Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a particular privilege to close this debate, which has seen such a strong and united House say thank you to those who served in the Pacific theatre in the second world war. A number of Members have spoken about their family members, but we thank all those who stood up to serve, defend our values and ensure the freedom that we have today.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who is responsible for ceremonials, for opening this debate and clearly setting out how the nation will mark VJ Day on 15 August. It is an opportunity for all our communities in every part of the United Kingdom to tell the stories that Members have been sharing with the House today. They are stories of sacrifice, of courage and of ordinary folk doing extraordinary things, and it is so important that we keep those stories going today.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the father of my constituent Sally Hedges Greenwood, Lance Sergeant Frank Jeremy Hedges, who served in the 135th Field Regiment. He was captured at the fall of Singapore and served on the infamous Burma railway. While the nation celebrated VE Day and continues to do so every year, Sally’s family and many others like them feel forgotten. Does the Minister agree that these VJ Day celebrations will give those men and women and their families the honour they deserve?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for remembering Frank Jeremy Hedges in her remarks. It is so important that we remember all those who served in every part of the second world war. Just as we remember all those who served in the European theatres and who lost their lives, or who went to war and came back forever changed, we must remember all those who served in the far east, across the Pacific and the Indian ocean, and further afield as well. We must tell their stories with pride, so that their sacrifices live on.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

While we celebrate VJ Day on 15 August, as we should, does the Minister agree that we should also encourage schools to mark that anniversary when term resumes, so that young people remember the sacrifices that so many made and the stories of so many valiant veterans and armed forces personnel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to inform the House that there are resources available for our schools. “Our Shared Story” is one of those resources, which will enable people to find out more and tell the story in a way that is age-appropriate for all our young people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter in the Chamber today.

Eighty years may have passed since VJ Day, but that can never diminish the triumphs of that extraordinary world war two generation—the greatest generation—or the unimaginable sacrifices they made to secure a legacy of peace and freedom. When we commemorate the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, we will particularly remember the British and Commonwealth heroes who fought across the Indo-Pacific. We will remember those who fell on the battlefield; those who endured some of the most hostile combat environments in the history of warfare; those who were sunk on ships in oceans far from home; those who suffered terribly in prison camps, or on forced labour construction projects; those who continued fighting in the far east for another three months after VE Day; and those few surviving veterans of the campaign who are still with us today. We are eternally grateful to every one of them. Let the united message from this House go out: “Thank you for your service.”

Remembrance is not passive, and our duty does not end with words—it requires action. As we have heard in this debate, there will be events across the nation inviting people to take a moment out of their day to remember those who served. Just as we did for VE Day, we must do for VJ Day.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although of course there was victory over Japan, the second world war was victory over fascism and over those who trample on human rights, democracy and freedom? Japan, once an enemy, is now an ally, defending the values of civilisation alongside our forces. Does he further agree that when my constituents light a beacon in Hillmorton on 15 August, it will be a beacon of hope in our troubled world, and that we owe a debt of gratitude to those whose sacrifices made that victory possible?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. A theme picked up by a number of colleagues, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was that old adversaries can become good friends. When there are rising tensions and conflicts in the world, it is worth remembering, 80 years on from VE and VJ Day, that those nations that were at war with us all those decades ago now stand alongside us, with shared values and a shared outlook on the world. That is an important message to send.

In the moments left to me, I will mention a few of the speeches that we have heard today. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). As the MP for the other shipyard, as she described Devonport in the debate, let me say how pleased I was that she mentioned the sacrifice of the Royal Navy and all those who served in our Pacific fleet. I think in particular of those brave sailors who served on HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Electra and HMS Exeter, which went down in the east Java sea. Those shipwrecks are war graves. Although we cannot see them in the same way we can see the rows of headstones in the cemeteries and the D-Day beaches, it is none the less important that we preserve them, protect them and tell the story of those who served.

I am grateful to all those who spoke about the importance of the Commonwealth forces, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who spoke about his grandfather who served. Indeed, a number of Members talked about their family members who served, including the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), whose remark about everyday folk who get caught up in war and do extraordinary things I found exactly right in the stories that we must tell.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) spoke powerfully about Donald Rose, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) spoke about his family member who fought in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) put Ken Tinkler on the record, and he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke about the stories of evil that were prosecuted in war, and he was right to put that on the record. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about the important contribution of people from his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) spoke about Harold Rhodes and the death railway, and that powerful story will be told often as we approach VJ Day itself.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who spoke about her grandfather, who was awarded the Burma Star. The hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who mentioned Charles Snelling, powerfully invited not just Members of the House but all those watching to choose a name on a war memorial and find out the stories behind those names, why they matter, and why their stories continue to be told. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) spoke passionately not only about the Gurkhas, who I know she is proud to represent, but about Frank Mole, a prisoner of war.

It is so important in this debate that we remember all those who served in our forces, as well as the civilians who died in the conflicts, many of whom will not have names on war memorials. Equally, we must remember all those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were dropped that brought the war to a close. In the moments left to me, I join the shadow Defence Secretary, who spoke so well about the debate, and echo the words of John Maxwell Edmonds in the Kohima epitaph:

“When you go home, tell them of us and say,

For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan.

RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate. I have to warn him that he is sounding like a very good shadow Minister Padawan on these matters, so I expect him to be forceful in pursuing this type of stuff.

As hon. Members will have spotted, I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry—I am the slighter camper version—but I hope to be able to answer some of the questions raised in the debate about what is a very important programme for the Royal Air Force. I will first give a little background and history, which a number of Members have raised, and then turn to a number of the questions and points that hon. Members have also raised.

May I, too, place on record my congratulations to Harv Smyth on becoming the new Chief of the Air Staff? Having worked with Harv for the past year, I know that the RAF will be in very good hands. With Sir Rich Knighton becoming the new Chief of the Defence Staff, we have an incredibly capable team, with very good RAF experience. Just to ensure a full house, I also welcome General Gwyn Jenkins as First Sea Lord—as a Navy brat, it would be remiss of me not to mention the senior service.

[Ian Roome]

Will the Minister also join the Worshipful Company of Engineers in congratulating Sir Rich Knighton on being the first engineer to become the chief of the Royal Air Force? Being ex-RAF, it is nice to have an engineer who has never been a pilot as the chief of the Royal Air Force.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is worth noting, because to succeed we need people at the point of the spear and we need people who are the spear. All too often in our debates, we neglect those who support, who engineer, and who are the backbone of our military. Having Sir Rich in the new role as CDS will be a good encouragement to all those who find a career in our armed forces: there is a bright future ahead of them if they work hard and succeed.

At a time of increasing threats to our security and rapid developments in technology, it is essential that we upgrade our airborne early warning and control capabilities. Members have mentioned it, but when we say, whether from the Dispatch Box as a Government or when we were in opposition, that the last Government hollowed out and underfunded our military, it is precisely such capability gaps that we are talking about. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, described it as not just a capability gap, but a credibility gap, and those are precisely the kinds of gaps that we so critiqued in opposition. They are also the gaps that we have to fill, now that we are in government.

The UK’s E-7 Wedgetail programme will provide the significantly improved performance that we are looking for, offering greater speed, range, endurance and crew capacity. By improving detection, it provides earlier warning of more challenging threats at greater distances than before, increasing the time available for offensive and defensive action, and so boosting the lethality, survivability and resilience of the joint force. Wedgetail is not only the most capable and effective airborne early warning and control platform in operation today; it also has the growth path to match the expected threat over the next 20 years and beyond. We will continue to fully prepare for the introduction of E-7 Wedgetail to the RAF fleet.

To support the introduction of E-7, a joint operational conversion unit, 42 Squadron, has been re-formed at RAF Lossiemouth. The squadron will train all aircrew and engineers to operate the Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the Wedgetail airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft. The Lossiemouth development programme is delivering vital infrastructure, including a new engineering building, accommodation and squadron facilities, and the UK has been helped by Australia to prepare for Wedgetail. I put on record my thanks to the Royal Australian Air Force. Since its inception in 2018, 30 RAF personnel have undergone training on the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, which is already in operation with the Royal Australian Air Force. We are extremely grateful to our Australian friends for their support.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) could put on record the difference between Birmingham and Solihull. As a Plymouth MP, I am forever making the distinction between Devon and Cornwall, although we are the best of friends at the same time. The hon. Member made the argument about the economic contribution that Wedgetail makes to his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the wider nationwide supply chain. That contribution is vital.

Wedgetail is already bringing economic benefits to the UK. Three Boeing 737 aircraft are currently being modified at STS Aviation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, where around 100 skilled jobs have been created, in addition to 200 jobs supporting infrastructure at RAF Lossiemouth. He is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham did, that these are high-skilled jobs. They are precisely what his constituency needed supporting after the collapse of Monarch Airlines. It has meant that so many people could transfer into new roles at STS.

The work at STS, supplemented by Boeing and Northrop Grumman personnel who have worked on previous E-7 conversion programmes, is important. Boeing Defence UK expects a further 70 to 100 jobs to be added to support the aircraft in service at Lossiemouth. The Government’s longer-term aim is to grow the UK industrial base in support of Wedgetail, including potentially to support NATO and other global customers as they commit to E-7 in future years. Members will know that the strategic defence review was clear that defence is an engine for growth, and we need to continue to support our allies in looking to E-7 Wedgetail to provide some of their long-range surveillance opportunities.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about exports. It is a priority for this Government to procure systems that are not only better value for money for the UK armed forces, but built in such a way that we do not make them so Gucci that they are available only for the Brits. That has been a flaw of previous procurements, and we are clear, in rebuilding and recapitalising our armed forces and many of their capabilities—including filling capability gaps that we inherited from the previous Government—that we have to ensure that those platforms are exportable, that there is a work share for British companies, and that defence can be a real engine for growth. He will be aware of the high-level ambition set out in the strategic defence review to deliver that.

Members will also know that we hope to publish the defence industrial strategy in due course and, towards the end of the year, the defence investment plan. That will set out what we are spending, not just on kit and equipment, as previous iterations of the equipment plan did, but on infrastructure and people. Those are what the MOD wishes to spend the increased amounts of defence funding on. Exports will be a key part of that, and I encourage the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East to continue to make that case.

However, disappointingly, the E-7 Wedgetail programme has experienced delays. These are due, first, to wider challenges faced by the entire global aviation industry—such as shortages of materials, parts and skilled labour—and, secondly, to more specific programme issues, including complex certification work that Boeing has had to undertake to meet assurance requirements.

The Ministry of Defence is working closely with Boeing to minimise the impact of these issues, and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry has regular conversations with Boeing to emphasise the importance of delivering this capability.

As a result, E-7 Wedgetail is scheduled to enter service with the Royal Air Force in 2026. The RAF’s mission system has been significantly upgraded, making our Wedgetail aircraft distinct from those of other nations. That has required substantial certification and safety checks to ensure the system meets the standards required. We are working flat out to get a fully compliant aircraft into service as fast as possible, and we are holding suppliers to account for their part in that. Since concluding previous flights in October 2024, the aircraft has continued its mission systems installation.

E-7 Wedgetail completed its fourth test flight last week and will perform a fly-past at the royal international air tattoo at RAF Fairford, which the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will attend—I believe other hon. Members may be visiting as well. Test and evaluation will take place across multiple sites in the UK, with the next phase starting this month. This is a detailed process to demonstrate that each system operates as designed. Subsequent phases will be running through to 2026.

[Mr Francois]

As the Minister has lots of time, will he give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I have lots of points to cover, but I will happily come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

I was just going to ask if you have turned the radar on yet.

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Mr Francois]

Have you turned the radar on?

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course. I have other hon. Members’ questions to address first, and I will not be spoken over—thank you.

[Mr Francois]

So you have not.

[Luke Pollard]

The level of politeness that we saw in the rest of the debate has not been reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

Turning to the costs, the original outlined business case approved the acquisition of five Wedgetail Mk 1 aircraft. Due to the wider fiscal challenges faced by the Department, the programme was reduced in scope by the last Government. That is what the officials have written for me, and I share much of the concern that hon. Members have expressed about the reduction of capabilities. Once again, the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces have led to capability gaps, not just in the early retirement of platforms but in the lack of procurement. It is precisely for that reason that the SDR sought to look at that.

