UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: John Healey

  • John Healey – 2024 Statement on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    John Healey – 2024 Statement on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.

    May I say how great it is to see you in the Chair for this debate, albeit in a temporary role? And may I say, through you, that the Foreign Secretary wanted to be here for the debate, but he and the Prime Minister are hosting the leaders of over 40 European countries at the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim palace today—it is an important day for our country. He will look forward to following the debate as soon as he returns.

    I congratulate all 315 re-elected and returning Members of this House, and welcome in particular all Members who were elected for the first time. Savour that special feeling when you first walk into this Chamber and sit on these green Benches. Remember it; respect it. Our constituents have given each of us their confidence; they have given us the mandate to serve them and the country.

    Two week ago, I stood at my local constituency election count in a sports hall in Rotherham. It is the honour of my life to stand at this Dispatch Box today as the Defence Secretary—as part of the new Government at the start of this new era for Britain. The last time that I spoke at this Dispatch Box was a week before the election in 2010, as a housing Minister dealing with planning reform. Even then, I warned that

    “there are fundamental flaws in the Conservatives’ proposed planning regime”.

    However, my main argument on that day focused on accountability. I said:

    “accountability is a central tenet”—[Official Report, 29 March 2010; Vol. 503, c. 611.]

    of public life, serious decisions and good government. Having re-entered Government, I feel that just as fiercely as I did 14 years ago. What we do, what we say and how we conduct ourselves in Government matters. We must always be accountable in this House, to the public and to Parliament. By doing that, we will help to regain trust in Government and return politics to public service.

    I pay tribute to my predecessors, Grant Shapps and Ben Wallace, whom I shadowed for over four years from the Opposition Benches. The House will now miss them both in differing ways. They served as Defence Secretaries during what the Chief of the Defence Staff has described as the most extraordinary time for defence in his career. That responsibility now passes to me. I am grateful to have the support of such a stand-out ministerial team: the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard); the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns); and Lord Coaker in the other place.

    The first duty of any Government is to defend the country and keep our citizens safe. That is why I pay tribute, on behalf of the House, to the men and women who serve in Britain’s armed forces, many of whom are overseas on deployment right now. They are rightly respected worldwide for their bravery and their professionalism. We thank them for what they do to keep us all safe, as we thank those out of uniform in UK defence. They will have this new Government’s fullest support to do their job in defending this country

    That is why at the NATO summit in Washington last week, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s unshakeable commitment to NATO, and our total commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is why the Prime Minister launched this week a first-of-its-kind strategic defence review. And it is why we announced in the King’s Speech legislation to create a new armed forces commissioner to improve service life.

    bI wish the right hon. Gentleman, who was a committed parliamentarian in his shadow role, all the best in his new role, to which he brings great depth and seriousness. He has just described the strategic review and outlined the ambition to get to 2.5% of GDP. If that strategic review recommends more than 2.5%, will the Government still enact it in full?

    John Healey

    We have launched the strategic defence review, which was a manifesto commitment. It will be conducted within the framework set out in our manifesto, with the determination to complete it within the first year and to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as we can. The country has not spent at that level since I last stood at the Dispatch Box back in 2010 under the then Labour Government.

    I welcome to their roles the new shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on defence, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who cannot be here for the debate—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is ably standing in for him, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say. I also welcome the SNP spokesperson on defence, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). As Defence Secretary, I want to take the politics out of national security. I say to the House: I will always look to work with you—putting country first, party second. I have offered the shadow Defence Secretary access to intelligence briefings, and will do so for other relevant Members. The new strategic defence review will brief and welcome submissions from other parties across this House.

    I want us to forge a British defence strategy for the future, not just a defence strategy for the new Labour Government. No party has a monopoly on defence or on pride in our military. We in the Labour party have deep roots in defending this country. Throughout the last century, it was working men and women who served, and sometimes died, on the frontline fighting for Britain. It was Labour that established NATO and the nuclear deterrent. As his Majesty the King said yesterday, our commitment to both is “unshakeable.” We are a party with deep pride in forging international law and security: the Geneva conventions, the universal declaration of human rights, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty were all signed by Labour Prime Ministers. We are a party with deep respect for the serving men and women of our armed forces. Theirs is the ultimate public service: they defend the country and are essential to our resilience at home. I know they will inspire me in the weeks, months and years ahead in this job.

    As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), said yesterday in the debate on the Address:

    “Every month in my previous job, I became more concerned about the threats to our country’s security.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 51.]

    We know that these are serious times, with war in Europe, conflict in the middle east, growing Russian aggression and increasing global threats. We know, too, that there are serious problems. It was Ben Wallace who said to me in this Chamber last year that our armed forces had been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the past 14 years. Morale is at record lows, alongside dreadful military housing and a defence procurement system that the Public Accounts Committee has described as “broken” and wasting taxpayers’ money.

    Less than two weeks into this Government, we now see that those problems are much worse than we thought. Just today, new official figures that we have been able to release as scheduled show that forces families’ satisfaction has fallen to the lowest level ever reported. We cannot solve those problems all at once, but we are determined to fix them.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is right to say that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. We must also strengthen our role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, but would he elaborate on how we will be extending our support and solidarity to Ukraine as it faces Russian aggression?

    John Healey

    My hon. Friend has served with distinction in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a body that draws together well-informed, committed Members from all parties in this House. It is an important civilian bulwark in the NATO military alliance, and I thank him for that service. He intervened on me just as I was about to move to the topic of Ukraine, so I ask him to bear with me for two or three minutes; if I have not answered his questions by then, I would welcome another intervention.

