of discussions with our counterparts across Europe. We must work to supercharge our UK-based defence industry and give it the correct tools to work hand in hand with our European partners to keep us all safe. If that does not happen, we will not be effectively maximising either our own capability for our defence or our wider response to the war in Ukraine and to increasing uncertainty internationally.

I make this case to the Minister: keep spending, bolster our armed forces and do everything in our power to retain sovereign capability over every area of the defence sector, from manufacturing to procurement. We must speed up production and explore every avenue to develop the new technologies and systems that we need to face down modern threats and tackle global challenges. At the very heart of this all, we must prioritise the UK’s missile defence capabilities so that companies, such as MBDA and Airbus in my constituency, can contribute in an ever bigger and better way than they already are.

I urge the Minister to explore the viability of a defence and security pact with the EU and wider Europe—one that includes an industrial pact for UK-EU collaboration on weaponry to guarantee our safety and stability while we navigate our evolving relationship with our close allies in the US.

To conclude, the rules-based order across the world is under the greatest threat since the end of the second world war. The UK has been at the very heart of creating that rules-based order, and we must do all we can to protect it. Boosting our own defences is now critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Bolton West, which is the home of MBDA’s Logistics North production site. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate; I particularly welcome his comments on both the lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the need to ensure that our armed forces can protect us from a diverse range of threats.

All of us will have constituents who are concerned about last week’s developments between Russia and Ukraine, including Putin’s use of an advanced hypersonic missile. This is a personal issue for me. My own father was stationed in Germany throughout the 1970s as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union loomed. The shadow cast by that period of constant existential fear is, unfortunately, a long one. The terrifying reality is that now war is not just something we read about in newspapers; it is on our doorstep. However we are not fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and streets any more. The long distance missile capabilities of hostile states mean, regrettably, that war can now reach us in our own homes.

All that is to say that sovereign capability for missile defences here in the UK has seldom been so important. As others have already noted, we are vulnerable to advanced missiles such as the one fired by Russia last week and the one fired by Iran on Israel earlier in the year. As our armed forces and defence infrastructure were left to crumble during the last 14 years, a serious capability gap has emerged, particularly around defence against air threats and our ability to engage targets at extended range. Only in September, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee warned that the Government must

“pay greater attention to homeland defence”,

particularly to

“integrated air and missile defence…in close collaboration with our European NATO allies”.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. It is increasingly clear that enhanced co-operation with NATO and other allies will be essential in achieving air and missile defence aims in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen in the recent Estonia pact, these continued alliances will not only enhance our ability to meet procurement challenges but ensure that we are able to defend against these long-range missile threats?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will come on to that issue in the context of the recent Germany-UK defence agreement, which was signed in Trinity House only last month.

Over the weekend, there was also an intervention from former Defence Minister and former Chair of the Defence Committee Tobias Ellwood, who said that we are “woefully unprotected” and described London as “almost a sitting duck”. This issue can garner support from all sides of the House; I know that other Members will recognise the scale of the challenges ahead, which necessitate ever closer international relationships and collective defence within NATO and the European Union. With that in mind, I should say that I had the immense pleasure of talking to German counterparts as part of a delegation to Berlin in September. As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, I enthusiastically welcomed last month’s UK-Germany Trinity House agreement on defence.

The Government’s shared objective with Germany to sustain effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by building credible, resilient defence forces and defence industries is vital if we are to work towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Europe and north Atlantic. Sovereign capability, as an enduring necessity, is something that I expect the Government’s forthcoming strategic defence review will attest to. To ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, industry must remain at the very heart of our missile defence system.

MBDA employs 1,200 people in my constituency and almost 6,000 across the UK. I am sure that colleagues will agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that MBDA represents the very best in ingenuity, working as a trusted partner throughout Europe and providing the air defence capability that we and our allies need to stand up to Russia’s unwarranted aggression. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this year, when he committed to

“renewing important partnerships with industry and continuing to push technological boundaries”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for bringing forward this critical debate.

