John Healey
Main Page: John Healey (Labour - Rawmarsh and Conisbrough)Department Debates - View all John Healey's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a rare privilege to open this debate. This is only the second ever Labour Armed Forces Bill, yet the provenance of this legislation reaches all the way back to the Bill of Rights, and more than three centuries on, granting authority to maintain our armed forces remains one of the most important—if not the most important—formal constitutional responsibilities of Members of this House.
This is a substantial Bill—a reflection of just how much the world has changed over the past five years. It is more dangerous and much less certain, and this new era of threat demands a new era for defence. That is why our Government have committed an extra £5 billion to defence spending this year and committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, switching funding directly from overseas aid. It is why we are proposing, through this Bill, to increase our warfighting readiness and homeland security, and why we are putting the men and women in our armed forces at the heart of defence plans.
In the coming years, we will ask more of our service personnel, and it is only right that they expect more of their Government. The Bill takes significant steps to improve service life and strengthen the bond between society and our forces. At the general election, we pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise: the largest pay increase for our armed forces in more than two decades, expanded wraparound childcare support, an independent Armed Forces Commissioner and a funded plan for a safe, decent home for every forces family. Through this legislation, we continue the work of renewing that commitment, with better housing, better services and better protections for those who serve.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a good turnout in the House tonight to debate the Armed Forces Bill, which affects the quality of life and the service of the brave people who keep us safe? Yet again when we debate this vital subject, not a single Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber. Is it not wrong that these people wrap themselves in the flag, but never come along to defend the people who actually protect that flag?
John Healey
There is a general support for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on both sides of the House. This Armed Forces Bill, as I will go on to say, commands all-party support, and it is a shame that we have not got all parties in this House to demonstrate that.
The bond between the British people and those sworn to defend them is a proud part of our nation’s security. The purpose of the armed forces covenant is to strengthen that bond. The policy and principles underpinning the covenant were first set out in a Command Paper in 2008 under the last Labour Government, and to this day—this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—the covenant maintains strong cross-party support across this House and across the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, welcome the armed forces covenant and the legal duty that it will place on devolved nations. Of course, while Wales has 5% of the population, we contribute 7% to Army strength. Could the Secretary of State tell me, therefore, whether any extra new money will be coming to Wales to support the covenant, particularly in the NHS, which is of course so beneficial to veterans?
John Healey
I welcome the leader of Plaid in this House welcoming the Bill and her support for the forces. She is right that the record of the Welsh nation in supporting our armed forces and recruiting some of the best of our armed forces is long and proud. She also knows that the Barnett formula has already delivered a record increase in NHS spending in Wales, and I will go on to speak about the role of the devolved nations in the implementation of the covenant.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Just on devolved issues, will the Secretary of State explain why the armed forces covenant is being extended to local authorities everywhere except Northern Ireland? Why are the councils in Northern Ireland not also included in the Bill? Why are they excluded?
John Healey
Just as the Armed Forces Act 2001 required a degree of discussion, agreement and devolution to the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland, so too will this Bill. Our officials are in deep discussion with Northern Ireland Office officials. The Minister for the Armed Forces has written to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, and I am confident that, following the passage of the Bill, we will have arrangements in place allowing the proud armed forces covenant to be fully implemented in legislation at every level of government: the UK national Government, devolved Governments and local authorities across the UK.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Further to the previous intervention, the covenant is predicated on veterans not being disadvantaged by their service, as the Secretary of State will know. However, Northern Ireland veterans will be subject to records that do not apply to civilian terrorists. Will he confirm that there will be no disadvantage to Northern Ireland veterans, and that the covenant will apply to them as originally intended?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is speaking about the legislative provisions of a different Bill that is before the House. We will deal with that and strengthen protections for veterans. Successive Governments have failed because it has been too difficult, but, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland leading the way, we will finally have a settlement that allows the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that one job I did before coming to this place was to work at a homelessness charity. It was particularly difficult to see homeless veterans coming to me in need of support. In my constituency, we have nearly 2,000 veterans. Will he outline what additional support the Government will give to home our veterans, and how we will support them with mental health issues, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The short answer is that there is record funding to support the mental health and wellbeing of veterans; there are record levels of support for veterans’ groups, with a new wave of Valour centres shortly to be announced by the Minister for Veterans and People; and there is, of course, a commitment to ensure that no veteran loses out on their right to social housing because of the local connection test, which was in place until this Government removed it after the election.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the earlier exchange about Northern Ireland veterans? I have some good news and some bad news for him. The good news is that I strongly suspect that, at the end of all the raked-up trials held against Northern Ireland veterans, none will be convicted. The bad news is that that is not the purpose of doing all this; the purpose is to put them through a nightmarish ordeal that allows republican terrorists to rewrite history. He should not be quite so satisfied with the state of the Government’s legislation regarding Northern Ireland veterans. It is a disgrace, and it is tearing up something that was working and that could have worked, according to four professors of law who gave testimony to a previous Defence Committee.
