UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Luke Pollard

  • Luke Pollard – 2025 Speech at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference

    Luke Pollard – 2025 Speech at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Secretary of State for Defence, at Savoy Place in London on 17 July 2025.

    Good morning everyone.

    It’s a year ago that I last stood in this spot as a new Minister. Some of you will not be able to remember me because I have more grey hair than I had, certainly at this time last year.

    But it was a privilege to welcome colleagues from around the world a year ago and it is a privilege to be able to do exactly the same again today.

    The Secretary of State sends his apologies that he can’t be with us today – some of you may have spotted there has been some news going on in the UK over the past few days – and he continues to explain the situation that we inherited there.

    But having worked alongside him in Opposition as the Shadow Minister for the Armed Forces, and now over the last year, I’ll do my best to fill his considerable shoes that he has.

    But let me first begin by saying a few words about Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, for his incredible service as the Chief of the Air Staff and now as we look ahead to his new role as Chief of the Defence Staff.

    Sir Rich has served our nation with considerable distinction for 37 years.

    Of the 31 individuals who have been CAS since the creation of the RAF in 1918, he has been the first non-pilot to do so, an engineer by trade.

    In leading the Royal Air Force, he has upheld the highest traditions of respect, integrity and excellence, and he’s normally done so with a cheeky smile on his face as well – for those who know him.

    And at a time when our recent Strategic Defence Review has heralded the beginning of a new era for UK deterrence and defence, I can think of no-one better to lead our people through the critical changes ahead.

    Congratulations on your fully-deserved appointment, Rich. I look forward to carrying on working with you.

    And of course, Rich’s boots are not easily filled. And so although there was a very competitive shortlist for the new Chief of the Air Staff, it was fiercely competitive, we were very fortunate to have an outstanding candidate in Air Marshal Harv Smyth.

    Harv, we have urgent and important work to do as we seek to implement the Strategic Defnece Review and I’m going to look forward to continuing to work strongly with all our RAF colleagues.

    And it was just a year ago, we had a General Election. It feels in Britain like there’s a lot of politics going on at the moment, and a lot of change. And that has been a year when defence has rarely been off the front pages.

    From the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, to the modernisation of the UK Armed Forces set in motion, not just by the General Election, but by the Strategic Defence Review that follows.

    But what the news headlines don’t always show are the efforts and the achievements of the people that stand behind the headlines that work every single day to protect our nation and our allies.

    The men and women of our Armed Forces, and if I look around the room, the collective men and women of our Armed Forces, from an alliance that spans the globe of friends and allies – those men and women carry out their duties every single day with superb professionalism and precision, they go above and beyond to keep their nations, our nations, and all our partners safe, and in doing so, they not only create the environment where we can better protect our own homeland from Russian aggression, they are working to support friends and allies the world over.

    The UK Armed Forces have flown over 500 sorties, for example, and moved 9 million tonnes of freight to help the people and the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    And I’m minded, at times like this, when there are so many people in uniform ahead of us, that at this very moment there are brave Ukrainian pilots in the sky above their country trying to keep Ukraine safe from Putin’s illegal aggression. There are brave men and women who I met at the INTERSTORM graduation for the training of Ukrainian pilots – many of whom were very frank and honest about their chances of survival.

    That bravery is something that you all know, because it’s the bravery you see in your own people. But it is something that we, and myself as a politician, need to talk more about. Because we spend a lot of our time talking about kit and equipment and it is absolutely right – and I will do so in this speech, as a spoiler alert – but we need to talk more about our people.

    Notwithstanding autonomy and uncrewed systems, we need to value the men and women who not only serve in the sky, but on the ground, in the laboratories and workshops, that keep our air forces on a global basis the incredible power that they are.

    It was those brave men and women who also were active recently in the Middle East, evacuating over 220 British nationals and their dependants out of Tel Aviv, including a 3 month old baby and a 91 year old pensioner, to protect them from missile attacks.

    It’s particularly important in these times of increasing insecurity that we do recognise that dedication of our people, and that is why, unapologetically, this government talks about renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve.

    Everyone around the world will have a similar formulation. It may be slightly worded differently, it may be translated in a slightly different word order. But fundamentally, we need our nations to value our people more, and if we can do that we have a stronger defence by default even if we spend not a single extra penny on it. Because our people are only as strong as the nation that stands behind them.

    So after awarding UK service personnel their biggest pay rise for 20 years and giving them another above inflation pay rise this year, we are delivering a generation of renewal of military accommodation, with at least £7 billion of funding for this in this parliament. For those international visitors who have not stayed in some British military accommodation for a while, let me tell you it is not good enough. That is not good enough for me, it’s not good enough for our people, and we are fixing it.

    And that’s why we are going to continue to put people at the heart of our defence unapologetically.

    Now, I know that the pace of change in our Armed Forces in the UK and collectively is matched by many of our international friends who are doing exactly the same.

    But we are only at the start of the transformation and the RAF is at the heart of that.

    The Strategic Defence Review set out our blueprint to reshape and revitalise UK defence in a new geopolitical era of threat.

    Britain now has a absolutely clear NATO-first defence policy and it is pivotal to our future security.

    But it is only right that Europe steps up to take on more of the heavy lifting for its own defence and protection.

    At the recent Hague Summit, European leaders came together and did precisely that.

    As well as a pledge to spend 5% of GDP on national security, the UK announced the biggest strengthening of our nuclear posture in a generation, including the purchase of a dozen F-35As and a commitment to join NATO’s nuclear Dual Capable Aircraft mission, giving the RAF a nuclear role for the first time since the end of the Cold War and complementing our own sovereign Continuous At Sea Deterrent which we declare, in full, to the defence of NATO.

    Driving the modernisation of the RAF will be a relentless focus on innovation. For well over a century, the UK has been a leader in shaping and pioneering air power.

    From the founding of the Royal Flying Corps in 1912, and the new technologies of the interwar years, radar, air defence systems, the Second World War saw air power tested and developed like never before. Yet the pace of change did not stop after the peace came.

    The jet age defined deterrence in new terms, transforming speed, reach, and altitude, and while the post-Cold War era has given us precision weapons, global ISTAR and unparalleled situational awareness.

    Today, we stand on the verge of another profound leap forward in which autonomy, AI, and digitisation will define the bounds of the sky. One of the key takeaways from me from the SDR is that we’re not just developing niche autonomous units at the periphery of our military. Every single unit across every single service in the UK will be moving to a system of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous systems. That is a substantial change in not just fighting doctrine, in training, in how our people come together, in how we procure, it is a fundamental change in how we will fight and how we will deter.

    We will deliver £1 billion in an integrated Targeting Web. So any sensor, any effector, any target can be struck. That is a fundamental change in how we build an integrated force, regardless of the cloth that you are wearing.

    Times change, but the victors in the race to dominate air power are always those who adapt first and adapt fast.

    Innovation, speed and agility, the ability to out-think, out-perform and out-manoeuvre the enemy, are the capabilities and challenges we must harness.

    But let us make no mistake, our adversaries are doing exactly the same, and they are seeking to hack our phones to learn what we are doing to outpace them as well.

