Saudi Arabia: RAF Support
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the UK Government’s support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as it responds to increased Houthi aggression in Saudia Arabia and Yemen. The whole House will have seen images of the attacks on civilian airports in Riyadh and the hundreds of casualties that those Houthi attacks have caused. The Government fully support the right of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of the Republic of Yemen to defend themselves. However, we know that there is no long-term military solution to this conflict. The support we have announced is designed to help our partners at this critical moment while supporting efforts to create the conditions for political resolution to the conflict.
Although many of our constituents may feel that this is happening far away, we must be clear about the direct consequences for the United Kingdom. The Red sea and the Bab al-Mandab strait are among the world’s most important maritime trade routes, and continued instability increases costs for British families and businesses while also undermining security across the middle east. Helping that part of the world to be more secure and stable is firmly in the United Kingdom’s national security and economic interests.
As the House will know, we have already been providing Saudi Arabia with air defence support and air-to-air refuelling from defensive Saudi Arabia air operations, and the Prime Minister has now authorised additional military support. We are extending the provision of air-to-air refuelling to 90 days, and RAF Typhoon aircraft will conduct defensive counter-air operations from Saudi Arabia; these aircraft will operate in a defensive role, and will not conduct offensive strikes. We will also make an RAF A400M aircraft available to support the movement of matériel within Saudi Arabia in support of defence.
We remain deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the suffering experienced by civilians. Alongside military support, we continue our diplomatic efforts, humanitarian assistance and work to encourage political negotiations.
Finally, all partners receiving UK assistance must comply fully with their obligations under international law. We will continue to monitor and assess this compliance as part of our ongoing engagement.
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits.
I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate.
The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility?
We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent.
Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member had two minutes—he is now on three. I think the Minister will have grasped what the right hon. Member needs.
Mr Bailey
It is indeed a great privilege to respond to my friend, the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), especially today, the first day of remembrance. I know there are differences in when we think it is right to put on the poppy. I just acknowledge that, and I was selling them this morning. I am not making a political point; we both recognise that remembrance is important, and it is something that we both care about. It is important to set that out. Similarly, he has been a doughty champion for the people and the Government of Yemen. He has spoken about this matter many times. I have sat in the Chamber and listened to him, and I recognise that all the questions he is asking come from a good place. He is deeply impassioned and well informed on this matter.
With regard to the situation on which I am here to answer questions, the Prime Minister clearly set out the strategic parameters and the arrangements for any military operation. That should answer the preponderance of the questions that the right hon. Member asked at the beginning. When adjusting that military contribution, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to do so in a written ministerial statement. I am grateful to be in front of the House today, wearing my Royal Air Force tie, speaking about the brave soldiers and service personnel who have deployed on our behalf to provide support to allies across the region. It is in our national interest to ensure that our allies in the region receive support when they ask. We have set out that support, of which we should be rightly proud.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Houthi aggression fans the flames in that region. Can the Minister tell us more about the diplomatic measures in hand to help with this crucial situation?
Mr Bailey
There are ongoing arrangements with our allies within the region. I am grateful to be joined by a Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been engaging closely and actively with our allies in the region. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith) wish to receive additional detail, we can provide that in writing.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The spiralling conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia is deeply concerning. Further escalation risks intensifying regional instability when the wider middle east is already facing the devastating consequences of the US, Israel and Iran wars. While defensive assistance from the RAF is the correct response to Houthi attacks, the Government must be clear about the limits of British involvement. Can the Minister inform the House of how long it is expected to continue? What safeguards are in place to prevent the UK becoming embroiled in a prolonged regional conflict?
Diplomatic efforts must remain the priority. Britain should be working alongside its allies and regional partners to reduce tensions and prevent this crisis from widening further. We must also protect vital shipping routes through the Bab al-Mandab strait, which is threatened by Houthi attacks. The disruption to the strait of Hormuz has shown us just how far reaching the consequences of threats to international shipping can be, affecting British households and businesses. What discussions are taking place with international partners to prepare for any future escalation and to ensure that freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandab strait is maintained?
Mr Bailey
I will try to keep it brief this time. Continued instability risks disrupting global trade and energy supplies for British families and businesses. I therefore reiterate that it is important that the UK continues to provide support to our allies. The written ministerial statement references an extension of the air-to-air refuelling capabilities out to 90 days, but we do not provide additional details that may put our soldiers and service personnel in harm’s way.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for confirming that the aircraft will operate in a defensive role and will not conduct any offensive strikes on the Houthis. Does he share my concern that regional instability and conflict in the Gulf could have serious implications at home, driving up the cost of living, disrupting energy supplies and increasing costs for businesses? With conflicts increasing around the world and our RAF Typhoon aircraft being sent across the globe, it would be remiss of me not to raise the calls of many Lancashire MPs, including me and you, Mr Speaker, who believe that we need to invest in that aircraft now and its supply line at BAE Systems in Lancashire and across the UK.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for our brave soldiers and Royal Air Force aviators who are operating the Typhoons in the region. He is right to highlight the significant investment—half a billion pounds—in upgrades to the Typhoon aircraft that the Government agreed to earlier in the year. That is essential for ensuring that when our people are deployed in such circumstances, they have world-leading capabilities, which have been invested in by the Government.
Mr Speaker
I think you also meant a new order for aircraft, but we will put that to one side.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly.
Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.
Mr Bailey
There was a multiplicity of questions within that question. First, on why a statement on the deployment was not made, I have made it clear that the strategic parameters were set out by the Prime Minister and that the deployment was laid out by the Secretary of State. I am pleased to be here to talk about the extension of an existing deployment; this is not anything new. With regards to the word “defence”, the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbouring MP, as a gallant person with a significant military background, will understand that a layered air defence system is exactly that, and defensive counter air is a capability. We are not conducting strikes and there is no capability to conduct strikes. We are not seeking to present that in any other way.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. For what it is worth, I support the Government’s decision to deploy this defensive operation against the Houthis. The Minister will be aware that Britain’s former ambassador to Yemen has called for proscription of the Houthis, and I absolutely agree with him on that. That would allow us to criminalise fundraising and support for the Houthis and disrupt any operations on UK soil as well as freeze their assets. What conversations has he had with his counterparts in the Home Office about proscribing the Iranian-backed threat that is the Houthis?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his concern for Yemen. It is important that we remember the reason for these measures is to seek a ceasefire and allow the United Nations to provide humanitarian support to the people in Yemen. We do not comment on future measures, but we are considering all options. I can offer my hon. Friend a meeting with the Minister of State in the FCDO, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I support the deployment of British forces in support of our Saudi Arabian allies, but, as has become clear, the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” support is pretty fuzzy at best. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the possible increased threat to British nationals in the region, both civilian and military, and what is being done to meet that threat?
