Armed Forces Day

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am conscious that some Members arrived after the start of the debate. Ordinarily, that would preclude them from speaking, but I understand that the Prime Minister’s statement has slightly thrown our timings. My intention is therefore to accommodate all those in the Chamber who wish to speak, but inevitably those who arrived late will have to take their turn. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may just correct the right hon. Gentleman, the Glastonbury festival site is not in my constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think it is helpful to have the record corrected.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We need to bear employability very much in mind, as without skilled regular personnel to maintain and operate even the most expensive and sophisticated kit, from Typhoon and F-35 fighters to Type 45 destroyers and main battle tanks, we cannot achieve operational success. In short, without well trained people, the equipment counts for nothing and does not have the deterrent effect that we seek. When asked at the Royal United Services Institute earlier this week about the single biggest challenge that the Royal Navy faces, the fleet commander, Vice-Admiral Andrew Burns, replied:

“It’s people right now. It’s the quantity of people, and it’s not just recruitment, it’s retention.”

For context, this is not a uniquely British problem. All our Five Eyes partners face similar challenges, even the United States, and I shall return to that in a moment.

Let me turn to cadets. We in this country are fortunate to have an active and enthusiastic cadet movement, and while we welcome the proposals in the White Paper to expand the cadets even further, we would like to see more detail about how exactly that will be achieved. Cadet units play a vital role in fostering disciplined teamwork and a sense of service among young people, providing invaluable opportunities for personal development, and serving as a pathway to a career in the armed forces, should the young person desire that.

Whether we are Ministers, shadow Ministers or otherwise, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, so I pay tribute to the Army cadet detachments in Rayleigh and Wickford, which are part of C company in the Essex Army Cadet Force, both of which I have visited. I hope to see the Rayleigh detachment again shortly, not least as it appears that it will need to find a new home within the next several years. I also highlight the valuable work undertaken by 1474 (Wickford) Squadron of the Air Training Corps, and their sister unit, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps; I declare an interest in the latter, as I recently had the honour of being appointed honorary squadron president. Its motto is “Amanogawa”, which is Japanese for heavenly river, and I can confirm that they are in full flow.

Over the years, I have heard a number of hon. Members pay full tribute in the Chamber to their cadet units; I will chance my arm and say that I am sure we will rightly hear praise for more cadet units before the debate is out. They are a fundamental part of the armed forces family. I thank not only the young people who sign up, but those adults who give of their time, voluntarily, to provide instruction and leadership for these outstanding young people.

Let me turn to veterans. As one example of work that can be done to protect veterans, I commend to the House an initiative known as the Forcer protocol. The idea is named after Alan Forcer, who served in the British Army for a number of years in several theatres, but who sadly took his own life after a struggle with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. His widow, Claire Lilly, came to see me at my constituency surgery a number of years ago, and told me that she was determined to channel her grief in a positive way, by establishing a system to help find and protect veterans who go missing. When I met Claire, I was struck by her absolute determination to succeed, and I am pleased to tell the House that that is exactly what she did.

In short, the Forcer protocol is now a standard operating procedure for many police forces. It is similar in some ways to the Herbert protocol for people who go missing with dementia, but it has special features that are designed specifically to assist former service personnel. In essence, it works like this. People who have a veteran in their family who they believe may be vulnerable can register their details confidentially, including known associates and favourite haunts, with an organisation known as Safe and Found Online. In the event that a veteran goes missing, the family, by releasing a PIN code, can make that information immediately available to the police, to assist them in their search for the potentially vulnerable veteran. The initiative was trialled by Greater Manchester police over six months. The trial was an outstanding success; GMP reported that it had allowed them to make positive and timely interventions that undoubtedly saved the lives of dozens of veterans in the Greater Manchester area.

As a result of that highly successful trial, the Forcer protocol is being rolled out across police forces nationwide. We had an event to encourage progress in the Commons in November 2024, and I am pleased to tell the House that at very short notice, the new Minister for Veterans and People attended to give his personal support, for which I thank him again today. In an equally bipartisan spirit, I pay tribute to the actor and TV celebrity Mr Ross Kemp, aka Grant Mitchell, for his unwavering support for that initiative, for the work that he has done for veterans more widely, and for his amazing documentary with the Royal Anglian Regiment—my old regiment—in Afghanistan. Thank you, Ross, for everything you do for our armed forces, past and present. We know your heart is absolutely in it, and we are grateful.

