Oral Answers to Questions
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Defence continually assesses threats and risks in all areas, including aerial drones. The defence investment plan contains measures to accelerate transformation and equip forces for modern warfare, including £790 million for integrated air and missile defence. Defence has taken extensive steps to strengthen homeland counter-drone capability, including vulnerability assessments of defence sites, restricted flying areas over numerous bases, and enhanced counter-uncrewed aircraft systems capabilities delivered by the Ministry of Defence police.
Andrew George
The Government’s plans for drones have been referred to a number of times already today, and I welcome the important emphasis on uncrewed systems. As the Minister is aware, the air station at Predannack —or Pradnick, as we call it locally—in west Cornwall is one of a number of important locations for research and development. In this case, it is the location of the national drone hub, and it has many advantages, including relatively clear airspace. If Ministers intend to take advantage of existing assets to scale up UK autonomous capabilities, will they ensure that this happens at pace and that they take advantage of the opportunities in places such as Predannack?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member is right to highlight the fantastic work being done at Predannack, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. The defence investment plan places significant emphasis on uncrewed capability and autonomy, and the hon. Member will be well aware of the other measures that we have taken to provide support, such as establishing the uncrewed systems centre.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In 1914 we were producing 12 Vickers machine guns a week; by 1918, we were producing 1,200. Warfighting depends not only on the bravery of our armed forces, but on the technical innovation of our manufacturers. In Suffolk we now have advanced drone manufacturers. Does the Minister agree that we must always be ready for the next war?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I wholeheartedly agree. That was a key message of this defence investment plan, which looks ahead to the technology that we will need in the future—for example, we have allotted £5 billion to uncrewed systems, exactly as my hon. Friend says.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The money in the DIP is clearly not enough, but it is welcome that some money has been found for defence, and I particularly welcome the new drone facility that is coming to Swindon in Wiltshire. In a genuinely constructive spirit, can I ask the Minister whether she is content with the model of defence procurement we have in this country, and whether she thinks that with a new Secretary of State and a new Prime Minister coming, now is the time to do a lot more to expedite the sort of innovative defence procurement that we will need to make the weapons for the future?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising a hugely important point—he is absolutely right. When I was serving, I saw some of the areas in which we need improvement. This Government are absolutely committed to changing and improving our procurement system so that it can deliver the vital kit and equipment that our brave troops deserve.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I add to the tributes to Sir George Howarth. All of us who served with him on the Labour party’s national executive committee very much admired his courage in taking on and rooting out antisemitism.
I welcome the success of our forces in the middle east in counter-UAS work during the recent conflict there. What measures are being taken to increase the number of military personnel who have the required skills to do counter-UAS operations? It is not just about the kit; it is about the training of personnel to use it.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right that as well as ensuring that we purchase the right kit and equipment, we must ensure that we have personnel who are trained and ready to use it, adapting to the new way of warfare. As he knows, there will be considerable effort across our armed forces, and our new uncrewed taskforce will deliver exactly that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The UK is committed to security in the High North. As well as the Royal Marines’ cold weather training in Norway, ranger exercises in Sweden and Finland, and air policing operations, the UK plays a key role in NATO’s Arctic Sentry initiative and deployed our carrier strike group to the High North this year. The Secretary of State was able to witness that at first hand on a visit this weekend.
Katrina Murray
Protecting our interests in the High North depends not only on our armed forces, but on a resilient defence industrial base. Constituencies such as mine are home to highly skilled defence and engineering businesses that play an important role in supporting our national security. How is the Department ensuring that UK industry has the investment and skilled workforce needed to sustain these capabilities into the future?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the High North, and the defence investment plan positions our armed forces to focus on its protection, alongside our allies in NATO and the JEF. Through the Scotland defence growth deal and our intention to launch two defence technical excellence colleges, which we have invited the Scottish Government to match fund, we are continuing to support Scotland’s defence industry and provide it with the highly skilled workforce that it requires.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Protecting British interests in the High North requires a strong Royal Navy. Under the current DIP, the Type 45s will go out of service in 2035 and be replaced by some CCVs and other uncrewed systems that currently exist only on PowerPoint. The idea that it will be nine years from PowerPoint to power projection stretches credibility somewhat, so will the Minister stake her personal credibility on confirming that these systems will be delivered on time and that we will not have a gap in our air defences in the High North?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the changing nature of warfare means that we must change to meet it. Having a focus on uncrewed systems and AI is critical, and I welcome the vision set out by the First Sea Lord.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
In a written answer to me last month, the Government revealed that the Army is conducting a review of its reserve basic training. I believe that this was the first time that was disclosed to this House. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting the terms of reference for that review in the Library of the House, and will he commit to not closing Prince William of Gloucester barracks until the review is complete?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The hon. Member has been a doughty champion for his constituency, and he and I have had many exchanges on this subject. I confirm that all decisions taken about reserves will look at what will best support that force. Those decisions are yet to be made, but we will of course ensure that we are supporting the reserves.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The barbaric and deliberate targeting and killing of Palestinian children by the Israel Defence Forces has received little media coverage or outrage. A report by the United Nations Human Rights Council estimates that the IDF have killed over 20,000 children and injured more than 44,000. Will the Minister say what assurance she can give that arms transferred through UK military bases are not used to facilitate war crimes? When will she facilitate a full arms embargo?
Louise Sandher-Jones
There has been an abhorrent loss of life; children must never be the victims of war. We have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Licences are kept under continuous review. For operational security reasons, we do not offer comment on or information relating to foreign nations’ routine military movements.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Local residents, including service personnel living in my constituency, are deeply concerned by the proposal to create a new asylum centre at MOD Bicester. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, who is currently in his place on the Front Bench, promised me last week that there would be absolute transparency for the affected communities. Will the Minster clarify when MOD officials first began speaking to the Home Office about the proposal; whether any—and if so, how many—contracts have been issued by the MOD to assess the site; and whether any serving personnel, MOD staff or MOD contractors are under non-disclosure agreements in respect of the proposal?
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is nearly two years since the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful. Does the Minister believe that it is morally or legally justifiable for British bases to continue to be used to transfer weapons to Israel as part of this ongoing conflict?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I hope that my hon. Friend heard my previous answer, in which I expressed my deep sadness over the innocent victims of war. To confirm, we have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza, noting the F-35 components going to the global programme. Licences are kept under continuous review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The defence investment plan is split into two parts: the near-term investment plan, which covers the four remaining years of this Parliament, and the long-term investment plan, which covers the following five years, up to 2035. This is a 10-year plan, but that clearly only adds up to nine years—the plan should also cover up to the 2035-36 financial year. Will the Minister confirm that it is a 10-year plan and, if it is, whether the final part of the plan assumes that we are already spending 3.5% on defence?
Defence Spending and Readiness
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“looks forward to the publication of the Government’s Defence Investment Plan; recognises the Government’s commitment to providing the resources the UK’s military needs; welcomes that the Government has provided the biggest uplift to defence spending since the Cold War; supports the Prime Minister’s commitment to hitting 2.6% of GDP on defence spending in 2027, and 3.5% by 2035; further recognises that taking such decisions is never easy and will mean significant reallocations of funding from across Government departments because strong public finances are also part of what keeps the UK safe; endorses investment in the capabilities that the UK’s armed forces need, after they were hollowed out by the previous Government; and further endorses the signing of more than 1,400 contracts since July 2024, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies.”
On 5 May 2013, I joined the British Army as Officer Cadet Jones, joining the mighty 29 Platoon Alamein Company at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. I was joining an Army with a full-time strength of just under 100,000 personnel. Operation Herrick in Afghanistan was still ongoing, although soon to draw to a close, and ISIS was on the offensive. It had been several years since the invasion of Georgia by Russia, but perhaps that would prove to be a one-off. The Army’s main platforms—apart from those procured for Afghanistan, such as the light role Foxhound—were Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT, the combat vehicle reconnaissance tracked. Those were all ageing platforms, including some bought before I was born.
In 2015, now Lieutenant Jones, I was posted to Germany, serving with the indomitable 44 MFMI Company. I was now part of an Army of a strength of just 82,000. Operation Shader had been launched to counter ISIS to great effect. Herrick had ended and been replaced by the more limited Operation Toral. I was attached to the 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade, which was still made up of Challenger 2, Warrior, AS90 and CVRT.