Mr Bailey
Advice to those British nationals in the region is issued by the FCDO, and I urge all those deployed within the region to pay attention to consular announcements. The terms “offensive” and “defensive” are very well-known doctrines of military operation, so when I use the language “defensive counter air”, that is entirely what is meant by it. Unless anyone wants to rewrite doctrine, which I would take great pleasure in contributing to, that remains what we have deployed and how we intend to deliver our military capabilities.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My hon. and gallant Friend is right to set out the Government’s position in supporting our allies, because they are taking on terrorists. These terrorists are a threat not only to our allies in the region, but to ourselves. We have the Bab al-Mandab strait, where we have taken action before. I would like an assurance that we will do all it takes to work with our allies in the region to ensure that our national interests, not just those of our friends in the region, are protected going forward.
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and show of concern. We unequivocally condemn the Houthi attacks. We fully support the right of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of Yemen to defend themselves and protect their territory and civilian populations. We cannot allow international shipping to be threatened or held to ransom. As my hon. Friend recognises, the instability in the region is disrupting trade routes and energy supplies and increasing costs to British families and businesses in the UK.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.
Mr Bailey
I know that the hon. Gentleman has spoken on these matters with great passion and consistency during my time in the House. We urge the Houthis to return to a UN-led political pathway, and we will continue to work with regional allies. It is also important that we provide our allies with the support that allows them the space and capacity to engage in that activity and provide much-needed sanctuary for the Yemeni people.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
We are constantly reminded of the importance of plans and planning, so what specific political and diplomatic conditions would need to be met for the Government to withdraw this defensive support, and how will Parliament be kept informed on progress?
Mr Bailey
We insist that all the support from the UK is in accordance with international law and IHL—international humanitarian law. I have had the great privilege of working in the Department on the application of such processes in the past, so I can speak here with great comfort, knowing that we will ensure that those processes are met, and that our rules and values are upheld by our allies and partners.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?
Mr Bailey
Providing defensive counter air to prevent attacks on airports and civilian structures is a fairly significant offering. That is essential to providing safety, support and sanctuary to the people who are working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support the Government of Yemen.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I support the decision to stand alongside our allies in Saudi Arabia, but additional deployment requires sufficient resourcing. Will the Minister confirm that despite the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, saying in his resignation letter that the Ministry of Defence needs 3% by 2030, the MOD spokesman’s comments yesterday state that that commitment will not be met by that date?
Mr Bailey
When we make such deployments, they are taken—[Interruption.] Well, the urgent question, and the reason I am here, is about our deployment in Yemen. In response to the question, the thing that the hon. Member needs to be assured of is that our military commanders are content that they can meet the deployment and the other tasks that we have set out for them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Government’s response and the support for Saudi Arabia. I understand that the operation is intended to provide defensive support only. I am reminded of the Red sea crisis from 2023 to 2025, when defensive action to protect UK shipping from Houthi attacks escalated into offensive strikes against Houthi targets. What assessment have the Government made of the risk that British forces may be directly targeted, causing further escalation and drawing the UK into a wider regional conflict?
Mr Bailey
I always love the opportunity to talk about my past service and commitment. As I said before, we do not discuss the assessments that are made, which could impact the safety and security of our military personnel. We know that our military commanders are comfortable with the deployment and their responsibility towards people. I thank those brave soldiers and service personnel who are deployed on our behalf in the region, delivering those missions and operations.
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces, particularly in underserved communities where young people can benefit most from the opportunities and skills that a cadet forces experience provides. We are strengthening links between defence communities and employers to expand volunteering and cadet opportunities, so that more young people, including those in Bracknell Forest, can benefit from the cadet experience.
Peter Swallow
Earlier this month I had the huge privilege of celebrating the first ever National Cadets Week alongside 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadets and 2211 Squadron Air Cadets. I was struck, as I always am when I meet cadets, by the young people’s confidence, skills and sense of pride. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to the role that the cadets can play in tackling the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training, and supporting more young people to develop essential skills?
Mr Bailey
Wasn’t National Cadets Week just brilliant? I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his cadet craftsmen and women of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Cadets at 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadet Force and the Royal Air Force Cadets of 2211 Squadron—semper paratus. Both units show us how we must recognise the science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities that cadet engagement provides to our young people, helping to improve confidence and employability and reducing their risks of becoming NEET.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces. On 5 October, I opened the first National Cadets Week, which celebrated the skills of our cadets and recognised the contribution of the volunteers who are central to providing the experience. We are strengthening links between defence and industry to expand our cadet opportunities to more young people.
Chris Murray
I thank the Minister for that answer. Musselburgh Sea Cadets and Royal Marines Cadets have been giving young people in Musselburgh a head start for more than 70 years, and celebrated the first ever National Cadets Week last month with an open day. I will be joining them on parade on Thursday to pay tribute to the huge contribution that they make to the honest toun. Will the Minister join me in thanking the cadets and volunteers in Musselburgh and across my constituency, and tell me what the UK Government are doing to support cadets?
Mr Bailey
I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets, the 297 Squadron Royal Air Force Cadets and the tam o’ shanter-wearing Lothian and Borders Army Cadet Force, who highlight how important our cadets are to strengthening our communities and preserving our national music and totems. I look forward to hearing how he enjoys himself at the 70th anniversary event. I hope that the SNP can see fit to allow the expansion of cadet forces into our schools, which they resist at present.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Young people are the future of the armed forces, and that is why cadet groups are so important. In England, schools receive £360 a year for every child from an armed forces family, helping them to provide extra support. If Wales followed the English system, over £800,000 a year could go directly to Welsh schools and service children, including £97,000 for schools in my county of Powys. The reality is in Wales schools are competing with each other for a share of just £40,000 across the whole country. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government must stop short-changing the children of armed forces personnel and put this money directly into their schools?
Mr Bailey
I welcome the question. Wales has a proud history of serving our country, and that results in an extension of the armed forces covenant in our schools. There is something there that we need to recognise in supporting our veterans and their children in schools in the Welsh system, so I will take a look at it.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman spent some time with our Royal Air Force cadets, he would see the amazing cyber-programme that they are rolling out, which will be expanded across the Army Cadets and the Sea and Royal Marine Cadets as part of the cadets action plan.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating essential care and support for veterans. We have the new Valour centre in Telford, and in March we announced more than £13 million of Government funding to veteran support centres. Some 21 Valour-recognised centres are open, supporting veterans across the country, including in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.
Jodie Gosling
I am once again championing the brilliant Valour bid from Veterans Contact Point in my constituency. We have the backing of 10 cross-party MPs in the region, which highlights the strength of feeling and our dedication to our armed forces. More than 2,500 veterans are set to benefit from locally delivered community support, and I am proud to mention that VCP is rolling out its female veterans transformation programme alongside that. Will the Minister please update us on how quickly we can start work to transform the lives of our veterans in Nuneaton and across the wider region?
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend has been a great champion for veterans and is very powerful in her support of the bid in Nuneaton. Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating the essential care and support available to veterans. The new Valour centre in Telford—the hub—is a collaboration between Telford & Wrekin Council and others, and this is just one example of our co-ordinated approach. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister pay tribute to all the work done by many of the Veterans’ Commissioners and those involved with helping veterans across the United Kingdom, including the Veterans’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland? They do all that work to try to help and assist many of those who have suffered greatly in the past. Will the Minister become a champion for veterans both now and beyond the Budget?