    On Ukraine, I have been proud of UK leadership—proud that the UK and this House are united on Ukraine, because the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. Ukraine is my first priority, and on my second day in this job, I was in Odessa. I spent the afternoon with President Zelensky and his team. We held our bilateral talks, we celebrated Ukraine’s navy day, and we also toured a military hospital, talking with injured Ukrainian servicemen. The Ukrainians, military and civilians alike, are fighting with huge courage. They have regained vast territory that was taken by Putin at first, and as a country without a navy, they have driven Russia’s fleet out of the western Black sea. They have opened up grain corridors and are now able to export almost as much as they did before Putin’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Russia is far from a spent force, and if Putin wins, he will not stop at Ukraine.

    In opposition, we gave the Government our fullest support for all the military aid this country gave to Ukraine, and I trust this Opposition will do the same. The UK is united for Ukraine, and I want to work together to ensure we remain united for Ukraine. The Government are now stepping up support: with President Zelensky, I was able to say that we will speed up the delivery of the military aid already pledged. We will step up support through a new package of more ammunition, more anti-armour missiles, more de-mining vehicles and more artillery guns. At the NATO summit in Washington last week, the Prime Minister went further, confirming £3 billion a year to help Ukraine for as long as it takes.

    This King’s Speech shows the Government getting on with the job, just as we have in the first fortnight, with urgency and purpose. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all spoken with our counterparts from across the world. At the NATO 75 summit, we met leaders of all 32 NATO nations—it was a NATO summit bigger, stronger and more united than ever. At that summit, the Prime Minister and Chancellor Scholz of Germany announced an new

    “firm commitment to strike a deep UK-Germany defence agreement…without delay”,

    a first step towards resetting Britain’s relationships with European allies. Last weekend, I hosted the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Australia at Sheffield Forgemasters, then at Wentworth Woodhouse in Rotherham, where I reaffirmed our commitment to AUKUS and to our Indo-Pacific partners. I have also had the privilege of meeting outstanding personnel in these first less than two weeks, including personnel at the permanent joint headquarters, RAF Northolt and NATO maritime command, alongside top-class civilian officials in the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments.

    This week, the Foreign Secretary went to the middle east, pursuing our push for peace and an immediate ceasefire, and the Prime Minister launched the strategic defence review headed by Lord Robertson, General Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill. That review will be carried out at pace, ensure that we have a NATO-first defence strategy, and put people at the heart of Britain’s defence plans. I thank the reviewers for the work they will do in the weeks and months ahead. To end where I started, Britain is today hosting the European Political Community—a 47-strong grouping of European leaders—at Blenheim palace, discussing Russian aggression, European security and counter-migration action.

    Mr Dhesi

    Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

    John Healey

    I obviously did not answer my hon. Friend’s questions on Ukraine earlier on. I give way again.

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene once again—he is being very generous with his time. He slightly touched on this point, but does he agree that the level of death and destruction and the loss of innocent lives in Gaza are intolerable, and that we must work to have an immediate ceasefire, an immediate release of hostages and urgent humanitarian aid into Gaza? Will my right hon. Friend outline what His Majesty’s Government are doing to bring that into effect?

    John Healey

    My hon. Friend is right: the scale of the conflict and, in particular, the deaths that we see in Gaza are not just intolerable, but agonising. When we think back, the terrorist attack launched on Israel in October was deeply shocking as well. I am proud that it was the Labour party that led the debate in Parliament in February, when this House agreed to push for an immediate ceasefire. I am proud of the way that we have led arguments for that ceasefire, but also of the way we worked in private in opposition—work that we are now picking up in government. My hon. Friend may not have heard me say this, but the Foreign Secretary has already been to the middle east to pursue what the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, declared at the end of October in a speech at Chatham House: that if we got into government, we would help lead a new push for peace. In the first fortnight, that is exactly what we have been doing.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    I congratulate the Secretary of State on the appointment he has received; I know it is a position he has sought, and I wish him well. The conflict that is going on and the bombing in Gaza have already resulted in 40,000 deaths. Are the Government serious in pushing Israel to take part in an immediate ceasefire? Are they also prepared to suspend or stop all arms sales to Israel in order to save further lives?

    The Secretary of State also made a point in his speech about the need to adhere to international law. There are international court judgments at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court; are the Government going to support those judgments and ensure that they are carried out, whatever the political consequences? They require action to be taken internationally to bring a halt to this appalling conflict. Forty thousand are already dead, and the occupation continues. Surely there must be a way forward that stops the loss of life.

    John Healey

    The right hon. Member is no longer a member of the Labour party, but I know that he watches what we do and say very closely. He will know that from the outset, we have argued that international humanitarian law must apply in this conflict, and must apply equally to both sides. The answer to his first question is yes: this Government are serious about pursuing an immediate ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary has already been out to Israel to press that case.

    On the question of arms sales to Israel, on the Foreign Secretary’s first day in post, through the established system that we use, he commissioned the British Government’s most up-to-date assessment of the degree to which any of our UK arms export licences may be facilitating a serious risk of a breach of international law. He has said clearly that he wants that process to be as swift and transparent as possible, and he is looking hard at exactly that issue. I hope that underlines the simple answer to the right hon. Member’s first question: yes, this Government are serious about a ceasefire, and about the application of international humanitarian law without fear or favour.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    First, I commend the Secretary of State for the role he played in opposition and the role he now plays in government. I think that each of us, on hearing the words of the Secretary of State, will be inspired and feel more confident about road forward. When it comes to the middle east, we are all aware of the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, and we are aware of the axis of evil of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. We are also aware that the IRGC supplies ammunition, finance and personnel to the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and terrorist groups right across Syria. When it comes to addressing that group and what it does across the world, can the Secretary of State today give the House an assurance that it is a priority for this Government to proscribe the IRGC and put it out of action?