The integrated review endorsed the reduction to three aircraft in 2021, and the fleet was then incorporated with the P-8A Poseidons at RAF Lossiemouth. The three new E-7 Wedgetails will still enable the UK to meet our key user requirements and honour both our domestic and international commitments, including our contribution to NATO—as outlined in the strategic defence review on page 115, recommendation 47. We have re-examined this decision and made a commitment to reassess the number of E-7s we have when funding allows. I encourage hon. Members who raised the ambition to procure more E-7s to consider how that case can be made in future spending decisions, and that could build on the defence industrial strategy.

To the point raised by a number of hon. Members—including the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Meriden and Solihull East, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would welcome the opportunity to bring together a group of interested parliamentarians to discuss not only how we deploy E-7s into active duty, but how we can build on export opportunities and support their full introduction. We will take that as an action, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister being able to invite colleagues into the MOD for further discussions on that issue.

We have been working with Boeing to achieve the best value for money across the programme. There will be no additional cost as a result of the delays, as Boeing is committed to delivering the three aircraft under a firm-price contract. That means the MOD will have no inflation risk in the aircraft modification programme. The programme is also benefiting from the use of common 737 spares with Poseidon, as well as shared support services with Boeing. This allows us to leverage efficiencies in spares procurement, repair, overhaul, maintenance costs and the training of engineering personnel to work on both sets of aircraft at Lossiemouth. The intent is to expand co-operative support across Wedgetail and Poseidon in future, to drive down costs further.

A number of Members, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned the US position. E-7 Wedgetail is in operation with the air forces of Australia, Türkiye and the Republic of Korea. Additionally, NATO has selected E-7A as its replacement for the NATO E-3A aircraft that are currently flying. I understand that there may be some concern about the US plans due to media reports last month, but the MOD will continue with its procurement of Wedgetail to meet our national and NATO requirements for airborne early warning and control that is interoperable with allies. Procurement decisions by any other NATO nation are a matter for that nation, but they will not affect UK procurement of Wedgetail.

There have been some comments during this debate, and in the wider debate out there, about whether the UK should consider using E-2 Hawkeye instead. I stress again that Wedgetail has superior speed, range, persistence and crew capacity compared with alternative platforms. Furthermore, it has a powerful radar with increased detection capability, which will give us a significant operational advantage.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, for the tone of his speech. It is certainly right that we talk about this issue. Having previously sat on the Opposition Benches, I recognise some of his critiques of the previous Government. Indeed, I entirely agree that “bimbling along” will not cut it. That is precisely why we have seen a new energy and increased defence spending under this Government. There is more to do, but hopefully he will see that in the ambition set out in the SDR to do more and to fill capability gaps in this area.

A number of Members referred to the Select Committee report on procurement in the previous Parliament. It was absolutely right to look at the procurement system. We described it as broken when we were in opposition, and in government we are taking steps to fix it. The recruitment of the new national armaments director, being led by the Secretary of State, is a key part of that process. I do not have an update now, but I am certain that a parliamentary question on that subject will shortly be coming the way of the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry.

The new NAD will operate as part of a new empowered quad, leading the Ministry of Defence to make faster procurement decisions. We certainly need to make better procurement decisions than those we have seen in the past. The delays in contracting are a key part of cost escalation across a number of programmes, albeit not with Wedgetail because of the fixed-price contract. It is absolutely right that we make better procurement decisions.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway on the need to invest in laser weapons. The SDR talked about rolling out the DragonFire directed-energy weapon system. The ambition of the last Government was to install DragonFire on one Royal Navy destroyer, as an uncosted programme. The SDR set out a costed proposal to install it on four Royal Navy destroyers, setting a date for when that will happen. Creating a structured, layered and integrated air and missile defence system will, in part, depend on looking at directed-energy weapons and similar novel technologies across a range of spectrums, in order to provide the air defence we require to secure homeland defence and operational defence for our allies abroad.

The picture painted by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), of what might happen in the event of a conflict means that not only air defence missiles would have a role in such a conflict, and this new technology might well play a part. I am grateful for the way he introduced the debate in that respect.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East invited me to talk about space, which is one of my nerdy passions. The term “defence geeks” was used earlier, and I am certainly a space nerd. Space is a huge opportunity for improving not only ISR capabilities but defence capabilities. However, we need to be realistic that if we are to move to a fully integrated approach, which is the intent of the SDR with an all-domain warfare approach, we need to invest in the right capabilities.

For the Royal Air Force, Wedgetail is absolutely part of that joined-up and integrated approach, which is why we will continue with it. Given the workforce in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I hope he will strongly support the 2026 delivery timetable for the first aircraft in operation. And on defence exports, he will know that one recommendation of the SDR was to move an element of exports for defence from the Department for Business and Trade into the Ministry of Defence.

That work is under way at the moment, so that we can better align the opportunities of defence exports, because we believe there is a huge opportunity for British business to sell our technologies to allies around the world. That has the advantage of being an engine for growth, as well as making us stronger by making our allies stronger at the same time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work, and indeed for his praise for our friends from Australia. The Defence Committee report that he cited needs to be front and centre when we look at Wedgetail procurement so that we learn the lessons and make it work. As the last Government’s procurement of five sets of radar for three aircraft shows, the procurement system was neither working properly nor delivering value for money.

My hon. Friend asked about the Australian upgrades. Australia and the USA are working collaboratively on what is called the next-gen Wedgetail with improved radar, which they think will enter service in 2035. The UK is part of the trilateral group, but we are not pursuing the advanced sensor at this time because we are focused on delivering the current capability without any further delay, as Members on both sides of the House have urged. As part of the trilateral agreement, we have the opportunity to upgrade in the future should we wish to do so. Doing so may be more cost-effective in the long term.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the Minister agree that upgrading this fleet of aircraft would be easier if there were five airframes? That would allow one of the five to be taken out of service for an upgrade. It is logistically more difficult if we stick with three airframes.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a strong argument. I support the wording of the strategic defence review, which talks of possibly buying more E-7 Wedgetails when the economic conditions allow. Of course, thanks to the decisions taken by the Prime Minister, we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% by 2035. For the first time in a very long time, there will be a rising defence budget in the next decade.

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will continue to make the case for increased defence spending, which will mean more jobs directed at British companies—and Boeing, which is based and works in Britain, is precisely such a company, as are UK primes and small and medium-sized enterprises, which could benefit from that. His description of the programme as having been vandalised by the last Government is powerful, but I recognise that we now need to deliver the capabilities and make sure they work.

I will briefly respond to some of the interventions before addressing the Front-Bench contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is, in his customary way, absolutely right that it is important that the programme is delivered and that we learn the lessons to improve procurement. That is the intention of the defence industrial strategy and will be the intention of the defence investment plan. The first of the RAF’s Wedgetail aircraft will be introduced next year, which is a moment to make sure that the second and third aircraft can be delivered in the expected timeline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praised the supply chain and mentioned Thales in Belfast and Glasgow. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the importance of defence businesses in Scotland, which has a proud tradition of investing in brilliant defence businesses. Some of our cutting-edge capabilities are developed and built in Scotland, and we have a Government in Westminster who are proud of Scottish defence workers and of the supply chain there. It is just a shame that we do not have a Scottish Government who can be equally proud of the exceptional work to support our national defence that takes place not just in the shipyards and factories, but in the workshops and laboratories across Scotland. I am certain that there will be further opportunities for that case to be made forcefully.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who reiterated the need for ISR capabilities. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke with real passion about the need to work with more of our EU allies. That is precisely why the Prime Minister initiated the EU reset. We now have an agreement with our EU friends that opens the door to participation in more joint programmes and joint working. We have, in any case, cleared the air and improved the relationship with our European friends that might have existed under the last Government. They are our friends, and our NATO allies. We stand with them when we face a common threat, such as the threat from Russia, and it is absolutely right that we do so. The hon. Member for North Devon is also right to point out the gaps in procurement that we need to fill, and the retirement of the previous aircraft. I am grateful for his service, even if it was some time ago, at the same time as the Sentry was introduced.

I will turn to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. In the 2025 NISTA report, the Wedgetail programme is rated amber, not red, but I think his critique is that the programme has been beset by delays for quite some time. I share the general concern about the procurement system. It must be a curious position for the right hon. Member, having been such a fantastic scrutineer of the last Government’s woeful procurement system, to now be the Front-Bench spokesperson for his party. I am grateful that he did not fall into the trap of simply defending the last Government, and was honest about those failings. That is to his credit.

The Minister for Veterans and People is at Windsor collecting his Distinguished Service Order. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure that the whole House, instead of taking cheap shots at him, welcomes and thanks him for his service. Having someone with that much bravery and courage in the office next door to mine is a firm reminder to sit up straight in my seat every time we are in meetings together.

I have spoken about how we are going to get to Wedgetail’s introduction in service, and briefly mentioned the NAD recruitment; that is being led by the Secretary of State so the question is for him, but I am expecting a parliamentary question on that. I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford says that the last Government were not without blame. I wish that we were able in 12 months to fix every problem that we inherited from the Conservatives but, as he knows, some of those problems are long-rooted and will take a lot of time to resolve. I am hopeful that the Wedgetail programme will start delivering aircraft next year, as planned; that is the commitment that Boeing has given. That will make substantial progress on a programme that has taken too long to deliver.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I shall also deal with the earlier comment about where the aircraft will be maintained. I am happy to confirm that they will be maintained in the UK. I did not get all of the right hon. Member’s questions down in detail. I do not want to give an incorrect answer, especially as I am standing in for the Minister for Veterans and People and out of my swimming lane, so I commit to ask my hon. Friend to write to the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that he gets the correct answers.

[Mr Francois]

That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.

[Luke Pollard]

I know the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be aggressive and angry, but I do not want to give the wrong answer when I am standing in for another Minister. I am happy to ensure that a letter is written and shared with colleagues here so that the answers are given properly. I have been very clear about—

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts each sentence, I will not get the full sentence out. I appreciate that he has a style that he has to maintain, but this is not helpful and not in the spirit or the tone in which the debate has been conducted. I will conclude briefly, so that my exchanges with him do not lower the tone.

We need to ensure this programme is delivered. It is important for the RAF and our national security. It has been beset by delays and the procurement system used to deliver it was not acceptable. The Conservative Government’s decision to cut the number of Wedgetails from five to three has correctly been criticised by Members on both sides of the House, including by members of the House of Commons Defence Committee.

As a new Government coming in, we committed to look at purchasing new E-7 Wedgetails, as part of the recommendation in the SDR, when the economic conditions allow. That is a vote of confidence in the platform, and it is part of our ambition to improve defence procurement. Boeing and the partners in the supply chain should be in no doubt that we expect the aircraft we ordered to be delivered, to be operational, and to make a valid contribution to filling the gap that the last Government created when they axed the previous aircraft providing this capability. I am happy to ensure that a copy of the detailed notes are shared with the House, so that answers to the questions put to me are properly provided.

Defence

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the debate on Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy on 5 June 2025.

[Luke Pollard]

What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government.

[Official Report, 5 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 575.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard):

[Luke Pollard]

What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—although we addressed how they are applied to the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government.

[Luke Pollard]

Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.

[Official Report, 5 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 577.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for the Armed Forces:

[Luke Pollard]

Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of how these criteria are applied to the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.

Afghan Resettlement Scheme Data Incident: Update

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the proactive approach the Ministry of Defence has taken for a historical data handling incident affecting 277 individuals that applied to the Afghan relocation and assistance policy scheme in 2021 under the previous Administration.

Members will be aware this data handling incident involved group emails being sent to multiple individuals in September 2021. These emails mistakenly made recipients’ email addresses visible to all, instead of using the blind carbon copy function. After an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the then Minister for the Armed Forces laid before the House a written ministerial statement on 13 December 2023, detailing the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to financially compensate those directly impacted by the data incident.

Having reviewed this matter, it is my full intention to make good on the previous Ministers’ commitments. I can confirm to Members that the Ministry of Defence will be directly contacting those individuals who were affected by the data incident. Once a response is received and the affected individual’s identity confirmed, a single ex-gratia payment of up to £4,000 per individual will be made. The total cost is expected to be in the region of £1.6 million and every effort will be made to ensure payments are made as quickly as reasonably practical.

I cannot undo past mistakes, but I wish to assure Members that, in my role as Minister for the Armed Forces, I intend to drive improvement in the Department’s data handling training and practices. Defence’s record on these topics must improve and I am determined to ensure it does.

