debates/debates2025-11-11b conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-11)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-11b conversation_21

Bradley Thomas:Why did the Government vote against releasing migrant crime data? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that successive Governments have made data releases. Those data releases have to be analysed properly. We make no excuses for voting in the appropriate way. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: My constituent Richard Pyke was the victim of a violent attack at his workplace in March of this year. He was given his victim impact statement when he met the Crown Prosecution Service barrister five minutes before going into court on the day of sentencing. It had been amended: he was not allowed to say how he felt that the perpetrator tried to murder him, he was no longer allowed to say that he was manipulated into a vulnerable position, and he was not allowed to state how he felt about the perpetrator’s release. What assurances can the Minister give victims of serious crimes, such as attempted murder, that they will not be censored in such a way? \p Alex Davies-Jones: It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend to discuss Richard’s case, and all my thoughts are with him as he seeks to recover from that horrible crime. It is important that victims’ voices are represented in the courtroom and in sentencing. As she will know, the victim impact statement is classed as a piece of evidence and must be carefully worded. However, I have heard the strength of feeling from her constituent and others on this matter, and we are working with victims to ensure that they get the support they need to set out articulately and clearly exactly how the crimes have affected them. \p Gagan Mohindra: Two weeks ago, at the statement on prisoner release checks, the Secretary of State called my question “ridiculous”. Let me try a different tack: has he spoken to the affected family in Epping? \p David Lammy: I said last week that I was keen to meet with the family, and I will meet with them when they meet with the Prisons Minister, I hope, in the coming weeks. \p Meg Hillier: We have seen a lack of maintenance of prisons, a stop-start prison building programme and all the challenges in our courts—is it any surprise that we are looking at non-custodial sentences for lower-level offenders? Does the Secretary of State agree that those on the Opposition Front Bench have some cheek to come to this House and question that when the failures in the system are down to 14 years failure? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend did a valiant job as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, constantly revisiting these issues. She will have noticed how successive Justice Secretaries under the last Government have said  that they cut the numbers, they failed to invest, violence was up, and now we have junior staff making very important decisions. \p Al Pinkerton: I have been contacted by a Surrey Heath resident who has not just endured and survived appalling domestic abuse but is now enduring and attempting to survive the family court process, with multiple hearings over child contact arrangements. Will the Minister commit today to implementing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent recommendations to better protect children at risk? \p Alex Davies-Jones: This Government are clear that child safety during court-ordered contact is vital. We are improving multi-agency working to support early identification of risk and enable referral to specialist domestic abuse support. We are carefully considering the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report, and we will publish our response by the end of this year. \p Julian Lewis: What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say about the unprecedented letter in The Times today from nine recent former heads of the armed forces, stating that the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles and legacy legislation breaks the compact between service personnel who do their duty and the Government, who should stand up for them, not open them up to endless litigation and persecution? \p David Lammy: I saw the Northern Ireland Secretary’s statement last week. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been considerable lawfare and that the scheme proposed by his Government was largely thrown out by the courts. That is why the Veterans Minister has listened very keenly to not just military families but all those who were victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland. \p Rupert Lowe: Will the Secretary of State today agree to publish clear, honest and regular statistics on the number of illegal migrants convicted of sexual offences, murder or indeed any other crime? A yes or no answer will do well. \p David Lammy: We do publish statistics in the usual way after they have been properly analysed. We have to make sure that all facts are verified, and we have done that in the same way that the last Government did. \p John Glen: I recently met the chief executive of an international charity that happens to be based in Wiltshire where there have been serious historical allegations. Unfortunately, the resourcing of such inquiries falls between the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency, Wiltshire police and the Charity Commission.  Will one of the Ministers meet with me? It is not right that charity investigations are not conducted properly when there are serious allegations. \p David Lammy: I am very happy to look at that and ensure that a Minister meets with the right hon. Gentleman. \p Caroline Voaden: Sexual exploitation is being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites, which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity, moving sexual exploitation off the street and into locations like flats and hotels, where outreach is harder and the coercion of vulnerable women can thrive. Given that advertising prostitution in a phone box was made illegal 25 years ago, can the Government explain why they are yet to outlaw the same advertising online? \p Alex Davies-Jones: We need to tackle violence against women and girls in all its forms everywhere. I regularly meet my counterparts at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Government will publish our violence against women and girls strategy shortly. \p Jack Rankin: Old Windsor is a small village in my constituency with an approved premises that has morphed to include high-risk offenders. It causes problems. Does the Minister agree that, first, probation services have responsibility for residents’ behaviour when they are outside that facility and, secondly, the police should have more focus on Old Windsor than they might otherwise have, given the location of that facility? \p Jake Richards: It is right that the Probation Service takes those facilities and premises incredibly seriously. We are investing more in probation than ever before—£750 million, a 45% increase—to fix a service that was utterly dismantled by the last Conservative Government, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are reassured that this Government are getting on with job of ensuring that our Probation Service is fit for purpose. \p Lee Anderson: It has been reported in the media that we have prison officers working in our prisons who can barely speak a word of English. In fact, they are using flash cards to instruct prisoners to go back to their cells. It does not take a mastermind to realise that that is recipe for disaster. Will the Justice Secretary tell us if that is true or not? \p Jake Richards: I regularly visit prisons as part of my job, and I pay tribute to the incredible work that prison officers do, day in and day out, including prison officers who come from other countries to do sterling work in appalling circumstances to ensure that our prisons are safe. I thank them for their work, and I reject the premise of the question. \p David Lammy: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on releases in error from prison.

On Armistice Day, let me begin by paying tribute to those we honour: Members of both Houses and parliamentary staff who gave their tomorrow for our today. Whatever divides our politics, today we remember what binds us together: our belief in service and the pursuit of the common good.

On Wednesday 5 November I answered Prime Minister’s questions. As someone who has served in this House for 25 years, I take my responsibilities to Parliament incredibly seriously. The House will recall that I was asked repeatedly whether any asylum-seeking offender had been released in error. At that time, I had been alerted of the release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from His Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth. Details about the case were still emerging throughout Wednesday. Importantly, my officials had not had confirmation about whether or not he was an asylum seeker. Indeed, it was not until later that afternoon that the Home Office confirmed to the Ministry of Justice that he was not.

Given the nature of the Opposition’s questions, I made a judgment that I would wait until I had all the detail, rather than risk giving an inaccurate, incomplete or misleading picture to the House about a sensitive case. Conservative Members may argue that they would have handled the situation differently. All I can do is to be open about the factors I was weighing at the time and that the data in the system we inherited is painfully slow. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to update the House in full today.

Members will recall that, following the release of Hadush Kebatu on 24 October, I put in place stronger release checks. I can confirm that the error leading to Mr Kaddour-Cherif’s release happened in September, before those checks came in. He was charged with burglary at Snaresbrook Crown court and a warrant was issued to HMP Pentonville for his remand. Contrary to the set down process, it was then forwarded by email to HMP Wandsworth when Mr Kaddour-Cherif was transferred. However, staff did not pick it up and he was released on 29 October. Mr Kaddour-Cherif was taken back into custody on 7 November by Haringey police. I am grateful to officers from my part of north London again, after they also re-arrested Mr Kebatu. I am grateful too to the wider Metropolitan police and to the public who assisted them.

I can tell the House that there were around 57,000 routine releases from prison in the year to March 2025. In that same time, there were 262 releases in error from prison. New data my Department published today shows that from April to the end of October this year, there were 91 releases in error from prison. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put into the public domain. That data is not due for publication today, but we recognise the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. It is important to note that this number may be revised as additional cases are subsequently recorded, but this is the very latest that I have been provided.

We understand that three mistakenly released prisoners are currently unlawfully at large. Their prison records show that none of them are convicted sex offenders. I have been informed this afternoon that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may still be at large. It is symptomatic of the data issues that we inherited that this is all the information that I have been given, while police and HMPPS investigate.

On the confirmed cases, case one was in prison for failing to surrender to the police and was released in error in December 2024. Case two was in prison for a class B drug offence, and was released in error in August 2024. Case three was in prison for aggravated burglary, and was released in error in June 2025. Two are British nationals, and one is a foreign national offender. I will not provide any further details on individual cases. In each case, we have to consider the welfare of victims and the judgment of our law enforcement agencies.

Of the 262 releases in error from prison in the year to March 2025, 87 were of offenders whose main offence was one of violence against the person, and three were of offenders whose main offence was a sexual offence. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, which are symptomatic of a prison system under horrendous strain. As the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted last week,

“the state of the prison service has been unacceptable for a very long time…including under the Conservative government.”

Prisons are still struggling with violence. The safety in custody statistics show an 8% rise in the rate of assaults in the year to June 2025. Systems are archaic; every prisoner’s sentence is worked out on paper. Consideration is given to the type of offence and the legislation that covers it, and there are more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance.

I pay tribute to prison officers, who are doing an incredibly important job, but as the Prison Officers Association has said,

“Prisons throughout the country are underfunded, understaffed and operating under relentless strain.”

Frontline prison officers were cut by a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people, and it means that there are fewer experienced staff, which places more pressure on the system. Unsurprisingly, mistakes happen in those circumstances. Indeed, from 2010-11 to the end of 2023-24, under the previous Government, there were 860 known releases in error from prisons.

We must recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. In the worst cases, such as that of William Fernandez back in 2021, prisoners have committed further horrific offences. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error, especially Hadush Kebatu’s victims, whom I have offered to meet. I hope that the right hon. Member for Newark will join me in that apology to all who have suffered because of releases in error under this Government and previous Governments.

Human error will always exist, and no Justice Secretary could prevent every mistake, but we must reduce the risk and reverse the trend over the course of this Parliament.  We must be honest: the release process requires a radical overhaul, and establishing the facts in individual cases is complex. Decisions about public statements rightly rest with the police. Issuing details too early could frustrate covert inquiries, or put police officers or the public at risk. These are judgments for experienced operational leaders to make, and parliamentarians must give them the space in which to make them.

This is a complex issue—we must be straight with the public about that—and I am clear that we have a mountain to climb in response. First, I am chairing a new justice performance board, which will give a comprehensive view of prisons and criminal court performance, including releases in error, to drive a step change in how we respond. The first monthly meeting took place yesterday. Secondly, I am making sure that we understand the issues. Following the release of Kebatu, I asked Dame Lynne Owens to carry out a review, which will conclude by the end of February next year. That review will now include the adequacy of data collected and published on releases in error, and we fully expect to uncover additional incidents. I can also announce that we will set up a team of data scientists to review historical releases in error in order to understand what is going wrong.

Thirdly, I am improving processes. Because some of these errors originated not in the prison process, but in the court process, I will implement an urgent warrant query unit, supported by court experts, so that prisons can escalate queries and get rapid clarifications to reduce the risk of releases in error that emanate from the court system. We are also issuing instructions to court staff to reinforce mandatory requirements for imprisonment orders to be confirmed verbally with judges before they are finalised. This measure has been shared with the judiciary. The court and prison services are also scoping a joint exercise on live warrants. It will initially take place in the London region. That exercise will identify errors and ensure that prisoners are subject to the correct warrants.

Fourthly, I am accelerating upgrades. I stood up a digital rapid response team last week to reduce human error with cutting-edge technology. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence and technology solutions, which will help frontline staff avoid mistakes and support them in calculating sentences accurately. Finally, I am simplifying the release policy. One of the aims of the Sentencing Bill is to standardise how cases are treated, and following Dame Lynne Owens’ review, we will consider whether amendments to operational policy are required. These are the initial steps to address this issue, but I will update the House where further changes are necessary. I commend the statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just clear something up, which does not have to happen? First of all, I was told that the Justice Secretary needed 13 minutes. [Interruption.] Bear with me. I said, “You will need to ask,” and in the end, the Department came back and said, “Oh no, it’s 10 minutes.” That statement was not 10 minutes; it was almost 12 minutes. I will work with Ministers and Secretaries of State, but the limit is 10 minutes. If there needs to be an extension, please ask; do not keep changing the length of time, because it is unfair to  shadow Ministers when a statement runs over. The shadow Justice Secretary now has an extra minute, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has an extra half-minute, but in future, please stick to the rule of 10 minutes. If you do need longer, I am always sympathetic, as long as I know in advance, but it makes your Department look foolish if you run over, having said to me that an extension was no longer needed. It is certainly not going to make me look foolish in the future. I call the shadow Justice Secretary. \p Robert Jenrick: So we are back here again. At least the Justice Secretary is getting some use out of his new suit. But where has Wednesday’s bombast and bravado gone? “Get a grip, man!”, he thundered last week, without even a hint of irony. There was none of that today, was there? Why is that? It is because, like increasing numbers of criminals in our jails, the Justice Secretary just does not know whether he is coming or going. Even his colleagues in government are turning on him, some with unbridled contempt. “The handling is terrible”, was the verdict of a Cabinet Minister; “just rank incompetence”, “cowardly”, and “frankly pretty dodgy” was the verdict of another. Before long, the Prime Minister will be saying that he has full confidence in the Justice Secretary, and we all know what that means.

Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary told the House that he had put in place the strongest checks ever to stop releases in error. Forty-eight hours later, another prisoner with a history of sex offences was released in error. Seven days later, a fraudster was let out, on the very day he was sentenced to 45 months inside—and today, the Justice Secretary admits that he lost another prisoner on that same day. They are Lammy’s lags, a whole new category of criminal who can just waltz out of prison despite the “strongest ever checks”, introduced by this Justice Secretary.

The public are being endangered as this circus rumbles on week after week, with no end in sight. When will the Justice Secretary put a stop to it? He cannot hide behind the inquiry that he has commissioned. He could not even get the name of the head of the review—Lynne Owens—right last week. “Anne Owens, Anne Owens,” he bellowed. Well, I looked her up, and the only “Anne Owens” I could find was a panto performer who recently appeared in “Alice in Wonderland”. Perhaps she was the one who gave the Justice Secretary tips on his performance at the Dispatch Box last week.

The former chief inspector of prisons says that the issue was caused, at least in part, by the “confusion” created by Labour’s botched early release scheme. Does the Justice Secretary now concede that there is a link between the doubling of the number of prisoners accidentally released in the last year and the introduction of Labour’s standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, or is it just an extremely unlucky coincidence? Do not take us for fools!

When will the Justice Secretary finally come clean? He will not provide details in answer to parliamentary questions. He will not answer even when he is here for Prime Minister’s questions. He will not respond to letters—but perhaps that is because they were not addressed to “the Deputy Prime Minister”. He has now been dragged here, kicking and screaming, to admit that one  prisoner has been on the run from this Labour Government for 14 months, and 91 have been accidentally released over the last seven months. However, the Justice Secretary is so clueless that he has literally lost track of how many prisoners he has lost. He has said today that a prisoner “may” have been accidentally released last Monday. Well, has he looked? The prisoner is either in his cell or he is not.

What a complete and utter farce the Justice Secretary is presiding over. As we all suspected, the crisis on his Government’s watch is even bigger than he dared to admit. That is why he would not say anything last week. Prisoners are being accidentally released nearly every other day, putting our constituents—his constituents—at risk.

At this rate, he is on track for 156 prisoners to be accidentally released this year, which would be a record, were it not for the doubling that his Government managed to achieve last year.

In his statement today, the Justice Secretary posed more questions than he managed to answer. How many crimes were committed by those prisoners while they were on the run? Why can he not tell us who these 91 prisoners are? Who is the foreign criminal, and who is this mystery fourth offender whom he “may” have lost? How can he possibly be found if, unlike in the case of Cherif and Kebatu, the public do not have his face or his name?

The public deserve to know the truth, and this situation could not be any more serious. There has been a ninefold increase in the number of violent offenders accidentally released in the last year. On the Justice Secretary’s watch, the criminal justice system has been made to look a total mockery. The public are being put at risk. In his own words, it is time for him to “get a grip”—or go. \p David Lammy: This is a crisis that we inherited in our prison system. [Interruption.] That is worthy of sober reflection, because the shadow Justice Secretary knows that when the Conservatives were in government, 17 prisoners were released in error every month. He knows that. A former Conservative Justice Secretary said in respect of this issue last Friday: “We essentially run our prisons regime very hot. We are very close to capacity. We have seen a big increase in the prison population over the last 20 years, and resources have not necessarily matched that. That is the first problem.” Another former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, said:

“Part of the issue is we can’t hold on to prison officers…Without that expertise, errors creep in.”

The shadow Justice Secretary himself challenged the Conservatives’ record in office, so he knows that this is a cross-party issue—one which, of course, we have to grip. I said that I had put in place those checks, and I stand by the checks that I put in. I also said in my statement that many of the cases that we are uncovering occurred before those checks were in place, and another case involved an error in the court system. That is why the new query process is very important indeed.

We had to introduce SDS40, and the right hon. Member knows why that is the case: because his Government, just in their last few months in office, made three different changes to their early release scheme, so worried were they about prison capacity—a prison capacity issue that we inherited. In their 14 years in office, they built only 500 extra places in the prison system, while we have pledged 14,000 by 2031.

The right hon. Member also knows that, as night follows day, if Governments cut officers by almost 50%, as the Conservatives did in office, and then recruit new officers, as we have attempted to do, those are then very junior people. They are working hard, and I thank them for all that they are doing, but in those circumstances mistakes will be made.

I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this—that is really important. I have put in place the digital team, because, as the right hon. Member also knows, this is a system based on human beings and there will therefore be errors; only technology will fix this issue over time. I have also now put in place that double check between the court and prison systems. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the initiatives that the Lord Chancellor has announced to deal with wrongful releases, but does he accept that the level and circumstances of such releases are symptomatic of a deeper malaise? Will he look at the Justice Committee’s current reports on drug culture, organised crime and the lack of education and work in prisons? Will he commit to tackling the underlying breakdown of order and discipline in the prison system, which, over years of decline, has made many prisons unsafe, chaotic and unfit for purpose? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has been doing on these issues for many years. His words echo those of the prison inspector. My hon. Friend of course knows that this is a system that is incredibly hot, frankly, because violence is up, self-harm is an issue, and there is the issue of things arriving in prison by drone, particularly drugs. We have staff doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend knows that no Government, in just 16 months in office, could turn around the austerity that this public service saw. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. It seems like people currently have tougher checks to speak to an adviser at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to get a GP appointment than offenders have to be released from prison.

Since the mistaken releases of recent weeks, I have heard horrendous reports from prison officers inside prisons of prisoners being identified by low-quality black-and-white photographs printed on paper and a few basic questions on personal information—information that could be readily shared between inmates—before being cleared for release. That is not good enough, especially when we now have biometric technology that is used for visitors to prisons but not for inmates. We cannot be reliant on an honour-based system that depends on the good will of convicts to hand themselves in, and police forces certainly do not have the spare capacity to conduct regular manhunts for people who should still be locked up.

After the release of Hadush Kebatu, the Deputy Prime Minister promised enhanced security checks, yet some of society’s most dangerous individuals have still ended up on our streets. Will he now spell out what those enhanced checks actually involve and whether  biometric testing is used routinely to confirm a prisoner’s identity before release? Can he confirm what training prison officers receive before managing prisoner releases?

