Armed Forces Bill
I echo what the hon. Gentleman says. I pay tribute to his constituent and to all those who sacrificed so much in that campaign.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head, and I need add nothing further. We all agree and we pay tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan. Moving on to the Bill, given its necessity to ensure that we have functioning armed forces, we will not seek to divide the House. Indeed, on national security, we should always strive for consensus where possible, as has particularly been the case on Ukraine. We have presented a united Parliament to our adversaries, which should be a source of national pride. However, as with any major piece of legislation, there will be many issues of detail that we will want to tease out in detailed scrutiny in Committee. While we inevitably have concerns about the underlying issue of defence funding, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support in principle. In particular, I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the armed forces covenant. Having been the party that first introduced the covenant, it will be of no surprise that we support moves to strengthen both its purpose and delivery. That said, when it comes to our veterans, we remain resolute in our total opposition to the Government’s policy in respect of those who served in Operation Banner to protect all of us from terrorism. The House surely cannot ignore the fact that as we debate this Bill, which is designed to strengthen our armed forces, Labour continues in parallel with its plan to repeal our legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—and threaten a new era of vexatious claims against former soldiers. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will say more about that in his winding-up speech. On the Bill’s proposals relating to the service justice system, there is recognition on both sides of the House that we have massive lessons to learn. Work to improve the system began under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State recognised. After publication of the Atherton report, which identified cultural failings in the forces, the then Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, took steps to enforce changes so that we could better protect women in the armed forces. In 2022 we introduced a series of new policies—for example, clamping down on unacceptable sexual behaviour by introducing a zero-tolerance approach and banning instructor-trainee relationships of any sort. We also established the defence serious crimes unit. As a result of the changes we made, more people have been empowered to come forward, and service personnel who have breached those policies have been discharged or convicted as a direct result. I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to ensure that the service justice system protects victims of the most serious offences from further harm. The reality is that implementing cultural change in any large organisation does not happen overnight, but we will work with the Government in the forthcoming sittings on the detail of their proposals to ensure that we find a better way to deliver justice in the armed forces. Let me move on to the proposed changes to the reserve forces. I pay tribute to all those serving as reservists, including, as was pointed out, those on Operation Interflex—they are a critical part of our fighting strength. That said, given the heightened threat level that we face today, we can surely all recognise that nations geographically closer to the Russian threat, such as Finland, draw a major part of their overall military strength and, thereby, conventional deterrence from possessing a large and active reserve. As such, it is important that we understand more of the detail about the Government’s plans to increase the number of active reservists by 20%. That is stated in the strategic defence review, but with a vague timeline— “most likely in the 2030s”. We can all see that there is a big difference between 2031 and 2039, and that the threat we face is nearer. In his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us if that will be in the next Parliament or the one after that? We also welcome proposals to make reservist life more flexible, particularly incentivising regulars to stay in the reserves as they explore new careers. In fact, that is exactly what was suggested in the Haythornthwaite review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It made the important recommendation for so-called zig-zag careers, enabling far greater flexibility between reserve and regular service. We welcome that and will look at it further. Let me move on to the Bill’s proposals for armed forces accommodation. Buying back the defence estate was my top strategic priority as Minister for Defence Procurement.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that I did not do it. The deal was done in 1996. Who was in government between 1997 and 2010 and did nothing about this issue? Let me speak openly. When I got the job, I went to visit defence accommodation. As I have said many times, I was ashamed, but I said, “I am going to do something about this.” My former colleague Jeremy Quin, who was the Minister before me, had brought test cases, but there was no work, and nothing had happened under successive Governments. I started the work with the Treasury and with people across Government. That deal, which took a heck of a lot of negotiation, was under negotiation with the Annington group when the general election came.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We must never forget the reason for the deal in the first place.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I will take one more intervention, and then I will make some progress.