[HCWS781]

Defence

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

The draft order will address the constitutional requirement, under the Bill of Rights 1688, that a standing Army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, must receive the consent of Parliament. The draft order provides that consent by continuing into force for another year the Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that governs the armed forces. This debate usually takes place in a Delegated Legislation Committee, before returning to the Floor of the House for approval. Given the significance to the country of both the armed forces and the democratic oversight that Parliament provides, it is fitting that the debate is today being afforded time on the Floor of the House. That enables all Members who wish to contribute to do so, for as the strategic defence review has shown, we must put our people at the heart of defence—I know that on all sides of the House there is strong support for our people.

Parliament is required to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation—the next armed forces Bill is required to have obtained Royal Assent by December 2026—and in the intervening years it is to approve an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today. The Act provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a service justice system. It provides for the service offences and for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of armed forces personnel accused of committing an offence wherever in the world they are serving.

On that last point, I draw the House’s attention to the explanatory memorandum to the order, which states:

“The extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and the British overseas territories except Gibraltar.”

There is a distinct difference between the extent of UK legislation and how the jurisdiction of service law is applied. The extent of any legislation is a statement about in which separate legal jurisdictions the legislation forms part of the law. Not extending to Gibraltar simply means that the 2006 Act does not form part of Gibraltarian law. That is because Gibraltar has made an agreement with the United Kingdom that it will pass forward amendments to the Act in its own legislation. Conversely, service law applies to members of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, so effectively there is unlimited geographical jurisdiction with regard to our service personnel and, in some circumstances, civilians subject to service discipline, including those based in, or serving in, Gibraltar.

The 2006 Act provides the legal basis for offices such as the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the court martial, the summary appeal court and the service civilian court. It also sets out the processes for the accused to be dealt with by their commanding officer, or to be tried at court martial. Finally, the Act also contains provisions that cover non-service justice matters, such as service complaints and the armed forces covenant. As such, the next armed forces Bill will likely contain a mixture of both service justice measures and non-service justice measures. I look forward to working with Members across the House when it is introduced in due course.

In addition, we have committed to tackling the unacceptable behaviours that have plagued defence in the past, rooting out toxic behaviours that we see evidence of in our armed forces. There is no place for abuse in the UK armed forces.

Today’s debate comes against a backdrop of this Government delivering for defence, for our service personnel and for veterans, by putting people at the heart of our defence plans and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, combined with a whole-of-society approach to our national resilience. That is why, last year, we delivered the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years. We followed that up with another above-inflation rise recently. That is why we have secured a major housing deal to buy back over 36,000 military homes, improving houses for armed forces families and saving taxpayers billions. We are investing £7 billion to improve military accommodation over the course of this Parliament.

That is why we have set new targets to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis we inherited from the previous Government, the results of which are clear already: inflow up 19%, outflow down 7%, and the Army experiencing a seven-year high in application volumes. We are delivering for defence. That is why we will be appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life, and are making it easier for veterans to access care and support for our £50 million VALOUR network.

After all, the Government recognise that the world has changed. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. The strategic defence review, published last month, will make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad, and sets a path for the next decade and beyond to transform defence and end the hollowing out of our armed forces that we have seen over the past 14 years. Decisive action has already been taken. We have: stepped up and speeded up support for Ukraine; signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany; started work at pace on a new defence industrial strategy, ensuring defence is an engine for growth; and implemented the deepest Ministry of Defence reform programme in decades. All of that has been underpinned by an increase in defence spending of nearly £5 billion this year, and a commitment to reach 2.5% in April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in 2035—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

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

One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?

[Luke Pollard]

I would say to the right hon. Member that his Government left our forces hollowed out and underfunded, left our forces living in appalling accommodation, left a retention and recruitment crisis that meant that for every 100 people joining our forces, 130 were leaving, and left a situation where morale fell each and every year for the last decade in every one of our services.

We are fixing that. We are getting our defence back on track. That is why the defence review sets out the journey to transform our defence, why the Chancellor has provided additional financial resource this year, and why the Prime Minister supported the defence investment pledge at the recent NATO summit—something I hope the right hon. Gentleman’s party will, in due course, bring itself to do.

We need to be ready to deliver for our defence and to stand with our allies, and that is what we are doing today: we are ending the hollowing out and underfunding. As someone who values defence sometimes more than his party loyalty, as I saw in the previous Parliament, I hope the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Indeed, I hope he has the opportunity to do so in a moment, when he stands up to speak.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am not sure there is much point in us just blaming each other on this matter. There are historical parallels. In 1935 we were spending only 2.5% of our national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that and consensus on both sides of the House, and by 1945 we were spending the best part of 50% of national wealth on it. It would be much better if the two parties try to work together on this matter and realise that we are facing an existential crisis in the world, and that things are very different now from 2010 or 2015, or whenever, and that we should work together to massively increase defence spending.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, and I agree with what he says. It is precisely the reason that when the Defence Secretary was the shadow Defence Secretary, and when I was the shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, we had a position of cross-party support on defence matters. It is really important, I think, that we get back to that place. When our adversaries look at the United Kingdom, they should see strong cross-party support, as indeed I believe they do when we debate Ukraine. There is a strong set of plans in our strategic defence review, with increasing defence funding getting to 2.5%, a figure we have not matched in the past 14 years. There is a real opportunity to send a united message from this House to our adversaries and to our people who serve. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the Front Bench were listening to his comments as closely as I was.

Members have the opportunity to approve this order today, knowing that the Government are delivering on our pledge.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a very serious note, the Opposition have been accused of being pro-Russia, pro-China and pro-Iran repeatedly by the Prime Minister, which the Minister has defended, because we dared to oppose the Chagos deal. If he wants unity, we need to see that on both sides of the House.

[Luke Pollard]

I think the unity we saw on the Chagos deal is that the Conservatives started a deal and we finished it; they agreed it was the right thing to start negotiations and held 11 rounds, and we agreed it was the right thing to complete that deal. We put our national security first in that respect, secured the future of the Diego Garcia base and won the support of our US friends, our NATO allies, our Five Eyes partners and India locally. It is up to the hon. Gentleman which side of the debate he wishes to be on—we choose the side of our national security.

Hon. Members can approve this order today, knowing that we are delivering on the pledge to rewrite the contract between the United Kingdom and those who serve in order to improve it. The Armed Forces Act—and, by extension, this order—underpins the very existence of His Majesty’s armed forces. It backs those who, like my old man—a Royal Navy submariner—and so many across this House, stepped forward to serve our country and protect our United Kingdom and our allies and partners in an era of global instability, to deploy globally in support of British objectives and to support our national security. With the consent of the House today, Parliament will acknowledge, pay tribute to and back their service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. It was a good one, and I will refer briefly to a number of the issues that have been raised. First, I detect strong support for our armed forces on all sides of the House, which is good to see, so I hope there will not be a Division. This debate has shown the merit in holding the annual order on the Floor of the House, but I suspect I will need to have a word with the Leader of the House and the Whips before I commit to any future such debates, because that is definitely outside my swim lane.

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for talking about cadets. It is absolutely right that we invest more in cadets, and that is why the strategic defence review set out our ambition to increase the size of our cadet force by 30%. This is a strong investment in the future of our young people that provides opportunities to get lifelong skills and increased confidence, as well as a pathway for young people to serve in our armed forces in order to fully realise the benefits. Having seen the cadets on parade on Plymouth Hoe for Armed Forces Day at the weekend, I know that there is strong support for them in every part of the country. The hon. Lady talked about young people finding meaning through service, and I could not agree more. I am grateful to her for that contribution.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), asked me a number of questions. We have to renew the Armed Forces Act every five years, and it will be renewed in the proper way. We are looking at what is necessary to update that legislation, especially as it will come in after the publication of the strategic defence review. He will be familiar with the fact that the strategic defence review made the case for a defence readiness Bill, and we are looking at all those details. I can reassure him that it is part of the commitment we have made that, following the wide consultation we undertook for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we will continue that in that spirit for future legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but just before Prime Minister’s questions today we had Northern Ireland questions, and I believe the Northern Ireland Secretary replied to questions on a number of issues that he has asked me about. I refer him to those remarks because as he will know—if only because I say this every time he asks me a question on it—that these are matters for the Northern Ireland Office, although Defence clearly has strong equities and views on these matters as well.

[Mr Francois]

I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I have had a similar conversation in a variety of different formats over recent weeks, that the policy intention of the Northern Ireland Office is to repeal and, importantly, replace the unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It has been found to be unlawful, it does not enjoy community support and it needs to be repealed and replaced. Any Government who were elected last July would have had to do that.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On the point about not enjoying community support, when we were having these debates in great detail, the highly divided communities would always stand up and say how this was unacceptable and that was unacceptable, and then their representatives would quietly come up to us and say, “For goodness’ sake, go on doing what you are doing.” The Minister may have some legal problems to overcome, but let him not be fooled by what is said in public about what really needs to be done.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. Indeed, it is a matter that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office follow closely as that is the lead Department with responsibility for the repealing and replacing of the legacy Act. I am certain that he will continue making suggestions in that way. It is not for me to make announcements on the Northern Ireland Office’s behalf, but I am certain that it will have listened to what he had to say.

I am grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I told him just before this that I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in a shadow Defence role very soon. As he knows, I am a big fan of what he has to say, and I like the way he brings his military expertise and a certain defence nerdery, which, as a defence nerd on the Labour side, I very much appreciate.

I politely say to the hon. Member that my experience from engaging with our allies on NATO’s eastern flank—from Finland and the Baltic states all the way down, passing Belarus and others, is that the nations there value the relationship with the United Kingdom even more so over the past year. We have strong relations with the Joint Expeditionary Force nations of northern Europe, and we continue to deepen relations with our Baltic friends, including enhancing our forward land force in Estonia, and our co-operation and support for Latvia and Lithuania. I do not recognise that concern, but he is right to raise it, if only to allow me to put on the record that we have strong support from those nations and, indeed, we strongly support them in wanting to be sovereign and free, including from Russian aggression.

I also politely say to the hon. Member that RRS Sir David Attenborough provides an important presence in the Antarctic region. If he has not yet discovered polar region nerdery, can I recommend that to him? Not only do HMS Protector—our ice ship—and RRS Sir David Attenborough provide an important presence for our Arctic and Antarctic missions; they also help us honour our obligations under the Antarctic treaty, which is an important part of the rules-based framework for the protection of the Antarctic.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

On the Arctic and HMS Protector, what plans do we have to procure an icebreaker to increase our footprint in that region?

[Luke Pollard]

I knew he was tempted to go into polar nerdery! I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about some of those aspects. Clearly, when it comes to the provision of our ships and capabilities, it is not just an MOD matter; it is one that we share, in particular with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, but I am happy to pick up those points with him.

I am not certain that the hon. Member is right on everything he said on drones, but none the less, he is certainly right that drone warfare has fundamentally changed how warfare is conducted. I am proud that we have a plan to return to 2.5% spending on defence—a figure not met since 2010. We do need to spend more on defence because we live in more dangerous times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to speak about the sacrifices that armed forces families make—it is something that we should not forget. Indeed, that is the reason why in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, we deliberately extend the powers of the commissioner to have a requirement to engage with the family members of our people who serve, which is important.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her contribution. We do indeed have a Government who honour the service of our armed forces every day, and I am proud to serve within it. She is also right to raise LGBT veterans. She will know that the prioritisation we have decided as Ministers is that the initial payments, as we stand up the system to make payments, should be directed at those who are over 80 or facing a terminal condition. We have completed that work. That was the right prioritisation in the first instance, so justice can be done for those folk who may not see many more days. We are now standing up that wider system so that we can process that wider set of payments that we have committed to do, and we will continue to do so.

Finally, in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the future commando force strategy published under the last Government moved away from full commando assault to small raiding parties. That was the extant policy of the last Government and, because of that, I would be happy to speak to him about it. We have a strong commitment to the amphibious role of the Royal Marines and to the multi-role strike ship, as set out in the strategic defence review, and I would be very happy to speak to him about that further. I have a Royal Marine base in my constituency, as he has in his—

[David Reed]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I am afraid I have to conclude because of time, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this further. I can reassure him that the Royal Marines have a very bright and strong future in our armed forces.

[David Reed]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

Oh, go on then.

[David Reed]

What the Minister says raises a more fundamental question. Just like the release of the strategic defence review to trade bodies and to the press before its publication, we are reading about issues in the press but do not have the opportunity to discuss them in Parliament. While I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a conversation with him, why can we not have that conversation in the Chamber now?