    That means the UK and our Allies must compete harder to have control of the air and to fight in new ways.

    Now I mentioned the war in Ukraine earlier, and one of the things that that is showing us is that getting new technology into the hands of warfighters fast can give you an edge on the battlefield.

    It is also a central message of the new UK defence policy.

    Our SDR calls for investment in Autonomous Collaborative Platforms to ensure the future of UK air combat air. And that can sound, to the voters I represent in Plymouth, a little bit like science fiction.

    But making the case that that already exists, and telling the story of systems like StormShroud is vital to building the public support we need for this new era of autonomous systems as well.

    StormShroud is designed to disrupt enemy radar at long range, and this fleet of new autonomous wingman drones will increase fighter jet survivability, and boost our warfighting power.

    As an uncrewed system, integrated into our new digital targeting web, it also frees up personnel to perform other vital frontline missions.

    And there are other ways in which StormShroud provides glimpses of the future.

    As we spend more on the military in the coming years, something that as a group of friends we are all doing, Defence will increasingly become a potent engine for economic growth. An argument we must make over, and over, and over again. It is a licence to operate – Defence is an engine for growth.

    StormShroud has already created hundreds of skilled jobs around the UK, with the promise of 1,000 more in the future.

    And it is in contrast to the failing procurement system we inherited, StormShroud is an example of good practice.

    It has gone from factory to front-line in record time, signalling how we want to streamline procurement in the future. And I suspect that the UK is not alone in wanting to make procurement faster on a global basis.

    Our policy is NATO-first, but it’s not NATO-only.

    The Euro-Atlantic, Indo-Pacific and Middle East are inseparably connected.

    And with that, I welcome our friends from the GCAP International Government Organisation.

    Through GCAP, Italy, Japan and the UK are developing a supersonic stealth fighter jet.

    The programme means our nations can come together, not just to defend the Euro-Atlantic, but to support our values on a global stage. That will bring together our industrial bases, and make sure we are being able to provide the deterrence that we need well into the future.

    And this time last year, just as we were kicking off the SDR, I received a lot of questions on GCAP and our position on it and a year later, I’m absolutely proud to stand on the same stage and say that GCAP is progressing well.

    It already supports 3,500 UK jobs, and 1,000 apprenticeships.

    Last week, we cut the ribbon on GCAP’s new headquarters in Reading, where hundreds of skilled personnel will be based, and the Defence Secretary met with counterparts from Italy and Japan to plan the next phase of this programme.

    And at a time of rapidly changing technology, it’s also essential we upgrade not just those at the tip of the spear that are able to deliver kinetic effect, it’s also vital  we upgrade our airborne early warning and control capabilities.

    The E-7 Wedgetail will provide the improved performance we are looking for offering greater speed, range, endurance and crew capacity.

    And by improving detection, it provides early warning of more challenging threats at greater distances, increasing the time available for offensive and defensive action, so boosting the lethality, survivability and resilience of our Joint Force.

    Wedgetail also has a growth path to meet the expected threat over the next 20 years and beyond and for those at RIAT, look forward to seeing her in the sky above the incredible air show there.

    So, to conclude.

    The story of air power has always been one of constant innovation, imagination, and adaptation. That has not changed today.

    But we must evolve again, to stay ahead of those who threaten our security. And that does mean moving on from some traditional doctrines and embracing the new. Embracing autonomy is a fundamental challenge for all our air forces, for all our procurement systems, for politicians who might be easier to make a case of a pilot in the sky, but by improving our lethality, by increasing it, we increase our deterrence. And with increased deterrence, we make more strategic dilemmas for those who seek to challenge the international order, who seek to challenge our freedom, and the liberty that our people enjoy.

    The SDR has fired the starting pistol on that reform of the UK Armed Forces, and, having read many of the reviews undertaken by our Allies in recent months, I know similar themes are present in the new emerging defence policies that our Allies in this room are developing as well. More collaborative platforms, working together, more investment in our Armed Forces, more focus on our people. It is precisely in these ways that we will be stronger in the future, to keep not only the UK secure at home and strong abroad, but to make sure we do so in support of all our Allies as we all face similar threats from similar adversaries who fundamentally want to attack our values  and our position in the world. The people in this room today have a key role in defending all those values and all our people, thank you for what you are doing. Thank you for the pace of change that you are instigating, and keep going. Thank you very much.

  • Luke Pollard – 2025 Speech on the UK Nuclear Deterrent

    Luke Pollard – 2025 Speech on the UK Nuclear Deterrent

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 2 June 2025.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee for this chance to set out the Government’s total commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which has been the bedrock of our national security for nearly 70 years. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will shortly outline the details of the strategic defence review to the House, and that review will be underpinned by our nuclear deterrent, which is part of our blueprint for a new hybrid Navy, in which next-generation Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarines, and up to 12 SSN-AUKUS conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, will serve alongside best-in-class warships, support ships and new cutting-edge autonomous vessels, building on the £15 billion investment set out for the UK’s sovereign nuclear warhead programme in this Parliament. This is not only a manifesto promise delivered; it is our most important military capability secured for generations to come. This investment will also deliver a defence dividend of highly skilled, well-paid jobs across the country. Our nuclear warhead programme alone will create and sustain over 9,000 jobs, along with thousands more in supply chains.

    To ensure that the demands of our nuclear programme can be met, we are working closely with industry partners, and are aiming to double defence and civil nuclear apprenticeship and graduate intakes. That will mean 30,000 apprentices over the next 10 years; they will be part of this historic renewal of our nuclear deterrent and our communities across the country.

    The first duty of every Government is to keep their people safe. In a more dangerous world, peace and security are best achieved through deterrence and preparedness. As the son of a Royal Navy submariner, I thank our outstanding submariners who patrol 24/7 to keep us and our allies safe. We know that threats are increasing, and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression in particular. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our security. The Defence Secretary will momentarily make a statement giving further details, but our proposals are possible only because of the Government’s historic decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2027—the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The Government have the will, the plan and the means to secure the nuclear deterrent for generations to come. We are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank the Minister for his response, and your good self, Mr Speaker, for kindly granting the urgent question.

    Following the report in The Sunday Times that the Ministry of Defence is looking to purchase American fighter jets that are capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential that the House gets clarity on the Government’s nuclear deterrent policy—an issue of critical national importance. How have the media got hold of such sensitive information on future nuclear deterrent plans, and what steps are the Government taking to investigate the leak?

    If the Government are pursuing an air-launched tactical nuclear capability, that is a huge deal. It would represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. Indeed, it would be the UK’s most significant defence expansion since the cold war. This raises serious concerns about our sovereignty when it comes to nuclear weapons, about strategic coherence with our current doctrine, and about the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence.

    Despite the defence nuclear enterprise accounting for around 20% of the defence budget, it remains largely outside meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, including by our Defence Committee. This must change, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how Parliament will be enabled to scrutinise changes to the UK’s nuclear programmes? Have discussions taken place with the US, and what role would it play in this capability? Will the Minister confirm that the UK will retain full operational control over any nuclear weapons? Given that tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, what assessment has been made of the risks of escalation? Will the Minister confirm that only the Prime Minister would have authority to use them, and only in extreme self-defence? Finally, has there been consultation with NATO allies on this potential shift? Decisions of this magnitude must be transparent. The future of our nuclear deterrent must be based on clarity, credibility and, above all, British control.