Mr Bailey
This Thursday, I will be in Northern Ireland with my very good friend, the Veterans’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, where I will hear his representations on the issues affecting our veterans there. We have an incredible champion in our Veterans’ Commissioner for Scotland, who is doing an incredible job. A few months ago, I enjoyed breakfast in Wales with our Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales. All our commissioners play a valuable part and contribute to my understanding of the veterans landscape across the country, and they know that I have their back.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
We are rapidly improving defence housing; we have already upgraded 1,250 homes, with a further 1,000 brought back into use this year. We have introduced customer commitments for service families, including clear pledges on housing standards, customer service and listening to families’ experiences. I will find the time to meet those people who live in service housing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Mr Bailey
There are two aspects in answering this question. The first is the provision that we provide to our veterans; we are pleased to be rolling out the Valour network, with announcements for further centres soon. The second is the roll-out of the armed forces covenant and making sure that all local service providers play their part in delivering for our service families and their communities.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My great-aunt was one of the thousands of Canary Girls who did vital but dangerous work in Britain’s munitions factories during both world wars. Those women have no national memorial. Does the Minister agree, as we approach our national day of remembrance, that that is a historical omission, and will he meet me to discuss a national memorial for the Canary Girls?
Mr Calvin Bailey
As a proud east Londoner, I learned as a child about the Woolwich Canaries, and the difficult conditions to which they were exposed in support of our war effort and to keep our armed forces equipped. The contribution of the Canary Girls, along with that of all civilian and military women, is recognised on the “Women of World War II” memorial in Whitehall. Because the responsibility for matters involving civilian wartime workers sits outside the Ministry of Defence, I direct my hon. Friend to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, but as an east London MP who knows very well of the great sacrifices of the Canaries, I would like to meet her and support her campaign.
Mr Speaker
Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in Chorley. I call Sir Roger Gale.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is aware of the unique case involving my constituent Rachel Gallagher, a former MOD civil servant who was released from her role under civil service nationality rules. While I accept that my constituent was not legally employable, I simply cannot accept that, after a decade of dedicated service, her accrued pension contributions have been declared void. Will the Minister meet me, so that we can ensure that an equitable resolution is found, and my constituent receives the full pension contributions that she earned in service to this country?
Mr Calvin Bailey
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case about a very complex and tragic issue. I agree to meet him, and I hope that we can find an equitable outcome for his constituent.
Service Complaints Ombudsman's 2025 Annual Report: MOD Response
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2025 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The ombudsman’s report assessed the service complaints system and the work of the SCOAF’s office in 2025. The response sets out the MOD’s comments to the report and views on the one new recommendation that was made.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the now Armed Forces Commissioner brings to the service complaints system and remains committed to having a system in which our personnel can have confidence.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-10-13/HCWS368/
[HCWS368]
Service Police Complaints Commissioner: Annual Report 2025
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2025 on the service police complaints system.
This report is published by Jonathan Rees and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the delivery of his functions as the commissioner.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the commissioner will follow once that work is complete.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-09-11/HCWS335/
[HCWS335]
Whistleblowing in Defence
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
During passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, the Government committed to a review into whistleblowing in defence. I am pleased to confirm that this work is now complete, and I am placing a copy of the final report in the Library of the House.
This ministerial-led review considered the effectiveness of existing policies and procedures for raising concerns, with a focus on the armed forces. It examined the current policy landscape, how effectively it is communicated, and whether service personnel understand the protections that may be available to them when they raise concerns, including those relating to serious wrongdoing.
The review evaluated the consistency and accessibility of whistleblowing procedures across the armed forces and compared these with civilian frameworks, recognising that service personnel currently fall outside the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in terms of legislation, but its provisions are extended to service personnel in policy.
The review concluded that the evidence does not point to a structural or legal deficit in the current framework. The issues identified are about how the system operates in practice and that implementation of the recommendations will focus on practical improvements to deliver the required clarity, accessibility, and trust.
Engagement with service personnel was at the heart of this work. The review adopted a best practice approach and drew on a range of consultation mechanisms to ensure the voices of those working in defence were heard clearly.
This review represents an important opportunity to strengthen protections for those who work in at all levels in the organisation, and to ensure that defence continues to foster a culture of accountability, transparency and trust.
The attachment “Whistleblowing in Defence Review (20260715-WBR Final Report-for external release.pdf)” can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-09-09/HCWS321/
[HCWS321]
Draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The purpose of the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 June 2026, is to make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The draft regulations ensure that the service complaints system remains aligned with primary legislation and continues to operate effectively.
The draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015 to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. That reflects amendments made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 to section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It clarifies that suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel may carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The draft regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force. Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving service personnel’s rights.
Secondly, the draft regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions relating to whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints system. That will ensure that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions and will support the efficient operation of the service complaints process.
Together, these amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, while improving administrative flexibility and supporting the efficient operation of the service complaints system.
The draft regulations are made under the powers contained in the Armed Forces Act 2006. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following changes to primary legislation made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The amendments contained in the draft regulations are technical and consequential in nature. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specific administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services to provide greater flexibility in administrating the system. The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures, and any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the draft regulations.
In summary, the draft regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. They improve administrative flexibility, support the efficient operation of the service complaints process and ensure consistency between the service complaints regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Mr Bailey
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank Members for their contributions. I welcome the statement from the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East and the questions from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who is a passionate advocate for service-related matters and for his constituents who have served. It would only be fair for me to write to him with some clarity on the two points he raised, because they are slightly more technical than the actual substance of the draft regulations, which are quite straightforward.
As I have set out, the draft regulations make two very simple but consequential amendments to the service complaints system. The first provides greater flexibility, which the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East spoke about, by allowing suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel to carry out the specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The second amendment clarifies that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process, supporting the efficient operation of the service complaints system.
Together, those amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, as we have heard, the amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made, or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Iran
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Iran.
I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the latest developments in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and the wider middle east.
First, as a veteran myself, I know what a remarkable and difficult job Britain’s armed forces are doing. From our RAF pilots, who have flown thousands of hours and had more than 115 successful engagements, to our counter-unmanned aerial systems teams, who have helped to provide crucial protection to some of our key allies, our personnel are serving with great courage and professionalism. We are at a critical moment in a conflict that has profound implications for regional stability, the global economy and the safety of British citizens throughout the region, so today we say thank you—
Mr Bailey
I think it is appropriate that we treat this debate with the appropriate seriousness and that the response comes from people who have this matter as part of their portfolio. I am grateful to be able to speak to the House about the contribution of our brave armed forces personnel, which is why I did not allow the hon. Gentleman’s intervention while I was acknowledging their service.
The situation across the region is fast moving. The US has continued to strike Iranian targets this week, including the port cities of Bandar Abbas and Bushehr. A key priority is to reduce Iran’s capacity to attack commercial shipping, after Iranian forces struck two UAE tankers in the strait of Hormuz, killing an Indian crew member and injuring eight others, and attacked facilities in Jordan and Bahrain. As a consequence of this volatility, oil prices continue to rise, with Brent crude climbing above $85 a barrel.