In 1988, The Sunday Times published a formative exposition of the integrated air defence system that protected the UK at the time. I managed to find the article, called “Can the RAF defend us?”, with the aid of the Library. It gave a very detailed analysis of the system in place, some parts of which had not changed since 1938, and it spoke of how an investment of about £10 billion on combined programmes would address that. I enjoyed reminding myself, while reading the article, of the places that were commissioned back then that I finally served in during the early 2000s. The reason for bringing that up is that, then as now, we need a clear understanding of where we are and of the degradation in our services since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

Defence has three outputs: policy, capability and operations. We must convince ourselves of the need to do some of the things that my hon. Friend spoke about eloquently earlier. On policy, we must recognise that our security problem is inherently European. The European Sky Shield initiative is fundamental, so it is critical that we enhance and recover some of our relationships with our European partners, and that we remain NATO-first. We must recognise that we will not stand alone, and that the solution to our problems and funding must have a European bent. I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend discussed and enhance our European relationships —specifically regarding access to funding and partnerships.

I note the article’s clear recognition that our Army was inherently European based. It is largely pointless having tanks on Salisbury plain when the threat is elsewhere. I wonder whether now is the time to reconsider where some of our Army is based. Having a deployed Army that contributes to a security problem will also need an air defence above it. We need to give consideration to the service that, at present, is prime in delivering parts of our integrated air defence system. I also welcome the discussion about Type 45s. It is imperative that we understand that the Royal Navy has a part to play in our air defences, and that Type 45s not just protect the carrier but are fundamental to ensuring the long sea track.

With policy, it is essential that, whatever solutions we come to, we ensure that we are in the grey zone right now. Defence is about deterrence, and it is fundamental that we maintain a posture that deters our enemy. We must understand that this logic has already started: our enemies have already started to encroach on some of the fundamental parts of our deterrence, including damaging the rules-based international order. I urge the Minister to take back to the Department a discussion about a deterrence policy that works around our integrated air defence—something that is discussed incredibly well in the 1988 article.

On capability, I do not wish to politicise the debate, but just as we now reflect openly on the damage that the 1957 defence review did to our industries, we must have an honest discussion about the impact of the 2010 SDSR. Critically, we must recognise what happens when we take capability holidays, and how those create long and lasting impacts on our capabilities. That is why we are in the position that we are in now. Some of the capabilities that were mentioned in the opening speech are not there because we did not support the industries that were enabled to build them. A recovery of our industrial base is essential. Readiness is about availability, capability and sustainability. The greatest damage that has been done to our defence enterprise is in our ability to sustain a response. We must have an industry that is capable of building and sustaining the stocks necessary to counter mass.

On operations, we have circa 10,000 people deployed on 250 operations worldwide at the moment. The Defence Committee was told the other day that we have about 100,000 personnel fit to fight. For it to be sustainable—not using harmony guidelines, which are complex to work out—that is a force of 30,000 people who are committed today to operations. It is also not unreasonable to assume that an amount of our forces above that are in readiness, and they should also be at a ratio of 3:1 or greater, so something upwards of 30% of our fighting force is currently deployed sustainably.

I ask the Minister to foster an honest discussion within the Department about whether that is affordable and sustainable. We need our forces at home, or on European soil, training and getting ready for the coming fight. We cannot erode our defence enterprise by doing what may be considered profligate operations that do not contribute to our future security.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very thought-provoking speech. In an increasingly volatile world where new global threats are constantly emerging, we must ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. That is why I was pleased to see recent progress on the new air defence laser, equipping RAF pilots with high tech to defeat missile threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that steps are taken to put us at the cutting edge of innovation to enhance our air and missile defence capabilities?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and apposite intervention. I agree that to be able to respond and counter mass, we need technology. To align that with the point I was making, it is essential that we have people trained and ready to use that technology, which is why the size and mass of our deployments is critical. If we do not allow our forces to train and recover adequately, they will not be able to exercise and be ready to use those technologies as they come online.