    John Healey

    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are looking really hard, as he and this House would expect, at the growing threats that Iran poses not just as a state, but through its proxies and its growing alliances with other hostile nations. In many ways, he helps me supply an answer to a question that I have sometimes been asked over the last two days, which is: why have another strategic defence review now? The simple answer is exactly that: the threats are increasing and changing, the nature of warfare is changing and the growing importance of our alliances is becoming clearer. It is for that reason, a year after the last Government’s defence review, that this is imperative. We will pursue this properly and do it at pace, because that is what we need to do both to respond to the growing and changing threats we face and to take the decisions we must take on the capabilities we need to defend the country.

    I will wind up now so that other Members from all sides can speak. We were elected on a manifesto promising change. After less than two weeks, I hope that the House and the public see that the work of that change has begun to strengthen the foundations of this new mission-driven Government in making Britain better defended and making Britain democracy’s most reliable ally. The Prime Minister said in his speech in this House yesterday:

    “This Government have been elected to deliver nothing less than national renewal…and start the work of rebuilding our country—a determined rebuilding, a patient rebuilding, a calm rebuilding.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 54-55.]

    That is the task he has set me to lead with my Defence team, but there is so much more to do. I want defence to be central not just to the future security of Britain, but to the country’s success in this new era, bringing greater economic growth and wealth across the UK, reconnecting Britain in the world and forging a new partnership for Britain between Government, business and workers with their trade unions. Together we will make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.

  • John Healey – 2024 Statement on the Armed Forces Review

    John Healey – 2024 Statement on the Armed Forces Review

    The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 16 July 2024.

    At the start of a new era for Britain, we need a new era for defence. Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue. Meanwhile, we need to be clear eyed about the threats we face, with the world becoming more volatile and technology changing the nature of warfare.

    In response, our armed forces need to be better ready to fight, more integrated and more innovative. We need clearer accountability, faster delivery, less waste and better value for money.

    The Review will ensure that Defence is central to the future security of Britain and to its economic growth and prosperity.

    This new era requires a new type of review that moves at pace. The Prime Minister and I will therefore draw on both external military, industrial and foreign policy experts, and those from inside Government, to help set the path for Britain’s defence for the next decade. Together, we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

  • John Healey – 2024 Speech to Defence Staff

    John Healey – 2024 Speech to Defence Staff

    The speech made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 5 July 2024.

    Thank you for that welcome. It is for me an honour to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve in this role and to have the chance to work with you all in the months and years ahead.

    The work you do is vital and we are proud of the professionalism and your dedication to serving this nation, both in uniform and out. So thank you for everything that you do.

    You will have my fullest support as your Defence Secretary.

    We know these are serious times – war in Europe, conflict in the Middle East, growing Russian aggression, increasing global threats.

    We know there are serious problems – with our Armed Forces hollowed out and under funded for 14 years.

    And this government now is totally committed to 2.5% of Defence spending, to NATO, to the nuclear deterrent and to support for Ukraine.

    The country has new leadership. This Ministry has new leadership. Our mission is to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad, with the guiding principle of one Defence. Because it isn’t just those who serve in uniform who defend this country, it’s those of you who serve in the Civil Service, who work on the production line, who staff the research labs, who develop software – and I want to see Defence at the heart both of the future security of this country, and the future success of this country.

    And that means an Armed Forces well-equipped and ready to fight, a skilled, scalable industrial base, a stronger relationship with allies, a more influential MOD, a public that understands and better supports, those who are willing to serve – those whose service is the ultimate form of public service.

    And I do have to tell you I am more interested in results than photo opportunities. And I look forward to learning from your experience and hearing your ideas about how we can develop one Defence.

    I will rely on your experience, your honesty. I’ll rely on your dedication to solve the problems, in delivering the government’s defence plans.

    And I know I will also be inspired by what you do.

    And as Keir Starmer said in Downing Street, we will be a government that respects all. So we will have an Armed Forces and Civil Service, drawing on all the talents. We’ll have a culture that values all, and we’ll have zero tolerance for any abuse, in the military or the Civil Service.

    We must forge one Defence, one mission: to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

    And to all of you, I and the ministerial team, look forward so much to that opportunity to work with you, to deliver just that for our country.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • John Healey – 2023 Speech on Ukraine (October 2023)

    John Healey – 2023 Speech on Ukraine (October 2023)

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Defence Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 October 2023.

    Members from across the House, and people across the world, are rightly focused on the middle east after Hamas’s horrific attacks. That terrorism must be condemned, civilians must be protected, humanitarian corridors must be opened, international law must be followed, and escalation risks must be managed. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s Gulf visit later this week, and I hope that he will report back to us in the House. I also welcome President Biden’s oval office address, in which he said:

    “Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common: they both want to completely annihilate a neighbouring democracy”.

    Today lets President Putin know that the UK remains focused on, and united in, solidarity with Ukraine.

    Last week, as the Minister said, we passed the grim 600-day milestone since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. War still rages, cities are still bombed, and civilians are still raped and killed. Ukraine has made important gains in recent days on the Dnipro river. Will the Minister update the House on that? I am proud of the UK leadership on Ukraine, but we must work to maintain that leadership and accelerate support. I fear that UK momentum is flagging. There has been no statement on Ukraine to Parliament from the new Defence Secretary since his appointment in August, and no statement from any Defence Secretary in this House since May.

