Al Carns MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2025 · Veterans: Support · Hansard source

  More

  We have a proud and distinguished history of Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army and across defence. I served with them in Afghanistan and across many other conflicts. The Bilateral Gurkha Veteran Welfare Committee sat most recently in June of this year, and it continues to ensure that the needs of Gurkha veterans are met and understood fully. It is also worth noting that even among British service personnel from in and around that era, some did not qualify for a pension, so in some cases there is parity across the board. The Gurkha welfare advice centres provide handling support for a wide variety of welfare-related inquiries, alongside the Gurkha Brigade Association. I have also met the Nepalese ambassador and will do so again soon to discuss the issues.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  There are two different issues here. The first one is about expanding the cadet forces by 30% by 2030—there is £70 million behind that, and the plan for how to deliver it is being developed. The second point, on the Public Accounts Committee, is about the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations and is primarily about infrastructure, which we are working on now. That is a legacy issue. We are trying to rejuvenate it and make sure that the accommodation, and indeed the infrastructure, is fit for purpose for the cadets and the reserves as we move forward.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  The number of questions on this issue demonstrates the importance that Members in all parts of the House ascribe to the subject of cadets. As we said in the strategic defence review, we will increase the number of existing cadet forces by 30% by 2030 with £70 million of funding, but we are also considering areas of social demographic requirement where new cadet forces can be placed. That will give kids throughout the country fantastic opportunities to flourish and thrive, both at school and as they move to the end of their education.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  The air cadets are fantastic, the sea cadets are fantastic and the Army cadets are amazing—they are all amazing. I would love to take on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, we will have a look at what we can do. I have huge admiration for the sea cadets in his constituency. At some point, if my diary permits, I would love to visit them all.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The cadet forces are an inclusive organisation, and I have been delighted to be able to visit branches throughout the country, for instance in Cornwall. A couple of weeks ago I visited a summer camp to observe the diversity of the cadets, which, in some cases, is far better than it is in the armed forces. Currently, 36% of community-based and 39% of school-based cadets are female. That is a positive, important and encouraging trend, and I hope that it will continue over time.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend 110%. The cadets are all about social mobility, giving kids opportunity and getting them up and out, and that is what Labour is all about. From my perspective, the air cadets are amazing. I went to the summer camp, which had everything—flying planes, STEM, sports and flying drones—and it was absolutely outstanding. I congratulate the Harlow air cadets; hopefully, I will get to visit them in due course.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Women in the Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  Defence as a whole has accepted 33 recommendations from the “Women in the Armed Forces” report. We have two outstanding elements still in train: the results of an armed forces sexual harassment survey, and a veterans strategy with a specific female veterans section. Both will be released in the autumn. On top of this, we have a tri-service complaints system—which I personally brought in—and the violence against women and girls taskforce, to make sure that any woman can serve with safety and pride.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Women in the Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with the hon. Member. Obviously, in our Minister for the armed forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), we have an individual who has lived experience of being a female in the armed forces. It is really important to mention the individual who sits at the bottom of the command chain—where do they go if they are experiencing a problem? Where do they seek help, and who do they complain to? In some cases, they cannot do it within the chain of command. It may not be appropriate or they may not want to, which is why the violence against women and girls taskforce is so important, as well as the tri-service complaints system. It will allow people to come outside the command chain, raise those issues, and make sure they are dealt with appropriately.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government take seriously both physical and mental injuries from service. Op Courage has already seen 34,000 referrals. It is a fantastic programme that runs across the country and provides mental health services for veterans. I encourage any veteran who thinks that they need help to shout and seek help. It is the first step to recovery.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I completely empathise with that veteran. I am more than happy to sit down and talk through the pros of that treatment, and to see if we can expand it further.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone with hearing loss from equipment can absolutely apply for compensation through the war pension scheme or the armed forces compensation scheme. Broader work is happening on those specific bits of capability outside this place.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As has been mentioned, as we go through the process, we will ensure that protections are in place, to look after our veterans. The reality is—I am being really honest—that if people broke the law, they will be held accountable, but I assure the hon. Member that veterans who served will be protected.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member raises an interesting point. Please write to me in due course with examples, and we will look into that, from a defence perspective.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member writes to me with the details of that case, I will look into it. There is a plethora of issues and complexities with some of these policies, but I will take this case on and have a look.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The expansion of the cadets—30% by 2030— is front and centre of my portfolio. We will ensure that the £70 million is spent on expanding the services, as well as increasing the standard of training, insight and access that cadets have across the country.