Even as events unfold, this Government’s objectives are unchanged. We want to see a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We call for the resumption of a ceasefire and for the United States and Iran to resume negotiations on the memorandum of understanding, leading to a resolution in line with international law. We strongly condemn Iran’s reckless attacks this week on commercial shipping and its ongoing indiscriminate attacks against our partners in the region, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Jordan, as well as Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia.
During the crisis, the UK has surged air power into the Gulf, deploying the joint squadron in Qatar and sending additional jets to provide defensive counter-air to our partners.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the attacks that Iran is carrying out. Will he join me in recognising that cyber-attacks are one of the consistent threats Iran has posed to the United Kingdom, and that we must ensure in any negotiation with Iran that those attacks are prevented and stopped?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I will go on to say, the things we should be concerned about are not limited to the manifestation of kinetic attacks within the region, but include the things that impact us here at home, such as cyber-attacks.
We have reinforced regional partners’ air defence capabilities in Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, as well as embedding aerospace management experts, and deployed HMS Dragon to provide advanced air defence and maritime security capabilities, all of which demonstrates our strong commitment.
Approximately one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that narrow waterway is transformed into a theatre of conflict, working people across Britain and the world pay the price, both in higher fuel bills and energy bills and in wider costs to the economy.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I just wanted to explore the role of our destroyer in the Gulf a little further. The Minister says that it is part of air defence operations. Is it integrated within a system, or is our Royal Navy acting independently?
Mr Bailey
At the moment, the destroyer is part of a UK plan, but, should it be used later, it will form part of a broader design alongside the French—at the moment it is not playing that part. Perhaps I can explore that with the right hon. Gentleman later, or answer in greater detail as I progress.
Across the globe, it is the poorest who feel the impact the most, so we will continue to work alongside our allies to restore freedom of navigation through the strait. The UK is playing its part through the multinational military mission—this is where HMS Dragon would play its role—providing reassurance to commercial shipping and conducting mine clearance operations. Of course, we continue also to protect British lives and interests across the region.
However, it is not just British citizens and military personnel in the middle east who are endangered by Iran. Its far-reaching terror threat extends to the communities, streets and people of the United Kingdom, too. Our security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil between October 2024 and October 2025, targeting journalists, dissidents and Jewish people living in this country.
Britain treats that threat with the gravity it demands. We have sanctioned hundreds of Iranian individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. In May, we unveiled a package of measures directly targeting those who threaten security on our streets. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. Otherwise known as HAYI, this is the organisation that publicly claimed responsibility for seven attacks at locations in the UK linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including the despicable antisemitic arson attack on four ambulances in Golders Green in March.
These are some of the terrible consequences that this war has had in Britain. State actors like these have been working to create division and manipulate young people, including those in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. We must not let them succeed in damaging our social cohesion.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Minister speaks eloquently about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to the freedom of religion and safety of Jewish people and others in Britain. As I am sure he is aware, people in Iran do not enjoy freedom of religion or belief, such as Iranian Christians, some of whom I have met in Morecambe and Lunesdale. The Baha’i people are also routinely persecuted, and people who refute religion and become apostates are treated abhorrently. I want to put on the record the work of Faith to Faithless in supporting people in the UK. Does he agree that every person in Iran deserves freedom of religion and belief and to live in safety?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I welcome the Minister to his place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so? I also thank him for the contribution he made in his former life, and the expertise and experience he brings to this Chamber.
I very much welcome the Government’s proscription of the IRGC. Indeed, if I had it my way, I would eliminate the IRGC in its totality so that it would not be a problem for anybody else in this world, but that is not something that the Government can do by themselves.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government will go further and seize all the IRGC’s assets in this country, including its buildings, banks and accounts, and can he confirm that the IRGC will be held accountable for its actions—for the people it has murdered, the children it has killed, and the women that have been raped and violated? Are the Government collecting the evidence necessary to ensure that those people who are responsible will be accountable for their actions in this world? I know that they will be accountable in the next world, because they will be in hell burning, but before that arrives for them, I would like to see them held accountable in this world.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On behalf of the Conservative Front Bench, I place on record our absolute agreement with the Minister’s tribute to all our armed forces personnel serving in the middle east. Will he briefly look around and confirm that yet again when we are debating defence and security, including threats to UK citizens in this country from Iran, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present in the Chamber of the House of Commons to participate?
Mr Bailey
I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for making that point. If we are going to tackle division, we must all be present and contribute respectfully to these debates. I am very grateful for his remarks. I will not take any more interventions, because I am fast running out of time—[Hon. Members: “More!”]
We have long been clear that any nation that poses such a terror threat abroad, that murders thousands of its own people and brutally suppresses dissent at home, must never acquire a nuclear weapon.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Open-source media has highlighted that when the US and Israel struck Iran many months ago, a certain target was destroyed in Tehran. Overnight, a large proportion of Scottish independence media died, which underlines the point about division and protecting the right to self-determination and democracy in this country. Through social media and other means, we are allowing foreign states to play into political division in the United Kingdom. Could my hon. Friend give some insight as to what we are doing collectively to protect against those threats?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his powerful intervention and the point he makes. I took a deviation in my speech to highlight how these threats are manifesting on our streets, and it is incredibly upsetting that, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pointed out, there is an absence of certain political voices within the Chamber at this moment.
When we talk about the threats to our nation or the threat of war, we are speaking about nations that are acting within our country to cause division between people and communities and to attack our democracy and our state. We need every voice in the Chamber to contribute to the fight for the fundamentals of our democracy.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile now stands at 48 times the limit set under the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium exceeds 10 IAEA significant quantities—the threshold beyond which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear device cannot be excluded. Iran does not have a credible civilian justification for enrichment at this level. The international community is not naive about what the stockpile represents. Any final deal must address these concerns comprehensively and verifiably.
The UK stands ready to assist, alongside our European partners. We have the technical knowledge, diplomatic relationships and institutional experience to help bridge these gaps. We are ready to work with the US, Iran and the IAEA to achieve a final deal, including lifting relevant sanctions if Iran takes verifiable steps to end its nuclear programme.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
We want the Minister to go on and on, so we will keep the interventions going. On diplomatic relations, I put on record my condolences on the death of His Highness the Father Amir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. I thank the Minister for the UK’s leadership in countering Iranian actions in both the strait of Hormuz and this country. I also put on record my own thanks to service personnel who are acting in the region in our interests.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend is a campaigner for the personnel at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the things that the Department stands for. He understands the importance of soft power and the relationships he refers to. It is important that we advocate for the Department and the wonderful work that it does, so it is a great privilege to open this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who is one of its most powerful servants.
This is a complex and fast-moving conflict that has the potential to escalate. We should not be distracted from our fundamental priorities: to encourage the resumption of negotiations and a ceasefire; to restore freedom of movement in the strait of Hormuz; to deliver the agreements set out in the memorandum of understanding; and to protect British people and interests and stand firmly with our allies. These measures, I believe, are the right ones to dial down hostilities and help us find an enduring, secure solution. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues across the House.