Crucially, by then Russia had launched its first operation in its evil assault on Ukraine and had annexed Crimea in 2014. It was clear then what Russia’s ambitions were, and its tactics of little green men showed that warfare was already changing. Most importantly, this clearly showed that, once again, war was on the doorstep of Europe. How useful, hon. Members may think, to have an armoured infantry brigade based in Germany, with a railhead connecting to the whole network of Europe, and able to move armour quickly and at short notice, as a sign of our commitment to defence. Alas, however, the decision had been made in Westminster, and I watched as, instead of readying for the new threat, our bases closed down around me and our troops moved back to the UK.
When, as Captain Jones, I left in 2020, troop numbers had dropped to the mid-70,000s. The main Army platforms were still the same as when I had joined, but troop numbers were down, morale was down and our footprint was down.
Alex Ballinger
I recognise similar circumstances at that time when I served, which was for a shorter period than my hon. Friend, but does she recognise the massive impact on morale of the successive real-terms pay cuts that the Conservatives gave our brave armed forces during that period?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I do recognise it, and also the wider impacts of the state of the housing that I, like my hon. Friend, had to live in. I also recognise the relentless pressure on our fantastic people, who were being asked to dig out blind every day just to keep the show on the road—a story that was repeated across many of our public services.
Paul Holmes
The Minister mentions the fact that troops were being removed from Europe back to the United Kingdom. I may be interpreting this wrongly, but she seems to be slightly critical of that. May I remind her that that was because of the ever-changing geopolitical landscape we faced at the time and that our allies were doing the same? At the time, the Labour Opposition did not oppose it and did not criticise it. Is she criticising us for doing that, or is she just making an observation?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am criticising the decision makers for that decision and, on reflection, I think that others would agree with me.
All of this occurred under Conservative Prime Ministers, whether in coalition or as a Conservative Government. They attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
We have talked about the changes after 2014. Might we also look back to what was referenced earlier, under the 2010 coalition Government, where the blame seemed to very suddenly shift to the Liberal Democrats? It was a joint decision to delay what was happening with our submarines. I will take no arguments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), because it was his party that helped to damage Barrow-in-Furness. If they had not, with Conservative Members under the coalition Government, made the commitment to pause, we would have our boats in the water now and our submariners would not be spending 200 days at sea.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those who were responsible for the defence of this country and the decisions they made.
Dr Murrison
I am fascinated by the Minister’s remarks about the withdrawal of troops after the cold war, many of them to Salisbury plain in and around my constituency where they continued to train for current operations. Is she seriously saying that she would recreate the British Army of the Rhine? Is that Government policy—for this Government, or for the Government to come? If so, how is she going to fund it?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s trying to conjure up me saying something that I have not said—I do appreciate that. He will be aware that I was talking about decisions made in the mid-2010s and I am critical of those decisions. He will also know that being able to undo something is not the same as never having done it. I hope he will appreciate that I am sincere in what I am saying there.
The Conservative Government attempted to crush the proud British Army with their mismanagement, short-sighted cuts, shameful negligence and refusal to adapt to new threats, and members of the current shadow team played key roles in that record of failure.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I, too, served with 20th Armoured Brigade and was deployed in operations from Germany over to the Balkans. She talks about mismanagement. She is in a position where, unless more funding comes forward, the Government are about to make some of the biggest cuts to the armed forces during the most hostile situation since the second world war. How does she square that circle?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am proud of what we have already achieved in government on defence. We have raised defence spending, despite the record of previous Governments. I am in a position to argue every day for our armed forces to get what they need to have, and I will continue to do so.
The Labour Government were elected in places such as Aldershot, Portsmouth and Plymouth to fix the Conservatives’ mess, and we have begun to do so. Recruitment is up, retention is up and morale is up. Personnel have received three above-inflation pay rises, and there has been real action to improve housing, enabling our armed forces to focus on national security.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am going to make some progress.
RAF pilots recently flew over 3,000 hours of defensive missions, intercepting drones and missiles to protect our people and our allies in the middle east. The ground-based air defence crews protected UK and allied bases under fire, shooting down more than 100 drones. Our Royal Navy and Royal Marines expertly intercepted a Russian shadow fleet vessel, and they work around the clock to protect our underwater infrastructure.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am going to make a little bit of progress. I think I have been quite generous.
From the High North to the far east, as our world becomes more dangerous, demands on defence grow. As usual, our armed forces are responding with incredible professionalism and effect. Our forces continue to deliver vast amounts of military equipment to Ukraine, including our largest ever numbers of drones, and they are ready to lead the multinational force to bolster Ukraine’s defences in the event of a ceasefire. In the middle east, we have HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay deployed, along with autonomous mine-hunting equipment, to play our part in a multinational mission to secure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz and bring down prices for families across the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the Minister for giving way. If everything is so great, why has Lord Robertson described the Government’s situation as one of “corrosive complacency”?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am proud of the record we have achieved so far in Government. I think we all recognise that there is more to do and we are working hard to do that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is giving a really passionate speech and talking about her personal experience of being in the armed forces. It is important that the Conservative party hear again the figures she quoted in respect of the number of armed forces personnel at the start of her time in the forces and the number at the time she left, and the difference in the amount of officers. Will she also talk about what the Labour Government are doing to support our armed forces personnel and to increase morale, which is hugely important?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the importance of our armed forces personnel. I am very proud to be able to point to the improvements we have made in recruitment, retention and morale, which show that we are being effective in delivering for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.
The motion before us may claim otherwise, but the facts are that the work being done by our armed forces on multiple deployments speaks for itself. Every hour of every day, our armed forces are out there across the world serving their country, serving UK interests, and protecting our freedoms and prosperity. It is business as usual for them, and it is business as usual across defence.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister talks up the effect that our armed forces deliver in various different theatres, but they are doing so on a shoestring. While the DIP is delayed, apprentices will not start this August in Scotland or this September in England. Investment by primes will not happen this financial year because of the delayed DIP. More important than that, our allies look at the United Kingdom and see an investment plan that does not exist and a Government in disarray. More important than that, those who would seek to do us harm look at the UK now and see a country that either does not know how to, or cannot afford to, defend itself. Is she proud of that legacy?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is on the hon. Gentleman as well. He has questions to ask about his party’s support for defence—for example on its refusal to fund the welding school that would have brought us vital skills.
The Defence Secretary is working through the DIP line by line, so that our personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear that he will get the DIP right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I think I have been generous. I am going to keep going—thank you.
Unlike the suggestion in today’s motion, the DIP has not halted this Government’s investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces. Since the election, we have signed over 1,400 major defence contracts, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies as we deliver on our commitment to back British.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I have given way enough times; I will keep going.
The Opposition want to use the wider situation in Westminster for political grandstanding—it is all they can do and it is all they know how to do—but we are rebuilding our armed forces for our age of big data, AI and autonomy, and have reclaimed our position on the world stage. We have committed to an uplift in defence spending. We have delivered the biggest export deals for decades and fuelled defence as an engine for growth, benefiting communities across the UK. That is a record to be proud of, and one that we will build on as we build warfighting readiness.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will keep going. Rather than debate the issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government from the party that gave us five different Prime Ministers and five different Defence Secretaries in 10 years—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.
Louise Sandher-Jones
We have a plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030 from a party whose manifesto committed to spending just 2.5% by that date, and calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a former Government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted, underfitted and unsuited. They left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes delayed or over budget.
It is a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland, from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful—it protected nobody. We have had many debates on the issue that the Government are reflecting on. I have set out my position many times, and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress the Bill in due course. As I have said before, I am mindful of the responsibility to get it right.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that matter?