Like most of the justice system, our prison system was mismanaged and underfunded by the previous complacent Conservative Government, so we appreciate that the Labour Government inherited this mess. However, the number of mistaken prisoner releases has risen sharply on their watch and they cannot continue to risk public safety, particularly given that it took them a whole seven days to realise that a prisoner had been mistakenly released and that they are seemingly blaming an email being unread for the most recent error.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how long the Ministry of Justice has known about the three prisoners at large and how long the police have been trying to find them? The Deputy Prime Minister has promised the public an investigation, but they cannot wait months for answers while their safety continues to be put at risk, so what immediate action can he take today to ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars and that these mistakes stop once and for all? \p David Lammy: I say to the hon. Lady, who reflects on the releases in error, that 57,000 people are released from prison every year. I am sure that, like me, she will commend the good work of prison officers and those in offender management units across our prisons, who do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances.

The hon. Lady refers to the complexity. The last Government kept expanding their emergency release scheme—from 18 days to 35 days, and then to 70 days. In 2021, a review found 503 pages of guidance that staff had to follow for early release. It is a paper-based system. I cannot stand here as Secretary of State and say that we can eradicate all human error in a paper-based system, because we cannot. The only way to deal with it is to use technology to bring those levels down to something that the House would think is acceptable. I want to see the figure come down to historic levels over the course of this Parliament. It will of course take further investment, but I hope that the £10 million investment in the new digital team, and indeed the support that we are now offering between courts and prisons, will make a substantial difference.

The hon. Lady asks me what I am doing. I am delivering a new justice performance board, Dame Lynne Owens’ review, the urgent query process that I have outlined, the digital rapid response system and, of course, a simplified release policy, which is effectively what will come out of the Sentencing Bill. \p Warinder Juss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wrongful releases of prisoners will have caused a lot of distress and anxiety to the victims, their families and others? Does he also agree that we inherited a prison system that was in complete chaos and in such major breakdown that, although we are now taking the appropriate action to sort out the prison system and to prevent wrongful releases, this is going to take some time? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the public recognise that. They might not have visited our prisons, but they know that cuts in our  public services are real. They see it in their local authorities. They see it in their local hospitals. They see it in their local schools. They know that things like Sure Start were decimated. I am afraid that our Prison Service, which the public do not see, was one of the worst-hit public services.

It is my job to minimise that risk to the public, which is why I am introducing new measures and have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue very carefully. She is a former head of the National Crime Agency, and I know she will do a forensic examination. I will implement her recommendations so that we can bear down on this problem, but it is a paper-based system. Coming into this job, I did not realise that it was a paper-based system. I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary has realised that since he has been doing his job, but former Conservative Justice Secretaries know that it is a paper-based system, and they know that that is why errors happen. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power? \p David Lammy: Previous Governments did not have that data, and I am pretty confident that I do not have that data. If it exists, it exists in the individual police forces that deal with these issues operationally. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right that every prisoner released in error has to be found by the police. I thank the police for all they have done, and I particularly thank Haringey police for finding the two high-profile cases. \p Tony Vaughan: Under the system that has been in force for many years, the Government cannot initiate deportation action until after minimum custodial terms have been served. Can the Deputy Prime Minister commit to ensuring that measures removing all minimum custodial requirements will be implemented, so that eligible foreign offenders can be removed as soon as possible after sentencing and victims can be spared the distress we have seen recently? \p David Lammy: I can give my hon. and learned Friend that undertaking. That is why we have brought forward the sentencing review and increased the removal of foreign national offenders to 5,000. All of that has been done in the last 16 months, when the Conservatives never did it once. \p Ashley Fox: Two days before Kaddour-Cherif was released, the Justice Secretary said he had

“introduced the strictest checks ever seen in our prison system to stop similar unacceptable errors in future.”

Were they not implemented, or are they not strict enough? \p David Lammy: Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in  those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth. \p Sarah Russell: We must of course solve the immediate problem of accidental releases, which are a huge issue. However, for longer-term planning, we have a very high vacancy rate in our prisons. I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the work on bringing that down, but will he look at the Justice Committee’s recommendation to produce a 10-year plan for the prison system workforce in the same way as we do for the NHS? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce. \p Tessa Munt: The day before Prime Minister’s questions last week, we spent hours discussing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Bearing in mind that there has been such a crash in public trust and confidence, has the Lord Chancellor considered that it might have been better to have referred to the fact that he knew there was a mistaken release of a prisoner in the offing? He might not have been able to give the details, but to restore public trust and confidence, and in light of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, might it not have been better to have said something, and to have held over that decision and said he would come back to the House later with more detail? \p David Lammy: I recognise why the hon. Lady, who is very reasonable, has made her comments in that way, but I simply say that we inherited a system in which 17 errors on release are made every single month. There is a data release every July, and I have now updated the House with more information than it has ever had about this issue. I have also been clear, as any Justice Secretary would be, that we are not going to be able to eradicate human error or to get back to historical levels quickly, but I have put in place as much as I can to minimise the risk to the public. \p Andrew Pakes: As a Member who represents a prison constituency, I would like to put on record my thanks to prison and probation staff who work hard under difficult circumstances. In recognising that, I also know the pressure the prison system in under. It is shocking that the legacy of 14 years handed over to this Government was a paper-based system and a prison system that was breaking. The Conservatives like to talk about a farce. If they want to talk about a farce, I will hand them a mirror to look into, because the only farce here is the breaking system. What more can we do to support prison staff? Yes, there needs to be accountability, but we need to invest in technology and invest in solutions, and give our prisons the systems they need to stop these things happening in future. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to deal with this issue is to move to a system that is based on technology; to use the AI that is out  there to properly compare records, whether they come from the court or from early release. That will take significant time, but I have found £10 million to at least begin that process. And that process begins as a result of these recent high-profile cases. \p Andrew Mitchell: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that even the west midlands victims’ advocate, Natalie Queiroz, is herself living in fear due to the Government’s new release guidelines on open prisons? In 2016 she was stabbed in my constituency 24 times by her ex-partner. She was eight months pregnant. Her attacker was jailed for 18 years but is now moving to an open prison four years earlier than expected. Natalie is terrified of coming face to face with him. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why those convicted of domestic abuse who cannot apply for early parole under the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—process are not also excluded from the Government’s dangerous policy of moving offenders to open prisons? \p David Lammy: I know that the Victims Minister has met her. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that under the Sentencing Bill restriction zones can restrict the movement of those who have committed crimes such as the one he refers to. \p Fleur Anderson: As a Wandsworth MP, my constituents are very concerned about these releases. They have seen years of underfunding of Wandsworth prison. They have also seen more investment by this Government since coming into power than for years and years before that. From visiting Wandsworth prison, I have every confidence in its new governance and the systems it is putting in place. I thank the Justice Secretary for his response to my letter, outlining the changes in training, technology and resources, and the digital rapid response unit, which are being put in place to redress these wrongs. For the sake of my constituents, will the Justice Secretary outline the stronger release checks that he has put in place straight away? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in her community. I recognise that there will be anxiety in her constituency as a result of high-profile cases that have emanated from Wandsworth. She will know that one of those cases involved an error that actually started in the court system back in September, before the checks that I put in place. She asked me to outline what I have done. What it effectively means is that the duty governor and the deputy governor are having a double look at what comes out of their OMUs, which are largely staffed by slightly more junior staff who are making the decisions on who should be released from custody. I look forward to visiting Wandsworth with my hon. Friend in the coming months. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: The ministerial code requires honesty and transparency. On 28 October, in a written parliamentary question, I asked how many of those released in error under this Government remain at large. On 3 November I received an answer, but it did not answer the question. Was that because the Government did not know how many people were at large, or because they chose not to be transparent and give the answer? \p David Lammy: I explained at length in my statement who is at large. I have released data today outwith the normal cycle of releasing in July, which was done under the previous Government. I have been as transparent with the House today on this issue as any Minister has been. I remind the House that I checked the record and, despite 860 releases in error on their watch, the Conservatives never came to the House once on this issue—not once. \p Julie Minns: Our constituents deserve a prison system that they can have confidence in, yet prisoner releases in error increased every year since 2021. Despite that, there was no call for an investigation and there were no reforms. Can the Justice Secretary therefore reassure my Carlisle constituents that it is this Government who will implement the findings of Dame Lynne Owens’s investigation and restore the confidence that was eroded under the previous Government? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not once did the previous Government make a statement. Even when William Fernandez was released in error under them and went on to commit an horrific crime, not once did a Minister come to this Dispatch Box. Not once did the previous Government release extra detail, which I have done today. \p Steve Darling: A Torquay solicitor has recently told me of multiple occasions when there has been a lack of security staff to convey convicted criminals from Newton Abbot magistrates court to prison. On one occasion, one individual started self-harming. On another occasion, an individual waited and then absconding because the building was being locked up—he was later arrested following a machete attack. How often is this happening across the United Kingdom, and what are you doing to stop this failure within the system? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are, in a sense, beyond the prison system. He is right about the delivery mechanism of prisoners from court to prisons. He knows, because it has come up in oral questions in the House, that we inherited backlogs from the Conservative party. He also knows that we are demanding that our police arrest more and bear down on crime. The criminal justice system is phenomenally hot. All this will affect the prison system. That is why we have asked Brian Leveson to look at issues of efficiency, in particular, in relation to the courts backlog. Part of that is the relationship between security and the movement of people from our courts to our prison system. \p Meg Hillier: When I chaired and served on the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served for more than 10 years, we looked at and, with the help of the National Audit Office, uncovered failures in the Probation Service—a policy area that yo-yoed between Ministers as they changed—as well as the failure to build and maintain prisons, failures with the courts IT system and failures with identifying information that needed to be shared. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Magee review, which was commissioned at the tail end of the previous Labour Government, and can he speculate as to why the review was never implemented over the 14 years of the Conservative Government? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Magee review and its recommendations. I have of course asked my officials to look closely at the recommendations and at whether they pertain to the crisis we have inherited. I am grateful to her for highlighting that issue. She will know that, under the Conservatives, the Prison Service saw 24% cuts, because of which more than half our frontline prison officers today have less than five years’ experience. It is shocking. That is what we inherited. \p Julian Lewis: May I try to make a constructive suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister? Has he considered that when somebody is due for release, they should be read a short statement saying that if they think they are being wrongly released, they should say so now, and if they do not do so, a further penalty of some sort will be imposed? Might not that act as a bit of a deterrent, as well as a check? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The truth, however, is that because of the complexity of the various early release schemes, the numerous pieces of guidance that exist and the many different thresholds, the prisoner himself is often not completely aware whether he should be released on Monday or Thursday. It is sometimes possible when a prisoner has been released in error that it is by a matter of days, and not a significant period. I recognise why the right hon. Gentleman says what he says—we do have to make sure that there is an obligation on the prisoner. It is something that I will ask Lynne Owens to look closely at. \p Alex McIntyre: The shadow Secretary of State seems to have kicked off panto season. His comments reminded me of my favourite character, Buttons, who longs to be Prince Charming. If only his colleagues would write into the 1922 committee so that he can formally start his leadership bid. In the spirit of panto season, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister will join me in reminding the shadow Secretary of State that if he is looking for the reasons why our prisons are in this state, they are behind him! \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend puts it beautifully. I suspect that it is why the shadow Justice Secretary said last week that the state of the Prison Service has been unacceptable for a very long time, including under the Conservative Government. I suspect it is why William Hague, a former leader of the Conservative party, said that the Government failed to grasp this—they did not build more prisons, and they did not have enough people in our prisons—and that this has been a long period of real failure. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Between 5 July and the end of the reporting period in March, this Government oversaw the accidental release of 193 prisoners. That is five prisoners every week. We now know that there have been a further 91 accidental prison releases since 1 April, so there have been 284 in total. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that no prisoners have been accidentally released from HMP Littlehey in my constituency since Labour took office? \p David Lammy: The hon. Member knows that about 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Government.[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 43.] (Correction) He knows too that, in introducing their  early release scheme and our emergency early release scheme, there is complexity in the system. I will look closely at the data that is available in relation to the prison in his constituency. \p Catherine Fookes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Having spoken to my prison governor in Monmouthshire this weekend, I know the burden that clerks and prison officers are under when they are calculating these sentences on paper. The brass neck of the Conservatives is quite something to be believed. Their own party grandee William Hague has said that

“the Conservative Government failed to grasp either that they had to build more prison places or that they had to let people out, and they did not want to face up to either.”

Can the Secretary of State say how we are tackling both? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right; we have to grip the system. I did that by chairing a performance board in the Department yesterday, and I have done it by asking Dame Lynne Owens to look at this closely. There does now need to be an urgent query process working between courts and prisons so that we are not seeing those mistakes between the two systems. I think that ultimately it will take digital technology to fix this, but I have started that with £10 million to expand the digital rapid response unit so that we can at least start to raise flags in and across the system so that those working in our offender management units can spot where there might be a problem. I am pleased that the Sentencing Bill, which has now been through this House, will simplify the system greatly, because it is too complex at the moment. \p Lincoln Jopp: Kebatu was released in error on 24 October, which was a Friday. I was under the impression that in the last Parliament Simon Fell, the former Member for Barrow and Furness, passed a rather brilliant private Member’s Bill that became the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023. The Act states that a prisoner cannot be released on a Friday without the Secretary of State’s say-so, in order to reduce recidivism because people cannot get access to the state for 72 hours. Has the Secretary of State devolved that to prison governors, and if they are being seen to be ignoring the will of this House, will he draw that power back up to himself? \p David Lammy: The hon. Member makes a good point. The system had got to a place where prisoners were not being released on Fridays. It is my understanding that that was relaxed, and I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at that again. \p Sam Rushworth: At the weekend, I was visited in my constituency surgery by one of the many hard-working prison officers from Durham—himself a victim of the chaos in the justice system that the previous Government left behind. Before he left, he wanted me to know just how bad it is and why people are being released early.

As we all know, 800 prisoners were released early on the Conservatives’ watch, so bad was the chaos they created. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), says that it is getting worse. That is because of the chaos they  created—it got worse every year on their watch, too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, both for the victims of crime and for our hard-working prison officers, he will do what it takes to get to the bottom of this? He has referenced the paper-based system. Without pre-empting Dame Lynne Owens’s review, will we be moving away from that 1980s paper-based system? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right: there were 17 releases in error per month in 2024. Just in the Conservatives’ last days in office, there was a step change in those releases in error, and it very much started back in 2021 on their watch. But why did it start? It was because of the complexity of the system and the need to introduce new mechanisms to get prisoners out of an overheated prison system while being able to lock up the most violent people. That is why it has happened. Now, of course, we will do everything we can to get a grip. \p Andrew Murrison: It is good to see a quieter, more emollient and, even by his own lights, humbler Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box than the one we saw last week. Will he say how many people have been wrongly detained and how much money his Department is setting aside for the likely ensuing litigation? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Member knows that we release those statistics on an annual basis. I think behind his question he knows that, just as the system releases prisoners in error, it sometimes retains prisoners when they should be released. The two go hand in hand. \p Alice Macdonald: I am sure that as the Lord Chancellor made his statement, victims were at the forefront of his mind. We can all only imagine the fear and distress felt by victims when someone who has caused them so much harm is released in error. Will he give us more detail and assure us that, in those circumstances, victims and their families will receive support and be kept fully informed about what is happening? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right to put the victims and the anxiety that they will be feeling front and centre. I have published more data today on this issue than ever before because I recognise the public’s concern at this time, but it is right that I work with the police and our enforcement agencies on the publication of particular cases—sometimes victims have not been informed, it would be dangerous to publish names or, indeed, a prisoner would get to know that he or she is being looked for and go underground—in order to protect the public, and absolutely to protect victims. \p James Wild: Public safety should be the Justice Secretary’s priority, so why did it take six days for the Metropolitan police to be informed that a sex offender had been wrongly released from HMP Wandsworth? \p David Lammy: As I said, I have apologised from the Dispatch Box. Human error is in the system. There are delays not just within our prisons but between different agencies, and that is why I have put in place the query system in particular. \p Catherine Atkinson: The Government inherited a prison system so weakened by austerity, but it was also overcrowded by a justice system that failed to look at rehabilitation as well as punishment. Will the Secretary of State redouble the Department’s efforts to match employers who want to give prisoners a chance to learn skills and the habit of work with the opportunity to do so while serving their sentences and afterwards, so that we can ensure that our communities are safer because we rehabilitate as well as punish? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she emphasises punishment that works, and that has to mean skills, education and employment so that people do not go on to reoffend. We have inherited a system where recidivism rates are beyond 60%, which means that the system is not working even though it is overheated. We have to look at those issues in time. The Sentencing Bill is the beginning of the story, but we will have to return to those issues if we are serious about reducing reoffending. \p Neil Hudson: Recent events and today’s court ruling again bring to the surface anxiety in our Epping community. My thoughts remain with the victims, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. Appallingly, they and their families heard about the wrongful prisoner release from the media instead of the Government. It is frankly astonishing that the Government are only using their levers of power in the courts to overturn the case brought by the council, but are not using their powers to address these issues on the frontline: the illegal immigration crisis, mistaken release of convicted prisoners and serious management and safeguarding issues associated with the Bell Hotel, which needs urgently to close. When will the Government get a grip, realise that they are not political commentators but players on the pitch, and use their powers to tackle those issues once and for all? \p David Lammy: I recognise the sensitivity of this issue in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and that many will have looked closely at today’s decision in court. He knows that under the last Government £9 million a day was spent on housing people in hotels, he knows that the Government are committed to a new programme and that we are looking, for example, at military bases to see where can house people, and he also knows that we have increased the amount of foreign nationals leaving this country and returning to the countries they are from. \p Paul Waugh: I put on record my thanks to all the prison officer staff at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, who have held the line in the face of impossible cuts and challenges over the past 14 years under the previous Government.

It is hard to imagine the sheer distress that is caused to victims and their families whenever there is a release in error of any prisoner, as happened, as has been said, 800 times under the last Government without a single apology, a single independent inquiry or a single photo or name, as has been demanded by the shadow Justice Secretary. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims and their families should be put at the heart of our reforms when we try to make sure that that never happens again? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons that I asked Dame Lynne Owens, as she looks at this issue, to meet the victims—particularly the victims of Kebatu’s crime—and to keep them in mind. Notwithstanding the errors made, we have to ensure public confidence in the system. It is important to assert, once again from this Dispatch Box, that 57,000 people are released from prisons every year and there is no error at all in the vast majority of those releases. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the manner in which he has delivered it. The wrongful release of prisoners is of huge concern to my constituents. I echo the comments made by colleagues across the House that, ultimately, the people who really suffer are the victims of such terrible crimes.

