Parliamentary Questions

20 Jun 25. House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.

Defence spending: Public Accounts Committee leads House of Commons debate

The House of Commons will hold a debate on Wednesday 25^th June at approx. 3pm on the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) spending plans, led by the Chair and members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

The government aims to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2026/27. There are plans to increase the MoD’s expenditure within 2024-25 by a total of around £1.35bn compared to initial budgets, with the 2025-26 budget allocation likely to increase still further. Given the MoD’s stewardship over such large sums, it is concerning that the PAC has reported on problems with procurement, inventory management, and digital projects.

The debate will focus in particular on the remit of the new MoD role of National Armaments Director. The PAC found in 2021 that the defence procurement system was “broken,” following which the MoD created this new role as part of the biggest reforms in fifty years. The government aims for the role “to ensure the armed forces are properly equipped to defend Britain, to build up the British defence industry and to crack down on waste.”

The PAC also recently published its report on the future of the Equipment Plan, which will inform the debate. The report warns that defence scrutiny remains obstructed with the continued lack of a public Plan, which unacceptably MoD has now refused to publish since November ’22. It also raises concerns at the rising cost of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, and lays out the lessons learned from the MoD’s support for Ukraine, of which it can be rightfully proud.

The debate will take place on one of the House’s Estimates Days, in which public spending by government departments are considered

 

19 Jun 25. Business and Trade Committee 

House of Commons

“Investment without strategy is squandered” – BTC sets out “imperatives” for Defence Industrial Strategy to maximise its role in the growth mission

The Business and Trade Committee today sets “nine imperatives” for the forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy if it is to fulfill the role Government has set for it as a “new engine for growth at the heart of the UK’s economic strategy”.

Rt Hon Liam Byrne, Chair of the Committee, said: “The Government is right to invest in Britain’s defence—but investment without strategy is squandered. That’s why defence must now serve a double purpose. It must shield our shores—but it must also spark our economy. We need every pound spent on security to become a pound spent on prosperity. And that means a Defence Industrial Strategy rooted in ambition, driven by evidence, and guided by nine clear imperatives—from procurement that backs British industry, to budgets that unlock SME investment, to export strategies that marry our military reach with our economic might.”

“In the 20th century, we helped build the arsenals of democracy. Today, we must forge a new arsenal of prosperity—built not just with ships and submarines, but with skills, sovereignty and regional strength. This is no time for drift or delay. What we need is a decade-long mission: clear goals, firm metrics, accountable leadership. A strategy where the Ministry of Defence becomes not a silo of spending, but a cornerstone of national renewal. Get this right, and defence won’t just keep us country safe—it will help make our country strong.”/

In an extended letter to the Secretaries of State for Business and Trade and for Defence, the Committee says the success of the strategy “hinges on getting three basic questions right”:

1. What sovereign capabilities does it want for the UK?
2. What contribution to growth does it seek from defence spending?
3. How will it measure and report progress?

– and on meeting nine imperatives to “maximise the delivery of defence spending to the growth mission”:

1. Maximising synergies with industry and industry spill-overs

2.A sophisticated strategy for innovation

3.Maximising regional growth

4.Maximising the positive impact of net exports

5.Transforming defence procurement

6.Guaranteeing multi-year budgets

7.Be clear about where we will ‘buy British’

8.Improve the wider business environment

9.Getting the governance and accountability right

 

18 Jun 25. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Defence scrutiny obstructed: PAC extremely disappointed at lack of public spending plan

– Questions remain over detail underpinning ambitions in Strategic Defence Review

– Report lays out lessons learned from UK’s support for Ukraine as nuclear costs continue to grow, potentially impacting spending plans on conventional equipment and accommodation The public still lacks a reliable assessment of whether government’s defence spending plans are affordable. In a new report, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) voices its extreme disappointment that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) continues to fail to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of how it intends to manage its funding for military equipment – historically carried out through an annual Equipment Plan, which unacceptably MoD has now refused to publish since November ’22. Its report also lays out the lessons learned from the MoD’s support for Ukraine, of which it can be rightfully proud The government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) set out high-level ambitions, including an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April ’27. But MoD is only midway through the process of deciding how to invest this funding, and has said that the SDR would build upon its already ambitious equipment programme. MoD doesn’t expect to have completed working through the details following the SDR until late ’25 – two years since the PAC was last able to scrutinise MoD’s spending plans. Its last report on MoD’s Equipment Plan found no credible government plan to deliver on desired military capabilities. The PAC’s latest inquiry was held in the sincere hope that government would propose how Parliament and the public would again be able to scrutinise the crucial issue of MoD’s forward spending plans. No concrete plans, or a date for when one might be presented, were forthcoming. The PAC finds this entirely unsatisfactory – MoD must come forward quickly with proposal on how it will update Parliament on its equipment procurement and support plans. As part of the SDR, the government committed to producing a Defence Investment Plan to replace the Equipment Plan in future, due for completion in Autumn 2025. It is yet to be made clear how the new Plan will be reported to Parliament and the underpinning data provided for scrutiny to the National Audit Office, thus allowing detailed and proper scrutiny by committees including the PAC. The report also lays out several lessons MoD has learned from its support for Ukraine, including the need for mixture of capabilities from high-end missiles to affordable drones; the advantages of having fewer systems for easier logistics management; having the industrial capacity to sustain equipment if supply chains are disrupted; and ending programmes with outdated equipment sooner to keep up with the pace of innovation. MoD’s future work with Ukraine should remain responsive and efficient, so that it continues to provide Ukraine with the support it needs. The ever-increasing cost of the nuclear deterrent is also highlighted in the report, with the PAC finding that rising nuclear costs may restrict the money available for conventional equipment and improving poor accommodation – crucial in addressing problems in recruitment and retention. Forecast nuclear costs for the ten years beginning 23-24 have increased by around £10bn to £128bn, yet in 2023 ten-year costs were already £7.9bn more than budget. The report notes that the government has created a ringfence which prevents MoD from using elsewhere money allocated to nuclear, but which does allow money to flow the other way. The implications of the SDR on the balance of investment between nuclear and conventional capabilities have also not yet been worked through by government.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The MoD’s Equipment Plan is the window that Parliament and the country has to hold government to account on the deliverability of its military ambitions. Despite an inquiry held in good faith with government in the hope that together we might facilitate parliamentary scrutiny, that window remains tightly shut. We are left with vague assurances of further details to be made clear in the autumn. Scrutiny does not take place on the government’s timetable, but as the proper functioning of our democracy, and a critical analysis of our nation’s defence plans has been denied for two years now.

“In the context of continuing geopolitical uncertainty, this continued delay in providing figures for public scrutiny is a truly unacceptable state of affairs. This Committee has made a number of recommendations to government to offer it another chance to cooperate. There is also a material risk of the costs of the nuclear deterrent beginning to act as a ratchet mechanism. As well as a fully worked-up picture of equipment overall, we require specific cost details in the specific area of nuclear, to be assured on the risk of funding not being sucked away from other vital areas earmarked for growth in the SDR. If government does not come forward with the requisite details very soon, Parliament will be unable to critically assess the underpinnings of the SDR, and it will remain to be seen how the public can thereby ascertain whether what is planned, including the pledge of 2.5% of GDP on defence spending, is deliverable. This all must be set in context of the SDR, announced since our report, which sets out a highly ambitious target for upgrading our defence equipment. The MoD can, however, be rightfully proud of the role it has played in supporting Ukraine in resisting Russia’s brutal invasion. The adaptability and responsiveness of government in constantly innovating both in the assistance provided and in its own processes has been truly commendable, and this Committee thanks all involved for their continuing efforts.”

The House of Commons will hold a debate on Wednesday 25th June at approx. 3pm on the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) spending plans, led by the PAC Chair and members of the Committee. Find out more on the Committee’s website.

 

16 Jun 25. Government response: The Armed Forces Covenant repot. Govt agrees to extend Legal Duty following Armed Forces Covenant report. Following the Defence Committee’s report on the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government has committed to extending the Covenant’s Legal Duty to all UK Government departments and the devolved administrations. Today, the Defence Committee publishes the Government response to its report on the Armed Forces Covenant. The Government accepts the Committee’s finding that the Covenant is inconsistently implemented, and that there is currently little data available to measure whether the Covenant is making a difference to the lives of Service personnel and their families. The Government’s response commits to providing an update to the Committee on its efforts to improve data collection and sharing on the delivery of the Covenant. In other areas the Government stops short of endorsing the Committee’s recommendations. For example, the recommendation that it develop a strategy for ensuring more consistent implementation of the Covenant.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “I am pleased that the Government has recognised that the Armed Forces Covenant is not applied as consistently as it should be and has agreed to the Committee’s recommendation to extend the Covenant Legal Duty to all central government departments and to the devolved administrations. This is the right thing to do. The Covenant is a solemn commitment that the Servicemen and women who place their lives on the line for us should face no disadvantage due to their service – we need to make sure every part of government lives up to that commitment. While the Government’s promise to extend the Covenant in law is a step forward, legislation is only one piece of the puzzle. In our report we found that Armed Forces personnel face a lottery when accessing services. Consistent implementation of the Covenant is essential if we are to make a positive difference to the lives of Service personnel and their families.  In our report we called for the Government to develop a strategy to ensure that the Covenant is implemented consistently, and it is disappointing that today’s response stops short of producing that strategy. We hope that the Government will have more to say about how it plans to improve implementation when it brings forward the Armed Forces Bill in the next parliamentary session.”

 

 

13 Jun 25. PAC to publish two reports post-Spending Review on local govt and defence

Following the Spending Review 2025 and the Strategic Defence Review 2025, the Public Accounts Committee will publish two reports next week:

• Local Government Financial Sustainability – copies available under embargo on Monday 16^th June, for publication on Wednesday 18^th June at 00.01.
• The Future of the Equipment Plan – copies available under embargo on Wednesday 18^th June, for publication Friday 20^th June at 00.01.

The PAC’s inquiry on local government financial sustainability scrutinised planned reforms to local government, announced in 2024. It explored how those reforms are being implemented, as well as what is being done to tackle local authorities’ deficit from overspending on their high needs budgets.

The second report is on the future of the MoD’s Equipment Plan, until recent years published to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of how funding for military equipment will be managed. Unacceptably MoD has now refused to publish a plan since Nov ’22. The inquiry also explored lessons learned from government’s support for Ukraine.

All interview bids for the Chair of the Committee, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, requests for background information or other queries, to Ed Sheridan on / +44 (0)7719 005551.

 

13 Jun 25. Are the military reserve forces and cadets ready for expansion?

Evidence Session

Monday 16^th June, 3.30pm, Grimond Room, Portcullis House

MoD’s oversight of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations

Watch live or catch-up on Parliamentlive.tv

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will examine the challenges faced by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in governing the body responsible for supporting the UK’s reserve and cadet forces on Monday 16^th June at 3.30pm.

In April 2024, there were around 140,000 cadets spread across 3,500 units in the UK. This number is set to grow as the UK government announced a target of a 30% increase by 2030, in the recently published strategic defence review. A 20% increase in the reserve force numbers over the same period was also outlined, with this figure sitting just below 32,000 at the start of 2025.

In 2019, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) carried out a review of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCAs). This highlighted some areas for concern, including the accountability and governance of the RFCAs, which support and provide infrastructure for the reserve forces and cadet forces of the army, the air force and the navy.

The RFCAs receive around £150m in funding annually from the MoD which is distributed by the Council of the RFCA’s. However, this framework was deemed not compliant with Treasury rules in 2022, and despite the MoD taking steps to rectify issues, a new framework has yet to be finalised.

The Committee will hear from representatives of both the MoD and the RFCAs as they examine governance, legal and financial risks of current systems and structures. Questions may also examine how changes to the current ways of working could retain the benefits of the RFCAs’ local identities and connections while ensuring that they provide cost-effective, high-quality infrastructure and support services; and whether safeguarding processes and appropriate training and checks are in place.

Witnesses

From 3.30pm:

• David Williams, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence
• Aneen Blackmore, Director General Finance, Ministry of Defence
• Major General Marc Overton CB TD VR, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets), Ministry of Defence
• Major General (Retd) Jamie Gordon CB CBE, Chief Executive, Council for the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations

 

 

12 Jun 25. Committee to investigate the future of warship building in Scotland  

Evidence session

Industrial Transition Wednesday 18 June, 9:30am, Committee Room 16, Palace of Westminster

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

The Scottish Affairs Committee will question representatives of BAE Systems and Babcock International as it examines Scotland’s shipbuilding sector.

In this session, the committee will focus specifically on military shipbuilding, a strategically significant industry that has seen renewed focus in recent years.

MPs will seek views on the Strategic Defence Review and its vision for UK shipbuilding and naval capability, as well as whether the UK industry is equipped to deliver the outlined capabilities.

The committee may ask about procurement practices, shipbuilders’ engagement with the wider supply chain and export opportunities for the Scottish shipbuilding industry.