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me in posterity. All I can say is that when I came to the job, I was not impressed with the state of armed forces accommodation. Let us not pretend that it suddenly took that shape; in the 13 years when Labour was previously in power, it made no attempt to buy back the defence estate. I return to the point that that is why we did the deal in the first place. We all agree that those who serve our country must never be given substandard homes. The Annington deal has enabled the prospect of what could be the most exciting estate regeneration project for generations. This is the chance to deliver homes for heroes. We had to buy the estate back, and I enabled that. That being said, delivering such an opportunity requires leadership. The reason why my first policy announcement as shadow Defence Secretary in June last year was the creation of an armed forces housing association, which created a body that could do just that—both manage the estate and deliver a comprehensive rebuild, as the best housing associations have been able to do over the years.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says, “Giving it away.” It is very odd when a member of the Labour party thinks that setting up a co-operative is somehow a privatisation. The body that the Government will create in this Bill to deliver that transformation is the Defence Housing Service. Although we welcome its ambition to improve the supply and quality of defence housing, inevitably we will want to see that its structure means that it is able to deliver as many of the outcomes that we wanted from our own policy as possible. Specifically, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford first proposed an armed forces housing association in 2020 was to give armed forces families proper representations on its board. Will the Defence Housing Service ensure a similar, meaningful voice for service families? Given that a priority for our housing association model was to extend home ownership throughout the ranks, not least because housing associations have access to a wider suite of home ownership products, what role will the Defence Housing Service play in delivering greater home ownership among service families?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
When I was a Minister, the hon. Lady was always raising that point. She has been a passionate defender of her constituents on this matter, and I respect her for that. When we talk about single living accommodation, as opposed to service family accommodation, it is fair to say that there is a different funding structure—it goes through the frontline commands. My own experience is that that can be challenging, as they have their own budget challenges. Hopefully, by taking forward this model we will see clearer lines of finance into housing, but at the end of the day we need to have both SLA and SFA up to a high standard. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Let me turn to the Bill’s proposals on drones. We obviously welcome the proposals to give the military greater powers of interception in relation to drones, but we want them to go further. For example, why have the Government not taken the opportunity to put into law measures that provide easier access to testing ranges for our brilliant defence small and medium-sized enterprises? After all, they have delivered some of the best drones used in Ukraine. Is this not part of the problem? When it comes to procurement, we live in a parallel universe where the Government have delivered—quite rightly, and as we did—drones, munitions and equipment at scale to Ukraine, but at the same time procurement for our armed forces has been almost frozen since the election. There is a reason why the Government’s plans to increase the reserves may not happen for a decade. There is a reason why any defence company will share its immense frustration at the lack of orders coming out of the MOD, whether for drones or for other capabilities. That is because the Government have prioritised a bigger welfare bill over the scale of increase in defence spending that our armed forces require. When it comes to defence spending, the Government like to wrap themselves in the comfort blanket of arguments about the past, even when they are wrong. At Prime Minister’s questions on two occasions in recent weeks, the Prime Minister has repeatedly misrepresented what Ben Wallace actually said about defence spending. His point was not that defence spending fell under the Conservatives, but that it fell under all Governments following the end of the cold war and the so-called peace dividend. To be partisan about that observation is to hide from the truth that we all have to face up to: that the world has completely changed. I am incredibly proud of what we did in government to stand by Ukraine before most other nations acted, but, irrespective of what happened before, it must be obvious that we need to spend far more on defence and far more than the Government are planning.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Wait a minute. That is why Labour is making in-year savings of £2.6 billion at the MOD and has a black hole of £28 billion—because the extra cash it is planning for defence is simply not enough.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) first.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The hon. Gentleman does not have to apologise for interrupting. He offered to intervene, and I accepted; that is how this place works, and his intervention was entirely fair. To be frank, yes, spending is increasing, but it is not increasing anything like enough in relation to how much costs are going up. When I first became shadow Secretary of State and was calling for 2.5%, I said that that would only stabilise things—I was very open about that. I did not say that it would lead to a much bigger force and all the other things we would like to see, but we can all see what has happened. President Trump has been very clear that he wants to see NATO members spending much more and much more rapidly. We all know what the reality is: the United States is going to be doing less, focusing on its priorities. We need to do more, which means much higher spending.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when Putin invaded Ukraine, something pretty extraordinary happened: inflation went through the roof right around the world. The whole world was trying to buy defence equipment, and it still is. Guess what? That means a higher inflation rate in defence.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I am responding to the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s first intervention. Anyone coming into government should have had some sense that there was going to be inflationary pressure in the system. That is not the only reason that there is a £28 billion black hole, but it is a key factor.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