Having previously worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, I saw a number of prisoners who were released on a Friday, and who would come to us on a Friday afternoon at about 5 o’clock with nowhere to go. Does the Secretary of State agree that when we release people from prison, we should make sure that they have somewhere to go? If they have to declare where they will go after their release, we might be able to avoid some of the mistakes. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right that the Friday release issue is often about public services not being available over the course of Friday evening into Saturday and the homelessness problem that that pertains to. That is why I think it is important that we relook at what is happening in the system—the system that we inherited. \p Alison Griffiths: On 10 October, Ola Abimbola, a violent Nigerian criminal, walked out of Ford open prison in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. He has not been seen since. He is meant to be serving 21 years for grievous bodily harm, kidnap and possession of an offensive weapon. How many other prisoners are at large from Ford open prison and what offences were they imprisoned for? \p David Lammy: The hon. Lady will know that absconding is a serious criminal offence, and that any defendant who commits this crime could face longer behind bars. This is of course a different issue to releases in error. Category D prisons have always existed, and absconds by prisoners are assessed, but I assure her that there is a downward trend in those who are absconding—57 in the year to March 2025. \p Sarah Pochin: Is the Justice Secretary aware of any crimes committed by wrongly released prisoners while at large? \p David Lammy: As I have just said, William Fernandez went on to commit an horrific crime but the last Government never came to the Dispatch Box about that. By definition, if we got to the situation that we did in 2024, when 17 releases in error were happening, of course it is possible that people can go on to commit crimes. That is why I am hugely grateful—I know it involves police resource—for the efforts of our police to re-arrest these individuals. Some of them, as we saw last week, hand themselves back in when they realise that  their release was in error. Our job is to minimise risk, but in a paper-based system we can never eradicate risk in time. \p Nick Timothy: The Justice Secretary said that one of the prisoners accidentally released who is still at large is a foreign national offender. I know that, after PMQs last week, the right hon. Gentleman will be very well briefed this week, so can he say whether the prisoner was inside for aggravated burglary, drug offences or failing to surrender to the police? Can he also say how this foreign national offender entered the country and whether he was an asylum seeker? \p David Lammy: I have made available as much detail as possible, given that this information is normally released in July. Case 2 was in prison for a class B drug offence, and to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that that was the FNO prisoner. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that, but I will have it double-checked, because this information was made available to me very recently, and I will write to him if I make an error. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I have two prisons in my constituency, at Wetherby and Wealstun. I also have two on the outside of it, at Askham Grange and Full Sutton. They will have heard the Secretary of State say that he has put in place some of the strongest measures ever. The only question that my constituents want an answer to is this: when they will be able to say that they no longer fear dangerous criminals being released on to the streets to terrorise their communities? \p David Lammy: I recognise the anxiety that this issue will have caused. In a way, it has been a revelation to the public that people are released in error from our system. I emphasise that the vast majority of people are released in the correct manner—57,000 are released every year—but under successive Governments, for all of my lifetime, there have been releases in error. We want to bring that number down to historic levels, because it has been going up since 2021. I cannot stand here and say that, in a paper-based system often implemented by junior staff, we will eradicate releases in error, but we will reduce them over the course of this Parliament. \p Luke Evans: Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said:

“Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.]

I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake? \p David Lammy: This is why I chair the new performance board. This is why I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue intensively. This is why I have found £10 million for a digital rapid response unit. This is why, because there is sometimes a gap between our courts and our prisons, I have put in place a new urgent query process. This is why we are taking the Sentencing Bill through this House, which will simplify release. All those measures will begin to bear down on this issue. I am sure that Dame Lynne Owens will come forward with more measures, and we will take them. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Over the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the probation centre in Dewsbury, where Lucy Nicholson, head of Kirklees probation delivery unit, and her team hosted me. I pay tribute to their work, which has been made extremely difficult by the lack of investment in not just in the Probation Service but in prisons by the previous Government. We have full accommodation, a lack of funding and resources, reduced staff numbers, no processes in place to protect the public or prison staff, no systems, and no checks and balances. Will the Secretary of State outline the timescales by which some and all of these issues will be addressed, so that people in my constituency and across the country can feel safe when they sleep at night? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for centring the importance of probation. It is why one of the first things I did when I took office was to visit the Probation Service in Islington, and it is why I was recently in Chatham in Kent with probation officers. Investing in technology is hugely important to reduce their caseloads. Investing in more staff is hugely important —we recruited more than 1,000 staff last year, with 1,300 to come. Probation needs more resource, and that is why we have committed to £700 million by the next spending review. I am sure that we will return to these issues because I have no doubt that the decisions made by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling were a travesty for probation and criminal justice. \p Bradley Thomas: Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether in the last 16 months any prisoners have been accidentally released from Hewell Grange prison in Worcestershire and, if so, how many? \p David Lammy: As I said, I have released more data today than ever before. The hon. Member knows that the data is most often released in July. I will look closely at his prison to see. If 17 prisoners in 2024 were released in error every month, he will recognise that that will touch many prisons across the country, but he will also recognise that there are differences in terms of the category of prisons and prisoners, particularly those prisons that have a lot of churn and are letting people out on a more frequent basis than others. \p Jack Rankin: The Justice Secretary’s team say that he found out about the accidental release of Algerian sex offender Kaddour-Cherif on Tuesday evening. He contradicted them by saying he only learned of it on Wednesday morning. He said at PMQs that he had been busy shopping for a suit that morning. Did the Lord Chancellor spend any time at all shopping for a suit after he was told about that prisoner’s release? \p David Lammy: No. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Three hundred and twenty-one violent or sexual offenders either failed to come back to jail after being temporarily freed, returned later or breached the terms of their licence last year—the highest number for years. The number was 177 four years ago and it was 59 in 2014-15. Again, I ask the Secretary of State this question: will he commit to all the necessary changes, including updating data and technology in the present system, as a matter of public safety and public confidence? \p David Lammy: The hon. Member is right to put at the heart of his question getting back to historic levels before we started to see the increase back in 2021. That is my intent: to get back to much lower levels than we see now. This afternoon I have set out the measures that we are taking immediately. More will follow the review by Lynne Owens, but of course this will take investment across the prison system. \p Robert Jenrick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker? \p Lindsay Hoyle: I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back. \p David Lammy: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error in 2024. If I misspoke at any point, then of course I am happy to correct the record, as I just have done, but I am pretty sure that I said that. [Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 36.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that. \p Robert Jenrick: That is also wrong. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Well, it might be, but I have corrected the other point. \p Lindsay Hoyle: As the Secretary of State will explain, he has come to the House to update us at the earliest possible moment, for which I thank him. I understand that there will be further updates in the future, when more is known. We have an important and well-subscribed debate later this afternoon, and a further important statement to come before that. In the light of that, and as there is such a limited amount of information available today, I am going to restrict this proceeding so that only a couple of Members can ask questions after the statement. I want to ensure that people are aware of that; it is not that I am ignoring them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will explain—not that I want to put words in his mouth—that he will come back at the earliest possible moment. This matter involves a court case and other issues. Members will not gain anything by standing to catch my eye. \p Pat McFadden: I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way state pension ages were communicated to 1950s-born women.

The background to this issue is well known to the House. It arises from how decisions to equalise and raise the state pension age were communicated over a number of years, and the impact that that may have had on the ability of 1950s-born women to plan for their retirement. It stems from the communication of changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which gradually increased the state pension age for women from the age of 60 to 65 to bring it in line with that of men. The Pensions Act 2011, introduced under the coalition Government, then brought forward the timetable for equalisation, and the rise to age 66 for both men and women. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman was not looking at those policy changes to the state pension age, but between 2018 and 2024, it investigated complaints from 1950s-born women about the communication of changes to the state pension age.

In March last year, following a lengthy investigation lasting six years, the ombudsman published its final report. In December last year, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), provided the Government’s response to the House. In coming to this decision, she gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration, and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions. She did her job thoroughly and professionally in weighing up all the information before her, coming to a conclusion and informing Parliament.

Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material. In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should now consider this evidence. That means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.

As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of Court action in recent months, and we have today informed the Court of the action we now intend to take. In retaking the decision, we will review the evidence from 2007 alongside evidence previously considered. I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.

I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration. We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.

The work will begin immediately, and I will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached. Mr Speaker, I understand that Members will have a number of questions, but I hope that you and the House will also understand that I cannot say anything today that pre-empts the conclusion of the process I have set out. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Garnier: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that.

This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement:

“retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.”

The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for

“a better deal for WASPI women.”

However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement:

“But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

She is absolutely right: the Government had the choice then to stand behind the women who they said have faced a great injustice, but they chose not to. Instead, the Labour party is now fighting them in a judicial review in the High Court. Whether it be the multiple U-turns on pensioners’ winter fuel payments or the imminent rumoured freezing of tax thresholds in the Budget, forcing many pensioners into paying income tax, it is clear that this Government are not on the side of our pensioners.

That brings me to some questions for the Secretary of State. First, the Minister for Pensions said in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic on 15 January:

“we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 156WH.]

However, to my knowledge, nothing has been released to that effect. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when we can expect the plan and what will be in it?

Secondly, in a follow-up to written parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the Government said that they have “no plans” to meet representatives of the WASPI campaign. Indeed, the last time a Minister did meet them was on 5 September 2024. Why have this Government decided not to directly engage with the group they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, especially given that there is new evidence to consider?

Thirdly, during the 14 years we were in Government, we chose to help pensioners by increasing the personal allowance income tax threshold. However, independent research suggests that 1.6 million more pensioners are doomed to be filling in self-assessment tax returns within the next four years, thanks to the Government’s choices that may be made in the upcoming Budget. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Chancellor about the serious impact this retirement tax would have on a group that have consistently targeted by this Government?

Finally, why are this Government determined to blame everyone else for the decisions they have made? All this statement shows is that the Government want to keep kicking the can down the road and not be held accountable for their actions, but we should look at the record: unemployment is at 5%, the highest level since the pandemic, up from 4.2% in June last year; inflation is now sitting at 3.8%, up from 2% in June last year; economic growth has flatlined, despite having improved by 0.5% in the three months before this Government took office; borrowing costs have increased to their highest level since 1998, with 30-year gilt yields reaching 5.2%, compared with 4.7% when the Government took office; debt is now 96.4% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s; and winter fuel payments were cut for millions of pensioners, only for the Government U-turn on that after feeling the pressure of our strong campaign.

The Government are set to break their manifesto pledge and increase the tax burden to a historic high. Is it not true that this Government have been trying to dodge taking any form of responsibility for their actions? What is their problem with pensioners? \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for at least some of his response. I cannot pre-empt the conclusion of the process that I set out in my statement, because I want it to be undertaken fairly and transparently. I have to say to him that his own Government had many years to consider the matter and did not come to a conclusion, so I take his comments urging us to go more quickly with a little pinch of salt.

The hon. Member referred to pensioners. We said that we would maintain the triple lock, and we have kept to that commitment. That will mean an increase of some £1,900 a year in the basic state pension over the course of this Parliament. We remain committed to the publication of the action plan to which he referred.

He is right that the previous Minister for Pensions met the WASPI campaigners, but he was a little more coy about the last time a Conservative Minister met the WASPI campaigners. Perhaps a Conservative Member can tell us when that was? I believe it was many years before that and that our Minister was the first to meet the WASPI campaigners for some time.

Finally, on the broader economic record, he failed to join me in welcoming the UK having the fastest growth in the G7 for the first half of this year. \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House? \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for her question; I know that she has taken a long and keen interest in the matter. On timescales, when people hear this statement, I appreciate that they will want to know when the conclusion will happen, but it is right and proper that I look at all the available evidence. As I said in the statement, I have asked the Department if there is any other survey evidence or other kinds of evidence that should be brought to my attention. With that proviso, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.

Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women. \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible. \p Kirsty Blackman: The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken? \p Pat McFadden: The hon. Lady asks about the nature of this evidence. It is a report from 2007 and, as I said, it is a DWP evaluation. The survey was not drawn to the attention of the previous Secretary of State because its potential relevance to the making of her decision was not evident at the time. I will consider this survey and any other relevant evidence in the process to which I referred in my statement. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to suspend the House until 5.15 pm due to the late notice of the next statement.

Sitting suspended. \p Lisa Nandy: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.

As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.

The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.

The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.

The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.

The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged  all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.

We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.

I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Nigel Huddleston: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top.

I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad.  But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster.

I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too?

Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines?

The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud. \p Lisa Nandy: May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I know that the situation that has unfolded over the past week has been of serious concern to him. I say from the outset that I strongly agree with him that two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months. I have come to this House too many times to share progress updates after editorial failings. He mentioned  examples relating to Gaza and Glastonbury, but there have been others as well. I am pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Dr Samir Shah, has accepted the instances where the institution has made mistakes. I am pleased that he has been open with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), about that, and I am pleased that he is setting out the concrete actions that will follow.

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that clear actions are important; they must be swift, robust and transparent. I also strongly agree with him that there is a problem with consistency and the way that standards are applied, which leaves individual journalists and presenters in a very difficult position. I have made that point to the chairman, and previously to the director general.

I have had discussions with the chairman of the board about the search for a director general. The House should be aware that the Government do not appoint the director general. As set out in the charter, that is a matter solely for the board, but we stand ready to provide support, where it is requested and necessary, to make sure that we get the highest-calibre individual. I understand from the board that there is a desire to move quickly on that, but that the existing director general will remain in place to ensure a smooth transition, and I will update the House as I receive further information.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the BBC Arabic service and funding for the World Service. It is important to recognise that there have been serious concerns and failings on the part of the BBC Arabic service. Dr Shah, in response to that issue, set out in a letter to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a number of steps that are being taken. I understand that they include structural changes, as well as staff changes, but I gently push back against the assertion that this issue should affect our support for the World Service. The World Service is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness, of which there are many in the world at the moment. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so. \p Sarah Owen: Whatever the position regarding Donald Trump, who has said far worse than what was shown in the wrongly edited clip, the only ones rubbing their hands with glee during this debacle are those who do not want a free press—those politicians who have deep pockets lined by goodness knows who, and who cosplay as journalists on RT and GB News to spread division and hatred. I hope that all of us in this House agree with the principle of keeping our public broadcaster free from political interference. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to review the influence of former Conservative spin doctor Robbie Gibb on the BBC’s board? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Anna Sabine: The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain.

However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world?

Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC? \p Lisa Nandy: The hon. Lady asks if we will stand up for the BBC, and she will have heard my words to the House today. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in the country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. How will we stand up for the BBC? We will put it on a firm footing through the charter process that we are about to start. On her concerns about board members, she will have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). \p Rupa Huq: I thank my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this. I wholeheartedly welcome her words that political figures should not be presenters of the news. Surely that should apply also to the arbiters of news standards. Could these reforms therefore look at the four-person editorial standards committee, given that two of them have resigned, leaving as its most senior member someone who has owned a newspaper in his time, breaching the Independent Press Standards Organisation guidelines—the ex-Conservative director of communications, Robbie Gibb? \p Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend mentions the editorial guidance and standards committee, which has been the source of much debate and scrutiny over recent days. I have discussed this directly with the chair of the BBC. I understand that changes to that committee are planned, and I very much welcome that decision. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Caroline Dinenage: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.

That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?

On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline? \p Lisa Nandy: First, I welcome the action that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is taking, which she has announced to the House. To maintain confidence in the BBC, it is absolutely essential that the BBC is transparent about the actions it has taken and the actions it intends to take. It is very welcome that she is ensuring that the fullest explanation is given not just to this House, but to the public.

On the timing of the charter review, the hon. Lady will have heard what I said to her Committee when I appeared before it recently, which is that we will start the charter review process before the end of the year. I will of course return to this House as soon as the timing is finalised to give Members a chance to debate it.

The hon. Lady asked what action we, as a Government, are taking to support the board through what is clearly a tumultuous time. I have been working very closely with the chairman of the BBC in recent days—I have spoken to him daily—and with the director general. We have been clear as a Government that we stand ready to provide all the support the board needs to appoint the highest calibre person to the post of director general and to consider what changes it might want to make to senior leadership structures and roles as a result of its deliberations. The BBC is of course independent of Government and it is essential that it is given the space to be able to get on with that process, but we have been working very closely with the BBC chairman, at his request, in order to make sure that the BBC can continue to thrive. \p Natasha Irons: Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained? \p Lisa Nandy: I do agree with my hon. Friend. As well as the very important issues around standards, I would add trust, accountability and independence from Government—any Government, including ours—because the BBC plays a critical role in holding up a mirror not just to society but to Governments of all political persuasions. I would add that the BBC has always been one of the strongest drivers of the creative industries across every nation and region. As part of the charter review process, we will be working to strengthen that to make sure that the BBC is able to tell the story of our whole nation, and not just some of it. \p Oliver Dowden: I join the Culture Secretary in paying tribute to the director general of the BBC—I found him helpful on issues such as antisemitism—but the problem with the BBC goes much deeper than the current leadership. Does she agree, first of all, that it goes to the cultural disposition of the BBC? People who work for it have an overwhelmingly metropolitan outlook and obsess about issues such as Black Lives Matter and Palestine in a way that suburban and provincial England does not obsess? Moreover, my constituents are sick of waiting for the lecture from the BBC in output such as drama. That is the case from other broadcasters, but the difference with the BBC is that my constituents pay for it. There is a real problem with the BBC now, whereby many people feel that it represents half the United Kingdom and not the other half. Does she agree that, for those of us who want the BBC to succeed, that must be addressed as a matter of urgency? \p Lisa Nandy: The challenges the right hon. Gentleman describes do not specifically relate just to the BBC. I have voiced concerns, as have many Conservative Culture Secretaries previously, about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry in one background and from one region. I believe, as many of my Conservative predecessors have done, that that needs to change. I would caution focusing particularly on the BBC, because that is a problem for the media industry as a whole and therefore for the public debate. The BBC over the years, through its work at Media City in Salford and at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, is one of the organisations that is at the forefront of changing that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, that there has to be a level of internal challenge within any successful organisation. In the discussions I have been having with the chairman of the BBC and the director general in recent days, that has been the subject of many of the concerns that I have raised. \p Paul Waugh: As a former journalist and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I know more than most some of the failings of the BBC, but I also recognise some of its great strengths, not least in combating misinformation online. I know many of its journalists personally and many, many of them take ultra seriously their duties to provide fair, impartial and, yes, fearless news coverage. It is the fearlessness that often upsets this House, on either side. Yes, this was a serious error by the “Panorama” team and a correction should have been issued swiftly, but that does not mean that the BBC as an institution should be undermined. There are enemies on the left and the right who want to see the demise of the BBC, and they would rue that day should it ever happen. \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with my hon. Friend first on the point he makes about the seriousness of some of the failings and the need to uphold the highest standards. I also agree about the challenges and attacks that the BBC faces from both left and right. The real division in the debate over the BBC is not between left and right; it is between those of us who think that the national broadcaster is there to represent their world view and those of us who believe that our national broadcaster is here to challenge all of us. \p Damian Hinds: The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively? \p Lisa Nandy: I have reflected concern about the time it takes to respond to the BBC leadership, not just in relation to this episode, but previously. It really does undermine trust and confidence in the BBC. When a process takes time, and if there is no proper explanation as to why it has taken some time, it leads people to believe that there is complacency at the top of the organisation. I think the chairman has heard that loud and clear and has taken it on board as part of the learning from this episode. I have shared some of my frustrations with the BBC leadership and the failings that have happened over the past 16 months with this House, as have others, because the BBC holds such an important place in our national life and must command the trust of the whole public. \p Stella Creasy: I think we can all hear the Secretary of State’s frustration that we are in this position. She is absolutely right that there must be a period of introspection at the BBC about how this has come to pass, because it is true that trust in our national institutions is declining. However, I must take issue with her comment that the BBC is a national institution that belongs to us all. My constituents—and, I wager, those of Members across this House—are deeply concerned by the political attacks on the BBC, whether from home or abroad, and want to see it protected, because they think they own it. The honest truth, however, is that at the moment they do not own it. In the past, my right hon. Friend has been interested in these ideas; with the charter renewal coming up, might she meet a group of us to look at how ideas such as mutualisation and allowing the public to be part of running the organisation might be the future in giving back trust and confidence in the BBC and genuinely protecting it from political institutions? \p Lisa Nandy: I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared  spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions. \p John Whittingdale: The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a

“direct call for violent action”—

something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe. \p Graham Stringer: I do not think any reasonable person can think that the programme put out by “Panorama” was a mistake. It was clearly manipulation with a purpose, and unfortunately it follows a long line—I will not list all the examples, as other hon. Members have done that, but they include Gaza, anti-women trans issues and Europe. To give an example from my constituency, a programme was put out a few years ago called “People Like Us”, where contributors—young women—had been paid to fight and other contributors had been sent on holiday in order to get them to say particular things. I do not think that the biggest threat to the BBC is some conspiracy. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that the biggest threat to the BBC is a failure to uphold objectivity and the standards we expect from the BBC. \p Lisa Nandy: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view about the seriousness of the failings, which the BBC has accepted this week, and the need for clear, robust, firm and swift action in response. I would, though, remind the House that the BBC is responsible for thousands of hours of output across multiple channels, including some of the most popular and entertaining programmes  in this country and some of the highest-quality children’s television in the world. It is also responsible for the BBC World Service, which is renowned and revered the world over. It plays an essential role in our global democracy and is responsible for regional news that is highly trusted. It reaches stories, people and communities that others cannot reach. I say that not to downplay in any sense the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised this week, but just to make clear that the BBC as an institution is essential to this country, and that when we hold it to the highest standards, it is because we need it to thrive. \p Gavin Robinson: To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go? \p Lisa Nandy: The right hon. Member will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is not for me or any Government to decide who is employed by the BBC and who is not, but I agree, of course, that integrity and impartiality are vital. \p Andrew Pakes: Like some other colleagues in the House, I often start my morning with Dotty on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and end my days with Amelia on “BBC Look East”. I say that because it demonstrates that the BBC is much more than its editorial decision making at the national level. Every day, thousands of BBC staff are telling our stories, representing our communities and being part of the fabric of this country.