Members could discuss recruitment challenges and skills shortages facing the industry, as well as current provisions to support the skills development of its workforce. There may also be questions on the effectiveness of the Shipbuilding Skills Strategy in addressing these workforce challenges.

Witnesses at 9.30am:

• Sir Simon Lister, Managing Director of BAE Systems Naval Ships
• John Howie MBE, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Babcock International

 

09 Jun 25. All three lead Strategic Defence Review authors to be quizzed by MPs             

Evidence Session: One-off Session with the reviewers who led the Strategic Defence Review

Wednesday 11 June 2025, 10.00, CR16

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold a one-off session to examine the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) following the Government’s announcement that it will accept the review’s recommendations in full earlier this week. The session will be held at 10.00, on Wednesday 11th June.

Since the Second World War, defence reviews have been conducted within Government, however the most recent review was conducted by a panel of external reviewers.

In this session, the Committee will hear from all three authors of the review – Lord Robertson, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill – to explore the content and process of delivering the 2025 review.

MPs are likely to examine the recommendations set out in this review and could consider the challenges the Government may face in its plans to implement them. Questions may also focus on the economic viability of the measures set out in the SDR and to what degree it will interact with the Secretary of State’s Defence Reforms programme.

10.00, Wednesday 11 June:

• The Rt Hon. the Lord Robertson of Port Ellen KT – Lead Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review
• General Sir Richard Barrons – Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review
• Dr Fiona Hill – Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review

 

09 Jun 25. Geopolitical competition straining peace and environmental protection in Antarctica, MPs find in new report.

Report: The UK and the Antarctic environment.

Chair of the Committee, Toby Perkins, is available for interview on the report. Please contact me on  to arrange.  Geopolitical tension and the prospect of potential mineral reserves are straining peace and environmental protection in Antarctica, MPs say in a report published today.

The cross-party Environmental Audit Committee has published its report on ‘the UK and the Antarctic environment’, following an inquiry begun by its predecessor Sub-Committee on Polar Research in the last Parliament.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has disrupted the consensus-based operation of the Antarctic Treaty System, complicating international cooperation,” MPs say. “While the Antarctic Treaty System has largely insulated Antarctica from geopolitical tensions, they clearly have an effect.”

MPs also find that climate change in Antarctica poses an “existential risk” to the UK by driving sea level rise, making it imperative to act now to protect both the Antarctic ecosystem and the UK’s coastlines.

The Committee argues for the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, to prevent further destabilisation of Antarctica’s ice sheets and glaciers, and recommends the Government continue to take a leading role within the Antarctic Treaty System and the UN’s COP climate negotiations, including by ensuring that Antarctic issues are consistently represented. The report comes after the Prime Minister pledged to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament, partly to counter the threat posed by Russia, while the Defence Committee recently heard evidence on Russia’s decades-long “remilitarisation” of the Arctic. The region is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), through which members agree to use Antarctica for peaceful and scientific purposes only. This system has successfully preserved the region since it was established in 1959, but the Committee warns that increasing geopolitical tensions, particularly the war in Ukraine, are putting significant strain on this consensus. This tension threatens to undermine the ability of states to respond to climate change in Antarctica, risking further disruption to Antarctica’s unique ecology and biodiversity, with consequences for the rest of the world. For example, experts warned the Committee that the decline of the Emperor Penguin – found only in Antarctica –is not only a conservation concern, but a stark signal of the broader disruptions caused by climate change. The Committee also highlights concerns around the environmental risks posed by any interest in Antarctica’s mineral resources. Mining is banned under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which remains in force indefinitely. However, some reports have suggested that Russia may have conducted seismic surveys in Antarctic waters. If substantiated, the Committee warns that such actions would endanger the fragile Antarctic environment.

“Failure to address these concerns could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future exploitation, and threatening the environmental protections that the Antarctic Treaty System was designed to uphold,” the Committee says, recommending that the UK and other parties maintain robust oversight and collaboration to ensure strict adherence to the Protocol.

The Committee recommends that the UK continue to lead efforts to protect Antarctica by reinforcing partnerships within the Treaty System. It encourages the Government to foster dialogue with all treaty members, including China. It also recommends expanding joint research efforts, so the UK can play a pivotal role in shaping informed decisions on climate change and environmental protection within the ATS.  MPs also reject the use of geoengineering – human interventions in the Earth’s climate system, designed to counter climate change – in Antarctica. They say these projects appear to be impractical due to their high costs, technical challenges and environmental risks. Relying on geoengineering over addressing the causes of Antarctic ice loss risks delaying action to reduce carbon emissions, the Committee says, and it recommends the Government firmly prioritise decarbonisation as the most effective, affordable, and sustainable response to climate change.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins, MP, said: “When the Antarctic Treaty System was established in 1959, competing claims to Antarctica were frozen. States agreed to cast aside their strategic interests and preserve the region for scientific research and sustainability. Right now, there is a real risk of that consensus disintegrating.

It is impossible to overstate how critical this region is to our shared future. We must work to dial down the temperature in Antarctica, both in regard to the geopolitical tensions between states and in ocean temperatures that drives ice melt and sea level rise, which affect us here in the UK too. The UK has played a crucial role in Antarctic marine protection, sustainable fisheries management, and research and science through its world class research institutes. In light of cuts to the UK’s international aid budget, the Government should commit to sustained funding for the Blue Belt Programme through the Official Development Assistance or other mechanisms, with an emphasis on science, monitoring and enforcement. The UK has also previously played a leading role in maintaining the Antarctic Treaty System and promoting climate science across the region. Now is the time to go further, by expanding joint scientific research efforts and working with our partners to make the case for consensus.”

 

06 Jun 25 . Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin to face questions from Defence Committee.

Evidence Session: Work of the Chief of the Defence Staff

Tuesday 10 June 2025, 15.00, Committee Room 15

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

Outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin will appear in front of the Defence Committee at 15.00 on Tuesday 10 June.

The session will be wide-ranging, covering Defence Reform, the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), recruitment and retention and the readiness of the Armed Forces.

Members are likely to question the Chief of the Defence Staff on the SDR’s proposals to transform the Armed Forces into an Integrated Force, and how the ambitions within the SDR can be achieved with the current spending envelope. The Committee may also discuss the SDR’s principle of “NATO first” and the impact this may have on other UK strategic priorities.

The treatment and experiences of personnel are likely to be discussed, including the unacceptable behaviours towards women and ethnic minority personnel.

15.00, Tuesday 10 June:

• Admiral Sir Tony Radakin – Chief of the Defence Staff at Ministry of Defence

 

29 May 25. How have shifts in geopolitics impacted the UK’s defence and security priorities in the Arctic and the High North? – MPs to investigate.                                                                                                    

Evidence Session: Defence in the High North

Tuesday 3 June 2025, 10.30, CR16 

Watch on parliamentlive.tv 

The Defence Committee will hold a one-off session to examine how the UK’s defence and security priorities in the Arctic and High North have evolved in response to the shifting geopolitical landscape. The session will be held at 10.30, on Tuesday 3 June.

Rising tensions between Russia and NATO and the impact of climate change have given the Arctic region greater geopolitical significance. In this one-off session, witnesses will be questioned on the current defence and security challenges in the region, including exploring Russia’s military intentions and the role of other states. Questions could explore how the effects of climate change may lead to increased economic activity in the region, and the security implications of this.

MPs may also seek to understand if the UK has adequate capabilities to operate in the Arctic, and what investments may be needed to meet any shortfalls. The UK’s work with allies in the region, including members of NATO and the Joint Expeditionary Force, may also be explored.

10.30, Tuesday 3 June:  

• Caroline Kennedy-Pipe – Professor of War Studies, Loughborough University
• Dr James Patton Rogers – Executive Director, Brooks Tech Policy Institute, Cornell University
• Brigadier Gen. (Retd) Robbie Boyd – Associate Fellow at Royal United Services Institute

 

House of Commons and House of Lords Hansard Written Answers

 

Germany: Guided Weapons

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative

South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the planned in-service date is for the deep precision strike weapon that will be developed with Germany.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 27 May 2025

The UK and Germany are considering several concepts and technologies to address emerging threats so far and have defined a joint range requirement of over 2000km.

 

Rifles: Costs

Question for Ministry of Defence

Mr Mark Francois

Conservative

Rayleigh and Wickford

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the total cost of the Royal Marines’ Knights Armament Stoner 1 (KS-1) rifle programme, including (a) optical and thermal sights and suppressors and (b) all associated equipment; and how much of this budget has been spent to date.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 27 May 2025

The Knight Stoner KS-1 has been procured by Royal Navy as part of the Future Commando Force Transformation. The total cost of this rifle to the Programme is £30.422 million, of which, £22.887 million has been spent to date.

 

Unmanned Marine Systems: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative

South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to procure the Lura-SG-1 artificial intelligence system.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 27 May 2025

The Royal Navy has begun industry engagement to understand how commercial systems could be used to conduct anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic.

 

Aircraft Carriers

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty

Conservative

Huntingdon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 15 May 2025 to Question 51569 on Aircraft Carriers, what factors his Department would consider on balancing funding decisions on aircraft launch and recovery equipment.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 27 May 2025

The Ministry of Defence considers numerous factors to ensure a balanced result when making procurement decisions. These include: operational capability enhancement and technical innovation offered by new equipment; alignment with national security and defence strategies; interoperability with allies; industrial benefits; lifecycle costs and affordability; procurement risk; environmental sustainability; and regulatory compliance. Decisions on future capabilities are subject to the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review which is considering how the UK will meet the challenges, threats and opportunity of the 21st century.

 

Nuclear Submarines: Safety

Question for Ministry of Defence

Dave Doogan

Scottish National Party

Angus and Perthshire Glens

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 8 May 2025 to Question 49938 on Nuclear Submarines: Safety, what the Category (a) A and (b) B Nuclear Site Event Reports recorded at (i) Coulport and (ii) Faslane were.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 27 May 2025

Nuclear Site Event Reports are raised to foster a robust safety culture that learns from experience, whether that is equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcoming or near-misses.

I cannot provide specific detail for the events as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of any relevant forces, I can assure the hon. Member that none of the events listed in Question 49938 caused harm to the health of any member of staff or to any member of the public and none have resulted in any radiological impact to the environment.

 

F-35 Aircraft

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty

Conservative

Huntingdon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Royal Navy’s Maritime Aviation Transformation Strategy has made a decision on the future of the F-35B Lightning fighter aircraft.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 23 May 2025

The F-35B Lightning will be at the forefront of the Nation’s conventional deterrent for decades to come. The Royal Navy’s Maritime Aviation Transformation Strategy is investigating how to further expand the deployment of uncrewed air systems in Royal Navy ships, including the aircraft carriers. Decisions on future capabilities are subject to the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which is looking at the threats we face and the capabilities we need to meet the challenges, threats and opportunity of the 21st century.

 

Unmanned Air Systems: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative

South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 8 May to Question 49007 on Unmanned Air Systems: Procurement, whether he has a target for procuring additional strike capabilities for the Queen Elizabeth class.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 23 May 2025

The Strategic Defence Review will inform any requirement for additional strike capabilities for the Queen Elizabeth Class. In the interim, the Royal Navy continues to investigate emerging technologies to understand how they can contribute to enhancing operational advantage.

Fixed Wing Autonomous Collaborative Platforms have the potential to enhance operational advantage, hence, will be evaluated in collaboration with the Royal Air Force.

 

Defence: Finance

Question for Ministry of Defence

Sarah Gibson

Liberal Democrat

Chippenham

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his Department’s timetable is for publishing (a) a full timeline and (b) funding pathway for achieving the target of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence; and what plans he has for infrastructure upgrades at bases in Wiltshire.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 23 May 2025

The pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence was set out in the Spring Statement earlier this year and will be reflected in the outcome of the second phase of the Spending Review that is due to be finalised on 11 June 2025. The Defence Housing Strategy, planned for publication later this year, will set out a roadmap to deliver a generational renewal of military accommodation. The main objective is to raise the minimum standard of Armed Forces housing across the MOD estate, including military housing in Wiltshire.

 

Dual Use Goods and Technologies: Israel

Question for Department for Business and Trade

Munira Wilson

Liberal Democrat

Twickenham

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps he is taking to restrict dual-use technology from being exported to Israel.

 

Answer

Mr Douglas Alexander

Labour

Lothian East

Commons

Answered on 23 May 2025

All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria. On 2 September we took decisive action, suspending certain licences for exports of items for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) that might be used in military operations in Gaza – whether such licences covered military or dual-use goods – and we continue to review licence applications on this basis.

 

Firearms: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty

Conservative

Huntingdon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has had recent discussions with Heckler & Koch to procure (a) MG5s and( b) HK421s.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 22 May 2025

The Secretary of State for Defence has not engaged Heckler and Koch on the potential procurement of their MG5 or HK421 machine guns.

 

Unmanned Marine Systems: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative

South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to procure any SG-1 Fathom underwater gliders.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 22 May 2025

The Royal Navy has begun industry engagement to understand how commercial systems could be used to conduct anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Any acquisition of these capabilities would be subject to outcomes of the Strategic Defence Review, funding and open competition.