My right hon. Friend is right. The last time anyone in this country spent 5% on defence was in 1985, when President Gorbachev entered the Kremlin; spending has pretty much been down since then, under every Government. That is the point I was making. On the current targets, Labour’s vague “promise” is to go to 3% in the next Parliament. We believe the task is far more urgent, and would go to 3% by the end of this Parliament. As a reminder of the importance of 3%—this is critical—when Labour published the SDR last June, its independent authors stated on the same day that the promise of 3% “established the affordability of our recommendations”. As such, with no certainty over when Labour will get to 3%, is this not why the defence investment plan—which was promised for last autumn—still has not been delivered? In his wind-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us whether the DIP will be published before the spring? I think that is the meteorological spring, by the way. There is much to welcome in this Bill, but it will not succeed if defence does not have the resources needed to deliver the SDR. We look forward to debating the Bill in detail and doing whatever is possible to make it workable, but for their part, the Government need to do their bit by finally delivering the step change in defence spending that our armed forces need if they are to do the job we ask of them.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I heard the announcement made by the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party about the bonds. Of course, that would still be borrowing the money. It would be added to the national debt, and it would have to be repaid. The question is, where exactly would the money come from? Would it mean cutting spending or putting up taxes?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. It is very generous of him. Is he saying that those bonds would not have to be repaid?
- Hansard source
PIP: Number of Claimants
Since the right hon. Gentleman became Disability Minister, half a million more people have gone on to PIP, and the sickness benefits bill is heading up to £100 billion a year by the end of this decade. We know that his review is not due to serve up any savings, but there must come a point where even he would say that the country cannot afford this. Does he have any ambition to make welfare savings?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Under this Labour Government the number of people on benefits is soaring, with nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are now out of work and on benefits. Many young people are putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections. This Government are killing their jobs and their dreams by taxing job-creating businesses into oblivion. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those young people?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Young people hearing that answer will not be reassured, but that is no surprise—what else can the Secretary of State say? The Prime Minister is too busy blocking rivals for his job, while a generation of young people pay the price for his weakness, and so are taxpayers, who are footing a ballooning benefits bill. Now is not the time for another review, scheme or slogan; what young people want is the chance to get a decent job and to get on in life. Surely he agrees that it is time to scrap the job-killing red tape in the Employment Rights Bill and cut taxes for businesses, so that they can give young people the chance to get off welfare and into work.
- Hansard source
Young Disabled People: Support into Work
Obviously, the ability to use public transport is vital to allow disabled people or others who are less mobile to access work. Inverurie station in my constituency has just been removed from the Access for All programme, which provides mobility aids in stations—in this case, a lift will now not be installed. I completely appreciate that Access for All is not a responsibility of DWP, but access and allowing disabled people to get to work is. What conversations has the DWP had with the Department for Transport regarding the removal of Access for All funding, and does the Department share my concern that disabled people and those who are less mobile in my constituency will now have less ability to get to work on public transport?
- Hansard source
Police Reform White Paper
The Home Secretary quoted Sir Robert Peel at the top of her speech, saying that he was “speaking at this very Dispatch Box”. She clearly has not realised that those Dispatch Boxes were donated by New Zealand after the second world war. Even if she was talking more figuratively, this whole Chamber was destroyed in 1834 after Peel said those words. The accuracy that she sacrificed for rhetoric continued throughout her speech. Following discussions that I have had with the chief constables of Surrey and Hampshire, who are against these proposals, may I ask a question? If chief constables across the country, such as those in Surrey and Hampshire, are against her proposals when her review concludes, will she scrap the proposals—or is this a review in name only?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T5. On Friday, I met a constituent who has been told that she is losing all her child maintenance payments because her ex-husband simply told the Child Maintenance Service that he had moved abroad, which my constituent knows is entirely false. What steps will the Government take to verify claims from people trying to get out of their child maintenance payments?