Louise Sandher-Jones
No, I am going to finish. Armed Forces Week is a moment to give thanks. But the best thanks a Government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these Benches, but our full backing. There are more officer-cadets, lieutenants, and Captain Joneses serving today—we are a big family. I say to them that the Conservative Government failed me; this Labour Government will deliver for them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Armed Forces Bill
Louise Sandher-Jones ExcerptsMonday 22nd June 2026
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 June 2026 - large print - (22 Jun 2026)
Sammy Wilson
I do not know who advised that, or whether it was the Northern Ireland Office, because of course it is prone to trying to avoid any conflict with Sinn Féin when it comes to policies. If it was, I hope that this will be seriously thought about and that the Minister will look at ways of including local authorities in North Ireland in the legislation, so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the armed forces covenant, which is meant to be a national commitment, applies nationally right across the United Kingdom.
I want to support some of the other new clauses, though I want to dissociate myself from new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). They represent more of his obsession with finding ways of trying to batter Israel than really being concerned about the welfare of soldiers. The fact that he is not here to answer challenges to those new clauses says a lot as well, because he knows exactly what the motivation is.
New clause 3 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to collect data on the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It is very sad when I walk down the streets of London—towards Victoria station, for example—and see people sitting in shop doorways. I remember speaking to one of them. He was an ex-soldier, and he blamed his situation on himself, but the fact of the matter was that it seemed that the Army had no idea what condition he was in. I met an ex-soldier in my constituency advice centre on Friday who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and who cannot find any support or help. He left the Army in 2004, and the impact had come on some years later. He did not have his medical records and had been referred to one body and then another, but was finding no help. We have a duty to monitor what happens to those who leave the armed forces. They sometimes leave with injuries, either mental or physical, and we must ensure that we look after them when they have suffered as a result of their service.
It is so easy for people to get in a boat, come across the channel and get into the United Kingdom and then be treated to accommodation and support and quickly be given asylum to stay in this country and leave to remain in this country, but there are those who have served in the armed forces and want to bring their families here and who face a financial penalty for doing so. Waiving those fees is one of the reasons why we support new clause 4. We should not be treating the families of those who served our country in a far lesser way than we treat those who break into our country illegally, and are then treated and have money lavished upon them. On the amendment referring to a veterans’ commissioner dealing with mental health, given the number of soldiers who have suffered from mental health problems, it is important that they should have an advocate for the problems they face.
The last proposal I want to support is new clause 19 on national standards, funding and monitoring of the armed forces covenant duty. It is one thing to have a duty and to put it down as a covenant duty and a promise to soldiers, but if we are not monitoring how it works and funding it, it will of course not have the impact that it is meant to have. The Government were right to bring forward this legislation, and many of its provisions are welcome, but there are amendments before the House tonight that I believe would improve it. We owe it to those who have served us, and I hope that the Government will take on board the reasonable amendments that I have spoken about.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
First, I want to take this opportunity to put on record my huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) for his service as Secretary of State for Defence. He has been a stalwart champion of our armed forces, and I am especially grateful for his support for our service personnel and their families, driving forward improvements to pay, housing and childcare. His guiding light is, and has always been, to serve those who serve us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is a formidable operator, a passionate advocate for military modernisation and transformation, and not half-bad at pull-ups either. I hope to match his work on the former, although perhaps am unlikely to do so on the latter, and I look forward to working with both of these fine colleagues as we go forward.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which raise issues fully debated in Committee and on which the Government position remains unchanged, I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I will focus on the new amendments and a number of the principal issues raised while relying on the record of earlier debates for the remainder.
Helen Maguire
I seek a quick clarification on something that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and was raised in Committee. Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box, because this has been raised with me by the Surrey Military Support Group, that the term “local authority” refers to borough councils, unitary single foundation authorities and foundation strategic authorities?
Louise Sandher-Jones
To confirm, where the covenant duty is provided by local government, then it will apply. For example, if it provides housing, it applies. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.
I will begin by speaking to the amendment in the Secretary of State’s name making minor and technical changes to the Military Lands Act 1892 that are consequential to the establishment of the reserve forces and cadets associations by clause 38 of the Bill.
New clause 4 would waive settlement visa fees for members of the armed forces and the dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and recognise that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to reflect the points raised in previous debates, and I also recognise the important role that stakeholders such as the Royal British Legion have played in highlighting this important issue. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full. Work is actively under way across Government and we are determined to bring forward a solution that is clear and works for service personnel and their families.
It is important that we get this right, rather than legislate in a way that is partial or risk creating inconsistencies and, as in Committee, new clause 4 does not clearly achieve the stated aim. It is also important that immigration fee waivers continue to be provided for through the established framework in secondary legislation, rather than be fixed in primary legislation. I know how passionate the hon. and gallant Gentleman is about this issue, and he is right to demand speed and progress. I hope he will recognise that while primary legislation is not needed, our commitment—my commitment—is no less than his and I look forward to when we do deliver this important manifesto commitment.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister accepts that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to try to make it as watertight as possible. I appreciate what she says about primary and secondary legislation; it seems like a little bit of a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card for the Government. Can she confirm whether there is anything wrong with the new clause as it is drafted other than the change to primary legislation, and if there is not, what changes do the Government plan to push through a piece of secondary legislation in the very near future in order to implement the measures as drafted?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it.
I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK-based companies.
Calum Miller
The Minister has just said that the Government intend to keep the House regularly updated on these matters, but she declined the Liberal Democrat amendment that would set out that commitment in the Bill. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box that the Government will report, within six months of the enactment of the Bill, on the delays caused by the delay to the DIP, and the impact that they have had on the economy?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are committed to publishing the DIP before the Ankara summit in July.
Amendment 11 concerns the Defence Housing Service’s budget and the defence investment plan. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will understand that I will not comment on any figures in the DIP—it will be published soon enough. Our defence housing strategy will deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding. That did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer, or the improvements that our service families deserve. The Defence Housing Service’s budget will be clearly set out, and it will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report. As the Select Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that stops the Department getting work under way. The Defence Housing Service will be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.
Mr Francois
We were told multiple times—loads of times—over five months that the Government would invest £9.2 billion over 10 years to achieve the objectives of the Defence Housing Service, so I ask the Minister again: will she give a commitment to the House that that figure has not been reduced? If she cannot do that, people will believe that it has been reduced.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will not comment, piece by piece, on what might be in the defence investment plan. We are getting on with the job of making improvements for service families now, and we are preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service.
Amendment 11 states that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP. That risks constraining the Defence Housing Service in a scenario where investment is set out in the plan, but has to rise thereafter. Any additional spending then risks being in breach of this requirement, unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that would constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements.
New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that
“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”,
provided that such measures are
“not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”.
When the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was being considered, concerns were raised that its clause 12 risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. It was also seen as unnecessary, because the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, so the provision did not add any additional legal power and was largely symbolic. It was the last Government who agreed to its removal from that Bill, and I have not heard a convincing case for its inclusion in this Bill.
I will address new clauses 3 and 5 together, as they both deal with how we care for our veterans. I thank hon. Members for tabling them. I appreciate their concerns about our armed forces veterans, and I acknowledge the sentiments behind the new clauses. We have published our new 10-year veterans strategy, which sets out a new narrative around the remarkable men and women who have served in our armed forces. It applies UK-wide, is cross-Government and cross-sector in scope, and will provide significant opportunity for both data collection and data sharing, and we do not wish to distract from the progression of this work.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Recruitment and retention have both improved, and, crucially, morale has improved, as measured through the armed forces continuous attitude survey, so our work so far has shown clear results.
Stuart Anderson
I am very conscious of the words that we are saying to veterans. In the Minister’s response to a written parliamentary question on 28 May, she said that UK veterans faced a six-month wait when applying for war pensions in 2024-25. It is now 18 months at a minimum. I know that because I am going through the process, after a minor amputation of my foot. That period has more than tripled on her watch. Was she aware of that? Is that acceptable? It is a bare minimum of 18 months before there is even a response.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very sorry to hear of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman faces. I am very well aware of the issues faced, and we have taken a number of measures to counter them. I will ensure that we write to him with very full details of the measures that we have taken to address the issue.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I am going to make some progress, because I only have so long.
We are delivering Op Valour, a new national programme designed to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve. Part of the programme is about using data to ensure that the right services are delivered at the right time, to the right place.