I urge the Minister to address the points that I have made in this honest discussion, particularly about deployment. I also ask her to look at the disparity in some of the policies we are using when our forces are deployed—in particular, those that have an impact on weapons carriage hours. There is a significant disparity in the policies that we use to sustain our stocks, and an alignment with NATO and, certainly, the US would bring significant cost savings and reductions in the size requirements of our stockpiles. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might be able to talk about that, based on his experience and understanding.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for securing this debate. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about the removal of costly and antiquated systems. I am hopeful about the SDR, and I am very grateful that the Government value the service of our armed forces.

Defence Programmes Developments

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.

However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?

[John Healey]

As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today, the Government take a major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind them. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe, and at the heart of that security are the men and women of our armed forces. In this role, I have the privilege of meeting many of those men and women who serve proudly, here in the UK and around the world. I see at first hand their dedication and professionalism and some of the extraordinary sacrifices they make in defence of our nation—from the 700 personnel who rapidly deployed to Cyprus over the summer to support our contingency planning for the safety of UK nationals in Lebanon, to the 140 Royal Navy submariners who I met recently at Faslane as they completed the final leg of their sea patrol. I had to apologise that mine was the first face they saw upon arriving home after so many months. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service.

I know, too, that all Members will join me in recognising that when we talk about loved ones away from home—a spouse or parent who may be deployed at a moment’s notice to another part of the UK or the world—we are talking about sacrifices that are made not only by those in uniform, but by the family members who support them. We cannot say enough that our forces’ families live their lives in service to the nation. As such, the Bill before the House establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life for our serving personnel and their families. That is significant and long overdue.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and welcome his Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. As he has rightly pointed out, the Bill will allow our brave service personnel and their families to make complaints to the commissioner, but that right has not been given to bereaved family members. Can he reassure me and the House that bereaved families will also be given that right?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. Our definition of “relevant family members”, which is on the face of the Bill, will include bereaved families.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The commissioner will be independent and separate from the chain of command, with powers that do not depend on or account to the chain of command in any way. They will have the power to make recommendations to improve service life and to set out the findings of their investigations in reports to be laid before Parliament. Their annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of the forces and what we must do to improve our offer as a Government and as a nation to those who serve. It is my intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each and every year.

The commissioner and their reports will challenge Ministers, will strengthen parliamentary oversight and will raise awareness of the issues facing our forces. The commissioner will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Commons Defence Committee.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Secretary of State is being generous with his time. I note from the Bill that there is no prospect of approval being sought from the cross-party Defence Committee, although, as the Secretary of State just alluded to, there will be a pre-appointment hearing. Will he give me and the House an undertaking that if the Committee has concerns, he will listen closely to our recommendations and take action accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

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

No one could argue with the honourable intent of the Bill: to improve service life. That is why there is widespread support for its main proposal, an enhanced role with new investigative powers. The Service Complaints Ombudsman and her predecessor have both called for powers along those very lines. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stood for election.

The Defence Committee published a letter last Thursday setting out our initial thoughts on the Bill, to inform the House’s scrutiny today. We had hoped to have time to take account of the views of representatives of armed forces communities, as well as the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but the pace of events made that impossible. As a result, at this stage, my remarks contain more questions than conclusions.

If the Government are to be judged by their own success criteria, the two key questions for the House are these. First, how far will the Bill go towards improving service life? Secondly, is the commissioner established by the Bill given the right powers, protections and resources to act as the strong, independent champion that our gallant armed forces and their families deserve, and that the Government have promised?

On behalf of the Defence Committee, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to address in his winding-up speech the points that we raised in our letter, in addition to those that the Defence Secretary outlined earlier. What are the Government’s priorities for improving the service complaints system? It is striking that the Bill contains only one change to the system, when successive ombudsmen have found that the system as a whole is not efficient, effective and fair. To bring the Bill to life, can the Minister draw to the House’s attention examples of times when the power to conduct investigations on general service matters would have improved service life, if it had existed at that time?