 

Armed Forces: Uniforms

Question for Ministry of Defence

Mr Mark Francois

Conservative

Rayleigh and Wickford

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost is of the Crye Precision uniform programme; and whether a replacement combat uniform programme is planned.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 22 May 2025

The Royal Navy have spent £15.803 million to date regarding the total procurement of Crye Precision uniforms. A future uniform programme is in development.

 

Armed Forces: Communication

Question for Ministry of Defence

Mr Mark Francois

Conservative

Rayleigh and Wickford

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what budget has been allocated to Project Eve; what the (a) current and (b) anticipated future spend are for that project; and what steps he is taking to ensure interoperability with the (i) Army’s and (ii) Royal Navy’s communications systems.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 22 May 2025

As part of the Commando Force (CF) Programme, £99.78 million has been spent on spiral development and fielding of the EVE digital backbone capability. A further £56 million budget for EVE is approved as future spend, to enable interoperable development and scaling to Littoral Strike Group level by December 2030.

 

Defence: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Conservative

Solihull West and Shirley

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many defence contracts his Department has awarded since 5 July 2024; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the time taken for procurement on the defence industrial base.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 22 May 2025

Based on contracts created in the Ministry of Defence Commercial Contracting system there have been 1986 contracts created with a start date more recent than 5 July 2024. It is widely recognised that there are issues with the Department’s procurement system including that it is inefficient and creates uncertainty and barriers to entry for industry especially SMEs. The Defence Industrial Strategy will radically reform procurement to tackle these inefficiencies, cut waste, reduce red tape, and deliver maximum value for both our Armed Forces and our economy.

 

Ukraine: Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative

South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether Foxhound vehicles have been donated to Ukraine (a) before and (b) since 5 July 2024.

 

Answer

Luke Pollard

Labour

Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

Commons

Answered on 21 May 2025

Over 240 protected mobility vehicles have been donated to Ukraine since February 2022.

 

09 May 25. Defence Committee to examine UK commitments to NATO and the role of SMEs in UK defence industry.

Evidence Session: The UK Contribution to European Security 

Tuesday 13 May 2025, 10.30, CR5  

Watch on parliamentlive.tv  

The Defence Committee holds a further evidence session examining the contribution from UK Defence to European security, with a focus on the UK’s contribution to NATO and the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in increasing the UK’s defence industrial capacity. Committee Members will hear from expert witnesses, including those within industry. The session will take place at 10.30, on Tuesday 13 May.

Dr Rob Johnson will give evidence in the first panel, during which Members are likely to address the ability of the UK to fulfil its NATO commitments and the need for national resilience. Questions may also cover the degree of interoperability within NATO.  

In the second panel, the Committee will hear from witnesses from Defence SMEs about the role that SMEs play in contributing to the UK’s defence industrial capacity and national resilience. Questions are likely to explore the relationship between SMEs,  prime contractors, and the Ministry of Defence (MOD). Witnesses are likely to discuss the MOD’s SME Hub and their key asks of the MOD ahead of its Defence Industrial Strategy.  

10.30, Tuesday 13 May:  

• Dr Rob Johnson – Former Director of the Secretary of State’s Office of Net Assessment and Challenge (SONAC), Director of the Strategy, Statecraft, & Technology Research Centre, Pembroke College, University of Oxford

11.30: 

• Dr Alastair McGibbon – Head of Semiconductors, Space Forge Ltd
• Ken Turley – former CEO, RUK Advanced Systems Ltd

 

02 May 25. Defence Committee to hold session on Defence Space.                

Evidence Session: One-off session on Defence Space

Tuesday 6 May 2025, 11.30, CR16

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold an evidence session on Defence Space at 11.30 on Tuesday 6 May. In this one-off evidence session, the Committee will hear from experts and industry on the key issues in the space defence domain.

In the first panel, questions are likely to focus on the UK’s reliance on allies for access to Defence Space capabilities, including the US GPS system. The Committee may also discuss reports that Russia is developing a nuclear anti-satellite weapon.

The second panel will focus on the UK’s Defence Space industry. Questions are likely to cover the skills challenges within the UK space sector. Lessons from Ukraine, including the advantages and disadvantages of Government collaboration with commercial space companies, are likely to be discussed.

Committee Members may also explore the potential benefits of sovereign launch capabilities.

11.30, Tuesday 6 May:

• Gabriel Elefteriu – Deputy Director for Defence and Space, Council on Geostrategy
• Juliana Suess – Research Associate, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (virtual)

12.30:

• Doug Liddle – Chair, UKspace
• Toby Harris – Chair of the Space Domain Working Group, UKspace

 

04 Apr 25. Government response: Developing AI capacity and expertise in UK Defence. Government responds to Defence Committee report on Defence AI. The Defence Committee is today publishing the Government response to its report on Developing AI capacity and expertise in UK Defence. The Committee’s report – published on 10 January – concluded that the war in Ukraine shows that artificial intelligence (AI) is already delivering military advantage in conflict. The report calls for the Ministry of Defence to embrace the change AI is bringing to defence.

 

02 Apr 25. Inquiry launch: AUKUS – Defence Committee launches inquiry into AUKUS. Today the Defence Committee launches an inquiry into AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia.

AUKUS consists of two main pillars, facilitating cooperation between the countries on key defence capabilities.

Pillar 1 will see Australia acquire its first nuclear-powered submarines, with UK industry playing a key role in developing the new “SSN-AUKUS”. The Committee’s inquiry will ask whether this Pillar remains on track to deliver against the timelines and objectives set out in the 2023 Joint Leaders’ Statement on AUKUS. Pillar 2 facilitates broader cooperation on cutting-edge technological advancements, including artificial intelligence and quantum technologies: the Committee will look at whether there is sufficient clarity about how this pillar will be delivered.

The deadline for written evidence is 30 May 2025.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said:

“AUKUS is a vital partnership between the UK and two of our long-standing allies, the United States and Australia, bringing us even closer together in our defence cooperation. The Indo-Pacific is an area of key strategic importance and ensuring its safety and security is paramount. AUKUS has been underway for over three years now. Our inquiry, launching today, will examine whether the partnership is on track, and will consider the impact of geopolitical shifts since the initial agreement in 2021. The inquiry will examine the progress made against each of the two pillars, and ask how any challenges could be addressed.”

The Committee welcomes written evidence on the following:

• How far have changes in the geopolitical situation affected the assumptions which underpinned the partnership when it was announced in 2021? Do they present a threat to the success of AUKUS?
• Are Whitehall cross-departmental governance and accountability structures for AUKUS adequate? How could they be improved?
• Have amendments to export control regimes across the three countries achieved their aim of maximising collaboration and promoting innovation?

Pillar 1

• Is Pillar 1 on track to deliver against the timelines and objectives set out in the 2023 Joint Leaders’ Statement on AUKUS? In particular, what challenges exist in relation to the following areas, and how could they be addressed:

o Industrial capacity within the partner nations;

o Recruitment (including security vetting) and retention of suitably qualified and experienced personnel (both civilian and military) to build, maintain and operate the new submarines;

o Infrastructure development.

• What are the implications for UK defence – in terms of both benefit and risk – of the commitment to rotate an Astute-class submarine out of Australia from as early as 2027?

Pillar 2

• Is there sufficient clarity about the scope, funding, objectives, and delivery of Pillar 2?
• Is there adequate engagement between UK government and industry on Pillar 2?
• What are the opportunities and challenges involved in the potential expansion of Pillar 2 beyond the three partner nations?

27 Mar 25. House of Commons Select Committee Team. Landmark report from Defence Committee showcased in returning select committee podcast, Committee Corridor. Host Dame Meg Hillier MP also asks new MPs for their take on joining Parliament’s select committees. Hours before military chiefs from the Army, Navy and Air Force were due to update the Defence Committee on progress towards a landmark report last week, the Ministry of Defence announced fresh measures to target violence against women and girls to “tackle unacceptable behaviours in the military.” The Chief of the British Army later told MPs that he felt ‘angry’ and ‘ashamed’ of experiences reported by female soldiers. The changes included a new specialist tri-service team for taking serious complaints outside the single service chain of command – one of the few remaining recommendations from the Defence Committee’s 2021 report on Women in the Armed Forces that the Government did not immediately accept. It’s another example of how select committee reports continue to wrestle change in government policy. In this new episode of Committee Corridor, the podcast from select committees, Dame Meg Hillier MP takes the work of the Defence Committee to demonstrate the continuing impact of select committee work. To understand how the inquiry progressed through the last Parliament and hear their reaction to the latest developments, Meg Hillier speaks to Sarah Atherton who chaired the Defence Committee’s inquiry as a Conservative Member of Parliament for Wrexham and Emma Norton, Director of the Centre for Military Justice, who gave evidence. Emma continues to represent many service women who have experienced sexual assault and harassment. Current Defence Chair, Tan Dhesi MP joins the conversation to explain how the Committee is continuing to take the work forward. Later, Meg is joined by two recently elected Members of Parliament to hear their first impressions of joining select committees and hopes for work in this Parliament. Steff Aquarone, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk joined Transport while Natasha Irons, Labour MP for Croydon East joined the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. They chat about how work in committee rooms feels more like ‘real life’ outside Westminster. Plus, could ministers and leaders be scored for their transparency at select committee evidence sessions?  The Defence Committee’s 2021 report found that the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces were failing to protect female personnel and support Servicewomen to achieve their full potential. The Ministry of Defence took the unusual step of allowing serving personnel to contribute written evidence to the inquiry enabling female Servicewomen to share experiences from practical issues of uniform and kit to a lack of faith in the complaints process. There was distressing evidence of serious cases of bullying, harassment and discrimination and criminal acts of sexual assault and rape. Following the 2024 general election, the current Defence Committee will continue to hold the MOD to account for progress.  Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Treasury and Liaison Committees, hosts this episode and a second on the work of the Liaison Committee, before the podcast returns in May with five episodes on key environmental questions to be hosted by Toby Perkins MP, Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

 

21 Mar 25.   MOD Parliamentary Under-Secretary Luke Pollard to face questions on grey zone threats 

Evidence Session: Defence in the Grey Zone 

Tuesday 25 March 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 16  

Watch on parliamentlive.tv  

The Defence Committee will question Luke Pollard MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces at the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on grey zone threats, at 10.30 on Tuesday 25 March. Mr Pollard will appear alongside additional witnesses from the MOD. 

In terms of the importance of the Grey Zone, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff at the MOD, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan, told the Defence Committee in November 2024 that the upcoming Strategic Defence Review would focus on “four lenses” – NATO First; Global Responsibilities; Homeland Defence, and so-called hybrid grey zone activity.  

This session is likely to be the final evidence session in the Committee’s inquiry into Defence in the Grey Zone. The session is likely to cover the nature of hybrid threats facing the UK and the contribution of UK defence in countering these threats, and acting as a deterrent. Questions are likely to focus on the potential for a whole-of-Government approach to grey zone threats, and whether the UK can learn from countries such as The Netherlands, Estonia and Finland in terms of better preparing society to respond to these threats. 

10.30, Tuesday 25 March:  

• Luke Pollard MP – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence.
• Gareth Martin – Director Operational Policy, Ministry of Defence.
• Air Commodore Matt Bressani – Head Military Strategic Effects, Ministry of Defence.

 

House of Commons and House of Lords Hansard Written Answers

 

Air Force and Army: Recruitment

Question for Ministry of Defence

Nadia Whittome

Labour Nottingham East

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to help reduce the time it takes for (a) Army and (b) RAF applicants to complete the recruitment process.

Answer

Luke Pollard

Labour Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

This Government inherited a recruitment crisis, with targets being missed every year for the past 14 years and is taking decisive action to get recruitment back on track. This has included the largest pay rise to personnel in decades and scrapping 100 outdated policies that slow recruitment down. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to Question 34507 to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies).

 

MOD Ashchurch: Vehicles

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty

Conservative Huntingdon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what vehicles are held at MOD Ashchurch; and what their readiness state is.

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

MOD Ashchurch holds elements of the Army’s stored operational fleet and stored equipment (sustainment) fleet. These are comprised of many vehicle types and are held at varying readiness levels.

 

Multi-role Support Ships: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 17 March 2025 to Question 37236 on Fleet Solid Support Ships: Procurement, whether that answer should refer to Multi Role Support Ships.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

The answer given to the hon. Member is correct. The Multi Role Support Ship has been renamed the Multi Role Strike Ship (MRSS). MRSS will be a Royal Navy crewed warship with a combat system, self-defence and offensive capabilities. The amended name better reflects the platform’s function and does not indicate any change of requirement.

 

Defence: Space Technology

Question for Ministry of Defence

James Cartlidge

Conservative South Suffolk

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to increase UK sovereign capability in the defence space sector.

