Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Luke Pollard ExcerptsTuesday 9th September 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed a landmark treaty with the Republic of Mauritius that guarantees the continued UK operational control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr Bailey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. It is important, right at the outset, that we understand that there has been almost no change in position. I refer him to the comments of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in 2023, when he stated that his
“primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
Can my hon. Friend confirm that that has not changed?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member also wants to make a speech. I would not like him to use up his whole speech in an intervention in the first 10 seconds of the debate.
Luke Pollard
It was a timely intervention. I am happy to confirm that this precise deal delivers on the objective as originally set out when the Conservatives were in government. It secures the continued operation of the UK-US military base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
To be fair, I will give way to one Opposition Member, and then I will make some progress. I give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I had not intended to intervene so early, but I will, given that the record of the previous Government has come up. Can he confirm whether it is the case, as was the position under the previous Government, that we will retain sovereignty after 99 years on a rolling basis? Can he confirm the basis on which he is compensating the Mauritians, because it certainly was not the case that the last Government would have agreed to a remotely similar sum being paid? On this, as on so many other measures, there is an enormous gap between the negotiating position set out under the last Government and the total capitulation by Labour when they came into office.
Luke Pollard
To borrow a phrase, if the right hon. Member shows me his, I will show him mine. The whole point is that our deal is published. If he would like to go into the files and dig out his deal and publish it, we would be able to see where this deal has enhanced those protections, secured the operation of the base and got a better deal for the British people. I would be very happy if he would like to go into his files and publish the deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will come back to the former Deputy Prime Minister and then I will make some progress.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Minister invites me to respond to him. He needs to appreciate that there is an enormous difference between a tough negotiating position in the British national interest and the capitulation of the Government’s deal.
Luke Pollard
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to show me his draft deal, and there is a very good reason for that: this deal, this treaty and this Bill improve on that deal.
Luke Pollard
I said I would take one intervention from each side of the House. I have done that, so I will make some progress, but I am certain that Members will get another chance in a moment.
This treaty is indispensable to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad. It is an expression of our unbreakable defence and intelligence bonds with the United States. It strengthens and extends our power to respond to terrorists and hostile states, wherever they may be. It protects some of the world’s busiest trade routes, on which British businesses and consumers rely. It is a long-term investment in our core national interests, and it will benefit British people for generations to come.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make some progress, but I will be happy to give way in a moment.
Before I start getting into the detail, I want to recognise up front the Chagossians affected by decisions taken by Britain many years ago. We recognise in the preamble to the universal deep regret over what happened. It is acknowledged on the face of the treaty, and I know there is cross-party support for the Chagossians, although there is a range of views on the deal within the Chagossian community. I want to place that on the record right at the start of the debate—[Interruption.] I will return to the Chagossians in a moment.
Both Houses have now had the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sitting next to me, gave evidence to three parliamentary Committees during the scrutiny period, allowing Members of this House and the other place to fully interrogate the details of the treaty. The International Agreements Committee concluded that if the treaty were not ratified, the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be at greater risk. The purpose of this Bill is to make the necessary changes to domestic law to implement the treaty, so that it can be ratified and brought into force.
Let me remind the House why we needed to secure this treaty. The Diego Garcia base is central to our national security—I know that all Members of this House will recognise that very simple fact.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make a wee bit more progress, but I always like giving way to a Luke, and I will do so in a bit—do not worry—but not quite yet.
I pay tribute to all Members of the House who have taken the time to scrutinise the treaty in detail.
Allow me to set out why it is so vital. The importance of the base cannot be overstated. The joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia has played a vital role in defending the UK and its allies for over 50 years. The base plays a key role in operations that support UK forces and our allies across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia. Its deepwater port, airfield, and advanced communications and surveillance capabilities, give the UK and our allies crucial strategic capabilities, which have played a key role in missions to disrupt high-value terrorists, including Islamic State threats to the United Kingdom.
But the base on Diego Garcia was under threat. Had we not signed the treaty, we could have faced further legal rulings against us within weeks, because the negotiations begun by the Conservatives had been stayed. Further legal rulings might have included arbitrary proceedings against the UK under annex 7 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, known as UNCLOS.
Luke Pollard
In a moment. I will come to the hon. Gentleman—he should not worry.
A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding on the UK. It would impact on our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, and impair our ability to ensure access to the base by air and sea, to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has spoken about the important capabilities of this vital US-UK base. Does he agree that it would be dangerous and counterproductive to put those capabilities at any risk—certainly if that could have happened in a matter of weeks or months?
Luke Pollard
I agree, and it is precisely the reason why the Conservative Government started the negotiations in the first place. You do not accidentally rock up one day to the Foreign Office and decide to start international negotiations; you do so because there is a clear risk to the future of the military base. That is why the Conservatives started the negotiations, why they had 11 rounds of negotiations, and why we had to conclude the deal.
Luke Pollard
As I have taken one intervention from this side of the House, I am happy to take another from the Opposition Benches.
Sir Roger Gale
The International Court of Justice ruling is not binding. It is not in law. We did not have to abide by it. Why are we giving away British territory to Mauritius and then renting it back? There was no need for us to do so. Why are we doing it?
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions of those judgments affect the operations of the base—that is what is important here. It is also about the extension of the judgments, because other powers could be used on the basis of those judgments. That is the reason that the Conservatives started the negotiations. [Interruption.] If they would like to explain that there was a better reason that they started the negotiations—if it was not to ensure the security of this vital base—they are welcome to do so.
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why the Conservatives started the negotiations, I am happy to give way.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I welcome him to his new position. He keeps saying “could”, “if” and that things “might” have happened. Will he accept that the legal judgments that have been cast down, which he is using as evidence, are not binding? Does he accept that when he talks about our deal—in other words, the last Government’s deal—he is actually being a bit duplicitous? There was no deal, because we ended the negotiations.
Luke Pollard
I think the Opposition have got their attack line sorted, but not the reasons why they started the negotiations.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not like the word “duplicitous”, and I definitely did not like the carrying on afterwards. I am sure that “duplicitous” will not be said again today.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make some progress, but I will take Members’ interventions in just a wee moment. [Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary will get a go in a moment, but if she wants to continue shouting at me, she is more than welcome to do so; I will make some progress in the meantime. I hope she understands that this debate is best approached in a good-natured way, and I am certain that she will be doing so, with less shouting.
Luke Pollard
As I just mentioned—the hon. Gentleman might have missed it—I will give way in a moment, but I will now make some progress.
Courts and international bodies were already making decisions that undermined our position. Others would have followed suit, taking us down a path towards making the base inoperable. This Government will not allow that to happen. There has been a wealth of misinformation on these legal points, and those who have suggested that the UK should simply ignore international law fail to recognise the true impacts of these cascading adverse rulings, which would have not only impeded our ability to control and operate the base, but would have swiftly undermined our ability to control the waters, the air and the electromagnetic spectrum on which the base relies. Such rulings would have fundamentally undermined the very capabilities that make the base so uniquely valuable to the UK and the US, our allies.
This treaty eliminates that legal threat. Under the treaty, the UK will retain all the rights and authorities necessary for full operational control of Diego Garcia. It provides for unrestricted use of the base.
Luke Pollard
In just one moment.
The treaty provides for control over the movement of all persons and goods on the base, and for control over the electromagnetic spectrum used for communications. It ensures that nothing can be built within a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles without our say so, and it delivers an effective veto on any development in the Chagos archipelago that threatens the base—something that the previous Government failed to secure in their negotiations. It prohibits foreign security forces from establishing a presence on the outer islands.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his new position
May I get one little moment of agreement here? The Government say they abide by the law. Given the opt-out that we had, the original judgment was specifically not found in law, because we did not allow the ICJ to rule on Commonwealth issues. The question is a matter of law, so if the Minister is suggesting to the House that other actions would have taken place, they would have been unlawful. In what world was it necessary to block off those by assuming that this was law? It was not lawful.
Luke Pollard
The Foreign Office and the Government published the Government’s legal position when the treaty was laid. That assessment says:
“The longstanding legal view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty”
in any future sovereignty litigation. That important and long-standing view predates this Government. Again, it was one of the reasons why the Conservative Government began the negotiations and held 11 rounds.
Alex Ballinger
Does the Minister not think it is the height of hypocrisy for those in the last Government, who negotiated 85% of this treaty over 11 rounds, to wait until they were in opposition to make these claims, none of which they made during their negotiations?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It must be quite a freeing experience, because we now know that nearly every single legacy Tory MP during the last Government—whose Ministers started the negotiations, negotiated a deal, and made statements and answered questions in this House—were not actually supporting their Front Benchers, which is what we saw, but were deeply upset with the Conservative Government. If that is their genuine position, not just their political position now, they should have raised those concerns with the Foreign Secretary at the time. They should have been clear about it, but I believe that not many of them did so, and that tells a story.
Simon Hoare
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his promoted position. If he is asking the House to thank him for negotiating what we already have, I think our thanks will be a long time in coming, because the outcome of the negotiations is pretty poor as far as this country is concerned. Surely we have given away what is of most strategic importance in this space as we now have to notify the Mauritian Government any time we want to do anything there. We do not currently have to do that, and therefore the element of surprise has been lost.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid he is incorrect about the notification criteria. There is a lot of fake news out there—which I and the Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, have corrected in this House before—about the suggestion that pre-notification of action is required; it is not. As is explicitly set out in the documents, we do not need to undertake pre-notification. It is established under the criteria that post-action notification for overseas bases is normal, and that would be normal for the UK and our overseas allies that have overseas bases. It is not unusual, and he will be familiar with the fact that there is further international reporting of any military action. It is important that we go on the facts. Some people are worried about the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, but I can reassure him that they do not need to worry about it, because what he said is not accurate.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I have to say to him that I have never found it a satisfactory basis for arguments or positions in this Chamber to say that those on the other side are doing it. However, I do think it is important that we are consistent. When we were in opposition and the Conservatives were in government, they made the Foreign Secretary a Member of the House of Lords, and we created about it. We shouted about how someone in a senior Cabinet position should be directly accountable to this House. We now have a super-active Attorney General making many controversial decisions. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be making the case that the Attorney General should be in this House, not the other place?