    Labour backs the recent announcements on UK military aid, the new British Army training to protect critical infrastructure, and the £100 million, raised with allies, that will come from the International Fund for Ukraine, but Ukrainians are asking for winter support, air defence, and more ammunition—and where is the UK’s planned response? No new money for military aid for Ukraine has been committed by this Prime Minister. The £2.3 billion for this year was pledged by his predecessor, and the £2.3 billion for last year was pledged by her predecessor. This year’s money runs out in March. Seven months after announcing £2 billion for UK stockpiles in the spring Budget, not a penny has been spent and not a single contract signed. Why? Putin must be defeated, just as Hamas must be defeated. We must not step back. We must stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win.

    James Heappey

    I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s words about the despicable attack from Hamas and the absolute right of Israel to defend itself. As I said, I believe strongly that it is important that Putin does not see this as a moment of opportunity to sow more chaos, and does not think that the western donor community is distracted or has a preference for supporting Israel over Ukraine. He must know that our resolve is to support both.

    The right hon. Gentleman rightly noted that the Secretary of State will be in the Gulf later this week. I am sure that he will want to talk about what he hears there, but I suspect that he will also want to keep some of that counsel private, as we seek to calibrate how we posture ourselves in the region in order to reassure our allies and deter those who might seek to make a bad situation even worse. The Secretary of State was in Washington last week, and has had a number of calls with other partners around the region. So too have the Chief of the Defence Staff and I, as part of a Ministry of Defence-wide effort to ensure that we constantly calibrate our response alongside that of those who we traditionally work with in the region, and we make sure that nothing we do is misinterpreted.

    The right hon. Gentleman and I are, I think, friends, so there is some dismay that he dismisses all my efforts at the Dispatch Box to keep the House updated on the war in Ukraine. I stood here as recently as 11 September to lead an excellent debate on the subject, and have given a number of statements on behalf of the Secretary of State. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is so rank-conscious as to deem my efforts unworthy, but I have done my best.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that the excellent financial contribution made over the two previous financial years is, as yet, unconfirmed for the next financial year. It will not surprise him to know that that has already been the subject of conversation across Government. It is not for me to make that announcement in an urgent question today, but a major fiscal event is forthcoming, and I know that he will not have to wait too long. That does not mean that our plans are uncertain. In fact, I push back strongly on the suggestion that they are. For a long time over the past two years, there has been a sort of misunderstanding that the UK’s capacity to gift is entirely either from our own stockpiles or from our indigenous industrial capacity. The vast majority of what the UK gifts is what we are able to buy internationally, often from countries that Putin would prefer were not providing us with that stuff. However, we have been able to get our hands on it and get it to the Ukrainians with some haste. That is exactly the sort of thing that the right hon. Gentleman asked about.

    It is about the small but necessary things, such as winterisation equipment, small arms ammunition, artillery ammunition and air defence ammunition, and our ability to buy that while in parallel stimulating UK industry. I reject what the right hon. Gentleman said about contracts having not been placed; substantial contracts have been placed directly to replenish UK stockpiles of NLAWs, Starstreak, lightweight multi-role missiles, Javelin, Brimstone, 155 mm shells and 5.56 mm rifle rounds. As far as I can see, there is a steady state contribution to the Ukrainians that amounts to tens of thousands of rounds per month, plus air defence missiles, plus all the small stuff, alongside the replenishment of our own stockpiles, which can only happen at the pace at which industry can generate it, but none the less it is happening.

  • John Healey – 2023 Speech on the Defence Command Paper Refresh

    John Healey – 2023 Speech on the Defence Command Paper Refresh

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2023.

    I thank the Defence Secretary for the advance draft copy of his statement and welcome some elements he announced today that were not in that draft copy, such as the improved childcare package and the rent freeze for armed forces personnel.

    Following the Defence Secretary’s decision to stand down, I want to start by paying tribute to his time in this House. He is a political survivor. I remember that his first job in 2010 was as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ken Clarke, and for the last four years he has been a dedicated Defence Secretary. In particular, I want to recognise his work on Ukraine, and that of the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). His decisions on sending military support to Ukraine, getting other nations to do more and declassifying intelligence have all been beneficial for Ukraine and for Britain.

    Today, the Defence Secretary is presenting his plan for the future of the British armed forces at a time when, as he told the House this afternoon, we have

    “the return of war to the continent of Europe, alongside growing threats elsewhere in the world”.

    As his own future is now short, how long is the shelf-life of his plan? Industry and military leaders cannot be sure that his successor will agree with his decisions, will accept his cuts, will act on his approach; and they cannot be sure how the strategic defence review plan of both his party and mine after the next election will reboot defence planning.

    It did not have to be this way. Labour wanted this to be the nation’s defence plan, not the plan of current Conservative Defence Ministers. We offered to work with the Government on a plan to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. This is not such a plan. It is not a good enough response to war in Europe. It is not enough to accelerate support for Ukraine, to fulfil in full our NATO obligations, to halt the hollowing out of our forces, and to renew the nation’s moral contract with those who serve and the families who support them.

