Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans across this country are benefiting from record levels of investment. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans as a vital national asset; there is £50 million for Operation Valour, and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme, alongside Operations Courage, Restore, Fortitude, Ascend and Nova. We are committed to ensuring that our veterans can easily access the support that they deserve when and where they need it.
Catherine Fookes
Veterans in my constituency benefit from the stellar Monmouthshire veterans support hub in Abergavenny. Such organisations, and the volunteers who keep them running, are invaluable to our communities. We also have excellent branches of the Royal British Legion, and a veterans-informed GP service in Monmouth. As the Government’s Valour programme gets under way, will the Secretary of State accompany me when I next visit the Monmouthshire veterans hub, not only to sample its brilliant breakfast fry-up, but to see brilliant examples of what can be achieved by these support hubs?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is truly wonderful to hear about the great work being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency to support veterans. Far be it from me to get between the Secretary of State and a fry-up, but if I can, I may take his place on a visit.
John Whitby
What assessment has the Minister made of the adequacy of housing provision for military veterans, particularly those with service-related injuries or disabilities, in rural areas such as Derbyshire Dales, where there is severe pressure on our affordable and supported housing stock?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I wish the hon. and gallant Member a happy birthday.
Protecting the moral component of fighting power is a duty on those of us who have the huge privilege of serving as Ministers in this Government. I am sure that every officer will know that they have a role to play as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales has said that support for veterans to tackle
“substance abuse, mental health crisis and residential services do not exist within NHS Wales as they do in NHS England”.
What steps is the Minister taking to work with the commissioner and the Welsh Government to improve access to essential services? Will she encourage veterans to attend my event in Caernarfon on Sunday, which will bring together a host of key support organisations?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.
More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:
“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?
What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Apologies. The right hon. Member played a pivotal role in the previous Government’s disastrous record on looking after the armed forces, overseeing the horrendous decline in accommodation and real-terms cuts to military pay, and hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces, so I know he is not a details man. I gently remind him that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. The Prime Minister actually has a record of representing people who were wrongfully accused or killed on operations.
Mr Francois
Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is well known in the House that the Prime Minister was a human rights lawyer, so obviously he wrote in connection with that. What really stands as a testament to the Prime Minister’s support for veterans is the fact that this Government are delivering record spending for veterans and rolling out £50 million for valour hubs. I think that speaks for itself.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. The strategy is backed by a record £9 billion investment over a decade. That work will be driven by the Defence Housing Service. We have already rapidly improved military homes by delivering our charter commitments, including transforming 1,000 of the very worst homes.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the new publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which is already improving conditions for service families by bringing 4,688 of the 5,088 military homes in the eastern region back into public ownership for upgrade and renewal. Does the Minister agree that we must continue investing in our armed forces—the backbone of our national security—and that after years of neglect under the last Government, Labour’s £9 billion military housing strategy is finally delivering the homes and support that our service families deserve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the previous Government, forces families were severely let down on housing. Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will, as he rightly notes, be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is massive improvement in forces housing, but there is a site at Ballykinler that has been lying vacant for, I understand, five years. It is heated, and it has new windows. There has been lots of work done. I have written to the MOD, asking whether it is possible for properties that are not being used to be used for another purpose. For instance, they could be used for youth camps, for youth groups or for social housing, because this site in Ballykinler is secure. The Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but I would very much appreciate an answer on that.
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot provide an update on that specific instance now, but I will get an answer for him. We are exploring how we can make best use of the existing estate.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans of Operation Banner, like all veterans, are benefiting from record levels of investment by this Government. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans with £50 million for Operation Valour and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme.
Joy Morrissey
Today was my brother’s birthday. He was a veteran who died at age 36, and he would be proud that today I am talking about the 250,000 veterans of Operation Banner. Those veterans put their lives at risk to fight to keep us safe and free and they deserve our support, so will the Minister explain why the Government no longer believe those veterans deserve to be protected from more years of lawfare?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I note the service of the hon. Lady’s brother. As she well knows, this Government are bringing in real protections for veterans, and if she wishes to support legislation that gives blanket immunity to terrorists, that is of course her prerogative.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Armed forces families play a vital part in supporting members of our armed forces and helping them to perform their role of defending our national security. Our ambition is for our Valour hubs to support not only veterans but members of our wider armed forces communities, including families.
Sarah Smith
Another important factor in support for our brave troops is the provision of military clothing. The previous Conservative Government tied us into a contract whereby about 90% of Army clothing is secured through overseas suppliers, and a significant amount is secured from China. In my constituency of Hyndburn, the home of textiles, many businesses are eager to meet the needs of our British troops. Will the Minister review this and look into whether British companies can meet those British needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point. I have received updates from officials, and I will push for a further timeline on which to update her.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Allied health professionals play a crucial role in supporting the treatment and rehabilitation of armed forces personnel in the UK and on operations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
Just last week, we launched the single living accommodation review, which is designed to get at exactly these issues to ensure that our serving personnel have the accommodation they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?
Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I will take a minute to put on record my deep sadness about the death of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney on Sunday. My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone here, are with his loved ones.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for initiating this important debate, and for highlighting the unduly negative light in which defence can sadly sometimes be viewed in investment and academic circles. All hon. Members here, including me, care deeply about our society, environment and good governance, but I welcome this opportunity to set out why defence, rather than being incompatible with those values, underpins all three. I am sure that if we asked families in Ukraine whether greater spending on defence and deterrence over the last decade would have had a positive or negative impact on their society, environment and governance, we would get only one answer.