- Hansard source
Police Reform White Paper
Thames Valley is already a large police force, where our superb police officers and staff struggle to balance resources effectively, even with local command units now across rural areas like my own and the bigger cities, such as Oxford and Milton Keynes. Given that it is such a large force—and that right now it finds itself with a budget settlement £9 million lower than expected—and given the commitment from the Home Office only to fund 40% of new recruits, what confidence can we have that the Government will adequately fund bigger forces?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T7. In the Budget, the Chancellor froze thresholds, which brings state pensioners into paying tax. This was raised with the Chancellor, who said that she did not want that to happen and that she would create a workaround. However, only two weeks ago we voted on the Finance Bill, which the Labour party pushed through, and as it stands that means that pensioners will pay tax on their state pension. What is the DWP doing to ensure that they will not pay tax on their state pension or have to submit a tax return?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
It is a surprise to see the Minister so ratty and full of bluster, so I am going to ask him a technical question that I would appreciate his answer to. We have talked about the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes; the question is whether the Government can go ahead with the Chagos deal without the US. Where do the Government stand? Does the deal have to have the US’s blessing, or can the Government do it without that blessing, and with no change or negotiation of the 1966 contract?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
May I first express my respect for the Minister’s ability to consistently defend the indefensible? An absolute masterclass! Is it not the case that the President of the United States now has our Prime Minister completely over a barrel after his incautious and unhelpful remarks over Greenland? Would it not have been better, along the lines of “The Art of the Deal”, to have dealt with this before the Government signed the surrender treaty, and not after?
- Hansard source
Police Reform White Paper
There are a lot of things to welcome in this statement, but police licence to practise is probably not one of them. I say this because other trades and professions that have licencing, annual appraisal, or periodic revalidation have found that it simply becomes a time-sapping industry. I am sure that is not the Home Secretary’s plan for the police, particularly since my constituents want our police to be on the frontline and dealing with online fraud, not ticking boxes.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The Secretary of State refers to the local connection test. Will he acknowledge that the removal of that test was initiated by the previous Government? That is not the impression he gave in his initial remarks, although it is certainly the case. Secondly, is it his intention to allocate service housing going forward on the basis primarily of rank or primarily on need?
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
The truth is that there was a level of serendipity in this matter of which the current Government are the beneficiary, and that is the High Court decision on Annington Homes. My hon. Friend is being characteristically modest, because I clearly remember that he initiated this work while he was at the MOD. I am very pleased to hear that the current Government are taking it forward, which is absolutely right, but we need to lay on record the provenance of all this work and who its author is. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?
- Hansard source
Police Reform White Paper
To follow on from the previous question, the Home Secretary has strongly supported digital facial ID and artificial intelligence. As her colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), has said, both of those technologies show significant error rates, particularly when it comes to racial minorities. Innocent people fear this, particularly after the Post Office scandal, which showed that courts believe computers rather than people, resulting in miscarriages of justice. I have three questions for the Home Secretary. First, what does she regard an acceptable error rate for these technologies? Secondly, does she support the provision of compensation for people who are misidentified by such technology? Thirdly, she has talked about regulations; will she put all of these reforms on a statutory basis, based on primary legislation that passes through this House?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
I think it is unprecedented at such an event for only one Government Back Bencher to speak, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) very bravely spoke against the deal. It is very important that the sovereignty of these islands remains British. That was highlighted in the Labour manifesto, which stated: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories…Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” May I suggest a gentle down ramp for the Minister, for whom I have a lot of admiration, which is simply to just not find the time in the other place to progress things and allow Prorogation to gently wash this particular piece of proposed legislation out to sea?