Mr Francois
No, I will go on to the DIP.
I tread warily because both the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) honourably resigned because they believed—it is in their resignation letters—that the resources were not sufficient to defend this country. The outgoing Defence Secretary resigned because, as he was very clear, the Treasury was only offering 2.68% of GDP by the year 2030, and yet the new Defence Secretary seems to be content with 2.69% of GDP in the same timeframe.
We should remember that the chiefs of staff wanted £28 billion extra over the next four years, partly to implement the strategic defence review. They have been offered just over £15 billion, and £4.7 billion of that has not even been cleared by the Treasury and is subject to a subsequent public expenditure review. As I said earlier, a further £10.7 billion is actually financed by cuts, including to operational spending and training within the Ministry of Defence, which would then be allowed to recycle that money into the DIP, rather than surrendering it to the centre. When those two figures are added together, they more than match the so-called £15 billion of extra spending, so it is all smoke and mirrors. To all intents and purposes, for all the bluster, for the year of delay and for all the waiting, there is no extra money for defence in the defence investment plan.
I regret to tell Ministers this, but the Russians can read, and so can the Chinese and, indeed, the mullahs in Tehran. We will not deter those people from further adventurism if the Government of this country cannot even tell us in which year they would achieve 3% of GDP. It is laughable to think that the defence investment plan is a credible piece of deterrence to our potential aggressors.
Mr Francois
Yes. The Minister gave way to me, so I must now return the favour.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Conservative Government’s equipment plan had a funding deficit of between £7 billion and £28 billion? It was filled with unfunded programmes for aircraft and ships. I struggle to understand why he calls the DIP “unfunded” when we have provided £298 billion of funding for it.
Mr Francois
I have two things to say to the Minister. First, I am not sure if what he says is exactly right, but even if it were true, those programmes are still unfunded, pretty much, because there is no new money in the defence investment plan. Secondly, I have a small revelation—I was not going to mention this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I now I will—about the “no confidence” debate, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, that was won at the Oxford Union last autumn, at which Labour was slaughtered: the two proposers of the motion that night were Sir Robert Buckland and me. We have been invited back this autumn, so we will see whether we do better next time.
Nuclear Test Veterans Report
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
As we approach the 75th anniversary of the UK becoming a nuclear power, the contribution of over 22,000 UK service personnel, as well as scientists and civilians, in developing our nuclear deterrent must never be forgotten. I would like to place on record how grateful this Government are to those individuals for the critical role they played in the security of our nation.
Today I am updating the House on the findings of a major records exercise undertaken by the Ministry of Defence. This work has sought to address concerns raised by some in the nuclear test veteran community on gaps in their medical records.
I would first like to thank the community for their patience while this records exercise has been undertaken. The publication of its findings reflects this Government’s clear commitment to transparency and follows regular ministerial engagement with nuclear test veterans and the organisations that represent them. We have been keen to ensure that the exercise was conducted with thoroughness and care, and that its findings are as comprehensive as possible. This has required considerable work and therefore taken time to complete.
Records have been reviewed across the Department, including those held by the single services historical branches and AWE Nuclear Security Technologies. This has been a complex undertaking, noting the passage of time and cohering information, from a myriad of different departments and departmental reorganisations, since nuclear testing took place. The modern Ministry of Defence was established in 1964, some 12 years after testing began, which I appreciate has caused issues of trust in historical information storage. I know that we have lost veterans since its commissioning, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to them.
This significant exercise examined: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; information captured about the blood and urine testing; and if the records did exist, to determine what happened to them.
Evidence indicates medical examinations or blood testing were required for the majority, if not all, of the nuclear testing period and applied to all three services. I refer to both, as when medical examinations are mentioned, it is not always explicit whether this included blood testing, or more specifically blood counts, but for the most part blood tests or blood counts are mentioned when the details of medical examinations are outlined. Evidence indicates blood testing was used pre-deployment to assess fitness to work and to establish a baseline for future comparison in the event of suspected radiation exposure. No evidence was found to suggest an overall policy for urine testing.
Compliance with policies on blood testing is evident in some surviving documentation in veterans’ records. However, the exercise confirmed that some blood testing records are indeed absent. This is likely to be due to historical policy and practices and is consistent with the condition of other personnel and medical records from the time of those not involved in nuclear tests.
It is important to state that the exercise identified some cases where testing should have taken place but did not, or where records were destroyed through administrative error. I acknowledge that, for veterans and their descendants seeking and viewing medical records, the picture therefore appears complex and inconsistent and that the content of their records will vary depending on the individual, their service and their deployment history. The exercise found no evidence of intentional concealment of medical records.
I am placing a copy of the following documents in the Library of the House and publishing them on www.gov.uk:
Records exercise into blood and urine testing of UK service personnel during the UK’s nuclear testing programme,1952 to-1967;
Army historical branch report on nuclear testing medical policy;
Navy historical branch report on nuclear testing medical policy;
Air historical branch report on nuclear testing medical policy;
AWE Nuclear Security Technologies report on nuclear testing medical policy.
My predecessor promised on 25 March 2026 to update the House in response to questions raised about a draft document released under an environmental information regulations request, entitled “Review of environmental monitoring data for Christmas Island (Cl) 1957-1958 (AWE 1)”.
Officials were asked to investigate the circumstances of the drafting of AWE 1 and the actions that were taken at the time. An extensive search of systems was undertaken. This work has established the facts around the document. It has been identified that AWE 1 was self-initiated by two AWE employees. They discovered some additional contemporaneous data that did not appear to have been included in the 1993 Clare report, which summarised the environmental monitoring programme for the nuclear tests on Christmas Island. AWE 1 was never finalised and remains a draft document.
Within Government, the release of draft documents will always create a challenge. We strive to maintain rigorous standards in the work which the Department publishes and acknowledge that the release of incomplete or draft documents without appropriate context, as in this case, may cause unnecessary confusion in relation to an already complex topic. We will learn from this.
AWE 1 was developed in isolation and without the rigorous checking required for a scientific report. It suggested that the data recordings on the island showed a minor increase in levels of radiation, but that it could not be determined at the time whether the increase was due to a natural anomaly or the result of the nuclear tests. The Clare report had already found there had been
“very localised and just measurable, but radiologically insignificant, fall-out activity”
and the authors of AWE 1 acknowledged that the fallout they identified was still too low to have caused health impacts.
AWE 1 was developed without the knowledge of MOD officials, who became aware of it in late 2014. We have found no evidence of Ministers being made aware of AWE 1 until December 2025. In January 2015, MOD officials requested to see the document and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department commissioned an expert technical review—peer review 1—which was received on 2 March 2015. It identified shortcomings with the analysis of the evidence, and completely rejected the contention and conclusions in AWE 1 that there had been material fallout on Christmas Island as a result of Grapple X. Separately, it came to light that AWE 1 had been reviewed by another AWE employee in early 2015, at the request of a local manager; that document is referred to as AWE 2.