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  In the SDR, there was a £1 billion investment in an integrated targeting web, and that is what ties all these systems together. The only way it will tie together is if the software is interchangeable. Indeed, if we were then to lay on AI in quantum, we would be taking it to the next step of starting to remove people further back down the chain. I believe we will always have to be in the chain, but we will move back. Our adversaries may not. That will be a pivotal change in the way of warfare again. The uncrewed centre of excellence is one to watch within the SDR. It will be in place by February. It will provide centralised expertise, funding and standards. The Military Aviation Authority and the Civilian Aviation Authority were mentioned. The centre will help them to develop and get through some of the bureaucracies while remaining in line with the rules and regulations. It will help to develop skills across defence. For example, drone qualifications across the Navy, Army and Air Force at the moment are all starting to move in different directions. We have to synthesise them, and make sure that they are correct and that everyone is doing the same, so that we can swap and interchange people. That will help to deliver a regulatory framework in which our companies can succeed. In June, we announced a landmark partnership with Ukraine to share technology, harness the innovation expertise from the frontline and increase our industrial co-operation, which is critical because innovation is moving at such a pace on the frontline. Our plans are a shot in the arm. We need to continue to push as hard as is feasible for what is already one of the leading uncrewed systems sectors in the world.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a combination of the two. Yes, it is a machine gun moment for the Army, but it is also an Air Force moment for the whole military, so we need careful consideration of how we will integrate this. The Ukrainians, for example, have combat companies who will fly 150 FPV drone strikes a day. They will do that with separate teams flying in support of infantry, much as we would have had close air support in the past. A drone team may fly 50 drone missions a day with 80% lethality and accuracy. I will leave it to the generals, the admirals and the air vice-marshals to work out how they integrate the system. However, it must be integrated at the section and infantry level all the way to the division level in the Army; from the single ship all the way to the fleet level in the Navy; and from the single aircraft, if not major drone, all the way to fighting formations in the Air Force. That is the level of integration that will be required—it is pretty seismic. We talked earlier about the high-low end mix. We will help to deliver Europe’s first hybrid carrier air wing. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, and I agree, that GCAP and the loyal wingman programme are sophisticated capabilities, but there is nothing to say that it is not—no pun intended—a Russian doll method where something releases something smaller that becomes more attritable and more mass-produced. That is probably where we are going with many of these systems. We are also enhancing our uncrewed naval platforms. The patrol of the north Atlantic, protecting our continuous at-sea deterrent can adopt some of that technology. We will also, as the hon. Member mentioned, move towards a 20:40:40 capability mix for the British Army, which I think is essential, as is being proven in Ukraine at the moment. As he mentioned, that is 20% crewed, 40% reusable and 40% disposable uncrewed systems. I would like to see a lot of those drones used as ammunition so that, much as we would have down the range with a magazine and 30 rounds of ammunition, we should be able to go down the range with 10 drones, fly them down, use them, get proficient in that and ensure that we are as accurate and lethal with a drone as we are with a rifle, if not more so. It is a move to help deliver our goal of increasing the Army’s lethality tenfold. I argue that we need to move on that as fast as is feasible. The critical component is our partnership with industry, and not just the big primes but SMEs are key to delivering those ambitions. That is why we have established UK Defence Innovation to connect with investors and get those SMEs, innovators and start-ups able to break into the defence market, which we know has been a problem in the past. That will ensure that we can rapidly identify and back innovative products that will give us a military, and indeed an economic, edge. To integrate these new technologies across three military services—I think this is the critical component—we are creating an uncrewed centre of excellence, alongside a range and testing facility. It will be surrounded by SMEs and industry, with the people who know what they are talking about, because there is a lot of snake oil out there. We must put them in one place and then, as I mentioned, slow is smooth, smooth is fast. We must allow them to help the Army, Navy and Air Force to contract different hardware that has simultaneous and integrated software. That is how we will create capabilities that will be able to talk to each other in the future.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The reality is that the governance and compliance of some of these systems has not kept pace with the innovation in the technological-industrial world. The drone centre of excellence will cut through that. Some countries are using dual-use technology, from drone delivery of shopping through to resupplying in disaster zones, and mapping and tracking forestry for carbon capture. We are on the very cusp of a change. It is interesting to look at the key capabilities of what each drone requires to sustain itself to innovate, and where those capabilities come from. That may give us a lead on where we should be focusing from an economic perspective as well. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a really interesting point. He mentioned “Star Wars”. It feels a bit like that. When I watched the first destruction and sinking of a Russian frigate, I said it was a cross between “Star Wars” and “The Dam Busters”, because that is the leap it was making in war. Three ships were sunk in three weeks by relatively simple uncrewed systems, taking out the most significant naval platforms in the world. A lot of people would say that, as these ships get removed off the line of march, one of the biggest mistakes would be to replace them with the same capability. Drone warfare is today’s reality. Capabilities are evolving faster than any of us can possibly imagine in Ukraine. That is why the Government’s response has been both immediate and decisive, but we have to go faster, and we have to go harder. Through clear leadership, unprecedented investment, closer work with industry and, importantly, our Ukrainian partners who are at the cutting edge, we will ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of this revolution. I genuinely believe that we will get there, and that it will make us stronger abroad and secure at home.