 

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

The Ministry of Defence is supporting the Government’s ambition to strengthen the UK’s space sector. Through major investments from Defence, including £1.5 billion over 10 years in Defence space technologies and £5 billion over a similar period in satellite communications through the SKYNET programme, we have supported the development of technology and economic growth opportunities for the sector. Initiatives like ISTARI, a satellite constellation for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, will boost operational independence using unique technology developed in the UK. Collaboration with industry, academia, and Government is ongoing to ensure the necessary infrastructure, skilled personnel, satellites, ground stations and operators are in place for sovereign capability.

 

Defence Equipment: Manufacturing Industries

Question for Ministry of Defence

Edward Morello

Liberal Democrat West Dorset

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has conducted a feasibility study on increasing domestic production of critical weapon systems.

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour

Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

The Strategic Defence Review will determine the roles and capabilities required by UK Defence to meet the challenges and threats of the twenty-first century. The Prime Minister’s February announcement that spending on defence will increase to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027 reflects ongoing global instability.

This increased spending will sustain the UK’s globally competitive defence industry, supporting highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships across the whole of the UK. The Defence Industrial Strategy will also review consideration of the sovereign capability and capacity required in the UK.

An example of early action against our security and economic priorities is the £1.6 billion deal to supply thousands of advanced air defence missiles to Ukraine. The deal will support 700 existing jobs at Thales in Belfast, will see production of lightweight-multirole missiles at Thales’s factory treble and will also benefit companies in the Thales Supply Chain across the UK.

 

Armed Forces: Defence Equipment

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ian Roome Liberal Democrat North Devon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that equipment used by the armed forces is interoperable with that of NATO allies.

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

The Ministry of Defence takes a number of steps to ensure our equipment is interoperable with NATO allies. These include leading on the development, ratification, and implementation of NATO standards; participation in joint exercises and training such as Formidable Shield; and promoting and encouraging allies to jointly procure and integrate capabilities, including through the UK-led NATO Multinational Procurement Initiatives and DIAMOND. We are also working with allies and industry to ensure the implementation of NATO’s Defence Production Action Plan, which places strong emphasis on the need to ensure the interoperability of existing and future military capabilities.

 

F-35 Aircraft: Procurement

Question for Ministry of Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty Conservative

Huntingdon

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to purchase the second tranche of F-35B jets.

Answer

Maria Eagle

Labour Liverpool Garston

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

To provide the UK with the most relevant and capable Combat Aircraft force, the Ministry of Defence continually reviews the expected threat and the ability of our forces to counter it. Any further purchases would be set out in the usual way.

 

Defence: Satellites

Question for Ministry of Defence

Damien Egan

Labour Bristol North East

Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has made an assessment of potential domestic alternatives for future launches of UK Space Command satellites, in the context of the launch of the Tyche satellite.

 

Answer

Luke Pollard

Labour Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

Commons

Answered on 20 March 2025

The Government is developing the UK’s emerging space launch industry, aiming to become a European leader in commercial small satellite launches. This effort involves approximately £111 million being invested in the UK’s launch capabilities, including a recent £20 million investment to enable UK rocket manufacturer Orbex to complete construction of their launch vehicle Prime. Defence supports the UK’s launch ambitions, working with the UK Space Agency to help develop a thriving UK spaceflight sector and with our international partners to assist their launch requirements. This includes involvement in the early development of NATO’s STARLIFT programme to enhance space launch capabilities within the alliance, ensuring readiness for future launch needs.

 

07 Mar 25. International Women’s Day: Defence Committee to hold women in the Armed Forces session. The Defence Committee will hold a session this month following up on the previous Committee’s work on women in the Armed Forces. Details of the session will be announced shortly. In July 2021 the predecessor Committee published a report “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”. The report found that the Ministry of Defence and Armed Services were failing to protect female personnel and support servicewomen to achieve their full potential.  The Government response to the report agreed to the majority of the Committee’s recommendations.  In this Parliament, the Defence Committee agreed to continue follow-up work on women in the Armed Forces.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “It is absolutely critical that we continue to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the experiences of women in the Armed Forces.  We felt it was only right that we picked up this work from the previous Parliament. The Government agreed to the majority of the recommendations made by the predecessor Committee – this session will help us understand whether enough work is being carried out to improve women’s treatment and their experiences of service.  Recent high-profile cases and reporting have shone a light on just how extreme the challenges that women face while serving are. Gunner Jaysley Beck’s shocking case is just one example of the unacceptable treatment faced by women who have served in the Armed Forces, and which the Government should be making every effort to eradicate.  Women make vital contributions to the safety and security of our country, and I am committed to returning to this policy area throughout the Committee’s work”

 

07 Mar 25. Minister for Veterans and People to face questions on the Armed Forces Covenant.

Evidence Session: Armed Forces Covenant

Tuesday 11 March 2025, 13.00, Committee Room 15

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold the final evidence session of its inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant at 13.00 on Tuesday 11 March.

MPs will question the Minister for Veterans and People, Alistair Carns MP, as well as Ministry of Defence officials. The session will be an opportunity to learn more about the Government’s plan to legislate the Armed Forces Covenant ‘fully into law’. The Ministry of Defence has suggested that the legal duty to give due regard to the Covenant will be extended to central government departments.

In a Committee evidence session, Mark Atkinson, Director General of the Royal British Legion, told the Committee that there is inconsistent support across different parts of country for the Armed Forces community.  Members will explore with the Minister how the Government plans to make the Covenant more consistently applied across the UK.

Witnesses:?

* Alistair Carns DSO OBE MC MP – Minister for Veterans and People, Ministry of Defence

* Vice Admiral Phillip Halley – Chief of Defence People, Ministry of Defence

* Sarah Houghton – Director of Armed Forces People Policy, Ministry of Defence

* James Greenrod – Head of Armed Forces People Support, Ministry of Defence

 

03 Mar 25. Government response: Service Accommodation. Government accepts majority of Committee’s recommendations on improving Service Accommodation. The Defence Committee today publishes the Government response to its report on Service Accommodation, in which the Government accepts the majority of the Committee’s recommendations for improving the quality of accommodation available to Service Personnel. The Committee’s report described Service Accommodation as “shocking” and found that problems with damp and mould persist. The Committee’s report was critical of the Ministry of Defence’s communication with Service families, concluding that Service families’ trust has been damaged and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and service providers need to demonstrate a genuine “family first” approach to earn that trust back.  The report also found that Single Living Accommodation often does not meet the needs and expectations of today’s recruits, which has had an adverse effect on recruitment and retention.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of decent Service Accommodation and has agreed to the majority of the recommendations in our report.  Service Accommodation has been in a dire state for too long – our Forces should not be made to live in sub-standard conditions. In their response, the Ministry of Defence has committed to holding the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to account and driving up standards.

The MOD has also pledged to invest in Single Living Accommodation that fails to meet the minimum standard, and has acknowledged problems in its communication around the allocation of Service Family Accommodation. Work to deliver a new military housing strategy, a stock condition survey and a new complaint process for Service Family Accommodation are all encouraging signs that the Ministry of Defence is responding to the concerns raised in our inquiry.

“If this Government is to truly root out the problems blighting Service Accommodation it will require a long-term commitment. The Committee will continue to monitor developments in this area and ensure that Personnel are given the housing they deserve.”

 

28 Feb 25. European security inquiry: Defence Cttee focuses on challenges facing the UK’s industrial base 

Evidence Session: The UK’s contribution to European security 

Tuesday 4 March 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 16  

Watch on parliamentlive.tv   

The Defence Committee will hold an evidence session on the UK’s contribution to European security at 10.30, on Tuesday 4 March. The Committee will speak to industry experts from ADS Group, Make UK Defence and techUK.  

The session will focus on the UK defence industrial base and the challenges it faces, including to the resilience and security of its supply chain. Members are likely to discuss the role of the industrial base in deterrence, how the UK compares to its Allies and partners in terms of the scale and breadth of its defence industry, and whether there are any national models the UK could learn from. 

The session is likely to explore the role that NATO and the EU play in the European defence industrial base and how the UK can best engage with the EU to ensure that Europe is able to deter threats and defend itself from attack. 

 10.30, Tuesday 4 March: 

• Kevin Craven – Chief Executive, ADS
• Andrew Kinniburgh – Director-General, Make UK Defence
• Julian David OBE – CEO, techUK

 

25 Feb 25. Chair comment: Defence and Security Statement. Defence Committee reacts to the Prime Minister’s statement on defence. The Defence Committee has reacted to the Prime Minister’s statement on defence. Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “This is a dangerous moment for the UK’s defence and security – a moment where we must come together as a nation. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today committing to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027, with the ambition that it will rise to 3%. We must be clear-eyed about the threats we face. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an attack on peace, prosperity and the democratic principles that underpin our way of life. We must also consider the wider challenges to our security which will require both policy and action. It is now evident that Europe must play a greater role in the defence of Ukraine and in guaranteeing the future security of our continent, and the UK Government must demonstrate leadership. Today’s commitment to increasing spending is an important, and very welcome, first step. But this isn’t just a matter of how much we spend, but how well we spend it. Over the coming months and years, the Defence Committee will scrutinise this commitment, and continue to ask difficult questions of this Government.”

 

20 Feb 25. Members to hear from veterans’ commissioners, NHS and local government associations on the Armed Forces Covenant  

Evidence Session: Armed Forces Covenant

Tuesday 25 February 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 15

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold an evidence session on the Armed Forces Covenant at 10.30 on Tuesday 25 February. The session will explore the implementation of the Covenant, asking whether the Covenant is delivering for Service personnel and veterans.

In the first panel, the Committee will hear from veterans’ commissioners to discuss the implementation of the Covenant in the Devolved Administrations. It is likely that questions will cover the experiences of veterans when accessing housing and healthcare, and variations in how the Covenant is applied in different parts of the UK.

In the second panel, the Committee will hear from some of the organisations responsible for delivering the existing Covenant Legal Duty in the areas of healthcare, housing and education. Members are likely to ask about how well health, housing and education services understand the different needs of Service personnel and their families, and whether the Covenant should be extended to cover other services such as welfare and social care.

10.30, Tuesday 25 February:

• Lt Cdr (Retd) Susie Hamilton – Scottish Veterans Commissioner [virtual]
• David Johnstone – Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner [virtual]
• Col. James Phillips – Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales

11.30:

• Cllr Lis Burnett – Presiding Member, Welsh Local Government Association [virtual]
• Mike Callaghan – Policy Manager, Communities Team, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
• Kate Davies – Director, Health and Justice, Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Services Commissioning, NHS England
• Cllr David Fothergill – Chair, Community Wellbeing Board, Local Government Association

 

13 Feb 25. Chair statement: War in Ukraine. Defence Committee responds to recent statements on the war in Ukraine . The Defence Committee has issued a response to recent statements on the war in Ukraine. Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “I come fresh from a Defence Committee visit to our close allies Estonia and Finland, both of which border Russia, on the front line of Europe’s security and our security.  It is clear from last night’s statements from the US that Europe will now have to play a greater role in the defence of Ukraine and in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security. We count on the UK Government to show leadership in this. If we don’t support Ukraine, Russia will be emboldened.”

31 Jan 25. Charities and Forces Families Federations to give evidence on the Armed Forces Covenant.                              

Evidence Session: The Armed Forces Covenant

Tuesday 4 February 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 16

Watch on parliamentlive.tv

At 10.30 on Tuesday 4 February, the Defence Committee will hold its first evidence session of its inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant.

The inquiry examines the UK’s commitment to ensuring that members of the Armed Forces community are supported and treated fairly.

The session will explore how well the Covenant is working from the perspective of the groups who represent and support Service Personnel, and examine some of the issues reported with its implementation, such as a lack of awareness of the Covenant and inconsistent implementation across different parts of the UK.

The Committee will also ask participants to recommend ways the Covenant could be improved. The Government has announced plans to legislate to put the Covenant ‘fully into law’, and the inquiry’s findings will help to inform that process.

In the first panel, MPs will hear from Armed Forces charities, including the Director General at The Royal British Legion, Mark Atkinson. In the second panel, the Committee will hear from representatives of the Army, Navy and RAF Families Federations.

10.30, Tuesday 4 February 2025:

• Mark Atkinson – Director General, Royal British Legion
• Lt Gen. Sir Nick Pope – Chair, Confederation of British Serving and Ex-Service Organisations (Cobseo)

11.30:

• Rebecca Lovell – Head of Policy, Naval Families Federation
• Collette Musgrave – Chief Executive, Army Families Federation
• Vanessa Plumley – Acting Director, RAF Families Federation

 

31 Jan 25. Chair Correspondence: Defence Equipment Plan. Defence and Public Accounts Committees express “deep frustration” at lack of Defence Equipment Plan. Historically, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has published an annual Equipment Plan, where it sets out its spending plans on equipment procurement and support projects over the next decade to keep the nation secure. For the last two years, this plan has not been produced.  Today, the Chairs of the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee write to David Williams CB, Permanent Secretary of the MOD, expressing deep frustration at this unacceptable loss of transparency. The letter states that “we do not accept that any of the different reasons you and the Minister have given justify the loss of transparency involved in not producing an Equipment Plan for two successive years”.  The two Chairs note that in November the Secretary of State for Defence told the Defence Committee “I want to increase the transparency that we are able to provide to Parliament and this Committee in doing your proper job, and I want to increase the information that is provided”.  The letter calls on the Permanent Secretary to confirm as soon as possible that the National Audit Office will be provided with the required information to allow it to produce its own Equipment Plan.