In the 2016 final war pension litigation, new evidence—MOD report 1—was submitted that negated the exclusive reliance on measurements-based reports, such as the Clare report, and the relevance of AWE 1 and AWE 2. The tribunal considered the new evidence which took into account the nature of the war pension scheme’s standard of proof, and which assumed that, for the sake of argument, fallout had occurred at Christmas Island after every detonation. The MOD report 1 data modelled hypothetical individualised dose assessments calculated for each claimant on this basis. It is important to note that the tribunal also considered expert medical evidence and concluded in all but one case that either the level of radiation exposure was not sufficient to have caused the claimed condition, or that they were not caused by radiation at all. After the hearings before the 2016 tribunal, the author of MOD report 1 updated the report’s findings in MOD report 2 and submitted this report to the tribunal, which it took into account before coming to its final decision.
Today in the spirit of transparency, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of AWE 1 and the five additional documents that were identified during the recent programme of work, which provide context around AWE 1. I am also placing in the Library of the House a copy of a narrative report on these documents, which provides further context.
AWE 1 document—Ionising Radiation Appeals—Review of environmental Review of environmental monitoring data for Christmas Island (Cl) 1957-1958.
AWE 2 document—Review of SDTN No. 16/93: Environmental Monitoring Data for Christmas Island 1957-58.
Peer review 1—Ionising Radiation Appeals: Review of environmental monitoring data for Christmas Island 1957-58 —Undated and un-reference draft AWE report. Review and Comments by K. Johnston.
Peer review 2—Review of SDTN No 16/93—Note by K Johnston.
MOD report 1—Reconstruction of doses received by Veterans of the UK Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests at Kiritimati—Christmas Island.
MOD report 2—Supplementary Report: Revision of Estimates of Dose to Include Additional Nuclides, Uranium 240, Neptunium 240 and Plutonium 240.
Narrative report on documents relating to environmental monitoring data at Christmas Island during the UK nuclear testing programme.
I once again offer my personal gratitude to nuclear test veterans, their families and the organisations that represent them for their patience and engagement throughout this work. I hope that the documents released today provide the clarity they have been seeking for so long, and I am committed to continuing to operate under the principle of transparency in the future.
[HCWS263]
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
Did the hon. Member just refer to the nuclear deterrent as “ordinary”?
Dave Doogan
It has been around for 50 years; it is not novel.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to £45 billion for the nuclear enterprise. I think the figure in the DIP is £64 billion. That is an important point, because the Government and the one before it have refused to publish the rolling 10-year nuclear enterprise budget. If the Minister could clarify what the nuclear enterprise budget is over the rolling 10-year period, that would be helpful. I am a supporter of defence—there are a few people in here who will testify to that—but the MOD does have a case to answer. It increasingly looks like if we want £1 million of output, we need to put £2 million into the MOD pot. If we look at any Public Accounts Committee report on defence, we can see what a troubled enterprise it is. It needs root and branch reform.
I have heard people say quite a lot that we have not told the public about the threat we are under. I agree with that. I think that is a true and an honest assessment, but we need to see beyond the transmission of the threat and be prepared for the response that we might get back. I am not making a constitutional point; I am not talking about Scotland. I am talking about housing schemes and communities up and down these islands. If they are asked to put their families and their own lives on the line for the United Kingdom, they might well not be quite as enthusiastic as we might wish. They might think, “What has my country done for me?” If they are 25 years old and have grown up over the last 20 years they might think, “What has the UK done for me, because I see myself and my generation getting poorer than the generations that went before.” I might be wrong—I hope I am wrong—but we do not know it.
Mr Francois
NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, and article 5 is its absolute fulcrum. We must maintain our commitment to article 5 to keep all NATO nations safe.
In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said that an iron curtain had descended, leading us into the cold war. In the mid-1980s, under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, defence spending was gusting about 5% of gross domestic product. When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, countries across the west took a peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous book “The End of History” in 1992, and many in the west believed that the threat of world war had finally receded. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were spending around 3% of GDP on defence, and that downward trend continued under Tony Blair’s Government—although, in fairness, he was only doing what many other western democracies were also doing.
Today, we face a revanchist Russia led by Putin—
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am pleased to have been a signatory to the application for this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing it. [Laughter.] Therein is a lesson.
The subject of the debate—rearmament and readiness—could hardly be of greater importance to our constituents, our military and the future security of our nation. I thank Members of all parties who have contributed to a compelling discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. You can enjoy the confusion of my moving between my speech and the notes I have taken.
I will attempt to explain how the Ministry of Defence is working to get our armed forces warfighting ready as an urgent priority. However, I will start by responding to the principal criticism of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that there is no new money. I emphasise that £300 billion is new money; £15 billion is new money. I will never, ever let you forget the cold water that I endured in the messes of the bases on which I served—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please can I remind you that saying “you” is not acceptable in this Chamber, because it refers to me?
Mr Bailey
In time.
Two years ago, this Government inherited a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to countering the very real threats we now face. Since then, we have published a strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and, most recently, the defence investment plan. We are building a far more modern and lethal military, through massive increases in defence spending, radical reform of the armed forces and close collaboration with our NATO partners to protect Europe’s and Britain’s borders, showing Putin that the alliance remains as strong as ever.
As technology reshapes warfare at the fastest pace in history, and as the world becomes increasingly dangerous, our overwhelming focus at the Ministry of Defence is to get warfighting ready as fast as possible, and that was the critical tilt in the change between the two Defence Secretary’s DIPs. This DIP is a defining moment in that journey, committing, as I said, £298 billion for our armed forces over the next four years, ensuring that they have the kit and weapons they need. That is £15 billion more—more than significant—and £1.5 billion more than was announced just a few weeks ago.
The DIP means that UK defence spending will rise in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30—the largest sustained increase since the cold war. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence budget will grow faster over this Parliament than the budget of any other major Department. The £74 billion allocated next year—2027-28—is £20 billion more for our armed forces than the last year of the previous Government, and the budget will continue to grow in real terms for the rest of this Parliament.
Sir Julian Lewis
I congratulate the Minister on acceding to office, but he needs to appreciate that the cost of all Departments goes up in absolute financial numerical terms year on year, but the way in which we measure the investment in defence is by looking at it as a proportion of GDP. During the cold war, when the risk was almost as high as it is now, we were spending 4.5% to 5% of GDP. Vladimir Putin does not have nine years for us to spend 3.5% of GDP. Those are the measurements the Minister has to look at; we are nowhere near spending enough.
Mr Bailey
Twenty four years of serving this great nation means that I am acutely aware of the risks that the Opposition presented me and manifested during my time in service. That is why I am resolute in addressing these challenges and why I am backing the defence investment plan.
Let me make one point crystal clear: Britain has always met its NATO spending obligations in the past, and under this Government we always will. That begins with the early delivery of our first commitment to raise defence investment to 2.7% of GDP next year, compared with just 2.3%, which was missing from the Opposition’s analysis of the decline in our defence spending.