I will speak quickly to some of the points raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Windsor rightly spoke about the importance of more money for SMEs in the defence industry. The Government have a target of spending £7.5 billion with SMEs by 2027-28, which is a 50% increase. As somebody who used to work for an SME that had some interest in defence customers, I know how difficult a challenge it can be in that space, without any unfair negative attention being paid to the industry we were in.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about the importance of support for Leonardo and for helicopters, and I will make sure that his comments are passed to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. The Secretary of State met representatives from Leonardo last week, and I know that the Minister will continue the dialogue with them and the hon. Member. I will also ensure that the comments of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) are passed to the Minister.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his excellent work on this issue, and for working with other hon. Members across parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), to highlight how important it is that we understand how defence is underpinning environmental, social and governance issues, rather than acting in opposition to them. He rightly highlighted the positive impact SMEs have in his constituency, and particularly noted Needles and Pins Aerospace and Edmund Optics. It can be difficult for the average person to understand exactly what we mean when we talk about defence SMEs, and he highlighted their work in areas as niche as helicopter insulation or lens manufacturing, and in training support.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also rightly spoke about debanking. Whether it is access to funds, access to banking or access to any other financial services, it is important that we understand exactly the issues that SMEs may be facing. He was also right to highlight the particular challenges for SMEs that come from the long payment cycles of primes. Again, having worked in an SME, I know how frustrating it can be when an SME has a product that the customer wants and that the SME can provide, but what would be a good deal is prevented by a long payment cycle and difficulty with funding.
I will no doubt speak to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) after the debate about his point on Beyond the Battlefield. He noted the proud history of Northern Ireland and Belfast in the defence industry. I am delighted that the lightweight multirole missiles contract has further secured that industry, and I know that the future continues to be bright. He also highlighted the huge importance of the defence industry for apprenticeships and having those highly skilled, technical pipelines where young people leave education and start on fantastic careers where they learn skills and earn a decent wage. Apprenticeships are hugely important in his and my constituency, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members here, so he is right to note them.
Let me turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on the impact on the planet. As he knows, the MOD and our partners are absolutely committed to safeguarding our national security first and foremost. However, we must also recognise the impact of addressing climate-related risks, and when we look at the intersection of climate-related risks and defence, we know they are inextricably linked.
We must also look at reducing environmental impacts, and I know I am not the only Member of this House who has fond memories of doing their bit by picking up brass from training areas. However, we must make sure that the MOD is also doing work across the board to ensure we understand and consider its impact on the wider environment. My hon. Friend will know that our financial reporting is aligned with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures frameworks, ensuring that we understand climate risks to both the MOD and our supply chain, which are ultimately not acting in opposition, but are inextricably linked.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend’s point on compliance policies. We are absolutely committed to mobilising private investors to take a fresh look at defence. That comes alongside the certainty of our own record long-term uplift in defence spending. That is particularly crucial for SMEs looking to scale up their concepts, ideas and prototypes. As with any bank-to-SME relationship, we recognise that there will be commercial considerations and compliance processes, which will include ESG and no doubt other regulatory considerations. None the less, we welcome the Financial Conduct Authority’s statement, which confirmed that there are no rules in its regulations that prevent
“investment or finance for defence companies.”
The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—which the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry launched this week in Scotland—the £2.5 billion spending target by 2027-28 and the defence innovation unit all mean that, as well as proactively engaging the investor community to further build market confidence, we will collaborate on investment opportunities.
Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), I note her underlining of the importance of defence for the nation. It is not always helpful to conflate ESG and diversity and inclusion. None the less, I thank her for raising the previous Government’s record of failure on recruitment and for highlighting their poor record on defence exports and their failure to improve our sovereign energy capability.
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her strong statement that ESG and defence are not contradictory. As she rightly notes, there are challenges for the defence industry, and having stability is hugely important. She also raised the importance of continuously assessing threats, so I think she will note my comments about the need to balance long-term stability with assessing threats—there would be a balance and trade-offs between the two. Along with other hon. Members, she also mentioned the defence investment plan, and I can assure her that we are working flat out to deliver it as soon as possible.
Let me turn now to the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). His commitment to this topic is plain to see, and he is evidently passionate about it. He rightly noted the importance of allocations of capital, and that we must act equitably in this space and underline the important role the defence industry plays in the security of this nation and the prosperity of the individual nations within it. He also rightly noted the importance of defence industries being able to go into academic spaces such as universities. We of course note the right to peaceful protest, but companies should none the less be allowed to go into universities and show the huge opportunities they can offer those who seek careers in defence. Finally, he rightly noted that we should not equivocate between dual-use military technologies and core defence capabilities. He was right to say that weapons and ammunition are just as important as helicopter insulation, and we should not equivocate between the two. I note his call for us not to do that. I will make sure that his wider suggestions are passed to my colleague the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry for full consideration.
The Government believe that investing in defence, and the deterrent effect that that buys, provides the stable foundation on which everything else in this nation depends, from our economy to our ability to go about our daily lives. Across this House, we must never stop reminding people that defence investment prevents wars, and for only a tiny fraction of the cost of fighting one.
Therefore, in our more dangerous and unpredictable world, as we implement the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, and move towards a footing of warfighting readiness, we must dismantle all barriers that might hold back defence investment. That is why we have come into government determined to forge a much closer partnership between industry, innovators and investors, and to work together to find ways to unlock that investment.
Although we acknowledge the debate raging about the extent to which ESG considerations can be a brake on investment in defence, it is important to note the FCA’s statement on how its own rules do not prohibit financing investment in the defence sector. However, we have to note the anecdotal evidence that negative perceptions and a lack of understanding of the rules are acting as a drag on defence investment by individuals and financial institutions.
As part of our consultation on our defence industrial strategy, we heard from smaller defence suppliers about their difficulties with access to finance, whether in opening a bank account or securing a loan. That is wrong; it harms British jobs, British firms and our national security.
We have been loud and clear about the valuable economic and social contribution of the defence sector. Indeed, my colleague the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is frequently heard to use the phrase “engine for growth” as he talks about the importance of defence investment. I have already spoken about the work he did on Monday in launching the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which will work with small and medium-sized businesses to address the barriers hampering them at the time when we need them most.
Through the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, we have been clear about the societal value of defence investment. We have been very clear—I say this on the record and as clearly as possible—that defence is an ethical investment. We have illustrated how defence investment has repeatedly led to huge leaps forward in dual-use technologies, from advanced materials and computing to clean energy technologies. In a high-tech age of artificial intelligence and quantum computing, such dual-use opportunities are magnified, as in turn is the potential for defence investment to stimulate jobs and economic growth.
When we discuss ESG, it is important that we do not completely dismiss ethical concerns. We have only to look at Russia’s bombardment of Ukrainian cities to understand that there can be a basis for legitimate concern about how weapons are used. This Government believe that the answer to such concerns in relation to UK-made equipment lies in robust export controls and international law, not in harming our own security by starving our defence industrial base of the investment it needs.