 

28 Jan 25. Science, Innovation and Technology Committee Chair comments on evidence session. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee this morning held a one-off evidence session with the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean.

She appeared alongside Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers of the top three R&D spending departments – Science, Innovation and Technology; Defence; and Health and Social Care.

Speaking after the session, the Chair of the Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, said:  “The committee were delighted to hear that the UK is a science superpower, but we also heard concerns that key technologies might not be receiving the investment needed for us to maintain our superpower status. From what we heard during today’s evidence session, it is clear that we cannot secure our future without appropriate UK infrastructure and people trained in priority areas of science and tech. For example, were told that most master’s degree students studying radar at UK universities are Chinese nationals. We must train people who will be able to work in our military and security services. We need to take infrastructure seriously. Without investing in high containment labs, quantum computing capacity, and skills in sectors such as engineering biology and chemical biology, we could lose our hard-won status. The Committee were also very taken by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s call for the national data library to be a ‘data larder,’ making public sector datasets more usable.”

The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and associated bodies. It also exists to ensure that government policies and decision making across departments are based on solid scientific evidence and advice.

Chi Onwurah (MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) is Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Full membership of the Committee is available on the Committee’s website.

24 Jan 25. Chatham House and RUSI experts to give evidence on the threats facing Europe and the UK.

Evidence Session: UK contribution to European Security

Tuesday 28 January 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 6

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

At 10.30 on Tuesday 28 January, the Defence Committee will hold its first evidence session in its inquiry into the UK contribution to European security.

The Committee will hear from expert witnesses from Chatham House and the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in a session focused on the threats facing Europe and the UK and the key capability gaps.

The session will explore the UK’s role in European security and the UK’s multilateral and bilateral relationships in Europe.

Committee Members are likely to ask questions on the UK’s current and potential future cooperation on defence and security matters with European governments and the European Commission. The session is likely to also cover the role of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), and its relationship with NATO.

10.30, Tuesday 28 January 2025:

• Armida Van Rij – Senior Research Fellow & Head of Europe Programme, Chatham House
• Ed Arnold – Senior Research Fellow for European Security, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

 

 

24 Jan 25. How vulnerable is the UK to undersea cable attacks? MPs and Lords will examine threats to undersea cables in a new inquiry launched today by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS). Undersea fibre-optic cables are the ‘backbone’ of the world’s internet system, underpinning global commerce and communications. Over 500 cables carry around 95% of all international data, with demand set to increase in coming years. These cables are often long and remote, making them difficult and costly to monitor. They are vulnerable to natural events, accidental damage by vessels or deliberate sabotage. Around 60 cables connect the UK to the outside world. This provides reasonable resilience if one is damaged—but the impact of simultaneous damage to multiple cables would be significant, particularly during periods of heightened tension or conflict. On-shore cable landing stations may also be targeted. Although the Government has taken steps to improve maritime security in recent years, concern is growing about both the capability and intent of hostile states. Defence Secretary John Healey told MPs last week that the UK was monitoring Russian spy ship Yantar, which he said was mapping critical underwater infrastructure. A number of cables in northern European waters – including those providing links between Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and the Shetland Islands – have been severed over the past few years. Over 50 Russian vessels have been observed around areas of high cable density in the Baltic Sea. Further afield, concerns have been raised about Chinese sabotage—particularly around Taiwan. The inquiry will explore the UK’s ability to defend our subsea infrastructure, and how this might change in the coming years as technology develops. The inquiry will look at UK strategy, engagement with allies and partners, options for improving deterrence and redress, and the adequacy of cross-Government co-ordination. It will also examine the UK’s resilience in the event of major disruption to internet infrastructure.

Full terms of reference are available on the Committee’s website. Submissions can be made via the Committee’s website until 11.59pm on 6 March.

Matt Western MP, Chair of the JCNSS, said: “Our internet relies on undersea cables: around 99% of our data goes through them, connecting the UK to the outside world. As the geopolitical environment worsens, foreign states are seeking asymmetric ways to hold us at risk. Our internet cable network looks like an increasingly vulnerable soft underbelly. There is no need for panic—we have a good degree of resilience, and awareness of the challenge is growing. But we must be clear-eyed about the risks and consequences: an attack of this nature would hit us hard. Our inquiry will look at what’s needed to defend our subsea cables, and consider the UK’s national resilience should our internet face major disruption”.

 

22 Jan 25. Chair Correspondence: Harland & Wolff. Defence Committee seeks clarity on Harland & Wolff administration announcement. The Defence Committee is today (Wednesday 22 January) publishing a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon. John Healey, regarding Harland & Wolff’s announcement that it intends to file for administration.  The letter asks the Ministry of Defence to clarify what the decision will mean for Harland & Wolff’s ongoing projects, and how it relates to the sale of the company to Navantia UK, announced in December last year. The Committee notes that when the deal was announced to the House no mention was made that the company would enter administration as part of the sale process.  The letter also asks the Government what impact the company’s announcement will have on the Fleet Solid Support Ship programme and other shipbuilding projects, and how Harland & Wolff’s suppliers will be affected.

 

21 Jan 25. UK union urges additional Eurofighter buy. The trade union that represents manufacturing workers across the United Kingdom has urged the country’s government to place a follow-on order of Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft to help secure jobs within the defence aviation sector. The House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) noted in its The Global Combat Air Programme report published on 14 January that the Unite union had written it in late 2024, calling on the government to buy more aircraft to safeguard jobs at BAE Systems’ Warton production facility in northern England.

“Union representatives at [Warton] wrote to us in November 2024 to warn that ‘there are currently no Typhoons being final assembled at [the] Warton site and no orders for any future aircraft, essentially production has stopped for British built Typhoon aircraft.’ They called for the UK government to place a further order for 24 aircraft, arguing that this would fulfil a military requirement, maintain industrial capacity, and also encourage export orders from other nations,” the HCDC said.

In making its call to the HCDC, Unite is trying to bring the UK into line with the other three Eurofighter partner countries of Germany, Italy, and Spain, who have each ordered additional Eurofighters over recent years, months, and weeks. (Source: Janes)

17 Jan 25. Former MI6 Chief Sir Alex Younger to discuss grey zone threats. 

Evidence Session: Defence in the Grey Zone

Tuesday 21 January 2025, 10.30, Committee Room 16

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

Former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Alex Younger, will give evidence to the Defence Committee in a session starting at 10.30 on Tuesday 21 January.

Dr Margriet Drent, Policy Advisor for the Counter Hybrid Unit at the Ministry of Defence of The Netherlands, will also give evidence.

The Committee will examine the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD’s) contribution towards combatting grey zone threats – threats that fall below the perceived threshold for military action – such as sabotaging undersea cables.

For the first part of the session, the Committee will hear from Dr Drent, focusing on The Netherlands’ efforts to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to grey zone threats. Questions are likely to cover the role of deterrence and the Reserve Forces.

Sir Alex Younger will give evidence in the second part of the session. Sir Alex Younger spent three decades as a career intelligence officer in MI6, including six years as Chief of the agency. He has also served as Director of Counter Terrorism, from 2009 to 2012. This part of the session is likely to cover the nature and origins of the threats that the UK faces. Committee Members may examine the strengths and weakness of liberal democracies when it comes to countering grey zone threats.

10.30, Tuesday 21 January:

• Dr Margriet Drent – Policy Advisor for the Counter Hybrid Unit at the Ministry of Defence of The Netherlands

Approx. 11.30:

• Sir Alex Younger – Ex-Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, 2014-2020

 

19 Jan 25. Public to question MPs on the use of evidence in Parliament at ‘reverse’ Select Committee hearing.

In a unique development at the opening of Evidence Week in Parliament on Monday 20th January, the chairs of nine parliamentary Select Committees will take the witness seat to be questioned by voters about the evidence behind legislation.

• How are renewable energy options compared?
• What assessments have been done on the impact of rural transport cuts on access to medicine?
• Do MPs calculate trade-offs between conservation and energy efficient homes?
• Is Parliament tracking post-covid attendance in schools?
• What evidence supports the Government’s statement that Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims will double in 4 years?
• What is the evidence behind different parental leave entitlements?
• What evidence will Parliament demand from water companies?
• Is prisons policy based on more evidence or on values?

These and other questions have been drawn from constituencies across the UK by the charity Sense about Science and by community groups including MumsNet, MoneySavingExpert and Shout Out UK. The exchanges will be livestreamed [1] to kick off this year’s Evidence Week in Parliament, organised by Sense about Science, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries.

While the rest of the week brings cutting edge science briefings and training to Westminster, Tracey Brown, director of Sense about Science points out:

“MPs care about what the public cares about – and the public cares a lot more about sound reasoning and evidence than is often portrayed. People want policies that add up, and they want their MPs to be interrogating that, so get to set that out at the opening event next week.”

A 2024 survey by Sense about Science and Ipsos [2] found that:

• The public are not confident that MPs are equipped to question the government about evidence on polices, including the use of AI (66% not very or not at all confident), Climate change (64%), Healthcare (61%), Energy policy (59%) and the economy (58%).
• 74% think it is important the government shows the public all the evidence used to make important policy decisions (up from 66% in 2023 and 61% in 2022).
• Most people think politicians pay too little attention to evidence (62%, up from 51% in 2023 and 53% in 2022).

Chi Onwurah MP, Chair of the Commons’ Science Innovation and Technology Committee, who will take the hot seat in front of public questioners in the Wilson Room, described Evidence Week as an “invaluable opportunity’” In full:

“Scientific evidence forms the base of all sound legislation and scrutiny. Robust evidence and analysis are vital to effectively tackle the biggest challenges our country faces, whether it’s economic growth, climate change or making our NHS fit for the future.

“This is why Evidence Week is such an invaluable opportunity – it brings together parliamentarians, researchers and the public to discuss and understand the evidence behind important policy issues. MPs need to have the skills, knowledge and confidence to effectively scrutinise the Government’s policies, hold it to account, and ensure it delivers on its goals.”

Rhiannon Evans, Head of Communications at Mumsnet, said:

“We’re delighted to be taking part in Evidence Week. Our nine m Mumsnet users are highly engaged with politics, and we see conversations on our forums every day where Mumsnetters scrutinise the evidence (or lack of!) behind the policy decisions that affect their lives. We’re looking forward to putting some of those questions to decision makers directly”.

Katie Watts, Head of Campaigns and Policy at MoneySavingExpert, said:

“When it comes to the pound in your pocket, consumers want reassurance that government decisions truly consider the reality of their lives. This event is a great opportunity to highlight that people really value transparent policymaking: knowing what evidence has been used to make decisions and to assess the impact on their finances, consumer rights and quality of life. I really welcome the willingness of the committee members to open a window to members of the public and answer their questions on how they look for and use evidence in their work.”

Voters will question the following Select Committees: Chi Onwurah MP (Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee), Bill Esterson MP (Chair, Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee), Toby Perkins MP (Chair, Environmental Audit Select Committee), Layla Moran MP (Chair, Health and Social Care Select Committee), Helen Hayes MP (Chair, Education Select Committee), Lord Foster (Chair, Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee), Debbie Abrahams MP (Chair, Work and Pensions Select Committee), Yuan Yang MP (Treasury Select Committee) and Lord Moylan (Chair, Built Environment Select Committee).

Proceedings will open with the public panel of questioners being advised by national experts, including Sir Ian Diamond, the National Statistician, Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, CEO of UKRI and Grant Hill-Cawthorne, the House of Commons Librarian, on how information is provided to government and parliament.

Prof Grant Hill-Cawthorne, House of Commons Librarian and Managing Director of Research and Information, said:

“Evidence Week is a brilliant opportunity for researchers, parliamentarians and the public to come together to highlight the importance of high-quality evidence in the work we all do.

“Access to robust, trustworthy and politically impartial evidence, information and analysis is essential to the work carried out by parliamentarians every day. In a world of fast-developing artificial intelligence and disinformation, high quality, impartial evidence is crucial for policymakers and underpins the services provided by the parliamentary libraries.”

Lucas Scott-Harston, Head of Opportunities, Monitoring & Evaluation (OME) at Shout Out UK, said:

“SOUK is delighted to participate in the Sense about Science Evidence Week, which brings together the public, researchers and parliamentarians to discuss how evidence is used and scrutinised at Westminster. As an organisation whose mission is to protect and amplify democracy through political and media literacy, we firmly believe in the importance of this campaign.”

“Public scrutiny and a transparent legislative process are both crucial elements of a healthy democratic system. At SOUK we have worked tirelessly since 2015 to ensure all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic background, ethnicity, or gender can improve their political and media literacy levels, empowering them to become democratically engaged and informed citizens. We strongly support the Sense about Science Evidence Week campaign, which aligns with this mission and ethos.”