Luke Pollard
That is not a matter for me in relation to this Bill, but my hon. Friend has put his views on the record, and I am certain that others on the Front Bench will have heard what he has said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister has made it absolutely apparent that this is about the long-term security of the base, so could he explain why, under article 13, if after 99 years the Mauritians decide not to negotiate, the base will just stop. We will get first refusal, but we can easily see that the Chinese would outbid us because we in this country decide that that is not affordable. We are a hostage to fortune, and that base will crumble. He has not secured the base, he has just deferred the issue by four generations, and this House will then have to decide what to do.
Luke Pollard
It is good that the hon. Member has read the detail of the treaty. As he will know that, at the end of the initial 99-year lease, a first refusal will be offered to the United Kingdom. That is the right place to be, and that offer will mean—as he describes it, in four generations’ time—there is a decision for this House to take about what it wants to do based on the circumstances at the time. This gives us first refusal, so we can conceivably see that full control of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia could extend well beyond the 99 years I have mentioned.
Richard Tice
Does the Minister accept that we owned the freehold of the Chagos islands, and does he agree with me that in the mid-1960s we paid Mauritius £3 million in old money—some 80 million quid in today’s money—to cede all future claims over sovereignty?
Luke Pollard
The legal analysis that this Government have received, and indeed that the last Government received, showed that the position of UK sovereignty over the Diego Garcia military base was putting the base’s operation at risk. The reason why the last Government began the negotiations was to secure the continuing operation of the base, and it is the reason why we are doing so. Securing the future operation of that base is the primary concern of this Government. Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), it was the primary concern of the last Government as well. That is what this deal secures, and it is really important that that is understood clearly: the base is what matters in relation to its continuing operation, and that is what this deal secures.
Luke Pollard
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first and then come to the hon. Gentleman.
Jeremy Corbyn
Could I ask the Minister to return to the human cost and the human story? In 1968, the Chagossians first began to be removed from Diego Garcia and the archipelago. Their treatment was abominable and disgusting by any stretch of the imagination. It needs a bit more than a statement of regret; it needs a full-hearted apology to all the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.
Since there is a legal judgment that the Chagos islands in their entirety, including the archipelago and Diego Garcia, should return to Mauritius, is this treaty not just completing work that was not properly done in the 1960s? Would the Minister confirm that the question of returning to live on the outer islands is agreed, but be clearer about the Chagos islanders who want to return to Diego Garcia, either to visit or to reside, in the future? History has treated them badly, and that needs to put it right.
Mr Speaker
Order. I always respect the right hon. Gentleman, and I could put him down to speak because of his knowledge—if he wants me to, I can certainly add him to the list—but it would be better if we had shorter interventions.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the way the Chagossians were treated. For those who have a copy of the treaty to hand, part of the preamble says that the parties are
“Conscious that past treatment of Chagossians has left a deeply regrettable legacy, and committed to supporting the welfare of all Chagossians”.
That is in the treaty because their treatment was unacceptable, as he has explained, and it has caused a legacy of pain and suffering for that community. It is the reason why the Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has engaged so much with the different views of a range of Chagossian voices in this debate.
I will come on to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question when the interventions slow down a wee bit but, to get ahead of that, people will be able to visit Diego Garcia. Chagossians will be able to visit Diego Garcia as part of this treaty, which they are not currently able to do, but they will not be able to reside on Diego Garcia. They will be able to do so on some of the outer islands, for which the provisions will be different, but the military base is a military base for a reason, and although people will be able to visit, they will not be able to reside there. I will come back to that in due course.
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Member does not mind, I will come back to him when I deal with the Chagossians later, but in the meantime I am happy to take the other intervention.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the negotiations. He is making great play of the fact that the previous Government started the negotiations and that there were 11 rounds of them. Is he not aware that, in 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution saying that we should enter into conversations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Those negotiations went on for 17 years and ended in 1981. In 1982, we all know what happened. So it is not where we start; it is where we finish.
Luke Pollard
I say politely to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a lot of time, and I respect his military service—that that comparison we have seen of the British Indian Ocean Territory with the Falkland Islands is shameful. I have seen the tweets from the Conservative party asking, with a map of the Falkland Islands, “Are they next?”—a shameful comparison, which stokes the flames of division and threatens the sovereignty of such overseas territories. Let me be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth from the Foreign Office has been clear at the Dispatch Box: there are no changes or implications for any other British overseas territories. Indeed, the British overseas territories support the deal. I hope that we will not need to revisit this again, but any implication that seeks to apply the experience of BIOT to other overseas territories is unhelpful to them. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman wishes to create no question marks over those overseas territories.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
To go back to the point that the Minister was making earlier about control, can he confirm to the House that, contrary to the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we are not ceding control of the Diego Garcia military base, consistent with clause 3?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. On the reasoned amendments, my colleague who is to conclude the debate, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, will respond to some of the details of the reasoned amendment selected by Mr Speaker. However, there is a lot of misinformation about this treaty, and I believe that in some cases it is deliberate misinformation to confuse the picture. Clearly, securing the operation of the base is the priority of this Government and of this treaty. Indeed, I believe in good faith that it was the priority of the previous Government as well, which is why they started the negotiations and held them for 11 rounds, and why we concluded them, because we agreed with the previous Government that securing the future operation of the base was the priority. That is why they started them; that is why we completed them.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister has already outlined the support of the British overseas territories. Will he please remind us of who else supports the Bill? Who supports it and who else opposes it, in addition to the Conservative party?
Luke Pollard
I will come to the level of international support in a moment, but our allies back this Bill and support it strongly. When we look at which column people choose to be in—the column of those in support of the Bill, with our allies, with India, the United States and others, or the column of countries and people who oppose it—I know which side I am on. I am on the side of our allies. It is up to each of the opposition parties to choose whether they oppose the Bill and to decide which column they are in. That is a choice not for me, but for them. Only one column has our allies in, including our principal security partner, the United States. It is on the side of the treaty.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have long been interested in Diego Garcia, not least because I am one of the few Members of Parliament who has visited it, 40 years ago with the Defence Committee. May we get some certainty? Every time we mention the £35 billion estimate of the Government Actuary’s Department, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), brushes it aside and says that he does not recognise the number. Given that we are spending a lot of taxpayers’ money on this—something we already owned—will he tell the House in detail how much the agreement will cost us over its lifetime?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Father of the House for helping me to get back on track with my speech, because that is the topic of my next section. I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question in my remarks, but if a bit is missing, he may ask to intervene on me again.
We have heard some outrageous claims artificially boosting the costs of this deal. It will cost an average of £101 million per year in today’s money. That is an investment in today’s money of £3.4 billion over 99 years. That has been rigorously calculated, based on net present value, the methodology endorsed by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. All the associated costings have been laid previously before the House and were explained in full at the time of signature.
Crucially, the exaggerated numbers that have been cited ignore inflation, the OBR deflation mechanisms and the Green Book. The Government have secured a strong deal. I remind those who criticise it that the previous Government knew full well that the status quo was dangerous and unsustainable—that is why they entered into negotiations in the first place, why they held 11 rounds of negotiations under successive Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Attorneys General, and why the Conservatives have never been able to provide serious alternatives to this deal.
Dr Luke Evans
Can the Minister point to any other country in the world that has used NPV to give away sovereignty? As far as I am aware, there is none, so why are we pioneering that way forward?
Luke Pollard
This deal secures the base. The calculated value of the deal uses the Green Book. Other countries look at overseas bases that they rent and make the calculation based on their national accounting standards. We base it on the Green Book. Indeed, the Green Book was updated by the previous Government and has been used for such decisions for the past 20 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will return to the Green Book in a moment, but will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I am trying to be fair to everyone.
Mr Calvin Bailey
Will the Minister place that £101 million in context? Perhaps the US or other nations have entered into such agreements. Will he make reference to the value for money that we received for the deal?
Luke Pollard
The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Dr Murrison
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, but must say how sorry I am that his first outing has been to defend this load of nonsense. What does he say to the UK Statistics Authority and to the Government Actuary’s Department, which appear to have a very different view of the costing of this to the one that he has just outlined? Is it not the case that what he has said represents a load of accounting double-speak and is dubious, to put it politely and in parliamentary terms?
Luke Pollard
That is not quite correct. Indeed, unfortunately, this is not my first outing. My first outing was at Defence questions yesterday, supporting British jobs in the defence sector and celebrating the £10 billion frigate deal that this Government achieved. My second outing was yesterday afternoon with the statement on the defence industrial strategy, making the case for more investment in British businesses. My third outing, though, is here today, securing the most vital military base that the UK and the US operate together. It is absolutely right that, as part of it, we present the costings to Parliament. It is also precisely right that those are reviewed properly by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. That has happened, and that is why we have been able to use the figures with certainty. The costings are also entirely consistent with the Green Book.
The Green Book point is a useful one to dwell on for one moment, because if the policy of the Conservative party is not to use Green Book calculations for long-term investments—the same Green Book used for costings of our nuclear deterrent or pensions—I want to understand how much spending the Opposition are now committing to. In how many other examples would the Green Book no longer apply? What are their new accounting principles and what would be the increased cost to the public purse? How many more people will pay increased taxes, because of their disapplication of the Green Book principles? Those are entirely fair questions. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), signed the reasoned amendment, so surely he would be able to say how many other areas the Green Book no longer applies to. Perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers will be able to specify any other areas that they no longer believe that the Green Book applies to. We calculated our figures based on the Green Book, and that is why we are confident in them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will take two more interventions, and then I will make some progress. I am aware that the debate is one that people want to speak in.
Lincoln Jopp
If the Minister is such a big fan of the social time discounting method that has been applied, will he tell the House where the social time discounting method has been used in other parts of Government to generate net present value?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have published the full methodology, and that the social time preference rate is only one part of the calculation that we have used; we have also used the OBR’s inflation deflator mechanisms as well. He will also know that we published the full costings at the point of the treaty being applied.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will make a little bit more progress and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I can hear the shadow Foreign Secretary has gone back to her shouting again, but it is still not the politest way of running the debate. Let me keep going.