We have set in train an evidence-led approach to dismantling the barriers we have talked about. We have a much closer partnership with the financial sector, and are working together to find new ways to unlock investment. The Defence Secretary convened a first-of-its-kind meeting with venture capitalists last April. We brought together venture capitalists, private equity and other key financial services at our defence investment summit in September, and that group of experts is also helping to inform our defence finance and investment strategy. That will reflect the work we are doing with the FCA and the Pensions Regulator to explore the impact of all regulations on defence financing and investment.
We will also set out steps we can take to tackle the perception, which some hold, that defence is an unethical investment. Many of us have spoken about the importance of the pipeline of skilled and talented innovators, so we must make sure we address negative perceptions of defence in the education sector. To do so, we have committed to establishing the defence universities alliance, which will bring together a network of universities, the MOD, armed forces and the wider sector to promote defence careers and support defence research.
For too long, the defence sector has had an unearned and unfair reputation that is likely to have harmed defence investment. This Government are determined to change that narrative, and we are working hard to do so. Yes, war is brutal, but the best way of avoiding it is to invest in deterrence, which means investing in defence. In doing so, we fuel the virtuous circle of investment, jobs and growth, benefiting communities right across the country and making ourselves more secure at home and stronger abroad—something that I know everybody in this room can get behind.
Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team Annual Statutory Report 2025
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Led by Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Lord Peach, the reserve forces and cadets associations external scrutiny team provides an independent assessment on the health of the reserve forces on behalf of the Department. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the 2025 report, along with a copy of my response to this report. I am most grateful to the team for their work.
Attachments to this statement can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-16/HCWS1175/
[HCWS1175]
Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Engaging and supporting the women who have served in our armed forces is an important part of our new veterans strategy and a priority that is deeply personal to me as a veteran myself. As well as our commitments across the strategy, we will specifically be taking forward plans to establish a new women veterans forum and an oral history project to improve public understanding and recognition of the experiences and contributions of women veterans in keeping the nation safe.
Amanda Martin
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for her service and for her support in this area. In the last two years, changes have been made to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary maternity policy that prevent new parents from taking back-to-back shore assignments, which are crucial to balancing seafaring with young families. These changes are especially detrimental to families where both parents are in the RFA and raise serious concerns about compliance with employment law. Given the retention crisis in the RFA, does the Minister think that the maternity policy provides adequate flexibility for families, and will she meet me and those affected to discuss this important issue?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are, of course, committed to supporting families across defence, and we recognise the extraordinary service that RFA sailors give to this country. As I have previously written to my hon. Friend, the maternity and parental support package provided by the RFA includes enhanced leave entitlements and tailored assistance through mechanisms such as occupational health. While consecutive shore postings have never been a Defence policy, the RFA does support employees to use flexibilities within that offer, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Joe Morris
I first thank everyone at Albemarle barracks for hosting me recently and showing me the facility. The Royal British Legion women’s network offers valuable support for the armed forces community, and it is vital that all members and relatives of that community can access it. In rural areas like in my constituency where access to that support is often harder to reach, it is more important that the Government do all they can to support veterans who may be further from the centre. What is the Government doing to ensure that veterans, including female veterans, in rural areas can receive the support they need? May I invite the Minister to join me to visit Prudhoe veterans breakfast club at some point in 2026?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he will be aware, we are rolling out the Valour programme, which includes a network of regional centres. There will also be an online presence to help ensure that we can expand the reach where possible. I would be delighted to come and visit.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Recent media reports highlight the full extent of abuse that women have suffered in the armed forces, highlighting why the recommendations from the Atherton report must be urgently implemented in full. What steps is the Minister taking to remove the barriers to create an environment within our armed forces where women feel protected, valued and given the opportunity to excel and flourish?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising an incredibly important point. As she will know, I am personally dedicated to improving the experiences of women in our armed forces. She rightly highlights the Atherton report. We are taking forward several things to deliver that programme, such as improving how we take care of victims and introducing more accountability. I also highlight our support for the cross-governmental work on violence against women and girls.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My constituent Katie has served in the RAF for 25 years. In preparation for her return to civilian life, she secured an MOD rentals tenancy to provide housing stability before she receives her pension next year and can buy a house of her own. At short notice, that tenancy was withdrawn, leaving her and her family facing potential homelessness, in clear violation of the armed forces covenant. Despite repeated appeals and over 28 days of silence from the Ministry of Defence, no resolution has yet been offered. Will the Minister please review this case urgently and the letter I sent to Ministers on 5 December to ensure that female veterans like Katie are properly supported during their transition back to civilian life?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this case. If he would provide me with the details afterwards, I will of course take a closer look.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
A new transformational veterans strategy, the first in seven years, recognises veterans as a national asset. It commits £50 million of Valour funding to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support they deserve, and £12 million for the reducing veterans homelessness programmes. Ops Fortitude, Courage, Restore, Ascend and Nova will continue their fantastic work as well. We will continue to deliver on what matters most for veterans.
Liz Jarvis
We are incredibly proud of our veterans in Eastleigh, and Veterans Dementia Support UK based in my constituency does fantastic work assisting veterans. It wants to expand its work by opening more support groups for ex-service personnel, who want to volunteer but are struggling to get their DBS checks in a timely fashion. Will the Minister work with colleagues to ensure that veterans charities can continue to do their vital work by reducing the wait times for DBS checks to be processed?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and I will look into it to see what I can do.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My constituent Liz was thrown out of the military for being gay and has since received redress for this injustice via the LGBT financial recognition scheme. Liz told me that she has never attended any veteran support group because her discharge from the military left her feeling unworthy of the title of veteran. What steps is the Department taking to encourage those veterans to engage with support schemes like the brilliant female veterans scheme running at Tuppenny Barn in Southbourne in my constituency to rebuild trust after the grave injustice that they experienced?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important point that those who were treated disgracefully by the former policy under the military may be struggling with being able to get back in touch. I can assure her that the armed forces family would welcome her constituent back with open arms. If the hon. Member is happy to pass details on to me, we can provide several ways of doing that—for example, via the regimental association, which I am sure will be only too happy to meet her constituent.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will agree that one homeless veteran is one too many. Will the Minister outline how the landmark new veterans strategy will boost support to prevent any veteran falling into homelessness?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that incredibly important point. As he says, one veteran on the streets is one too many. The new veterans strategy reiterated our commitment, and we were pleased to announce an additional £12 million for vital homelessness services, such as the reducing veteran homelessness programme. I remind Members that Op Fortitude is the pathway for veterans to access housing support when they need it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Last week, I met Paula, Dougie and Ash in my constituency at Tom Harrison House, the only facility in the country offering support to veterans who have addictions. Will the Minister meet me and workers from that organisation to discuss whether statutory funding could help us to offer such support to more veterans?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Tom Harrison House. I have heard many times of the unique nature of the support that it provides. We must support veterans in using that particular service, and see what we can do to further such support. I would be more than happy to visit.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as:
“A direct threat to national security.”
Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the right hon. Member well knows, we have been clear about which protections will be in the Bill. I remind him that it was legislation introduced when he was in government that gave blanket immunity to terrorists, and he very proudly supported it.
Mr Francois
That is not true. We had hoped to hear from the wannabe future Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), but as we have not—[Interruption.] He is not denying it. If what the Minister claims is true, how does she explain the recent comment by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said that the protections are
“a meaningless insult and only become relevant once re-investigation is under way”?
Respectfully, who knows more about defending our veterans: a brand new Minister or a former chief of the general staff who actually commanded them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We will implement those new protections, and we have been in close dialogue with many different representatives. To turn the question back on to the shadow Minister, his legislation utterly failed and gave blanket immunity to terrorists. I will not hear lectures from the Conservatives, who could not provide a solution in 14 years.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the veterans strategy is a huge step forward in how we will support our veterans. The £50 million Valour commitment will rapidly improve how we meet our veterans’ needs, and I will of course visit her constituency, although probably not on the same day as I visit Liverpool.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on behalf of our armed forces. I am very proud to be part of a ministerial team that is ensuring that more than 35,000 junior personnel who do not currently qualify for travel support will get their trip home over the Christmas period paid for. That is part of the Government’s delivering on our commitment to our armed forces and renewing the contract with those who serve.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Many LGBT veterans, including those in my constituency, were seriously affected by the indignity they faced during the pre-2000 ban on LGBT personnel. What progress has the Department made in delivering the financial reparations to LGBT veterans affected by that ban?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am disgusted by the mistreatment of our brave LGBT veterans who served between 1967 and 2000, and I am pleased that the Government have now delivered 48 of the 49 recommendations made in Lord Etherton’s independent review. One of those was the unveiling of the LGBT+ armed forces community memorial, which I was deeply honoured to be able to attend alongside LGBT veterans and service personnel. The one outstanding recommendation recognises the unique experiences of female veterans, and work is ongoing on a number of initiatives towards that, including the launch of a new women veterans forum.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcomed the Minister’s response in relation to the LGBT redress scheme, but my constituents have reported difficulties in obtaining evidence of mistreatment from the Ministry of Defence. Are there any further actions that the MOD can take to ensure that it is easy for our veterans to access such evidence?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the historical mistreatment of LGBT veterans is a moral stain on our nation. We are taking a number of measures to redress that, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency is home to a world-class veterans centre that provides not only excellent orthopaedic care but wraparound support to help veterans to continue their lives in civilian society. Will the Minister come to North Shropshire and meet the people who run the centre, so that she can see for herself how effective this model is?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the important work that is being undertaken, and I will of course pay a visit in due course.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
One of the many challenges that Ukraine will face should a peace agreement be reached is the task of clearing land of mines and unexploded ordnance so that it can once again sustain Ukraine’s vital agricultural economy. How do the Government intend to invest in innovative de-mining technologies and work with Ukraine to ensure that its land is made safe and productive for the future?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
On Armed Forces Day, it is crucial to mark the bravery of our armed forces personnel and bring our communities together. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better support Armed Forces Day 2026 events in places such as Falkirk?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for the armed forces, and I will of course meet him to discuss what we can do to support him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thales and Spirit in Northern Ireland are leading the way in cyber-security and engineering. What steps are being taken to fund a potential Typhoon supply chain programme in which Northern Ireland can play its part in contributing to aircraft production across the United Kingdom?
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The strategic defence review states that we need a 30% increase in cadet forces, from 140,000 to 180,000. However, I am informed that there is a severe shortage of adult instructors. What is the Minister going to do to address that problem?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member raises an important point. The cadets are a fantastic opportunity for our young people, who learn to build valuable skills, values and experience. Underpinning that is the work of our amazing adult volunteers. We are working very hard to see what we can do to improve how we support adult volunteers and, of course, to recruit more, so that we can continue to grow our cadets by 30% by 2030.
Medal for Wounded Service Personnel
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) for securing this debate and highlighting the continued importance of properly recognising those who have served in our armed forces. I know how much work he has been doing, both in his role as an MP and with St Helens borough council—including in his time as leader—to lead the way on implementing the armed forces covenant and showing support for the veteran community, for which I thank him, both as a Minister and as a veteran myself. I also thank Andy Reid MBE and acknowledge his amazing work. Again, he has done so much campaigning on this and other causes to support veterans. He is a fantastic campaigner and a huge inspiration.
I thank other hon. Members who have spoken today to highlight their support for veterans. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly highlighted the role of those who served in Northern Ireland; I have the greatest respect for those who served in that conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) movingly spoke of how much work Andy Reid has been doing, particularly on behalf of Springhill hospice, which shows the impact that he has had on his wider community. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his fantastic work as well.
Although I recognise that the debate was originally aimed towards my Cabinet Office colleagues, as it is they who administer the UK honours and awards system, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North will see the practical reasons for me responding, given the focus on the armed forces. If it is the Government’s first duty to protect the population, they can do so only by asking the men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. As I saw during my own deployment to Afghanistan, regular and reservist members of our armed forces served with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones, often in difficult and dangerous situations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for highlighting how many people who are veterans of that conflict still have to deal with the impact on their lives every day.