    Why has this defence plan been so delayed? It is 510 days since Putin shattered European security. Since then, 26 other NATO nations have rebooted defence plans and budgets. In the time it has taken the Defence Secretary to produce this long-trailed new defence strategy, Finland has carried out its own review, overturned decades of non-alignment, increased defence spending by 36%, applied to join NATO, and seen its application approved by 30 Parliaments before last week’s NATO summit in Vilnius. That successful NATO summit has made the alliance stronger and support for Ukraine greater. We fully back NATO’s new regional plans and the G7 long-term security commitments to Ukraine, and if UK military aid is accelerated in the coming days, that too will have Labour’s fullest support.

    There is a welcome “back to basics” element in this plan—a focus on stockpiles, training, service conditions and more combat-readiness—but it is clear that the plan is driven by costs, not by threats. It is driven by the real cut in day-to-day resource departmental expenditure limits spending that the Defence Secretary agreed in November 2020, and by the failure to secure the £8 billion extra that he said was needed in the spring Budget just to cover inflation. Where is the halt in further cuts in the Army, while NATO plans an eightfold increase in its high readiness forces? Where is the commitment to fulfil in full our NATO obligations? Where is the action plan for military support to Ukraine, first promised by the Defence Secretary in August last year? Where is the programme to reverse record low levels of satisfaction with service life? Where is the full-scale reform of a “broken” defence procurement system for which the Defence Committee called on the very day the Defence Secretary announced that he was stepping down? In fact, it is hard to tell from his announcement today what has changed. The £6.6 billion for defence research and development was promised in the 2021 integrated review, the “global response force” and force level cuts were announced in the Secretary of State’s defence Command Paper 2021, and the “strategic reserve” was recommended by Lord Lancaster in 2021.

    As the right hon. Gentleman steps down as the Conservatives’ longest-serving Defence Secretary, will he accept that many of the biggest challenges are being left to the next Defence Secretary, and to the next Government? Finally, as we may not see him again at the Dispatch Box, may I, on behalf of Members in all parts of the House, wish him well in his post-parliamentary career?

    Mr Wallace

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Unfortunately for him, I will, however, be here again tomorrow, delivering my very last statement.

    I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but this is the refresh of the defence Command Paper. It is not a complete redrawing of a strategic defence and security review. We have done those, periodically, so many times, and so many times they have been published under Governments of both parties, and so many times they have not had real funding attached to them. So many times we have reached the end of the SDSR period, under Labour and Conservative Governments, with black holes, with unspent money and overspends. It has happened time and again. But this is a report to make us match-fit: to ensure that, whether we have 3%, 2.5%, 2% of GDP, we have the reforms that, in my view and, I hope, that of my successor, will help us to deal with the growing threats that we face in the decade ahead, and will also reflect the lessons that we have seen in Ukraine.

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Finland’s defence review. He will know that Finland and Sweden periodically conduct a fixed in-Parliament, in-schedule review. That is how it will always be. Those countries ask a parliamentary committee to carry out the review, and then hand it to their Defence Ministries to implement. That is their process. Finland’s review was not triggered by anything specific, and the fact that it produced that review before I did this refresh is not a benchmark; it has been predicted and profiled. I will say, however, that long before Sweden and Finland joined NATO, I was the architect of last January’s security pact between the UK and those countries. That was because I recognised that they were our friends and our allies, and while they were not in NATO, it was inconceivable that we, as Britain, would never come to their aid should a more aggressive Putin attack them. That was the beginning of the process of developing our strong relationship with them.

    The right hon. Gentleman talked about defence procurement. I have read the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I thank him for it. Many of the things in it we are now doing. I give credit to him, obviously, for his report, but some of its observations have also been mine—observations about SROs, about 75% and 50%, about a spiral development cost; observations that the House has heard from this Dispatch Box about gold-plating and the over-speccing that has too often driven prices through the roof, and is a cumbersome thing. [Interruption.]

    Let me say this to the Opposition Members who are heckling, and who have been Ministers in this Department. They will know that of all the Departments to serve in, this is not one that moves at the greatest speed of reform. The process of reform takes time, and Members need only look at the records of every single former Minister to know how hard it is. That does not undermine their contribution, and it does not make any of them less of a Minister, but this Department of 220,000 people, a Department that seeks every authority through a ministerial chair, is not—and I have served in a number of Departments—the quickest to change. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, if he succeeds in his ambition to be the next Defence Secretary or the one after next, will learn that all too well. What I promise him, as I will promise my successor, is that I will not come to this House and pretend that the problems with which my successor is dealing were made the week before. They were made 20, 10, 15 years before. That is the truth of many of the policies and procurement challenges with which we deal in this Department.

    I believe that the Command paper will stand the test of time because it is about facing the threat—and that is the answer to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).

  • John Healey – 2023 Speech on Ukraine

    John Healey – 2023 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.

    I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. Mr Speaker, 2023 will indeed be the decisive year in this war in Ukraine, and the most decisive moment is now, when Ukraine has the tactical and morale advantage over Russia; now, when Ukraine needs more combined military firepower to break the battlefield deadlock. As the Secretary-General of NATO said yesterday,

    “it is important that we provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win”.

    That is why this first package of military assistance for 2023—with tanks, artillery, infantry vehicles, ammunition and missiles—has Labour’s fullest support.

    Challenger 2 is a world-class tank that can help Ukraine retake lost ground and limit the cost in Ukrainian lives. We are now sending 14. How many tanks does Ukraine need for a successful counter-offensive? Are the 14 Challengers currently in active service or in storage? When will they be delivered into the field in Ukraine? What combat engineering vehicles will be delivered to support those tanks? Will any UK forces personnel be deployed into Ukraine with those vehicles?