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I can see a future—we will talk about this later—involving a high-low mix, in which we have very sophisticated fifth generation capability matched by relatively low-end hardware with very sophisticated software. When we combine the two, we can increase our mass, our lethality and our overwatch of large swathes of land, sea and air. It is also worth noting—I will cover this later—that there are false lessons from Ukraine. The Black sea is not the Pacific or the north Atlantic. However, the technology, when designed with the right hull form, can absolutely survive in those environments. Moving on to air, we see co-ordinated waves of drones penetrate the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world and strike far beyond the frontline. I mentioned yesterday, in relation to the remembrance of the battle of Britain, that we are hearing air sirens every day in Ukraine. We are not talking hundreds of drones; we now talking, in some cases, of thousands of drones attacking major cities and critical national infrastructure throughout Ukraine. These capabilities are being enhanced, made increasingly sophisticated—with the capability to map and target-identify—and combined with the use of data and artificial intelligence to train training models, with profound implications for the way we fight warfare. Our adversaries understand that. Russia, other countries such as China, and large states are developing at a different scale. They are already producing drones on an industrial scale, and investing in innovation to make them more capable and deadly, and to remove the human even further from the battlefield. War is driving an innovation cycle that cannot be replicated in peacetime. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked earlier about the innovation cycle here with SMEs. SMEs that often have joint ventures or relationships with companies at the front in Ukraine are innovating faster than anyone else. We are talking 20 or 30 to 100 innovations in a year, in comparison with some of our contracts in the past, which have had one, two, three or four innovations linked into the contractual management. I would argue that we need to do more. Ukraine reminds us daily that to safeguard the nation we have an obligation to lead in the development of uncrewed systems. We may not have the opportunity to fight differently. Historically, almost every major conflict has been characterised by short periods of manoeuvre, and long periods of attrition to build up capability and capacity and to innovate, which are then broken by periods of manoeuvre, with a focus on supporting the warfighter with the best technology. I would posit that, if it came to it, our adversaries would seek to draw us into an attritional conflict, which puts the burden on the defence industry, our economy and our society’s ability to sustain the fight. At a tactical level, there is an argument that this will no longer be about supporting the warfighter, but about supporting the technology in the fight. That is a fundamental shift and change in opinion, and a critical and fundamental distinction in the way that future wars may be fought. This Government have taken decisive action, as laid out in our strategic defence review, first to integrate uncrewed systems across the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and to adapt our military culture to recognise that uncrewed systems are a core capability. Several hon. Members mentioned the innovation cycle. In Ukraine early on in the war, a stalemate took place across the frontline, broken by periods of manoeuvre and usually initiated by dominance in GPS-guided munitions. The Russians quickly learned to counter a proportion of that, and as such the innovation of drones and uncrewed systems came into place on land, at sea and in the air. We have now accelerated along that line. We have gone from hundreds of different Ukrainian companies with different intellectual property swamping the battlefield with small start-ups, to the Ukrainians synthesising that capability procurement down to a set number of drones, and mass producing. They are using the innovation cycle on the frontline, with companies embedded in combat companies to drive that innovation cycle faster than ever before. They went broad to start with, and they have now gone narrow and are scaling. It is starting to work. We must learn some of those lessons as automated platforms are bought by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Do they all talk to each other? Do they have the same software, or different hardware? Can they work together? Can they work on an integrated kill net? If they do not, we may repeat some of the same mistakes as Ukraine. A great quote is, “Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.” There is a bit that we must watch, and we must ensure that we get this right, because if we get it wrong, it may be difficult to unravel. I mentioned adapting our military culture, and the hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned commander training within our organisations, whether that be Dartmouth, Cranwell or Sandhurst. I have been on that, as an individual responsible for people, to ensure that these things are inculcated at the earliest stage of training, whether that be defence from drones or the adoption of drones as a critical component, much the same as a machine gun is for a rifle section. We are moving forward in that space. Secondly, as hon. Members have said, there is a requirement to work seamlessly with industry, transforming our procurement and industrial base to meet the demands of modern warfare and drive growth for the nation. To do that, we must encourage the best of Ukrainian industry to share its expertise with us. We must continue to foster a truly innovative and adaptive defence industry that draws on the best of Britain. What I am leading to here is that British start-ups and British companies, both primes and SMEs, must engage with Ukrainian companies on joint ventures and cross-IP sharing to enhance the best of both. If they do that, I genuinely think they will be world beating, above and beyond what British industry already is. The Government’s vision is to become a defence industrial superpower by 2035, and we are making that a reality. As a frontier industry, drone development is key to that economic transformation, which will attract major investment and create high-quality jobs. It is also vital to put the best systems into the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Drone systems now will be out of date within six weeks on the frontline, but the training and the integration of the culture and the software may not be, so we must think carefully as we bring systems into the military and avoid 10-year contracts that buy the wrong drone in six years’ time that is way out of date in six weeks. The Government are doing everything possible to capitalise on this opportunity. We have committed to more than doubling our spend on autonomous systems over this Parliament. I pushed really hard to get £4 billion of investment in mass-produced both unsophisticated and sophisticated weapons. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned GCAP and loyal wingman; I would see loyal wingman as a sophisticated, high-end, fourth, fifth or sixth-generation capability. I see mass uncrewed systems for the Army—and in some cases the Navy—slightly differently.