I am delighted to report that my constabulary in Essex is formally adopting the Forcer protocol today at a ceremony at Colchester. It is deliberately doing so in Armed Forces Week. Thirteen forces, including Essex, are now using that life-saving procedure. It is estimated that since the initial trial with GMP and the roll-out across other forces in this country, the process has saved literally hundreds of veterans. I commend Claire Lilly for everything that she and her loyal band of supporters have done to make this possible. We have another event in the Commons this November, by which time I very much hope that all 43 police forces in England and Wales will be fully signed up. Well done, Claire. Alan would be proud of you.

As I mentioned earlier, despite the tri-partisan nature of this debate, there is, I am afraid, one issue on which I feel that the Government and the Opposition will not agree: the Government’s proposed treatment of Northern Ireland veterans. More than 300,000 regular British soldiers served in Northern Ireland during the troubles between 1969 and 2007. That highly challenging task, known as Operation Banner, was one of the longest-running continual exercises in the history of the British Army. During that long and at times highly dangerous deployment, more than 700 British soldiers were killed assisting the Ulster Defence Regiment and the then Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Many thousands of soldiers were maimed for life by both Republican and so-called loyalist bombs, while trying to hold the line in an incredibly complex and dangerous situation.

I have seen many memorials in my time, but perhaps one of the most poignant was the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial at its headquarters in Knock, on which are commemorated hundreds of officers who gave their life, working alongside the Army, to attempt to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Imagine the utter dismay of those veterans who served in the British Army in that highly complex theatre at the news that the Labour Government intend to drive through a remedial order, under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998, effectively to remove key provisions in the Conservative-inspired Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That will have two very important effects. First, it will reopen the endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often via coronial inquests, to which many British Army soldiers have already been subject. Secondly—I wonder whether many Labour Members are aware of this—that same remedial order, which their Whips will urge them to vote for later this autumn, will make it easier for Gerry Adams and his associates to sue the British Government, and ultimately the British taxpayer. This is two-tier justice at its absolute worst.

The veterans have initiated a parliamentary petition, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which amassed more than 100,000 signatures in well under a month. As of noon today, the petition has achieved more than 145,000 signatures, and it is still going strong. As a result of that public support, we will debate that counter-productive policy, which is a looming disaster for armed forces recruitment and retention, in Parliament next month. We Conservative Members vigorously resist that wholly misguided remedial order, which is designed to aid Gerry Adams while throwing our brave veterans to the wolves. We warmly welcome the Daily Mail’s campaign, launched this morning, to defend our veterans. As the Daily Mail’s editorial powerfully put it this morning,

“It is profoundly unfair that frail ex-servicemen will continue to live in dread of a knock on the door, by the authorities, while IRA murderers sleep easily, with letters of immunity, handed to them by Tony Blair.”

I think that puts it rather well.

It is worth recording that many of the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland were recruited from what we might now call red wall towns, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley. They were then ordered across the Irish sea to help uphold the rule of law. Many of those surviving veterans are now in their 70s or even their 80s, and I suspect that many Labour MPs would find it extremely difficult to explain to them and their loved ones that they are taking this action just because their Government are literally obsessed with the Human Rights Act 1998. Conservative Members will bitterly oppose the remedial order; Labour Members will need to look into their consciences and, hopefully, when the Division bell rings, do the same.

With that important exception, I hope that hon. Members from across the House who are in the Chamber can agree that we value immensely the work of the whole armed forces family, and everything that they do to keep our country safe. Without those people who have the courage to take the King’s shilling, as the old phrase has it, put on a uniform and, if ultimately necessary, risk their life to keep this country free, we would have no guarantee of our precious democracy.

Perhaps the most fitting way to end my humble contribution will be to quote the words of Rudyard Kipling from his famous poem, “Recessional”, which was written in 1897 to commemorate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Those who know the poem will know that there is no hint of jingoism about it—indeed, quite the reverse. It warns about the power of divine judgment and the humility of kings. As Kipling put it:

“The tumult and the shouting dies;

The Captains and the Kings depart:

Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,

An humble and a contrite heart.