It was left to this Government to finish what our predecessors were unable to deliver. In doing so, we have secured a much stronger deal that will protect our interests well into the next century. Let me remind the House of the international context. The ruling of the International Court of Justice against the UK was a low moment for our country globally. It left our allies fearful that we might lose control of the base, it left our adversaries with opportunities to exploit, and it tarnished our reputation in the global south. In contrast, as we have heard on countless occasions from a range of colleagues, this deal has been welcomed wholeheartedly by our allies and the wider international community.
Alex Ballinger
Does the Minister agree that it is completely wrong for the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Reform UK to claim that President Trump did not support this deal, when he said it was a “very strong” deal that was secured for a “very long” time?
Luke Pollard
In support of the deal, the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, put it well when he said:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”
President Trump has described the deal as “very long term” and “very strong”.
That follows a rigorous US inter-agency process, involving the whole of the US security apparatus, both under the previous Biden Administration and the current Trump Administration. This involved the Department of Defence, the National Security Council and the intelligence agencies, including the CIA. Do Conservative Members say that they do not trust the assessment of the CIA, the US and all the security apparatus? The deal secures the use of the base—they are happy with it and we are happy with it. Our Five Eyes partners recognise the benefits of the treaty for our collective security. The deal is supported by Japan, South Korea and India. It is also a deal publicly welcomed by the African Union, the UN Secretary General and the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the issue of Chagossians, which needs to be raised as well. While the negotiations were necessarily conducted on a state-to-state basis, we are alive to the diverse views of Chagossians about their future, and we have the utmost respect for their past suffering.
Luke Pollard
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Although the Chagossians could not be part of the negotiations as they were conducted on a state-to-state basis, both the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and Foreign and Commonwealth Development officials have met and had regular meetings over the past year, and stayed engaged with their diverse views. There are diverse views within the Chagossian community that are strongly held, and we have listened and respected those.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As some Members laugh about the nature of the 99 years and other Members talk about the sums of money involved, I ask all of us to look at the Public Gallery to remind ourselves that there are Chagossians here today who feel deeply aggrieved by the deal. They feel that the Foreign Office and this Government have not gone above and beyond to consult all the groups involved. The Minister said that this deal does not refer to other overseas territories, but the principle of self-determination of our overseas territories’ citizens—
Luke Pollard
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. It is the reason why, right up front, before I went into the military utility of the base at Diego Garcia, I wanted to speak about the Chagossians. It is important. I will come on to the engagement that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has had in this respect, but I understand the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will come to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and then I will make progress.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am afraid my question goes back to the cost of the deal, which will hang around the Government’s neck like an albatross for the rest of their time in office. We know that the Government Actuary says the gross cost is £35 billion. Please can the Minister enlighten the House and help hon. Members to understand his own calculations? What is the meaning of “social time discounting”?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is not about Chagossians, but I realise I could not take his intervention earlier. He asks about the meaning of the social time preference rate in relation to the deal. Discounting in appraisal of social value is based on the concept of time preference, and that the value of goods or services today is greater than in the future. This is the discount rate that has been used in the Green Book since 2003, including in every year that his party was in Government. It was the basis on which this was there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
To return to the issue of Chagossians, on which I am trying to make progress, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and FCDO officials have met with the Chagossian communities. Under the treaty, Mauritius will now be free to carry out a programme of resettlement of the outer islands, and we have agreed a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians and the resumption of visits to the Chagos archipelago. Over the coming months and years, we will increase the UK Government’s support to and engagement with UK Chagossians, including through UK-funded projects designed through a new contact group, informed by the Chagossians’ own wishes, which met for the very first time last week and was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the payment from the 1960s, referred to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), was also supposed to be spent on Chagossian welfare, but many Chagossian groups have raised the fact that that money did not go on Chagossian welfare. It went on many other things for the Mauritian Government, but not on Chagossians. What confidence does he have that this agreement is any more valid than the last one?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely why my FCDO colleagues are working very closely with Mauritius to ensure that the money that is included in the treaty, and the obligations that both the UK and Mauritius sign up to in the treaty, are fully delivered so that the Chagossians receive what this treaty says they should receive. That is a really important part of the treaty.
Jeremy Corbyn
Have the meetings undertaken by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), included all the Chagossian groups, including the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius?
Luke Pollard
The Minister of State has met a full range of groups, including the group mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. He was pressed earlier, but I would like to press him again on the social time discounting method. He should be able to give examples of big projects to which his Government have applied this method. Could he now do that and say why, for example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not use that method when she was calculating the cost of the 10-year affordable housing programme?
Luke Pollard
I understand the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I hope that he appreciates my argument that the calculation is based on the OBR’s inflation and deflation figures and on the social time preference rate. It is a figure that has been calculated and supported by the OBR, and it stands up to scrutiny. If Conservative Members are saying that they no longer wish to use the Green Book for calculating long-term investments like this, which is their inferred argument, then it is worth looking at what they are suggesting that we no longer use the Green Book to calculate—they are making an awfully large spending commitment when they suggest that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I am going to finish my remarks on Chagossians, if I may.
I hope that all Members of the House will recognise that the treaty is not just about the importance of the military base on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago have a unique environment. I hope that protecting the world’s oceans is a point of cross-party unity in this debate, advanced across our overseas territories by the blue belt programme. The UK supports Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area to safeguard the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago, and the UK will provide technical support and assistance to enable that to happen. The UK and Mauritius will work with international conservation organisations to ensure implementation of science-backed strategies for conservation.
I want to conclude, but I realise that I have not been able to allow all the hon. Members to intervene who wanted to do so, so I give way to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson).
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister seems to be arguing about exactly how much it will cost. My constituents just see that he is giving away British territory and paying rent for it, which is completely unacceptable to them. He talks about how it is good for the global south, because they agree with it; good for other countries, because they agree with it; and good for Mauritius, because it is getting extra money. What about the British people that he, as a British Minister, is here to represent? What are they getting for this deal? They are losing territory and it is costing them money.
Luke Pollard
We are securing one of the most valuable military bases on the planet. We are securing our close intelligence relationship with the United States. We are securing a vital base for operations in the region. We are securing a vital base for allies. That is the key British objective. It was the objective stated by the previous Government, which I believe the hon. Lady was serving in at the time, when they started negotiations. If she would like to say that she vividly opposes it and wants to publish the letters she was writing to the then Government for starting negotiations, she is welcome to do so, but I do not believe that any Conservative Members really did that.
Let me say one final thing on cost. The average payment cost is 20% less than the cost of the festival of Brexit under the previous Government. We can cite statistics, but the key thing the previous Government said that their deal would secure was the future operation of the base. This deal secures the future operation of the base. It is a surprise that Conservative Members are not going to accept it.
I will now conclude, because I want everyone to have a chance to speak in this debate. Let me do so by explaining what the Bill will do in practice. The Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will follow, will allow the treaty to be ratified and to enter into force. The Bill preserves the current laws of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which will ensure the base’s continued effective operation without any disruption during the transition. The Bill also ensures that there are no changes to the rights of Chagossians to acquire British citizenship, and no changes to the status of Chagossians who currently hold British citizenship or British overseas territory citizenship. Protecting national security is one of the utmost priorities of this Government, and we are delivering on that with this deal and the Bill. The Bill is crucial to securing the critically important military base on Diego Garcia for the next century and beyond, and that is why I commend it to the House.
Mr Dhesi
As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, given that various other Committees have been looking into this and that it has been extensively debated on the Floor of the House, and considering the other work that the Committee is undertaking, including an inquiry launched this week into the Afghan data breach, that is why we have not looked into this matter. However, I will give way to the Minister, who I hope will give me some sort of reassurance.
Luke Pollard
To reassure my hon. Friend, as I did the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) earlier, we are not required to give pre-notification of any military activities to Mauritius. That is important, because some people are erroneously suggesting that we are. That is not correct; we do not have to give pre-notification.
Dr Evans
It is. It is true about the legally binding aspect within the area that the tribunal covers, but that does not cover sovereignty, as we learned in 2015 when the tribunal sided with the British Government. Here we have the farcical situation of a House of policy and law shining light on one side and another, but never on the truth. This is where my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is exactly right. If the Government were to come forward and say exactly which court, where and why, they might get more sympathy from Opposition, but we have been through an entire five-hour debate and we still do not have answers to those questions.
Another court that is often cited is the International Telecommunication Union covering spectre, radio and radar. Article 48.1 states
“Member States retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations,”
and the Government know that. Even the written answer from the Minister—it has been hinted at before—states:
“Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries. This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum. The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”
It is clear here—the Government know it in their own answers—that the ITU has no role in sovereignty. It all boils down to where one believes British overseas territories stand.
Now we must talk about the cost, which has been much debated. There have been three figures in the debate: £3.4 billion, £10 billion and £34 billion. The £3.4 billion is the net present value using social time preference rate. The £10 billion is inflation adjusted, and the £34 billion is the nominal value by the Government Actuary’s Department. The question is, why use net present value? I put it earlier in the debate that there is no other precedent in the world for NPV being used in sovereignty matters. The Minister at the time asked whether the Conservatives want to do away with using NPV—of course not.
Dr Evans
Absolutely, the Minister says it is within the Green Book. Absolutely not, because it has a perfect place in domestic use for commercial practicalities, not for international sovereignty issues. No other country has looked, or would look, at this because it does not make sense.
The House of Commons Library said when asked that
“this methodology is regularly used in government accounting, but its main use is for cost-benefit analyses. It is unusual to see it used in this situation like this, where only the cost is being assessed and it is not being compared to any benefit”.
On that basis, and listening to the House of Commons Library, what cost-benefit analysis has actually been done in this case, and would it be put in front of the House so we might be able to see it?