As a former official of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union, I have spoken to many BBC staff and members of the National Union of Journalists and BECTU over recent days who are horrified by some of the coverage of this matter. They want accountability, and they want the BBC to restore its trust, but they also want to hear the message that their work is valued and that they are part of the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the talent that makes the BBC an institution and that that talent needs to be nurtured, while dealing with the leadership? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend not just for the point he made but for the compelling way in which he made it. Like him, I have been astonished by the calibre of BBC staff, whether the back-office staff who so often do not get the credit, the journalists who work tirelessly in communities up and down the country to tell stories that otherwise would not be heard, or the young apprentices who start out with the most incredible opportunities and go on to have amazing careers because of the institution that the BBC is and the work that is done to support them.

I know that this issue has had an impact on many BBC journalists. I want them to hear directly from the Government how much we value, treasure and  support them. I also say to the House that in all the conversations I have had with major investors who come to this country to invest in film and TV production, they say that the BBC is—for all of them, without exception —a major draw because of the work it does in skilling up a generation of talent and providing the institutions and facilities those investors need to come here. \p Julian Smith: I welcome the tone of the statement, but this is not just about editorial challenges for the BBC; there has been a total lack of deftness in dealing with talent-related issues and other scandals over the past few years. There are also governance issues with BBC Studios—a commercial organisation with separate whistleblowing schemes—hiding behind the BBC brand. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the broader skills that are needed to make the changes necessary so that the BBC can maximise its huge global opportunities in both news and productions? \p Lisa Nandy: The right hon. Member is right to raise the lack of deftness—and, I would add, the lack of urgency—in the handling of some of the issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Let this be the moment that that changes. That is the tone and nature of the conversations I have been having with the BBC’s senior leadership. I also echo the points he made about the skillsets required to ensure that the BBC can get on to a firm footing as we begin this next chapter. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation

“must turn this crisis into an opportunity.”

Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for the letter that I received earlier today. I have discussed the delay in issuing an apology with the BBC and been given a full account by the chairman of the board. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the BBC, but she will have heard that the Select Committee intends to call members of that BBC committee, and I am sure the Select Committee will raise that question with them. \p Pete Wishart: Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial  independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture? \p Lisa Nandy: The hon. Member will have heard the comments I made about the legal threshold that must be met for any changes in leadership. The Government appoint the chair of the BBC; we do not appoint individual staff members. The board member that he mentioned was appointed by the last Conservative Government and his term was renewed just weeks before the general election, so I cannot take the action that he requests.

The hon. Member mentioned the nations and regions, which are close to my heart as well. Through the charter review process, we will seek to ensure that the BBC’s direction can be driven through its nations and regions and that people in every part of the UK can see a fair share of content that reflects their lives, their communities and their contribution. \p Daniel Zeichner: I spent time yesterday with journalists at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire admiring their dedication and professionalism, which stands in marked contrast to this shabby debacle that sullies a great institution’s reputation. Is not part of the problem the fragmentation of what should be a public service? Frankly, this failure is symptomatic of the long-term fragmentation of so many of our public services as a consequence of the Conservative Government. \p Lisa Nandy: As I said to the House just a moment ago, the charter review marks the start of the next chapter of the BBC’s long and proud history. That will be the moment when we can come together as a whole House and a whole country to agree the future of the BBC. \p Wera Hobhouse: There are certainly many questions—particularly for those who deliberately set out to destroy the BBC—but I want to ask the Secretary of State this one. In the absence of the ability to remove certain members from the board, will she make a commitment that all future appointments should be conducted through a transparent process rather than being political appointments? \p Lisa Nandy: The House was asked to approve the terms of the last charter. Similarly, the House will be asked to approve the terms of the next charter, which will set out how the BBC will operate for the next decade. It will certainly look at appointments, transparency and structures, and that will be the hon. Member’s opportunity to get involved. \p Pamela Nash: Many have expressed their annoyance at the BBC in recent days for being too woke, too Tory or too liberal—or, in my case, for allowing the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to appear on the “Question Time” panel more often than he has appeared in his own constituency. Is not the fact that the BBC has been attacked by every side evidence that it continues to make every effort to maintain balance in a world of increasingly polarised and divisive media? \p Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible  action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril. \p Rebecca Paul: Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence? \p Lisa Nandy: I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so. \p Grahame Morris: These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors? \p Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point about trust. The BBC is one of the most trusted institutions not just in our country but in the world. We seek to ensure that it upholds the highest standards because that is of such value and importance to all of us in the United Kingdom. I thank him for his words. \p Ben Lake: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government? \p Lisa Nandy: I have been pleased to meet the leadership at S4C after what has been a difficult time. This Government reaffirm the importance of S4C to our national life, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we start the charter review process to make sure that that continues. \p Matt Rodda: Staff at the former BBC Monitoring station in Caversham in my constituency played a vital role over many years, monitoring broadcasts from around the world. Indeed, they broke a number of important news stories over the years, including that of the Iranian revolution, which was only possible because of the public service model and the dedication of the staff and their skills. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, but can I ask her to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the BBC for their continued work and for the BBC’s vital role as a public institution? \p Lisa Nandy: My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today. \p Roger Gale: It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.

I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown. \p Lisa Nandy: I am happy to give the right hon. Member that assurance. \p Joe Morris: I echo the solidarity with BBC journalists that has been expressed across the House. Can the Secretary of State assure me and other Members that measures will be taken in the forthcoming charter review to ensure that all political appointments to the BBC board are made with full public scrutiny, and that such appointees will not be involved in any editorial capacity in future, in order to protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the most important bastion of public service broadcasting in Britain and beyond? \p Lisa Nandy: I thank my hon. Friend for his words and Members across the House for the tone of this debate. I know that all Members feel strongly about the failings of the BBC editorial process in recent days, but it is a credit to this House that we can have a sensible and measured debate about the actions needed to address it. \p Siân Berry: The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process? \p Lisa Nandy: The hon. Lady will have heard my comments to other hon. Members about the appointments process. The charter review offers this whole House the opportunity to look again at how those appointments are made and which roles exist.

On the hon. Lady’s points about the BBC and the environment in which it operates, the Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic, and therefore the inability of viewers to turn on their TV screens and understand what it is that they are watching. I have previously raised my concerns with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about politicians presenting news on programmes that are not necessarily deemed news programmes. As politicians, we are required to have an opinion and a point of view. That is very different from presenting impartial facts. The Government are looking to address that matter. \p Alex Mayer: The BBC is unique and special, and it is ours. Yes, it is absolutely a part of the national conversation—but, importantly, it is also a part of the regional and local conversation. I have fantastic local journalists in my patch on Three Counties Radio and on “Look East”, and the fact is that a local story, which a local journalist has gone out to find, can quickly get on to the national stage because of our BBC; that is special. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the forthcoming charter review she will take seriously the protection and enhancement of local news coverage? \p Lisa Nandy: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking both at the charter process and at how we can help to support and defend local news through the BBC’s work. She will also know that this Government are developing a local news strategy to help our local newspapers to survive and thrive in an era in which they face significant pressure. She is absolutely right to say that local news is not just about reflecting the whole nation, although it does play that essential role; it is also often the training ground for some of our most talented journalists, who would otherwise not get those opportunities, so we are determined to strengthen and protect it. \p Julian Lewis: I would fight in the last ditch to prevent the BBC from ceasing to be a public service broadcaster and from being broken up. Any large organisation can have bad actors who behave unethically, and that has happened on this occasion, but it does the BBC no service when people parrot the line that the person responsible for this crisis is not the idiot who tampered with Donald Trump’s quote but a former Tory spin doctor, one of 13 members of the board, who allegedly influenced other members of the  board to somehow provoke the present crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with Robbie Gibb; it has something to do with a mindset that, on the front page of today’s Guardian, has the whole thing about Robbie Gibb and relegates the fact that a $1 billion lawsuit may be taken out by Donald Trump against the BBC to a tiny paragraph at the end of the article on page 2. If you wants to know what is wrong with some bits of the BBC, read The Guardian today. \p Lisa Nandy: I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record. \p Chris Kane: We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour. \p Manuela Perteghella: It is essential that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are upheld at all times. I am afraid that serious concerns have been raised about Sir Robbie Gibb’s conduct on the BBC board, including alleged attempts to influence recruitment and editorial decisions. If the Secretary of State cannot remove Gibbs from the board and cannot end the political appointments now, what actions can she take to restore public confidence in the BBC’s governance? \p Lisa Nandy: Everyone in this House is right to take with the utmost seriousness the failings that the BBC has accepted have happened over the course of this year, but I would gently push back against the idea that the public has lost confidence in the BBC. It remains the most trusted source of news in this country and, as I said earlier, in many other parts of the world as well.

In terms of the actions that I can take as Secretary of State, I am working closely to support the chairman of the board through what are obviously tumultuous times. The director general has agreed to stay on in order to  see the organisation through the transition. We have already had discussions about the process for recruiting for a new director general and the need to strengthen the work of the board and senior leadership when it comes to editorial oversight. That includes, as I said a moment ago, a discussion about the mix of skills and experience that is needed at the highest levels of the organisation. \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is absolutely right to hold the BBC to the highest standard, because that is the best way to defend our national broadcaster. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for Members of this House who are paid by the BBC’s commercial rivals—in fact, looking at the time, one of them is probably in make-up as we speak—to use their status as an MP to mount sustained and frenzied attacks that have only one aim: to destroy this national institution? \p Lisa Nandy: As I said earlier, it is the legitimate, right and proper role of Members of this House to raise serious concerns about the decisions that have been made at the BBC over recent months and the response to them, but there is a difference between that and making a sustained attack on an institution that has stood at the centre of public life for over a century and belongs to us all. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for her statement. It has been clear over the years that there has been a bias in the BBC, and I have had concerns over the last 12 months on at least four topics: BBC bias against Brexit; BBC bias against my party, the Democratic Unionist party—there are elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland who refuse to engage with the BBC; BBC bias for Gaza against Israel; and BBC bias against the free Iran Government in exile, with the BBC promoting the son of a former dictator. My goodness me, it is quite unbelievable. Two people have resigned, but the canker of editorial control is still there. So my question to the Secretary of State today is: when will it end? Is this just a pause or is this the end? \p Lisa Nandy: As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now. \p Jim Dickson: I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness. \p David Mundell: I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live? \p Lisa Nandy: I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation. \p John Slinger: We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with my hon. Friend about the centrality of the BBC to our public life. All of us in this House should rightly be seeking to ensure that the BBC upholds the highest standards while defending and protecting it as an institution and considering together how we can ensure that it stands at the centre of our public life for many more decades to come. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I was pleased to hear the Government announce last week that they will tackle fake news in the curriculum. I always say to children when I go into schools that, “You can trust journalism if you can sue the person who wrote it,” so I actually welcome the writ coming from America, though I hope it can be sorted out, purely to say that if something is wrong, you can do that. The basis of why we are here today—forget all the politicking about who is on the board, what it is about Trump and anything else—is that the BBC faked a piece of news. We have to get to the heart of how that happened. May I ask that the Secretary of State use her offices to work with the current director general to get right to the heart of how this was ever allowed to happen? We have heard and all believe that the BBC is a  respected journalistic organisation, but this is probably the biggest crisis it faces because right now we can honestly say that it faked the news. \p Lisa Nandy: The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public. \p Gregory Campbell: Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years? \p Lisa Nandy: The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that. \p Andrew Murrison: Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda? \p Lisa Nandy: That is a question for the BBC, and when members of the editorial committee appear before the Select Committee, I am sure that that is something the Committee will rightly challenge them on. \p Al Pinkerton: Earlier this year, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the great privilege of visiting the 77th Brigade—the anti-Russian disinformation brigade of the British Army down in Newbury. The experts on the front line of the information wars told us that the British population are being subjected to tens of thousands of messages every single day designed to seed distrust between Government and citizen and break our belief in our institutions. The United Kingdom is in an incredibly privileged position in that we have a state broadcaster that provides us with something that might resemble a national culture. If we were to lose that, we would be feeding the forces that stand against us. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC provides a vital connection to our past that unifies us and that, as well as being a source of education, information and entertainment, it is also a great source of national resilience? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it. \p Peter Fortune: To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House. \p Anneliese Midgley: Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor? \p Lisa Nandy: Perhaps I can hear my hon. Friend’s views about that over a few drinks later on. \p Sammy Wilson: The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call the Secretary of State. \p Lisa Nandy: It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.

I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an  institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that. \p Pam Cox: In the early 2000s, I lived in Hanoi alongside my husband who was reporting on Vietnam for the BBC, and I saw for myself how he and the BBC worked very hard for truth. He then spent a year in Myanmar, working alongside extraordinarily brave local journalists who sought to expand public broadcasting under a military dictatorship. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC’s trusted journalism is one of our strongest defences against disinformation, both at home and abroad? \p Lisa Nandy: I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that BBC Verify does in helping to empower our citizens to navigate a difficult news environment. \p Rupert Lowe: “Auntie” is definitively a monopoly. When Mr Reith wrote into the charter that she should inform, educate and entertain with complete impartiality, he did it for good reason. This recent disgusting episode with this “Panorama” programme, where we have undermined our relationship with probably our greatest ally, is just the tip of the iceberg. Would the Minister agree that now is the time to responsibly defund this monopoly? If she does not, would she agree that it is time for root-and-branch reform with a view to ensuring that, in the same way that she has done with football club boards, we see people from across the country who are actually forced to pay for this service represented on the board of the BBC? \p Lisa Nandy: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I strongly disagree with him on the first point. On the latter point, the issue of accountability to the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised a moment ago, is something that we have been thinking about with the senior leadership of the BBC and others as we approach the charter review. I would certainly be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman. \p Carla Lockhart: Last week, we learned that the BBC upheld a complaint about presenter Martine Croxall. It is alleged that she changed—correctly —the wording of “pregnant people” to “women”. Somehow, the BBC found her eye-roll to have conveyed a personal view. There are two genders—male and female —and one of those genders can become pregnant: women. That is a scientific fact, and it is the view of the Supreme Court. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the BBC leadership abides by the Court’s ruling, and does she agree that the BBC’s lefty, woke agenda is certainly not in step with the majority of right-thinking people, who want common sense at the core of broadcasting? \p Lisa Nandy: I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the BBC. It is not for the Secretary of State to start writing editorial guidelines for the BBC on the Floor of the House of Commons, as I am sure most Members would agree. It is my job, however, to work with the senior leadership to ensure that it has the right structures and people in place, so that it can have well-thought-through, easily understood and consistent editorial guidelines of the highest standards that are applied consistently and do not leave presenters and journalists struggling to interpret them. \p Anna Sabine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. It is possible that, during the course of the statement, the Secretary of State gave the impression that she does not have the power to remove BBC board members. In fact, the BBC charter empowers her to remove anyone who is

“unable, unfit or unwilling to perform the functions of a member.”

I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how to take this concern forward. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will be aware that she had two minutes during the course of the statement to raise her concern. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wishes to respond. \p Lisa Nandy: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to make it clear that, as I have consistently said to the House, a very high legal threshold must be met in order for board members to be removed—that is set out in the terms of the charter—so I am unable to take the action that a number of Members have requested. \p Graeme Downie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) published juvenile and shameful AI-edited videos of proceedings in this Chamber. I have written to Mr Speaker about this matter and whether it is a breach of the terms and conditions of parliamentlive.tv, which explicitly prohibit the altering of video or audio recordings in any way. I trust that that will be fully investigated.

More broadly, although that video was obviously edited, I am deeply concerned about the use of generative AI, which is fast evolving. The House must protect itself and our wider democratic system by drawing a firm line in the sand. Attempts to edit the words that Members speak in the Chamber and lessen their gravitas, and to make Members seem less responsible, are not acceptable, are disrespectful to colleagues, and are moreover an affront to democracy. What sanctions can be imposed on Members of this House to deter and prevent such behaviour, and if those sanctions are not adequate, what more can be done to ensure that our democracy is better protected from that use of AI technology? \p Caroline Nokes: I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead wishes to raise a similar point of order. \p Calvin Bailey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister made an historic appearance as the first black man in history to answer Prime Minister’s questions. It would have been seen by thousands of young black men, who would have believed that this is a place for them. Footage from that appearance has sadly been doctored for circulation on social media, in violation of Parliament’s rules on the use of footage—namely, rules 1.2, 1.4 and 2.1—including a video shared from the account of the right hon. Member for Newark  (Robert Jenrick). Will you advise me on how I and other hon. Members might ensure than such flagrant breaches do not occur again? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank both Members for their points of order. May I seek clarification that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was informed of them in advance? \p Graeme Downie: indicated assent. \p Calvin Bailey: indicated assent. \p Caroline Nokes: The terms and conditions for downloading and making use of clips from parliamentlive.tv are published online. Although it would not be appropriate for me to refer to guidance given to individual Members, I urge all colleagues to follow the rules. Ultimately, I am not responsible for what Members post online. How we treat each other is important and sets the tone for national debate. I ask Members to consider carefully what is in good or bad taste, and to exercise good judgment in what they post online about colleagues.