- Hansard source
Police Reform White Paper
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—especially after her busy weekend chairing the national executive committee, which excluded Andy Burnham from returning to Parliament. Anyway, the Home Secretary’s statement—[Interruption.] There seems to be some concern from the Benches behind her on that. The Home Secretary’s statement is striking for what it does not say, because there was no mention—not one word—of her plans for total police officer numbers. The reason for that is simple: total police officer numbers are falling under this Labour Government, as figures due for release later this week will confirm. The last recruitment intake before the election was in March 2024, and there were 149,769 officers in post—the highest number in this country’s history. By the same time the following year, under Labour officer numbers had fallen by over a thousand, and in the current financial year, numbers are falling even further, with the Met alone saying that it will lose a staggering 1,500 officers this financial year. On officer numbers, the Government are engaged in a con trick. They are transferring officers away from crime investigation, 999 response and other teams into neighbourhood teams, so they can say neighbourhood numbers are going modestly up. But total police officer numbers are falling, so there will be fewer 999 response and investigation officers, response times will be slower and investigations will not be as effective. The Home Secretary can set targets and make announcements, but the fact is she is presiding over falling total police numbers and the public will be less safe as a result. The Home Secretary has said that she will change the structure of policing. Briefings over the weekend said the reorganisation will be complete in—I had to double check this—2034, nearly a decade away. But we have a crime crisis today. Shoplifting and phone theft are surging under this Government, with shoplifting now at its highest level ever. Knife crime in London is up by 80% under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Women are being let down, too, with sex crimes up by 9%, rape up by 6%, stalking up by 5% and harassment up by 6% under this Labour Government. That requires action today, not in 2034. The Home Secretary’s plan includes mandating the merger of police forces. Briefings over the weekend suggest a reduction from 43 down to 10 or 12, so a single police force might cover an area from Dover to Milton Keynes or from Penzance to Swindon. Such huge forces will be remote from the communities they serve, and resources will be drawn away from villages and towns towards large cities. The biggest force in the country is the Met, and yet it has the worst crime clear-up rate of any force; it fails to solve 95% of reported crimes. That goes to show that large scale does not automatically deliver better results, and therefore we will oppose the mandated merger of county forces into remote regional mega-forces. Police forces are warning that Labour’s early prisoner release scheme means more crime and more demands on policing. Most criminals will now be released after serving just one third of their prison sentence, and even rapists will serve only half of theirs. To make things even worse, Labour plans to abolish prison sentences of under one year, so even the most prolific shoplifters will never face jail. That is a recipe for disaster, cooked up by the Home Secretary in her previous role. We can agree on some things, because the Home Secretary has copied them from us. I am glad that she is continuing the roll-out of artificial intelligence and live facial recognition started under the previous Government —we fully support that. It is right for Home Secretaries to have greater powers to intervene; we announced that policy at our conference last year, and of course we support it. She now says that she will abolish non-crime hate incidents. We need to see the details, but might she explain why Labour voted against that measure when we tabled it as an amendment just last year? The simple fact is this: total police officer numbers are falling under this Home Secretary’s watch. As a result, 999 response times and crime investigations will suffer. Shoplifting, phone-snatching and sex offences are all rising under this Government. Regional mega-forces will make things worse, not better. Her grand plans will not even be fully implemented until 2034, but action is needed today. These announcements will not make our streets safer this year or next year, and the public will see that rapidly.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be directing his comments at me.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, Members might like to be aware that there are a lot of colleagues wishing to speak this evening. I am not planning to put a time limit on—yet.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Order. May I remind Members to be careful, good-tempered and moderate in their language in debate? If anyone needs any instruction, pages 496 and 497 of “Erskine May” are very helpful. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Order. I have heard two uses of the word “you”. It is not about me.
- Hansard source
Armed Forces Bill
Order. I intend to introduce a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
People who come to this country and make it their home are welcome to work and pay their taxes. However, Ministers may have seen reports over the weekend of foreign career criminals who have been spared prison now claiming universal credit. Taxpayers are going to be outraged by this fact, so what action will the Minister take to ensure that only people who are entitled to receive universal credit do so, and that career criminals do not?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Last week we had a discussion about the cost of this deal, and I asked the Minister whether he would confirm the figure of £34.7 billion from the Government Actuary’s Department. He did not give me a direct answer, but later in the debate he confirmed that it was a nominal amount, not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House the most accurate assessment he can of the true figure for the total cost of the deal, adjusted for inflation and the social time preference rate?