If we are to expect our armed forces to display such qualities in protecting our country and the values that we hold dear, it is only right that we, as a Government, ensure that they are properly supported and recognised for doing so. That means expressing our gratitude on behalf of the British people through practical support—here I want to highlight our Valour initiative to improve the co-ordination of support for our military veterans; Fortitude, which houses homeless veterans and those at risk of homelessness; and the work to expand the armed forces covenant, which, as the Prime Minister announced in June, will be extended across central Government—and, of course, through the rightful award of medallic recognition.
Medals are a form of recognition from the Government on behalf of the monarch, instituted by royal warrant, and sitting firmly under royal prerogative powers. That is important, because it places the medals system and other honours and awards above the political fray. As such, it is a process underpinned by a Cabinet Office–led system of committees that make evidence-based judgments on the merits of individual endeavour to ensure that our system is fair. For that reason, I believe that the British model for medallic recognition is highly respected across the globe.
Medals for members of our armed forces mark an individual’s contribution to a military operation that has protected this country or enhanced global security. They may also recognise acts of exceptional courage. It is a basic principle that those who wear a medal must have earned it. Therefore, eligibility is always checked carefully against the person’s service record. Similarly, when a new medal is proposed, there must be a clear and robust rationale that doing so evidences the delivery of and furthers the UK’s aims.
Let me turn specifically to service personnel wounded in combat. Currently, those injured and evacuated from an operational deployment that attracts a campaign, operational or general service medal are automatically awarded the relevant medal, regardless of whether they have met the standard eligibility criteria. Effectively, the automatic award is made in recognition of the fact that the individual has sacrificed their wellbeing while on the operation. I recognise that there are those who wish to see a more specific acknowledgement of service personnel injured in the course of their military careers, and in particular, those wounded on military operations. With an awareness of the proposals, my officials are considering this, in terms of whether a defined injury medal would be the best method of recognition in such circumstances, whether such an award would be viable, and the hows and wherefores.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for raising this important topic. I acknowledge that he, and indeed the House, might want me to go further today and make a commitment to implement an injury medal for armed forces personnel, but I hope that he will understand that that is not possible at this time, as any consideration of this matter must be progressed through the correct channels. However, I trust that he is reassured that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that those who serve this country with bravery and dedication will be supported in the practical sense, but will also have their selflessness and sacrifice properly recognised through the award of medals.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Day 2026
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Minister of State in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Coaker, has made the following written statement:
I wish to inform the House that Rushmoor borough council has been selected to host the Armed Forces Day national event in 2026.
Aldershot and Farnborough have a long and proud history with our military and are often referred to as the home of the British Army. Communities there have played a vital role in supporting, shaping and honouring our armed forces over many decades. Hosting the national event in the borough offers a chance to build on those deep connections, bringing the armed forces, the local community and wider society closer together. We congratulate the people of Rushmoor, the local council and the local MP, Alex Baker, for their successful campaign.
The national event is part of our wider commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, and a whole-of-society approach to Defence, as set out in the strategic defence review.
Under our Government, Armed Forces Day will therefore become bigger and bolder. The day will continue to be about gratitude but also about deepening people’s knowledge of what the armed forces have to offer.
By working closely with local authorities, MPs and communities, we will better demonstrate the contribution that our armed forces make to national prosperity, to technology, skills and innovation, as well as to security.
While the national event will take place in Rushmoor, Armed Forces Day is a celebration for the whole of the United Kingdom. We expect hundreds of smaller events to take place in towns and villages across the country. To support this, applications for grant funding for local events will open in January, and I encourage local authorities and community groups to apply.
Ultimately, this is a moment of national significance to recognise the service and sacrifice of our armed forces community: our serving personnel, veterans, cadets and the families who support them. We owe them our gratitude for their dedication to keeping this nation safe.
In Britain, we are fortunate to have the very finest armed forces. Our Government are committed to ensuring that our forces, our veterans and their families know that this Government and nation are on their side—and not just in armed forces week, but all year round.
Preparations for the event are now under way, and the Ministry of Defence will work closely with Rushmoor borough council to deliver a successful programme. I will keep the House updated as plans progress.
[HCWS1134]
1994 RAF Chinook Crash
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and speaking with such passion on behalf of the bereaved families who were impacted by this tragic accident 31 years ago. As he will know, I am a veteran myself. I know that the pain of losing loved ones does not diminish with the passage of time, and nor should it. In this case, there is the added hurt for families of not knowing, after more than three decades, precisely why the Chinook crashed or why their loved ones died. As he may know, I served in the Intelligence Corps. The loss of the Intelligence Corps personnel on board was felt when I joined in 2014 and, indeed, I discussed it with former colleagues recently. Their legacy is very much still alive and the impact of their service very much still remembered.
Colleagues will be well aware that the courts are considering the Chinook Justice Campaign’s request for a judicial review of the ministerial decision not to grant a new public inquiry into the accident. The judicial review process is a vital mechanism to hold public bodies to account and the courts will make their decision fairly and impartially. I will not provide a summary of our response to the courts or justify our position, but I will touch on a few points, including those raised in the debate.
I want to focus on the lessons that have been learned and applied as a lasting legacy of the 29 people who we lost that day and I know are greatly missed. It is vital that the public have confidence that those of us in positions of responsibility will honour our commitment to the duty of candour. That is the message at the heart of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which I am pleased to say has cross-party support for the reasons that we have heard several Members address today.
I want to address some of the points about the files that are held in the National Archives. There are claims that the files contain vital information about the cause of the crash, and that the information has been intentionally withheld. As we have stated publicly, the documents contained in the files have been reviewed by officials, who have confirmed that they contain no information that would offer new insights into the crash. I understand that only 0.1% of the documents are subject to the 100-year review. Most of those relate not to maintenance or repair logs, but to compensation or personal details, which of course was the reasoning for the 100-year closure in the first place.
Tessa Munt
I have done quite a lot of reading and received information from the family, but it is not clear to me the date on which the documents were sealed or by whom. Can the Minister confirm that? Who made the request that they be sealed, who made the decision that they should be sealed, and when was that decision made? I do not expect her to be able to answer off the top of her head, so I am happy for her to write to me.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I do not have the exact details to hand right now, but it is quite routinely the case that, where documents of this nature contain personal information, they are closed for 100 years to allow for the people whose details they contain to have passed away, at which point the privacy considerations obviously change.