On the broader point about the use of AI in relation to footage of our proceedings, that is an issue that the Administration Committee may wish to pursue. In particular, the House might benefit from considering whether the current licensing rules and enforcement mechanisms are appropriate. \p Helen Maguire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have previously inadvertently stated that the Government had pledged £1.2 million towards the strategic health alliance and UK-Ukraine trauma recovery. [Official Report, 15 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 404.] In fact, that sum has not yet been pledged; it is the amount that is sought, and it would make a real difference, if it were provided. I apologise for any confusion caused. While I have your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to urge the Government once again to consider making that commitment? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She has put her correction on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Caroline Nokes: I inform the House that the Nathan Gill bribery case is still technically sub judice until sentencing on 21 November. However, given that the accused has pleaded guilty to the charges, and in the light of Members’ continued interest in this case in the context of Russian interference in British politics, Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver to allow discussion of the case during today’s proceedings. Members should avoid making reference to sentencing issues. \p Calum Miller: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the seizure of frozen assets connected to the Russian Federation; to require the Secretary of State to publish recommendations about the use of such assets to fund military, reconstruction and humanitarian work in Ukraine; and for connected purposes.

In November 2024, my constituent Alex wrote to me. He is a research scientist who has lived in the UK for over 25 years. Alex is Ukrainian. At a surgery, he told me how devastated and angry he is about the destruction of his country by Russian invaders. He also told me of his fear for his brother, who is fighting on the frontlines. Alex wanted to know why Ukraine was struggling to obtain the weapons that it needed to resist Russian assaults. He asked me a simple question: “What more can the UK do to help my brother and my country?”. The truth is that, in November 2024, the UK could do more, and 12 months later, the UK can still do more. This Bill sets out what the UK can do in one key area.

Alex’s story is one of tens of thousands just like it. We have all heard them from amazing Ukrainians who have been hosted by communities across the UK since Russia invaded. Those stories speak to the horror inflicted by Vladimir Putin. The UN estimates that over 50,000 Ukrainian citizens have become casualties of Putin’s war machine, including over 2,300 children who have been wounded, and more than 700 who have been killed. Tens of thousands of brave Ukrainian men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice on the frontline.

Some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), would prefer to be apologists for Putin, but I know that I speak for most colleagues when I say that Putin alone is responsible for the atrocities that we are witnessing in Ukraine. Putin is not content merely to devastate Ukraine today. He is hell-bent on erasing its future. His systematic programme for the abduction of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts of this war. I want to pay tribute to those colleagues who have shone a spotlight on this appalling crime. We must all commit ourselves to returning each and every Ukrainian child to their home.

Putin’s ambitions stretch beyond Ukraine. In the Baltics, Russia poses an existential threat to our Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian allies, all of whom face daily cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns. In the Caucasus, Putin’s cronies in the Georgian Dream party have cracked down violently on democracy activists,  while the Kremlin’s insidious efforts to distort elections in Moldova and Romania are well documented. Putin also wages a campaign of sabotage and cyber-war across the rest of Europe, including here at home. Confirmation over the weekend that the RAF will now be deployed to defend Belgian airspace against Russian drone threats speaks to the collective nature of the threat we face.

Putin’s imperial ambitions are extensive. That is why we must be unwavering in our support for the Ukrainian people. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine since the full-scale invasion. That support was sustained by all three Prime Ministers in the previous Government, by the present Government, and by nearly all parties in this House across that time. We should be proud of that legacy.

By providing weapons, equipment and fighter pilot training, we have helped keep Ukraine in the fight. Our leadership on the G7’s efforts to crack down on Russian oil revenues has been vital in cutting Putin’s profits, but Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to go further to ensure that no actors in the UK economy can facilitate the sale of Russian gas. We are also pushing the Government to explain why more than £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported to the UK last year.

Britain’s contribution has been crucial, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Rather, we must double down on our support. Last month, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Denys Shmyhal, laid out the challenge: he estimated that Ukraine will need to spend $120 billion on defence in 2026, of which Ukraine can cover half. That leaves a $60 billion hole, which Ukraine’s allies have a duty to help fill. For many months, Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to fund Ukraine’s defence by seizing frozen Russian assets across the UK. The most recent estimates suggest that $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen across G7 countries, which includes close to £30 billion here in the UK. Seizing the UK-based assets could allow us to fill half of the projected deficit in Ukraine’s required defence spend for next year, while ensuring that Putin and his cronies are the ones who pay. We could help turbocharge Ukraine’s deep strike capabilities while bolstering the supply of air defence systems. In short, we could provide Ukraine with a vital new lifeline of support.

We find ourselves at a critical point. Ukraine’s need for finance is urgent. The UK’s efforts to move G7—and particularly EU—allies have not yet resulted in success. At the same time, one very specific item allied to this topic highlights the frustrations felt by so many in this House. In May 2022, the Conservative Government announced that they had

“agreed a Deed of Undertaking”

with Roman Abramovich,

“in which he commits the proceeds to a charity in a jurisdiction agreed by the Government for the purposes of helping victims of the war in Ukraine.”

In common with other Members, I have asked Ministers about those funds. On 24 February, 17 March and 21 May, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is in his place, told me they were “redoubling” their efforts, “doing everything” they can and “working at pace”. However, over three and a  half years on, there is no progress towards releasing the £2.3 billion, suggesting an alarming lack of either resolve or creativity from successive Governments.

I am keenly aware of the arguments raised against seizing Russia’s frozen assets. The primary concern is that a direct seizure creates the possibility of litigious action by the Kremlin. The second is that, by acting against Russia, we might inadvertently undermine wider confidence in the UK as a safe haven for financial assets. On the point about the legal risks, the US’s Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians—REPO—Act and Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act demonstrate that other allies believe it is possible to legislate effectively to allow for asset seizures. On the financial risks, I quote former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron, who said in March 2024:

“I think that the economic case is very strong. Here we are in the City of London, one of the great financial centres of the world. I do not think that using that money will disadvantage us in any way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1545.]

I am conscious that these concerns have inspired important efforts in Brussels, aimed at securing Europe-wide agreement to proposals that would allow for the use of frozen assets, while reassuring Belgium in particular, where the majority of frozen assets are held, that the legal risk will be both reduced and shared. Although I welcome these efforts at securing international consensus, those proposals have stalled, and with each day that passes without concrete action to unleash the potential of the assets, Putin’s war machine makes further progress.

Last month, we learned that, shamefully, an elected UK MEP, Nathan Gill, took payment from a Russian agent, Oleg Voloshyn, to repeat pro-Russian propaganda in the European Parliament. Mr Gill sat in the European Parliament with party colleagues who now sit in this House. It is for the hon. Member for Clacton to explain his meetings with Mr Voloshyn’s wife, and for the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to explain his public support for Mr Gill in 2019 and his more recent receipt of hospitality from Vladimir and Lubov Chernukhin. But I know that the overwhelming majority of colleagues in this House—just like the constituents we all represent—want us to provide the brave men and women of Ukraine with the funds that they need to defend themselves. I am proud to present this Bill on a cross-party basis, and am grateful to my co-sponsors and other Members who have shown their support.

Thirteen months later, I am still motivated by Alex’s question. I am no longer prepared to tell him that it is “very hard”, or that Belgium is cautious. This has become a question of will. The time for delay and timidity is over. I believe that it is the will of this House to legislate so that the UK can lead our G7 and EU partners in seizing Russian state assets in the UK and making them available to Ukraine. Ukraine needs her friends to step forward with urgency and purpose. She needs our financial support today, so that she can purchase the military matériel to drive back the Russians and defend her sovereign territory. I urge the Government to show leadership towards our European and G7 allies and to work with colleagues from across the House to enact this Bill. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I put the Question, I would like to confirm whether the hon. Member informed the hon. Members for Clacton  (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) of his intention to refer to them. If he has not, it would have been a courtesy for him to have done so in advance.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Calum Miller, James MacCleary, Monica Harding, Dr Al Pinkerton, Mike Martin, Richard Foord, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Gethins, Sir Julian Lewis and Alex Sobel present the Bill.

Calum Miller accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 326). \p Alistair Carns: I beg to move,

That this House has considered Remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces.

On Sunday, His Majesty the King led the nation in commemorating generations of men and women who served, fought and, in many cases, did not return home. About 10,000 veterans gathered at the Cenotaph on Whitehall to observe the traditional two-minute silence and take part in the Royal British Legion’s Remembrance Sunday march-past. As a veteran myself, I was immensely proud to march as part of the Royal Marines Association. At memorials in towns, villages and cities right across the UK, civilians and members of the armed forces came together to pay their respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in all wars.

We owe everything to those heroes who laid down their lives to defend our shores, protect our interests and safeguard our way of life. The peace and the freedom we enjoy today are their precious legacy, and it is a reminder that freedom is not free. Remembrance Day is the most important opportunity we have as a nation to come together and honour them. Remembrance for me, and, I think, for many other veterans around the country, is about remembering the friends and the brothers in arms we have lost—the specific moment when life was taken away; the gunfire, the explosion, the screaming, the chaos, the mud and the dust. It is those heightened senses at the time of a traumatic event that are imprinted upon the memory. Those memories are as vivid as the birth of a first child, a birthday or any other impactful occasion, but they have a very different meaning. Remembrance is about just that: it is the one day of the year when it is safe to remember, when memories surface and when we pay collective tribute to those who are serving and who have served.

Remembrance Day is also a very important time for this House, which has always had a special affinity with our armed forces and veterans. Given my former role, it is a privilege for me to lead today’s debate. Throughout the last year, it has been an honour to visit over 60 veterans’ organisations and to meet many outstanding and selfless people. From the veterans community hub in Lanarkshire to the Helping Homeless Veterans UK hub in Bournemouth, and across all the great nations of the United Kingdom, those individuals dedicate their time to our armed forces community. \p Catherine Atkinson: Support for our veterans is essential. I am proud that the Royal British Legion is growing in Derby. Will the Minister join me in wishing good luck to those who have set up a new branch in Mackworth? Does he agree that this Government’s veterans strategy, including the £13.8 million to address homelessness, shows that we are marching in step with those who campaign for veterans? \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I definitely wish good luck to the RBL on expanding its portfolio, which is fantastic. I hear that the Derbyshire RBL has raised the most of any RBL in the country. \p Adam Jogee: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Alistair Carns: Let me finish my point, and then my hon. Friend can jump in.

I put on record my personal thanks to the Royal British Legion for its work on the poppy appeal this year, and every year. I am sure that hon. Members across the House echo that appreciation and I look forward to hearing their contributions to the debate.

2025 has been a busy year for military anniversaries, particularly those associated with the final year of the second world war. In April, we marked 80 years since British troops swept across northern Europe and liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. We remember the horrors and atrocities that those soldiers witnessed at first hand, and the incredible work that they carried out afterwards, burying the dead, containing the spread of disease and caring for the survivors. Within a matter of weeks, allied forces would be in Berlin, Hitler would be dead and communities across Britain would take to the streets to celebrate victory in Europe. On 8 May this year, we took to the streets again to celebrate VE Day’s 80th anniversary and to pay tribute to all those who fought for democracy over tyranny, liberty over oppression and human dignity over barbarism.

However, for some, VE Day did not mean that the nightmare of the second world war was over. British and Commonwealth troops in the far east, who had suffered some of the most gruelling and hostile environments of the entire conflict, still faced three months of fighting. The story of their war is one of almost superhuman strength and resilience. In August, we were able to remember their extraordinary contribution when we marked the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan Day—the day that finally brought the most catastrophic war in human history to an end.

In September, we marked 85 years since the battle of Britain, when our aviators took on the might of the Luftwaffe, in a contest that determined not only control of our skies, but the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme enemy confidence, Britain proved to the world for the first time that Hitler and his forces could be defeated.

After such an important year of commemorations, today, Remembrance Day 2025, is a moment of profound national reflection and gratitude as we remember all those who served and all those who have fallen. We remember the conflicts gone by. On the 107th anniversary of the 1918 armistice, we remember those who fought in the great war. We also remember those who served in the Korean war, which began 75 years ago, as well as those who fought in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe. We remember the Commonwealth troops who made a huge contribution to both world wars and other conflicts, and those who serve today and continue to uphold the values of courage, duty, professionalism and compassion that have long distinguished British armed forces.

Just as our forefathers fought for democracy, freedom and the right to self-determination, so do our Ukrainian allies in the east. Let us remember the courageous heroism that Ukraine and Ukrainians are delivering today. Pitched in a battle of national survival, their war is no less bloody than the second world war. When we  think about that conflict, it is worth recognising that the Russians have taken more casualties in that conflict than the Americans took in the entire second world war. That gives a statistical feel for the pain and suffering of that conflict caused by Putin’s war of aggression. As we remember, we pay homage to all those fighting for the same values and ethics that we hold dear.

I thank the many thousands of people from civilian and military backgrounds who have worked so hard to organise what have been fantastic commemorations. Defence Ministers and shadow Defence spokespeople have travelled the length and breadth of the UK to attend the Royal Irish Regiment’s annual remembrance service in Belfast, the field of remembrance in Cardiff, the Scottish national Remembrance Sunday event, the “Remembering Afghanistan” events at the National Memorial Arboretum, the War Widows Association annual service at the Cenotaph and many others. Those are just a tiny fraction of the many events, up and down the country, that have been made possible by the tireless work of our armed forces and thousands of people in local communities. The last survey undertaken in 2018 showed that 98,115 members of the Army alone attended Remembrance Day parades at over 620 different events, and there were similar numbers, probably more, this year. Events are also being held worldwide, from Riga, where UK officials joined commemorations at the Jelgava Commonwealth war graves site, to Senegal, where colleagues held an act of remembrance at the Bel-Air cemetery in Dakar.

As we discuss the role that our armed forces play in remembrance today, we must consider the remarkable work that serving personnel perform all year round in educating young people about the history of defence, deterrence and warfare; promoting awareness and raising funds through charities, including through the Royal British Legion’s incredible poppy appeal; and working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to maintain military graves to the highest possible standard all around the world. Today we thank them for their outstanding contribution. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the interests of peace and togetherness, I will not take it personally that he chose to take an intervention earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whose constituency is in the east midlands, rather than from me, whose constituency is in the west midlands, but being from the west midlands he should know better. I thank him for mentioning young people. Will he join me in thanking all the young people I was with this morning at the cenotaph in Newcastle-under-Lyme, who came from local schools with their homemade poppies and wreaths? Our future commitment to democracy and peace lies in their hands, and as adults we have an important responsibility to ensure that they are a part of bringing our country together. \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for his poignant contribution, and I thank those in Newcastle-under-Lyme for ensuring that awareness about the sacrifice is spread not just across the adult population, but across the youth of today. I always say that navies, armies and air forces do not win wars, but industries, economies and societies do, so making sure that society never forgets the past is critical. \p Andrew Murrison: May I say that there is no more appropriate Member of the House to be introducing this debate than the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his distinguished record? I think I represent more generals than any other right hon. or hon. Member of the House. The Minister will have seen that nine four-star officers wrote to The Times to raise their concerns about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the legal activism that it is likely to encourage, which

“risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends.”

While we all honour our brave servicemen and servicewomen today rhetorically, does the Minister agree that we need to follow that through with real action, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged today and into the future? \p Alistair Carns: The right hon. Member makes an interesting point. I want to be clear and concise: of all days, today is a day of remembrance and is not about political point scoring. There is a debate scheduled on Thursday when we can discuss the issue in detail. I would very much welcome a discussion with the individuals who sent the letter, as would the Defence Secretary and others, to talk through the issues, to provide balance to the argument, to ensure that we protect our country and our armed forces from lawfare, and to ensure that they are represented and their voices heard. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I want to return to the point about commemoration. Having served before, I remember that when I got elected back in 1992, we were not allowed to wear uniforms in public because of the IRA threat at the time, and bit by bit commemorations were no longer attended. I remember my first commemoration in Chingford; we were lucky if 100 people turned out. May I say that that has been reversed? One good example is that on Sunday at the memorial in Chingford, nearly 2,000 people turned up to commemorate those who have fallen and those who went before. Is that not a very good example of how the next generation sometimes understands commemoration better than my generation did? \p Alistair Carns: What a welcome intervention. I was stood with veterans during the Cenotaph march-past; it always astounds me that we stand there with 10,000 people, and as the guns fire, there is complete silence in one of the busiest capitals in the world. It is a sombre but hugely humble experience. It is an absolute pleasure to see and hear all the amazing stories of almost every constituency around this great nation, standing together united to celebrate those individuals who served or are serving, their families and the bereaved.

While we often focus on the individuals who have been lost, we must remember those who have been left behind—the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the partners, the wives and the husbands who, after one of those traumatic events, all need to adapt to a new way of life. We need to remember them all and acknowledge that while their loved ones perhaps paid the ultimate sacrifice, it is not just the individual who serves, but the whole family—and they often suffer in silence long after the event. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The Minister is right to acknowledge not just the veterans, but those who have loved them. Today my son had the privilege of  reading at our local cenotaph the names of those who were killed in world war two as well as the name of my best friend, who was a Royal Marine and died in 2012 in Afghanistan. It was an incredibly proud moment for me that my son got to read his name and remember the sacrifice that those who have loved and lost make for us to live our lives, so I thank the Minister for acknowledging those who have loved and lost. \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Lady for such a moving contribution. May I say, in jest, that she has a very good choice of best friends? I know that her best friend’s memory will live long into the future, and it is a delight to hear that her son took part in that commemoration.

Importantly, we must look after bereaved children. If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to highlight that, following our little jaunt up Everest earlier this year, we managed to raise just under £500,000 for veterans charities and the specific needs of bereaved children. That will go to help loved ones across a plethora of different charities. We show our eternal gratitude for those families who have cared for members of our armed forces after returning from service—those who often bear physical and mental scars from the conflicts they have experienced.

The reason that this year’s world war two commemorations were especially poignant is that they were likely the last major events to feature veterans from the war in any great numbers. Even the youngest of those veterans who graced the ceremonies in London are now well into their 10th decade. One of them is Mervyn Kersh, who is 100 years old and took part in the D-day landings, then went on to Belsen a few weeks after it was liberated; he laid a wreath at the Cenotaph. The whole House can be proud that he will be watching Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow from the Gallery—what an honour it will be to welcome him here.

The living connection that Mervyn and his comrades provide to the war is a priceless asset, particularly at a time when the bloodiest European conflict since the second world war continues to rage in Ukraine. They understand the cost of conflict, because they lived through it, but they also understand the privileges we inherited after the war; 80 years of peace, prosperity and freedom can never, ever be taken for granted. We must be prepared to defend them in an increasingly dangerous world, and today a new generation of servicemen and servicewomen is doing precisely that. They are heirs to the veterans who proudly paraded on 8 May, and they are the guardians of that cherished inheritance. Today we also pay tribute to our servicemen and servicewomen working around the world to deter aggression, to safeguard British interests and to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, showing that Putin will not divide us.