John Healey
I know about the right hon. Gentleman’s good news and bad news. We will return to that discussion when we return to Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. When we do so, we will have in place strengthened protections for veterans, and that will be a result of the detailed discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, military leaders, the Prime Minister and I have had in recent weeks with representatives of the forces and special forces, and with former military chiefs, who have a point of view on this—
Mr Francois
The Secretary of State mentions such a wide spread, but when we debated the remedial order last Wednesday, over 100 Labour MPs abstained, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Armed Forces Minister and two thirds of the Cabinet. If it is such a good idea, why did the Secretary of State not come here and vote for it?
John Healey
Quite honestly, I was unable to be in the House at the time. That is an important piece of legislation because it paves the way for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It removes the immunity that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government tried to put in place for terrorists. They removed the right of 200 families whose loved ones were killed by terrorists in the troubles to get the same access to truth, information and a degree of justice. Now, if the House will permit me, I will return to the Armed Forces Bill, which is the legislation before us this afternoon.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing so much to bring housing back under control and to upgrade it, as well as on the roll-out of Valour centres—the Links charity in Llanelli has put in an excellent application. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will strengthen the armed forces covenant by ensuring that it covers all public services. There is good will across the country, in devolved Governments and in councils, but how will we ensure that, right across all public services, including those that are devolved in Wales, the covenant actually delivers for veterans? We want them to have the very best of services in all circumstances.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We will do that in two ways. First, we are already doing it in discussions with other Departments and with the devolved Administrations, as well as by working with councils where we can. Secondly, we will do it by issuing guidance and sharing best practice, and we will encourage the development of the rest to meet the very best, so that we reduce the degree of postcode lottery and patchwork support for veterans across the UK.
John Healey
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), and then I will move on.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. He will recognise that one way in which we have the backs of current military personnel, as well as of veterans, is by offering, through the Joining Forces partnership, access to a credit union for military personnel. Will he assure me that nothing in the Bill will prevent the further promotion of the benefits of credit union membership to even more military personnel, and will he or a Minister meet me to explore how we might promote the Joining Forces partnership even further?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a ceaseless campaigner for co-operative and credit union provision throughout his career in this House. I will certainly ensure that he meets the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in charge of the Bill. If my hon. Friend permits me, I will take this as an early indication of his interest in serving on the Bill Committee, where he could press his arguments on the value of credit unions to members of the armed forces and veterans.
Robin Swann
The Secretary of State talks about a patchwork quilt and a postcode lottery. Operation Restore supports military veterans with their physical and mental health, but Northern Ireland-resident veterans do not have the same access in devolved institutions—the likes of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. Will the legislation enable Northern Ireland-resident veterans to access the services that are accessible to English veterans?
John Healey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a large number of the services on which our forces veterans depend come under the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Government and the councils in that area. They have a strong and doughty champion in the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, with whom the hon. Gentleman works closely. I encourage him to make his arguments not just in the House, but back in Northern Ireland with exactly the bodies that have responsibility for the provision of services that matter so much to veterans.
To come back to the question of cross-party support, not just in the House but across the UK, 14,000 companies and other organisations are signatories to the covenant, and almost every council in every part of the UK has an armed forces champion to promote the interests and the adoption of the covenant. In opposition, we supported the previous Government when they brought the covenant partly into law through the 2001 Act. With this Bill, we complete the job. We are extending the armed forces covenant across central Government, devolved Governments and at local level, fulfilling a promise that we made in our manifesto. It means that social care, employment support and other public services will be legally required to consider the unique circumstances faced by forces personnel and their families and by veterans.
The Government have ensured that NHS England now operates a single point of contact via integrated care boards. The service pupil premium supports 76,000 pupils, and the local connection test has been removed so that no veteran can be disqualified from social housing in their local area because they have been living elsewhere in the armed forces. But we know that the covenant can do more, and with this Bill it will do more.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about social care, but an awful lot of care in this country is provided by family carers, who can often be serving personnel or the children of serving personnel. Does he consider that the Bill as currently drafted does everything possible to support unpaid carers who face a greater postcode lottery as they move round the country as a result of their service?