Alex Baker
The debate about percentages of GDP is slightly irrelevant, because even if defence spending were raised to 3%, we have no ability to spend that money within the industrial base, as we do not have the capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at a much more innovative approach to some of these things, with multilateral options? I have been campaigning for the UK to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank for over a year.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend has advocated for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and alternative finance methods for the past two years. It was pleasing to see the DSR Bank announcement from Canada over the last couple of days alongside the multilateral defence mechanism announcement from our Government, which, significantly, was joined by Poland. I hope that we will see the DSR and the MDM aligned as we go forward.
Mr Bailey
Not at the moment.
Let us jump forward to tech. It is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it, as we heard repeatedly in the debate. It is about how we rearm and get to warfighting readiness. The DIP will energise the transformation of our armed forces and target resources to reflect how war is waged today. We will sequence the delivery of a NATO-first transformed and integrated force powered by modern technology. Through the DIP, AI autonomy and uncrewed systems will receive the sustained increase in support that reflects their strategic importance.
I will pivot to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about the hybrid Navy. The DIP speeds up the transition to the hybrid Navy. I have a great deal of respect for him, but it is incoherent to talk about future manned flight but talk down an autonomous fleet. On my visit to Portsmouth only last week, a member of our Royal Navy said “Never again” as we walked past a Type 45, and made it clear that the work on the Type 83 had stopped a significant time ago—it is an incoherent conversation. For the Type 23, every refurbishment takes two to three years and costs us £100 million, while £115 million has given our nation the autonomous capability that we are rolling out in the middle east. That is how incoherent the hon. Member’s argument is.
Mike Martin
I specifically said that I am fully in favour of moving to autonomy as fast as we can. All I questioned was whether we could go from a PowerPoint concept for multiple vessels to their being at sea on operations within nine years. That is all I questioned—not the idea that we need to move to autonomy.
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that this will be testing, but we must take up the challenge, and we need people like him on the Defence Committee to ensure that we are held to account while we proceed with delivery.
The DIP also speeds up the transition to: a digitally enabled Army that is 10 times more lethal; the next generation of combat air, including a potent mix of crewed and uncrewed air power; a new uncrewed systems taskforce to rapidly develop and deliver field autonomous capabilities; and Europe’s biggest drone testing site in Swindon. I remind those who do down our nation and say, “We aren’t building enough” that at the moment we are providing 150,000 drones a year to Ukraine.
Steve Barclay
Could the Minister clarify why the efficiency target has gone up over 73% in a year compared with the strategic defence review? Was the SDR just too unambitious?
Mr Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Perhaps we should have a discussion about it outside, because of its ambiguity—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member and I will speak afterwards.
The programme of rapid rearmament mentioned in the motion of this debate has not only begun; we are well on our way to delivering it, with significant and further increases in funding to come. That means an unprecedented investment in new technologies, new munitions, new factories and new jobs. It means creating a path to 3% and then 3.5% of GDP, and having honest public conversations about the very serious threats we face. As a fellow veteran, I know how committed the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is to strengthening UK defence. I hope we get behind this national endeavour, which represents an historic upturn in support for our military and for our brilliant service personnel who keep Britain safe in an increasingly uncertain world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Mike Martin to wind up very quickly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Calvin Bailey Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As it might be in excess of 47 years since the last Labour RAF veteran stood at this Dispatch Box, I would like to acknowledge those who served in a squadron.
Valour will improve the co-ordination of services at national, regional and local level, ensuring that veterans from across the UK have easier access to the support that they deserve. We are making good progress. I opened the first Valour centre on Thursday, and round 2 of funding is now open for applications. The first Valour field officers are already in post, with more to follow in the Valour HQ, now fully resourced.
Phil Brickell
Westhoughton is home to a fantastic local veterans charity called the Darren Deady Foundation. Darren bravely served in the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, but, sadly, died following injuries he sustained on the frontline in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of visiting the foundation back in April. I met Christine, and Darren’s mum Julie, to discuss the vital work that the foundation does. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the incredible work done by everyone at the Darren Deady Foundation, and will he see if he can find time to accompany me on a visit to the veterans community hub that the foundation is building at the Old Washacre family support centre?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the work of the Darren Deady Foundation. As an Afghan veteran, I take this issue incredibly seriously. The foundation is doing incredible work in the name of Kingsman Darren Deady, led by his family and in his memory, and I would take great pleasure in joining my hon. Friend in a visit to the foundation.
Jodie Gosling
May I associate myself with the words about Sir George Howarth, and about the England men’s football team, and may I welcome the Minister for Veterans and People to his position? Our Veterans Contact Point, alongside a number of other dedicated organisations in my constituency of Nuneaton, is a prime example of Operation Valour in action and in practice. Will the Minister provide an update about how the scheme will build on those organisations’ long-standing service and enhance the support for veterans in Nuneaton and our wider region?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Veterans Contact Point; its work is really important. Through Operation Valour, we want to make that support even better, so that every veteran can access the support that they deserve, when they need it. The new Valour-recognised hub in Telford and Wrekin has just launched, alongside 13 other Valour-recognised centres across the UK. Expressions of interest for the second round of Valour development funding are currently being assessed.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the Minister for Veterans and People to his new role. He will be interested to know that my Gosport constituency has the highest proportion of veterans in the country. A lot of them are saying that Operation Valour has good intentions when it comes to improving visibility and triaging access to care services, but it does not invest in services like housing and healthcare. The new Conservative administration that has just taken over Gosport borough council has inherited a 541-strong waiting list for council houses, and the NHS waiting list for treatment has gone up by 17,000 across Hampshire, this year alone. What will stop Op Valour being more than just window-dressing? How will it invest in the services that our veterans rely on?
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for her commitment to the veterans in her community, and for raising those important points. Operation Valour does not seek to usurp the wonderful third sector in this country; instead, we hope that Valour will empower that sector and share good experiences. She points out the shortage of council housing, which is a legacy of a past Conservative Government. I hope that her constituents, including the veterans, will benefit from the falling waiting list numbers.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Our military personnel risk life and limb every day to keep the country safe, and they deserve the best support that we can give them, so it is shocking that for many of our veterans, military compensation received counts as income when local means-tested benefits are assessed. Will the Minister commit to ending that practice, so that veterans can be properly rewarded for their sacrifice to this country?
Mr Bailey
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. I cajoled my two local councils into ceasing that practice by writing to them and lobbying on behalf of veterans. I would be happy to meet him to share practice, so that he can do the same.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
One veteran rough sleeping is one too many. This Government will always ensure that support is available when needed. We have committed an additional £12 million to the reducing veteran homelessness programme. Alongside Op Fortitude, we will deliver three years of support services across the UK for veterans at risk or experiencing homelessness.