[Luke Pollard]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to all the debates that I called on the future of the Royal Marines under the last Government, when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, to make the case that the Royal Marines have a bright future. We have a strong commitment to the future of the Royal Marines and to amphibiocity. He will know the changes that his Government introduced in the future commando force strategy. If we look at the lessons from Ukraine, the Royal Marines were well ahead of the learnings that we now see from there. I am happy to discuss that with him further and I am sure that he will want to table a Westminster Hall debate so that we can discuss this even more.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the future of the Royal Marines is safe and secure. We have strong commitment to amphibiocity. We need to ensure that all our fighting forces adapt to the changed environment in which they operate. As someone who represents Stonehouse Barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines, I feel personally about that commitment and I do not recognise the concerns that he raised. However, I am glad that there is strong cross-party support for our armed forces and for this draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.

Before I start, I place on record my thanks to all those right hon. and hon. Members who supported Armed Forces Day events at the weekend across the length and breadth of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending the national event in Cleethorpes, and I spent time with our armed forces community on Plymouth Hoe to see the fantastic turnout not just of armed forces personnel but of their families, veterans, and the charities and organisations that support everyone who serves and has served. Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition of our armed forces is a great honour, and provides a moment of reflection for everyone in this House on the great service that those in the military provide to the nation.

I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to this House. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the Bill already delivers what the other House had inserted. I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the Government amendment with other amendments, which I am afraid are deeply flawed. I will explain why.

To be absolutely clear, we are all in agreement about the intention behind the Lords amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected in coming forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our armed forces. This Government are committed to doing exactly that, which is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters of our people and legislating for an independent champion in the form of the Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward, and I understand the issue—I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. Lords amendment 2 deals with whistleblowers and protections for family members, which are necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand to the Minister that was facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one. Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are insisting on our amendment and not accepting the Opposition amendment made in the other place, because that amendment does not include family members. I agree that including loved ones—family members, for the purposes of the wording of the Bill—within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an important new step in providing not just members in uniform, but their immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany the Bill, with the opportunity to raise a general service welfare matter.

I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity to do so during the passage of the next armed forces Bill. However, I say to all Members that I am concerned that going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that will be used to tackle the very issues this amendment seeks to address. Namely, it holds up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, which was a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this Bill is prevented from becoming law, the greater the disservice we do to our armed forces and their families. I sincerely hope that today we can send a united message from this House that we do not wish to delay this vital legislation any further.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Like everyone else in this House, I am incredibly proud of our armed forces, and particularly of our relationship with them in St Helens. Just yesterday, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment paraded through St Helens town centre after being awarded the freedom of the borough—we are so incredibly proud. Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces, and give them the support they need?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for placing on the record the military events in his constituency. It is so important that we recognise the links and ties that so many of our military units have with the localities from which they recruit, where they are based and where they serve. I agree with his broader point; the time is right for us to pass this Bill, get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation in which we have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members.

The Government took on board the important debates in both Houses and proposed amendment 2A, to which this House previously agreed. That amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments in the other place and actually went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that are back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment, which was made early in the process and in good faith, following discussions and co-operation with the Opposition in the other place. Given the strong cross-party support for the Bill and clear arguments in favour of the amendment in lieu, we had been hoping that that would enable us to conclude proceedings. The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and will build trust and confidence among our armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments that are before us today.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law.

Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information.

The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today.

To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing?

[Luke Pollard]

That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.

Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.

Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.

Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.

More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process.

Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel.

[Luke Pollard]

I hope that this is not a party political issue, because many of the Members raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they recognise that cultural issues within our armed forces need to be addressed and to get clarity on what the Government seek to do. I hope that from the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has made to the other place, and from the remarks I have made at this Dispatch Box, colleagues can feel reassured that we take issues of culture, harassment and abuse seriously, and we are clear that there is no place for them in our armed forces.

We are updating the policies and procedures on whistleblowing and raising a concern from the policy we inherited from the last Government, so as to improve it and take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen that. I realise that the Opposition do not support the Employment Rights Bill, but we do, and it will further enhance the protections for whistleblowers. By updating these policies and by including the cross-Government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet Office are co-ordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy.

I hope that my placing that on the record here, as my noble Friend Lord Coaker will do in the other place when the Bill returns there, will be enough for those Members who are concerned to be satisfied that the Government have a genuine desire to address these issues and that the amendments, as drafted, create a narrower scope for the commissioner, and would prevent them from achieving their objectives, due to the wording. It is therefore time to let the amendments fall away so that the Bill can pass.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I assure him that he is not the only person who gets intervened on by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for clarification. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so.

We have deliberately drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible, and through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone who is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the intended functions of the amendments.

I make it explicitly clear that the powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the commissioner already exist in the Bill. In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter, such as fraud or criminal activity. Recognised protections are already in place for those matters. All defence civil servants are covered by the protections provided by PIDA, and all military personnel are provided those same protections through existing defence policy.

Our commitment to review and update defence policy and processes, in conjunction with the protections that are already in place for both civilians and members of our armed forces, plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the other place, mean that now is the time for both Houses to do the right thing and bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity. Lord Coaker and I will be writing to the Opposition spokespeople in the other place—I am grateful for the engagement that has already taken place, both between Baroness Goldie and Lord Coaker and between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), Baroness Kramer and me—to address their concerns in detail, to provide written assurances about the changes we are making that confirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and to invite their contributions as we seek to develop and renew the “raising a concern” policy.

I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to ensure that we can deliver this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

I will vote against the Government’s motion to remove the Lords amendments, and I urge all Members to do the same. Baroness Goldie has offered a constructive and reasonable way forward. Her compromise amendments uphold the integrity of the Bill, would give the commissioner proper investigatory reach and, most importantly, would give service personnel and their families a voice they can trust. Let us take this opportunity to make the Bill stronger and the culture of our armed forces fairer, safer and more accountable.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments.

I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate.

I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case.

The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve.

[Mr Francois]

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies.

Question put.

Afghan Resettlement Schemes

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Written Statements

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

For two decades, more than 150,000 UK armed forces personnel served with great courage and distinction in a bid to bring stability and security to the people of Afghanistan. They were helped in this difficult mission by thousands of equally brave Afghans performing in a variety of supporting roles. We can be proud as a nation that, following the Taliban’s seizure of power in 2021, we have honoured our obligation to those who put their personal safety at considerable risk by offering one of the most generous Afghan resettlement programmes in the world. We can be equally proud of what that programme has accomplished.

Today I want to provide an update on the latest progress of the Afghan Resettlement Programme. The ARP was announced by the Defence Secretary on 18 December 2024 as a means of bringing together different resettlement schemes across Government—including the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—to drive efficiency and improve outcomes for UK taxpayers and our Afghan friends and allies. Through the ARP, the Government are continuing to honour our commitment to all Afghans eligible to come to Britain. So far, over 34,000 Afghans have successfully relocated to the UK and started rebuilding their lives in this country. This is an incredible achievement, and I would like to thank Members across the House for their support, as well as former Ministers.

While the Government will continue to support the ARP, we have said all along that these schemes cannot continue indefinitely. When announcing the launch of the ARP last year, the Defence Secretary told the House that we would update colleagues when the time came to stop taking on new applicants. I repeated that commitment to the House in May. That time has now come.

Throughout the past year, we have regularly assessed progress, and carefully considered the right time to stop taking on new applications. Four years on from the ARAP scheme’s launch we have now reached the right point. We are currently finding over 95% of first-time applications to be ineligible. This shows that we have honoured our obligation and commitment that we set out to repay when the scheme was established.

As of today, the Home Office has laid the necessary immigration rule changes where ARAP will no longer take on new principal applications.

To be clear, all applications received to date will continue to be processed. Those who are found eligible will still have their immediate family members—such as one spouse and children under 18—automatically considered for relocation. They will also still have 30 days from accepting their ARAP offer to make an application to relocate any additional family members to the UK.

We expect the current pace of arrivals to remain at the same level for the duration of this Parliament as we clear applications, process requests for an additional family member, and complete relocations. There remains a lot of work to be done, but it is our intention to finish the process and honour our obligation in full by the end of this Parliament.

As I stated in my written ministerial statement in May, we will also continue to progress phase 2 of the Triples review, and I will continue to keep the House updated on this.

Those within scope of phase 2 of the Triples review are not affected by this change. All of the cases within scope have already applied for ARAP and will in due course receive a new eligibility decision or a confirmation they remain ineligible.

Despite the programme’s achievements, however, I am also conscious that some ARAP cases have waited a long time for decisions. We inherited a large backlog of cases from the previous Administration, and colleagues across the House have contacted the Department raising ARAP cases over the years that have faced long waits for decisions. I share their concern, and I am determined to address every outstanding case as quickly as possible, while ensuring that each application is individually assessed. From the autumn, we will introduce key performance indicators for our ARAP caseload. This will help people understand where they stand in the process—and when they should receive a decision.

I am also announcing, on behalf of the Home Secretary, the closure of the Home Office-run Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme. This means that the Government will not launch any further pathways nor accept any further referrals. Over 12,800 people have been successfully resettled under the ACRS since 2021. More than half of arrivals have been children, and a quarter women.

To reassure those who have made a referral under the Separated Families Pathway but have not yet received a decision, the Home Office will continue to consider those referrals and issue decisions. Once again, we will honour our commitments to anyone found eligible. We will also honour our commitments to those who have already been found eligible for ACRS but are not yet in the UK.

Relocating over 34,000 eligible Afghans is no small feat and would not have been possible without the support of our partners both at home and abroad.

We are grateful to the local authorities and devolved Governments who continue to help deliver the ARP successfully. Working hand in hand with local government, we will continue our efforts to implement a fair approach to the dispersal of Afghan arrivals across the UK and to empower regions to ensure arrivals are placed in areas that best support their integration. We are also grateful for our international partners. The majority of those eligible have travelled via Pakistan, so I would like to thank the Government of Pakistan for their ongoing co-operation and support.

Finally, I would like to thank all those civil servants and military personnel who continue to work tirelessly to relocate eligible Afghans and to help them rebuild their lives in the UK.

Without the contribution of our Afghan friends and allies, UK personnel who served in Afghanistan would have had an even tougher and certainly a more dangerous job. The Government’s goal remains, by the end of this Parliament, to have safely relocated those eligible and honour in full our moral obligation to those who supported our mission in Afghanistan.

[HCWS763]

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

11. What estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

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

As the Defence Secretary has said, the cost of the agreement represents less than 0.2% of the annual MOD budget. This has secured unrestricted access to and use of the base on Diego Garcia, control over movement of all persons and good on the base, and control of all communications and electronic systems. It is a good deal.

[Greg Smith]

I do not know that I agree with the Minister that this is a good deal, although I am curious about the £30 billion. Does it count towards the new NATO target of 3.5%, or the additional 1.5% on top of that? As we have to inform the Mauritian Government before we do anything particularly useful from that base, should that cost actually be counted in the defence numbers at all?

[Luke Pollard]

Let me squash the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, which is wrong: we do not have to inform Mauritius before taking any military action. Under the treaty, we have to provide notification after the event. I have explained this 13 times in written answers to Members on the Conservative Front Bench, but I am afraid that they still do not get it. That underlines why they could not do a deal after 11 rounds of negotiation, whereas this Government did it after two rounds, securing the future of that vital base for UK and US operations.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that our closest allies—the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even India—have all welcomed this deal, precisely because they recognise the irreplaceable role of Diego Garcia in global security? What does the Minister think is going on with the Opposition, who think they know more about global security than the security services, the White House and the Pentagon?

[Luke Pollard]

This is important, because the future of Diego Garcia is absolutely vital. Having accepted the principle that sovereignty could be secured only by a negotiated settlement—that was the decision taken by the last Government—it is right that we secured a deal, and right that we protect the base for operations for more than 100 years. The deal is good value for the UK taxpayer, because it secures the most valuable piece of military real estate on the planet, and keeps it under UK control for the next century and beyond.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps he is taking to increase security at military bases in the UK.

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

Following the disgraceful criminal vandalism that we saw at RAF Brize Norton, we immediately implemented a series of enhanced security measures at that air base and at other defence sites to ensure the safety of personnel, assets and operations. The strategic defence review highlighted Brize Norton as being in need of investment after the hollowing out of our armed forces over the previous 14 years. We have directed that a wider review be carried out at pace, to assess and ensure protective security at all defence sites. Phase 1 of that review was completed this weekend, and I will make further, wider announcements in due course.