John Healey
The Bill should ensure that if forces families are in such a situation as unpaid carers there is no penalty or disqualification for having an armed forces connection and experience. When they are looking for support from local services, those services will in future have to take into account the unique experience and circumstances that those families and individuals face.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State refers to the local connection test. Will he acknowledge that the removal of that test was initiated by the previous Government? That is not the impression he gave in his initial remarks, although it is certainly the case. Secondly, is it his intention to allocate service housing going forward on the basis primarily of rank or primarily on need?
John Healey
On the local connection test, as with a lot of things, the previous Government talked a lot but we have got on and done a lot of those things, and the Bill takes that intent and determination several steps further.
Let me move on to housing, because behind many of the men and women who serve our country are husbands, wives, partners and children, who support them in their service, and who bear the weight of their absence during deployments. For those families, the nation has a moral duty to provide safe and decent housing. As recent Governments failed, satisfaction with military family homes fell in 2023 to its lowest level on record. I, and many other Members of the House have seen why: damp, mould, broken boilers, ill-fitting doors and windows, even a hole in the wall of a children’s bedroom. None of us would tolerate our families living in such conditions, and neither should those in our armed forces. It is a betrayal of service, and the crisis in defence housing tracks back directly to perhaps one of the worst ever privatisation deals.
Under the terms of the Annington sale in 1996, the taxpayer picked up all costs for maintenance, repairs and rent, but all the benefits of development opportunities or increases in property value were surrendered to a private equity fund. When I was appointed Defence Secretary 18 months ago, that deal was costing the taxpayer over £600,000 a day. Just six months after the election, our Government reversed that, bringing more than 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can now plan and invest in the future. Twelve months after the election, we delivered our consumer charter, guaranteeing what should never have been in question: higher move-in standards, quicker repairs, a named housing officer for every family, and renovations of the very worst homes, 1,000 of which were completed ahead of schedule before Christmas. Our charter also tore up rules that should never have been written, so that forces families now have freedom to decorate their own homes, and keep pets without seeking permission.
In November we published our defence housing strategy, and our plan for the wholesale renewal of service family estate, backed by a landmark 10-year investment programme, totalling over £9 billion. All told, nine in 10 of all forces family homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. Less than three months after the defence housing strategy was published, the Bill delivers a central recommendation of that strategy: the creation of a specialist arm’s length organisation, the Defence Housing Service. With the plan, the investment and now the Defence Housing Service, we will end the scandal of service families living in substandard housing, and we will deliver the homes the country needs. When Labour said at the election that we would stand on the side of our armed forces, this is what we meant.
All those who serve our country rightly expect to be able to do so with the fullest respect, and they must certainly be able to do so free from any fear or abuse. Last year we commissioned and published the UK’s first military-wide survey into sexual harassment. We did that to provide for the first time a no-holds-barred baseline to confront the problem fully. The results were sobering, concluding that two thirds of our servicewomen and one third of our servicemen experience some form of sexualised behaviour. Let me be clear: such behaviour has no place in our armed forces, just as it has no place in any workplace—not now, not ever.
The previous Government took steps to improve victim and witness care. We can see some of the benefits of those steps, but it is also clear that more must be done. We have established a new, single tri-service complaints team to take the most serious complaints out of the single-service chain of command for the first time. We have launched a pioneering new prevention programme in Catterick and Plymouth, working directly with young recruits on our bases, to prevent unacceptable behaviours. Through the Bill we go further to strengthen protections for our service personnel, and ensure that perpetrators have nowhere to hide.
Together, provisions in the Bill will make available in the service justice system a comprehensive range of protection orders, including for sexual harm, domestic abuse and stalking. It will strengthen supervision of offenders on release from prison, and ensure that service restraining orders are enforceable in the criminal justice system once a defendant has left the armed forces. It will place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice, setting out the services that victims can expect to receive in the service justice system, and it will allow victims to choose whether they wish to have their case heard in a civil or military court, although the formal decision will be taken by the prosecutor.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am greatly encouraged—I think we all are—by what the Secretary of State has said about victims. I am conscious that sometimes we have young people—perhaps aged 16, 17 or 18—joining the forces and finding themselves under pressure, away from home and from their parents, and they might be vulnerable to start with. It is important that a structure is in place where they can make a complaint, and that that complaint will be heard, not lost somewhere in the system of those above them, whether they are officers, sergeants or corporals. Is looking after those vulnerable people who need help at the beginning, and access to people who understand their circumstances, part of this process?