Paula Barker
I associate myself with the comments about the loss of Sir George Howarth. His loss will be felt deeply in this place. Organisations in Liverpool, such as Veterans HQ, do incredible work to support homeless veterans, and the Government have made tackling the issue a priority through their reducing veteran homelessness programme. The latest evaluation highlights a shortage of housing for veterans who need to move on from emergency accommodation. Royal British Veterans Enterprise, an amazing charity, is addressing that shortage through an innovative new scheme that would provide 100 new homes for the most disadvantaged veterans, but it has to be funded through public donations. Will the Government look at how they can work with the voluntary sector on projects like this, to provide desperately needed social housing for veterans, to whom we owe so much?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I am continuing my predecessor’s close work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and with local authorities to ensure that veterans receive the support they deserve, and I will soon meet with MHCLG to discuss the matter further. A range of support is available to veterans. All veterans of the regular armed forces have been exempted from the requirement to have a local connection for social housing in England. The reducing veteran homelessness programme funds vital wraparound support for veterans, and Op Fortitude has helped more than 1,000 veterans into housing.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am pleased to say that the Catterick integrated care centre will open in Richmondshire later this year. This cutting-edge healthcare facility is a joint MOD and NHS initiative, the first of its kind, which will deliver transformative integrated health and care services to the military and civilian communities of Catterick, north Yorkshire and the wider Richmondshire area.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and it is an incredible honour to respond to a question from him. The work that he has done shows just how important the work of Back Benchers is: it is truly transformative, and something from which the rest of us can all learn. I would love to visit the facility with him so that we can highlight it as an exemplar that could be transferred to other parts of the country.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
My time as an air cadet is one of the reasons why I am stood here today. We are committed to expanding and modernising the five MOD-sponsored cadet forces and to investing to improve opportunities for young people, which supports social mobility, confidence and resilience. The 30% growth target in the strategic defence review will now be met by 2035, with the next action plan to be published during National Cadets Week in October.
David Simmonds
Cadet centres such as the TS Pelican in Ruislip in my constituency are a vital part of our armed forces community, but given that the Government have decided to cut the funding that supports our cadet groups, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the private sector investment that the Government have said will backfill the consequences of those cuts?
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, but I do not recognise the idea that we have cut the funding. We still intend to expand the cadet forces by 40,000 cadets, and that target will be met by 2035. The details he mentions are in the cadet action plan.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I recently visited the sea cadets in Stafford, and it was brilliant. They are somehow thriving, despite being about 70 miles from the nearest coastline. What they lack in coastline, they very much make up for in enthusiasm. Unlike some of the Army and air cadet units, sea cadets are run as a charity and miss out on the cadet expansion programme funding. Will the Minister tell me what support is available for sites such as Stafford, so that even those of us missing out on sea access do not miss out on fair funding access?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues, and for highlighting the absence of water in Staffordshire—[Laughter.] Sea water, that is. I would direct her to the cadet action plan, and I will meet her to discuss these issues.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I thank the hon. Member for raising such an important issue, and I thank Clint and Carol for their service. Our blast injury support is world leading. We have invested £3.65 million in cutting-edge scanning technology, and we collaborate internationally to drive forward research on blast-induced and traumatic brain injuries. Our work on traumatic brain injuries complements wider efforts to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks. We have invested more than £25 million in Op Courage since the election so that veterans in England can continue to access specialist mental health and wellbeing services.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. She is a doughty champion of our servicepeople and we are very grateful for her support. As someone who has four children who were all raised in the service, I understand the pressures of service life. While service personnel are not covered by statutory paternity entitlements, the armed forces occupational paternity leave scheme provides equivalent arrangements. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on this matter to continue exploring further support, raising awareness across defence of the available options and working with the families federations to inform future policy decisions.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
A high proportion of my constituents proudly serve in our armed forces or are veterans. They want to know that the investment in the DIP is being spent cost-effectively. Given that more than half the capital budget is to be spent on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise—more than on every other bit of technology, equipment and kit for the entire armed forces put together—can the Secretary of State assure me that value for money analysis has been undertaken in line with the Treasury Green Book, and will he improve parliamentary scrutiny?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On Armed Forces Day, I had the huge honour of unveiling a veterans’ buddy bench in Sunbury Park in my Spelthorne constituency. The idea is that the bench is dedicated to veterans; veterans go there, and members of the public are encouraged to go and sit with them. As the Front Benchers go around the country, will they encourage other constituencies to get a veterans’ buddy bench?
Mr Bailey
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that excellent idea. While we were away with the Defence Committee, he will have seen similar shows of support for our veteran communities by Ministers. I will look to take on those ideas and the one that he has raised.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
On the issue of nuclear testing veterans, the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), confirmed in March this year that in 2014 both the MOD and Government legal advisers were made aware of a previously undisclosed fallout report, showing radiation across inhabited areas of Christmas Island—crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked. Can the Minister confirm what work has been done to establish why that evidence was not disclosed in legal proceedings, and whether Ministers were informed at the time?
Mr Bailey
Let me first say how deeply grateful we are to those who participated in the UK nuclear testing programme—and to my hon. Friend for championing them for so long. We recognise their service and the huge contribution they have made to the UK’s security. Since taking office, I have worked hard to listen to and meet the veterans. I am aiming to disclose the document to which my hon. Friend referred as soon as possible, with the principle, set out by my predecessor, that officials should look into this as a matter of urgency.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
In a written answer to me last month, the Government revealed that the Army is conducting a review of its reserve basic training. I believe that this was the first time that was disclosed to this House. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting the terms of reference for that review in the Library of the House, and will he commit to not closing Prince William of Gloucester barracks until the review is complete?
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
In South Dorset, the Lantern Trust and the Veterans Hub have recently applied for Valour funding, which would make a huge difference to both organisations as they grow the services they offer to veterans—in particular the hub, which is the first port of call for many local veterans. Will the Minister look closely at those applications for funding, and look to support the fantastic work of the Veterans Hub in Weymouth?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Veterans Hub in his constituency. I very much look forward to visiting it in due course.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Can the Secretary of State explain to this House, the British people and our NATO allies how it is that our welfare bill is increasing by roughly £19 billion this year, we spent £13 billion on foreign aid last year and £15 billion has been committed to net zero schemes, and yet the defence investment plan still has a funding gap of £4.7 billion?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Civil compensation is disregarded from pension credit entitlement calculations, but military compensation is not. I know that the new Minister for Veterans is sympathetic to addressing this injustice, so I wonder whether he would meet me and the family of Pauline Cole—a veteran who was fighting to address this matter—in order to put it right.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Last month the former Defence Secretary said that he believed he was misled by his own Department while he was Defence Secretary. Former Scotland Secretary Baroness Liddell, who sat on the Philip review panel, said that she was misled. Given that, surely the Secretary of State must support the Chinook Justice Campaign families’ long-standing pleas for a fresh inquiry into why their family members were put on that particular flight?
Mr Bailey
I should declare that I am very close to some of the families who lost family members on that Chinook, as the hon. Lady well knows. I am sympathetic to the point that she makes. We are looking at this matter at the moment. I have to be very careful about my involvement, but I will make sure that the questions she raised are answered, and I agree to meet her.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
All the military hardware we can buy will not serve its purpose if our nation goes hungry, should our reliance on food imports be turned against us. What reassurances can Ministers give that they are leading conversations across Government to ensure that if push comes to shove, the UK has the necessary food security to stand on its own two feet?