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service and his continued advocacy in this place for the armed forces. He spoke powerfully, and I agree with him. It is no small task to change the culture in an organisation; it starts and ends with leadership, so we must thank the leaders in our armed forces, who have done exactly as he said.

I will share the story of Rachel Webster. She is a Royal Military Police veteran from the north-east, and she is another example of how it is possible to break down barriers and overcome some really quite entrenched stereotypes. Rachel chose engineering over cookery when she was at school—that was her interest—but she was told that she would not be able to weld because she was a girl. I do not know if any hon. Members have ever had a go at welding, but I have; I am a boy, and I am terrible at it.

Rachel was unable to pursue welding at school, but, like me, she left school and joined British Steel. It was better at teaching her welding than it was at teaching me, because she took a four-year apprenticeship programme and learned how to weld. But her ambition was to enter the armed forces; she wished to join the Royal Engineers, where many of her compatriots on the British Steel apprentice scheme went, but when she applied she was told that women could not be in the Royal Engineers at that time.

Undeterred, Rachel joined the Royal Military Police in 1989. She trained with the Women’s Royal Army Corps, and then with the RMP, and she was deployed to Germany. Her career took her across the world, from Northern Ireland during the troubles to Afghanistan in 2001, but one of her proudest moments came in Iraq in 2003. She was helping to build a girls’ school and impressed the local men, who did not realise it was possible for women to weld—so she was able to use her welding skills on behalf of the Army.

Both Rachel and Kate have really powerful stories. They show us that courage does not know any gender or sexuality, and I hope that their stories will inspire my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton and people across the country. Let me take this moment to very much thank all our armed forces—particularly the Royal Military Police and its reservists in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country—for their valuable service to our nation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which was particularly timely. There are people who play a big part in our life at different periods; I know that my family are not alone in feeling that.

It would be remiss of me not to pause and remember the Grimsby Chums, the ordinary men from our community who volunteered together, trained together and, in July 1916, faced the horrors of the Somme together. As part of the 101st Brigade in the 34th Division, they stood shoulder to shoulder with battalions from Edinburgh as they launched the first wave of the British assault. At 7.28 am, the Chums advanced into what would become a day of unimaginable loss. Some managed to reach the German trenches, including Second Lieutenant Harold P. Hendin, who, with just five men, reached the enemy’s reserve trench and held out under relentless counter-attack. Of the battalion, 502 fell that day—15 officers and 487 from other ranks—with only two officers returning uninjured and barely 100 men left standing. Their bravery and sacrifice are an enduring legacy of our community’s contribution to peace and freedom.

Our losses are not just from that time. Over the last two decades, we have had a number of other losses from our community, such as Flight Lieutenant Smith, Marine Lance Corporal Ford, Trooper Pearson, Guardsman Major and Sergeant Telford, who should also be recognised.

In that vein, I welcome the commitments from the Government that show their determination to improve the lives and welfare of military serving personnel and their families, and particularly the forces accommodation improvements. Having lived in service accommodation, I can confirm the difference that it makes to have a good-quality home. The properties of some of my friends were not in such a good state. They were bringing up children, but were having to keep on top of some pretty terrible structural issues while their partners or husbands were away on service.

I also acknowledge the additional funds for homeless veterans, which will be invaluable for ex-servicemen and women who become homeless after struggling to adjust and make changes later in their life, and who perhaps feel that their community is not as strong as it was when they were in the forces. Making sure that we have the precision funding to support them is incredibly important.