At the end of the day, NPV is highly political because it assumes a discount rate, and what is the discount rate that one should choose? In the details, it talks about 3.5%, but the US will use 3.5% or 7%, which would vastly differentiate the figures. It goes on further, for the social time preference rate is 3.5%, but for 30 years. This deal is for 99 years, so how can the Government respond in a written parliamentary question that this
“represents good value for UK taxpayers”?
On what basis are they comparing that if there is no international comparison? We are talking only about domestic uses and for an accounting point.
As I come to my conclusions, possibly the scariest thing to me—I have tried to highlight it throughout the debate—which does seem to be falling on deaf ears, is article 13. I believe this treaty is legally bomb-proof. It looks sensible, and I am no legal expert as I have attested to, but it seems to stand the test of time. That means when article 13 says explicitly that in 99 years Mauritius can say no and just take control, that is a big worry. We have heard from many Government MPs how it secures the long-term aspirations of this country for a period of 99 years. When I mentioned that, several Government MPs scoffed. But is it not the duty of this House to provide not only for the next generation, but the rest of time for our country, in the best interests of our country? After listening to all the arguments that have been made about how essential the base is, the very fact that Mauritius could pull the base is a very scary prospect. There is, of course, a caveat: the right of first refusal. But if China decides to do a deal with Mauritius at exorbitant cost, we are over a barrel and the British taxpayer must fork out yet again to guarantee our security. Mauritius has been given a golden ticket, and it knows it.
Beyond the sovereignty and cost, my biggest concern is that we are outsourcing decision -making for our children and our children’s children. That is the modus operandi of this Government—we need only look at the borrowing in the Budget to see how they borrow on the backs of future children. Pushing this decision out for 99 years is not security for now; it will help, but it creates a far bigger problem in 100 years’ time. If the Government want to give away our islands, they should be open and transparent about how and why.
The biggest thing is that we have not even had our day in court. That is what most troubles the British public. I think that the British public would be reasonable if a court found against us—they would happily say, “We follow the rule of law”—but the Government will not even try that. They say that there is a risk. As has been said, this has been going on for years, and still we are looking at a treaty to sign it off.
That inevitably poses final questions about what happens with Gibraltar, the Falklands and Cyprus. The Minister is correct to point out that there are differences, but the biggest fundamental problem that the Government have in arguing to the British people and the people of the Falklands is about understanding. If this House cannot understand the legal concepts of the places where we are likely to fight these causes, how can we expect the public to do so? When it comes to delivering comms to the UK public, that is what they need to understand.
Defence Industrial Strategy
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the defence industrial strategy. Today we fulfil another manifesto commitment by publishing our plan to strengthen our security and grow our economy. It is a plan to back British-based industry, create British jobs and drive British innovation.
Before I set out the detail of the strategy, I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her work in developing the strategy. I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who has joined the Ministry of Defence team.
This is a plan supported by £773 million of investment—a plan to make defence an engine for economic growth in every nation and region of our country. The men and women who serve our nation are rightly respected across the world for their dedication and professionalism, yet as we know from the war in Ukraine, when a country is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. The UK has one of the most advanced, innovative defence industrial bases the world over, but we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era of UK defence.
Our strategic defence review set out our vision to make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. Through our defence industrial strategy, we will ensure that we have an industry to deliver that vision. All the pledges made today can only be met because this Labour Government have committed the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war: 2.6% of GDP by 2027, and 3.5% by 2035, alongside our NATO allies. But with the promise to invest more comes the responsibility to invest better. By implementing our strategy, we will ensure that workers and businesses across the UK feel the benefit of the defence dividend.
In opposition, the now Defence Secretary told the House:
“Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 798.]
Today, ambition in opposition becomes action in government. Using every lever available to the Government, our strategy will prioritise British-based businesses. We will make it easier for British-based firms to do business with the Ministry of Defence. We will launch an office of small business growth to support small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing MOD contracts, and we will give greater clarity by sharing our five-year acquisition pipeline, allowing businesses to invest with confidence.
The £10 billion frigate contract signed with Norway last week was the biggest warship deal in our history—a demonstration that when we export defence capabilities, we not only strengthen our security abroad, but create high-skilled jobs at home. Through our strategy, we will back British businesses to go out and win—win more contracts and create more jobs. The new office of defence exports brings responsibility for defence exports back into the Ministry of Defence and creates a Government-to-Government exports structure that reflects what our allies and industry need.
Sustaining sovereign capabilities is the cornerstone of national security, so our strategy sets out the requirement to onshore key assets. We will maintain the advantages afforded by open international competition, but in a way that improves value for the British taxpayer. For the first time ever, we will introduce an offset policy, designed in consultation with industry. It will mean that when we buy from our allies, the UK economy will be strengthened in return through new jobs and novel technologies.
Our defence industrial base represents a commitment to innovation and excellence. Today, it supports over 460,000 jobs and over 24,000 apprenticeships across the UK, the vast majority of which are unionised. As a trade union member, I know that good, well-paid and unionised jobs are good not only for defence but for growth. The defence industry is a source of not only prosperity but pride; it proves that we are still a nation of makers. When I speak with defence workers, I see their deep sense of purpose in what they do. They are right to feel that way; their efforts keep our nation safe. Through our strategy, more people will be afforded the opportunities and rewards of working in this industry.
To ensure that the benefits of the defence dividend are shared across every nation and region of the UK, we are investing £250 million in defence growth deals. Our deals will build on inherent strengths in defence communities by improving skills and infrastructure. The first phase will be launched in Plymouth, where we will focus on advanced marine technologies and autonomous systems, and in south Yorkshire, where we will build on our recent investment in defence and steel. Further locations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced, because there is not only a defence dividend from our uplift in defence spending, but a Union dividend, strengthening our United Kingdom.
ADS analysis indicates that the defence industry workforce could grow by 50,000 people by 2035, when defence spending increases to 3% of GDP. To ensure that the UK can take full advantage, we must ensure that we have the workers with the right skills to fulfil those roles, so I am today announcing the biggest ever investment in defence skills: £182 million of new Government funding to establish five defence technical excellence colleges, so that we can promote to over 800,000 school pupils the benefits of a career in the defence industry; and our new defence skills passport, which will make it easier and faster for veterans and workers in other industries to move into the defence sector.
Over the past few years, defence firms have expressed growing concerns about attending jobs fairs. The harassment and intimidation to which they have been subjected has forced companies to cancel events on university campuses. The campaign to boycott and target defence firms misunderstands the purpose of deterrence. We know the full measure of freedom and security in Britain because of what our defence industry does. The strategy will help the industry to attract the talent it needs by creating a dedicated presence on the UCAS website, a new defence apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, and a defence university alliance to strengthen careers in the sector.
The war in Ukraine reminds us that innovation is the central pillar of deterrence. To ensure that we meet our objectives of better capability and increased growth, we are committed to spending at least 10% of our equipment budget on novel technologies. The newly established UK Defence Innovation is backed by £400 million of ringfenced investment and has the authority to reallocate funding and resources, ensuring a focus on priorities and value for money. Today’s strategy outlines how we will employ UKDI to rapidly produce technologies that give our armed forces an advantage. We will set out the first of the innovation challenges that we want industry to go after, as well as how we will better support firms in testing their innovations.
This Government inherited what the Public Accounts Committee described as a “broken procurement system”. For too long, defence has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity, yet today we know that whoever gets technology to its frontline forces the fastest, wins. We have proved that we can do it for Ukraine; now we must do it for Britain. Our segmented approach to procurement sets ambitious targets to drastically reduce the timescales to get new projects on contract. As part of the biggest shake-up to the Ministry of Defence in over 50 years, we have created the role of National armaments director, and because we want UK firms to win not just at home but abroad, we will improve our export licensing system with a new digital platform, better training for staff, and reformed procedures, including allowing exporters to apply for licences during the bidding process.
Unlike previous strategies, our one is funded. It is also the culmination of months of detailed work and close engagement with industry, academia, and trade unions. Throughout the process, our aim has been to produce a strategy with the defence sector, rather than to it. With a clear plan backed by historic investment, our Government, alongside industry, will now deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of both his statement and the hard copy document. Before I respond to the statement, may I express on behalf of the Opposition our wholehearted condemnation of the latest drone attack on Kyiv, the largest of the war, with small children among the dead? It is a reminder of why we need to step up and rearm at pace and scale, to strengthen our deterrence in a dangerous world.
The strategy’s statement of intent, published last December stated:
“The Defence Industrial Strategy will be developed at pace...and will be published in late Spring 2025”.
It is now autumn—it has been delayed when we need real pace from the Government, and that is part of a pattern. Some 26 times Ministers promised on the Floor of the House that the strategic defence review would be published in the spring, but it was published in the summer. The defence housing strategy was promised for the summer, and we now understand that it will be published as late as the Christmas recess. Can the Minister guarantee that the defence industrial policy will be published this year?
It is not just Labour’s reviews that are being published far later than promised. The SDR promised that a National armaments director would be in place from 1 April 2025. On page 6, and as the Minister just said, the defence industrial strategy states that
“we have created the role of National armaments director”.
If the Government have created the role, could they kindly tell us the name? Is Andy Start the interim NAD, or is he the new permanent empowered NAD? If so, is he on his previous salary, or the much higher one for the new role? Key appointments and strategies—months late. War is changing rapidly, but Labour is moving far too slowly.
On the contents of the defence industrial strategy, we welcome further measures to boost the skills base of our defence sector. While we will wait to see the full details of the growth deals, we strongly share the Government’s goal of spreading the prosperity benefits of defence around the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us when those will be up and running, and whether the £250 million investment represents new money that was not previously included in the MOD budget? I also welcome measures to boost defence exports, not least establishing a real Government-to-Government offer, and restoring the defence export team back into the MOD—that is something I was working on, and I am glad the Government are implementing it.
Our main concern about the strategy is that it lacks the ambition to fire up our defence industrial base at the scale and pace required, at a time when the threats we face are so stark. The blunt reality is that, for all Labour’s talk, actual procurement has been largely on hold since the election, with the now notorious written answer confirming in spring that the Government had purchased just three new drones since the election last July. Quite simply, they need to start signing actual capability contracts. Thousands of jobs are at stake in some of those major procurements that were meant to have been resolved in the SDR, but on which we still await a decision.