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am truly grateful to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing the debate—I genuinely believe that we are at a pivotal time, so having it today is poignant. The opportunity to discuss the critical importance of uncrewed systems to our armed forces and our national security is a continual requirement in this place. It will not be lost on hon. Members that I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement, but I have a vested interest in this subject. I have been helping a cross-ministerial team to design our strategy as we move forward. Why am I passionate about this issue? Mentioned in dispatches, combat; Military Cross, combat; Distinguished Service Order, combat; OBE, combat—I spent a lot of time in combat. What we are seeing now in Ukraine gives the soldier, the airman or the sailor the ability to disengage from combat and to send technology forward. We are seeing a revolution in technological affairs in Ukraine, and it is of the utmost importance. The devastation and horror of war provide an imperative for rapid innovation. Each side pitted, racing to gain decisive advantage by innovating faster than the other. These developments define an era of conflict and innovation. Think the Parthian shot, the longbow, the crossbow, the musket, the tank, the aeroplane and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, the Dreadnought. They have all marked a pivotal moment in technological change. Today, I would argue that it is uncrewed systems. The lesson for the UK is that we must be a leader in the revolution in uncrewed systems—which has not changed the nature of conflict, as Clausewitz would say, but changed its character forever—or be left behind. In no small part, this understanding motivated me to enter politics, and it was one of the key reasons I left the military: to galvanise change and to do what I could to safeguard this great nation, because I saw war changing the entire character of conflict itself. Today’s discussion addresses an existential challenge, which this Government, the Defence team, and I are absolutely determined to grip. Uncrewed systems have fundamentally changed the character of conflict—fact. In Ukraine, thousands of drones fill the skies every day and night. On average, thousands of drones a day—up to 2,000 or 3,000, and, at the very height, 6,000—are being flown on the frontline. A division has hundreds of drones that observe every section of the battlefield 24/7 and cue strike platforms at a moment’s notice. Drones are 22 times more lethal and accurate than an artillery round. For the first time since the first world war, more casualties have been caused by a system other than artillery or offensive support—that is, drones. Not training our people in drones would be like not training our people in artillery prior to the first world war. A year ago, I was quoted as saying that uncrewed systems represent “a machine gun moment for the Army, a submarine moment for the Navy and a jet engine moment for the Air Force.” I also said that the inclusion of data, AI and quantum would only deepen the effects of this revolution. I would say now, one year later, that we are at an inflection point similar to the moment when armies fighting in world war one realised the utility of airpower. We know what happened then: the “Top Gun” generation was born, and airpower changed every nation’s way of fighting. We are approaching the 85th anniversary of the battle of Britain, which is a poignant reminder of the significant impact of cutting-edge technology, such as the Spitfire, radar, importantly, or our very first computers, on the defence of our nation. Unlike those previous advances, the impact of uncrewed systems across air, land and sea is simultaneous, undermining many existing, exquisite and expensive capabilities. As I reflect over 24 years of military service, I recognise just how much of what I did could now be done by uncrewed systems. I mean that, because about 75% of everything I have done could be done by uncrewed systems. That would have made my life a lot safer, although it would probably have reduced the medal count. We have seen this revolution shape Putin’s war of aggression. On land, surveillance and attack drones stalk the battlefield around the clock. Thousands of drones, whether FPV—first-person-view—drones, surveillance drones or long-range strike drones, dominate the battlefield. There is a dead zone on the frontline, about 30 km deep, where no one moves: small teams or individuals are the only ones who survive, and they do not survive for long. Interestingly—the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned tanks earlier—tanks’ sustainability on the battlefield is limited. Not K-kills but M-kills—mobility kills, taking off the tank’s tracks, immobilising its engine, or immobilising the crew, the sights and the sensors—happen relatively quickly. Perhaps we can allude to what that will look like in the future later in the debate. In the Black sea, we have seen a navy without a navy sink a navy—that is, Ukraine’s unmanned vessels have sunk or scattered Russia’s once all-powerful Black sea fleet.

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for initiating today’s debate, and to all Members and gallant Members for their contributions—particularly those with service history, but also great knowledge of the battle of Britain. On 2 September 1940, 85 years ago today, the Luftwaffe launched a series of massive attacks on RAF airfields and multiple other strategic industrial targets across our great country. Just one of those waves consisted of 250 German aircraft, which is almost incomprehensible today. They darkened the sky as they crossed the English channel in a fearsome display of force and intent. Yet, even with all that firepower and industrial might, it turned out to be another costly day for the Luftwaffe. Harassed, harried and hounded by the RAF, the Germans’ air force was failing to meet its objectives. At a briefing about the lack of progress, Reichsmarschall Göring criticised his airmen for the mounting losses. When he asked one of his leading flying aces, Adolf Galland, what he needed to turn the battle in Germany’s favour, Galland famously responded, “I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”— a reply that left Göring speechless with rage. He stormed off in disgust. The excellence of the British aircraft was surpassed by the extraordinary courage of the heroes, such as the father of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who flew them. Today, we come together once again to say thank you to the generation who gave so much. It is difficult to imagine the mood, but also the courage and fortitude, of the British people as they contemplated Hitler’s next move during the summer of 1940. It is easy for us now, with hindsight, to look back with certainty, but for those sat here in Britain in 1940, invasion was imminent. They had watched our European allies fall to Nazi Germany one by one. They knew that a momentous battle was approaching—a battle for the future of not just Britain, but freedom and democracy. They knew that we might be defeated—certainty was not guaranteed. The battle proved to be an immense test of national character and many made the ultimate sacrifice, with 23,000 civilians losing their lives and more than 1,500 RAF air crew personnel dying trying to protect them. Pilots often flew multiple sorties day after day, week