Professor Mary Ryan FREng CBE, Vice-Provost for Research and Enterprise at Imperial College London, said:

“I am delighted that Evidence Week is back for another year and will be showcasing some of the vital and exciting work that Imperial College London is doing to tackle the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

Every year, Evidence Week plays a critical role in keeping MPs and policymakers informed about the latest developments on pressing policy issues and highlighting the important role that science and scientists play in generating the evidence needed to inform effective decision-making.”

 

13 Jan 25. Report: The Global Combat Air Programme. Defence Committee: GCAP timescale is ambitious and Gov’t must keep pace.

The Defence Committee has today (14 January) published a report on the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), welcoming the programme’s progress but cautioning the need to stay on track to meet the in-service target date of 2035.

The Global Combat Air Programme is an international partnership between the UK, Japan and Italy which will design, manufacture, and deliver a next-generation crewed combat aircraft.

Controlling costs and multi-year funding

With increasing pressure on the defence budget, the report calls for Government and industry to keep tight control of the costs of GCAP. It calls on Government to consider a multi-year funding arrangement to put the programme on a secure footing and provide international partners with confidence in the UK’s ongoing commitment.

Additionally, there must be transparency around the programme’s budget, and information on costs should be made available to Parliament and the public as GCAP proceeds.

Retaining a skilled workforce

The defence industry is facing fierce competition from other sectors for skilled workers. While GCAP is a welcome opportunity to attract new talent into the UK’s combat air industry, the focus cannot just be on the recruitment of new apprentices into industry primes.

Today’s report calls for a holistic approach to recruitment and retention that ensures that the existing Typhoon manufacturing workforce is transitioned onto GCAP. This will be a challenge, given dwindling production of Typhoon in the UK and the gap until full-scale production of Tempest is underway.

The report calls the failure to capitalise on the success of the Hawk trainer aircraft remarkably short-sighted and deeply regrettable.

Maintaining pace to meet an ambitious timescale

The report describes GCAP’s timescale as ambitious. It underscores the need for delivery structures at governmental and industrial levels to be sufficiently empowered to take timely and binding decisions as the programme progresses.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “GCAP is an exciting opportunity to make the fighter jet of the future. The world is an increasingly volatile and dangerous place and new air power capabilities – such as those promised by GCAP – will be essential if we are to meet the challenges ahead. While today’s report welcomes GCAP, it also cautions that the MOD must have a firm grip on the programme. All too often multilateral defence programmes are beset with soaring costs and mounting delays. GCAP must break the mould.  GCAP’s timescales are ambitious – we have a window of opportunity now, at this early stage, to make choices that set the programme on the right track. If we are to maintain pace and meet the 2035 target, the programme must be structured to enable the right people to make timely and binding decisions.  History shows us that costs can easily spiral, but pressures on the UK’s defence budget mean there is no margin for mismanagement.

“The MOD should take a holistic approach to recruitment and skills. While we should seek out and nurture budding talent, the UK already has a workforce with a wealth of experience and expertise. The MOD should work with those skilled workers, including those currently working on Typhoon, to bring them onto GCAP. The UK’s proud history in combat air manufacturing is rooted in its workforce: it’s people that will be key to the success of GCAP, and the MOD must ensure that they are prioritised.”

 

10 Jan 25.  Service Complaints Ombudsman to be questioned by the Defence Committee. Evidence Session: One-off session on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces

Tuesday 14 January 2025, 10.30, The Grimond Room

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold an evidence session with the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF), Mariette Hughes, at 10.30 on Tuesday 14 January.

This session takes place as legislation passes through Parliament seeking to replace the role of SCOAF with an Armed Forces Commissioner. Members are likely to ask for Ms Hughes’ views on the proposed role and the transition period.

The Armed Forces Covenant is likely to be discussed, covering the implications of the Government’s plans to bring the Covenant ‘fully into law’, and asking where the Covenant could be improved. The Committee has recently launched an inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant.

Questions are likely to also cover the Ombudsman’s 2023 annual report, examining the breakdown of complaints, including the overrepresentation of female Service Personnel, the under-representation of Reservists and the timeliness of the Services in investigating complaints.

10.30, Tuesday 14 January:

• Mariette Hughes – Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces

 

13 Dec 24. MPs to quiz MOD’s Permanent Secretary on spending.  

Evidence Session: One-off session on MOD Annual Report & Accounts 2023-24.

Tuesday 17 December 2024, 10.30, Wilson Room

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

The Defence Committee will hold a one-off evidence session on the administration and expenditure of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), at 10.30, on Tuesday 17 December.

MPs will hear from MOD officials, including the Permanent Secretary, David Williams. The session is likely to examine the MOD’s defence budget, capability, and personnel.

The session will draw upon the MOD’s most recently published annual report and accounts. The report, published in July of this year, covers the Department’s financial position and performance under the previous government.

The Committee is likely to discuss the impact of the conflict in Ukraine on the UK’s defence capabilities, in particular how the Department plans to replenish the £2.7 billion of military equipment the UK has provided for Ukraine. Questions are also likely to cover the estimated 10% cuts to the MOD’s civilian workforce.

10.30, Tuesday 17 December:

• David Williams – Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence
• Andy Start – Chief Executive Officer and National Armaments Director, Defence Equipment & Support
• Sir Rob Magowan – Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability), Ministry of Defence
• Aneen Blackmore – Director General Finance, Ministry of Defence

 

 

13 Dec 24.  Inquiry Launch: Armed Forces Covenant. Defence Committee launches inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant.

Today the Defence Committee launches an inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant.

The Armed Forces Covenant is a statement of the moral obligation which exists between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces – its core principles were enshrined in law by the Armed Forces Act 2011.

According to the Covenant, the Government, working with the chain of command, has a particular responsibility of care towards members of the Armed Forces, including a responsibility to maintain an organisation that treats every individual fairly, with dignity and respect, and an environment which is free from bullying, harassment and discrimination. The Covenant also states the importance of supporting the transition from Service to civilian life.

This inquiry will examine how well the Covenant is serving the Armed Forces community, where it is failing them and why. It will examine how the scope of the Covenant might be extended. The Government has indicated that changes to the Covenant could be introduced as part of the Armed Forces Bill in the next Parliamentary session, and the inquiry will be an opportunity to influence this legislation.

The Committee has written to the Secretary of State to request that Serving personnel be allowed to submit evidence to this inquiry based on their personal experiences. The Committee will issue an update to this notice once a reply to this request has been received.

The deadline for written evidence submissions is Friday 24 January 2025.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said:  “Service personnel and their families make immense sacrifices for our nation’s defence. Their bravery and dedication keep us safe. It is only right that we respect them for this. The Armed Forces Covenant Act is an expression of Government’s commitment to treat each member of the Armed Forces with fairness, dignity and respect. But these can’t just be words on a page, and this inquiry will investigate whether the Covenant is working as intended and making a genuine positive difference to the experiences of the Armed Forces community, both within the Forces and in wider society.  This inquiry will examine where the Covenant is failing personnel and why, and how the Covenant might be extended and strengthened. We want the evidence we receive during this inquiry to be powerful and influential when the Government asks Parliament to legislate on the Covenant next year.”

The Committee welcomes written evidence on:

• In what areas is the Armed Forces Covenant working well?
• Where is the Armed Forces Covenant failing the Armed Forces Community?

o What are the main causes for these failings?

• Are there areas which the Armed Forces Covenant ought to be extended to, and why?

o If so, which are the priority areas?

• What legislative changes should be made and why?
• What impact would the extension of the Armed Forces Covenant legal duty to central government and devolved administrations have?

 

12 Dec 24. Business and Trade Committee House of Commons.

BTC Chair: Ministers have many questions still to answer on UK position on arms exports to Israel.

Liam Byrne has written to DBT and Foreign Office ministers following evidence in Parliament.

Following evidence in Parliament on Tuesday 10 December on arms exports to Israel the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP, has written to Minister for Trade Policy Douglas Alexander and Foreign Office Minister Steven Doughty “to pursue further information about your rationale for permitting exports of F-35 components in apparent conflict with UK obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty”.

The letter has been copied to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney General, whose statements on compliance with international treaty obligations are cited in the letter.

The evidence session, which featured guest Members from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Development committees, was cut short by votes in Parliament as the Committee was exploring the compatibility of the UK government decision not to suspend export licences for F35 parts (except those destined directly to Israel) with its obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

As the session concluded, the Chair expressed that he was “not convinced” by the explanation of the ministers appearing before the Committee, noting that they had been “saved by the bell” and that he would follow up in writing. The Committee will keep open the possibility of recalling the ministers for further questions.

On Monday 16 December there will also be a debate in Westminster Hall on UK arms exports to Israel.

 

09 Dec 24. Accommodation for Service personnel and families is “shocking”: Government needs to act. A Defence Committee report published today (11 December) finds that accommodation for Service personnel and their families is “shocking”, with two-thirds of Service Family Accommodation (SFA) needing major work to meet modern standards, and families facing uncertainty over allocation of accommodation.

Issues with damp and mould persist and the report calls on the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – the organisation responsible for maintaining and servicing accommodation – to do more to resolve outstanding problems with damp and mould across the Defence estate and provide the Committee with a timeline for full remediation.

Service families’ trust has been damaged and the DIO and service providers need to demonstrate a genuine “family first” approach to earn that trust back. The Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) claims of a recovery in contractor performance need to be borne out in a demonstrable improvement in the customer experience and markedly increased customer satisfaction. The report calls for better communication with Service families about maintenance work.

The report calls for the MOD and the Treasury to make ongoing funding commitments to improve the Defence estate before it deteriorates beyond repair, and before greater numbers of personnel decide to leave the military because of poor accommodation. The report says that the Government should set out in detail investment plans for Service accommodation. The report concludes that the current levels of funding are not enough to bring all Service accommodation up to a decent, modern standard.

The Committee’s report is also critical of the MOD’s communication with Service families. The MOD’s communication of the Modernised Accommodation Offer was inadequate for those adversely affected by the policy change, including those with rank-based benefits, to understand and respond to its impact on them. The report notes that since the change of government, there has been no new announcement on Service accommodation allocation, leaving some families in limbo. The report calls on Government to update the Committee, and more importantly Service personnel, on its approach to allocation of SFA, with timescales and metrics for implementation.

The report finds that Single Living Accommodation (SLA) – accommodation provided to single and unaccompanied personnel, usually in a block on a base – often does not meet the needs and expectations of today’s recruits, which has had an adverse effect on recruitment and retention. While the report welcomes the introduction of a “long-awaited” Defence Minimum Standard for SLA, the Committee warns that this should not simply result in sub-standard accommodation being recognised but not rectified.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “Our brave Servicemen and women and their families have a right to live in safe, decent accommodation. Yet evidence received recently by the Committee exposes the unacceptable conditions that many are having to endure. Service families’ trust has been further eroded by ongoing maintenance issues. It is simply not acceptable to expect those who fight for their country to live in housing with serious damp and mould – conditions that pose a danger to their and their families’ health. It is clear that many of these problems cannot be solved without major investment in the Defence estate. However difficult public finances might be, the Ministry of Defence and Treasury need to find a way to work together to make sure that all Service housing on offer genuinely meets a decent standard. The Ministry of Defence’s mishandled announcement on the allocation of Service accommodation has also left people in a state of uncertainty. Both low-quality accommodation and uncertainty over eligibility will only compound the recruitment and retention crisis facing our Armed Forces. Suitable accommodation is a key part of the offer to our Forces. If the Government is serious about addressing declining morale and low recruitment, then it needs to act fast.”

 

29 Nov 24. Strategic Defence Review reviewers Lord Robertson and Sir Richard Barrons to give evidence.

Evidence Session: One-off session on the Strategic Defence Review

Tuesday 3 December 2024, 10.30, Committee Room 15

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv

Strategic Defence Review (SDR) Reviewers, Lord Robertson and General (Retd) Sir Richard Barrons, will give evidence to the Defence Committee on the Review, on Tuesday 3 December, at 10.30.

Lord Robertson was NATO Secretary General between 1999 and 2003 and Secretary of State for Defence between 1997 and 1999.

General (Retd) Sir Richard Barrons has served as Commander of the Joint Forces Command and as Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Strategy & Operations), the director of operations for UK armed forces. Sir Richard was Assistant Chief of the General Staff covering the 2010 the Strategic Defence and Security Review and Defence Reform exercises.

Questions around the scope of the SDR, including what impact budgetary constraints will have on SDR and to what extent trade-offs are being considered as part of the review, are likely to be covered in the session.

The session is likely to also cover the way in which the Review is being approached, with the use of external reviewers, the adoption of an AI programme to sift submissions and to what extent the reviewers will be involved in its implementation. The Committee is likely to ask about the role of the “NATO first” principle.