Tessa Munt
I understand why they have been sealed. I would like to know who made the decision to seal the documents for 100 years, and on what date it was made. It was clearly not in June 1994, because it lasts for 100 years. Somebody made the decision after that date to seal those documents.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will get the hon. Member the information. I understand that they are sealed until 2094.
Carrying on the point I was making, there is some material, from various sources, that puts forward theories relating to the crash, but those theories have been publicly aired in previous investigations, and I reiterate that the reason for those documents being closed is that they contain personal information. As has been mentioned, that is up for review in 2029. Although these documents are FOI-able, personal details would none the less remain redacted. The files have been transferred to the National Archives, which is standard practice, and the personal data has been marked as closed.
There have been six investigations and inquiries into the crash of Chinook ZD576. As a result of those, and the inquiries into the tragic fatal crash of RAF Nimrod XV230 in 2010, the Department has made a number of very important changes to its air safety and incident—
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Did the Minister just say that all of these documents would be FOI-able and would then be released, albeit in redacted form, presumably in the usual way, with personal details being blacked out?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Yes, that is the information I have been given.
The Department has made a number of important changes to its air safety and incident review processes since 1994. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the change to the board of inquiry process so that negligence is not attributed to dead airmen is a hugely important step, which resulted partly from the investigations of this incident.
Chief among the changes is the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority, an independent and autonomous body that ensures that expert, no-blame investigations of safety-related incidents and near misses across all defence domains are independent, impartial and timely. As recommended by the board of inquiry report, accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are now installed across the vast majority of Ministry of Defence air fleets, and formalised instrument meteorological conditions climb procedures were introduced throughout the RAF to support aircrew to safely negotiate poor weather conditions. Today the RAF has a robust and effective safety management system, and a commitment to total safety is embedded in the culture of the organisation.
Sir Julian Lewis
I apologise for intervening after having stepped out for part of the debate—this may already have been covered. Has any consideration been given to possible embarrassment over the decision to put so many staff, in so many sensitive positions, into a single aircraft? Despite my past interest in this case, I am not sure that I have ever heard that rules have been changed so that so many precious resources are not put at risk all in one single vehicle.
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is a very interesting point. I understand the reference, and I would be interested to know about further standard operating procedures. I am sure that, as the right hon. Member will understand, it is quite a rare occurrence to have that many senior people on the same airframe in the course of business, but I cannot say right now that that is definitely the case, or what the bounds are in terms of ranks and so on. I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that.
Tessa Munt
Exactly as has just been said, I asked earlier whether, and when, that practice had been changed. I would very much like to know the date on which that decision was made, the nature of the decision and its wording, which I would share with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and note her request.
The hon. Member for North Down spoke movingly in his compelling speech about our moral duty to uncover the truth. I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to the contract with those who serve our nation—we are serving them. Part of that contract is that when we ask them to do dangerous things, or put them into harm’s way, we have a moral duty to have done what we can to mitigate the risks they will face. To do that, we must do all the preparatory work necessary and learn the lessons when there is the opportunity to do so.
Let me briefly address a point—a single point, and not necessarily the entire argument—raised by the hon. Member for North Down and others. Although the review by Lord Philip was not statutory and therefore did not have the power to compel, I note that nobody who was called to give testimony absented themselves. Although they were not compelled, nobody refused to come.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an excellent point about the need for the Government to be open. I wholeheartedly agree on that, and on the need for accountability. I have already addressed the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately, as he always does, on behalf of those who have suffered. I reiterate the importance of getting to the truth of what happened. That is the central driving point and why we are all here for this debate.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituents, and rightly called for justice and transparency. She called on us to read those 29 names, as I will do after this debate. She made the valid point that we must remember each and every person we lost in the crash. I thank her for her impassioned call.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) asked some very important questions, and I will write to her on the specifics. I hope I have already addressed at least some of her questions about the closed documents. Her point about the families not being told about the documents being sealed is a valid one. In this and similar situations, it is incumbent on us, the Ministry of Defence, to communicate everything we can to the affected families. I thank her for raising the point.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) raised the issues that the families have faced over the past 31 years in getting to the truth of what happened to their loved ones and why, and in achieving an understanding of the factors in the flight. I thank him for speaking so passionately on their behalf.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke very well on behalf of his constituents. He made an important point about the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. As he will know, some Government business is quite rightly classified, but there is still, of course, a need for accountability. He may be aware of my previous military service, and he will know that I absolutely understand the value of being able to carry out classified work, but the issue of accountability is valid whether we are talking about classified or unclassified work. I will certainly take his point away with me.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke very well, particularly about his own personal experiences. We heard a Chinook go overhead—
Louise Sandher-Jones
Exactly. It is a sound that the hon. Gentleman and I obviously know very well. Again, this goes back to my service in the Intelligence Corps. Before I deployed to Afghanistan, someone who was interested in my safety, and who was in the corps, told me to be careful, because it is when travelling that, unfortunately, we in the Intelligence Corps tend to lose our personnel. I am well aware that this is not the only crash in which we have lost members of the corps.
We are well aware of that every time we get into a military aircraft, particularly if it will be flying in hostile conditions. Every time I climbed into an aircraft, predominantly RAF Pumas, that had to fly in certain tactical ways—a bit more acrobatically than usual—I, and every single person on that flight, put so much trust in those who maintained, certified and produced the airframe. It is the work of many people to ensure that someone, whether the pilot or a passenger on the flight, can trust that it will get them from A to B as it should. That trust also extends to knowing that if anything happens to a flight, there will be truth and accountability in getting to the bottom of what went wrong, whatever the cause may be, without fear or favour. I very much acknowledge that principle today.
I also acknowledge the level of anger felt by those represented by the Chinook Justice Campaign. The noble Lord Coaker has written to them to invite representatives to meet him, the Minister for the Armed Forces and me, with the meeting scheduled for 16 December. I understand that the families and loved ones of the 29 people killed that day continue to search for answers to explain what went wrong. The review that was undertaken by Lord Philip concluded that the cause of the accident is likely never to be known, and I am truly sorry for that. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Before I call Alex Easton, I remind Members that I have allowed them more flexibility in coming and going than I would ordinarily, given the sensitivity of the issue and people having arrived late. Please bear that in mind in future.