[Sarah Hall]

To what extent is the Ministry of Defence working with other Government agencies to ensure a joined-up response to emerging threats to military equipment and infrastructure?

[Luke Pollard]

Counter-terrorism police are still investigating the incident at RAF Brize Norton, and it is right that we allow them the space to complete that investigation. The wider review looks at security at not just RAF Brize Norton, but all defence sites. We are looking with colleagues across Government at what investment is needed, and at how we can work with others to secure the safety of sites to ensure that the UK maintains operational security for all its assets.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Almost by definition, RAF sites have to have very long perimeter fences, so it is understandable that they could be overcome at one point or another. Why were they apparently not fitted with sensors, at least, so that any intrusion would have sounded the alarm?

[Luke Pollard]

I do not want to pre-empt the findings of all the reviews, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that our air bases tend to cover a large area. The perimeter fences we inherited on many of our air bases were not designed to keep everyone out with large things, but to be a perimeter defence. In the ongoing security work, we are looking at how technological solutions and changes in guarding might contribute to enhanced security, given the increased threat that we face.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of regulations on the use of autonomous weapons systems.

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

The strategic defence review sets out that the UK will harness new technology through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems. We will always comply with the relevant regulatory framework and international humanitarian law. I can tell my hon. Friend that IHL compliance is absolutely essential as we look to use more artificial intelligence enabled weapons systems in the future.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The strategic defence review rightly emphasises the importance of autonomous weapons systems in augmenting the UK’s defence capabilities, but it also notes:

“The UK’s competitors are unlikely to adhere to common ethical standards in developing and using”

those technologies. What specific measures are the Government taking to help prevent and mitigate the potential harms of autonomous capabilities, both in the UK and abroad?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we maintain responsible AI systems in the face of adversaries perhaps using AI in malign ways. The UK will adhere to our legal obligations and the values of the society that we serve. Through the UN and other processes, we are actively engaging in international dialogue on responsible AI, lethal autonomy and related strategic challenges, but all our activities will be in compliance with international humanitarian law.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

T2. In response to my written parliamentary question, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the Ministry of Defence assesses support to foreign forces on “a case-by-case basis. UK training courses promote British values, including human rights…and…international humanitarian law.”How does that response square with our continued support of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza? Will dual nationals serving in the Israel Defence Forces be held accountable?

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

All actions of the UK Government are in compliance with international humanitarian law. We want to see an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. We have fewer than five personnel from Israel on non-combat academic courses currently, but we keep all our training under review.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T5. Ministers will be aware of the recent launch of XV Excalibur in the south of England. It is an autonomous submarine vehicle that is the future of naval capability. What other investments are being made, under the strategic defence review, in autonomous vehicles, unmanned submarine technologies, and glider technologies?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Excalibur will be an incredible autonomous asset. The strategic defence review sets out that crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems will be standard across our armed forces, and at the heart of the review is investment in the people who will be manufacturing and standing behind those systems. That is why, when the defence investment plan comes out later this year, there will be more opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, primes and businesses right across the country to invest in our uncrewed and autonomous future in a hybrid military.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Last week, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what happened to the £4 billion earmarked for autonomous systems, including in Plymouth. That line was in the Chancellor’s spending review speech, but not delivered on the day. The Chief Secretary did not know. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this funding exists, and will he accept an invitation to Turnchapel Wharf, where exciting marine autonomy is being developed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Do the Government know if the US Government are still providing technical military intelligence support, such as electronic or imagery intelligence for Ukraine? If that were cut off by President Trump, would the Americans effectively restrict our British military technical intelligence support to Ukraine?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member will understand that we cannot talk about sharing military intelligence on the Floor of the House, but as he and I have an interest in this, I would be happy to have a conversation with him.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7.   North Staffordshire Tri Service and Veterans Support Centre does a wonderful job supporting veterans across Stoke-on-Trent, but all too often, it finds that the military covenant is not working for them. In Stoke-on-Trent in particular, it seems to be failing. What action are this Government taking to ensure that the covenant is worth the paper it is printed on in cities like mine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The strategic defence review, published this month, clearly states:

“The foundation of the UK’s approach to deterrence remains a minimum, credible, independent UK nuclear deterrent, assigned to the defence of NATO… The UK’s nuclear weapons are operationally independent.”

Somehow, in the last 29 days, the UK Government have decided that they no longer see their Trident nuclear missiles as a minimum credible deterrent. Why was that major change in policy not announced in the SDR?

[Luke Pollard]

The Government have made it very clear that our support for our independent nuclear deterrent is solid and is not changing. We are investing in new submarines, we are investing in the base in Faslane, we are investing in new nuclear reactors in Derby, and we are backing the people who keep our country safe with that guarantor of our security, the nuclear deterrent.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Since 14 June, an F-35B from the Prince of Wales carrier strike group has been stranded on the runway at the Thiruvananthapuram civilian airport in India. What steps are the Government taking to recover the plane, how much longer will that take, and how will the Government ensure the security of protected technologies on the jet while it is in the hangar and out of view?

[Luke Pollard]

We continue to work with our Indian friends who provided first-class support when the F-35B was unable to return to the Prince of Wales when on a flight mission, and I am certain that the security of the jet is in good hands because Royal Air Force crew are with it at all times.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T9. Given that as many as 35,000 Ukrainian children are still missing and are probably being held in occupied territory or in Russia, will the Minister assure us that the Government are not only taking action to help injured soldiers in Ukraine back on to the frontline, but doing all that they can to support the reunion of Ukrainian children with their families?

[Luke Pollard]

We are proud to be investing in Operation Renovator, our contribution to helping injured Ukrainian soldiers to recover and return to the fight to guarantee the safety of their nation, and we will continue to support that operation and our Ukrainian friends for as long as it takes.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Infantry regiments cite difficulty in recruiting in their traditional communities and recruitment grounds. Further to the exchange between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), may I ask what more can be done to encourage, specifically, young British men to join the Army?

[Luke Pollard]

Last year 165,000 young people tried to join the British Army. We hired 9,500 of them, but 84% left because the process was too long. We have a superb “attract feature”, but we need to be better at converting, and we are making progress in that regard, although there is more to be done. I am happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman if he has any ideas that might support that.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Sadly, we have all seen the devastation caused by modern missiles. Germany is preparing to receive the Arrow 3 missile defence system, ordered just two years ago, which can intercept intercontinental missiles at 2,500 km. What plans have the Government to equip this country similarly?

Armed Forces Day

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

This week, our nation comes together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces, their families and veterans—the heroes who give and sacrifice so much for their country at a time when the world is becoming increasingly dangerous, unpredictable and insecure. Right now, our armed forces are helping Ukraine to defend itself against the might of Russia by supplying kit and equipment, nearly three and a half years into a war that Putin thought would be over in three days. Our armed forces are in Singapore with the UK carrier strike group led by HMS Prince of Wales, strengthening Britain’s ties with the Indo-Pacific. They are operating as part of every NATO mission alongside our allies, keeping the peace in zones of potential conflict, and our people are working in the middle east to de-escalate tensions and stabilise the region. Our armed forces are contributing to UN peacekeeping forces around the world, helping to bring hope to war-torn communities, and they are protecting our shores at home, ready at a moment’s notice to respond to any emerging threats.

The members of our armed forces are truly the best of Britain, recognised globally for their professionalism and dedication. This week, in Armed Forces Week, we have a chance to say thank you: to them for their service; to their families for their understanding at the times when they are away; and to the people in the defence industries, the supply chain and the technology companies who support our men and women in uniform and help them continue to have the fighting edge that keeps our country safe.

Apart from the years affected by covid restrictions, 2024 was the first since the inception of Armed Forces Day in which there was no national event. This Government are proud to have restored that this year, backing three days of celebrations in Cleethorpes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) knows, it is a community that carries a long tradition of not just honouring our armed forces, but shaping and supporting them. From the local RAF station at North Coates, which was home to the Coastal Command strike wing during world war two, disrupting enemy supply chains with great success, to today’s active veteran groups such as NEL4Heroes, which does outstanding work in North East Lincolnshire helping veterans to return to civilian life.

Although the biggest celebrations will take place in Cleethorpes, where the Defence Secretary will be this weekend, there are more than 180 other events taking place across our nation. Earlier this week, my ministerial colleague Lord Coaker was among the large crowds that turned out in Northern Ireland to celebrate Armed Forces Day.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was fortunate to be there and had the opportunity to meet Lord Coaker. I was clear to him, as were the 60,000 people who turned out to commend and celebrate such a wonderful occasion. Will the Minister outline later on what can be done to recruit more Territorial Army soldiers? Will there be flexibility with employers and jobs and courses that people can do to enlarge the numbers of cadets?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his years of service. It was in Westminster Hall yesterday that he added up all the years that he served in uniform. I think it was 14 and a half years in total in various roles.

[Jim Shannon]

indicated assent.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank him for his service to our country. It is vital that we address the retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. We are making good progress in that regard. A key part of that is not only recruiting new people to our regular forces, but making it easier to join the reserves. Whether people serve full time, part time or in their spare time, there is an opportunity for people around the country to contribute to our armed forces.

The Minister for Veterans and People will set out further steps as to how we will improve our reserves as we approach the armed forces Bill in the next session of Parliament. He will make the case that improving our reserves makes us safer, but also provides more opportunity for the nation to have a closer connection with those people who serve as well.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

One of the 180 events that the Minister mentioned will be Armed Forces Day in Andover, which I will attend on Saturday. As the Minister knows, Andover is home to the Army’s land forces headquarters. Will he reflect on the importance of the work of celebrating the armed forces in the communities that physically embrace their headquarters, camps and residences, to sustain that connection between the non-uniformed civilian population and those who protect them on a daily basis?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member for his attendance at an Armed Forces Day event this weekend. As someone who represents Devonport, which is home to western Europe’s largest naval dockyard, I am acutely aware of the relationship, the important history and the connections today between our military, the civilians who, in Devonport’s case, support the fleet, and our wider community, including veterans. It is absolutely right that we tell the story of that connection, not just by looking back at the battles of previous years and those people who never returned from wars, but by making the case that investing in our defence today creates good, well-paid jobs. It provides opportunities for our young people and it is one of the sources of great pride that our Army, our Navy and our Air Force all feature among the top five employers of apprentices in the country. It is a huge opportunity to celebrate the skills that we have and the connections between our people. All our communities are proud of our armed forces, and this weekend is a great opportunity to say that again.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend knows that recently I had the great privilege of visiting our base in Erbil, in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where I saw for myself the dedicated service of the troops and their officers, who are doing huge work to help that regional government, thereby enhancing regional and British security. They are a credit to this country and we owe them a debt of gratitude. We should also remember that there are so many servicemen and women overseas who are doing difficult work, sometimes in harm’s way. On Armed Forces Day, we must remember all those serving officers and soldiers as well.

[Luke Pollard]

May I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks? It is a good reminder that on Armed Forces Day and in Armed Forces Week, there will be parliamentarians from all sides of the House visiting local communities and making the case for the armed forces in their communities. There will be people from communities right around our country, however, who will not be at those celebrations because they will be serving on the frontlines overseas, helping to project UK power and influence, helping to stabilise regions and helping to ensure that we de-escalate tensions. The work that our forces do in the middle east may have been in the news quite a lot recently, but the work that they do that is often not covered in the news is just as vital for our national security and worthy of our praise and thanks. I am sure that there is cross-party support for the work that they do across the middle east.

The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will be in Liverpool this weekend, celebrating alongside her community of Liverpool Garston at Armed Forces Day events. The Minister for Veterans and People will be in Coventry, having completed a tour of many of our communities nationwide making the case for further investment in services to support our veterans. Indeed, supporting those who have served is a vital part of this Government’s work. Many celebrations will take place across Scotland and Wales, including in Edinburgh where the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) will be attending. I will be back home in Plymouth, which is home not only to Devonport but to Stonehouse, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines. We will be out in force on the Hoe on Saturday. For those people not familiar with Plymouth’s geography and our international viewers, the Hoe has a wonderful clifftop view of Plymouth sound—it is nothing more sinister than that.

As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I am proud to represent my home town, which is not only steeped in military history, but plays a pivotal role in protecting Britain today. Having grown up as a Navy brat, I know that many remarkable people in defence tend to dismiss their achievements as “just part of the job”—a humility that defines service in our country. But I know what they do, how they go well beyond the expectations of a normal day job, how they shoulder immense responsibilities with great modesty and, supported by their families, how they perform the ultimate public service.