10.30, Tuesday 3 December:

• Lord Robertson, Lead Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review
• General Sir Richard Barrons, Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review

 

House of Commons and House of Lords Hansard Written Answers

 

During a parliamentary exchange on 18 November 2024, the UK Defence Journal was directly referenced in a question from Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael, who raised concerns about the activities of the Russian research and intelligence vessel Yantar in the Irish Sea.

Carmichael highlighted the vessel’s presence near undersea cables, drawing attention to similar incidents in the North Sea and off Shetland last year.

Carmichael asked:

“On Friday, the UK Defence Journal reported on the activities of the Russian research and intelligence vessel Yantar in the Irish Sea, in the vicinity of various cables. This is not new; we had the same thing last year in the North Sea and off Shetland. Given the sheer quantity of cables and pipelines now in the seabed, what are the Government doing to ensure that that critical national infrastructure is properly protected?”

In response, Luke Pollard, Armed Forces Minister, reassured the House of the UK’s commitment to protecting critical national infrastructure, including undersea cables.

Pollard stated: “Let the House be in no doubt that the United Kingdom and our armed forces will defend our critical national infrastructure undersea cables. We have a strategy and armed forces protecting our cables, and we are working with our allies to do so.”

Pollard further indicated that the issue would likely be addressed in the upcoming strategic defence review, set for publication next year: “I suspect that that will also feature as a recommendation in the strategic defence review when it is published next year.”

The mention of the UK Defence Journal in Parliament underscores the publication’s role in bringing defence and security issues into the public eye, something we are very proud of.

The government’s response reflects a growing focus on undersea security, recognising the strategic importance of submarine cables and pipelines for national and international communications, energy, and trade.

(Source: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/)

15 Nov 24. Defence Secretary John Healey to face questions from Defence Committee

Evidence Session: Work of the Ministry of Defence

Thursday 21 November 2024, 10.30, The Thatcher Room

Watch live on parliamentlive.tv  

The Defence Committee will question the Secretary of State for Defence, Rt. Hon. John Healey, in his first appearance in front of the Committee. The session will take place on Thursday 21 November, at 10.30.

The evidence session will be wide-ranging.

Topics likely to be covered include: the global threats that necessitated the Strategic Defence Review (SDR); the challenges to armed forces readiness; issues relating to Service personnel and veterans; and UK defence commitments, including support for Ukraine.

The Secretary of State will appear alongside David Williams, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence; Lt General Sir Rob Magowan, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability); and Air Marshal Harvey Smyth, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Military Strategy and Operations).

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: 

“I am looking forward to the new Defence Committee having our first opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Ministry of Defence and Defence Secretary. The world is increasingly dangerous and volatile. UK defence is at a crossroads, and there are difficult decisions on the horizon.

This session will cover a breadth of issues, from daily life in the armed forces community, to security and defence partnerships and alliances, such as NATO. We will ask the difficult questions to ensure the Government is doing all it can to keep the UK safe.”

10.30, Thursday 21 November:

• Hon John Healey MP – Secretary of State at Ministry of Defence
• Lieutenant General Sir Rob Magowan KCB CBE – Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability) at Ministry of Defence
• David Williams CB – Permanent Secretary at Ministry of Defence
• Air Marshal Harvey Smyth CB OBE DFC – Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Military Strategy and Operations) at Ministry of Defence

 

House of Commons and House of Lords Hansard Written Answers

 

 

James Cartlidge  (South Suffolk) (Con)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence.

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I congratulate the shadow Defence Secretary on securing the first Defence urgent question of the new Parliament. Previous Defence Secretaries answered just two urgent questions in the whole of the last five years. Although I cannot promise to answer every future UQ, I wanted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s first one today to underline just how seriously I take our Department’s responsibility to report to this House.

The Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We promised it in our manifesto at the election, the Prime Minister promised it at NATO in Washington in July, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised it in the Budget two weeks ago, as well as announcing a £3bn boost for defence spending next year to start to fix the foundations for our armed forces. That, of course, is on top of £3bn each year for Ukraine. I remind the House that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, with the last Labour Government—a level not matched in any of the 14 Tory years since.

Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase to match and deal with the threats we face. One of our very first acts as a Government was to launch the strategic defence review, which is working at pace to look at the threats we face, the capabilities we need and the resources we have available. It is not just about how much we spend, but about how we spend it. The Prime Minister said at NATO that our plan in the SDR will come first, and then we will set out the pathway to spending 2.5%; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday that this will come in the spring.

Today is Armistice Day. At the eleventh hour, I had the honour of laying a wreath at the Cenotaph. Today is a reminder of what is at stake in this new era of insecurity; a reminder that our dedicated servicemen and women, around the clock, around the world, work to keep us safe; and a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice that so many have made in the past so that we may live in freedom today. We will remember them.

 

James Cartlidge  (South Suffolk) (Con)

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, especially on Armistice Day. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, but he keeps going back to 2010 when we spent 2.5%. That is true, but he says it without adding the fact that his Government had bankrupted the country. In fact, I asked the House of Commons Library about this. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that if Labour had returned to government, it was planning cuts to the defence budget of 20% to 25%.

But this question is about today. The threat picture is far graver than it has been for many generations, as the Chief of the Defence Staff confirmed at the weekend. As the Secretary of State says, the Labour party committed in its general election manifesto to a

“path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence.”

The Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that it was “cast iron”, which the Secretary of State has repeated today.

With President Trump’s election victory, there will inevitably be a greater focus on what more European NATO members can do to boost Europe’s own defence, but yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and this morning the Secretary of State himself were unable to say whether the Government would deliver on 2.5% in the current Parliament. In addition, yesterday The Sunday Times reported that Defence Equipment and Support in Abbey Wood has effectively been instructed to avoid any new procurement at all for the rest of this financial year.

Spending 2.5% is not an end in itself. The key reason that in April we set out a fully funded multi-year pathway to 2.5% was to enable the Ministry of Defence to procure, at pace and at scale, the munitions that we need to urgently replenish our stocks to warfighting levels. With the whole world wanting to buy more munitions, we cannot afford to delay any further.

I have key questions for the Secretary of State, because at the same time we are having this debate, there are a whole load of new burdens coming for the MOD which it will have to cover. In which financial year does he expect the share of GDP spent on defence to start rising significantly, and will he guarantee to hit 2.5% in this Parliament—yes or no? Not including existing programmes, is it true that there is a freeze on new procurement of defence equipment and support for the rest of this financial year? Will the MOD be 100% compensated by the Treasury for higher employer national insurance contributions and for the cost of increasing continuity of education allowance, and will service families be 100% compensated for the extra VAT on school fees? Penultimately, on Armistice Day can the Secretary of State absolutely rule out surviving spouses of service personnel being taxed on death in service benefits? Finally, on the Chagos islands, in the Department’s written answer to me it refused to say how much the MOD will contribute to renting back our own military base, so this is a very simple question: the Secretary of State will not tell us how much it is going to cost, but does he know how much it is going to cost?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Fourteen years the Conservative Government had to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and there was not a plan or a pathway from the last Government, as the shadow Defence Secretary tries to claim. It was a political ploy that was announced four weeks before they called the general election. It was unfunded, and it was a con on the armed forces and on the British people, who gave their answer emphatically by sweeping away Tory MPs in many of the proudest military communities and constituencies across the country.

On the shadow Defence Secretary’s accusations about a total spending freeze, I am putting in place a grip on the out-of-control spending that the last Government left. We are securing value for money, we are cutting waste and we are getting a grip on defence spending in a way his Government did not.

We greatly value the continuity of education allowance and greatly recognise the role it plays in helping avoid disruption to the education of the children of serving personnel. In line with how the allowance operates, we will continue to pay up to 90% of private school fees following the VAT increase in January. By uprating the cap, we will take account of any increase in spending.

On the Chagos islands, of course I know the details because I was heavily involved in the negotiations. This secures Britain’s military base, and it secures a military base for our US allies, which is why they welcomed it so strongly. I have said to the shadow Secretary of State and to the House that when it debates the treaty, this House will have the full information.

Nobody knows better the defence inheritance that 14 years of Conservative government have left us for the past four months than the shadow Defence Secretary: he was a Defence Minister at the heart of the problems, with bn-pound black holes, service morale at record lows, and a crisis in the recruitment and retention of personnel. Never again must a Government leave our armed forces in a worse state than they found them, and this new Government will make this country more secure at home and strong abroad.

We live in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, with hundreds of thousands of people dying or being injured on our own continent in Ukraine, and wars and conflicts raging in the middle east, Africa and beyond, not to mention the increased nefarious activity in the grey zone. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are dealing with exceptional circumstances and we need to grasp the gravity of the situation. I have a great deal of time and respect for the Secretary of State because I know that he gets it, but do others in government understand the gravity of the situation, because we need clarity? We need a timetable so that not only our allies, but those in our defence community, know where we are heading.

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Yes, they do. Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase, and it is increasing under this Government. It increased in the first Budget of this new Government by nearly £3 bn for next year. Alongside that is the cast-iron commitment that we are a Government who will set a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.

We are deeply concerned about the impact of the US elections on Ukraine and Europe. President Trump is an unreliable partner and, within days of his election, US support to Ukraine is regrettably under question. Clearly the UK needs to urgently set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We need to lead in Europe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the previous Government’s legacy on our Army, which is the smallest since the Napoleonic era, is deeply regrettable? Will he commit to securing a UK-EU defence and security agreement, as was on the table while Theresa May was Prime Minister? Will the Government convene a summit on saving Ukraine, to begin the process of seizure of frozen Russian assets, so that the UK and our European allies can support Ukraine regardless of the path the US takes?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

We do not need a summit to release the interest on the frozen assets—the corrupt Russian money—as we are doing that already. The Chancellor and I are working closely on that, and we have announced that, from early next year, £2.3 bn will be available for Ukraine for that purpose. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will pursue a UK-EU security pact, alongside the deep bilateral agreements we have already started to strike, including the one last month with Germany, which was the most comprehensive defence agreement this country has signed in many years. Finally, the hon. Lady is right—I have argued this before—that at a time of increasing global threats, European nations in NATO must do more of the heavy lifting. We must be prepared to spend more on defence, but we must also be prepared to work together to increase the level of deterrence we can offer to those who would do us harm.

 

Dan Carden  (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)

Was President Trump not right in his first term, when he pushed NATO countries to increase defence spending? The numbers have gone from six countries meeting the 2% target back in 2021, up to 23 countries meeting the target now. Is this not serious, because if President Trump makes decisions on Ukraine in his second term, we might be faced with a choice either to accept those decisions or to step up and ensure Europe’s defence ourselves?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I welcome the fact that 23 NATO nations will hit the 2% spend this year. I regard that as a floor, not a ceiling. The UK, under Governments of both parties, has always spent well above and set the pace for other European countries. We will continue to do that, because European countries in NATO must take on more of the NATO leadership. We are determined that the UK will do that, which is why we have said that our approach to defence will be a NATO-first policy. We will, wherever we can, look to be first in NATO, so that we set the pace on the sort of transformation to the better equipped, better able and more lethal forces that our nations need to deter adversaries and to defend ourselves if required.

 

Sir Julian Lewis  (New Forest East) (Con)

The Secretary of State is right that we used to spend a lot more than 2%: in the 1980s we spent between 4.5% and 5.1% of GDP on defence. Does he share my concern at what I heard on the radio this morning, when a Labour politician in another place was saying that he could see an outcome in Ukraine whereby Russia gets to keep the territory it has occupied, while Ukraine does not get any guarantee of joining NATO but merely some more security assurances? We know what happened last time with the security assurances previously given. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whether we spend 2.5% on defence now or in the near future, it is important that whoever we send to Washington does not capitulate in advance?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

The right hon. Gentleman made the important point, implicitly in his question, that it is the Ukrainians who are fighting and the Ukrainians who will make the call about whether to talk and on what terms. Our task, as one of the leading supporters of Ukraine and its fight for sovereignty, freedom and its own future, is to support it and to step up our support for its fight, and then to step up our support, if necessary and whenever required, in any negotiations, as well as to play our part, as we have made the commitment to do, in providing any security guarantees for the longer term.

 

Ms Marie Rimmer  (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)

Russia has gone to war in Europe, starting in Ukraine. It was America and Britain that saved Europe in the last war; it looks like this will be the same. Europe simply must step up. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Lloyd Austin about America’s role in the way forward?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

To be quite honest with my hon. Friend, it is a little early to have discussions with America. It is less than a week since the presidential elections and the current Administration have more than two months to go. As she would expect, I am in detailed discussions with the current Administration and my counterpart there, in particular about how we together, as two of Ukraine’s leading allies, can step up our support over the couple of months ahead. In the future, I expect a President Trump-led Administration to recognise that it is in America’s interests, NATO’s interests and the interests of all countries that believe in the international rules-based order and a stable and secure peace that Putin does not prevail, because if large countries like Russia are able to redraw international boundaries by force, that sends a signal that undermines the security of all nations. If reports are right that President Trump has already spoken to President Putin and warned him against the escalation that we see from Russia in Ukraine, that is a good first step and early sign.