    Luke Pollard

    I do not want to eat the Secretary of State’s sandwiches, and I am acutely aware that the statement that he is about to make—

    Mr Speaker

    Don’t worry: The Sunday Times did it for us.

    Luke Pollard

    The Secretary of State will shortly lay out more details of the strategic defence review, but I am happy to answer a few of the questions from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee.

    Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the outcomes of Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review via the House of Commons Defence Committee. I know that my hon. Friend will have the reviewers in front of his Committee shortly and will be able to ask them difficult questions. I am aware that there are proposals for how we scrutinise more sensitive and classified issues, and conversations between the House and the Government on that continue.

    We of course continue to have conversations with the United States—our most important security partner—and with our NATO allies, but my hon. Friend will understand that I will not be able to detail the precise nature of those conversations to the House at this stage. I reassure him that we retain full operational control of our independent continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—the backbone of our national security.

    As I mentioned, it is the first duty of any Government to keep our country safe. The nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our national security and our safety. I can confirm that only the Prime Minister has the power to launch nuclear actions.

  • Luke Pollard – 2024 Statement on the Chagos Islands

    Luke Pollard – 2024 Statement on the Chagos Islands

    The statement made by Luke Pollard, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 2 December 2024.

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.

    On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.

    This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:

    “It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”

    Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.

    Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.

    For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.

    Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.

  • Luke Pollard – 2024 Speech at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference

    Luke Pollard – 2024 Speech at the Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in London on 18 July 2024.

    Good morning all.

    When I say that I am delighted to speak to you today, it is not just because this is my first speech as a Minister. It is also because you, the people in this room, are the people who are going to be responsible for the biggest transformation of our Air Force and space capabilities that we need, not just in the UK, but across our Alliances as well.

    Because whether you are a member of the armed forces, an international ally, or a partner in industry, you will know that our air, land and sea naval capabilities are all dependant on our ability to work together in space, and in cyber.

    Satellites and cyber communications are intrinsic components of our command and control, our secure comms, our ISR and PNT capabilities, and our missile defence.

    Yet for far too long, the Ministry of Defence and Government strategies have not given enough value to space and cyber that they should have. And neither have they given enough value to those people who work in them either.

    If we are to get Britain’s fighting forces fit to deter our adversaries, and defeat them if necessary, we must be ready for the profound step-changes in warfare that we are seeing in our increasingly fast-evolving, volatile, and contested world.

    We need to be a truly integrated force, equipped for ‘all domain warfare’.

    Multi domain integration is not enough.

    I see MDI as a journey that takes us to a destination. That destination is all domain warfare.

    Where to win we control space, cyber, electronic spectrums, as well as air, land and sea in a single joined up approach.

    And that is the change that we are determined to bring to defence, to support those people in defence who are already working on that.

    I will come back to that concept of All Domain Warfare in a moment, and the role we all have to play in realising it, but I’m first going to focus on the existing work of our air, space and cyber forces, and how the new Labour government’s plans for defence can strengthen that work.

    If we ever needed reminding about the outstanding work that our servicemen and women of our air, space and cyber forces do, then 2024 has given us plenty of examples.

    From protecting UK and NATO airspace 24/7/365, or 366 as it will be in this leap year,

    to operating seamlessly with allies to conduct precision strikes against Houthi sites in Yemen; intercepting Iranian missiles and drones launched against Israel.

    From training Ukrainian F-16 pilots and lighting up the sky for the anniversary of D-Day to thwarting countless cyber attacks; getting crucial humanitarian aid into Gaza, and conducting major exercises with NATO, and our other allies around the world. Showing that NATO is joined-up, capable, and ready.

    And they’ve also kept our comms systems and intelligence secure, and strengthened our alliances that help protect our national interests right round the globe.

    It amounts to an impressive legacy from just 7 months’ work. And I want to thank everyone who has served for their professionalism, and for everything they and you do to protect not just our country but our allies as well.

    But the United Kingdom does not fight alone. We are proud of the NATO alliance. Proud to be the founding member. And my party is proud of the role we played in forging that alliance all those years ago.

    Proud that it continues to grow with our new alliance partners in Sweden and Finland.

    And proud to work seamlessly with so many allies around the world, many of whom are represented here today.

    Now, I’m the son of a Royal Navy submariner, and a very proud Navy brat, and as an MP for my hometown in Plymouth, which is home to Devonport, the largest naval base in Western Europe, my experience of talking to Armed Forces personnel has gone from being a small child smuggled onto a submarine to have a look around, to attending Armed Forces Days up in Plymouth Hoe if you’ve seen them.

    I know that when you speak to our Armed Forces personnel about their achievements, they’re more than likely to say it was just ‘part of the day job’.

    But as I’ve seen since being a kid, being a member of our Armed Forces is more than a day job.

    It takes you away from your home and your loved ones and demands everything from you. It is the ultimate public service. And that’s why, as the Minister for the Armed Forces, I will endeavour to always have your back.

    But I have to level with you first. That does not mean that we will be able to do everything we want to as quickly as we’d like.

    Over recent years, the new Defence Secretary, John Healey, and myself, have raised concerns about real term Government cuts, and its inability to fund existing plans.

    I’ve raised concerns about force size and capabilities; about readiness and resilience; about the state of defence facilities and the appalling state of military housing that we ask our Armed Forces personnel and their families to live in; and about the state of retention and recruitment.

    And regardless of how much I would like to be able to address all these challenges overnight, we know it will take time.

    But the work of change has begun across Government and that includes in the Ministry of Defence.

    The Prime Minister has laid out an ambitious, yet deliverable path, towards rebuilding our Armed Forces, built on public service and collaboration and a clear understanding that defence is the first duty of any Government.

    And that started with the Strategic Defence Review, that he announced on Tuesday.

    That review will be overseen by the Defence Secretary and led by former NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson.

    You don’t need me to tell you that this is going to be a critical review for the Royal Air Force, for UK Space Command, for our partnerships with industry, and for the evolution of our air, space, and cyber capabilities.

    Over the last year, drones and missiles fired by Houthis have terrorised international shipping. Putin has used them to terrorise our friends in Ukraine, and Iran has used them to attack Israel.

    They have pushed the envelopes of what we consider modern warfare.

    That means we have to look again at how we fight. How we strengthen air and missile defence, look at our counter-measures and get that right up the agenda.

    As drones and technology reshape the battlefield, and satellites become increasingly central to warfare, if only in the public understanding of their role. The risk of cyber attacks continue.

    The risks of undermining our institutions, our critical national infrastructure, our democracy continues.

    The breadth of the threats we face, and the need to innovate at an ever-increasing pace, demands a fresh assessment of the state of our armed forces, the capabilities we need, and the resources that we have available.

    So you’ll be hearing more from me and other ministers about a ‘one defence’ approach, with truly integrated Services and capabilities, that we can prosecute all domain warfare.