Through the Government’s strategic defence review and defence reform, we are putting much more emphasis on our people and on renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. The most troubling thing I have seen recently in relation to our people was the continuous attitude survey, which revealed that only a quarter of our service personnel believe that they are valued by society. I encourage Members who have not read the latest continuous attitude survey to do so: it tells the story of what our people think. Although we are now seeing morale stabilising, after a decade of it falling across all three services, the fact that they do not feel valued by society should be a wake-up call for all of us in thinking about how we talk about and support our armed forces.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Minister referred to my constituency earlier. This weekend we will host the national Armed Forces Day event, which will be fantastic. He mentions remembering our veterans and our people, and Saturday will be a true celebration of all the work that so many people put into making sure that we are safe and secure every day.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she put into making the case for Cleethorpes to host the first of the renewed national day events. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to attending events in Cleethorpes this weekend and to hearing not only from those people who serve today, but the young people of the cadets in her community, who may be those who serve in the future, and the veterans who have served our nation. I am looking forward to events in Plymouth, but I know that the events in Cleethorpes will be the centre of our national attention this weekend, and rightly so.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that the UK’s armed forces are a visible manifestation of the philosophy and values that underpin the country? If society does not value the armed forces, would he concede that it might be because we have consistently failed to defend the principles and values that underpin our society? We should confront the accusations, for example, that this is an inherently racist country, which it absolutely is not, and that our history is not something to be proud of. Perhaps then wider society would appreciate the men and women who defend not just the physical country but our values, our history and our philosophy.

[Luke Pollard]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for telling our nation’s story. To tell our full story, we have to explain the good bits and, sometimes, the bad bits, but at all times we can look at the bravery, courage and service of our armed forces as a source of national pride. I also look at our armed forces today as the embodiment of some of our British values. I believe in equality: it is very important to me personally. When I think about our soldiers operating in Estonia at the moment, ready to deter a Russian move across the border, the colour of their skin, their religion, where they come from or their accent do not matter. All that matters is that in that unit, everyone has each other’s backs and is proud of our country, proud of their service and proud of the reasons they are there.

Armed forces week is an opportunity to remind people of the difficult jobs we ask our people to do and to thank them for it. The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the values that stand behind the uniform and why the flag they carry on their arms matters so much—it is not just a piece of cloth; it represents British values that we should all be proud of.

For that reason, it is important that we recognise that our service personnel need to feel more valued. The figure has plummeted over the past 12 years. We know that words will not address the problem. Only action will, and that is why it was so important to award our service personnel their biggest pay rise for more than two decades and to follow that up with another above-inflation pay rise this year. It is a source of great pride to me as the Minister for the Armed Forces that, for the first time, we can say that every single person in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case, but sadly it was not; it is now.

Our armed forces deserve a lot more than just a decent salary. The cold, damp and mouldy homes that many have been living in are a betrayal of their service. After buying back 36,000 homes from the private sector that were sold off under a previous Conservative Government and saving taxpayers more than £600,000 a day in rent payments, we are delivering a generational renewal of military accommodation, with at least £7 billion of funding in this Parliament to tackle the poor state of forces housing.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to mark an important week for our armed forces. I welcome everything my hon. Friend says about support for our armed forces and their families by way of investment in their homes and more money in their pockets. Does he agree that supporting our armed forces goes way beyond just the equipment that they need on the frontline? It is about making sure that their families are valued through the support that the Government can give them and that they receive from the communities they live in.

[Luke Pollard]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more: that is so important. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, but many of our defence debates have been about kit, platforms and—if I have anything to do with it—frigates. We talk about the equipment, but we need to talk about our people. At the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government’s policies, is talking more about the families of those who serve. That is why I hope that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will become law soon. It puts an emphasis on allowing service families to access the commissioner to make the case that it is the whole defence family—those who serve in uniform and their family members who back them in their service—that needs to be valued by this nation. I believe that view is shared on a cross-party basis, and we now need to ensure that it is featured in our legislation and in the day-to-day operations of our military. There is more to do on that.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On the selling off of military homes and the buying back of them by the Labour Government, will the Minister acknowledge that the negotiations for that deal started in May 2024 under the Conservative Government and were completed by the Labour Government?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, and when the announcement was officially made, I recall standing at the Dispatch Box and thanking the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is not here today, for his work on it. It was a terrible privatisation—truly awful. It represented the worst value for taxpayers and it has doomed many of our forces families to appalling accommodation for far too long. Now that that privatisation has ended and we have brought those homes back into public control, we can invest in them. We need to do that at pace, because people are living today in accommodation with mould and damp. That is not good enough. We need to proceed at pace, and the Minister for Veterans and People who leads on this work in the MOD is as impatient as I am to see the improvements—as I know the hon. Gentleman will be, as someone who represents a military constituency.

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

For the record, the shadow Defence Secretary is not here because he has a very important personal family commitment today. I am honoured to stand in for him.

Has the Minister seen our proposals for a ringfenced armed forces housing association, to provide better quality accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families?

[Luke Pollard]

I am sure the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is by no means a poor substitute for the shadow Defence Secretary.

We plan to publish our defence housing strategy later this year, which no doubt was not at all in the minds of the shadow Front-Bench team when they published their proposals ahead of time. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to wait for the full work to be published in due course, but improving defence housing has to be a priority, because for many years as a nation, we have not delivered what our forces deserve—that will now change.

This year, we extended the ability to reclaim the costs of wraparound childcare to many of those deployed overseas, and next year we will go further and cover all overseas areas to help make family life a little easier. We are legislating for an Armed Forces Commissioner—an independent voice to help improve service life. We made a manifesto commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law—a promise made by the nation that those who defend it will be treated fairly and will not be disadvantaged because of their service. That includes, for example, ensuring that service children have the same access to education as other children. We are transforming recruitment, and hope that many young people will be inspired to join up after attending Armed Forces Day events this weekend. We are also overhauling access to care and support for veterans through the Valour programme.

I turn to veterans because although Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to thank those people in uniform, we should also use it as an opportunity to thank those people who have served.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I very much welcome the work being done to bring the covenant into wider, and legislative, effect, with consequences where it is not applied. That will be important in delivering services to our armed forces right across the public sector, but there is a financial consequence. Parliament and Government need to seriously consider how that financial consequence is borne and distributed to ensure that those public services are empowered and financed to support armed forces personnel and, just as importantly, their wider families in the best way they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that the pledge is made in action and deeds, not just words. If we look at the implementation of the armed forces covenant across the country at the moment, some areas are exceptional and have embraced not just the words of the covenant but the spirit behind it, and others are perhaps a little further behind on the journey. When we look at central Government compared with local government, there is a distinction between the services and the offer. That is why we are putting it fully into law. I hope that one thing we will be able to do in having a debate on putting the covenant fully into law is to share the best practice we see in local councils up and down the country.

In this place, there is sometimes a temptation to believe that all good ideas must come from the Dispatch Box. I certainly do not believe that, when I can see brilliant councillors of all parties making the case for improving the lives of veterans, those people who serve and, perhaps most importantly, their families. Where the covenant grips most successfully is where we can improve provision for children who may suffer disadvantage because their parents who serve move around so frequently, which means they sometimes do not get the same access to educational support, special educational needs and disabilities support and other aspects. When that debate happens—it will probably be later this year or the beginning of next year—I hope that all hon. Members will be able to participate and take something from that debate to amplify the work of their local councils. Probably each and every Member in this place will have something good to share about the work being done in their area.

We owe a substantial debt of gratitude to all those who have served their country. The Government have an enduring duty to recognise their extraordinary contribution and to support them after service. The majority of veterans go on to have successful careers and lives. We are helping them to make the best use of the diverse skills and experience that they have gained—for example, through the career transition partnerships and Op ASCEND—but a minority do not find the transition easy and may need extra support. We are creating a new £50 million network of Valour-recognised support centres across the UK to give veterans easier access to essential care and help.

Just today, we launched the Valour pilot in the north-west region, at the Imperial War Museum North. We have announced £75 million to recognise the historic wrongs experienced by LGBT veterans in the armed forces, which is significantly above the level recommended in the Etherton review. We have also committed additional funding to maintain veterans’ homelessness support programmes, ensuring that those at risk of homelessness have continued access to specialist help.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I appreciate that the Government are working on this issue, but could the Minister update us on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth service personnel?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member will know that the Ministry of Defence recently published a written ministerial statement on how we can improve recruitment from the Commonwealth. It is not just about how we expand the pipeline coming into our armed forces; we also need to recognise and support those who might be at the end of their service to get the support they need. We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretary about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.

The magnificent VE Day commemorations, as well as the equally historic 80th anniversary of VJ Day in August, have been widely acknowledged as perhaps the last major opportunity to thank those who fought in the second world war. But we are also slowly losing the generation who did national service after the war and, with them, the living bridge they provide to our armed forces. We need to reconnect society with our armed forces and widen participation in national resilience. This weekend’s festivities are a great way to kick-start that process, but, as our strategic defence review made clear, we have to be much more proactive as a country about rebuilding those connections, particularly with young people.

Half of the Army’s current crop of regimental sergeant majors were once cadets, so we will boost the cadet forces by 30% by 2030, creating opportunities for 42,000 more young people to be a cadet. We will introduce a voluntary gap year scheme for school and college leavers and develop a new UK strategic reserve by 2030—a fitting objective considering that yesterday was Reserves Day, when we were able to thank the many thousands of reservists who serve this country. They greatly bolster our capability at times of crisis, serving across defence, from the back office to the frontline. They give us the skills, scale and ability to meet the threats we face at home and overseas in a cost-effective way, as the Minister for Veterans and People can attest after serving alongside them on various tours.

I have seen personally the enormous benefits that experience with our armed forces can offer people, particularly young people: purpose, adventure, social mobility, and a unique sense of camaraderie and self-achievement. For many people, it is a route to a much better life. We want to make many more young people aware of the opportunities on offer and the chance to see where service life can take them.

As I noted earlier, we are taking decisive action to address the recruitment crisis that we inherited. The tortuously slow process that caused so much frustration is being transformed. For example, we have eliminated more than 100 outdated medical recruitment policies and we are slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours. Our objective is to reduce the time of flight from application to starting at a training establishment. The new 10-30 policy introduced by the Secretary of State, which means applicants will get a decision on a provisional application within 10 days and a start date within 30 days, is a good step towards improving this process, but we know there is much more to do.

Army recruitment has been completely restructured, and we have acted to keep hold of valued staff who are most at risk of leaving—for example, by introducing retention payments for Army privates, lance corporals and aircraft engineers. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up by 19% and outflow is down by 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruitment target, and Royal Air Force applications are up by a third compared with early 2024. Applications to join the Army are at their highest level for seven years.

[John Slinger]

As we are discussing the armed services’ recruitment problems, does my hon. Friend agree it is very helpful that this Government were able to deliver an above-inflation pay rise of 4.5% for service personnel, recognising their extraordinary professionalism? In combination with last year’s 6% headline award, that represents a cumulative pay award of 10.5% since July 2024, which can only help with the issues he is discussing.

[Luke Pollard]

It absolutely does. The strategic defence review talks about a whole-of-society approach, and I view that from both an inside and an outside perspective. As a society, we need to value our armed forces more, recognising that we all have a role in building resilience and improving how our nation is defended, but we must also recognise that armed forces personnel need to feel more valued by the whole of society. Ensuring that our people are paid well and live in decent homes is the foundation of that, and I hope that one day this House will not need to debate the quality of our military accommodation, because the quality will be such that, when we ask our people to move around the country—whether into single living accommodation or service family accommodation—it is simply a given that it is decent. That is our objective, but we have a lot of work still to do.

I hope that Members across the House will join our armed forces and our communities this weekend to celebrate the work of our service personnel. As we set about reconnecting the nation to its military, we must remember that service and sacrifice are not values confined to the history books; they are just as important today as they have ever been, and they are just as visible if we tell their stories. Those values are embodied in Britain’s armed forces. There has never been a more important time to thank them for the fantastic work they do, or to promote the benefits of an armed forces career to young people. To all who serve, all who have served and all their families, we give our deep thanks. To those who might serve in the future, we say: come along to an event this weekend and find out what our brilliant armed forces could do for you.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Members who had to sit through my opening remarks will be pleased to know that I will not be repeating many of them, but I am keen to pick up on a number of points raised in their speeches, which were so ably summarised by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a time when it is easy to take political pot-shots across the Chamber on serious issues, today’s debate has shown that we can come together, cross-party, to support our people, to have a serious debate about the contribution our armed forces make to our national security, and to raise genuine issues of concern with respect and thoughtfulness. Sadly, not as many people will be watching this debate as watch other proceedings in the Chamber, but if did, they would see Parliament working effectively and properly.