On the issue of homelessness, we are delivering Op Fortitude. I say to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to everybody in this House that if they come across an ex-service person on the street, they should make use of Op Fortitude. The telephone number is 0800 952 0774. It is a single referral pathway that connects veterans who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness with help and support, and it has already helped more than 1,000 veterans with supported housing and temporary accommodation. On mental health, we have invested more than £25 million this financial year in Op Courage. Again, it is a single pathway in England for supporting veterans’ mental health, and it has already supported more than 35,000 veterans. We have a range of programmes to support those leaving service in finding fulfilling and sustainable careers that make use of their unique skills and experience.
Let me turn to new clause 13. After well-documented, historic shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up by around 13%, and outflow is down by 9%. We have cut red tape, addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention. I am concerned that if the Government were required to set out an armed forces retention strategy, alongside the annual “Votes A” paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained, it would create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and would largely duplicate information that is already available. We already publish information on the size and make-up of the armed forces, and we will continue to publish that. We will also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitudes surveys that the MOD runs annually.
New clause 14 would require an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. We are improving retention through sustained investment in our people. We have a range of policies designed to help those who are medically discharged, and to ensure that people get the support that they need, and they are kept under constant scrutiny. The results of that can be seen in the decreasing outflow rates in the quarterly personnel statistics.
As I have mentioned, we also publish the attitudes surveys each year, and we will continue to do so. Although these show that service personnel still have some significant issues with service life, we believe that the investments we have made will mean that we start to see an improvement in future surveys. We will also continue to publish a range of other reports. For example, the Service Complaints Ombudsman publishes an annual report, which will be taken forward by the new Armed Forces Commissioner.
Let me turn to amendment 12. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) raised the issue that low trust reduces the likelihood of reports of sexual offences. I take this issue very seriously and have done a lot of work on it, but the feedback from victims and from our victim and witness care unit has been positive; it indicates that they feel supported, listened to and understood. We have seen an increase in reporting of sexual offences, which may indicate greater confidence in reporting them. We continue to strive to improve the service justice system, and to raise confidence in it. That is why the Bill strengthens support and protections for victims of sexual offences.
Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the House that no transfer of records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service, because defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records in the same electronic system.
Let me turn to amendment 1. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for it, and recognise the concerns raised regarding the position of Northern Ireland councils. However, the amendment reflects a misunderstanding of the role that those councils play in the delivery landscape. The covenant legal duty applies to bodies when they are exercising public functions in certain key policy areas. In England, Scotland and Wales, local authorities play a direct role in delivering services in policy areas such as housing, which is why they are included. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for those policy areas rests with the Executive Departments and their arm’s length bodies; councils do not exercise functions in relation to the policy areas covered by the covenant duty. While councils can support the armed forces community through engagement, they do not have the levers to address the disadvantages that the duty seeks to tackle. Clause 2 reflects the distinct devolved arrangements across the UK, ensuring that the duty sits with those bodies best placed to make a meaningful difference.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice.
In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move.
The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development. Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are incredibly important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation—the systems are different, the legal frameworks are different, and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.
Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I have little time, so I must make progress.
New clause 17 would exempt certain service personnel and veterans from routine reassessments or reviews of the personal independence payment. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important to note that the PIP is a civilian welfare benefit, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once someone has been awarded the armed forces independence payment, it is paid for life. It is not subject to periodic reviews, and there is no requirement for reassessment; it is specifically designed to provide stability and certainty for those with the most severe, life-changing injuries sustained in service. It is set at the same level as the highest rate of PIP or disability living allowance, whether or not the recipient has any care needs.
Although I recognise the intention behind new clauses 19 and 20, a national standard is not required. I hope that what I have outlined provides the necessary assurances to the House that these new clauses are not necessary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. I commend amendment 2 to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years
“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”—(Ben Obese-Jecty.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank everybody who has helped bring to the Bill to this stage, in particular the parliamentary staff, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and officials in the Ministry of Defence, especially the Bill team. They have all worked diligently to deliver it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and all Members on both sides of the House for their constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to my predecessor, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for all his hard work and dedication in getting the Bill to this stage.
The first duty of any Government is the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a duty carried out every day by the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces, with the support of their families, who together make immense sacrifices to keep our nation safe. Too often, however, those who serve and the families who stand beside them feel undervalued. This Government were elected on a promise to change that and to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through the Bill, we are delivering on that promise.
The Bill not only fulfils our constitutional responsibility to renew the legal basis for the armed forces, but delivers meaningful reform across four key pillars: extending the armed forces covenant legal duty, establishing the Defence Housing Service, expanding our pool of reserves, and reforming the service justice system to boost protections and support for serving personnel.
First, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant—the promise that those who serve and their families should face no disadvantage because of that service.
Secondly, the Bill addresses long-standing concerns about defence housing. The quality of accommodation is not a peripheral issue; it is central to recruitment, retention and family life.
Thirdly, the Bill recognises the increasingly vital role that reservists play in modern defence. They are essential to our operational capability. Deployed alongside regulars and reserves, our strategic reserve gives us wider access to the specialist skills we increasingly need in the face of a shifting landscape of threats. The measures in the Bill help to support mobilisation, improve flexibility and ensure that reservists are properly integrated, valued and supported. They will therefore strengthen not only our military capability, but the essential connection between our armed forces and wider society.
Finally, the Bill delivers important reforms to the service justice system. Discipline, fairness and confidence in the system are fundamental to operational effectiveness and morale. The changes set out in the Bill aim to modernise and improve victim support and boost protections for those serving.
Taken together, these four pillars reflect our commitment to improve service life in a practical and lasting way. At a time of growing global uncertainty, we are asking more of our armed forces than ever before, so it is right that we match that ask with action to protect, support and value those who serve.
The Bill not only renews the legal foundation of our armed forces; it renews our national commitment to them. I end by paying tribute to the courage, professionalism and dedication shown by the men and women of our armed forces. We are proud to count them as the finest in the world and, above all, this Bill is for them. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
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
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Before I respond to the question, I want to recognise my hon. Friend’s incredible work on widening access to bereavement leave for new parents. Having spoken to a constituent of mine, I know how much of a godsend that leave is for those parents who very tragically find themselves in that position.
The armed forces occupational paternity leave scheme provides equivalent arrangements to statutory provision, including full pay, and 1,684 service personnel took paternity leave in 2025. The Ministry of Defence also makes provision for shared parental leave, to ensure that parents have greater flexibility to share responsibility for the care of their child.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for her kind words, which really mean a lot, and for her answer. The sacrifice that a person in the armed forces makes is felt by their entire family; when a new baby arrives, it is felt even more deeply. Two weeks’ paternity leave is just not enough. Many, including The Dad Shift, want an increase in parental leave. Our Women and Equalities Committee recommended changing that to at least six weeks’ parental leave for dads. Does the Minister agree that all dads need quality time to support the other parent and bond with newborns, and that armed forces families are owed that vital time together?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very important point. Other mechanisms for giving leave are available, but I would welcome a meeting with her to discuss the issue further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her question. On this issue, she is a champion—a word often used in this Chamber, but true today. I thank the Minister for her response. When it comes to how the Government promote this issue, it is important when recruiting people to let them know that life in the Army is as normal as civvy life—the same opportunities are there. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is promoted in recruitment, so that everyone knows the opportunities and benefits of joining the forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the quite good provision in the armed forces. I think particularly of the maternity pay, which is not always the first thing on people’s minds when they join the armed forces. We offer a range of benefits, beyond pay, to our armed forces recruits when they begin a career. He is absolutely right that we should highlight the package in the round. As someone who benefited from it, I know that there are some excellent things in there.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
This year we have provided £480,000 to part-fund 130 Armed Forces Day community events, up from 85 last year. The national event, on 27 June, will be in Aldershot and Farnborough, celebrating and thanking our armed forces, who are doing a brilliant job keeping the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Armed Forces Day has an important purpose: to reconnect society with our armed forces and to communicate why strong defence matters.
Paul Waugh
To celebrate Armed Forces Day this year in Rochdale, there will be not only the usual flag-raising ceremony at Rochdale town hall, but on Saturday 27 June we will have a free community picnic in Denehurst Park, with live music from local bands and military vehicle displays. Will the Minister join me in thanking Adam Trennery of Get Together After Serving, known as GTAS, not only for putting on this marvellous event, but for all the work he does all year round?