 

Sir Iain Duncan Smith  (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have the highest respect for him, even if we have occasionally clashed across the Floor. I ask him this simple question. In China today, one shipyard building naval vessels is out-building the whole of the United States’ naval capability—and it has many hundreds. Given that, and the threat from Russia, Iran and this totalitarian state axis, if Lord Robertson comes back and spells out exactly what I believe he will—that this is the biggest threat we have faced since the cold war—will the right hon. Gentleman not ask but tell the Prime Minister that the No. 1 responsibility is the defence of the realm, with 2.5% now?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

The Prime Minister does not need me to tell him that the first duty of any Government and of this Government is to defend the country and keep our citizens safe. He will not need me for that because he commissioned the strategic defence review; my job is to oversee it successfully. He will not need any persuading of the arguments, assessments of threats and capability recommendations that that strategic defence review, externally led by Lord Robertson, is likely to produce.

 

Mr Toby Perkins  (Chesterfield) (Lab)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right not to give a scintilla of credibility to the idea that the Conservative party, having spent 14 years never reaching 2.5%, would do that if only it had one more chance. He is also right that what is important is not just identifying more money for defence spending but making sure that we start spending it better. Can he say any more about what he is doing to ensure that the huge wastage in defence procurement that we saw under the Conservatives is brought into hand under his stewardship?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I am almost tempted to encourage the shadow Defence Secretary to answer that question, because he was Minister for Defence Procurement until four months ago, so he is principally responsible, for instance, for the fact that only two of the 49 largest defence projects are on time and on budget. He failed to fix what the Public Accounts Committee of this House—an all-party Committee—termed the “broken” procurement system that has been failing our forces and failing British taxpayers. This is a deep task of reform. It is not a glamourous task, but I have made it one of my first priorities as Defence Secretary.

 

Mike Martin  (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)

Is the UK able to provide an armoured division to NATO on an enduring basis?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

The armed forces will always respond to the requirements placed on them. We will always seek to fulfil our NATO obligations. One reason why I conducted a NATO test in the first 100 days is that I was concerned that part of the failures of the last 14 years had led to our falling short. That is part of the inheritance that we take on as a new Government. My determination as Defence Secretary is that we make our forces fitter to fight and better able to deter and to play a leading part in NATO, as it steps up our level of deterrence and defence across the 32 nations.

 

Johanna Baxter  (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)

Today, on Armistice Day, we honour those who have served, those who have fought and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms we enjoy. Does the Secretary of State agree that today and every day we must remember everything that our armed forces are doing to keep us safe? Will he come to my constituency to meet Sight Scotland Veterans, an incredible charity that provides amazing support to all our visually impaired veterans?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

At the risk of upsetting my diary secretary, I welcome the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and her local veterans group. She is right that, today of all days, we remember not just those who gave their lives for the way of life we enjoy today but the serving personnel—the men and women in our armed forces around the world. We currently have 10,000 personnel on operations in 50 different countries around the world. This is a reminder of their work day in, day out to keep us all safe.

 

Sir Bernard Jenkin  (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

Let me assure the Secretary of State that those of us who have followed the defence debate over the last 10, 20 or even 30 years know that he takes these matters extremely seriously and understands the scale of the challenge that we face. In that vein, I encourage him to start telling the truth: that we will have to spend far more than 2.5% of GDP on defence within quite a short number of years. A former Chief of the General Staff has warned that this country might be directly at war within the lifetime of this Parliament. May I suggest that the Secretary of State use his friends throughout this House to influence both his Government and the Treasury influences on the Conservative side, because we are going to have to bust a gut for a major rearmament programme that we have not seen in this country since the 1930s?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his arguments, and I welcome his contribution. The Treasury will have noted it, and will probably take it as an early representation for the next Budget. In the meantime, I will ensure that the strategic defence review starts with the threats that we face: war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and growing threats globally, as well as Russian aggression more widely beyond Ukraine. We will ensure that we are able to match the capabilities that we develop with the threats that we face, and we will do so within the resources that we have available.

 

Tim Roca  (Macclesfield) (Lab)

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made the important point that the new Government inherited £167 bn-worth of projects, none of which were rated green by the National Audit Office. Does the Secretary of State agree that more money is one part of the equation, but spending it well is the other part?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Indeed; that is one reason why, early doors in Washington, the Prime Minister not only reaffirmed our iron-clad commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% but said that the strategic defence review comes first, as a pathway to 2.5%. That is exactly so that we can ensure that we increase what we spend, but also spend it better.

 

Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)

In 2023, I asked the Secretary of State’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is now the Education Secretary, how Labour’s plans for VAT on school fees would impact the continuity of education allowance for forces families. I was told that I

“need not be concerned about what we are discussing today.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 570.]

It is two years on and VAT on school fees goes live in January, but details of the rates of continuity of education allowance still have not been articulated to the forces families in my constituency. As the proud MP for a military constituency, I can tell the Secretary of State that I am concerned and my constituents are concerned. What is the plan to better communicate with them?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I am sorry that our confirmation of the steps we are taking from January has not reached the hon. Lady. I will ensure that they are. There will be an uprating in the continuity of education allowance, which will ensure that our armed forces who take advantage of the allowance will be able to get up to 90% of the school fees they have to pay covered by that allowance, and that that takes into account any rise in school fees as a result of the VAT being levied.

 

Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)

The shadow Secretary of State referenced his so-called plan for defence spending back in April this year, a plan that the Institute for Government said did “not add up” and was “fictitious”. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that under this Labour Government we will never make funding commitments to our armed forces unless they are fully funded?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I do. My hon. Friend is right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies described that so-called plan, the election pitch four weeks before the Conservatives called the election, as “misleading” and an empty promise. I give the House the undertaking that the plans we put in place will be openly discussed in this House. We will ensure that we can match the resources available to our plans.

 

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

Defence professionals across Whitehall will have their heads in their hands at this Government’s commitment to 2.5% at some point and when fiscal conditions permit. To fail to commit on defence investment with the multiple security threats facing us, from the Ukraine war to the middle east and a plethora of global cyber-threats, is strategically illiterate. Those threats will not wait for the Chancellor to get a grip, so what urgent steps will the Secretary of State take with the Chancellor to ensure at least the 2.5% promised by the Labour party on defence is spent when the threat assessment demands it, which is now, and not when the Chancellor feels it to be convenient?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Mr Speaker, I am going to take what I can from the hon. Gentleman, which is an SNP welcome and an urging for an increase in defence spending. That will happen under a Labour Government. The Scottish workforce, the Scottish military and the Scottish-based military will play an important part in the defence of this country in the future.

 

Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)

We have heard some chutzpah from the shadow Secretary of State for Defence today. The Conservatives had 14 years to get to 2.5%, yet they demand it from us now. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has set out how we will get towards 2.5% after our strategic defence review, but in the meantime we have to clear up the mess the previous Government left behind. Can he assure the House that he and his colleagues are working to clear up the waste and mismanagement they found when they came to the Ministry of Defence?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I can indeed. It was one of my predecessors as Defence Secretary who admitted to this House that under 14 years of the previous Government the armed forces had been “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is no surprise when we look at the record of the Conservative Government when they came into office in 2010, compared with the record of this Government. Our first Budget has a £3bn boost to defence. Their first Budget had a £2 bn real-terms cut. Our manifesto had a commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5%. Their first five years in government saw an 18% real cut in defence spending, which laid the foundations for the degradation and the poor state of our armed forces, and the poor state of the finances that we have now inherited.

 

Dr Andrew Murrison  (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

The last Government extended to state school pupils the undoubted advantage of the combined cadet forces, which had been the almost exclusive prerogative of private school students. Why, then—

Why, then, Mr Speaker, did this Government decide, last week of all weeks, to defund combined cadet forces and thus remove the advantages that state school pupils are now enjoying as a result of decisions taken by the last Government?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I simply do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of any decisions that we have taken, and it would run contrary to what he and I agree is the value of combined cadet forces. Most of us, in our constituencies, have contact and working relations with good cadet forces that give young people opportunities that they simply would not have at school or in any other walk of life. They have an important part to play in the future of individuals, and also in the wider understanding of our armed forces.

 

Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)

I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—a promise made and a promise being kept—but does he agree that this is just one part of the puzzle when it comes to showing that we can support our troops as they work to keep us safe?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Indeed I do. My hon. Friend is a strong champion in his constituency in Scotland for the armed forces and veterans. I greatly valued the visit that I was able to make with him before the election to talk to veterans in his constituency and talk about our plans to increase support in respect of employment, mental health and housing for the future.

 

Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)

One of the big achievements of the last 14 years was the delivery of the aircraft carriers, both of which are stationed in Portsmouth, near my constituency. However, it remains clear that they are underpowered. We need more Type 45s, more Type 26s and more Type 31s. If the Government are serious about the 2.5%, when will they set out their plan to invest in our Royal Navy and, in particular, our aircraft carriers, so that our carrier strike group can provide a world-class capability?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

The aircraft carriers constitute an important defence programme. We are considering the threats that we face and the future capabilities that we need as part of the strategic defence review, which will report in the spring, and we will follow that within our clear path and our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, just as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the media yesterday.

 

Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)

Today is Armistice Day, which provides an important moment in which to pause and remember the huge amount that our armed forces have done to keep us safe. On this day, does the Secretary of State agree that we must not only set out our ironclad commitment to 2.5%, but support the armed forces, their families and our veterans?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Indeed. The forces families who support those who put on the uniform are too often overlooked, which is one reason why we introduced legislation last week for an independent armed forces commissioner, as we promised to do at the election. The holder of this post will report directly to Parliament, will have access to personnel, sites and information, and will be able to look into the concerns of not just those who serve but the families who support them, in order to improve service life for the future.

 

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)

May I commend to the Secretary of State the role of Ploughshare, which is used to deal with the increasing commercialisation of opportunities at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, in my constituency? In the context of the Ministry’s holistic review, which is now under way, will he undertake to ensure that that organisation is not held back from extending its opportunities to commercialise assets emerging from MOD research?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

One of the weaknesses in our system is that the often-excellent innovation, research and development does not get developed, invested in or commercialised, so potentially brilliant small companies do not grow and expand. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not familiar with Planshare—[Interruption.] Ploughshare. I did not even hear the name correctly. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with some details, I would welcome his letter and certainly have a look.

 

Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)

Like others on this side of the House, I welcome the increase in defence spending that was announced in the Budget, after years of Tory cuts to our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to increase defence spending in response to emerging threats around the world, from Ukraine to the middle east and Asia-Pacific, and that the figure of 2.5% should be kept under review in the light of changing events around the world?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the important point that the starting point for any defence planning must be the threats that we face. At the heart of any defence plans must be the people who serve and on whom we depend. I make that heartfelt point particularly forcefully today, on Armistice Day.

 

Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)

In 2021, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, defence spending in the UK was 2.3% of GDP. In 2022, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, defence spending was 2.3% of GDP. Now that an isolationist President-elect is about to go into the White House, defence spending is 2.3% of GDP. When will defence spending rise beyond 2.3% of GDP?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey) 

I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government have made a commitment to set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that we have not had in this country for the last 14 years. Everyone agrees that an increase in defence spending is needed, and it is needed in order to deal with precisely the increasing threats that he cites.

 

Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)

I welcome the Opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for meeting the 2.5% defence spending target, especially given that they were not able to meet it even once in 14 years. I gently remind them that the last party in decades to meet the target was the Labour party. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only do we need to increase our spending to 2.5% of GDP, but we must remain steadfast in our support for the people of Ukraine to protect the entire continent of Europe?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

I do agree. I pay tribute to the last Government for ensuring that the UK led in providing support for Ukraine. As a new Government, we have been determined to continue that over the last four months. We have stepped up the military aid that we are supplying to Ukraine. We have sped up that support in a way that President Zelensky now cites as a model for other countries, and we are now spending more on military aid to Ukraine than ever before—£3bn this year, next year and every year for as long as it takes, plus the £2.3bn that we will be able to release from the frozen assets seized from the corrupt regime of Putin’s Russia.

 

Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)

I would urge the Secretary of State to exercise a little bit of caution when referring to defence spending under the last Labour Government. As someone who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who used some of the kit and equipment that was issued then, I know that there were some serious concerns at the time, particularly around the Snatch Land Rovers, for example. I spent a lot of time driving around Basra in one of those, and a lot of people lost their lives in those vehicles, so I would exercise a little caution and restraint.

My question is on a different topic: the CEA. How much will meeting the additional cost of VAT cost the MOD from its own budget?

 

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)

We will publish the financial figures for the CEA in due course and in the normal way. On the hon. Gentleman’s previous point, I am very conscious of what he and those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq faced. I am very conscious that at times during the last Labour Government, as with any Government, the kit and equipment was lacking. That is why we tried to replace the vehicles, using urgent operational requirements at the time. Although we inevitably fell short in some areas, we were spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in 2010, when we were last in government, and the strength of the full-time British Army was over 100,000 soldiers.