[Mr Francois]

In a bipartisan spirit, perhaps the Minister will allow me to relay a brief apology. I promised the Chair of the Defence Committee that I would explain why he and some of the Committee are not here, when ordinarily they would be. They are on an overseas trip directly related to defence business. It would help keep me honest if the Minister allowed me to place that on the record.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman certainly does not want to offend the Chair of the Defence Committee, so I am glad that he has had the chance to put that on the record.

What I heard in the debate, and what I hope our forces will have heard if they were listening, was not only support for the men and women who serve, and advocacy for the armed forces as a brilliant career choice, but support for improvement to the transition from military life to civilian roles, and support for those who have served in the past; we heard stories of heroism and courage. That makes for a good debate, and I am pleased that a number of Members were able to pick out elements from the strategic defence review. The Government have adopted all 62 recommendations from Lord George Robertson’s report, and we will implement them in full. Further announcements will be made about what we are implementing and how we are taking forward not only the SDR’s recommendations, but its spirit.

As we set a path for increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament, and to 3.5% by 2035, and for spending 1.5% on resilience and homeland defence over in the same period, I hope there will be plenty of opportunity for Members to make the case that increased defence spending can mean spending not just on kit and equipment, but on our people. I expect that to be heard loud and clear across the House, so that when we hear conversations about renewing military accommodation, we know that there is an increased budget to pay for that work, and when we talk about valuing our people, we know there are above-inflation pay rises for them for the first time in a very long time. That is important.

There is one thing that I will expect to see and hear more about in future debates. We heard lots of mentions of our Army, Navy and Air Force and their traditional roles, but in future debates on the armed forces, I expect that we will hear more mentions of those who work in cyber and the digital defence of our nation. The cyber direct entry pathway that we have opened has been a success, and we look forward to announcing the passing out of the first cohort later this year. The ability for us —the armed forces and people who care about defence—to talk about cyber resilience and protecting our digital infrastructure is just as important as protecting against kinetic and more traditional military threats. Indeed, I expect that in future years there will be more discussion of how we keep our space domain safe.

I am glad that a number of hon. Members were able to talk about their role and participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am the Minister responsible for that, and I am proud of the way that the scheme has been expanded in the past year. I thank the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust for its support on that. The scheme is a superb opportunity for parliamentarians who have not served, and for those who have, to experience a different perspective on military life. It allows them to understand what we ask of our people; to listen and learn from them, their deployments and their experiences; and to bring that into the House and improve our work here.

I turn to comments made in the debate. I am glad that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), talked about the Forcer protocol. Indeed, I expect all Members of the House to ask their chief constables whether their police force is going with that. I undertake to do the same for Devon and Cornwall police, as will many of the other Devon MPs, I imagine. There is a real merit in the protocol, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House’s attention.

I am proud to be Plymouth’s first ever out MP, and seeing the way that LGBT personnel and veterans are now spoken about in the House fills me with pride. When I was growing up, there were not always the role models or the public debate that enabled folk like me to feel that there was a place in the armed forces for them. The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and others were very powerful. He said that courage knows no gender or sexuality, which is absolutely right. We need to build that sentiment into our armed forces as we seek to change the culture, so that everyone is welcome and there is no place for abuse. As we move to warfighting readiness, we need the contribution of people from every background to our armed forces if we are to keep our nation safe.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for talking about the importance of payments to LGBT veterans. The priority order was established by the Minister for Veterans and People. The initial payments have gone to those over 80 and those who are sadly towards the end of their life, so that we can ensure that those payments are made before they leave this place. We have now established the procedure for paying the larger cohort of people who do not fit into that category, and the Minister for Veterans and People will make further announcements about how we will roll out the payments. We are pleased that the first payments have been made in full to the first cohort.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that Armed Forces Day is a starting point for serious change. I believe that change started on 4 July last year, but I take her comments in the spirit in which she made them. It is not enough to talk about change; we have to take action. Hopefully, she and Members from across the House will see the strategic defence review being implemented, the increase in defence spending, the increased pay for our forces, and the housing improvement, all of which will contribute to improvement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), who spoke about the armed forces covenant being our collective promise, which is exactly right. As we look to put that fully into law, there will need to be a conversation. If I may be cheeky, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties that questions on our armed forces covenant need not be directed only to the Ministry of Defence. If the covenant is to be effective, we need every Government Department to understand their role in putting the covenant fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People has been undertaking cross-Government work on that, and I imagine that there will be further such work in due course, as we build towards that legislation.

[Mr Francois]

In the hope that other Government Departments are listening, the Minister might recall that I said in my remarks that at noon today the Northern Ireland veterans petition had just over 145,000 signatures. I looked a few seconds ago, and the figure is now just shy of 148,000. Perhaps people were inspired by the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Will the Minister convey to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that we do not want to throw our Northern Ireland veterans to the wolves—and clearly, from this petition, neither do the public?

[Luke Pollard]

I will return to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, so he will not have to wait long for my response, but first I will deal with some other points.

I am grateful for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the national Armed Forces Day event, which I am pleased to see back. She has a passion for the event and is serious about her community. She also has pride in and a close connection to the folk she mentioned—it was a very powerful speech. I am certain that the ice cream will be on the Secretary of State, especially now that he knows he is going to the event, so she should expect plenty of dairy coming her way.

I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke about RAF Lossiemouth, the importance of how we base our people and valuing the wider community. I am grateful to him for mentioning HMS Spey; the offshore patrol vessel is doing a superb job in the Indo-Pacific, as is her sister ship HMS Tamar. Their contributions to upholding the international rules-based order and supporting our allies in the region are really important. She is a little ship with a big impact and is really very powerful there, so I am grateful for his comments.

I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to forget the opportunity to talk about resilience spending. He talked about the spending of other Government Departments and councils effectively enabling homeland defence. That is precisely why the spending pledge agreed at the NATO summit was that by 2035, 1.5% of GDP should be spent on homeland defence and other activities that bolster our resilience as a nation. I think he has a strong case to argue on that. NATO will shortly publish the full criteria, setting out what money will come into that, but I believe that the examples he gave are good ones to use in arguing his case, so I encourage him to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and I did indeed wave off HMS Prince of Wales when she left for her deployment to the Indo-Pacific. That was a good opportunity to meet members of her community in Portsmouth. The carrier and the carrier strike group include people from all parts of our country, who are all sailing together, alongside many of our allies, including our Norwegian friends, who have a frigate sailing on the entire deployment. When we celebrate the contribution of our armed forces, let us remember the contribution of our allies to keeping us safe today and in the past.

I am very grateful for the intervention from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), who spoke about Jack Dark’s 102nd birthday. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), who spoke about Norman Ashford, a D-day veteran. It is really important that we value and take extra care of those final few folks from the second world war. We must ensure that we capture their stories and retell them, so that they are not forgotten. I am grateful for the contributions of all of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) correctly raised the issue of the RAF photographic reconnaissance aircraft. I can report that the Minister for Veterans has indeed met those involved in the campaign, as I suspect nearly every single person in the House has. If there were a public affairs award for best lobbying campaign, this campaign would certainly deserve it. I understand that progress is being made, and that the campaign group met Westminster city council to discuss the issue. The cost of what is being suggested would need to be met by public subscription, and I have no doubt that it would be, so I expect positive progress. There is strong support for recognition of the bravery of the people who undertook these roles in the second world war, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am also grateful to him for giving examples of service personnel who, in recollections of wartime stories, do not always get the attention that they deserve, including those from the Sikh community, who he spoke about.

It is good to have three Front-Bench speakers from Devon; that does not always happen in this place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who spoke about the contribution that her family made. On the issue of the time of flight, as it is referred to in the Ministry of Defence, that is the time from signing up to attending a training establishment. We inherited a situation in which that time was over a year for some of our services, and that is not acceptable. In July last year, we were losing 84% of people in the process, not because of medical problems or eligibility issues around nationality or criminal records, but simply because the process took too long. That is not acceptable.

I am strongly against the criticism made that our younger generation do not want to serve our nation, because that is not true. Last year, 165,000 people tried to join the British Army, and we hired 9,500 at the end. We lost the vast majority because the process is too long and slow. That is why we are reducing the time of flight. I am very happy to look into the casework matter that the hon. Lady raised if she writes to me. The “10 and 30” policy that I mentioned in my opening remarks should certainly make a difference when rolled out fully across all three services. I will certainly try to discourage the Minister for Veterans and People from reading the transcript of this debate; being regarded as a legend will no doubt boost his humbleness.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his concluding remarks, and for his story of nearly crash-landing in someone’s picnic. He did not tell the end of that story, but as he is here in one piece, let us assume that it all went well. I am also grateful for the way in which he summarised the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) raised valid questions from 216 Battery about training levels. We have inherited a situation in which training—for both regular and reserve forces—was often the first casualty of trying to manage in-year budget pressures over a number of years. We are very aware of that within the Ministry of Defence. We are conscious that the increase in defence spend could, in part, make a difference to that, but as we have a number of challenges to deal with, we need to look at the best way of delivering increased training—particularly adventurous training, which is what many of our forces want. I would be very happy to have a further conversation with my hon. Friend, so that she can raise with me the particulars of those issues.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), between making his speech and coming back, has changed his tie to look more like mine—I am very grateful for that fashion change. His remarks, particularly about the contribution of the US air force bases in his constituency, were a good reminder of the close friendship we have. I was at the US embassy earlier today as part of a conference organised by the Council on Geostrategy, looking at our transatlantic alliance. Our military-to-military co-operation underscores the value of our relationship with our US friends, and I know that America really does value the bases in the UK that it is able to operate from.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that our armed forces personnel should be paid properly, housed properly, posted sympathetically and granted stability. That is the intent of many of the changes we are making. On the stability point, I am thinking in particular about where we are with British Army deployments, because Air Force and Navy personnel generally have greater stability than their compatriots in the Army. We are aware of that issue and are looking at it, but I am certain that the hon. Member will be sending me lots of parliamentary questions—possibly before I have even sat down.

Let me turn to the very serious issue raised by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who spoke about Northern Ireland veterans. He will know—because we have spoken about it a number of times, and he has also spoken with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans—that we on the Government Benches feel very strongly that we need to support our veterans. We are seeking to navigate through that process at the moment. The debate on the petition mentioned by a number of Members will take place on 14 July. I welcome that debate, which will be an opportunity to make the case for those people who served our nation in support of peace in Northern Ireland.

There is more work to be done in this area. After the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, I read the article in the Daily Mail about the launch of the campaign that he referenced. It is certainly true that the Government seek to repeal the current Northern Ireland legacy Act, but what one has to get to the penultimate paragraph of the article to read is that we intend to replace it as well. The right hon. Gentleman chose his wording carefully about how that replacement needs to work.

The current Act is unlawful—it has been found to be so in a number of courts—and it has not prevented some of the things we are seeing at the moment, so we have to find a way forward in this area. The Northern Ireland Office is looking at it at the moment, and we in the Ministry of Defence continue to have conversations with our NIO colleagues—indeed, I think that was the point that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, was making in his intervention —and we will continue to do so.

[Chris McDonald]

Coming, as I do, from a constituency in the north-east, let me say that members of our community, of course, served in Northern Ireland for many years, so the issue of Northern Ireland veterans is just as important to those of us on the Government Benches as it is across the whole House. I was in the House on 21 May when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Government came into office committed to remedying the failure of the legacy Act. That gave great assurance to me, and I am sure it gave great assurance to veterans in my constituency. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State’s comments?

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely agree—there is something that is not right, and it needs to be resolved. I do not doubt the passion that Opposition Members, and indeed those on the Government Benches, feel about this issue. I share that passion. We need to find a solution to this issue that can provide peace of mind as well as the ability to address community concerns. There is a path through, but we need to go carefully to make sure that we are cognisant of all the strong views, but I am certain that will happen. I am also certain that we will continue our conversations outside the Chamber as we work with Northern Ireland Office colleagues, who have the lead in this policy space. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington for raising the issue in this debate.