    The integrated review cut Challenger tanks from 227 to 148. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s review of Challenger 3 numbers. When will he announce the results of the review? Is he reviewing other Army cuts? The Armed Forces Minister told me in a parliamentary answer last week that Challenger 2 training takes 33 days for gunners, 46 days for drivers and 85 days for crew commanders. The Defence Secretary made no mention of Challenger training. Will the UK provide training alongside the tanks? How long will the training be for Ukrainian troops?

    President Zelensky has confirmed the wider importance of this UK military package. At the weekend he said:

    “that will not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners.”

    The Defence Secretary today said that hopes that this UK military aid will help to unlock more co-ordinated support from other nations. Like him, I welcome similar moves already announced by other NATO nations in recent days, particularly the US and France. How many of the 14 Leopard-using nations may provide those tanks to Ukraine? What more does he expect from allies at the Ramstein meeting on Friday? It has been five months since he announced the international fund. When will allocations be made?

    The Prime Minster talked at the weekend about a surge in global military support for Ukraine. How will the Defence Secretary ensure a continuing surge in UK military support? What more can Ukraine expect from the UK? You know, Mr Speaker, as does the Defence Secretary, that I have argued for months that Ministers must move beyond ad hoc announcements and set out a full 2023 action plan for military, economic and diplomatic support—a case that the Defence Ministry has fully accepted. That will help to give Ukraine confidence for future supplies. It will help to gear up our own industry. It will encourage allies to do more and it will make clear that things will get worse, not better for Russia.

    One of the clear lessons from the last year in Ukraine is that nations need large reserve stocks of certain weapons and ammunition, or the ability to produce them quickly. The UK has neither. We are still moving too slowly to replace the weapons donated to Ukraine or to find new wartime ways of making weapons more rapidly and cheaply. There was no mention in the Secretary of State’s statement about replenishing UK stockpiles or a new industry plan. Can he update the House on the action he is taking?

    Finally and importantly, he said that today’s military package means that Ukraine can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Will he confirm that this is the UK’s strategic aim for Ukraine?

    Mr Wallace

    If you would indulge me, Mr Speaker, there were lots of questions and I will do my best to answer them all. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his party for their support, which, as he said, has been ongoing and enduring throughout this process. That is what allows the UK to be prominent in standing tall for international human rights and defending Ukraine.

    The right hon. Gentleman asked what scale of support Ukraine will need; I cannot be too specific, as I do not want to set out to the Russian Government the exact inadequacies or strengths of the Ukrainian armed forces. However, it is safe to say that the Ukrainians will require an ongoing commitment that grows to the size of divisions in its armed forces. Also, in the last year we have seen Ukraine grow its own army, to hundreds of thousands of men and women under arms, who are now equipped not only with western equipment but with captured or refurbished former Soviet or Russian equipment. The Polish Government have donated more than 200 T-72 tanks, for example.

    The key for all of us in the next phase is to help Ukraine to train and to combine all those weapons systems in a way that can deliver a combined arms effect in a mobile manner to deliver the offensives required to achieve the goal of expelling, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about. It is the UK Government’s position that Putin’s invasion fails and Ukraine restores its sovereign territory, and we will do all we can to help achieve that. This package is part of that. The Challengers should be viewed alongside the 50 Bradleys from the United States. Those are effectively the ingredients for a battlegroup with divisional level fires of either AS-90s or other 155 howitzers. The 14 tanks represent a squadron, and the 50 Bradleys would roughly form an armoured infantry battlegroup.

    We are trying to take the Ukrainian military, with its history of Soviet methods, and provide it not only with western equipment but with western know-how. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the training will be delivered almost immediately, starting with Ukrainians training in the UK and in the field, so to speak, either in neighbouring countries or in countries such as Germany, where we saw the artillery train with the Dutch, I think, at the beginning of this process. The training of these Ukrainian forces will be administered and supported in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, with the US being in the lead for much of that formation training. It is incredibly important and supportive of the United States to do that.

    There will be no UK forces deployed in Ukraine in this process. As I have said, that is because our job is to help Ukraine to defend itself and we can do that from neighbouring or other countries. Yes, I know the training cycle. I was a trooper in the Scots Dragoon Guards in 1988 and I started my time in a Chieftain tank, which you would be lucky to see in a museum these days. The Ukrainians have shown us, in their basic and specialist training, that they are determined to go back and fight for their country, and their work ethos and the hours they put in are quite extraordinary. I am confident that, on one level, they will soon be showing us the way to fight with this equipment.

    The right hon. Gentleman referenced the Army cuts. I have come to this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions and admitted how woeful our Army’s equipment programmes have been in the past and how behind and out of date they have been. That is why we have committed investment of more than £24 billion in Army equipment alone over the next 10 years. As I have said, I am bringing forward Deep Fire and Recce and getting Ajax back on track, as well as our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, the Challenger 3 tanks, the Boxer fleet, plus many other investments in the Army. This is incredibly important. I take it seriously and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does too. We have to deliver an Army that can stand shoulder to shoulder with its peers, never mind its enemy, and it is important to say so.

    On the Leopard coalition, as it is calling itself, it is being reported that Poland is keen to donate some Leopard tanks, as is Finland. All of this currently relies on the German Government’s decisions, not only on whether they will supply their own Leopards but whether they will give permissions for others to do so. I would urge my German colleagues to do that. These tanks are not offensive when they are used for defensive methods. There is a debate in Germany about whether a tank is an offensive or defensive weapon. It depends what people are using it for. I would wager that if they are using it to defend their country, it is a defensive weapon.