For example, on Friday I had the pleasure to visit Leonardo in Yeovil, the cornerstone of UK military rotary. It is clear that the New Medium Helicopter procurement is critical to its future. When I announced the NMH competition, I deliberately strengthened tender scoring to support defence jobs here in the UK. Are the Government still committed to NMH? If so, when will they give the green light? We hope that will be at the Defence and Security Equipment International. For that matter, when will we see further progress on Skynet, the Red Arrows replacement, M270 artillery and the many other key decisions that the industry is waiting on?
We want to see pace in procurement, not endless dithering and delay. However, we all know the reason why the waiting goes on for so many UK defence companies, large and small: the Government have not prioritised boosting defence spending meaningfully in the near term. Instead, they use smoke and mirrors to inflate what appears to be going into the MOD. For example, the Government reclassified the intelligence budget into defence, so that they can claim to be spending 2.6% by 2027, when the reality is that the MOD budget—that which actually funds the equipment plan—will be equivalent to only 2.2% of GDP in that same year.
While key procurement decisions continue to be put off, tomorrow Labour will plough on as fast as possible with surrendering sovereignty of our critical defence base on Diego Garcia at a cost of £35 billion. The first payment is of £250 million next year and I can safely say that, instead of giving that to the Government of Mauritius, we would spend the money on rapid procurement of drones and counter-drone tech for the British Army from our brilliant British defence SMEs.
That is what we wanted to see from today’s strategy—the delivery of a strong, sovereign drone industrial base, and the same for space, rotary, military vehicles and so many others, as well as artificial intelligence and tech. Warm words delivered late are not enough. We need to see a real-world ramping up of the defence industrial base, with serious investment and not smoke and mirrors, the prioritisation of UK defence companies, and a rapid boost in our ability to deter the rising threats we face.
Luke Pollard
I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.
I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.
The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and advance sight of the Government’s defence industrial strategy, which rightly seeks to strengthen our sovereign capabilities and to bolster British defence businesses. One element of the strategy is offsetting, as set out on page 7 of the document, whereby contracts with overseas companies will lead to British jobs and novel technologies. The Minister will be aware, however, that while the practice is used in other nations, previous attempts have been abandoned, because they have led to increased costs and complex contract problems. How will the Minister ensure that the Government get the details correct, that the practice will indeed benefit British workers and that the costs are not merely loaded on to other contracts?
Luke Pollard
The offset policy that we will shortly consult on with industry provides not just the opportunity for us to bring our industries closer together, but means that in circumstances where we have to buy from a foreign provider, which could be because of quality or specific opportunities, we have the ability to then invest more in UK businesses. This is commonplace and has featured in the Norway deal and in procurement by the Australian Government and South Korea. It is a model that works and it creates an environment where we can mesh our industries together more closely with those of our allies, helping to share research and development costs for new platforms and ensuring that when we are not able to spend money on British purchases, British industry still benefits from increased skills and increased investment in novel technology. This is an area that will directly benefit UK firms and our entire defence ecosystem, especially with those investments in skills, which will last a lifetime for the workers involved and show a real defence dividend.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.
The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?
It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?
It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?
While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?
Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the strategy—it is good to see cross-party support for our defence industry. I also welcome her words about the support that we provide to Ukraine. A lesson that we are learning from the war in Ukraine is that we can procure faster, better and more effectively using increased freedoms. That is precisely the lesson from our work supporting our Ukrainian friends that we are seeking to apply in order to support UK armed forces.
Negotiations on UK participation in SAFE are led jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will seek to continue those conversations. There needs to be provision of value for money for the British taxpayer and opportunities for British businesses, and I am confident that the discussions will be productive.
The SME office that we are seeking to create is one way of helping those small businesses that feel that they have an innovative project for defence, but struggle with the labyrinthine bureaucracy and confusion about who to go to. Having a one-stop shop that enables people to access those contracts and navigate the process will be a real boost for SMEs selling their products into the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member is right about the need for spiral development, but in reducing the contracting times, we need to be alive to the fact that the technologies that we procure need to be spiral developed at pace, so that we do not have a legacy system that then gets spiral development many years later.
On the hon. Member’s two final questions, the Type 26 deal with Norway is a superb boost for shipbuilding on the Clyde. Discussions with our Norwegian friends have already started about the build slots, but the Royal Navy will receive our Type 26 frigates in the 2030s as planned. No decisions have been made about the recruitment contract that she mentioned. The intention is to make a decision in February 2026, but I have heard what she said in relation to that.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
On Thursday, I had the pleasure of visiting BAE Systems in my constituency with the Prime Minister. I spoke to many of the apprentices there, who are looking forward to a very long and secure future in their jobs. Can the training academy model used at Scotstoun be considered for integration into the defence academies? Might Glasgow be one of the locations for such an academy, presumably following discussions with the Scottish Government?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work that takes place at Scotstoun. In both Govan and Scotstoun, we have an incredible workforce building the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigate, and I am very glad that they have been getting such a lot of attention since the Norway deal, because they deserve it. The skills academy that BAE has built on the Clyde, as well as the skills academy it has built in Barrow for the submarine build work, are best in class. They really provide an opportunity to skill people up for a lifetime of opportunity, and they are precisely the types of investments that we want to see more defence companies make. I will take her question as an early bid for one of those colleges. I look forward to continuing work with her and other Glasgow MPs on how we make the most of the Type 26 project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Swedish Archer self-propelled gun is in the process of replacing the AS-90, and it will itself be replaced by the German Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 system. Can the Minister say when the in-service date of the Howitzer will be? How much UK componentry will be in it? How many UK jobs does he anticipate will be generated by it?
Luke Pollard
It is entirely right that we donated the AS-90 platforms; nearly all of them are now in operation with our Ukrainian friends. That was the right decision, which was originally taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s own party, supported by the Labour party. It is right that we have transferred those. The Archer is a good platform that will provide interim capability; I can get him the stats, and I will write to him with further details. It is absolutely right that we equip our forces with the latest technologies and do so where possible by procuring with our allies to reduce the R&D costs and increase the real benefit from them.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the defence industrial strategy. In Aldershot and Farnborough, we have a strong ecosystem that includes the home of the British Army, Standing Joint Command, QinetiQ and a hub of amazing SMEs on Cody technology park, so I am really pleased to see the Government acknowledging my community’s role in putting the UK at the cutting edge of defence innovation in this strategy. I am also pleased to see regional investment through the growth deals. What assessment has the Minister made of quick-win places such as Aldershot and Farnborough that are already delivering for the Government on defence but, with the right extra support and a brief from Government, could do even more?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for championing her local businesses. Her constituency is not only the home of the British Army, but an incredible base for innovation and advanced technologies. There are real opportunities to grow this sector further in her constituency and across the UK, and the defence industrial strategy seeks to do that by directing more of the increase in the defence budget at British-based firms and investing in the skills required. With a constituency as hungry and ambitious as hers, we will need even more skills. That is why the investment in FE colleges, schools and university partnerships is so essential in providing those skills. I am happy to meet her to discuss this matter further.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. I have just returned from the US with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where we reviewed disruptive technology from AI to quantum and saw how it has a chance to change the defence industrial base. What consideration of that fast-moving technology is there in this defence industrial strategy?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing novel technologies. The £400 million that we have allocated to UK Defence Innovation is intended to champion those disruptive high-end technologies, but we have also been clear that we want to spend 10% of our equipment budget on those advanced pieces of technology. We also need to support the wider R&D ecosystem that supports those technologies, which is why we also make announcements in the strategy about supporting our university and research partnerships that deliver them. Certainly, with US projects relying in many cases on British technology, there is a really strong ecosystem for learning the lessons from Ukraine and maintaining a technological edge. There are real opportunities for UK businesses to do more, and the more links we have with our US friends on those advanced technologies and R&D, the better.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to support for Ukraine, to our security and to our regional economies. The north-east sends proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country, yet the Ministry of Defence spends less with our businesses and industries than it does with any other region, despite our fantastic, high-value advanced manufacturing. It appears that we have not been offered a defence growth deal, so will the Minister meet me and stakeholders to address this question urgently? My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) had agreed to do so; will he make that commitment?
Luke Pollard
I replied to the debate on defence in the north-east only a few weeks ago, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at that issue. This is not just about how we back the current defence industries that exist right across the country, including in the north-east; it is about how we provide routes for firms that might not think of themselves as defence companies to sell their products and services into defence. Making those routes easier to navigate, especially with the new SME offer, will greatly support many of the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am happy to meet her and her regional colleagues to make that case further.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed. However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and in particular for framing it around our submariners. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both been to zero-day events, at which our nuclear bombers return to base after many months away. Their tours are far too long, and to ensure we can bring those down, we need to not only bring on the new Dreadnought-class submarines but make sure that the submarines that are in refit—the Vanguard class—get to sea faster. We are making efforts to deliver both those things. It is difficult for me to give the full in-service dates on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with some details that I may be able to publish.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome this industrial strategy, which—as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said—demonstrates how closely aligned a strong domestic defence sector is with our economic security and sovereignty. Can the Minister add a bit more detail about what assessment his Department has made of the potential further export opportunities arising from this industrial strategy, which will strengthen not only UK economic growth but our economic and defence relationships with our allies?
Luke Pollard
I have just returned from South Korea, where I held a number of discussions with Government Ministers about export opportunities and, importantly, partnerships—about how we can use British ingenuity and expertise in support of our allies’ generating capabilities, which benefits all of us in a win-win situation. There are export opportunities across every single sector of British defence manufacturing. In bringing defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, we aim to align the infrastructure that we have within the MOD, both in our overseas representation and in our expertise, to power those deals so that we can announce more deals like the Type 26 deal and the £1.6 billion lightweight multi-role missiles contract, with missiles being made in Northern Ireland and exported to Ukraine. There are huge opportunities for us to do even more, and it is good to have my hon. Friend’s support for powering up those exports, especially for those SMEs that could be the powerhouses of the next-generation technologies.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister, as a fellow Devon MP, will be only too well aware of our thriving high-tech cluster and the support it provides to the defence industry from its base in Torbay. What assurance can the Minister give our high-tech cluster in Torbay that it will be taken account of as this strategy develops, so that it can play its part in supporting our nation’s defence?