    It is integral to our ability to deter and integral to our ability to fight and win if we need to.

    Our Strategic Defence Review will be an open and collaborative defence Review. And those who that have heard me speak before will know that I always give out homework.

    And the homework I’m giving out to you is this: Please contribute.

    Whether you are from the forces, industry, academia, or one of our allies: Please add your insights and expertise to that process.

    So that we don’t just bolster the front line – we do everything that underpins it as well.

    From our skills base to our industrial resilience, and of course to our alliances.

    That collaborative approach will mean that the Strategic Defence Review will report in the first half of 2025.

    However, the work to strengthen our deterrence began on day one of getting elected.

    For the international visitors: you go straight from a sports centre where you get announced as an MP at 4am in the morning, slightly bleary-eyed, into a department.

    It’s slightly a whirlwind time. But the work of change needs to start straight away.

    That’s why we have committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as we can. We have committed to our nuclear ‘triple lock’ – that’s continuing out continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent, with our four new next generation ballistic missile carrying nuclear submarines being built in Barrow, and a commitment to all the future upgrades required to keep Britain and our NATO allies safe with those submarines.

    And although there has been a change in Downing Street, let me reassure you as well that there will be no change in Britain’s steadfast support for our friends in Ukraine.

    Within 48 hours of being appointed, the Defence Secretary was in Odesa to pledge a new shipment of missiles and munitions to support Ukraine’s fight. And he committed to President Zelensky to get crucial UK kit into Ukrainian hands within 100 days.

    At the NATO Summit in Washington, the Prime Minister told President Zelenskyy that he would stick with Ukraine and provide £3 billion in military aid each year for as long as it takes for Ukraine to win.

    Putin’s illegal war has underlined the belief our government has in a ‘NATO first’ defence policy.

    And it has shone a light on shortcomings of our and many of our allies’ stockpiles as well.

    So we will provide leadership by boosting Britain’s industrial capacity and resilience of our supply chains by aligning our defence industrial strategy more closely with our security priorities as well as our economic priorities, which will provide a boost for British jobs, industry, and our regions.

    And we have also committed to look hard at procurement – to cut out waste, improve value for money, and bring greater urgency to our acquisition programmes.

    And we have instigated important organisational reforms to improve military leadership and planning, with a new Military Strategic Headquarters, and a new National Armaments Director.

    Whilst these domestic commitments and reforms are fundamental to strengthening our deterrence and our capabilities, our global alliances and partnerships are equally important to the security of our nation.

    Our commitment to NATO is unshakable.

    We must, and we will fulfil all our obligations as a member and strengthen Britain’s leadership within the alliance.We will also seek to strengthen European security by negotiating a new security pact with the EU – seeking a new bilateral defence agreement with Germany, refreshing the Lancaster House agreement with France, and stronger defence partnerships with our Joint Expeditionary Force partners.

    Further afield, to protect our values and global interests, and drive innovation, we are committing to developing and strengthening the AUKUS partnership to realise its full economic and security potential, and committed to building closer partnerships in the Indo Pacific and our allies in Africa.

    The final and most important piece to have effective defence is our people.

    And again, I must level with you that we are currently not recruiting or retaining enough people in our Armed Forces.This is a challenge not unique to Britain – many of our Allies are facing this as well.

    But if we are to transform our Armed Forces, we need to attract more people, we need to train more people, and we need to retain more people.

    That means offering them a career that makes them want to stay for longer. And for those who have left, want to rejoin.

    The moral component of fighting power remains the key to building an effective and lethal force.

    Which is why, over recent years, John Healey the Defence Secretary, and I have fought to highlight the need to improve conditions for serving personnel, their families, and veterans.

    And that’s why, as a Government, we are determined to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. You will hear more about that in the months ahead.

    It’s a commitment we made in our manifesto and it’s absolutely vital for our national security.

    If we don’t get this right, we don’t get the people that keeps the country and our allies safe.

    So we will put the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law and appoint an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with a clear brief to improve service life.

    And as our new Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my colleague, Maria Eagle, has said we will fix our broken procurement system. And she also has a determination to tackle the poor quality of the housing our personnel and their families.

    And our new Minister for Veterans and People, who was until a few months ago a Colonel in the Royal Marines, Alistair Carns, will improve veterans’ access to support for mental health, employment, and housing.

    We will be a joined-up, ‘One Defence’ ministerial team, breaking down silos, and working to deliver a joined-up ‘one defence’ approach to the sector, with serving personnel, officials, innovators and industry, all working more closely.

    Now, the window in my new office overlooks the River Thames. This is a big improvement to the window to my office in Parliament.

    As a relatively new MP elected in 2017, if you’ve got a window in your office, you’re doing well. So to have multiple windows is a quite a treat.

    So to have multiple windows in the MOD I can see the RAF memorial on the banks of the River Thames.

    That memorial to the British and allied pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain,

    that Churchill christened as the “few who gave so much for the many” is something that I take very seriously.

    It’s a reminder of the important role that the Royal Air Force plays. Not just in our national security but our national story as well.

    As I take on the role of the Minister for Armed Forces, those memorials, not just on the Thames but in every community around the country, including the one that I represent in Plymouth, are a lasting reminder that we must have a strong Air Force, but that we must back the people who work in uniform and the civilians who support or Air Force.

    But like in the 1930s, our world is increasingly volatile and dangerous. And like the 1930s, we need to invest in airpower, and give our Royal Air Force not only the best aircraft but the best capabilities and people that we can.

    Just like the 1930’s, when new technology like radar was being pioneered by the RAF, today, some of the same spirit of innovation exists and must be nurtured further in space, cyber and across electronic warfare, giving us a much clearer plan for averting war in Western Europe than existed in the 1930s.

    Our security relies on ‘effective collective deterrence’. And this new Labour government will enhance it: By increasing defence spending; investing in our Armed Forces; investing in our next generation nuclear capability; and reconnecting Britain with our allies and partners.

    We will reform defence to improve decision making, strengthen industrial resilience, improve morale, and deliver better value for money.

    And in partnership with our innovators and industry, we will equip ourselves for all domain warfare, cutting edge capabilities, and greater lethality.

    More integrated and interoperable with our allies, standing with Ukraine, standing up to Putin, and standing up for the values that we all share. Democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

    So whether you are on the front line, or in support. An international ally, or ally in industry. We all have an important part to play.

    And to our international friends, I want you to know that Britain is back.

    In Britain, with Keir Starmer as Prime Minister and John Healey as Defence Secretary, you have a refreshed and revitalised partner in the world stage.

    Reconnecting with friends and building new alliances in service of collective deterrence and security.

    We have our eyes wide open about how difficult these challenges are and how hard the world is. And nothing I’ve outlined today will be quick or easy.

    There are difficult challenges ahead: Hybrid threats and hostile states.

    But we bring serious pragmatic leadership, a clear plan, and a renewed spirit of collaboration, that will make us more secure at home and strong abroad.

    Thank you.