Members will note that throughout this speech there has not been one ounce of politics. That could be called political naivety, but I call it a deeply held respect for those who have served and continue to serve; I welcome the debate and conversation on Thursday. This week’s commemorations remind us once again of the unbreakable bonds linking our heroes from the past with the armed forces personnel of today and indeed with those who will serve in the future. \p Luke Charters: Joshua Mullinger is an able cadet in the sea cadets in York, who played an integral role in the York service of remembrance,  and Conservative councillor and Lord Mayor Martin Rowley is a veteran. Will the Minister join me in commemorating the work of those very remarkable individuals? \p Alistair Carns: The cadets play such an important part, with the sea cadets right at the forefront. Seeing Joshua thriving in that environment is absolutely superb, and hearing of Martin Rowley excelling after being in service is hugely admirable—I thank him in particular for his service.

As we remember the generations who have sacrificed so much, their testimony lives on, inspiring us to be strong in the face of adversity. Being resilient during difficult times and standing up for values that we believe in—that is the way we will remember our military heroes best, and that is how we will ensure that their priceless legacy of peace and freedom will endure. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: It is a privilege to open this debate for His Majesty’s Opposition on 11 November, Armistice Day—a date on which the nation pauses and gives thanks for the sacrifice of our armed forces so that we can live in a free country.

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I endorse his comments about the value of our armed forces and the vital role they play in the nation’s contribution to remembrance. We all thank them for their service. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the operational role of our armed forces, which remain as vigilant as ever around the clock to keep us safe in the 21st century. Nevertheless, perhaps he will forgive me if in my contribution I too take something of a historical perspective on the vital role that our armed forces have played in the defence of our nation down the years.

I was privileged to attend the Royal British Legion festival of remembrance last Saturday evening, which remains as moving an occasion as when I first attended as an MOD Minister over a decade ago. I pay tribute to the extremely valuable role that the Royal British Legion plays in both shaping our whole concept of remembrance and in supporting our veterans, some 2 million or so of whom are still living today. As well as the national commemorations, including those at the Cenotaph, the Royal British Legion, often supported by local armed forces personnel, plays a vital role in organising services at a community level in all our constituencies, up and down the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

In my experience, every community tends to do remembrance slightly differently to account for local circumstances, but each ceremony has common elements with which we are all familiar: the emotive playing of the “Last Post”, the two-minute silence and, usually, the famous epitaph from the 2nd Infantry Division memorial—universally known as the Kohima epitaph—with those famous and stirring words:

“When you go home, tell them of us and say,

For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”

The battle of Kohima, brilliantly described in Field Marshal the Viscount Slim’s 1956 book, “Defeat into Victory”—arguably one of the best books ever written  on the whole concept of generalship—was a classic example of a dogged defence by British and, crucially, Commonwealth forces in stopping the attempted Japanese advance into India in mid-1944. Indeed, the dogged, stubborn defence—often against superior odds—is a recurrent feature of British military tradition: including the English archers at Agincourt; the great siege of Gibraltar; Wellington’s army at Waterloo; the 24th Foot at Rorke’s Drift, which saw 11 Victoria Crosses awarded, the most ever awarded in a single action; “the few” of Fighter Command in the battle of Britain, to whom the Minister also referred; the Royal Navy escorting the Atlantic convoys; the Glorious Glosters at the Imjin river in Korea; and many more besides, including more recently in the middle east.

There are, of course, many comparable examples from the first world war, not least the stand of the British Expeditionary Force at Mons and the subsequent first battle of Ypres. Anyone who has stood at the Menin Gate when the buglers of the Ypres fire brigade play the “Last Post”, as it swirls around that famous arch, knows that it is a truly moving and emotive ceremony to behold. \p Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend has mentioned Bill Slim, who many who know history will say was probably the greatest allied general of the war—it was brilliant what he achieved with next to nothing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was something very special about the 14th Army, which comes out in other accounts? Apart from just fighting, there were both Indian and British members of the 14th. They served in the same slit trenches and ran to aid each other; regardless of race or anything else, they delivered for each other. The most remarkable bit of the story of the 14th was that it did not matter who they were or where they came from, they were as one against the tyranny of the Japanese. \p Mark Francois: I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend—the history of the 14th Army is a proud one. It was a marvellous amalgam, under a brilliant leader, of people from countries and races from around the entire Commonwealth who fought with one common aim: freedom. They were sometimes called the forgotten army, but they are not forgotten tonight.

After the horrors of the trenches and an understandable aversion to war in the 1920s, with Britain exhausted—both financially and emotionally—by the horrors of the great war, the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as the 10-year rule. This was not just the policy of the War Office or the Admiralty, as they then were; it was a pan-Whitehall edict, the essence of which was that Britain would not have to fight another major war for at least 10 years. This key planning assumption became the centrepiece of British strategic theory and, with strong endorsement from the Treasury, the 10-year rule soon became a rolling one, extended on an annual basis. Given that no war was expected for at least a decade, this allowed for major economies in the financing of the armed forces and an associated running-down of all three services. As one example of how seriously the 10-year rule was taken and implemented, even Winston Churchill during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s exerted pressure to cut back on his beloved Royal Navy—the same service he had fought tenaciously to expand as First Lord of the Admiralty barely a decade before.

Indeed, as a mood of pacifism gripped the nation, in 1933—the same year in which Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany—the earnest students of the Oxford Union, who are having their own problems at the moment, passed a motion by a majority of over two to one that

“this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”.

The subsequent policy of appeasement from the 1930s British establishment—the blob of their day—was as erroneous then as it would be today. Authoritarian dictators tend to admire strength, particularly their own, and despise weakness—a lesson that any British Government, including this one, would do well to remember. History tells us again and again that the appeasement of dictators does not work, just as it failed to work in the 1930s

The 10-year rule, which by that stage had lasted well over a decade, was eventually rescinded in 1935-36 as Britain began to rearm in response to Hitler’s increasingly bellicose behaviour. Nevertheless, that rearmament, and comparable action by our allies, was ultimately insufficient to deter what then became the second world war—a brutal conflict in which over 50 million people died, far more even than had perished in the supposed war to end all wars some two decades before.

I mention all this not just because I studied history and then military history at university, but because if—as Members of this House believe, and as I have always believed—the ultimate goal of our armed forces is to save lives by deterring war and persuading any potential aggressor that they could not prevail, then even today we all need to ask ourselves, regardless of party, whether we are doing enough to secure the peace by maintaining sufficiently strong armed forces to provide such a vital deterrent effect. It is a historical fact that twice in the last century, this country paid an immense cost in both blood and treasure to defeat militarism.

Today, the threats are somewhat different, with a war on our doorstep in Europe following Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in effect now fighting for our freedom too, and we must back them to the hilt as a result. We also see a major rearmament by China; North Korea continues to develop even longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, now with support from Russia; and Iran continues to exert malign influence across the middle east, even after the successful American strike on its emerging nuclear capabilities. The circumstances may have changed, but the principle remains exactly the same. We in the western democracies cannot drop our guard against the growing powers of the 21st-century autocracies—something that those who fought in the second world war would instinctively understand only too well.

Bearing in mind the Minister’s caution, I was genuinely concerned to read one passage of the Government’s recent strategic defence review—its seminal defence policy document. On page 43, under the heading “Transforming UK Warfighting”, it states:

“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”

I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that seems to contain an echo of the 10-year rule of the 1920s. While there was a great deal of good in the SDR, not least the  intention to speed up our highly bureaucratic procurement system—about which I have always held firm views, as the Minister knows—I nevertheless worry, given increasing threats from Russia and now also from China, about whether the Ministry of Defence today displays the genuine sense of urgency that is required to meet the challenges we now all clearly face. Before I am accused of selective quoting, the same paragraph of the SDR goes on to say:

“This vision could be achieved more quickly should circumstances demand it and should more resources be made available.”

Notwithstanding those words, with much of the new money in the SDR unavailable for at least two years and a multibillion-pound programme of in-year efficiency savings now under way, I merely ask whether we have really learned the lessons of the past century as well as we might have.

In conclusion, we in these islands have always ultimately been prepared to make great sacrifices to uphold the freedom of Europe, and indeed of the wider world. That is why, given our history, we should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In response to the philosopher Edmund Burke’s famous challenge that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, twice in the past century our own good men and women across the nation stood up to and defeated such evil, with our armed forces in the lead. Rightfully, we solemnly remember that sacrifice each and every November, including in this House tonight. \p Jim Shannon: While we are celebrating and remembering the greatest generation, we also have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. Perhaps we should be focusing on that as well—looking back, but also looking forward, as I think the Minister said. We must try to raise a generation of young people who are proud to be British, to stand against repression, and to undertake to be inclusive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is what we need to build for? \p Mark Francois: As a young person myself, having recently turned 60—[Laughter.] In all seriousness, at the remembrances services that I attended this weekend—like, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House—I was struck by the number of young people from, for instance, the Cubs, the Scouts and the Brownies who attended those services and, in many cases, participated, and laid tributes, wreaths and crosses of their own. I took great heart from that, and I believe that there is hope yet.

There would be no greater betrayal of the sacrifices that we have been debating this evening than would occur if we as a House, with all the other matters that we have to consider, somehow became so distracted or complacent that we failed to act with sufficient clarity of purpose and determination to deter a future major conflict, perhaps even a global one, from breaking out again in our lifetimes. To put it, perhaps, in another way, we must now conduct ourselves, in “our today”, in such a way as never to risk the security of “our tomorrow”. With that sincere warning, I pay tribute to our valiant armed forces, both past and present, and to everything that they do, day in and day out, to keep us and our country safe and free—lest we forget. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, let me inform Members that a five-minute speaking time limit will be imposed after the speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Tan Dhesi: As Chair of the Defence Committee and on behalf of the whole Committee, I want to express our deepest gratitude to all those who have served our country to keep us safe. On this day, we remember and honour those whose bravery and sacrifice secured for us the freedoms that we value so dearly, and pay tribute to those who continue to protect our way of life today. It is our great privilege as members of the Defence Committee that we are able to see their work at first hand.

This year we have visited the British battlegroup stationed in Tapa in Estonia, whose presence deters Russian aggression against our NATO allies in eastern Europe. We have also met serving personnel during our many visits to military sites across the UK, including RAF Lossiemouth, HMNB Portsmouth and the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where we met the impressive young people who will be the soldiers of the future. Meeting those remarkable individuals reminds us that the work of our armed forces never stops: they are always vigilant, and always prepared to do what is necessary to keep us safe—and that lifesaving work goes beyond defence. Earlier this month, HMS Trent was deployed to support disaster relief efforts in Jamaica following the devastating impact of Hurricane Melissa. I am immensely proud that the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces are out there representing the best of British every single day.

One of our Committee’s missions is to speak up on behalf of these exceptional people, and to raise the issues that matter to them. When the Committee was appointed by the House last year, one of our first priorities was to complete the previous Committee’s work on service accommodation because of the importance of that issue to serving personnel and their families. The standard of the housing in which we expect personnel to live has been unacceptable for some time, and that must be addressed. We are encouraged to see that the Government are focused on the overhaul of defence housing, and we will be scrutinising the new defence housing strategy as it is rolled out to ensure that it delivers what has been promised.

Another area that we continue to scrutinise is the treatment of women in the armed forces. More than 16,000 women serve our country in the military, but there are still unfair biases and barriers to their participation, and, sadly, many examples of bullying and harassment. That must change. We have agreed to hold an annual public hearing with the Ministry of Defence and the single services to drive them to improve, and to stamp out discrimination for good.

We want to ensure that all members of the armed forces community are treated fairly, which is why this year we held an inquiry on the Government’s plans to update the armed forces covenant. As Members know, the covenant is a solemn commitment from Government and society to the armed forces community that serving  personnel, their families and veterans should not be disadvantaged in civilian life. Our inquiry asked veterans and serving personnel whether they felt that that promise was being fulfilled. While some of the feedback was positive, we still heard of too many examples in which the covenant is not understood or, worse still, is ignored. That means, for example, individuals having to wait for years for NHS treatment because they fall to the bottom of the waiting list each time they are deployed to a new area.

There are also gaps in the covenant, which means that the forces community still face disadvantages in social care, employment and the tax system. That is why we recommended that when the Government legislate in the next armed forces Bill, they should extend the covenant duty to every single Department. We look forward to that legislation, and hope that it will properly embed the covenant in our institutions and in wider society, so that those who have served can be in no doubt that it is there to support them. We also look forward to seeing the delivery of the new veterans strategy. The “Veterans Strategy” policy paper was published yesterday, and the strategy will be another important part of fulfilling our nation’s promise to the armed forces community.

In my constituency, I am pleased that the covenant has also been adopted by Slough borough council, but its implementation must of course be robust. Slough has a proud and enduring history of supporting our troops. In fact, the very roots of our iconic Slough Trading Estate lie in its establishment as a military repair depot in the first world war, and Langley airfield was the proud producer of thousands of Hawker Hurricanes in the second world war. Slough’s history is interwoven with defence. Just last week I had the honour of hosting an event to celebrate, in Parliament, two local heroes. Both those veterans, Havildar-Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt and Daffadar Mohammed Hussain, served in world war two, and sadly passed away earlier this year. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of brave troops from across the globe for our freedom, must never be forgotten. We must do more than just be thankful; we must actively celebrate and honour the service given by all, especially in these febrile times, including those from across the world who ensured that our freedoms could be preserved. Remembrance should never be exclusive.

Today’s remembrance services honour the past, but they also remind us of the duty performed by those who defend us today in an increasingly dangerous world. Our Committee’s visit to Ukraine last month was a sobering reminder that war in Europe is no longer a thing of the past. We must never forget our debt to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, and we must never neglect our obligations to those who make sacrifices today. Our Committee will continue to honour the fallen, while also putting the welfare of the of the servicemen and women of our armed forces at the heart of our work throughout this Parliament. We will remember them. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: Remembrance Day is when our nation pauses to honour those who have served, those who continue to serve and, most especially, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of  our freedoms. Indeed, just this morning I was in Polegate, in my constituency, to lay a wreath alongside representatives of the local Royal British Legion, councillors, and local clubs and societies, and I had the honour of laying wreaths in Ringmer and Lewes on Sunday. We MPs have the unique honour of standing alongside people from across our communities—particularly young people; there was a huge turnout of young people at all our remembrance events—as we lay wreaths to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us.

During the second world war, our corner of Sussex saw convoy after convoy of troops and provisions pass through our small villages and country lanes. Indeed, some of those country lanes still bear the scars of tank tracks that damaged kerbs and other infrastructure. In 1942, Operation Jubilee, otherwise known as the Dieppe raid, was launched from Newhaven in my constituency, to test plans for the full-scale invasion of the Normandy coast. The cost was high: in the operation, nearly 4,000 Canadian and British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Every year, we remember those brave soldiers in ceremonies in Newhaven and Dieppe.

Today, in my constituency of Lewes, more than 3,600 households contain at least one veteran. Remembrance Day is an event that brings us together. It is a time of unity and pride, as well as solemnity and reflection. Yet remembrance without action is merely sentiment. True remembrance demands that we translate our gratitude into tangible support for those who have served. It demands that we look honestly at how we treat our veterans and serving personnel today, not just how we commemorate those of yesterday. When we do so with clear eyes, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: that we can do better. That is why I really welcome the publication of the Government’s new veterans strategy this week.

Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. Our servicemen and servicewomen possess unparalleled skill, courage and dedication, and that is the legacy we must uphold. The men and women who wear our uniform today stand in an unbroken line stretching back through centuries, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). They carry forward the same spirit that saw their predecessors stand firm against wannabe despots, from Napoleon to Hitler. But excellence requires investment. Defence is not simply another Department competing for resources but the fundamental obligation of the state—the bedrock on which all our other freedoms depend. Without security, there can be no prosperity, and without defence, there can be no democracy.

The world today is more dangerous than at any time since the end of the cold war. Modern warfare is no longer confined to tanks, ships and planes; it is also fought with drones, in cyber-space and in our data networks. That is why we must be able to move quickly, adapt rapidly, and learn from our Ukrainian allies, who are innovating on the battlefield every day. Britain must be ready to absorb and integrate these lessons and ensure that our own armed forces are ready. This is not the time for retreat or for isolationism; this is the time for Britain to lead in Europe, to stand firm alongside our allies, and to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to defend our nation and our values.

The Government’s commitment to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is welcome, but it is not enough. We need cross-party talks to agree on a rapid path towards 3%, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can work together to achieve just that. Let us be under no illusion: we have the most capable military in Europe, so as the US continues to withdraw forces from across our continent—it recently withdrew a division from Romania—it will be the UK that will be looked to, to step up and lead. We need sustained, long-term investment in our armed forces, not reactive gestures driven by electoral cycles. As we have seen in the strategic defence review, investment will need to be sustained over a long period.

On this Remembrance Day, as we honour those who served before, we must also stand beside those serving today. Recruitment and retention are in crisis; more people leave our armed forces than join. The Haythornthwaite report identified family impact as the most common reason for departure, and one third of military spouses say that they would be happier if their partner left the service. We have failed to provide decent housing and failed to support military families adequately. Three quarters of all personnel live in service accommodation, yet barely half remain satisfied with service accommodation conditions. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £9 billion for military housing, but we must be clear that that is not generosity; it is catching up on the years of neglect.

The housing crisis for veterans extends beyond their time in the service. Thousands of households containing someone who served in our armed forces are assessed as being homeless each year, and, shamefully, that figure is rising. Having veterans on our streets in 2025 is a profound dereliction of duty.

I was pleased to hear the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mention the treatment of women in our armed forces, which I am sure is a major concern for us all. We are all familiar with the terrible case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who took her own life at Larkhill in Wiltshire, and the bungled handling of that case by the Army, which has subsequently come to light. They did not listen to her —nobody listened to her—and the inquest found that the failure to take appropriate action was a direct contributor to her death.

The Atherton report revealed the scale of the crisis: the majority of women who responded to its survey reported experiencing bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. The Ministry of Defence has introduced reforms, but they are not having the impact on the ground that was hoped for. We must implement every recommendation of the Atherton report. We must ensure that the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner has responsibility for handling serious complaints. We must do more to improve conviction rates for sexual assaults within the armed forces. How can we expect women to put their lives on the line to keep us safe when their voices are still not being heard within their own ranks?

Mental health is another critical area in which we have fallen short. More than half our veterans report having experienced mental health problems, yet when veterans seek help, they face long waiting times, inadequate provision and services that fail to understand their  specific needs. We must provide comprehensive, easy-to-access, professional mental health support. We must offer regular mental health assessments at key transition points. We must fight the stigma surrounding mental ill health, so that asking for help is seen not as a weakness, but as a strength.

The global security landscape is more volatile and unpredictable than it has been in a generation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered the relative peace that we have enjoyed on our continent for decades. An emboldened Kremlin seeks to undermine western democracies through disinformation, cyber-attacks and attempts to influence our political processes. We have seen evidence of Russian interference in elections across Europe, attempts to sow discord through social media manipulation, and sustained efforts to weaken NATO from within. China expands its military capabilities and asserts increasingly aggressive territorial claims. Instability spreads across the middle east, Africa and beyond. Authoritarian regimes grow bolder, while democracies appear hesitant and, at times, divided.