after week, scrambling to their planes every time the next wave of bombers was detected, fighting on after sustaining damage and injuries high over the fields of south-east England, locked in high-stakes combat against a deadly foe. The battle was not only a contest for the control of our skies; it was a test of will that would determine the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme Nazi confidence, the battle of Britain demonstrated to ourselves, and was a signal to the rest of the world, that Hitler could be defeated. What lessons can we learn from that for today? First, in an increasingly fragile world, we must continue to defend and to stand up for what we believe in and who we are against the rise of autocracy. We must be able to stand up, no matter how dangerous and no matter the threat of physical or economic consequences. The second lesson is about the importance of alliances and friendships. United we are stronger. As one great general once said: “The only thing worse than working with allies is working without them.” We honour the crucial role played by the US, the French nationals, the Poles, the Czechs, the South Africans, individuals from New Zealand and many others on the ground and in the air during the battle of Britain. More than 15 nations, and some more, came together, united by a shared purpose and shared beliefs. The third lesson is in the importance of consistent innovation. In 1940, the world’s first integrated radar-based air defence system gave the RAF a critical advantage. Just a few weeks ago, an audacious Ukrainian drone attack on Russian bomber airfields reminded us of how new and evolving technology is vital to success in modern warfare. We are continually innovating to keep our skies secure. We are investing heavily in uncrewed systems, but we must do more in satellite technology, as space becomes a key defence domain in the future and in our global combat air programme, alongside our allies and partners. The fourth lesson we can learn for today is the importance of our defence industry. Behind the “few” who Churchill spoke about—the heroes who manned the aircraft and took on the might of the German air force—were the many. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, it was the many who supported, armed and sustained our fighters throughout the battle. Finally, in 1940, when we fought the battle of Britain, the whir and the echo of air raid sirens reverberated around every city in the UK. That is going on right now in one place not so far from here—the sirens echo every day in Ukraine, which is under sustained and relentless attack by an aggressor. Churchill fully grasped that this was a war of production, and said: “The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage.” —[ Official Report , 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1160.] I have always said that, while armies, navies and air forces may respond to crisis and fight wars, it is industry, economies and societies that win them. Britain prevailed because our supply chains turbocharged our fighting power. Our victory was built in significant measure on manufacturing excellence and organisational strength, and our modern defence industry remains just as integral a part of our national security. That is why the Government are rolling out our new defence industrial strategy by making defence an engine for growth. We create a robust pipeline for the equipment and munitions that keep Britain safe, and we create secure, skilled jobs up and down this wonderful country, with the workforce continuing to play a vital role in the protection of our nation. A variety of issues were raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One that resonated was the requirement to remember. I would argue that remembering is not just for individuals of our age in this wonderful place, but is about education, communication and remembering across every section of society at all ages, because those who do not read history are unfortunately doomed to repeat it. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for highlighting preparedness. The reality is that the first 70 to 80 pages of the strategic defence review are all about industry. Finding the fighting power and the humans to fight is quite easy during conflict; it is very difficult to build the industrial base to sustain the ability to wage a defence of a nation. The tributes that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) paid to his father were truly unbelievable. I cannot comprehend the bravery of his father—day in, day out, he jumped into an aircraft and flew into the unknown. I am truly jealous of the right hon. Gentleman’s ability to sit in the flank and listen to some of those stories, probably as his father sipped a whisky and regaled him about his time defending this great country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned courage and fear; I always say that courage is a decision and fear is a reaction. The courage to volunteer and then fly into the unknown every day is utterly commendable. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a really valid point, highlighting the fact that anyone can be a patriot, but we must not allow anyone to hijack that narrative to the point where people feel nervous about championing their patriotism. We are all proud to be British, first and foremost, and I argue that our duty here is to serve our country as a No. 1 priority. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the manipulation of the narrative, or indeed the past. I am absolutely galled that we see protesters defacing and damaging military aircraft, and pressing industry and universities not to get involved in the defence industry. The naivety is utterly remarkable, for the very freedoms, permissions and laws that allow those individuals to protest in the first place are defended by the individuals and equipment they attack. The naivety rings through and potentially will be called out only when we are called to respond to an existential crisis. The battle of Britain was a defining conflict of world war two. We collectively remain in awe at the courage, conviction and stalwart self-belief of the men and women of this great isle who faced down Nazi Germany. But we still live in a time that demands courage, resilience and sacrifice. Today, our armed forces are actively engaged in keeping Britain safe in a more volatile and more dangerous world than I have seen in 24 years of service. We are profoundly grateful for everything they do, and, indeed, for everything that everybody in this House does to remind both the population and the international community of the threats that they may face. This anniversary reminds us that we cannot grow complacent about peace. Our military serves as our insurance policy against threats to our security and our way of life. The battle of Britain generation continues to inspire us to be strong in the face of overwhelming odds and adversity, to stand up for the values that we believe in at any cost, and to proudly defend our great nation and our western way of life. That is the best way to honour the heroes of 1940. As a fellow veteran, I particularly thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for helping us by bringing this great debate to the House today.