  • Luke Pollard – 2023 Speech on the Firearms Bill

    Luke Pollard – 2023 Speech on the Firearms Bill

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

    I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for moving the Bill’s Third Reading today, and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) for taking it through Committee.

    I rise to speak in support of the Bill, which will make small but important changes to our gun laws. As the MP for the constituency that suffered the tragedy of losing five people in the mass shooting in Keyham of August 2021, I am very mindful that in approaching gun legislation we should all do our best to prevent future tragedies, close loopholes and ensure that the pain and suffering that my community has felt is not felt by others. The Bill will make small but important changes in that direction.

    In Committee, Opposition Members made the case that although closing these two loopholes is welcome, it shows that yet again we are making ad hoc changes to gun legislation. There may be a stronger case for a broader review of gun laws, in particular to look at updating the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that our gun legislation takes 21st-century conditions into account and keeps people safe based on modern rather than historic practices and uses.

    The Bill is narrow and I will constrain my remarks to its provisions. It will clamp down on existing loopholes related to miniature rifles. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the word “miniature” might misleadingly suggest that they are somehow toys or that they are less serious, but .22 rifles are still weapons and should be controlled with appropriate scrutiny of those who apply for a certificate, as well as those without a certificate, as the Bill seeks to address.

    Clause 1 will make limited changes to the 1968 Act by introducing a requirement for operators of miniature rifle ranges to obtain a firearm certificate and by restricting such ranges to .22 weapons only—a welcome change that the Opposition think is a good idea. Clause 2 will introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. The Bill follows the publication of the firearms safety consultation, which sought views on improving the controls on miniature rifle ranges. 73% of those who responded to the survey agreed or strongly agreed

    “that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to hold a firearms certificate”.

    Labour broadly supports the Bill, but we stress that the legislation should go further. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) spoke of her conversations with police officers, who told her that miniature rifles have been adapted into more dangerous weapons and used to facilitate criminality. It was felt that the requirement for someone operating a miniature rifle range to apply for a firearms certificate should be accompanied by further conditions in recognition of the fact that they are running such an establishment rather than simply possessing a firearm. It was also felt that the running of the range should be subject to routine checks on compliance, but that is missing from clauses 1 and 2.

    We need our gun laws to be fit for the 21st century. That means recognising that the 1968 Act is out of date and that the body of assembled gun law changes since the Act could be consolidated to ensure that they are fit for modern challenges. An example relevant to clause 2 is the 3D printing of ammunition and firearms, which was briefly mentioned in Committee. At the moment, 3D printing is used mainly for handguns. Designs can be downloaded freely from the internet, so someone with a 3D printer can print a handgun and other kinds of weaponry. That fundamentally changes criminals’ ability to get their hands on firearms and evade the licensing system. It is also possible for them to print elements of ammunition that fit the gun. The casing is explicitly identified as a component part of ammunition in proposed new section 3A(2)(b) of the 1968 Act, which is set out in clause 2.

    It does not appear to me that clause 2 explicitly covers 3D printing. When pressed on this in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), was not able to provide an answer. I realise the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is at the Dispatch Box today, is not responsible for the day-to-day handling of the Bill, but I would be grateful if he could pass my concerns to his officials. If we face a growth in the 3D printing of weapons, which is a genuine risk both in the future and now, we must make sure that the provision of a 3D printer could fall under the same type of offence as suggested in clause 2.

    Last week I met Emma Ambler, who lost her twin sister Kelly Fitzgibbons, and Kelly’s two children, to a gun incident. I often speak about Keyham in this place, but it is important to recognise that, around the country, we are seeing people lose loved ones in a variety of circumstances due to firearms, but also due to failures in how firearms certificates and firearms licensing are delivered.

    I share the concern of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to ensure that responsible gun owners are able to possess a weapon. Making sure that only appropriate individuals have access to a weapon must be at the heart of our approach to gun laws. Sadly, we have seen police forces, including Devon and Cornwall police in my area, fail catastrophically to ensure that only those who should have a gun certificate have one. It is welcome that the Bill extends the provisions to .22 rifles, but wherever a police force is investigating an individual’s suitability, we must make sure that not only are the proper procedures followed but that the same procedures are followed across the nation.

    After the Plymouth inquest, the coroner made a number of remarks in this direction. One recommendation was for the introduction of national training for all police officers involved with firearms licensing, to ensure that the regulation of firearms is the same in every part of the country. That is important when looking to extend the provision of firearms licensing, as we are with this Bill, to make sure that, whether it is Devon and Cornwall police, the Metropolitan police or any other police force in England and Wales, the provisions are the same so that we avoid the loss of life we saw in Plymouth and in relation to Kelly Fitzgibbons and her family.

    We accept that, due to the nature of this Bill, the Government are not minded to make broader changes at this time, but we are encouraged that there is an appetite to close the loopholes, as identified with .22 rifles in this private Member’s Bill. I encourage the Government to go further. I look forward to meeting the Policing Minister next week with the families of those we sadly lost in the Keyham tragedy in 2021, to make the case for closing further loopholes on a comprehensive basis to ensure that our gun laws in the 21st century keep all our communities safe.

    Labour will back this Bill today, and we hope it further reinforces the need to go further to ensure that all our communities remain safe from gun violence.

  • Luke Pollard – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Luke Pollard – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see so many parliamentary petitions attached to this debate, showing the true breadth of concern about the health of these essential pollinators. I am grateful to all the petitioners, who share my passion for bees. I hope that the debate does their concerns justice.

    Before we start, I declare an interest: my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall, and I am a patron of Pollenize, a fantastic community interest company in Plymouth that champions pollinator conservation. I also thank Buglife, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Green Alliance and the all-party parliamentary groups on bees and pollinators and on the environment for their help in my preparation for the debate.

    Although my remarks today will focus on bees, we should remember that moths, butterflies, wasps and beetles are also pollinators, but as I said, I will confine my remarks to bees. I bloody love bees. They might be small creatures, but a lot rests on them. Today, up to three quarters of crops globally are pollinated by bees. The decline in bee populations has led to concerns about food security as well as the impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, but just last Monday the Government issued yet another so-called emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, for the treatment of sugar beet seed for the remainder of this year. This is the third time that the Government have granted emergency permissions for that bee-killing pesticide to be used.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, ruled that the use of bee-killing pesticides was not acceptable, even under emergency exemptions to protect sugar beet crops, which he mentioned. France has this year decided not to grant the exemption, but the UK Government have. Does he share my concern that the Government may be allowing our environmental standards to slip?

    Luke Pollard

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention on a point that I will come to. We are in the middle of a climate and nature emergency; we need all our policies, not just some of them, to reflect that, and authorising the use of bee-killing pesticides is not consistent with the declaration that this House has agreed to.

    In this debate, I want to do three things. First, I will argue that the decision to authorise bee-killing pesticides for 2023 was wrong and should be reversed. Bee-killing pesticides are environmental vandalism. Secondly, I want to back our British farmers, so I challenge the Government and industry to do more to help sugar beet farmers, some of whom face financial losses and real difficulties because of an aphid-spread disease, the beet yellows virus. Thirdly, I propose again that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides be subject to a parliamentary vote, rather than being quietly snuck out by Ministers.