Louise Sandher-Jones
This Government are proud to support veterans in Rochdale. I am so pleased that we have been able to provide funding for what sounds like a fantastic Armed Forces Day event. I give a huge thank you to Adam Trennery and GTAS for the amazing work they do to support our service people and veterans. Whether it is the Armed Forces Day flag-raising ceremony at Rochdale town hall, to which my hon. Friend refers, or Rochdale’s military breakfast club, we are proud to support our service people, veterans and communities for the contribution they make to our society.
Euan Stainbank
This year’s Armed Forces Day is as important as ever, and I look forward to attending Falkirk’s event on 4 July in Callander Park. It is important that Falkirk’s veterans are heard there and every day. I met Veterans Together Forth Valley last week, and I heard from many brave men and women who served our country who feel that politicians have not been listening for a long time. We must take that perception seriously and seek to reverse it. What will Ministers do to support veterans’ voices being heard before, during and after Armed Forces Day?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The new Valour programme will make it easier for veterans to access the care and support they deserve. Crucially, it will also improve how their voices are heard. We opened the first 14 Valour centres in March this year, and round 2 is open for applications for further centres. In addition to Valour, we also have wider services support, such as Op Courage for mental health, Op Restore for physical health, Op Fortitude for those at risk of homelessness and Op Ascend for employment support. Veterans can access all those programmes, and I welcome any feedback.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I fear I know the answer to this question in advance, but I shall ask it anyway. Would one way of reconnecting society with the armed forces at Armed Forces Day not be to revisit the testimony given to the then Defence Committee in March 2017 by four eminent professors of law? It showed how it is possible to protect veterans from being hauled before the courts for using lethal force against terrorists in the act of committing terrorism. That testimony deserves revisiting. Will the Government re-examine it and reinstate the immunity and the investigative processes that enable that protection to be done?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of how strongly I believe it is important that those who have been victims have a right to have investigations, including into the murders of British service personnel. I take his point, and I am sure that people are well aware of the point that he makes.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
This Armed Forces Day will mark the first that Eastbourne commemorates without Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, a local veteran who died last year. Pauline received military compensation for injuries she received during her service, but she had her pension credit cut because her compensation was considered as income. To mark this Armed Forces Day, will the Minister review that arrangement, so that we can make sure that our veterans are not punished for their service to our country?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue, and I am very sorry to hear about Pauline. As I am sure he knows, the interplay between benefits that are available to the general public and military benefits can be complex, but I should add that there are mechanisms to ensure that no veteran is left out in that interplay. If he will write to me with the specifics, I should be able to clarify whether the correct processes were followed.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
On 21 May I visited the London Oratory School to meet cadets and to announce the first ever National Cadets Week, which will take place in October and will celebrate the cadet forces, one of the country’s most effective youth organisations. A new cadets action plan will set out the Government’s long-term vision to deliver on the strategic defence review recommendation that we expand our cadet forces.
Lee Pitcher
I welcome the announcement of the first National Cadets Week, and I look forward to the new cadets action plan and the long-term vision for cadet forces. The figures released last week showing that more than 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training are deeply worrying, both for young people themselves and for wider society. Cadet forces can help to meet that challenge by giving young people confidence, discipline, skills, structure and a sense of purpose, helping them to succeed and thrive. How will the Minister ensure that cadet opportunities are not only maintained but expanded, so that young people in communities such as mine in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme can continue to benefit?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise how fundamental the cadet forces can be, especially for those who are at risk of not proceeding to further education, employment or training. They provide a fantastic opportunity for young people to have a go at something that is not school, and to gain confidence and find out what it is that they want to do. The cadet action plan will have three key aims. The first is to establish how we can recruit and support the adult volunteers without whose amazing work we would not have the cadets at all, the second is to ensure that we have the correct support for our cadets, including support for infrastructure, and the third is to ensure that every young person in the country is aware of the amazing things that they can gain from the cadets.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The establishment of a combined cadet force at the Newark academy was an incredible step forward for the town, bringing discipline, respect, training opportunities and a sense of pride. It was very unfortunate that the Department for Education chose to cut the funding, making it more difficult for other schools—particularly schools like this, in working-class communities—to establish new combined cadet forces in the future. What can the Minister do to ensure that funding is in place so that this is not just the preserve of communities with grammar schools or public schools, and that all communities, like the one that I represent, will be given the opportunity to have combined cadet forces?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that we have committed an additional £70 million to funding the expansion of the cadets, which the Government he was a member of never did.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the fantastic work that cadet groups are doing in Basingstoke. They exemplify the confidence, independence and community spirit fostered by MOD cadets across the UK. In October, we are launching the first ever National Cadets Week. Crucially, we are developing a cadets action plan to expand cadet forces, by improving the offer to our wonderful adult volunteers to ensure that they have the right support and resources including infrastructure, and making sure we are selling the offer to our young people of the amazing things they can get from being in the cadets. I would be happy to visit when my diary allows.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
There were concerning reports at the weekend about the global combat air programme’s being delayed. We know the funding for Edgewing, agreed in April, is due to run out this month. Can the Minister guarantee that a new deal will be signed and in place before the end of June?
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the wonderful work done by the Thongsbridge Army cadets. As he rightly says, they exemplify the wonderful things that young people can gain in the MOD cadets across the UK, as well as in his constituency. I can confirm that we are launching the first ever National Cadets Week in October, and developing a cadets action plan to expand the cadet forces by improving the offer to our amazing adult volunteers, ensuring that they have the right resources, including infrastructure, and making sure that we communicate to our young people the amazing things they can gain from the cadets.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I associate myself with the words of the Chair of the Defence Committee on the need to get to 3%. Given that we are one of only two countries in the European continent to run a nuclear programme, does the Secretary of State agree that, if we knock out the nuclear programme, we are actually spending more like 1.7% or 1.8% on our conventional defence, and that that compares rather more with Spain than it does with countries such as Poland or Estonia, which are spending more like 4% or 5%? Does he therefore agree that we need to uplift immediately?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Having recently visited Wiltshire cadets in Old Sarum, I very much welcome what the Minister said about National Cadet Week. Will she ensure that all schools, particularly those in Pride in Place areas, such as the one in Salisbury, are made aware of the transformational opportunities of attending the cadets? That will be a great way of expanding the uptake, which I am sure she is aiming for.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I am working with the Department for Education, as it is vital that we communicate the amazing things that cadets can do to complement the education delivered in schools.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement to select Blackpool and The Fylde College as a defence technical excellence college, which will build a skilled workforce and offer stable employment and opportunities in my constituency. But without a Typhoon jet order of our own, we risk losing the ability to build our own fast jets. This is about our national security. Germany, Italy and Spain—
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Thursday I was on the water with King’s Lynn Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets. As the Minister will know, the Army and Air Force cadets are wholly funded by the Ministry of Defence. What provision will the Royal Navy make to fund vital equipment, such as the new boats that those cadets need?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I appreciate that the hon. Member understands the unique funding arrangements for the sea cadets, and how they are rightly proud of their history and traditions. I take his point and understand that we must do what we can to support the sea cadets in getting the kit, training and volunteers needed to keep delivering their fantastic activities.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
As my ministerial Friends will know, MBDA, which makes the Storm Shadow missiles used in Ukraine, has doubled its workforce in my constituency since 2010 and is investing £4.8 million annually in training. What more can the Secretary of State do to support businesses in the training and resilience of their workforces?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The SDR acknowledges that a significant proportion of the reserves work in the NHS and that, if they were to be deployed, there would be significant issues. Given that defence medical services and the NHS have to work together, will the Government set out what plans they are putting in place for this?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Our work to reinvigorate the strategic reserve is absolutely vital. It is an issue that has not previously been thought about in the necessary detail. This Government are utterly committed to ensuring that the strategic reserve is ready to meet the demands that may be placed on it, including, as the hon. Lady says, workforce implications.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituent David Hewitt was dismissed from the RAF simply for being gay, and that was just days before the armed forces lifted the ban on LGBT service personnel. Years later, he is still waiting for the restoration of his rank and financial redress. What can the Minister do to expedite this process, and does she agree with me, on the first day of Pride Month, on how unacceptable that legacy is?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I completely echo the sentiment of my hon. Friend over how unacceptably our LGBT service personnel were treated. As he will know, the LGBT financial recognition scheme has made significant progress, but it has not yet been completed. If he writes to me with details of his constituent, I will look into it as a matter of urgency.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the date on which the very first documents relating to the Chinook air disaster were closed and why it is that Ministers seem to have absolutely no oversight, responsibility or accountability over when decisions are made to close documents to the public.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will write to the hon. Lady with the specific information. I know that she has also submitted questions to my office about this issue. I would gently say that there are very important provisions, including the protection of personal data, that govern those documents. I would just like to state for the record how seriously I am taking this issue. I have the deepest sympathies for the Chinook crash families. I understand that they have their search for justice. I cannot comment in too much detail, but I would like to state that I am very sympathetic.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s strategic defence review recommended an increase in the Army Reserve by 20%, but at the very same time the Government are closing Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks, which trains 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Will the Minister review that decision so that we have the capacity to train new Army reservist recruits?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am sure that decisions about which activity is conducted where are taken across the UK, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail about those barracks.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Investment in the UK’s defence sector, especially defence SMEs, is desperately needed. What will the Government do to drive forward investment for defence procurement SMEs?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Tomorrow is the 32nd anniversary of the Chinook disaster, when we lost so many of our high-ranking anti-terror and security experts. Yet the families of those individuals still crave the truth. We had a saga, with the Department claiming for years that it was pilot error, only to have then to reverse that decision, and we still do not have the truth. There are still documents locked away for 100 years, and families are crying out for the truth. They hear talk about the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour, but why are the Government continuing to cover up on this issue, particularly on the question of mechanical unfitness?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that tomorrow is a very sad anniversary. I am sure that he will be aware that members of my own corps sadly lost their lives in that crash. My ministerial colleagues and I have met with the families and heard the challenges they have faced, and I am very sympathetic to them. I would gently say that where documents are closed for reasons relating to personal information, that is something that we have to respect, as there are other people involved here. But I continue to meet with the families as required, and I am sympathetic to their situation.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Israel’s illegal invasion of Lebanon is continuing unabated. Millions have left their homes, and millions of refugees have fled to the north. It is happening all over again: people are suffering and civilians are dying. What is the Secretary of State doing to suspend all military co-operation with Israel so that it stops the Gazafication of Lebanon?
Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations: Annual Reports and Accounts 2
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 have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Council of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations annual report and accounts 2023-24 and 2024-25, in accordance with the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations Regulations 2014.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-20/HCWS48.
[HCWS48]
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme
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)
The LGBT financial recognition scheme includes two types of payments, the “LGBT FRS Dismissed or Discharged Payment” and the “LGBT FRS Impact Payment”. The impact payment is available to all those who experienced pain and suffering directly related to the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, including harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. There are three tariff bands: level one £1,000-£5,000; level two £5,000-£10,000; and level three £10,000-£20,000. This is determined by an independent panel.
To enhance decision-making capacity, the independent panel has been extended with the appointment of a second panel chair and additional panel members. The additional panel members will be Joanne Briggs (Chair), Barbara Johnson, Fiona Gardner, Gillian McGill, Kevin Hood, Max Johnstone and Oliver Brown. The independent panel will continue to sit as a chair plus four members, except for in exceptional circumstances.
Both independent panel chair and independent panel members are appointed for a period of 10 months as direct ministerial appointments.
The Government acknowledge the hurt caused by the historic policy banning LGBT personnel in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000, which was wholly unacceptable and is not representative of defence today. The Government are committed to righting these historic wrongs, supporting LGBT veterans, and improving the experience of LGBTQ+ personnel in the armed forces.
[HCWS29]
Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces: 2025 Annual Report
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)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces annual report for 2025 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her fifth and final year as the ombudsman.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the new Armed Forces Commissioner will follow once that work is complete.
Our armed forces are at the heart of our nation’s security. With demands on defence rising, it is right that we continue to step up our support for them and their families.
That is why we have created the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner role, who will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by serving personnel and their families, to challenge Ministers and military leaders and to report directly to Parliament.
The Government commitment to supporting members of the armed forces and their families to come forward to raise issues, and improve the way they are dealt with, is unwavering.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-14/hcws1568
[HCWS1568]
Army Reserve
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(3 months 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, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate on this hugely important topic, as he rightly noted. I am a member of the Strategic Reserve myself, and I am grateful to other colleagues who have joined us to talk about the important role that the reserves play in our armed forces. During my time in the British Army, when I was a regular, I served with some fantastic reservists. They were and are a seamless and indistinguishable part of teams across the armed forces.
I will turn to a couple of points raised during the debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his wonderful advocacy for the cadets. They are a fantastic part of our armed forces community, and the support they give to our young people is truly transformational and life-changing for so many. This Government have a commitment to growing the cadets; I was at a cadet event yesterday, and they did a fantastic job. As he rightly points out, they provide wonderful structure for young people growing up across our country.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly highlighted the fantastic benefits of joining the reserves, both in terms of the skills and experience that people gain—many of these skills are difficult to gain anywhere else—and the values that can be learned from being in the reserves. I thank him for his advocacy.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire is right to talk about the importance of RSDs. I am cognisant of that for a host of reasons, not only because they maintain capability, but because for many of our reservists they are a vital part of their income; losing RSDs has an oversized impact on their ability to manage their everyday expenses. I am very cognisant of that, as well as of the overall impact on skills retention and retention in general.
I am sure the right hon. Member will understand that I cannot make a commitment here and now, and he noted that RSDs are budgeted by the services rather than centrally. However, I note that the Army has had no RSD cuts over the past two years, and I hope he understands how seriously we take that. I would hate for anybody to think that we would see RSDs as a lever to pull without recognising the impact of doing so. I join him in highlighting how important they are.
The right hon. Member rightly raises some of the other challenges that the reserves are facing, whether on their estate or the kit and equipment to which they have access. Again, this Government are committed to investing in our armed forces. He will be well aware of our commitment to raise defence spending to 2.6% of GDP next year, with further ambitions. As he says, this is in direct recognition of how important it is to invest in RSDs. He will appreciate that I cannot comment further on Milroy today, but I am sure he will note my previous remarks.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman when we have a further update.
I am not familiar with the Guardian front page that he mentioned, but I will dig it out of an archive. I am sure he will appreciate that it is from a bit before I started paying attention to these things.
We agree that our reserves are a vital source of expertise, and they are a critical link, as the right hon. Gentleman and others have noted, to industry and wider society. Reserves are central to the credibility of our deterrence, the defence of our homeland, our warfighting readiness and our ability to fight a protracted conflict.
There is a consensus in many areas that there has been too much complacency for too long, as well as a failure to appreciate the importance of our reserves, a failure to make the most of them and a failure to invest in them. That is borne out in the data, which the right hon. Member will be familiar with. When I left the Army in 2020, our volunteer reserve force was around 30,000, and it was 26,000 by the time of the last election, so when we came into Government we were determined to turn the situation around.
Our strategic defence review has highlighted the need for the reserve force to have increased scale, greater access to specialist skills and greater workforce agility, which is really important. We have accepted the recommendations and committed to the 20% increase in the medium term, as the right hon. Member notes, as well as a number of sweeping reforms to grow our strategic reserve.
I will quickly provide an update on those two lines of work.
Steve Barclay
I say this very gently, because there is huge agreement on this, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Labour members, says no movement is expected on that until the next decade—so not this Parliament. Does she agree on that, or does she think her colleagues are wrong?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Like many in the MOD, I like a challenge. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that I very much mean what I say when I talk about the importance of the reserves and how that is linked to numbers.
I want to address some of the criticisms that have come our way. At one point last year, almost 700 of our reservists were mobilised. Currently, there are 25,770 men and women in the Army Reserve. They have contributed to seven major operations across Europe, helping to resettle eligible Afghans and training Ukrainian forces—that is all incredibly vital work. A small fall in the active reserve last year does not necessarily represent a continuation of the hollowing out of the reserve force we have seen over many years.