Our commitment to NATO must therefore remain the cornerstone of our security. Only a few weeks ago, Portsmouth-based HMS Duncan was deployed under NATO command to shadow the Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov through the channel. It was a striking image of an alliance in action: British, French and Dutch forces working together to protect our shared waters. The ageing Russian vessel, limping westward, stood in stark contrast to the cutting-edge capability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer. It is proof that our strength lies not in isolation, but in standing together with our allies, at sea and beyond. \p Simon Hoare: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on European co-operation. Does he agree that it would be more than helpful—particularly in the face of Russian aggression, and of the American retraction from European defence that he mentions—if the French Government took another look at how the United Kingdom could be involved in a shared European defence approach? Instead, they are trying to blackmail His Majesty’s Government, for a large pay-off, as we seek to participate in something that is designed to protect all European citizens. \p James MacCleary: Yes, that is an important point, because European countries working together will be critical in future. We can look at past examples of joint projects; for example, the Sea Viper system used on our ships was developed jointly with other European countries and has been very successful. Europe would be missing a trick if we were in any way excluded from a scheme, given the size of the British military-industrial complex, and the contribution that we can make through not just our primes but our start-ups and our medium-sized businesses, and the expertise that our military brings. It would be quite short-sighted of the French Government, or indeed any other Government, to put obstacles in the way of future collaboration, particularly at a time of such threat from the east.

To truly honour our armed forces personnel, we must uphold the principles they serve by protecting our country with the same dedication and resolve that they have shown in its defence. There are 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, plus 150,000 full-time serving personnel and their families. They are our neighbours, our colleagues,  our friends and our family members. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world, but they need to be given the capabilities to meet the threats we face. They need decent housing, comprehensive healthcare, proper mental health support, fair compensation and genuine respect.

Defence is not an optional extra, but the foundation of everything else we hold dear. On this Remembrance Day, let us do more than remember. Let us resolve to act. Let us commit to providing everything that our armed forces community deserves, and let us prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice made by those who gave everything so that we can live in freedom and security. They stood for us; now we must stand for them. That is the essence of remembrance. That is the measure of our patriotism. That is our duty, and that is our obligation to those who serve. Lest we forget. \p Jessica Morden: Like all hon. Members, I had the honour this weekend of being part of a local remembrance service. As always, Newport cenotaph was hugely well attended by veterans, service personnel and residents from across our city, who all came together to pay our respects to those who have served our country, and to those who serve today to keep us safe. We thank them deeply.

Thanks are also due to the Royal British Legion. With the support of the local community in Caerleon, it has adorned every lamp post and school railing with beautiful red poppies. I thank the Redwick History Group, which, along with community members and representatives of The Rifles, has today unveiled a grave marker for a Crimean war veteran, Henry Davies, who has lain for 118 years in an unmarked grave in the churchyard in Redwick.

As well as honouring sacrifices, remembrance means listening to those who are still seeking justice. Ministers will be aware that in Newport and across Wales, veterans of the Falklands war from the Welsh Guards continue to campaign for the release of papers relating to the board of inquiry’s investigation into the bombing of the Sir Galahad in 1982. It is 43 years since the attack, in which 56 people died and many more were injured. Ever since, survivors and their families have sought transparency about what happened, but they need those documents declassified. Some of them are scheduled to remain closed until 2065, which is a long time to wait.

My constituent Mike Hermanis, formerly of the Welsh Guards, first brought this issue to me in a surgery in St Julians around three years ago. On his behalf, and on behalf of others, including Kevin Edwards, may I urge the Department to help speed up the process? The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made it clear from the Dispatch Box that no blame is attached to the Welsh Guards, who conducted themselves heroically on that day. I acknowledge his work, but Ministers will understand the desire to get to the truth for those who have lived with this for so many years. For more context, I refer Ministers to Crispin Black’s excellent book, “Too Thin for a Shroud”. Seven documents have been released so far, but there are dozens and dozens to go, and it is taking a long time. I press the Minister to agree to meet us urgently, so that we can finally resolve this, and so that veterans and their families can get to the truth and find the peace that they deserve.

This weekend, our city will remember those who served in the merchant navy at a service organised by the Merchant Navy Association, which is ably chaired by my excellent constituent Allan Speight. The vital role of the merchant navy in conflict is sometimes a little overshadowed and under-appreciated. Over both world wars, more than 54,000 seafarers lost their life as they maintained vital supply lines, while under constant threat from enemy submarines and aircraft, and their sacrifice is never forgotten in Newport.

Newport’s port was recognised as one of the most important in the UK, and during world war two, merchant ships sailing from Newport joined Atlantic and Arctic convoys. More than 430 seamen from Newport were lost in the war, including those on the SS Llanwern; just 11 of the 60-strong crew made it back. We also remember Raymond Steed, the second youngest to die, aged just 14, when the SS Empire Morn was blown up by a U-boat. Such sacrifices are not forgotten by our Doorkeeper Paul, whose uncle Jimmy Kehoe died in 1941 when his ship, too, was sunk by a U-boat.

Finally, I thank all those who provide services for veterans in Newport. I regularly meet Newport veterans, and I thank them for their service in many conflicts. Some of our conversations are more robust than others, but it is always good to hear their views and have their reflections, and I acknowledge that there is always more to do.

As we mark Armistice Day, we should reflect on today’s unstable world. Old threats are resurfacing, fear and anxiety are common feelings, and there are new threats from emerging technologies. Trust, truth and values of honesty and reliability are under attack. Remembrance is about the loss of brave lives, but it is also a living example of our resistance and our determination to defend our values, to demand truth, and not to give in to hostile forces. In these difficult times, we thank all those who have served, and all those who serve today. \p David Davis: Every nation rightly celebrates the heroism of its soldiers, but in the United Kingdom’s case, we also celebrate their skill in avoiding innocent deaths when dealing with the enemies of our nation and our democracy. When nations neutralise terrorists, they typically use a bomb or a missile, but bombs and missiles also kill innocent bystanders in the house, in the wedding party or in the bus, so Britain, as the Minister knows better than anybody else, often uses special forces in those circumstances.

Richard Williams, the former commanding officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment during our operations in Iraq, said that

“the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention. It was a deliberate and careful approach…It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill…in the face of immense danger—the very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders.

At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated every month in Baghdad by AQ-I”—

al-Qaeda in Iraq—

“and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort…The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month”—

saving lives—

“and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders”,

and it was all down to our soldiers.

However, those special forces and that capacity to protect innocent lives are at risk. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, only today we have seen nine retired four-star generals warning in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare. I will quote some of their words extensively and put them on the parliamentary record. They said:

“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces…we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.

Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of ‘lawfare’…which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative.” \p Mark Francois: Can my right hon. Friend confirm for the parliamentary record that of the nine generals who have written this unprecedented letter, three formerly served as Chief of the General Staff—in other words, the professional head of the British Army? \p David Davis: Yes, that is right. All of them had soldiers serve under them at risk on the frontline and had soldiers die under their command, so they are all people with strong knowledge of what we are talking about.

To go on with the quotation:

“And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”

If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer, as I have described, because we will not be able to do what we have done in the past and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation when called upon.

The Minister did not like it when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire raised this issue, and I understand that it is an uncomfortable one for a day like today, but it is important that we are not guilty of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and that we recognise that the people we are standing up for face a new threat that we have to deal with. I have to say to the House, again to the Minister’s probable discomfort, that I have been surprised, on two occasions in the last two weeks, to have people on the frontline on this issue quote Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

We owe it to them not to be silent on these issues. \p Michelle Scrogham: It is an honour to speak today on behalf of the people of Barrow and Furness as we mark this season of remembrance. Each year, we pause to reflect on the courage, duty and sacrifice of those who served, including those who never returned and those who live with the cost of service every day.

In Barrow and Furness, remembrance runs deep. Our town has long been bound to the defence of the nation not only through the proud service of the men and women in uniform, but through the hands and skills of the generations who built and maintained the Royal Navy submarines. Every steel plate and rivet crafted in Barrow is part of a commitment to peace through strength, the nuclear deterrent that has kept our country safe for over half a century. Those who work in our shipyard and those who served before them understand that deterrence is not abstract, but the quiet assurance that our nation can protect itself and prevent conflict. Their work honours the memory of those who fought to secure that peace. Alongside that proud industrial tradition stands our Army Reserve centre in Barrow, where local men and women train and serve with professionalism and pride. They embody the spirit and service that runs through our community.

My late grandfather Charles Arthur Beadell served in the second world war. He was my favourite person in the world, a devoted and fun-loving grandparent who would tell a very young me tales of war sanitised for my six-year-old ears. I had no idea until I had grown up and he had passed that those stories were a form of therapy. The horrors he saw haunted him, leaving him screaming in his sleep for the rest of his life. He had taken lives and watched those around him lose theirs. He had been blown up with his team, and being the only survivor, he was the lucky one. Yet he never once showed any bitterness towards German soldiers, and often remarked that they did not want to be there any more than him, but they were all serving their country. In a world with so much anger and hate, I think of his words of wisdom with hope.

Remembrance is not just about looking back. It is about the duty we owe to today’s veterans, reservists and service personnel. It means ensuring the success of the armed forces covenant: those who serve our country deserve not to be disadvantaged for their service. I was proud to sit on the Committee on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which created an advocate to ensure that those who have served are never left behind. Today, let us ensure that our commitment to peace and security continues through the work done in my constituency, in constituencies across the country and here in Parliament. We will remember them. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: This is a short story about war. It is a story about what war looks like from the ground. It is not so much my story, but I was there and I was part of it. It is the story of Operation Herrick 11. More specifically, it is the story of 3 Rifles Battlegroup in Sangin, a small Afghan town of just a few square kilometres. The casualties sustained  by 3 Rifles Battlegroup between October and March over the winter 2009-10 remain the heaviest casualties sustained by a British Army battlegroup since the Korean war. Sangin is where a third of all British soldiers who died in Afghanistan lost their lives.

Staff Sergeant Olaf “Oz” Schmid, George Cross, 30, was killed defusing multiple improvised explosive devices on 31 October 2009. Serjeant Phillip Scott, 30, was killed by an improvised explosive device during a patrol on 5 November. Rifleman Philip Allen, 20, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 November. Rifleman Samuel Bassett, 20, died in hospital from his injuries from an IED on 8 November. Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 29, was killed by small arms fire during a foot patrol on the morning of 15 November. Rifleman James Brown, 18, died of his injuries from a suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, was also killed by the suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard, 22, was shot and killed by friendly fire from a British sniper on 20 December. Lance Corporal Tommy Brown was killed by an IED on 22 December. Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, 23, died of his wounds from a friendly fire Apache helicopter attack on 22 December. Sapper David Watson, 23, was caught in an IED detonation and died in the operating theatre on new year’s eve.

Corporal Lee Brownson, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, 30, was killed by an IED on 15 January 2010. Rifleman Luke Farmer, 19, was killed by the same IED as Corporal Brownson on 15 January. Rifleman Peter Aldridge, 19, was caught by an IED, and he died en route to Camp Bastion on 22 January. Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper, 21, was killed by an IED on 24 January. Corporal John Moore, 22, and Private Sean McDonald, 26, were both killed by an IED on 7 February. Rifleman Mark Marshall, 29, was killed by an IED during a routine foot patrol on Valentine’s day, 14 February. Rifleman Martin Kinggett, 19, was shot and killed on 25 February. Rifleman Carlo Apolis, 28, was killed by a single gunshot wound on 1 March. Corporal Richard Green, 23, was killed by a single sniper round on 2 March. Rifleman Jonathon Allott, 19, was killed by a command wire IED on 5 March. Corporal Stephen Thompson, 31, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 March. Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, 24, died of a single gunshot wound on 7 March. Serjeant Steven “Stevie” Campbell, 30, was killed by a command wire IED hidden underwater on 22 March. Rifleman Daniel Holkham, 19, was killed by a vehicle-borne suicide IED, weeks short of the end of his tour, on 27 March.

Thirty soldiers died in Sangin in those six months, and another 80-plus suffered combat injuries, including amputations. I apologise if there are those whom I have missed, but there is no definitive list that we can check to read their stories. I pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, some of whom I knew and many of whom I did not. We ask young men and women, some of them still teenagers, to close with and kill the enemy through dismounted close combat to win the fight in those last 100 yards, and that ask comes with a cost. So in this period of remembrance, I ask those in this House to remember their names, and should any of us have to make that fateful decision to commit soldiers to harm’s way, to remember above everything else that that decision will come with more names. \p Torcuil Crichton: Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a pleasure to join you today at the remembrance service in Westminster Hall, and it was an honour to attend services in Tarbert, Harris in my constituency and at the Lewis war memorial in Stornoway at the weekend. The years are passing, but the numbers attending are not diminishing, which is perhaps not surprising in the Western Isles because we have a very high proportion of veterans who have served.

Historically, certainly in world war one, the islands suffered a disproportionately high number of men lost in comparison with the rest of the Commonwealth. Military historians tell us that that is because the reserve forces such as the Cameron Highlanders, the Seaforth Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders were thrown into action early in the war, and many were lost in November 1914, before the Regular Army had even deployed in France. Island losses were compounded by the loss of the yacht Iolaire, a ship requisitioned as a troop carrier, which struck the rocks less than 1 mile out of Stornoway harbour on new year’s eve 1919 with the loss of 200 returning sailors within a mile of their home. This event became the crowning sorrow of the war that cast a century of mourning across the islands.

We remembered them, as we remembered all who served, when we gathered on Sunday under the Lewis war memorial, an 85-foot granite tower built to be seen from all parishes of Lewis. Like memorials across the country, the tower and memorial garden bears the names of all those who served and were lost in both world wars—except that it does not bear all the names. Malcolm Macdonald, the chair of Stornoway Historical Society and the author of “The Darkest Dawn”, a book on that Iolaire tragedy, revealed this week that his research shows that 389 names are not listed on the Lewis war memorial where they rightfully should be: 170 from world war one and 219 from world war two. Of those not listed, some are remembered in Commonwealth war graves or on war memorials elsewhere, but even then, 37 men from world war one and 58 from world war two do not appear to have been recognised anywhere. They come from all parishes from all over the islands.

It is the painstaking research of Mr Macdonald—based on his own intimate knowledge, including of the street he grew up on—that has revealed those statistics. On Westview Terrace where he lives, there is only one name from the second world war on the war memorial, yet he knows seven men were lost: No. 1 was Norman Macritchie, who died in Egypt and was in the Royal Navy; No. 3 was James Mackenzie, killed at Arnhem; No. 5 was Kenneth Mackenzie, killed in an RAF crash; No. 9 was William Maclean; and so on—down the street and out across the island. That is an example from one street on one island. If this list of missing men, of lost fallen, is true for the Isle of Lewis, then it must certainly be true for places across the whole country.

There are many reasons why men are missing from the Lewis war memorial. In the first world war, headmasters compiled the names for memorialising, and emigration and a lack of definitive information would have contributed. In world war two, families were simply asked to submit names for the roll of honour, which we now know to be incomplete—389 forgotten war heroes from an island  where people do not just know their own history, they know their neighbours’ history and everyone else’s as well.

The kind of assiduous research that Mr Macdonald undertook does not come cheap. He spent years of his own time digging through the force records, looking for ships’ lists and overseas war records—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you are looking for one John Macleod in an island of John Macleods, you can see how that adds up.

Three things struck me about this situation. Of course I welcome this week’s announcement of £2 million of funding for the restoration of war memorials across the UK, but I would urge Ministers to go a bit further. We could find funds to help communities complete their rolls of honour by discounting or reimbursing research costs, but not every community has a Stornoway Historical Society and not every one has a Malcolm Macdonald to hand. Looking for the forgotten fallen across the UK is a much bigger task, but one that could, with the cross-fertilisation of existing lists, archival research and the innovative power of artificial intelligence, become a project that would recover the legacy of service and sacrifice, and correct the draft of history inscribed on stone memorials across the country.

I hope the names of the Lewis men are inscribed on a new plaque or in some kind of accessible form—digital or in print—so their losses can be recorded and they can be accorded their rightful status among their comrades. I hope the same can be true of people across the UK and that we can make this a reality—that the Government can step in with an AI project to scour the archives, correct the records and bring back the names of all those who gave their lives for their island home, for this country. Lest we forget. \p Ian Roome: It is a privilege to be able to say even a few words about the vital contribution our armed forces continue to make to the act of remembrance.

Every veteran deserves to have their service recognised, and it is a great credit to communities across the country that people from all walks of life still give generously and gather, as they did on this rainy Remembrance Sunday in North Devon, to recognise that dedication to duty. On Saturday, I was in South Molton where I met some young Army cadets loyally collecting for the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal outside the pannier market. Indeed, battalions of the wider armed forces community are visibly deployed every year to support the good work of the Royal British Legion, and many other worthy armed forces charities up and down the length of Britain. Thanks to the exceptional dedication of cadet officers, like Major Joe Martin in my constituency of North Devon, many of those outstanding young cadets will go on to have bright careers in our armed forces themselves.

Those of us who have served, or represent forces towns, can easily forget that November is one of the few opportunities many people get to engage with serving personnel from our armed forces directly, face to face. As we know, Britain traditionally does not maintain large standing armies, so seeing uniforms on our high streets for remembrance is a rare chance to connect communities with the people who volunteer to defend them. It is important to remind people that we are all in  this together, given some of the current conflicts around the world. This is not a country where people fear seeing soldiers in the street. Instead, the admiration for what our armed forces do on our behalf is profound. Our armed forces must be an extension of the society they serve, the democracy they defend, and the people they protect. Although every poppy sold will help the welfare of a veteran who deserves our gratitude, there is also a battle for hearts and minds that is being fought and won.

Our armed forces are ambassadors for the values of the uniform. As my good friends in the Royal Marines at the Barnstaple social club always toast on Remembrance Sunday: we will champion those values, remember absent friends and honour their sacrifice. \p Alison Taylor: It is a pleasure briefly to the debate today. May I associate myself with the words of other hon. Members, reflecting the respect and gratitude we have for servicemen and servicewomen, past and present, and of course, remembering all those who have been lost?

Around the country, communities have been gathering around a cenotaph or a war memorial. In Renfrew in my constituency the war memorial stands all year round as a poignant reminder of their service. I therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that a £2 million fund has been provided to restore war memorials across the UK, as many have fallen into disrepair. I will certainly be following up on that for my own constituency.

Last week, it was a privilege to visit Scotland’s Bravest Manufacturing Company in Bishopton. The company is a collaboration between the Royal British Legion and the military charity Erskine. I met veteran employees, many of whom had struggled to transition to civilian life and acquire gainful employment again. I heard at first hand about their journey from military to civilian careers, and was struck by how difficult some of them had found the experience and how brave they all were. Erskine was established in my constituency in 1916 and provides care, employment and housing to many ex-service personnel. Today, I wish to honour them and, on behalf of all my constituents, thank Erskine for all that it does.