Luke Pollard
As a Plymouth MP, I know that the success of the defence industry in Plymouth is about what happens not just in the PL postcode, but in the wider regional ecosystem. Torbay, especially with its marine technology, has an awful lot to offer. An important part of how we power growth is ensuring that the Plymouth growth deal and, indeed, all the growth deals that we have announced today benefit the wider region, and not just the particular locations. The increase in skills and the focus on buying British from British-based firms will help businesses right across the country, including in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
This morning, I was at the Nuclear Skills Academy in Derby. It is a partnership between Rolls-Royce and the University of Derby that teaches the skills needed to create the reactors that power our submarines, and it delivers 200 apprenticeships a year. The defence industrial strategy delivers the biggest investment in defence skills in decades. Can the Minister tell us more about how it will help smaller defence suppliers to secure the skills that they need, too?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Rolls-Royce skills work, because Derby is one of the best-in-class examples in this area. That company can invest in its people because of the long-term security that this Government have provided with the multibillion-pound commitment to buy new nuclear reactors from Derby for our nuclear submarines. Our skills investment is not just about the primes investing in skills for that single business; it is about the skills ecosystem, so we must invest for all the suppliers and SMEs as well. There is no point in primes having full apprenticeships if the suppliers they buy from, which are essential to the end product, do not have enough skills. That is precisely why skills are at the very heart of the defence industrial strategy we have announced today. Exemplary examples like Rolls-Royce are superb in delivering those skills.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I place on record my excitement at seeing RAF Wyton in my constituency directly mentioned in the defence industrial strategy. Last week, I was at RAF Wyton for a hugely successful discussion on its future as a defence technology cluster, with senior officers from the cyber and specialist operations command, the leadership of Huntingdonshire district council and planners from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority. I invite the procurement Minister and the Defence Secretary to visit RAF Wyton—I believe they may be due to anyway—not only to see the tremendous work that defence intelligence does, but to see its suitability as the defence, energy and capability resilience centre of excellence. That would address my fears that the land may be sold off for housing by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by accident in the interim. I also invite them both to the Huntingdonshire defence showcase right here in Parliament next month.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for championing his constituency. There is a real opportunity at RAF Wyton, not just in terms of the military purpose that defence intelligence provides there—that is obviously difficult to talk about in the public space—but in terms of the spin-offs and industrial opportunities that the wider estate offers. I would be happy to attend those events, and I look forward to continuing the conversation about Wyton and returning to visit there soon.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Today’s blockbuster strategy completely rewires many of the institutions at the heart of our defence financing: the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. With the news that the Chinese bond market may now be open to Russian defence companies, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to keep innovating and keep evolving how we do defence financing to support our own industrial base?
Luke Pollard
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing on how we open up finance to small businesses in particular and how we deal with some of the policies that restrict access to finance for those firms that work in defence. He is absolutely right that internationally we are seeing more of those nations that sometimes oppose our values come together, but we need to make sure we are innovating with our finance and that SMEs have access to capital. That is one reason why we are seeking to create a more predictable pipeline of acquisitions that enables businesses, especially small businesses, to borrow to invest.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
If Scotland is lucky, we will get a per capita share of the £250 million in the growth deal, which is barely twice what the SNP Scottish Government have invested in the skills academy in BAE alone. However, the omens are not good, because Scotland is routinely short-changed in defence expenditure. The London Government are spending more in the south-east of England than they do in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland put together. The Minister’s own region seems set to benefit, and I am not sure where the Union dividend is between Portsmouth and Yorkshire. Seeing as he is holding the pen and writing the cheque, which hopefully will not bounce, will Scotland at the very least get its per capita share of that £250 million?
Luke Pollard
We hear such negativity from the Scottish National party. On a day when we have announced a growth deal for Scotland, creating skills and infrastructure, rather than welcome for that investment, we hear more negativity. It continues the pattern that we have seen from the SNP in Scotland: not interested in defence, not interested in defence jobs, not interested in the growth that that brings. Only when there is a win do SNP Members finally come out and say something positive. There is a lot to be done in Scotland to grow that sector. We are backing the Scottish defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s party will do so soon.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that when we back British jobs, British industry and British innovators, communities across our country reap the rewards. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that our proudly home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises can be supportive in delivering this industrial strategy?
Luke Pollard
I have seen some incredible innovation in our defence SMEs. Such companies have the opportunity to transform the warfighting capabilities of our forces and to support our allies, but for far too many of them it has been too difficult to find the person who is awarding the contract, to navigate the process, to understand how to access the forward supply, or even to get security clearance to understand what their competitors are doing. This defence industrial strategy seeks to rectify those problems by creating a single new one-stop shop for SMEs so that all of them, in every part of the UK, can access MOD contracts and we can benefit from their innovation and agility.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I imagine that the timing of the defence industrial strategy is linked to the Defence Security and Equipment International conference that is happening in London this week, so could the Minister have a word with the Mayor of London, emphasising the importance of that event for the defence industrial strategy?
The brilliant brains in Malvern in my constituency have come up with something that is very topical and timely: a better way to deal with those who seek to spoof and jam the GPS signal. It was delivered with MOD funding, and is being sold to other countries around the world, but the UK does not seem to be buying it. Could the Minister look into that specific issue?
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Lady writes to me about it, I will certainly look into it.
This morning I was on the bridge of HMS Mersey, one of our offshore patrol vessels, which is moored outside the ExCeL centre in east London as part of the DSEI conference. This is a huge opportunity for growth—and, of course, there are 10,000 defence jobs in London and an opportunity to grow even more in every part of the UK, including the nation’s capital.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and congratulate him on his new role. It is fantastic that Plymouth has been named as the site of one of the defence growth deals; this is very positive for South East Cornwall, given our close ties with the workers who cross the River Tamar daily using Tamar crossings, and the autonomous naval vessels training in our local Cornish waters. In fact, 23% of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. Will the Minister outline how the positive impacts of this announcement will be felt throughout the region, and will he assure me that local housing and transport improvements will be considered critical to the successful delivery of this important deal?
Luke Pollard
I thank my constituency neighbour for her advocacy. All the growth deals that we have announced today, including the Plymouth growth deal, will help the wider region in each location, not just the specific location, to build a skills base that will help the suppliers as well as the primes in those locations. My hon. Friend is right: we also need to look at skills and at housing. The Barrow model, for instance, is a good one for us to look at, because Barrow needs to grow bigger in order to build the submarines that the Royal Navy needs. That is not just about the shipyard, although investment from this Government is going into it; it is about housing, education and health in that community. This is precisely the model that is being followed for other locations across the UK, including those in the south-west.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Over the summer I joined the Chief of the General Staff on a visit to Supacat at Dunkeswell in Devon. I learned there that to keep supply chains active, manufacturers need continuous orders that keep British-made capabilities sharp. I am pleased to hear that Plymouth is going to enjoy a cut of the £250 million pledged for defence growth deals, but can the Minister let us know about the next order for the incredible Jackal 3 high mobility transporter?
Luke Pollard
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Jackal 3 is made in Devonport, in the constituency that I represent. It is a good platform. We will be making further announcements about orders across a whole range of land vehicles, which companies across the UK will be able to bid into. The work on the Jackal 3 continues, with the long wheelbase variants being produced at the moment.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure me that, along with the huge defence contracts that this Government have already secured for shipyards in Scotland, this strategy will also offer great opportunities for fabrication yards, including at Methil in my constituency? It was saved from closure by Labour Ministers, and its brilliant workforce are already delivering a new £8 million Government contract under its new owners, Navantia UK.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that example. Our £8 million investment will create the facility for the build of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships. That is an important part of keeping our Royal Navy supplied well into the future. I am grateful that he spoke about manufacturing, because there are huge opportunities in this strategy for businesses like the ones he mentioned.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I very much welcome the indication that Northern Ireland will participate in the defence growth deals, but will the Minister explain the interplay, if any, with the devolved Government? I ask because we in Northern Ireland have the misfortune of having an anti-British and anti-British-defence Economy Minister in the shape of a Sinn Féin Minister. Can I have an assurance that she will not be able to thwart any of Northern Ireland’s benefits under this deal? I ask that in the context that today, sadly, the MOD had to abandon its jobs fair participation in Londonderry, courtesy of Sinn Féin pressure.
Luke Pollard
We are proud that the growth deals will be in every single part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The precise location of those in the devolved Administrations will be set following discussions with those devolved Administrations, including in conjunction with those in Northern Ireland. We are absolutely clear that there is a growth opportunity to provide new, well-paid and good jobs to people there. That is why we will work with partners in Northern Ireland to find the right location and to invest in the skills that the industry there needs.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for last week’s news of the significant infrastructure investment in the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, which is highly welcome for jobs in the area. As the Minister said, the real defence dividend will be the long-term skills. We have seen skills devolved to the Scottish Government, but they have utterly failed when it comes to defence skills because of their absolutely childish attitude towards the defence industry. Seventy-two hours does not make up for 20 years of failure. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to ensure that skills, and the delivery of skills opportunities in Scotland’s defence sector, can be delivered for people in my constituency and across Scotland, so that they can take advantage of the long-term opportunities and sustainable jobs that exist?