Before Putin ordered his tanks into Ukraine in 2022, we had just under 30,000 reservists. Despite the fact we have seen how important reservists have been to the defence of Ukraine, and how much that conflict has underscored to many of us the necessity of mass in the modern battlefield—as opposed to conflicts we have engaged in elsewhere—we still saw reservist numbers dwindle. Indeed, by the second anniversary of that invasion, we had already lost another 3,000 reservists.
Since the last election, as the right hon. Gentleman can see, this Government have taken the actions needed to stem that bleeding. We are achieving progress, although I appreciate that he is urging us to go further and faster. We are introducing multiple reforms to fix the foundations. For example, we are unblocking the pipeline from regular to reserve service by removing the requirement that someone has to leave the armed forces before they can join the reserves. And our recruitment reform operation, Invector, is helping to drive up applications and enhance training throughout.
We have also increased the retirement age and brought in greater flexibility around mandatory retirement. We have introduced a pan-defence skills framework to bring renewed vigour to skills mapping, which will enable the MOD to better target the civilian expertise we need and recruit accordingly. We are also improving and building the digital infrastructure we need to manage, track and keep in touch with our reservists. Since last July, we have turned around the shrinking volunteer force and are starting to see green shoots of fresh growth, with renewed purpose and what I hope all will agree is a bright future.
That brings me to the second strand, which is our Strategic Reserve. The suite of reforms that we initiated through our Armed Forces Bill will update the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and strengthen the Government’s ability to generate and maintain a larger and more capable Strategic Reserve.
We had faced a number of legislative constraints that impeded our work to enlarge the Strategic Reserve, so we are dismantling them, block by block. Most notably, we are putting in place a new recall power to lower the threshold of warlike operations, to introduce a number of adjustments to expand the scope of recall powers, and indeed to raise the recall age from 55 to 65 for other ranks, for those who wish to be recalled. We are also harmonising recall liability across our three services. There are historical quirks that we are determined to get after, grasp the nettle and fix.
To heighten the readiness of our Strategic Reserve, we have advanced plans to kick-start annual training for the ex-regular element of the Strategic Reserve, which will include a programme of employer outreach and a range of employer incentives to help facilitate it. We also have plans to modernise the administrative digital infrastructure that underpins our Strategic Reserve by January 2027, which again is in line with the SDR commitment.
We are also addressing structural governance weaknesses. We are establishing a single Reserve Forces and Cadets Association to take over the functions of the 13 regional associations that currently exist. Again, that addresses recommendations made in multiple independent reviews, and it will strengthen governance.
Last year, the Reserves Continuous Attitude Survey identified people’s top motivations for joining and serving in the reserves: a desire to serve our country, to overcome challenges and to develop as an individual. I know from my own experience, and from the experience of many others here in Parliament, that our armed forces are unparalleled in their ability to tick those three boxes, and I encourage anybody who loves their country, is ambitious and wants to have an adventure to get involved.
For our part, the Government are getting on with the job of building a bigger and more capable reserve force, and a bigger and more capable Strategic Reserve. We were clear in the SDR that reaching these goals will take time, as the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire mentioned, but we have the plans in place. We are reforming the legislation and taking action, all backed by our commitment to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war.
I conclude by putting on record the Government’s appreciation, which I am sure is shared by Members from parties across this House, of the commitment and service of all those who step forward to serve in our reserves. I can only reiterate, based on my own experience, how integral they are to many military operations, both here at home and abroad. They are committed, and they bring a fantastic enthusiasm and perspective. They also bring a huge depth of knowledge and skills that we might not have within the regulars, and a patriotic desire to serve. I thank them very much for their service.
Question put and agreed to.
Nuclear Test Veterans
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(4 months 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 Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate and for all her tireless work on behalf of our nuclear test veterans, and I want to extend my best wishes to her mum as well.
When we come to this House and when we speak, we have our intent, but it is very important that we acknowledge the impact of what we say, and I would just like to say very firmly on the record how deeply I feel about this issue and how committed I am to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency—excuse me. They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them. I would also like to extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his work.
Sir John Hayes
I rise principally so that the Minister can compose herself—her emotion and her commitment are evident. I have stood at the Dispatch Box over 19 years on both sides of this Chamber, and I know what it is like to be a Minister. I simply say to her, echoing the call of the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), that this is a real opportunity. It is an opportunity to right a wrong. The Minister would stand proud, and she would do the Government proud, but, most importantly, she will do the veterans and the country proud, if she can right that wrong.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important and tireless work on this issue.
The whole country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation, who helped to pioneer this technology at the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.
As a veteran who served in Afghanistan, nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know that it would be important to me to feel that the MOD had done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with in the things we were asked to do. I was happy to do them in defence of this country, but it was important to feel that the MOD would none the less be there for me too. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the rest of the Members in the House that I take these issues exceptionally seriously.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce the message, that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue. I want to repeat and emphasise “maximum transparency”, because it is abundantly clear that, over many decades, some nuclear test veterans have felt mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive Governments. That is something that we are addressing. Again, I repeat that I am a veteran and I am deeply passionate about this issue.
We published our veterans strategy last year, which outlines our ambitions for veterans in society: that they feel pride in their service, and that their lives and the challenges they face are better understood and valued. That is why, since we came to office, we have sought to build the relationship between the Government and the nuclear test veterans, because we want open dialogue and meaningful collaboration.
Helen Maguire
I totally feel the Minister’s empathy in this important speech. On collaboration, veterans have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, which has not yet been forthcoming. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to push a little further to try to get that meeting, because I know how important it is for the nuclear test veterans.
Louise Sandher-Jones
Absolutely. We are in constant dialogue with them about the right time to have that meeting. I am aware of its importance to the veterans.
The Secretary of State, as well as my predecessor as Minister for Veterans and People—the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and I have met nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. Just today, I met representatives to discuss the Environmental Information Regulations report, and to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing. My officials also meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. For example, in the last week alone, they have met with LABRATS and the Nuclear Community Charity Fund.
In addition, we have reviewed, and now twice extended, the criteria for the nuclear test medal to include the UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by other nations. More than 5,000 veterans or their next of kin have received medals in recognition of their service. “An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans” has also been recently completed. It is a vital document of veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences and how the nuclear programme has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans’ contributions to national security.
As I have made clear, the Government have committed to maximum transparency, and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades. That is why, in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK’s nuclear testing programme. Over 16,300 of them are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and that work is ongoing.
In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for the Armed Forces, launched an examination of the Department’s records in three key areas: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; the information that was captured from those tests; and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. My predecessor updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings in the very near future.
I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historical nuclear testing at Christmas Island. The release of that document aligns with the Government’s commitment to that transparency, which is very important to me and why I decided that the document had to be released. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, along with others, including LABRATS, have raised some very important questions about the document. They are incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what is in the document and the handling of the document, and to take action if necessary.
I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to those questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything that may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge—excuse me.
Sir John Hayes
I feel I am doing a service to the Government this afternoon. It is absolutely right that specific answers are given to the questions that were posed by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who I congratulate on securing the debate. The key thing is that we have met successive Ministers—I first met the now Lord Beamish when he was a Member of this House—and they were, generally speaking, sympathetic, but they were not always given the information. In truth, had it not been for David Cameron, who gave the money to the charity when I was at the Cabinet Office, and Boris Johnson, who met my friend the hon. Member for Salford—she is not technically my hon. Friend but she is my friend—in Downing Street, we would not have got the medal, so it sometimes does take those personal interventions. From what the Minister has said already, I am sure that she is more than capable of cutting through the bureaucracy, the red tape and the obfuscation, in order to get to the heart of the matter.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very conscious of how long the nuclear test veterans have been fighting for this, and of how many Ministers they have met. I recognise that the onus is on us to deliver, not just to say words.
I repeat that I do not wish to suggest anything that may need updating should new information emerge. However, I give the House my assurances that work is being undertaken, and that I will stress the system as far as it needs to be stressed to get to the answers.
Let me explain what I can say today. Initial investigations show that parts of the Ministry of Defence were made aware of the report in 2014, as were Government legal representatives. It is not yet established whether Ministers were made aware at the time. These are incredibly important questions and they must be answered—I say that specifically about those points.