    I do not believe that there has been an emergency three years in a row; this is a plan to allow bee-killing pesticides to be used, with authorisations given annually. I sense some déjà vu here, because this time last year, the Government authorised the use of bee-killing pesticides for 2022. I held a parliamentary debate on bee-killing pesticides in this very room a year ago and was told by the Minister at the time that the authorisation was “temporary” and “exceptional”, but here we are again. It is a new year, but the same bee-killing pesticides have been greenlighted by the Conservatives.

    It is four years since this became the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate and nature emergency. I want all of us, regardless of party, to focus on nature recovery, rather than on having to prevent Ministers from issuing death warrants for bees and other pollinators. One third of the UK bee population has disappeared in the last decade, and since 1900 the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Habitat loss, land-use changes and other human factors are partly to blame, but so is the widespread use of neonicotinoids in agriculture and across food production. We know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs authorisation of neonics will accelerate that decline.

    Thiamethoxam, or TMX, has been found to reduce colony health by harming worker-bee locomotion and potentially altering the division of labour if bees move outside or remain outdoors. It can cause hyperactivity in bees and affect their ability to fly. It is not just killing bees; it is depriving bees of the ability to function. One teaspoon is powerful enough to kill 1.25 billion honey bees, according to Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, who is also an expert book writer on the subject of bees. I encourage colleagues to look him up in the Library. Indeed, the former Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), told the Commons in December 2021 that there is a

    “growing weight of scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinators.”

    Furthermore, the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has said, “The evidence points in one direction—we must ban neonicotinoids”. It is rare that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do here, and I imagine most colleagues in the Chamber do as well. When we left the EU, the Government promised to follow the science.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    We should protect our wildlife wherever we possibly can, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to the Minister on the science behind the derogation, given that East Anglia and my constituency of North Norfolk have a large and growing population farming sugar beet. We need to bring glyphosate into the argument. That is another product that we must look to ban, particularly because we know it has harmful effects for humans—it is carcinogenic—and is poor for our biodiversity. The EU is banning glyphosate later this year. What does the hon. Gentleman think about bringing the ban forward from 2025? I certainly want to hear the Minister’s response to that question. We must move to a far more natural solution than glyphosate, which is extremely harmful.

    Luke Pollard

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to the science and the process for approval based on scientific decisions in a moment, so I hope he will hold his horses on that point. He makes a strong point on glyphosate. Last year, I held a roundtable with environmental charities, farming representatives and scientists, including representatives of Cancer Research UK, to consider the impact not only of neonicotinoids, but of glyphosate. There are real concerns here, and if we are to make progress in achieving a more nature-based form of agriculture relying on fewer chemicals and pesticides, we need to consider the impact of these chemicals not only on nature, but on human health.

    The issue is not only food production in the UK. Now that we have signed trade deals with countries that use neonicotinoids, glyphosate and other chemicals on a greater, more industrial scale in their food production, and we allow that food to be imported to the UK, we are seeing those chemicals in the UK food chain, and we might see even more of them in future, even though we might be taking positive steps to address them. That is an important issue, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as he does every year on this topic. I hope he does not have to do so next year. We are focused on agricultural use today, but there is an issue with the use of glyphosate in cities. Does he agree that we ought to create pollinator corridors in our cities and prevent the use of pesticides, so we do not damage the health of our pollinators, and that councils need to be supported to go down that route?

    Luke Pollard

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. Bee corridors and pollinator corridors offer an incredible opportunity to green many of our urban environments, and provide habitats not only for bees, but for other insects. Insect health might not be the sexiest of topics, but it is essential if we are to reverse climate decline and biodiversity loss.

    There are superb examples across the south-west—in Bristol and in Plymouth—of bee corridors. I encourage everyone to support their local council in establishing bee corridors, especially at the point in the year when bee corridors do not look their best and plants start to brown; that is precisely when the biodiversity boost is greatest. How can we explain that to residents?

    Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has referred to the benefits of pollinator corridors, but in Torbay we have the wild flower garden, which used to be very formal planting right on the seafront. The wild flower garden was extremely popular with tourists and visitors.

    Luke Pollard

    It is a great loss to Government that the hon. Gentleman is no longer a Minister, but a great benefit to these debates that we have double the west country Members from Devon speaking on such matters. Wild flower meadows, however we brand them, are a really important part of restoring ecosystems. They demonstrate that the interventions needed to support biodiversity recovery are not always large or expensive. They can be in every single community where there is a patch of ground that can be planted with wild flowers, and are a good way of signalling intent, especially as regards the recovery of pollinators.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Brighton also has lots of lovely bee-friendly verges and so forth. Are we not just asking the Government to implement their own approach? Yesterday in their environmental improvement plan, they said that they wanted to put nature friendliness at the heart of all their policies. How is that coherent with the decision taken a few days ago? If the Government want to be consistent, they need to look again at the decision on bee-killing pesticides.

    Luke Pollard

    That is exactly right. If we are to have a proper nature-based recovery, and if the Government are to achieve their ambitions as set out in not only the Environment Act 2021 but the associated piece of legislation that this House has passed, we need them to follow their own procedures, and I do not think that they have in relation to the authorisation. I will explain why.

    When we left the European Union, the Government promised to follow the science on bee-killing pesticides. How is that going? On 6 September 2021, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury, then a DEFRA Minister, told the Commons:

    “Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on expert assessment by the Health and Safety Executive.”

    Another DEFRA Minister, Lord Goldsmith, gave the same commitment, word for word, in the Lords that month. That surely means that bee-killing pesticides will be used only when the science shows that it is safe to do so. Right? Wrong.

    The Government’s own expert committee on pesticides concluded on 30 January this year, in a report that can be found on the Government’s website, that the requirements for an emergency authorisation of bee-killing pesticides had not been met. It stated:

    “On the basis of the evidence presented, the Committee agreed it supports the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemical Regulation Division’s assessment that it is unable to support an emergency authorisation, as potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

    How can the decision have been made through expert assessment—on the science—as Ministers claim, if those very same experts say no to bee-killing pesticides? The decision to authorise bee-killing pesticide use is not supported by the science, the politics or the public, so why are Ministers allowing bee-killing pesticides to be used again this year?

    If Ministers are serious about neonic use being temporary and exceptional, I want the Government to provide more support for sugar beet farmers, so that they can invest in other reasonable control measures, such as the greater use of integrated pest management. I back our British farmers, and I know my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will say something similar. They have had enormous upheaval over the past few years. The withdrawal from the European Union, the change in subsidy regimes, and the fact that it is now harder to export have hit our farmers hard, so we need to find support for them. While critiquing the Government’s authorisation of bee-killing pesticides, I want to lend my support to those beet farmers, who, I recognise, face financial hardship if there is an aphid-spread infection in their crops.

    How is best practice on crop hygiene, establishment and monitoring being shared with beet farmers? What investment are the Government making in the development of pest-resistant varieties of sugar beet and other crops? Why did Ministers previously say that the use of bee-killing pesticides would be temporary as new crop varieties would be coming up? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage industry to pay its fair share of the cost of transitioning away from neonic use? Sugar is big business and it is a high-value crop. We have heard before of funds designed to help farmers affected by aphid crop loss, so why grant authorisation again now if there are resources available for the farmers who are suffering from it?