This has been a good debate for Armed Forces Day. Support comes not just from the Members who can speak in this debate; I am conscious that a number of Members present have been unable to speak, due to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure, including my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke (Pamela Nash), who sits behind me as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. She is attending Armed Forces Day events at the Motherwell United Services club on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) was the Whip on the Government Benches earlier, and I am conscious that there are Whips on both sides of the House who might not be able to contribute verbally, but who I am certain will be supporting Armed Forces Day events in their constituencies across the country.

We need to ensure that the warm words and well-crafted speeches we have heard today are put into action all year round. It is not enough to have a day where we celebrate our armed forces; we need to recognise their service each and every day. As the nation sees an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world on their TV screens and on their phones, it is the men and women of our armed forces who are at the pointy end of the defence of our nation, but we can all do something to increase the resilience of our defence.

If everyone in the House updated the operating systems on their computers and phones, Britain would be more cyber-secure than it was beforehand. We all can do something. In this place in particular, Members of Parliament from all parts of the House can continue to make the case for our people, for defence families, for investment, for better pay and for better equipment for our forces. That is this Government’s intent, and from the sentiments I have heard from all parts of the House today, we can see that has cross-party support. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and I wish everyone a successful Armed Forces Day on Saturday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. You and I being in the same room will probably alert the Whips—they will be keeping an eye on us both very shortly. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for introducing this debate, putting this on the record and being a proud champion of the north-east and of the men and women from the north-east who serve with such distinction in our armed forces. He has done his constituency and his region enormous credit with the way that he introduced the debate. I will turn to some of the points he raised in just a moment.

Let me say how warmed I am by the contributions to this debate from all parts of the House in Armed Forces Week. It is so important at this time that we take a moment to thank the people who serve, celebrate their service and highlight that a career in the armed forces not only provides the opportunity to keep our country and our allies safe, but provides someone with a lifetime of skills that, as we know, are in demand in the private sector and will give them pride in what they do. One of the members of the armed forces that my hon. Friend spoke to said that the armed forces had trained, trusted and invested in him. That is exactly what we seek to do for all the members of our armed forces.

I must declare an interest as the son of a Royal Navy submariner, albeit one based in Devonport in Plymouth rather than in the north-east. I am confident that, wherever we are in our proud United Kingdom, we can all feel a sense of pride in the service of the people in uniform and, importantly, the families that stand behind them. The people of the north-east have a long and proud tradition of doing just that—a tradition captured by the permanent exhibition at Newcastle’s Discovery museum, reflected in the annual military parade in Sunderland, which is traditionally the largest outside of London, and honoured earlier this month by 100 soldiers from the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who departed King’s Cross in their scarlet tunics and bearskin caps to make the symbolic pilgrimage to Berwick-upon-Tweed, where they were formed 375 years ago and where they were received today with great pride.

Service personnel from the north-east have been and continue to be central to the history of our armed forces. They are central to the missions we deliver today to keep our country safe and central to the future of our armed forces. As Britian moves to warfighting readiness through the commitments set out in our strategic defence review, we have placed defence personnel at the heart of our plans.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm speech about the pride of the various regiments in the north-east of England, but there is a big gap at the moment. A number of years ago, the Durham Light Infantry lost their national memorial when the building that was housing it was no longer fit for purpose. That is a sad loss to our region. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the new Reform Durham county council to pick up the plans previously put down by local people to recreate a fitting memorial for the Durham Light Infantry in our area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I commend and thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is so important that we tell our story. We have not just accidentally arrived today—we are here because of the contributions of the generations that came before us. It is right that we acknowledge and remember the sacrifices of the people who served in uniform in countless battles and wars in the past. To have a permanent, fitting memorial where people can see that contribution seems a very good campaign, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman and all Members present to get behind it. I hope that the council he referenced will understand its value.

Since coming into office, we have taken a number of decisive steps to deal with the serious retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Administration. We have sought to make recruitment more efficient. We have eliminated over 100 outdated recruitment policies already. We have slashed the time to access medical records from weeks to hours with a new digital pilot that we hope to roll out across all our services. We have restructured Army recruitment, and are moving towards a tri-service recruitment scheme, which will make recruitment easier, more efficient and, most importantly, faster for the people involved.

We have made a career in our armed forces more attractive by awarding service personnel the biggest pay rise in more than two decades. Importantly—this is a source of great pride not just to the Defence Secretary but to all Defence Ministers and, I imagine, all Labour MPs—for the very first time, every person who serves in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case. It was not, but it is now. That is the difference that this Government are making.

I am pleased that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), spoke about the importance of upgrading military accommodation. It was a national scandal that so many of our people and their families are being asked to live in housing that is, frankly, not fit for purpose. The £7 billion that we will invest in military accommodation, including an extra £1.5 billion to be spent in this Parliament, will make a substantial difference by upgrading military accommodation nationwide.

We are trying harder to keep the valued people who are most at risk of leaving. We have introduced a £30,000 retention payment for about 5,000 eligible aircraft engineers and an £8,000 retention payment for around 12,000 eligible Army privates and lance corporals. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up 19% and outflow is down 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruiting target, Royal Air Force applications are up 34% compared with early 2024, and the British Army has recorded a seven-year high in applications.

We are determined to go faster and further, starting with cadets. I was pleased to hear from hon. Members about how cadets contribute to their communities and provide people with opportunities to understand that a career in the armed forces is good not only for their employment, but for their mental health and their community. The cadet experience raises awareness of exciting careers and opportunities. Former cadets account for around 40% of officers and 35% of other ranks, and on average those who have served in our cadets serve six years longer than their peers. That is good for our armed forces.

The commitment to increase our cadet forces by 30% is an important SDR recommendation. I encourage all Members, whether or not they are in the north-east, to be part of the expansion of our cadet forces and to work with their local cadets, whether they are sea cadets, air cadets or whatever else—a number of varieties are on offer—to encourage people to get involved. Most importantly, let us tell the story for those communities that do not always access the cadets, especially those from some of our poorest and most deprived communities, where participating in the cadets could have a profound and positive effect for their entire lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response. I had a conversation with the Minister for Veterans and People some time ago, and he told me personally that extra money would be available for the cadets in the Northern Ireland, specifically to recruit another 1,000 cadets. The cadet forces and others have told me that that money will ensure that the 1,000 other cadets can come in. I welcome that commitment by the Veterans Minister to Northern Ireland—which I think he told me before he announced it.

[Luke Pollard]

Don’t be saying that we have been out telling people things before we announce them—we will get in big trouble for that, as the hon. Member will know. He is exactly right to talk about the possibilities that come from further investment in cadets and was right to raise those issues with my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People. We are not undertaking Operation Mountain Goat, climbing up Everest; the Minister is certainly powering the expansion of our cadets and activities in reserves.

[Mark Ferguson]

While the Minister commends the work of cadets, will he join me in commending 361 Gateshead air cadets for the critical role they played in remembrance services by leading the parade through the centre of Gateshead last year? Does he agree that the role of the cadets in remembrance is incredibly important in building a sense of community and a sense of the role that we all must play in remembrance, alongside the cadets?

[Luke Pollard]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the work of 361 Gateshead air cadets. What he has just done speaks to the critique, which I often hear, that young people are not interested in service. Nothing is further from the truth. Our young people are absolutely determined and feel a sense of pride, but as a country we have not provided the vehicle for them to be able to serve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) gave the stat that three in four people leaving the recruitment process because it takes too long, but it is worse than that. In the situation we inherited from the previous Administration, 84% of people left the recruitment process because it took too long. The time of flight, which is how we categorise the period between the application form and donning the uniform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor described it, is far too long—in some cases over a year. That is not an acceptable time of flight.

We are determined to cut that, which is why we have introduced the 10/30 policy. That means that we want all applicants across all forces to have an indication of whether they are acceptable within 10 days—have they passed the nationality check or do they have a criminal record that would disbar them?—and to have an approximate start date at a training establishment within 30 days. That is so important because it provides people with the certainty to understand how long they will have to wait.

The targets that we are setting internally in the Ministry of Defence to reduce the time of flight are serious and substantial, because we know that we lose too many good people as the process takes too long. That is why we are working not just to enhance and cut the time taken to access medical records, but to do security vetting and to make sure that people know when they can start. That will make a big difference to our ability to help people to understand whether they can take a part-time job or go travelling, or whether they need to wait a bit longer or have time for additional study before they start. The lack of certainty poisons our recruitment process; we are taking steps to deal with that properly.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke about digital warfighters because it is true that, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), said, we need to have troops to hold ground, but we also need people with cyber and digital skills to deal with the threats we face every single day. Luckily, we are not under missile attack every day, but we are under cyber-attack every single day from hostile states, from those that wish to undermine our security, and from criminal networks that can be state-backed. The new direct entry into cyber that we have begun is a pioneering scheme. We have had a huge number of applications, including from people from the north-east. We will make further announcements about that success as the cohort starts its training.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was right when he spoke about many of our people being snapped up by the private sector. That is what happens with austerity and pay pressure, which mean that our armed forces personnel have faced real-terms pay cuts—as many of them have for the last 14 years, under the previous Government—and their wages have not kept pace with their market value. That is why we have introduced two above-inflation pay rises for our people since coming to office.

That is also the reason why we are looking at zigzag careers, so that people serving in a regular role in our armed forces can undertake reserve work and apply for the reserves while they are serving—rather than having to leave and apply, as they do currently—so that they can then undertake work in our private sector, in our defence contractors, after which they will be able to rejoin. At the moment we zig, but we do not zag. We need to improve the system. That is what we are seeking to legislate to deliver. That will mean an increase in people being able to return.

Keeping people within our larger defence family is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) was right to speak about the importance of investment in our defence industries. At the moment, we spend approximately £380 million in the north-east, which is not enough. It is the determination of this Government to make sure that we spend more of the Ministry of Defence’s increased budget with British companies, creating good, well-paid apprenticeships throughout the country and making sure that we can create the products that we can sell to the world, not just to ourselves.

[Mr Francois]

As the hon. Member is well aware, many of those who served on Operation Banner were recruited from what we would now call red wall constituencies, many of them in the north-east of England. As we have many north-east MPs here this afternoon, will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not proceed with their totally counterproductive remedial order to throw those veterans to the wolves?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Member has made his point; I am turning to the points raised by other Members, if he will forgive me.

We currently spend £380 million, but we want to spend more. To do that, we not only need defence companies to invest more in manufacturing facilities; we need many of the companies that already operate in the north-east to realise that they could be defence companies. They might be able to support the provision of gizmos and gadgets for our equipment, or they might be technology companies that could expand into providing new services. That is why the new defence industrial strategy, which we are publishing later this year, will help to direct more attention and more spending towards our industries in Britain, including those in the north-east.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for talking about the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which is going through Parliament. I want it to achieve Royal Assent soon. The ping-pong needs to come to an end. We need to get it passed into law, complete the recruitment of the Armed Forces Commissioner and get on with providing an independent champion for the people who serve. It is vital to restore trust and confidence.

I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, for talking about the need to address culture, because the toxic culture within our military is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in our politics and it should not be acceptable in our armed forces. However, I point out to him that the Fusiliers do not wear Labour colours. It is a proud hackle that came from their traditions—it just happens to be red. It is important that at this time we do not seek to politicise any of our armed forces, because they should enjoy cross-party support. He gave me a fair challenge, though, about whether we need to do more work or defend the homeland now. The answer, of course, is both. That is why the SDR sets out 62 recommendations, which we have accepted in full, to do more to defend our country, to develop new technologies to replace the old capabilities, and, perhaps most importantly, to invest in our people.

Finally, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised a number of topics that are of concern to many people. I welcome the debate that will be taking place in this Chamber very shortly. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Office, as he is aware, but my colleague, the Veterans Minister, takes a great deal of interest in this matter as well; I am certain that he will be able to contribute further.

At this very moment, there will be people up and down our country, including in the north-east of England, wondering whether to join our armed forces—wondering whether a career in uniform will support them and their aspirations, and will provide the opportunities for them to start a family and to buy their own house, and contribute to a lifetime of skills. Let the message go out clearly from this debate: whether you join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, there are incredible skills on offer in our armed forces, and incredible opportunities to travel and to keep our country safe.

I am grateful to all Members across the House for contributing to the debate. They have made the case for improvements in recruitment, highlighted the armed forces as a great career to join, and supported Armed Forces Week.