This weekend, as the Red Arrows fly over Cleethorpes beach, hopefully I can share an ice cream with the Secretary of State, or perhaps a pint; there will be lots of pints drunk this weekend. As our community celebrates with parades and displays of remembrance, we will feel a fierce pride in our past and present, and a sense of unwavering support for our armed services. I know that I speak for everybody in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes when I say thank you to those who served, who serve now, and who are preparing to serve. Their bravery and sacrifice is written into the soul of our nation, and into the streets, homes and families of our communities. Let us honour them, not just on Saturday, but through the values we champion, the support we offer, and the remembrance we preserve for generations to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

UK Military Base Protection

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. As is the custom, the Minister’s statement will be circulated to both sides of the House, but before we proceed, Members will notice that it will not be complete, in the sense that the Minister delivered a preamble prior to going into what will be circulated. That was to try to reflect the fast-moving nature of the situation. I understand that, courteously and properly, the Front Benchers have been informed of that. I hope that everybody understands that and will make allowances for it. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

In relation to the events in the middle east, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I will need to be briefed further before I can give the House an accurate update. In relation to the NATO summit, she will be pleased to know that thanks to the European Union reset deal secured by the Prime Minister, we now have an opportunity to participate further in EU defence programmes. The strategic defence review makes it very clear that our priority for our security is the Euratlantic area, and that the largest threat facing us at the moment is Russia; but, of course, Russia works in collaboration with a number of countries around the world, and collectively they pose a threat to the rules-based order. We will continue to work with our European allies, and indeed our American friends, to ensure that we have peace and security across the continent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I commend my hon. Friend for her words and for her service. The comments that were made at the weekend about our serving military personnel are outrageous, and I notice that there is not a single Reform MP here for this statement. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that all parties present in the Chamber today back our forces. We do not take to Twitter to mock them. We respect service on a cross-party basis. We do not belittle senior officers based on their gender or experience. We need to be better than that. Just as we ask our armed forces to address cultural concerns, we need to be alive to that in our politics as well, and to call out misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head. Let us send a united message from all the parties present today that we back our armed forces, that we want to see a change in culture in our armed forces, and that we value the contribution of everyone who serves, especially those brave women who have done so much to secure our national security in recent years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. As it is Armed Forces Week, it is entirely appropriate for the Chair to have allowed the Minister to respond to that question, even though it was not strictly in line with the statement. But from now on, given the time that we have available, we have to come back to the statement itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Again, in the spirit of cross-party support, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he offers to those at the training establishments in his constituency. We have some truly remarkable people in our armed forces, and it is good to see cross-party support for their work.

On our sovereign base areas in Cyprus, it is essential that we look not only at how we can protect them, but at how we can protect them from the risk of Iranian retaliation, why is why we have enhanced the force protection measures on our bases in Cyprus. It is also why the Prime Minister has ordered the further deployment of Typhoons at our base at RAF Akrotiri, and why we are investing in ground-based air defence there. We will be looking at further measures in the months ahead as we seek to implement the strategic defence review, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the work looking at security will affect not just those at our UK bases, but our overseas personnel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Last but by no means least, I call the ever-patient Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for his clear commitment. I want to describe Armed Forces Week in Newtownards in my constituency. On Saturday, 60,000 people came to pay their respects to those who serve in uniform. Whether they serve in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy, they are part of our community, and the community showed its solidarity with them for their courage, bravery and dedication. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) was right, by the way. I met the lady who will take over at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn at the end of this year—again, an indication of the commitment of those women and ladies, who can do the job equally well as anybody else.

The actions of those criminals at Brize Norton may cause up to £30 million in damage, as well as the security measures that will have to put in place. However, the true cost of their actions cannot just be measured in money; it is the anger that right-thinking people have towards those pro-Palestine activists who would attack our military to make their political point. They are a threat to those of us who live in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This terrorism cannot be accepted. It reminds so many of us—especially those from Northern Ireland—of dark days gone by. Will the Minister acknowledge the righteous anger of the good people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Minister take to ensure there is not a repeat in Aldergrove, or indeed any other military base with British personnel here or abroad? Some of my Strangford constituents are stationed at these military bases, not just in the United Kingdom but across the whole world.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on Armed Forces Day in his constituency. Across the entire United Kingdom, there is real pride in the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Although this may be a difficult week for international affairs and we may be looking at more debates about force protection than we might ordinarily have, let us all take a moment out to make sure that we thank those people who serve, thank their families for the support that they offer, thank those people who work in the defence industries that equip our people with the cutting-edge gear that they need, and thank the society that stands behind them—because our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and the nation that stand behind them. I hope that everyone watching the debate will have been able to see the strong cross-party support for our armed forces and the strong sense of support as we seek to improve security measures to ensure that we protect our people, at home and abroad.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I am sure that the whole House, on both sides, will concur with the Minister’s final remarks. I thank him and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.