    The public will find it hard to believe that this granulated money-making machine is unable to give the sugar beet farmers that it relies on a fairer deal, so as to help them with crop failures, and so that they can develop a robust system of integrated pest management. It is welcome, and perhaps slightly curious, that although DEFRA last week gave a green light to the use of bee-killing pesticides, it simultaneously announced a new subsidy for farmers—the sustainable farming incentive—to encourage them not to use bee-killing pesticides. There is an easier way of preventing the use of bee-killing pesticides: instead of paying farmers not to use them, we could ban them, as Ministers promised to do, as we should be doing, and as other nations are doing.

    I think we have stumbled on a new political truth: as long as the Conservatives are in power, whatever the science and their approval process says, they will approve the use of bee-killing pesticides. I challenge the Minister to prove me wrong on that. I did so last year in this very Chamber, and here we are again; bee-killing pesticides have again been authorised for use. More bees will die, and I predict we will be here again in 2024 unless Ministers have a change of heart. Each and every year until we get rid of that political truth, more bees will die. This is not temporary or exceptional; it is now a firmly established annual authorisation of bee-killing pesticides. This is my challenge to Ministers: prove me wrong by not authorising them next year.

    Ministers need to provide more evidence of the impacts to inform the science. The reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Government’s own pesticides committee—the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides— highlight a number of science holes in the evidence that they require in order to understand the impact of this authorisation on bees. Will the Minister respond to that?

    Will the Minister report how much of the sustainable farming incentive has been used to lower the use of neonicotinoids? Will he ensure that there is not only catchment area science for any use of neonicotinoids, but field-edge studies for every field they are used in? At the moment, the evidence relates to selected fields and catchment areas, which are often too large. Will he ensure that there are catchment and field-edge water studies for every field that neonics are used in? Will he ensure that the cost of science is billed directly to any farmer using Cruiser SB, so that the taxpayer does not lose out?

    The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides said that it would be beneficial to have an assessment of the quantity of active substances deployed in the environment as part of the suite of information used to determine whether the benefits of insecticide use outweigh the environmental risks. Will the Minister agree to do that?

    Margaret Ferrier

    The economic value of pollination to UK crop production is approximately £500 million a year. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the use of these toxic pesticides is short-sighted, particularly as bee numbers rapidly decline?

    Luke Pollard

    The use of bee-killing pesticides is short-sighted. It is designed to be a quick fix to help farmers who are in a real pickle. I do not doubt the seriousness of the problem, but the longer bee-killing pesticides are authorised annually, the easier it will be to authorise them annually for evermore, and the easier it will be to extend their use to other crops, because the precedent has been set. That is why this House must be firm that bee-killing pesticides should not be used and should be banned.

    I would also like the Minister to look at the datasets available for the monitoring of the use of Cruiser SB. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides highlighted that it can see evidence and data only from selected months, not for the whole year. Will he commit to providing data for the whole year to the experts scrutinising this policy? Will he update the House on the development of alternative resistant varieties of crops before any future authorisations are made?

    Will the Minister publish in written form whether the Conservative party has received any donations from sugar companies that want to use Cruiser SB? I do not believe the accusation sometimes levelled at Ministers that there is a link between this decision and donations, but the accusation is made in debate on the subject, and the matter would benefit from the full glare of public scrutiny.

    I do not want bee-killing pesticides to be used. I do not think they carry public support or confidence, and I want the Minister to explain why he has overruled the scientific bodies that the Government previously relied on for the rigour and relevance of their evidence on the use of bee-killing pesticides. The gap between green rhetoric and green delivery is now a gaping chasm when it comes to bee health.

    My final ask is for a parliamentary vote on the use of bee-killing pesticides. I believe the Government do not have the public support for bee-killing pesticides. The majority of beekeepers and farmers, and all MPs, want greater scrutiny of that decision. My proposal to the Minister is that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides should be subject to a parliamentary vote, in which MPs should have the genuine opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of using neonicotinoids. If the Government want to continue the use of neonicotinoids—I believe that Ministers have now set out an automatic annual approval process—we need to make it politically impossible for that to happen without Parliament approving it.

    Last year, I warned Ministers that, just as decisions to approve bee-killing pesticides are annual, this debate will also be annual. This is now the annual bee debate; it might not always be called by me but, as long we have Ministers in power who believe that bee-killing pesticides have a place in agriculture, it must be part of the annual political calendar, and it must be a day of shame for Ministers who authorise bee-killing pesticides.

    MPs from all parties have received correspondence from constituents, asking them to speak in this debate. Lots of colleagues in all parties wanted to speak but are unable to be here. The message about saving bees is cross-party, and it needs to be one that the Government hear loud and clear.

    If we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency, we need more than words—we need action. We need an annual moment of action: a vote to determine whether bee-killing pesticides can and should be used. If we do not have that, it will make securing a net zero, nature-positive future so much harder. Bee health is non-negotiable; our planet depends on it. We must ban the use of bee- killing pesticides.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    We should call this what it is. This is about hunger, poverty and desperation. It is about kids going to bed hungry, waking up and not getting enough food to be able to study at school. This is Britain, one of the richest countries on the entire planet. In this debate, there is not a single Tory MP present who does not have to be here—[Interruption.] Forgive me, there is one.

    This is a political choice we have here. It is a political choice to keep wages down. It is a political choice not to match inflation. And It is a political choice to attack the people who are ringing the alarm bells. Tomorrow we will have the first nationwide nurses’ strike. In Plymouth we are seeing nurses using food banks. We are seeing teachers using food banks. We are seeing armed forces personnel using food banks and emergency food vouchers. These are people in good jobs—jobs they have had to study and learn skills for, and jobs that should provide a decent wage so that they can put food on their table for them and their kids. Yet they cannot. This is a reboot of Dickensian Britain. It is sickening. It is utterly sickening.

    I launched a campaign with our utterly brilliant food bank in Plymouth a month ago to buy electric blankets. An electric blanket or throw costs 20p a day and people can put their families underneath them to keep them warm, rather than spend £6 a day to heat their home using central heating. We have raised £3,500 to buy electric blankets. The people coming in to collect their food parcels need food that they do not have to heat, because they cannot afford the utilities. It is sickening that this is happening in one of the richest countries.

    Brilliant charities such as Provide Devon, a relatively new charity, have seen their fresh food costs go up by a third. They have seen demand go up by a third. They have served an amazing number of people, especially children, but they are seeing their food and their monetary donations fall at the same time, because people are struggling to make ends meet.

    I think that when we look at the price of food, it is right for us to also look at the speculators and the supermarkets. I want to give a shout out to our farmers, because it is not the primary producers in this country who are profiteering from high food prices. Many of them are locked into contracts whereby they cannot get a decent price for the food that they grow. It is time that this changed.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments After Andrew Western Wins Stretford and Urmston By-Election for Labour

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments After Andrew Western Wins Stretford and Urmston By-Election for Labour

    The comments made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, on Twitter on 16 December 2022.