Luke Pollard
Scotland has good representatives on this side of the House: representatives who value defence jobs in Scotland and the people who work in those jobs, and who see growth opportunities. I know that there are huge opportunities in Rosyth, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—not just the submarine recycling work and the build of the Type 31 frigates, but supply chain opportunities for other platforms. We will continue to invest in Scotland and I hope that, after the Scottish Parliament elections, we can find a new partnership between the Scottish Government, whoever may form that, and the UK Government, so that we have less politics and more focus on growth.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Now that the killer in the Kremlin has reinstated the serious prospect of all-out war on the continent of Europe, does the Minister accept that this places a premium on national autonomy in our procurement process? In future with procurement issues, will the Government make it clear to what extent we can proceed with acquiring the necessary munitions, irrespective of what is happening to the allies with whom we might normally co-operate?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his customarily thoughtful question. He will know of our intention to build six new munitions factories, including a new energetics factory, precisely because there is a shortage and there are concerns about supply and resilience. He will also know that we are seeking to onshore a number of capabilities. The defence industrial strategy deals with a number of those capabilities, especially around national security, which we want to see enhance our sovereign capability. I encourage him to read that part of the strategy shortly.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
This defence industrial strategy shows that we finally have a Government who take our British defence industry seriously. A foundation of domestic orders enables British businesses to compete effectively for export orders. Can the Minister outline the nature of the support from UK Defence Innovation that our defence and defence-adjacent SMEs might need in order to help them commercialise their technology? I hope he will consider Teesside and the north-east for a future skills academy and any future growth zone deals.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for his community. There are certainly opportunities in every part of the country, including on Teesside, for defence companies and for companies that are not selling into defence currently, but which have an opportunity to do so. The £400 million investment in UK Defence Innovation is designed to go after the most innovative and disruptive technologies. Primes have a good role in this, but so do SMEs. I encourage all businesses to lean into that opportunity, and to really go after the increased funding and the export and contractual opportunities that that will provide.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister has made a number of announcements about skills in the defence industrial strategy, which is much appreciated, but can he explain how they will integrate with existing skills frameworks and whether the industry will be given the flexibility to develop new courses at the “wartime pace” that the strategic defence review referenced?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. For instance, the work that ADS is doing on its new curriculum is really interesting and exciting. There is a real opportunity to go after the skills challenges nationwide. In order to give the men and women in our armed forces the kit they need and to export to our allies, we need to invest more in skills. It is something in which this nation has under-invested for far too long. That changes with the defence industrial strategy today.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The defence industrial strategy will strengthen our security and grow our economy. These reforms will boost jobs in communities such as my West Dunbartonshire constituency, which is sandwiched between the £250 million investment in Faslane and the £10 billion contract with Norway, guaranteeing shipbuilding on the Clyde for years to come. Will the Minister agree to meet me, the leader of my local authority and the chief executive of West Dunbartonshire council to explore the opportunities for bringing further defence investment and employment to West Dunbartonshire?
Luke Pollard
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Councillor Rooney, his local authority leader. There are real opportunities to look at some of the sites, especially given the investment in nuclear technology in my hon. Friend’s part of the world. I know that he is seeking engagement with the Department for Business and Trade about the locations in West Dunbartonshire, and I am happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the importance of the strategic defence review to the industrial strategy. When that strategy was announced, some unions, organisations and businesses were given preferential access to it, but the Minister has consistently refused to say who and when. Written questions have received flannel as answers, and freedom of information requests are now almost a month out of date. What is the Minister trying to hide, and when will he answer the question?
Luke Pollard
On a day when the hon. Lady could be celebrating the work of SMEs in her constituency and talking up British growth, she is here again with a complaint. There is a clear process with the SDR, which we followed, on the predication of the previous Administration. We have followed a clear plan today to brief the Opposition and to make sure that it is clear that we are backing British businesses. I wish she had taken the opportunity to do so as well.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
SMEs like Affinity at RAF Valley, in my constituency, offer apprenticeships that equip young people with crucial engineering skills. It is vital that the defence industrial strategy’s new clearing-style system for apprenticeships works with local SMEs and colleges to expand these opportunities. Can the Minister clarify how the system will operate in Wales, where apprenticeships are devolved?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely why we are seeking more engagement on defence with the devolved Administrations. Defence is a reserved matter, but skills are devolved, so we need to form a new partnership between the different Governments across the United Kingdom, including in Wales. The skills around RAF Valley are really very impressive, and there is huge opportunity for growth. If we get this right, we will create more good, well-paid jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across Wales—an opportunity that this Government are going to seize with both hands.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I am delighted that the face of procurement is changing and that, hopefully, we will see a telescoping of the time between the flash of inspiration and the bang of kinetic effectors, as they say. The neutral vendor framework for innovation is a very important part of that, but will the Minister give me an assurance that the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation—that we have metrics so that we can measure outputs and not simply inputs—can be brought forward?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member, and I agree with him. I am a big fan of a data-led dashboard, and the Ministry of Defence will be producing those, because when it comes to procurement we need a greater data-led approach and a focus on prioritisation. We will be going after areas that have fallen behind, which I am afraid the last Government failed to do. That is our new approach. I have already met the Chair of the Committee, and I look forward to meeting him further to discuss how we can take on board the recommendations to make sure we get this system right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
To provide certainty for the whole defence sector, but particularly for the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, will the Minister confirm when negotiations on the UK joining the €150 billion Security Action for Europe will conclude and a decision will be made, so that those businesses have the certainty and long-term security that this strategy is meant to provide?
Luke Pollard
The EU-UK reset deal signed by the Prime Minister recently opened the door to discussions on SAFE, and the Cabinet Office and the MOD are jointly working on those discussions to make sure they happen properly. We need to make sure we achieve value for money, and that we build and support UK businesses selling products to our European allies. There is a huge opportunity here, and we will continue those discussions. I do not want to set an arbitrary deadline, but those discussions are ongoing and I hope the Cabinet Office and the MOD will be able to come back with good news in due course.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a dedicated procurement hub in Northern Ireland to support our SMEs, although I note that no location has been announced in Northern Ireland. Can I remind the Minister of the excellent opportunity that the Aldergrove base in my constituency presents and how it would be an excellent location for an uncrewed systems centre? Will he meet me and the leadership of Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council to develop that opportunity further?
Luke Pollard
There is no better champion than the hon. Gentleman; I have met him a number of times when he has spoken about his constituency. I agree with him that there is real opportunity in Northern Ireland for defence investment, and I look forward to the continued discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as with local communities, Members of Parliament and councils, to make sure we find the right locations for the investment and that Northern Ireland gets the defence growth deal we have announced today—and gets it soon.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement. I am really excited about the emphasis on skills. I note the ambitious timetable to create the five academies created by the end of 2026. In the spirit of the cheekiness that he says he admires, can I encourage him to pop over the constituency border from Aldershot to Surrey Heath to find a constituency that would be a ready and expedient site for one of those academies? The site already has Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Pirbright, and it is the historic home of Chobham armour. Defence is part of our history and our heritage, and I hope it is also part of our future.
Luke Pollard
I take that as a strong early bid, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how we can maximise skills in his constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the incredibly good news that he and the Labour Government have delivered today in this Chamber. Every one of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will relish the idea of jobs coming our way.
We in the Democratic Unionist party welcome the defence industrial strategy, acknowledging the need for world-class defence and making the most of our world-class defence businesses. One of those, Thales, employs hundreds of my Strangford constituents, and it has been instrumental in protecting Ukraine. There were some 200 new jobs—including, I understand, 30 apprenticeships—no more than three months ago. With news circulating that defence spending commitments will create a total of 85,000 jobs across the sector in the next 10 years, will the Minister reaffirm the role of Northern Ireland in the industry and indeed in the defence of this great nation?
Luke Pollard
Let me be very clear: there are growth opportunities in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. We have today announced a defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which builds on the incredible skills that we already see in defence companies in Northern Ireland. This Government were very proud to announce the £1.6 billion contract for the lightweight multirole missile, which will be built in Northern Ireland. It will be used to shoot down Russian drones attacking our allies in Ukraine, which is precisely how we can make defence an engine of growth as well as support our security objectives. The workers in Northern Ireland should be very proud of the work they are doing; I certainly am.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
The Prime Minister has made tackling small boats and closing every asylum hotel a priority. Last week, I met ministerial colleagues from across Government to discuss how Defence will contribute to that work. We have deployed a military planning team to assist the Border Security Command and the Home Office, looking at military and non-military sites for temporary but adequate housing so that we can accelerate closing asylum hotels.
Mr Bedford
The safety and security of my constituents is my No. 1 priority. Given the national security risk posed by some of those who cross the English channel illegally, I ask the Minister to look again at using military assets to physically stop those small boats from landing in the first place. Will he do that today?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I share his passion for keeping our country safe. I refer him to the work of Operation Isotrope, a military operation undertaken by the last Conservative Government that put the Navy in charge of securing the English channel. That operation concluded that naval assets were not suitable for that task; it is already a dangerous crossing, and it concluded that military assets only made it more dangerous. That is why the armed forces are now assisting the Home Office and the Border Security Command, looking at how we can provide the accommodation that will enable us to close the asylum hotels, as well as how we can speed up the processing of asylum applications—something the Government that the hon. Gentleman backed shamefully stopped when they were in power. There is a lot of work to do, but we are making progress.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister has commented that he and the Government are considering using military barracks to house asylum seekers. While I thank him for his efforts to help address the small boats crisis by providing logistical planning support, I personally do not feel that operational responsibility for that should fall to our armed forces. The experience of Operation Isotrope under the Boris Johnson Government—widely criticised by the previous Defence Committee for causing confusion and reputational risk and for straining our already pressured military—serves as a clear warning. Can the Minister therefore issue iron-clad assurances to the House that any future MOD involvement within this field will be strictly limited, clearly defined and not strain our already pressured military?
Luke Pollard
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. The Ministry of Defence is part of the cross-Government response to small boats. We are stepping up our support to assist our colleagues in the Home Office. The Home Office remains the lead Department, but as every Department can contribute something to this effort, it is right that the Ministry of Defence does so. We continue to protect the nation and deliver the changes as laid out in the strategic defence review. Our No. 1 priority remains to keep this country safe.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
As I will shortly outline to the House, as part of the launch of the defence industrial strategy, this Government will set out an ambitious skills package that will grow, retain and develop the well-paid, high-skilled workforce that the UK requires to boost jobs and make defence an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.
Sam Carling
Last week, I visited RAF Wyton in Huntingdonshire, which employs many of my constituents. Under the new cyber and specialist operations command, Wyton provides a critical part of our defence intelligence, and the plans to expand the work of the base will provide significant career opportunities for my constituents in northern Huntingdonshire. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was there, too.