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, as far as possible, who will be able to ask the commissioner, under clause 4, to investigate a “general welfare service matter”. Will that include members of the reserve forces, family members of reservists, former partners and spouses of serving personnel, and—the Secretary of State has, thankfully, already provided clarification on this—bereaved service families? This is a matter of interest and concern to representatives of armed forces communities such as the Royal British Legion.

The independence of the commissioner will be crucial in maintaining the confidence and trust of the armed forces community.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. May I tempt him to agree with me that the Armed Forces Commissioner should have his or her powers extended to veterans, on the grounds that a lot of the themes that he or she would look at would be hybrid matters that affected both the veterans community and those currently serving? At the risk of being accused of being a one-trick pony, may I suggest that the Camp Lejeune case exemplifies that point?

[Mr Dhesi]

I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being a one-trick pony. He tempts me, but I would like to consider that point about veterans, reserve forces and so on in Committee and thereafter.

The German armed forces commissioner—the inspiration behind the Bill, as the Secretary of State highlighted—is entirely independent of the German Defence Ministry and armed forces, but that is not the case for the commissioner under the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint and be able to dismiss. The Secretary of State will fund the commissioner and agree their staffing arrangements—I am very grateful to the Minister for his briefing this morning at the Ministry of Defence, at which I was able to highlight some of my initial concerns—and the Secretary of State will be able to constrain the exercise of the commissioner’s powers on broad grounds of national security and personal safety. So when Ministers describe the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner as independent, they must surely mean something else. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain exactly what? And can he tell us why he has not decided to go further in ensuring the independence of the commissioner from his Department? Can he also explain how the commissioner’s resourcing requirements have been estimated, what the process would be if the commissioner asked for additional resources, and who would find out and how if the commissioner was denied resources they had requested?

The Bill arrives during a crisis in armed forces recruitment and retention, at a time when there are high levels of dissatisfaction with service life, and an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. The Defence Committee will be delving into that in greater detail. The Bill cannot solve those challenges on its own. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the Bill sits within a coherent strategy and a set of broader measures, so that the House can consider the Bill in context.

Expectations of the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be high. They will need to be a strong character, with the best interests of the armed forces in mind. They will need to be prepared for questions and challenge, but also to understand, win support, and change hearts and minds. Their success will likely ultimately depend on the support and trust of the armed forces, including the chain of command. What kind of person do the Government imagine filling the role? How, if at all, will the key requirements of the role differ from those for the Service Complaints Ombudsman?

I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister, but he is a very capable individual and he has been taking copious notes. No doubt he will be able to answer all my questions in his speech. My Defence Committee colleagues and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention of allowing the Committee to conduct a non-binding pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the role. As the Secretary of State highlighted, that is in line with practice for the appointment of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The Defence Committee has always offered both support and scrutiny to the ombudsman, and we look forward to working closely with the new commissioner. They will, I hope, become a regular witness before the Committee. I hope that the Government will ensure the smoothest possible transition between the two roles.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I asked the Secretary of State last month whether there was an update on the usage of Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine. As has been widely reported, yesterday President Biden lifted restrictions on the use of long-range US missiles. Given the continuous bombing of Ukrainian communities by Russia, and given that thousands of North Korean troops are fighting against our ally in our continent, will Ukraine now be allowed to use those Storm Shadow missiles—obviously, within the confines of international law—or do we expect Ukraine to continue fighting and defending itself with one hand tied behind its back while keeping those Storm Shadows in safe storage?

[John Healey]

I say again that I will not compromise operational security and comment on the details of long-range systems today. The Prime Minister has been clear—as I am being to the House—that we must double down on the support to Ukraine, give it the support it needs and do so for as long as it takes. In doing so, we will continue our close co-operation with the US and allies in providing that support to Ukraine.