On the scientific implications of the document, I note that it suggests the recordings showed an increase in levels of radiation, but that the cause of them could not be fully determined at the time. I also note the findings of the Clare report, the 1993 AWE report, which summarised environmental monitoring of nuclear tests on Christmas Island in 1957-58. The Clare report identified
“very localised and just measurable, but radiologically insignificant, fall-out activity”.
None the less, there are questions raised on those specific points by this AWE document that must be answered.
On the implications for the 2016 war pension scheme tribunal, I note that the approach taken in the 2016 case was to make a baseline assumption that the veterans had been exposed to radiation but that the levels of exposure were not significant enough to cause the health effects complained of. Again, the document raises very important questions about this and we will find the answers to them.
As I have noted, hon. Members and others have raised a number of important questions both today and in correspondence. I would quickly like to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who quite rightly said that this is not necessarily the only issue of this nature. We have significant work in progress, and I hope to be able to update her soon on that and to reassure her that I am paying very close attention to those issues as well.
The Secretary of State and I have directed officials to investigate at pace, again always working with the principle of maximum transparency. I will update the House in full when I have further information on those points. I reiterate that hugely important questions have been asked in this House, including about the Hillsborough law—many people have worked so long for that law. Members know of my military background and will know that I understand how important it is that every part of our Government are rightly held to account.
To conclude, it is no exaggeration to say that the veterans who took part in these tests nearly 70 years ago played a hugely key role in preserving peace throughout the cold war, but it is important to recognise that their legacy has not ended. We know of the global security situation that we face today and, even in my time, what we have asked members of the armed forces to go and do. We are deeply thankful for everything those veterans have achieved and for everything that they have sacrificed. This Government are committed to working more closely with them and to listening to their concerns. That is also my personal commitment.
Our commitment to maximum transparency means that any new information will be released in a timely manner and that questions will be asked about that information. We will be as open as possible with the veterans and we will report back to Parliament as soon as we can. I will continue to welcome scrutiny from right hon. and hon. Members across this House, from veterans themselves, from their representatives, from the media and from all those who know how important our commitment is to serving our veterans.
Question put and agreed to.
Defence
Louise Sandher-Jones Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Our debate today reflects—or should reflect—the seriousness of the global security situation we now face. In eastern Europe, in the Mediterranean and around the world, our service personnel are working so hard, sacrificing so much and facing risk on our behalf. We have lived through—and I served through—a Government that refused to acknowledge the changing world, refused to take it seriously and refused to take the steps necessary to raise funding and invest. The architects of that neglect are sat in front of me. Sleeping on stag is a serious offence in the British military. In the Conservative party it was defence policy.
I shall now turn to the contributions made by hon. Members. I would like to remind those who have voiced their concerns about British bases that the threat of the growing situation in eastern Europe was clear in 2014—it could be argued that the signs were there in 2008—yet the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, chose to close down our bases in Germany and withdraw our armoured infantry brigade. We can now see what a mistake that decision was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the importance of fighting inequality. Like him, I see in my inbox the challenges that people face in my constituency, in his constituency and in the constituencies of Members across the House. We have seen what happens when instability around the world does not stay in eastern Europe or the Med, but affects us right here. It affects the energy bills we pay and the cost of goods. I am well aware of the challenges and the duty we have to face those challenges, but I say to him that sometimes war comes to you, and our armed forces are the ones who stand between us and those threats. It is vital that we give them the kit and equipment they need to face those threats and defend us.
Turning to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), that is the first time that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and Winston Churchill compared. We will see over the coming weeks, months and years who is correct, but I expect that that comparison will age like milk.
We had an obviously fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher)— I declare an interest, although I do not comment on operational matters—on the importance of looking at the defence economy in the round. He said that it is not armies that win wars but nations. I agree that it is young people who we send to fight wars, and we need to ensure that as a state we have invested in those young people—in the very children who will grow up to face the world that we are creating for them.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) raised the important need to grow our reserves. We are taking measures to do that and, indeed, we are reinvigorating the strategic reserve, of which I am a member, to ensure that it is ready to meet the challenges ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke about the importance of getting the DIP right. That is a crucial fact that we must all bear in mind—we must get the DIP right because jobs and capabilities depend on it.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right that we must support our SMEs. That is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to boost opportunities for SMEs and why we have committed to spend £2.5 billion with them by May 2028.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who always speaks up for those in his constituency who serve in our armed forces, rightly raised the importance of ensuring that we are able to recruit young people into our armed forces as quickly as possible. We are treating this as a priority and doing various things, such as improving the medical process and bringing in novel ways to enter the armed forces, such as through cyber direct entry.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke movingly about the child benefit cap, and I will return to that point in a while. He rightly noted the important role that Scotland plays in the defence of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the importance of space. It is important to mention the wonderful work being done by UK Space Command. As someone who used to work in a company that used a lot of satellite data, I understand the importance of it and welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we are spending on defence space technologies.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke eloquently, and I know that he is passionate about this matter. He is absolutely right when he says, “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.” The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke passionately, and I take his points on board. I have absolutely listened to every one of his points, but for me, what he said reiterates the importance of getting the DIP right. A lot is at stake, and we must get it right. I say to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that his law has given terrorists immunity. It is unlawful, and I am glad that we are changing it.
As the House knows very well, the Government are fixing the mess that we inherited, which included an equipment plan that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we now face. The Conservatives slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. The shadow Defence Secretary was the very Minister for Defence Procurement who left 47 out of 49 major programmes not on time or on budget.
I am reading those stats, but I lived through them, and this is deeply personal to me. I was serving when the previous Government were in office, and I could see the damage that they were doing all around me. While the threats to this country grew and grew, the Conservative Government refused to acknowledge that the world had changed. Labour is now fixing their mess, delivering for defence and for Britain. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election—86% of them to British businesses—including the £650 million upgrade to our Typhoon fleet, securing 1,500 jobs.
Louise Sandher-Jones
No, I need to make time.
Our £1 billion contract for new medium helicopters has helped to secure the future of the Leonardo plant in Yeovil, sustaining more than 3,000 jobs. We have spent millions more on drone procurement and development, including, earlier this month, an order for 20 uncrewed surface vessels, which will be built by Kraken in Hampshire and take us a step closer to our vision of a hybrid Navy.
That is not a frozen procurement pipeline; it is a Government delivering for British security and the British economy. It is possible only because we are investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and we are growing our defence industrial base by backing UK-based businesses and UK workers. That vote of confidence is matched by record foreign direct investment totalling £3.2 billion since the election and the most successful year on record for British defence exports, bringing a defence dividend to every part of the country.
The Opposition have got one thing right today: we do live in an increasingly dangerous world, and we see every day the skill, professionalism and expertise of our personnel in defending our people, allies and interests in the middle east. It is all the more staggering, then, that the Conservatives cut frigates and destroyers by 25%, cut minehunters, and—in the words of their former Defence Secretary—left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is their record, and today we have heard no acknowledgment of it, so it falls to this Labour Government to take action to put that right.
Last June, as part of the SDR, we announced up to £1 billion extra, above Conservative plans, for air and missile defence. We have been leading NATO’s initiative on delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—DIAMOND—and this year alone we have boosted spending on counter-drone systems by five times, and spending on ground-based air defence has increased by 50%. In an era of growing threat, we are delivering for defence, and we will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes.
I was surprised to hear the Conservatives speak about morale, which plunged to record lows on their watch, when they slashed real-terms pay and saw record numbers of housing complaints. This Government have delivered the largest pay increase in two decades. We are investing record amounts in statutory services, including £9 billion in forces housing, and renewing and repairing nine in 10 forces homes. The Conservatives left serving personnel in damp and mould-infested homes. I am so pleased that we have funded 30 hours of free childcare for the under-threes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have taken more action in 20 months that the Conservatives managed in 14 years.
Let me address two points, if I may. As soldiers, we talk about how we fight, but it is also incredibly important to talk about why we fight. When I stood to become involved in politics, one of the things that I was most looking forward to—I knew that it would not be possible right away, but I hoped that it would be possible during this Parliament—was the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.
That vote—being able to walk through the Lobby to scrap the cap—has been one of my proudest moments, because we cannot balance the books on the poorest children in this country. In closing, with the highest—