    Also, we are not on our own. This is a joint international coalition. I know that there have been concerns in the German political body that it does not want to go it alone. Well, it is not alone, and I think that the conference in Ramstein will show that. I pay tribute to the commitment by the French to put in the tanks at Christmas time, and we are obviously joining alongside them. They are the key to unlocking the Leopard, and we will do all we can to help that.

    The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on the international fund is imminently: I will announce it in the next couple of weeks. We had $27 billion-worth of bids to a fund that has reached $500 million. I am very grateful for the recent Swedish donation to the fund, which we intend to keep growing, but I want to make sure that the fund is spent sustainably. It is not a petty cash or slush fund though which people can just go and buy something. I want it to be invested in things such as production and supply chains. Whether it is maintaining tanks or artillery supplies, an active production line is needed.

    That goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point about being too slow to place orders. One of the reasons it has taken time to place orders, as he knows, is that there is sometimes no supply chain and we have to wait for a supply chain to be reinvested in, redeveloped or re-founded with new suppliers before we can get a price for the taxpayer or a contract delivered. That is what happened with NLAW. As much as we would have loved to have placed that order on the next day, some of the supply chain was 15 years old and we had to find new suppliers. Then we got a price and some partners. By placing an order with Sweden, we reinvigorated the supply chain and, hopefully, more jobs with it.

  • John Healey – 2003 Speech to the Association of Colleges Conference

    John Healey – 2003 Speech to the Association of Colleges Conference

    The speech made by John Healey, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 November 2003.

    Thank you for inviting me to join you at your conference.

    I know I am the first Treasury Minister to speak to this conference, but then this is the first Association of Colleges conference exploring the theme of the wider economic, not just educational, role of colleges.

    I know some in the sector feared the new skills strategy launched in summer would downplay or diminish the importance of colleges to what the Chancellor has described as the “national effort for skills”.

    The special contribution of colleges

    There are indeed some very significant challenges for FE, particularly in raising and responding to demand, which I will return to.

    But on the contrary, this drive to inspire and develop the workforce of the future – and today – will not succeed unless colleges make more, not less, of a contribution.

    I am also a fan of Further Education. FE is unique, offering a breadth of learning to a range of learners which no other part of the education and training system comes close to matching.

    This year the LSC is funding nearly 6 million learners in post-16 education and training – of which 3.9 million are in FE. You offer special opportunity and support for many who may not find a place elsewhere in the education system – only half of 16 year-olds going into FE have good GCSEs, compared to more than three quarters entering school sixth forms; 2 in every 5 students entering higher education do so via FE colleges; and over 27% of your FE learners are drawn from the 15% most disadvantaged areas in our country. In the area I represent as a Member of Parliament in South Yorkshire, 45% of all our FE learners are from the 15% most disadvantaged areas.

    This is one reason why general further education is so important to a Labour government.

    Skills are a government spending priority

    But I’ve always argued that learning and skills are much more than a matter just of education.

    When one fifth of Britain’s productivity gap with Germany is due to our skills deficit – then skills are a central economic concern.

    When people with poor literacy and numeracy are up to five times more likely to be unemployed or out of the labour market altogether – then skills are a mainstream employment challenge.

    When failures and barriers in the training market discourage employers from developing their workforce – then skills are a major enterprise policy.

    And when those who are part time, poorly paid or already poorly qualified are less likely to get training at work – then skills are a serious equality issue as well.

    Starkly put, the UK economy will not maximise its long-term growth or jobs potential – and UK society cannot be inclusive – if over a third of the workforce have few or no skills and qualifications.

    When I first got the job of Adult Skills Minister in May 2001, I went into the tea room at the Commons, and another MP came up to me. “I hear you’ve got a Ministerial job” he said, excitedly. “Yes I have.” I replied, just as excitedly. “What is it?” “Minister for Adult Skills.” At that point I saw his eyes glaze over, and he was looking over my shoulder for someone else to talk to.

    We have come a long way since then, and skills, learning and workforce development are more central to much of what government is doing, and what we aim to do for the economy, public services, employment, business support and individual citizens.

    That’s why the preparation of the national skills strategy launched this summer, which was so well led by Ivan Lewis at the Department for Education and Skills, drew heavily also on input from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Work and Pensions, and the Treasury.

    Investment in further education

    You know the total planned investment in FE via the LSC was £4.4 billion last year. You know it is £5.2 billion next year, rising to £5.6 billion in 2005-6.

    So, I hope you see this 19% real terms rise over the current spending review period as a major commitment to, and a mark of confidence in, the further education sector.

    It is confirmation that you have a central part to play in helping us in government achieve economic and social, as well as educational goals.

    Investment priorities

    However, and you might expect me to say this as a Treasury Minister, with powerful competing demands on the public finances, a central issue is not only how much the Government invests, but how we determine what we prioritise for spending, and where we expect a greater contribution from other sources.

    I’ve mentioned that over a third of our workforce – 8.3 million adults – have poor skills and qualifications. This compares with under 20% in Germany, and around 10% in the United States.

    Failures and barriers in learning market

    Now, some of the critical UK skills demands are at higher levels. But the returns from learning beyond level 2 become much clearer and much more direct, both to individuals and employers.

    It is right therefore, I believe, to demand a different balance of investment between individual, employer and state for such learning.

    This economic rationale, if you like, reinforces the basic fairness case that has led Government to target our intervention on basic and level two skills.