    Congratulations ⁦Andrew Western⁩ for winning the Stretford and Urmston by-election. Another good result for Labour and a bad result for Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives. Bring on the General Election.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The proposal will result in voter suppression, and I want to raise a number of concerns about its implementation, based on feedback from colleagues on Plymouth City Council, which represents one of the poorest communities in the country. Being in the south-west of England, surrounded by lovely beaches and gorgeous countryside, we are often not considered to be one of the poorest communities, but many of the problems experienced by some of the poorest communities in the north and the midlands are also present in the south-west.

    I greatly fear that this proposal will not increase turnout, and I think that any Government who seek to introduce electoral reforms with the objective of not increasing turnout should look again at why they are doing it. What is their motivation? The proposal will cut turnout; in certain target demographics, the Conservative party will have a partisan advantage over other parties, which should also make us look again at the reasons for the proposal.

    Many of the concerns were expressed during a group discussion between Councillor Tudor Evans, the leader of the Labour opposition on Plymouth City Council, and his councillors. I think they are genuinely meaningful, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to them when he sums up the debate. One of them relates to the number of people who might be unable to obtain voter ID. On the basis of Government figures, the council estimates that about 4% of voters—8,000 people in Plymouth—will not have access to the photo ID that will be required for them to vote, which means that a great many people will not be able to cast their ballot without embarking on a bureaucratic process to secure it.

    The concern in this regard is that councils will not be able, in the time that is allowed, to process the necessary number of applications. Councils are not full of staff twiddling their thumbs and looking idle, but they do not have the capacity to enable electoral officers to work flat out to process these IDs. Even if it were possible for that to be done on time—which it is not—resources would be diverted from jobs on which councils should be focusing.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is right to say that this is about the disenfranchisement of, in particular, young people and black and ethnic minorities. As he also said, it is impractical too. The Local Government Association has talked of delaying the timetable beyond the local elections. I am fundamentally against the proposal and will vote accordingly, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that we need to look again at this unrealistic timetable.

    Luke Pollard

    I agree that the timetable is important. Regardless of party, we should all be seeking to make good legislation, with a good outcome. Rushed legislation will not lead to a good outcome, and I fear that rushed legislation is exactly what we have before us.

    One of the concerns that many councils have is that the software required for them to produce valid certificates enabling people to vote if they do not have what legislation defines as legitimate forms of photo ID will not arrive until the start of next year, and has not been tested and integrated into other local IT systems that councils possess. Even councils that want to process the IDs for as many people as possible cannot yet do so. Plymouth City Council estimates that it will take eight minutes to process a single piece of voter ID for someone who does not have one, and 8,000 people in Plymouth do not have one. That means an awful lot of work: someone will be working their socks off to be able to deliver it.

    This will also involve additional bureaucracy and cost. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of mirrors that would be required for the legislation to work, which produced some very puzzled faces. Why was I asking about mirrors? The answer is that the legislation will require 40,000 mirrors to be purchased by local councils to enable people in polling stations to readjust their masks or religious garments after taking them off to demonstrate that they are who they are, should they be asked to do so. It will also require the purchase of 40,000 privacy screens so that people can do that outside the public gaze, particularly for religious reasons.

    Furthermore, the legislation will require a woman to be present as one of the polling clerk staff throughout the day. I think we should be seeking more women to be polling clerks, but we know that many polling stations do not have female coverage across the entirety of the day. That would now be required, under these regulations, so we are asking councils that are deeply in debt and struggling to afford social care for some of our poorest people to go on to eBay and buy mirrors. We would need one mirror for every polling station and we would probably need some spares in case one got smashed along the way.

    It is a warped priority for councils to be buying mirrors, so can the Minister say whether the Government will be providing privacy screens and mirrors for every single polling station, or whether that cost will be put on to hard-pressed council taxpayers? I suspect that if the parties were in opposite positions and we were introducing this, Conservative Members would be saying, “Look at this Labour Government waste, buying mirrors and privacy screens.” Why is that not being said here? The £180 million cost is a significant amount of money that should be being spent on social care. The Tory-run Plymouth City Council is £37 million in deficit at the moment, and I want it to spend every single penny on essential public services, not on this type of bureaucracy.

    Another concern I would like the Minister to address is the safety of polling clerks at the polling stations. We have to assume that refusing people or asking them for ID will generate a certain level of friction among some of the people seeking to cast their vote. Plymouth has 105 polling stations and there is real concern about what advice has been and will be given to those polling clerks about what happens if that friction turns into violence. Will there be adequate policing resources available on polling day to ensure that those polling clerks are safe when they ask people for ID or when they have to refuse them? What about the people who do not return when they have been refused? Our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), estimated that this would involve nearly a third of the people. That is an enormous number of people who might be in possession of the correct form of identification but do not have it with them when they go to vote. That is an awful lot of people who simply will not return, and not just for that election, because it will damage their voting experience for the rest of their lives.

    I want to put on record a concern about the rural impact of the proposal. People who live in an urban area who are refused because they have left their ID at home might be able to walk back to their polling station easily, but those who live in a rural area and must travel large distances to get to their polling station are less likely to return. There is an urban-rural divide.

    How will the Minister judge the success or failure of this measure? We know that there has been only one conviction, so in the Minister’s eyes, how many people being refused their right to vote will class the proposal a success, and what is the level at which it tips over to be a failure? I think that a single person being denied the right to vote is a failure, but I understand that the Government have taken a different view, and I would like to understand how many people must be turned away for this not to be successful.

    This is not a piece of legislation of which the House can be proud. More importantly, it is not a piece of legislation of which the Minister should be proud. After this piece of voter suppression delivers partisan advantage in May and turns out to be a failure because people are refused their right to vote on a widespread basis—heaven help us if there is violence or if a poll clerk gets injured because of this—what do the Government think success looks like? Denying people their vote is never a success; it is always a failure, and I think that is what this piece of legislation will be.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Comments on the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria Planning Decision

    The comments made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.

    Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

    The world is currently meeting in Montreal for COP15 to deal with the pressing climate and nature crisis that we are facing. A common message from there is that coal should be kept in the ground. It will be incredibly difficult for the Government to convince the public at home and abroad that opening a new coalmine is dealing with that urgent climate crisis in a progressive way. His colleague, the former COP26 President, described this decision as an “own goal”, so may I ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks approving a new coalmine in the middle of a climate crisis will enhance or damage Britain’s reputation as a global green leader?

    Michael Gove

    Again, I stress the importance of looking at what the inspector says. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out that international partners are meeting in Montreal, alongside the UK, in order to uphold the importance of biodiversity and to help protect species. I should point out that in paragraph 21.163 of the inspector’s report the inspector specifically addresses the question of biodiversity and says that he

    “is satisfied that the Supplemental Undertaking”—

    given by the applicant—

    “would ensure that the proposed development would provide for a minimum net gain”—

    in biodiversity—

    “of 10% prior to the commencement of production and further net gain to be achieved on restoration.”

    The inspector took account of biodiversity in coming to his judgment, and so have I.