Alex Easton
I thank all Members for their speeches and interventions. On behalf of the families, we appreciate the interest and the real reason: trying to get to the truth. Will the Minister to confirm something the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned about FOIs? Am I correct in saying that if somebody submits an FOI request for the documents that were sealed for 100 years, they can all be obtained, with redactions? I am willing to take an intervention.
Louise Sandher-Jones
They would have to go through the FOI process, which of course is not—[Interruption.]
Louise Sandher-Jones
I cannot prejudge the outcome of an FOI process for something that has not been asked for, but they can absolutely go through that process.
Alex Easton
I thank the Minister for her answer. We will certainly look at an FOI on that, just to see.
For too long, questions have remained unanswered. Why have the Ministry of Defence documents been sealed for 100 years? Why were repeated warnings ignored time and again? Where was the due diligence on the Chinook Airworthiness Review Team reports, which identified systematic failings? Where was the due diligence in response to the September 1993 report that described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”? Where was the due diligence on the October 1993 findings of MOD test authorities that were unable to recommend the aircraft for flying? These are not just abstract questions; they go to the very heart of accountability, trust in our institutions, and justice for the families, who have waited far too long.
A 100-year blanket ban of secrecy cannot be allowed to smother the quest for truth, so we will test that with an FOI request. Light must be shone into the darkness. Today we have a choice to continue to hide behind delays and smokescreens, or to honour that long-held principle that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and finally deliver the truth that is owed to the families through a judge-led public inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.
Iraq Fatality Investigations: Report
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I wish to inform the House of publication of the latest report of the Iraq fatalities inspector, Dame Anne Rafferty, which I have laid before the House of Commons Library today. I am grateful to Dame Anne and her team for the rigour and commitment they have shown in this work.
This report represents the culmination of a lengthy legal process in the aftermath of operations in Iraq during Operation Telic—2003-09. As part of this, the UK High Court [1] determined that publicly accountable investigations into the deaths of individuals were required to meet the UK’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The Iraq Fatality Investigations were established in 2014 to conduct “quasi-inquests", with the involvement of the families of the deceased. This was one of a number of measures, including the creation of special investigative functions—the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and subsequently the Service Police Legacy Investigation—which reviewed around 3,500 allegations of misconduct by UK forces in Iraq. Many of these were deemed to be unfounded or malicious, with proven malpractice by one of the prominent lawyers involved in bringing these claims.
This work has inevitably been complex and time-consuming. The sad death of the first inspector, Sir George Newman, in 2016, and his successor, Baroness Hallett’s, appointment to chair the covid 19 Inquiry in April 2021, have further delayed completion of the work.
This final report by Dame Anne covers the deaths of three Iraqi civilians in the custody of UK forces, dating back to 2003. Mr Radhi Nama and Mr Mousa Ali died on 8 and 13 May respectively, while in the custody of UK forces at Camp Stephen in Basra, southern Iraq. The report also covers a further investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, who Sir George Newman had previously found was left to drown in a waterway by UK forces.
The report makes for sobering reading. In the case of Mr Mousa Ali, the inspector finds that he was forced to carry out strenuous circuit-type exercises as well as holding a “stress position” in temperatures of over 30°C, and that these exercises were causally significant to his death. The report allocates blame to two soldiers—neither of them still serving—directly involved in this mistreatment, but found no evidence of the involvement of others or of a cover-up at Camp Stephen. The report further considers whether there was evidence of a concerted policy of “wetting” of detainees, following the death of Mr Ahmed Ali. Dame Anne concludes that “there was no concerted policy of wetting by troops in 1st Battalion the Black Watch” and that senior commanders did not condone any such practice. Nevertheless, the report highlights multiple examples of “wetting” and differences of opinions among witnesses as to the level of senior officers’ knowledge. Finally, the report notes that stress positions were deployed in the case of Mr Radhi Nama, who was forced to spend some time squatting with his hands on his head, though this was not a causal factor in his death. The report criticises the way in which information relating to Radhi Nama’s death was relayed to his family, though Dame Anne notes that policy and procedure have since been improved such that this would be unlikely to happen again.
In total, five members of the armed forces were referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions for offences connected to the deaths of Mr Radhi Nama and Mr Mousa Ali, including unlawful killing, threats to kill, commission of an outrage upon personal dignity and failure to exercise command responsibility. However, in all five cases, prosecutors considered that the evidential sufficiency test had not been met and no prosecutions were brought.
While no prosecutions followed these investigations, we cannot underestimate what these episodes have meant for the standing of our armed forces. The misconduct of a small number of service personnel has detracted from the reputation of the thousands who served bravely and loyally through some of the most challenging operational circumstances we have encountered since the end of the second world war. It has generated a protracted and expensive legal process. While we know that many of the allegations directed at the armed forces were fraudulent and malicious, we must also recognise the damage that this process has inflicted and resolve never to allow a repeat. The reforms we are pursuing aim to do that.
I am reassured that Dame Anne found that the changes since implemented to policy and doctrine on handling of detainees, if fully implemented, would reduce the risk of a repeat of these events. Joint Doctrine Publication 1-10, “Captured Persons”, updated in 2020, sets out clear guidance for the detention of personnel, setting out the circumstances and arrangements for handling military and civilian detainees. It makes provision for vulnerable persons including women and children, incorporates clear direction on the questioning of detainees, and emphasises the importance of command responsibility.
However, we cannot be complacent. Doctrine is effective only in so far as it is understood by personnel at all levels, and implemented in practice. With this in mind, the Army is carrying out a root-and-branch review of operational law training. This review, which I expect to report in the very near future, will make recommendations to the Chief of the General Staff to improve understanding of and training in the legal framework governing operations, to ensure legally compliant behaviours from the most junior, to the most senior, rank.
I also note and agree with Dame Anne’s concern regarding the “crucial importance of ensuring that soldiers are aware of their obligations to report violations of law by their British Forces colleagues and that they feel protected when making such reports.” We have already announced a review, to be led by the Minister for Veterans and Personnel, into whistleblowing in Defence. The review will produce initial findings by the end of this year and a final report and recommendations by spring 2026.