Points of Order

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important.

On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary.

However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined.

I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail.

This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR.

The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him—

“We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]

His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record.

We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary:

“In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?”

Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq.

The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

Look, he just—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order!

That said, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has given the Foreign Secretary notice of his intended point of order, but I think that that is a matter that he will have to raise with the Foreign Secretary himself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair cannot answer for Ministers, but he has made his point.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, many colleagues in this House spoke of compassion, sympathy and understanding. Unfortunately, the same compassion, sympathy and understanding were not extended to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). His father-in-law, my constituent Mr Adrian Lawther, was nearing the end of a very full life, and he rightly wanted to be with his wife and her family at that time. He sought a pair for Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill from the promoter of the Bill and the Government Chief Whip, as well as seeking advice and support from the Speaker’s Office.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was with the hon. Member at the departure gate waiting to return to Northern Ireland when his wife called to tell him of her father’s passing. It now appears that other Members were able to avail themselves of proxies in the hands of Government Whips. The hon. Member should not have been forced to travel to this place to have his vote recorded. I seek your advice, Sir, on the best approach to seek a remedy to ensure that we in this place can support each other to the best of our ability and at times of great personal need.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.

[Robin Swann]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Speaking at the Labour party conference in Liverpool in 2022, the Prime Minister said:

“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough law on the statute book”.

The Prime Minister said “the Hillsborough law”, not “a Hillsborough law”. This was an actual Bill that had its First Reading in March 2017, tabled by Andy Burnham and written by expert lawyers.

As the parliamentary lead for the “Hillsborough Law Now” campaign and a Hillsborough survivor, I want to put on record the campaign’s grave concern about the status of the Hillsborough law. The Prime Minister missed his 15 April deadline after a replacement Bill was shown to lawyers involved in the campaign, who made it clear that it contained none of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and did not deserve the name, and it was rejected out of hand.

It is rumoured that the Government could be about to table another replacement Bill, still without any of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and without allowing Hillsborough lawyers, families or survivors to see it. Government officials have even suggested that parliamentary procedure means that they are not permitted to first share it, despite the fact that that is what they did with the previous draft in March. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance on whether the draft can be first shared, as it was before, to give us a chance to raise any concerns before there is another betrayal of Hillsborough families and survivors, and all victims of state cover-ups.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It will not surprise him to know that I did not attend the Labour party conference in 2022. The King’s Speech announced that the Government would deliver their manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law by introducing legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, up to the Government to decide how they go about preparing legislation, and that includes whom they consult and when. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play a major part in the scrutiny of the legislation when it is presented to Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

Yes, I do. Defence against air and missile threats has played a key role in our recent thinking, and with our NATO-first approach to policy, putting integration with our allies at the heart of our defence plans makes sense and is a vital part of ensuring our security going forward.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the United Kingdom, preferably in tandem with our European colleagues but if necessary bilaterally with the United States, align with the United States in permitting Ukraine to use the missile defence systems that we have supplied as it sees fit in its own defence?

[Maria Eagle]

Absolutely. We intend to align with our allies in making sure that Ukraine can make use of the capability that has been offered by those who have committed support to that country in its fight.

Ukraine

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Her very words were spoken by several Defence Ministers in Brussels. Defence of the UK and of Europe starts in Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for the same values and for the rest of us in Europe.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In sharp contrast to the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General at Putin’s summit in Russia, which sent out all the wrong signals, this statement is hugely welcome, so I thank the Secretary of State. Further to the question that the Chairman of the Defence Committee asked, is it not now time that not only Storm Shadow but all the matériel supplied to Ukraine by the western alliance should be used by Ukraine in the manner that it sees fit?

[John Healey]

We provide Ukraine with the weaponry and support to defend its country, freedom and people. There is a consistency in that and there is no bar to Ukraine striking Russian military targets, so long as that is consistent with international humanitarian law and part of the proper defence of the country. I spoke about the long-range drones and the successful attacks they have been making—defensive attacks, but nevertheless on military targets in Russia. It is for the Ukrainians to determine how best to defend their country, and we will support them in whatever ways we can.