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Vaz, for your chairship. I welcome this fantastic debate on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit in world war two. I will not detract from the debate, which aims to recognise those individuals, by trying to score political points. We will talk about those brave men, and indeed women, who fought to protect the very freedoms we enjoy. One of the key messages from this debate is that, if we step back and look at the current geopolitical situation, it is very fragile. Across the nation, our connection with defence is, in some cases, limited or getting less and less as the generations go on. It is really important that the stories of the PRU and other units are amplified and used as a mechanism to reconnect people in an interesting and valiant way. If we move forward five to 10 years, and are called upon to serve nationally, it is really important that we understand where our freedoms came from, and how this great place has been collectively protected by the brave young men and women of this nation. I will make one correction to what the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) said: there were 31 veterans present in this room who served in Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did, but I did, and I would like the record to state 31 veterans, not 30. Returning to the importance of this debate, the era of modern warfare—where satellites and drones can scrutinise enemy positions and provide intelligence, insight and understanding—reinforces the achievement of the RAF’s PRUs for the simple reason that what they did was absolutely remarkable. Back then, gathering critical evidence of enemy targets could hardly be more perilous. The men of the photographic reconnaissance units, whose job it was to fly the planes armed with nothing more than lethal cameras, suffered the second highest attrition rate of any airborne unit during the conflict. Without the extraordinary courage of those men, we could not have traced and sunk the twin battleships, Bismarck and Tirpitz, which were the national pride of the German fleet. We could not have protected convoys of ships in the north Atlantic that were bringing critical supplies from the United States, essential to the war effort. We could not have disabled the experimental rocket works, greatly delaying the development of the V2; who knows where that would have gone, if the PRU had not provided the intelligence and allowed subsequent strikes to degrade it? We could not have conducted the fantastic Dambusters raid, which not only held strategic value but was a huge morale boost back here in the UK. Most of all, we could not have planned D-day as successfully as we did without collecting precise photographs of German positions across the whole of the French coast. It is not only about nationally significant moments like those but the day in, day out flights on which those pilots conducted consistent regular operations over enemy-held territory. Those are just a few examples of how British airborne reconnaissance units played a fundamental role in actually winning the war. Those pilots flew mostly alone in single-engine planes, without guns to defend themselves—just heavy fuel tanks to carry them over exceptionally long distances. Let us take ourselves out of this place today and imagine a pilot sitting on a misty airfield somewhere in middle England. With the mist coming in, they go and get in their aircraft. Prior to boarding, they have been briefed that they will go over a certain area to take photographs, but they were not told why in any way, shape or form, because if they are captured, that information would be exceptionally important to the adversary. The pilot jumps in their plane and flies over enemy territory, but there is not a wingman on their left or right, and there is a minimal escape and evasion plan should they be shot down. The pilot is on their own for hours on end, through all weathers, and often attacked by flak and other aircraft. What they did is truly brave and remarkable. Many of them, unfortunately, did not return. In November 1942, an Air Ministry report found that PRU pilots flying single-engine planes had a 31% chance of surviving their first tour of operations. That is 300 hours. Think about having a 31% chance of surviving that. The overall PRU death rate was nearly 50%, yet those men successfully brought back more than 20 million images—transforming British intelligence gathering—whether they were operating over the Norwegian fjords or the Burmese jungle, or providing equally crucial imagery after Allied attacks to assess the accuracy and extent of bomb damage. These pilots often flew deception operations that were tactically irrelevant but could be strategically important by diverting enemy resources and confusing enemy plans. It is also important to remember that, while that was the front end, behind them sat a huge number of interpreters and analysts, many of them women, who were employed to analyse the images brought back from those lines and interpret them for the senior command to work out what exactly they meant. Their part in the history of the PRU was an integral part of the war effort. However, compared with many other units in our wartime armed forces, the units remain relatively unrecognised. They are commemorated as part of other main memorials, such as the RAF memorial on the Victoria Embankment, the RAF Bomber Command memorial in Green Park and the RAF Coastal Command memorial in Westminster Abbey. They are also included in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s marked graves, but a dedicated national memorial would be a fitting way to recognise the scale of their vital contribution to defeating the Nazis. I know this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is passionate about, and I thank her for securing a debate that helps to acknowledge the wider requirement for defence to connect with society and for society to connect with defence and recognise why it is so important. More widely, her voice is also important in raising the profile of this memorial campaign. It is one small step but, collectively with lots of other stuff that is going on, it is a really important narrative that I am sure both sides of the House support and champion. I particularly congratulate the hard work and perseverance of the Spitfire AA810 Project in progressing the memorial campaign. The group carries that name for a good reason—Spitfire AA810 was a specially modified reconnaissance aircraft used by the PRU, completing 14 long-range operational sorties during six months of service during the war. When we consider that those sorties might have been five hours long, predominantly over highly-guarded enemy territory, Spitfire AA810 had a significantly longer career than many other planes in the fleet—and fortunately so. However, on 5 March 1942, on its way to catch sight of the Tirpitz, Spitfire AA810 was attacked by two Messerschmitts and crashed into the Norwegian mountains. Pilot Alastair ‘Sandy’ Gunn, who was mentioned earlier, managed to eject himself before impact, but he was badly burned. He was forced to hand himself in to the Germans, who sent him to the infamous Stalag Luft III, where