John Healey
Like the hon. Gentleman I am deeply proud that our armed forces will take 16-year-olds and give them skills and discipline, and change the course of their career and future life. If they suffer any of the abuse and harassment that I am talking about, the tri-service complaints team will take that out of the single chain of command. Cross-party support has allowed us to legislate as a House for an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who has the power to deal with complaints and to launch inquiries if they pick up a pattern of problems, so safeguards and protections are in place. I hope that will give more confidence to young people who are looking at a future career in the armed forces, as well as to their families, who want to see them launched well in their lives.
Make no mistake: these are substantial reforms, reflecting both the seriousness of the problem and our resolve to root it out. These measures are a result of the Ministry of Defence being part of a cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy for the first time ever, and Ministers and chiefs being united and determined for the first time to play a part in this Government’s central mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Helen Maguire
I commend the progress made in the Bill on violence against women and girls. Is the Secretary of State aware that there may be a gap in relation to Royal Navy ships? Commanding officers can administer justice for disciplinary offences and some criminal conduct offences through the summary hearing process, where they investigate the allegation and determine whether the accused is guilty. They are potentially carrying out very serious investigations, which could be into things like serious sexual assaults, in the absence of a warrant card holder. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that issue is being addressed? Will he explore the possibility of having investigation-trained military police on those ships, which are often at sea for more than six months?
John Healey
The hon. Lady has made a detailed point very clearly—perhaps it is another bid to be a member of the Bill Committee. It is exactly the sort of issue that should be examined in detail at that point in the passage of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would be the first to endorse the fact that the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. In our age, drones are rapidly changing the nature of war and homeland defence. It is essential that we have the power and authority to protect defence sites from any current or future threats. In October, I promised to introduce new legal powers to bring down unidentified drones over UK military bases. The Bill will create a regime that will allow defence personnel to better detect, deter and defeat drones that pose a threat to defence property and activities.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
John Healey
I will not. I am conscious of the number of hon. Members who want to speak, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to make a contribution.
The reforms are designed to be both flexible and future-proof, allowing defence to adapt to the ever changing and increasing threats. If the strategic defence review were boiled down to one core objective, it would be to raise the level of warfighting readiness in order to strengthen our deterrence.
Crucial to achieving a sustainable, efficient and rapid potential transition to war will be our reserve forces. In 2024, more than one in five troops training Ukrainian forces on Operation Interflex—the British-led multinational military operation supporting the Ukraine armed forces—were reservists. They are an integral part of the operation and, very often, of the deployment and exercising of our forces. The Bill will make it easier to mobilise personnel earlier, ahead of the outbreak of war. It will align the time for which recall applies across all three services to 18 years, and it will increase the maximum age at which reservists can be recalled, from 55 to 65.
At the moment, we have cyber-operators, trainers, medics and translators who are being shown the door to the military only because of an arbitrary age limit. They are men and women who will continue their profession in civilian life for many years after they are forced out of the military. That makes no sense for the reservists or for our nation’s security, so through the Bill we must act to build a major boost to our readiness to fight during this era of increasing threat.
I will end by recalling our manifesto at the election, which said:
“At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country.”
The Bill gives legislative force to that Labour principle, with better housing, better services and better protections to those who serve. We pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through this Bill, we are delivering exactly that, backing those who sacrifice so much, making Britain safer, delivering for defence and delivering for Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me in posterity. All I can say is that when I came to the job, I was not impressed with the state of armed forces accommodation. Let us not pretend that it suddenly took that shape; in the 13 years when Labour was previously in power, it made no attempt to buy back the defence estate. I return to the point that that is why we did the deal in the first place. We all agree that those who serve our country must never be given substandard homes. The Annington deal has enabled the prospect of what could be the most exciting estate regeneration project for generations. This is the chance to deliver homes for heroes.
We had to buy the estate back, and I enabled that. That being said, delivering such an opportunity requires leadership. The reason why my first policy announcement as shadow Defence Secretary in June last year was the creation of an armed forces housing association, which created a body that could do just that—both manage the estate and deliver a comprehensive rebuild, as the best housing associations have been able to do over the years.
James Cartlidge
From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says, “Giving it away.” It is very odd when a member of the Labour party thinks that setting up a co-operative is somehow a privatisation.
The body that the Government will create in this Bill to deliver that transformation is the Defence Housing Service. Although we welcome its ambition to improve the supply and quality of defence housing, inevitably we will want to see that its structure means that it is able to deliver as many of the outcomes that we wanted from our own policy as possible.
Specifically, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford first proposed an armed forces housing association in 2020 was to give armed forces families proper representations on its board. Will the Defence Housing Service ensure a similar, meaningful voice for service families? Given that a priority for our housing association model was to extend home ownership throughout the ranks, not least because housing associations have access to a wider suite of home ownership products, what role will the Defence Housing Service play in delivering greater home ownership among service families?