Sam Carling
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that developing the defence industry in Huntingdonshire will unlock local growth and prosperity? Can he outline how we will support skills development to ensure my constituents can access these opportunities?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents who work at RAF Wyton, and all those who could work there through the expanded opportunities, which I have spoken to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) about. I am glad that there is cross-party support for the investment that this Government could make. There is a real opportunity to use defence as an engine for growth, creating more opportunities for our young people in particular. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon to discuss how we can further develop the opportunity at hand, in a spirit of cross-party consensus.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Charles Stewart Parnell came to this place and used British institutions against the British state. Now, in Scotland, we have First Minister John Swinney, who is a kind of pound-shop Parnell. Although we are hearing much about defence infrastructure across the UK, the SNP Government have a presumption against supporting defence industries in Scotland. What are we going to do about it? Defence sits here, not in Holyrood.
Luke Pollard
This Government’s approach is to create jobs and opportunity through the increasing defence budget in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. The Norway frigate deal highlights how a UK Government selling our wares and our expertise on the global stage can provide additional jobs, with 4,000 jobs from that deal across the UK, including 2,000 in Scotland. While the SNP Government have been dithering on defence, this Labour Government have been delivering.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
Through the defence industrial strategy, the Ministry of Defence will strengthen the defence industrial base by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, fostering collaboration with industry and academia, creating jobs, enhancing exports support and adopting sustainable procurement practices. These measures will boost innovation, resilience and competitiveness while supporting national security and economic growth.
Steve Yemm
I welcome last week’s news that Ukraine’s largest drone manufacturer has invested £200 million in a new factory in the UK, creating 500 jobs. This demonstrates the strength of our partnership with our Ukrainian friends and the confidence that international companies have in Britain’s skilled workforce. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of foreign direct investment in the UK’s defence industrial base?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for celebrating the investment we are seeing. Foreign direct investment is a really important component part of building our ecosystem for defence industries. Britain is the very best place to invest in defence industries, with a talented population, increasing skills, increasing defence spending and a military that is respected the world over. We have a huge opportunity to do even more, and when I announce details of the defence industrial strategy shortly, I hope he will support that work as we seek to go further in using defence as an engine for growth in every part of the country.
Tristan Osborne
Medway has a proud tradition with its former dockyard in Chatham. Last week, I visited the BAE Systems aviation centre in Rochester in my constituency to see its graduates and apprentices. What more can be done to support graduates and apprentices in defence? Will the Minister take the opportunity to visit the BAE Systems site to look at that work in person?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for championing the BAE site in Rochester. We want more defence companies to invest more in skills. In the defence industrial strategy we are publishing today, we will not only make further investments in defence technical education colleges—with £182 million to deliver that—but provide additional support for school-based activities and university partnerships. I would be very happy to come to Rochester to see for myself the amazing work of the apprentices.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Shortly before recess, I visited a small precision engineering firm that is involved in tooling in the defence industry. It shared the challenges it faces in looking at defence contracts and explained that there seems to be no priority for UK businesses, unlike in France where French businesses are prioritised. I am sure the Minister agrees that defence investment boosts growth across our constituencies. Will he meet me and the business to understand how we can boost British businesses in that sector?
Luke Pollard
To a Minister just promoted by the son of a toolmaker in the reshuffle, tooling is a very appropriate question. We are targeting more of the increased defence budget at British companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, with the development of the new defence SME hub, which will allow more SMEs to access the defence contracts we are providing as part of our growing renewal of our armed forces. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her constituency business.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, who is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, for his answers. Thales has received significant contract work from the Ministry of Defence, with 200 jobs coming out of that, and Spirit AeroSystems has also achieved some of that, with extra jobs, but many other defence companies could also take advantage. Will the Minister confirm that those other companies will have the same opportunities?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to say that we are seeking growth in defence businesses in every part of the United Kingdom. When we launch the defence industrial strategy very shortly, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to see one of the new defence growth zones in Northern Ireland providing opportunities for young people to start new good careers in defence. Also, companies that might not think of themselves as defence companies at the moment will be able not just to sell to UK armed forces, but to take export opportunities selling to our allies around the world.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
The strategic defence review sets out the Government’s vision for the future of defence to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. This is backed up by the Government’s historic defence investment of 2.6% on defence spending from 2027. As part of the SDR implementation, we are developing a 10-year defence investment plan which will be published this autumn.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On Friday, I visited Paragraf, a local business in my constituency. Founded by Simon Thomas, it is a hugely successful spin-out from Cambridge University, developing and manufacturing next generation electronic devices using graphene. These products provide solutions in a range of industries, from quantum computing to diagnostics. As one can imagine with a world-leading technology, there is a huge array of potential military applications. Indeed, the company has already been contacted by our NATO allies. May I invite the Secretary of State and the new procurement Minister to visit Paragraf, meet CEO Simon Thomas and look at how we can seize the initiative in defence with an innovative and world-leading technology, and a real British and Huntingdon success story?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing championing of not just defence businesses in his constituency, but defence in total. The amount of parliamentary questions I have answered from him certainly shows his strong interest in this area. I want more of our defence budget focused on novel and innovative technologies. That is what we announced in the strategic defence review, with 10% going to those advanced technologies. There is a real opportunity to create more jobs that provide the world-leading innovation that will give us the edge on the battlefield, because the nation that innovates the most will be the nation that wins in any conflict. I would be very happy to discuss that further with him.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The east of England has a proud record of defence innovation. Indeed, on my holiday to Lincoln, I stayed at the White Hart hotel, where the battle tank was first conceived during the first world war. Does the Minister agree that investment in technical colleges of excellence, such as that at Bury St Edmonds, are absolutely key to defence innovation?
Luke Pollard
I have some recommendations for other defence holiday tourism, if my hon. Friend would like some. He is absolutely right to raise the importance of skills. There are huge opportunities across the nation in defence industries, but we need the workforce of the future to deliver them. That is why, in the defence industrial strategy being announced this afternoon, he will see more investment in skills, not just in defence technical colleges of excellence but in schools and university clusters, to maximise the opportunity to enhance our skills offer and make defence an engine for growth everywhere in the country.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and thank the workers on the Clyde for their professionalism. It made the collective ministerial effort across Government much easier knowing that we have professional, dedicated and excellent workers on the Clyde who are able to build the Type 26 frigate, and on the opposite side of Scotland, supporting the workers at Rosyth, to build the Type 31 frigate, too. There is a huge future on either side of Scotland for British shipbuilding, and hopefully more export orders as well.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
The Type 26 deal with Norway shows what is possible when we have a determined export campaign. We are looking at working with a number of our European allies, and allies further afield, on export deals, not just for our larger platforms, such as warships, but missiles, electronic systems and a whole range of defence equipment, to create more jobs here in Britain. I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
There is a real opportunity to grow further the 2,000 directly supported defence jobs in the north-east. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend further about that. May I encourage him to stay for the defence industrial strategy statement? He will hear about the further investment and opportunity that the Government hope to provide to every nation and region in the UK.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
An independent northern European nation of 5.5 million people, Norway, has just signed an order for £10 billion-worth of the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigates, designed and built in Glasgow in Scotland. Despite that, despite Scotland’s longer coastline, and despite the ingenuity displayed in that product, none of those Type 26s—unless I am wrong—will be stationed in Scotland. Would the Minister like to tell me that I am wrong, and that he is prepared to place Type 26s on station in Scotland in the future?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is a defence expert, so he knows well that the Type 26s replace the anti-submarine warfare Type 23s in Devonport, where they will be based. He also knows that we have quick-reaction fighters at Lossiemouth and our Royal Navy submarine force based at Faslane. We have huge investment across Scotland, and we will do even more, but while the Government in Holyrood, which he backs, has dithered on defence jobs, this Government have delivered extra defence jobs for Scotland, and will continue to do that.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently met my constituent Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye, who is only the third ever woman to receive the Military Cross. She shared with me the difficulty of dealing with the complex physical and psychological effects of her service, and the transformative effect that the Boulder Crest foundation had on her in her recovery. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah to hear about the work of the foundation?
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of sympathy, but please —we have to be a bit quicker; otherwise, nobody else will get in.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the opportunities to use the defence estate to contribute to growth in every part of the country, including hers.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
How will the Government ensure that Cammell Laird’s shipbuilding expertise and workforce are fully integrated into the defence industrial strategy, in order to both strengthen sovereign capability and support skilled jobs in the north-west?
Luke Pollard
There is real expertise in, and opportunities for, our shipyards nationwide—both those that support Royal Navy military vessels, and those that spend much of their time working on Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, which are the backbone of the Royal Navy fleet. There is a real opportunity in not just shipbuilding but ship repair. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those opportunities. Given that the Labour conference will soon take place in Liverpool, perhaps I can pop over and see her.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
For many veterans, hearing loss is one of the hidden scars of service, and in a number of cases, it has been linked to defective 3M hearing equipment. Will the Minister use their arts of persuasion on the Prime Minister to ensure an independent inquiry, so that we can find out the extent of this, and see whether any other equipment is involved and how we can prevent it from happening again?
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the five new defence technical excellence colleges just announced, but we need a skills pathway right across the country. I have been working with ADS on a defence curriculum that could be delivered across colleges and universities nationwide. What plans does the Minister have to support defence learning right across the country, and will he meet me and ADS to see if we can roll out a trial?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is simply prolific in the areas in which she is seeking to improve defence, and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further. There will be an announcement on skills in the defence industrial strategy that is coming out this afternoon. There is a real opportunity to expand this work, not just in defence technical education colleges, but in institutions nationwide.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State guarantee—yes or no—that no British serviceman or veteran will face prosecution for actions taken in Northern Ireland while serving their country?
Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
Luke Pollard Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for 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.
Luke Pollard
I have lots of points to cover, but I will happily come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
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.
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—
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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—
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
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 ExcerptsWednesday 2nd July 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 2 July 2025 - (2 Jul 2025)
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.
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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]