he was part of the breakout immortalised in the film “The Great Escape”. The PRU is actually recognised in almost all such films. The imagery, intelligence and operations that took place were all underpinned by the PRU. Sandy was eventually caught after that great escape. He was interrogated by the Gestapo and, tragically, shot. However, that was not the end of the aircraft’s story. Spitfire AA810 was recovered in 2018 from the Norwegian site where it had lain for 76 years. Fortunately, much of that aircraft had been preserved by peat and snow, so it presented a unique opportunity for restoration and rebuild back to an airworthy state. That has been taking shape over recent years. Let me address some of the questions that right hon. and hon. Members have raised, and in particular, respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on the campaign for a national memorial. I wish the project every success; it has my full support. With a prominent and fitting location chosen outside the Churchill War Rooms here in Westminster, it will be an exemplary addition to London’s memorials. For the record, I have to state that the funding of such memorials remains a preserve of public subscriptions, driven by individuals and organisations. In line with the long-standing policy position of successive Governments, Ministers cannot support them in an official capacity, but in a personal one, I absolutely support it. I have written to the chief executive of the Royal Parks charity and Tony Hoskins of the Spitfire AA810 Project to express my hope that the plans for a Westminster memorial are successful. My hon. Friend can rely on me personally for that. I can only re-emphasise that conviction here today, and assure her that we welcome the efforts of all those who are working to get the memorial built. Regarding the names from the PRU, I support a meeting with MOD officials to see what we can do. The National Archives is the main route, but if we have exhausted those records, I would be really interested to look at where else records are, or whether the MOD can help. It will be riddled with GDPR issues, I am sure, but we can talk through it and see whether we can find a solution or come up with some innovative way to make that information available. Let me also address the question of how long it will take to get the memorial. Interestingly, this is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, so I will write to ensure that my support is registered. I know that it is a private issue, but I also know that the Department is tracking and moving this forward, so I will make sure that I give it a nudge. I will write to the Department personally, if I can, to make sure we support it. I am not going to devalue this debate. It is about the PRU. Given that it is just a matter of weeks since we commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it is time that the PRU’s contribution to victory in the second world war and to almost every battle is fully recognised, and that a national memorial ensures that we always remember not just the heroes in the stories but why we have a defence capability in the first place. It is an absolutely fantastic initiative, which gets my full support. It helps us to understand the men and women who helped to serve our country and who sacrificed so much, and importantly, what was required to protect our democracy and the great freedoms we enjoy in this nation today.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really valid point and I will make sure that there is a communication strategy put in place to ensure that both the individuals affected and hon. Members from all parties are kept up to date on the scheme’s progress. Again, I thank everybody for raising issues; people should keep raising them if they see them. We will change, test, adjust and move forward as fast as we can. The Defence Secretary and I remain committed to driving this work forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented. As I said before, when I joined the armed forces, the ban on homosexuality was still in place, which is just madness if we think about it now. Of course times have changed, but the financial recognition scheme is our acknowledgment that we must move forward faster than anyone else and increase the resources available from Government, and that no matter when these events occurred, they were completely wrong and we will redress them. To all those affected by these past failings, I say—from me to you—that we hear you, we absolutely value you and we are committed to righting the wrongs of the past. Question put and agreed to.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate and for her wider efforts to ensure that LGBT veterans are properly and promptly compensated for past injuries, injustices and wrongdoings. I also thank Fighting With Pride. I came into this job nigh on a year ago, and I often say that courage is not a reaction but a decision. The ability of its members to shout when being pushed down and told to be quiet has really raised this issue over the past couple of decades and brought it to where we are today. I am also grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have fought valiantly on this issue, not just while I have been in post but previously. Importantly, I thank the late Lord Etherton. It is unfortunate that he is not here today; nevertheless, the foundations of the programme lie with him and he should be deeply honoured. The hon. Member for Chichester has helped to shine a spotlight on a truly dark era in military history. When I joined the military in 1999, the ban was still in place, LGBT personnel suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse, and homophobic bullying and sexual violence were absolutely widespread. That injustice has cast a long shadow over the lives of so many. Many dedicated professionals had their ambition in life cut short by those rules and regulations. My view that it is an injustice was powerfully reflected in the late Lord Etherton’s independent review in 2023. It is an injustice that placed the Ministry of Defence on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the Government are determined, and have done so much, to address. Lord Etherton’s review, with all its recommendations, was submitted to the Government in May 2023 and published in the summer of that year, so there was a year between then and our coming into government. In the time that we have been in government, we have delivered a lot, although there is more to do. After much deliberation, we launched the financial recognition scheme. Up and down, left and right—not in our Government, perhaps—individuals were concerned that the payments were not enough or would not be processed in the right manner, but this Government raised the budget to £75 million. The scheme will be open for one year, but I want to be absolutely clear, as I have been with the previous and current heads of Fighting With Pride, and assure all LGBT veterans that, if they are eligible and apply, they will receive their payment. [ Official Report, 15 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 1WC.] (Correction) Even if that extends, we will live by that commitment. Importantly, if the payments exceed £75 million, those who are eligible and apply will still receive their FRS payment. We will absolutely live by that. I have taken huge pride in how fast we have got here, and we will deliver. I met Fighting With Pride this week and heard veterans’ concerns. We are looking in detail at the financial recognition scheme, and I will say more on that after I have given a progress update. As of 30 June, the Government have completed 42 out of 49 recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review. I saw one of those recommendations the other day: the memorial that will be built, which is looking fantastic. Five more recommendations are pending ministerial approval. Some of those do not sit within our Department, but we are almost there. We will complete those as fast as we can. I am pleased to update hon. Members on the progress of the financial recognition scheme, which acknowledges the harm inflicted by the ban and offers tangible recognition to those who were affected. The Government have been unequivocal and I have been committed to ensuring that we right the wrongs of the past. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the chiefs of services have all expressed their deep regret for the unacceptable treatment of LGBT personnel. The scheme that launched in December 2024 is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. As I said, we have raised the budget to £75 million. I hope that brings affirmation and some measure of closure to those who have waited far too long for consecutive UK Governments to address the damage of those times. On slow payments, I must address the important issue that the hon. Member for Chichester rightly raised: the timely delivery of payment to veterans who have served the country with courage and distinction. The rate at which those deserved payments are being processed is an issue that is causing considerable concern to constituents. I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) about an individual who may be terminally ill or elderly. I want to be clear that part of the reason the process has been quite slow is because we have focused on the terminally ill, the elderly and the most complex cases first. I made a commitment to Fighting With Pride that we would do that to ensure that no one misses out on payments due to illness or age. That has contributed, although it is not the sole reason, to the speed and delivery of payments, but I will stick by it because it has to be a No. 1 priority. We are almost through what we think are most of those claims. I assure hon. Members that we are taking decisive action to deliver payments more swiftly and efficiently. I will mention a couple of things that we are doing. We are boosting resources and allocating extra staff and funding to ensure that claims are processed more quickly, so veterans receive the support they deserve. A key reason for delay has been problems with the automated payment system. We acknowledge that and are looking into it. We are trying to process claims as quickly as possible. The system will get faster the more claims that we process, so we think it will speed up. That will streamline the process and reduce the administrative bottleneck, which is significant. Let us remember that a lot of the files and data are not held digitally, so it is not a case of a Google search. There are Yellow Pages-sized files sitting in hangars all over the UK, so it takes time. We are also increasing the frequency of sittings of the independent panel to two a week, hoping that the automatic system will catch up, to reduce waiting times. Although there is still work to be done, I am confident that those combined measures will speed up the system. In addition to the commitments that I made earlier, the LGBT community should be assured that no one will miss out. The issue about front-loading some of the military records when the non-financial redress scheme kicked in was that no one had agreed to or committed to the financial redress scheme, so we did not know what was required in the first place. That was not this Government but previous Governments. We did not front-load that; a lot of the non-financial redress schemes were already completed or under way. On the 18 weeks for information, I will get back to the hon. Member for Chichester with the statistics on how we process that. We will have an electronic copy of that, so I will be sure to write to her with the detail. On the civil servants, the only thing I would say, and I say it relatively gently, is that those civil servants with the expertise to focus on the payments are the same civil servants who are writing ministerial correspondence back to people. The more ministerial correspondence that we get, the more time they are spending on that, rather than on processing claims. I will say this: after the Ministry of Defence broke the trust of LGBT communities, please now have the trust that we will deliver on this guarantee for you. I will provide a bit of transparency on the details of the scheme and answer some of the questions put by hon. Members. As of 7 July, we have received many applications for the scheme. Of those, 944 were submitted online and 162 were received as hard-copy applications. To break that down a bit further, there were 242 applications for the dismissed or discharged payment only; 250 applications for the impact payment only; and 614 applications for both payments.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and I champion what he says. For anyone out there who has not made an application, please get in touch and process it as fast as possible. I will give a couple more statistics for the record. The first payments were made just 15 weeks after the scheme’s official launch and I am pleased to report that we have now paid over £4.2 million in total in the redress scheme. There were payments to 84 applicants for the dismissed or discharged payment, with each applicant receiving over £50,000. Additionally, we have made £82,000 in impact payments to 11 applicants, ranging from £1,000 to £2,000. [ Official Report, 15 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 2WC.] (Correction) I see the scheme speeding up considerably in the not-so-distant future. It is worth noting that all payments are exempt from income tax, which was one of the key issues for Fighting With Pride when we moved forward with the scheme. Furthermore, payments will not affect any means-tested benefits, such as universal credit, income support or housing benefit, which is also critical. Now, I have a message for anyone listening to this debate, or for anyone pushing out details about it on social media. I urge all those affected by the ban while serving between 1967 and 2000 to read the guidance, and to please apply for financial recognition via the “Veterans of the LGBT Ban: Financial Recognition Scheme” page on gov.uk. They have my word and a commitment that if this process extends for longer than a year, we will keep going and we will ensure that individuals who put in a claim get it resolved as quickly as possible. I will also say that the scheme is not necessarily just about financial recognition. It is also about acknowledging the sacrifices and indeed the injustices faced by LGBT veterans, and ensuring that their experiences are recognised and indeed valued.