The “Raising Our Standards” initiative introduced in 2024 aims to accelerate, expand and maximise behavioural improvements taking place across the whole of Defence. ROS aims to improve culture and tackle all unacceptable behaviours. Initial work is focused on initiatives under five pillars—data and analytics, tackling unacceptable behaviours, behaviour change through communications, leadership and careers, and education and training. ROS is an opportunity to make lasting improvements for the people of Defence and for all those whom they deal with in a professional and operational context.
This report completes our investigative duties stemming from allegations relating to Iraq, in line with the mandate from the High Court. In addition to considering this report, the MOD has separately reviewed the final caseload of service police investigations relating to Iraq. We have concluded that all reasonable and proportionate lines of inquiry have been pursued, that these cases reveal no additional systemic concerns and that we have discharged our obligations under articles 2 and 3 of ECHR. As such, we have concluded that there is no requirement for further referrals to the IFI.
Finally, we should all reflect upon the personal tragedies which these deaths represent, and the impacts on the families and communities involved. I would like to offer my deepest regret and condolences, not just for the deaths themselves but for the lengthy process which has led to this conclusion more than two decades later.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-11-24/HCWS1089
[1] R(Ali Zaki Mousa and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin)
[HCWS1089]
New Director of Service Prosecutions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under section 364 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the Director of Service Prosecutions is appointed by His Majesty the King. The term of the current incumbent, Jonathan Rees KC, came to an end on 31 October 2025.
I can inform the House that His Majesty has appointed Mary Cowe to succeed Mr Rees as the next independent Director of Service Prosecutions. Ms Cowe has practised from Guildhall Chambers Bristol since 2006, prosecuting and defending serious criminal allegations of violence, sexual abuse and fraud.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Rees, who has served as director for the last five years and worked hard with other service justice system stakeholders to improve the processes by which cases are built and brought to trial, while maintaining the necessary independence of prosecutorial decision making. His efforts have ensured that the authority has retained its position as an independent and respected prosecuting body, which has underpinned the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. As he hands over his responsibilities to Ms Cowe, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the important contribution he has made.
[HCWS1078]
Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for raising the case of his constituent. It is rather apt that we are holding this debate on Armistice Day and so soon after Remembrance Sunday, when people the length and breadth of the UK came together to commemorate the fallen. As a veteran myself, I would like to start my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend’s constituent for his years of service to our country, in particular his contribution to the Falklands war and to restoring sovereignty to the people of the Falklands, which came at a huge personal cost. His courage, and the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by all those who served in the Falklands war, shall never be forgotten.
I need to be clear at the outset that I am limited in the extent to which I can go into the particular case of my hon. Friend’s constituent. While the information I have can never undo the harms caused by infected blood, I hope it will provide some measure of reassurance to his constituent that there is a clear route to compensation for members of our armed forces who received infected blood. The infected blood inquiry’s report, which laid bare the details of the national infected blood scandal, explicitly set out that the infected blood compensation scheme includes provision for individuals who received infected blood during armed forces treatment overseas, which includes veterans of the Falklands war.
As I say, no amount of money can undo the damage caused to people’s lives. However, this Government are determined that the infected blood compensation scheme will be there to bring redress to those who have been impacted. It is important to note that the compensation scheme does not have hard cut-off dates for determining whether a person is eligible based on when their infection was acquired and that all evidence will be assessed independently, on the balance of probabilities. While the scheme does acknowledge that screening for hepatitis B was introduced in December 1972, before the start of the Falklands war, it does not preclude claims that demonstrate they fell outside of the screening programme.
In terms of process, the infected blood compensation scheme is delivered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is the body responsible for handling claims and making payments. The assessments that it makes are based on the scheme’s regulations, and it operates independently of the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments. The authority began making payments to infected people in 2024. Last month, it launched its registration service for those who wish to make a claim. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent and any other Falklands veterans who believe they may have been infected through blood transfusion to register with this service.
It is important that I address the issue of veterans’ medical records and acknowledge that historical records from the early 1980s are not up to modern standards and are often incomplete. That should not discourage affected veterans from applying for the infected blood compensation scheme because, I repeat, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will consider all available evidence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I would like to confirm, in support of what the Minister is saying and the advice she is giving, that the contact I have had with IBCA has been very positive. It seems to want to engage on a personal basis with people who have suffered in this way. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) really should advise his constituent to take up this offer to engage with the authority; I think he will be pleasantly surprised at the positive response he will get.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.
In relation specifically to blood transfusions aboard SS Uganda during the Falklands war, the MOD has made extensive inquiries and concluded that it does not hold information in relation to these. I reiterate that I am speaking about MOD files rather than other forms of evidence that exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton said. It has also concluded that any detailed information on the source of blood used is unlikely to have been recorded in medical records during this period.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister and to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for their guidance. My constituent is frustrated; he has done extensive research, spoken to many people and been able to amass evidence, and I think what he would really appreciate is the Minister committing departmental time and energy to look at some of the evidence that he has acquired.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will come to that point in a moment.
To reiterate, the MOD veterans welfare service supports veterans and their dependants with increasing needs around disability, housing and subsistence, and the war pension scheme is available for service-related injuries and conditions.
When I served, I wanted to know that I would receive the best possible medical treatment for service-related conditions, and I expect the same for those who serve today. I can reassure the House that the UK Defence Medical Services is now a global leader in operational blood management, providing world-class assurance and governance of blood products, including in deployed settings. The centre of defence pathology monitors and evaluates the blood management system to ensure the safety of blood products in deployed settings, including recording full details of the transit, storage and use of every unit of blood. This level of tracking and governance was not in place during the Falklands war, but it is now standard practice.
To conclude, I will summarise the key points. Veterans of the Falklands war are eligible to claim compensation from the infected blood compensation scheme, and there are no hard cut-off dates that would automatically exclude claims based on when an infection was acquired. Evidence will be independently assessed on the balance of probabilities, and incomplete medical records do not automatically disqualify a claim. I would encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent, and any other veterans in a similar position, to register with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s registration service. Of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to talk about the work that he has undertaken and to hear his story.
The sacrifices and service of Falklands veterans like my hon. Friend’s constituent will never be forgotten. This Government are committed to supporting all our veterans. They have served our country with courage and dedication, and they deserve our support in return.
Question put and agreed to.