    Basic skills for adults are vital – and the fact that between April 2001 and July 2003, nearly half a million adults improved their literacy and numeracy levels – three quarters of them through FE – is a tribute to the colleges and other providers who have responded to the Skills for Life challenge. In my view, our Skills for Life targets are the toughest anywhere in the education field. Since April 2001, more than 3 million learning opportunities have been provided – but we don’t count these against the target. 1.85 million learners have completed literacy, numeracy and language courses – but we don’t count these against the target. We only measure and score a learner who is tested and achieves a qualification above the level they started. And if they go on to achieve level 1 after entry qualification, or level 2 after level 1, we only count them once against this target.

    Now if literacy and numeracy are essential “skills for life”, level 2 is increasingly seen as the base level for successful participation in the labour market. And if the UK is to realise and sustain full employment, and if we are to increase rates of productivity gain, we must achieve the policy goal of fully-funded, flexible opportunities for every adult to learn to level 2.

    Beyond this, the Government is ready to consider extra backing where specific level 3 skills shortages are confirmed, but evidence shows that employers are much more likely to invest in training for staff who already have level 2 skills, and that such staff are also more likely to seek or continue training on their own initiative.

    But we also know that there are other real barriers to the efficient functioning of the learning market.

    For staff, securing the necessary time out from work for learning can be hard. For employers, the cost of allowing their employees time off for training may be prohibitive, particularly for smaller firms.

    This is why we launched the programme of Employer Training Pilots, in 6 English LSC areas, then extended this to 12 in the 2003 Budget. So that, in addition to entirely free level 2 training provision and advice, employers that give staff leave to learn in return receive costs compensation from Government – geared especially to support small companies.

    The results of the first evaluation are due shortly but early indications are very encouraging. At the end of the first 12 months of the six pilots, our first year targets had been hit with around 3,500 employers and 17,000 employees signed up. Moreover, 70% of these firms employed fewer than 50 people, and 40% had never had any contact with public agencies or funding before.

    Importance of demand

    I am glad that Alan Johnson was able to speak to you yesterday and underline the challenges of supply-side reform in further education – raising standards, improving accountability, reducing bureaucracy, developing all staff and also meeting what he called the challenge of college leadership.

    But in our drive to improve skills, the demand-side is equally important. Raising the UK’s performance on skills requires concerted and coordinated effort from all stakeholders – a strong theme throughout the new national skills strategy.

    Government must play its part to deal with market failures, and also to support individuals and employers in their efforts to increase skill levels.

    Employers must take responsibility for the training and development of all their staff to meet the needs of their business or organisation.

    Individuals must take responsibility for their own personal career development, and be prepared to learn and relearn new skills.

    And from all three sources, we must increase levels of demand for, and investment in, learning.

    Further education supply and employer demand

    We must also, of course, ensure that the system of provision responds better to the particular needs of local employers and local economies.

    There are, I know from my time in DfES and my work in the Treasury, some exceptional examples of demand-led provision across the country. But too often the department, learning centre, college or other provider is just that – “exceptional”.

    This was a major reason for the programme of Centres of Vocational Excellence which establish firm links between employers and high quality learning providers to tackle priority skills demands in their area – a programme which has now established 250 COVEs in a little over two years.

    This was also part of the rationale behind our Employer Training Pilots.

    However, the broader drive for closer links between learning providers and employer lies, of course, in the system for planning and funding provision, led by the LSC, but increasingly aligned with RDAs, Business Link and Sector Skills Councils’ strategies.

    As LSCs gain greater funding freedoms and flexibility – and as we devolve 3-year budget planning through the system – there is an important opportunity for colleges to be more active participants in this system, rather than passive recipients of funding decisions made elsewhere.

    Perhaps I caricature colleges as “victims”?

    But when – as the AoC recognises in this conference theme – there is a policy imperative for learning providers to respond to the demands of local labour markets and local economies, it’s reasonable to ask:

    Why have colleges only collected £44m in fees from employers, against a total budget of £4.4 billion last year?

    Why have so few employers chosen colleges to provide learning in the Employer Training Pilots?

    Why are college corporations often the last choice for an employer who wants to serve on a local community body?

    There is certainly more that colleges can do to design courses, develop facilities and deliver learning in ways which meet the demands of local employers and the local economy.

    The AoC’s support – and the substance of this annual conference – are important steps in this direction.

    In Government we look forward to working with you and your members in FE, to tackle this challenge.

  • John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John Healey – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what plans he has to make decisions about changes to housing benefit entitlements for tenants of supported accommodation before the completion of research in this area which has been commissioned by the Department.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Department has jointly commissioned an evidence review with DCLG looking at the size and scope of the supported housing sector. The results of this research will guide our consideration for future policy development.

  • John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what tendering and commissioning process was followed in selecting builders at the direct commissioning site at (a) Daedelus Waterfront, (b) Lower Grayling Well, (c) Connaught Barracks, (d) Northstowe and (e) Old Oak Common.

    Brandon Lewis

    These will be detailed commercial arrangements that will be established through a competitive procurement process. Existing public procurement processes will apply.

  • John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    John Healey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Healey on 2016-01-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what organisations he has met to discuss the introduction of the capping of housing benefit for tenants in supported housing at the local rate of local housing allowance.

    Damian Hinds

    Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. Details of ministerial and permanent secretary meetings with external organisations on departmental business are published on a quarterly basis and are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-ministers-meetings-hospitality-giftsand-overseas-travel The lead department for this measure, the Department for Work and Pensions, has regular meetings with relevant organisations and will meet with them to discuss how the application of local housing allowance rates to social sector tenants, including those living in supported housing, will work as the policy is developed.