My constituency sits on the River Clyde, a strategic target during world war two and still home to many strategic defence assets and military personnel. I want every young man or women who makes the choice to serve to know that their service is respected and that we owe them a debt of gratitude and honour. In closing, I simply say to all of them: thank you for your service. \p Lincoln Jopp: This morning, eight four-star generals and an air chief marshal took the unprecedented step of writing to the newspapers. Their letter deserves to be heard in full and to be entered the public record. They write:

“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces, we do not speak out lightly. Yet on Armistice Day we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it  undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.

No member of the armed forces received a “letter of comfort” after the Good Friday Agreement. What they relied upon was far stronger: the belief that if they acted within the law, under proper orders and in good faith, the nation would stand by them. This bill tears up that compact. Be clear, those who served in Northern Ireland do not seek immunity, they simply seek fairness—the recognition that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate authority and illegitimate violence. To erase that distinction weakens the moral authority of the state.

By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered in pursuit of political ends as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy. That is not reconciliation; it is abdication of responsibility. Trust between the state and the individual who serves it is the cornerstone of military effectiveness. If servicemen and women begin to doubt, when they believe that lawful actions taken in the service of the crown will one day be re-examined in the misplaced light of hindsight, then recruitment, retention and morale will suffer.

Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of “lawfare”—the use of legal processes to fight political or ideological battles—which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative. We will lose our fighting edge at exactly the moment it is most needed. And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.

The prime minister and attorney-general must recognise that an ever-broadening interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights is being used against those who act under lawful authority of the crown. The state owes its servants more than political reassurance it must ensure that those who apply necessary force on behalf of the nation are not left to face the consequences alone.

The government must restore legal clarity, reaffirm the law of armed conflict, deviate from the application of the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and relevant international conventions and ensure those who act under lawful authority are protected. A new, honest framework is required. The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”

The letter is signed by General Sir Peter Wall, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, General Sir Patrick Sanders, General Sir Richard Barrons, General Sir Chris Deverell, General Sir Richard Shirreff, General Sir Tim Radford, General Sir Nick Parker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford. I will say on the record myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these are men whose boots I am not fit to polish. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit. \p Chris Kane: On Sunday, I was at the war memorial in Stirling city centre to lay a wreath and to reflect. Stirling’s memorial was completed in 1922. Six hundred and ninety-two names were recorded on the monument that first year, and behind every name  was a story of a life lived and a life given to war. I want to talk about three of those names today, but I want to start with a woman who I have no doubt was in the crowd the day the memorial was unveiled. Her name was Margaret Fleming.

Margaret and her husband, John, lived in Stirling. Margaret worked in a local grocer’s shop and John was a sailor—a stoker on a steamship—who travelled the world’s oceans for months at a time, leaving Margaret to raise their family, including their sons Thomas and Martin. When war was declared, the Fleming men, like so many in every town and village across the land, answered the call to serve. John joined the merchant navy, Martin joined the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Thomas joined the Black Watch. On each of the days the men in her life left for war, I suspect Margaret would have helped them to pack, prepared a packed lunch and walked them to the railway station. I think she would have walked slowly. As a parent, I know I would.

In autumn 1914, the first of five battles of the war in Flanders took place near the town of Ypres, which stood between the advancing Germans and the channel ports—a vital line that the allies could not afford to lose. Eight thousand soldiers were killed in that battle, with nearly 30,000 wounded and more than 10,000 missing.

Along with the letters she would have craved, there was one method of communication Margaret would have dreaded receiving: a telegram. Among the telegrams that arrived in family homes across Britain that month, one would have found its way to Bank Street in Stirling, telling Margaret that her son Thomas had fallen on 27 October and been buried near where he died.

A second telegram would arrive three years later. Margaret’s husband, John, was serving on the steamship Batoum, carrying vital supplies across the Atlantic between the USA and Ireland. John was a donkeyman, working the small engine that pumped water from the bowels of the ship. It was a hot, hard and dangerous job. On 19 June 1917, the Batoum was less than six miles from home waters; the crew could see the lighthouse at Fastnet Rock—a beacon of safety after a 4,000-mile voyage—but they never saw the German U-boat or the torpedo that struck the ship. Forty-one of the forty-two members of crew survived. The only man lost that day was John, who stayed to tend to his engine, pumping water from the sinking ship to buy his comrades time to escape.

In 1918, just three months before the guns finally fell silent, a third telegram arrived. In the last months of the war, both sides threw everything they had into one final push and one million men were lost—80,000 fell in August alone. One of them was Martin Fleming, who was killed in Flanders on 10 August 1918. He was 20 years old. Margaret had lost her husband, her oldest son and her youngest son.

For those gathered at the memorial that first year, it was a deeply personal experience. For each of the parents, wives and children, each name recorded was a son, a father, a husband and a friend; all would have been known personally to someone in the crowd. The ongoing sacrifice of the families who were left behind by the devastation of war is more quietly marked than  the sacrifice of the soldiers who died in the conflict, but we must remember both the lives lost in war and the lives lived on with the pain of loss to war.

At the unveiling in Stirling, Margaret would have stood before the memorial bearing the names of her husband and sons—three men she had loved and lost to war—their names cast in bronze, quietly carrying both the weight of her sorrow and the endurance of her love. As the years pass, we no longer know their faces or hear their voices, yet we can still speak their names and wonder who they were, how they lived and what they dreamed of, and in that wondering—in the act of remembrance—we keep them present in the life of our communities today. Margaret Fleming’s name is not recorded on Stirling’s war memorial, but it will now be recorded on the record of this place.

At the unveiling, Stirling’s provost spoke of his mingled feelings of grief and pride. Time dampens grief, yet deepens pride. It is with that in mind that I say with my heart full of peace, full of hope and full of love that we will remember them. \p Dave Doogan: The three fatalities from Stirling that the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) has just set out so eloquently were three of the 135,000 men and women who died from Scotland during world war one. There were almost 60,000 Scots casualties in world war two, and more still in campaigns thereafter in Malaya, Korea, the Falklands, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Some 25% of all Scots who answered the call during the great war never returned to Scotland. We are united in remembrance of their selflessness and heroism and the personal sacrifice endured during that period.

As well as the brave men on the frontline, we must pay tribute to the Scots at home—many of whom were women—who toiled on the land and in the mines, shipyards and munitions factories. Without their efforts and sacrifice, the war could never have been prosecuted in the way that it was. One thousand and twelve men and women from Perthshire gave their lives during world war one, with 248 coming from Blairgowrie alone and many hundreds more coming from the Angus glens and the burghs of Angus. As well as the human sacrifice and cost, we must remember the cultural and economic toll of such high attrition of breeding-age men—men who would father families, or not as the case may be, and men who would have worked productively, or not as the case may be.

On the eastern tip of my constituency lies Montrose, the site of the UK’s first operational air station, home to No. 2 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, established in 1913. During world war two, Montrose was a strategic target for the Luftwaffe. Montrose was bombed at least 15 times in October 1940, suffering huge destruction to the port, air base and the Chivers jam factory, which caused a huge consternation. In that attack, three German Junkers dropped at least 24 bombs on the station, killing five, injuring 18 and destroying two hangars and the officers’ mess. Angus was bombed a minimum of 44 times before the war ended.

Against this, I was pleased to stand in the heaving rain on Sunday in Blairgowrie with veterans of the Black Watch, the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, cadets and  a good 150 local people braving the elements to pay tribute and give thanks to our veterans. We should note that at the end of the second world war the state invested greatly in veterans. That concordance with our service personnel is one that we should seek to continue to honour. I know that in Scotland the Scottish Government have worked with business to proactively assist in the recruitment of veterans, not least because veterans are excellent employees. ScottishPower is demonstrating this by actively recruiting 300 veterans by the end of this year and a further 2,000 by the end of next year to support investment in our energy infrastructure.

Our armed forces are not essential to the fabric of our society. They are the fabric of our society. It can be quite fashionable to pretend that war is something that belongs in the history books, but 80 years is the blink of an eye in human history. Humans have demonstrated that they can be brutal, visceral and lethal, and I want the defence on my side to outpace logistically, industrially, technologically and lethally those who would seek to do us harm. We have a debt to our armed forces. They will step up and answer the call when needed, and that is their duty, and we owe them a serious debt of gratitude for that. \p Kevin Bonavia: It is an honour to mark Armistice Day by speaking in this debate about our armed forces—those who serve today and those who served before them. Their courage and service is woven into the tapestry of every village, town and city in this country.

In my constituency, that tapestry has been preserved thanks to the vital work of local historian Paul Johnson, who created the Herts at War project. Thousands from Stevenage and surrounding villages fought abroad in both world wars, each one with a unique character, life, home, family and with a story to be told. Take Herbert Charles Cooper from the village of Aston, who at just 18 years old enlisted in 1914 and joined the 9th East Surrey Regiment. He was the son of a local chimney sweep. On the western front, Herbert was tragically shot by a sniper while replacing sandbags on a parapet. He gave his life valiantly in service to his country and now lies in Spoilbank cemetery in Belgium.

Take Edward John Croft, born in 1886 on Stevenage High Street. He joined the Royal Navy as a boy seaman in 1904. His career was extraordinary: he served in the suppression of the Armenian massacres, supported the Messina earthquake rescues, and even acted as personal signalman to the Prince and Princess of Wales aboard HMS Renown. During the great war, he fought at Jutland aboard HMS Caroline, where he suffered shell shock. Later, while serving ashore, an air raid caused a relapse that ultimately led to his death in 1919. He is buried in the Royal Navy cemetery at Southsea.

Their stories are powerful, moving and inspiring, but also devastating. The stories do not end there. That brings me to the reality of modern service. Our armed forces are not only defending us abroad but protecting us at home—from cyber-threats, terrorism, even natural disasters. Their remit is expanding, and so must our support. I was honoured to meet service personnel from the Royal Air Force last year while taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That gave me a real insight  into the lives that they lead on our behalf and what they need in terms of support, equipment, accommodation, childcare and so much more.

Now I turn to those who have served. I want to draw the House’s attention to an important piece of work produced in my constituency: the Hertfordshire veteran report, created by Stu Mendelson, co-founder of the Muster Point in Stevenage. This report is the first evidence-based overview of veteran need in Hertfordshire, using data from the 2021 census, the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre armed forces champions. It moves the conversation from assumption to evidence, and the findings are stark. Hertfordshire has fewer veterans that the national average but more at-risk veterans than expected, and their hardship is concentrated in specific districts. Over 5.8% of Stevenage’s veterans are on universal credit, which is well above the national average, and many rely on housing support.

I know that Stevenage borough council is doing all it can for veterans in our town. I want to pay particular tribute to Claire Parris, the council’s armed forces champion, for her tireless work in making this happen. I also want to thank Stu, Steve and their team at the Muster Point for everything they do for veterans in Stevenage and beyond. It is more than a hub; it is a lifeline offering practical support. I joined them last week at a 72-hour, non-stop vigil at our war memorial to mark remembrance and raise awareness.

We need to give veterans support. I take this opportunity to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister to visit the Muster Point in Stevenage to see at first hand how the armed forces covenant is being implemented and how we can go further and faster—as we must do—to deliver the full extent of its benefits to those who have served our country. \p Julian Lewis: I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the debate so far. Of all the fine contributions, I want to start where the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) left off. He spoke about the mother attending the memorial where her husband and two sons’ names were all inscribed. On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the War Widows’ special ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph. If one looks at the website of the War Widows Association, one sees this interesting piece of historical context. It says:

“Originally, when the association was formed”—

in 1971—

“the widows were not allowed to take part in the annual November Sunday service and march past at the Cenotaph. As they wanted to show their respect to their husbands they began to hold a very short service on the Saturday at the Cenotaph in London. They dashed between the cars and laid their cross, said a prayer and dashed back to the pavement.”

Well, how things have changed. Not only do war widows now participate on Remembrance Sunday, but Whitehall is closed specially in their honour on the preceding Saturday. Led by fine military musicians, they march in tribute to those whom they have lost in the service of our country. It was, as I said, a privilege to be invited to attend, and a pleasure to see our hon. and gallant Minister for Veterans and People present in solidarity.

That same evening, the BBC broadcast two hours of the finest television imaginable. The festival of remembrance perfectly combined music, pageantry, belated recognition of those who unjustly lost their service careers because of their sexuality, and unforgettable tributes to the fallen. I for one will never forget the testimony of the children of Corporal Mark Palin, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2011, and their bearing as they carried the book of remembrance to the centre of the Royal Albert Hall.

Strangely, one ward in my constituency by tradition holds its ceremony in the afternoon, so I was able to attend two local ceremonies: that at St Michael and All Angels church in Lyndhurst in the heart of the New Forest, and that at All Saints’ church on the waterside, close to where the Solent meets Southampton water, north of the Isle of Wight. Both events and the attendant parades were admirably organised, with Royal British Legion veterans at one end of the age range and uniformed young people at the other bringing style and panache to the occasions. The high levels of attendance testify to the importance to our communities of such solemn and sacred occasions.

In the few seconds remaining, I draw attention to the Airborne war cemetery, which lies about 7 km west of Arnhem, near the village of Oosterbeek. One of the last bastions held in the dreadful battle of Arnhem was the Roman Catholic church of St Bernulphus in Oosterbeek. It was left in ruins but beautifully rebuilt soon after the war. The rebuilt church remains a focal point for Arnhem commemorations, yet it is now under serious threat of sale and disposal. It is profoundly to be hoped that organisations such as Support our Paras and Government Ministers will make representations to the Dutch authorities about preserving that historic building. \p David Baines: The communities I represent in St Helens North have a long and proud connection with the armed forces, from the St Helens Pals of the first world war, to groups such as Newton-le-Willows sea cadets and local veterans organisations, who do outstanding community work across the borough. Last week, in Parliament’s garden of remembrance, I planted a cross dedicated to Corporal Derek Johnson, who lived in Haydock, and who sadly passed away in June. He served in the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and went on to found the North West Veterans Corps of Drums, which supports the veterans community and takes part in fantastic public performances.

In September, we welcomed the Minister for the Armed Forces to St Helens North to meet local veterans and discuss what more we can do to ensure that all those who have served get the support that they need and deserve. The veterans’ strategy announced yesterday is a hugely positive step towards ensuring that no one who served is left behind, but there is always more that we can do.

My constituent Andy Reid MBE is a triple amputee who was injured by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan in 2009. In the years since, he has done a huge amount of work for wounded veterans, charities and the wider community through his Standing Tall Foundation. He is calling for a new medal to address a significant gap in our honours system. The UK has no  formal medal to recognise service personnel wounded in combat. While we rightly honour those who have fallen through the Elizabeth Cross, there is no equivalent recognition for those who carry the physical scars of their service throughout their life. That places us out of step with key allies such as the United States, which has the Purple Heart, and India, which has the Wound medal. I fully support his campaign. I have already raised the matter with Ministry of Defence colleagues, and will be writing to the Cabinet Office to set out the case.

On Sunday, I had the honour of attending remembrance events in Earlestown, Haydock, and St Aidan’s church in Billinge. This morning, I attended a moving service at the Crank and Kings Moss war memorial.

When we attend remembrance events, we remember all those who served, and especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we also think about what they fought for and whether we are living up to the ideals that they defended. Sadly, the last witnesses of the great war have now left us, and those who witnessed the second world war and experienced its causes and consequences are increasingly fewer in number. I think of my grandparents, Gerald and Elsie Howard, and Peter and Joan Baines, who are no longer with us. I think about them all increasingly often. I did not ask them about their experiences when I had the chance—I wish that I had—but I do know the kind of people they were, and what mattered to them. They worked hard all their lives, they loved their families, they valued community and good humour, and they believed that people should look out for one another. I do not think we have changed that much. My grandparents and their generation fought for and earned the right to live in peace, and it seems to me that that is a fight that every generation has to have, in one form or another.

The voices and the experiences of those generations who lived through something similar to what we face now might be increasingly distant, but we must remember them, and we do. It is also important that we learn from them. I firmly believe that the tolerant, fair-minded, community-spirited and outward-looking Britain that my grandparents fought for and loved is still who we are. We can all play our part in defending those values—and we must, particularly those of us in this place—but there should be no doubt that those who are willing to step up and do so in uniform as members of our armed forces deserve the greatest praise. All those in St Helens North who served, and all those who continue to do so, can be assured of not just my thanks, but my support. \p Judith Cummins: Order. With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call Martin Vickers. \p Martin Vickers: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that injunction.

In the past, one of our major sources of local pride was the county regiments, and in the case of my constituency, the Lincolnshire Regiment. Now merged into the Royal Anglians, it can still bring people out on to the street whenever the opportunity arises. Armed Forces Day is a massive event in North East Lincolnshire; it is estimated that it attracted over 200,000 people to the town of Cleethorpes over the weekend.

Today, I want to reflect on the contribution of the Grimsby Chums. Members will be well aware of the Pals regiments formed during 1914-15. Unlike the Pals regiments, however, the Grimsby regiment that was raised took the name of the Chums. When Lord Kitchener was appointed on 6 August 1914, he said that he did not believe that the war would be short, and he was certainly right. The Army at that time was made up of 450,000 people, and 118,000 were serving in India and elsewhere in the empire. Kitchener was determined to put more men in uniform.

In Grimsby and the surrounding area, local dignitaries stepped forward with offers of help. Alderman John Herbert Tate, the mayor, received a telegram from Kitchener and set about recruiting people into the new Grimsby Chums. Alderman Tate appointed a local timber merchant, George Bennett, as acting commander. The position was subsequently taken by the right hon. George Edward Heneage, who was plucked from retirement. His father had been the Grimsby MP.

The name “Chums” appears in print on 11 September 1914, in the Grimsby Daily Telegraph. It is somewhat strange that the title continued in use throughout the conflict. Recruitment was encouraged by local headmasters, particularly at Clee grammar and St James’ school. The Earl of Yarborough, whose Brocklesby estate includes much land in northern Lincolnshire, agreed to the request that the Chums set up camp on the estate. The Chums fought in many battles, most notably the battle of the Somme, in which, sadly, 15 officers and 487 men were killed. Grimsby and local people are proud of the Grimsby Chums. We honour them today, just as we honour those who have served in the years since the Chums were formed, and those serving today. We remember them. \p David Williams: It is a solemn honour to speak. Today we pause to not only remember the fallen, but renew our duty to ensuring that their courage, sacrifice and legacy are never forgotten. In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, that duty is lived out with quiet persistence and deep pride. Remembrance does not end with the names already carved in stone. Local historians, veterans and community leaders continue to seek out those brave women and men whose service has not yet been fully recognised. As part of the Honouring the Royal Doulton Fallen project, local campaigners, including Mike Lightfoot and my friend and predecessor in this place, Joan Walley, have worked tirelessly to recover the stories of those who served our nation but who have, for far too long, been left without the dignity of commemoration.

One such story is that of Private Alfred William Holdcroft, a young man from Hot Lane in Smallthorne, who fought in the battle of the Somme. For decades, he lay in an unmarked grave in Burslem cemetery. As a result of the hard work of all involved, back in September, I stood alongside our community as a new cross was dedicated at his resting place. It was a moment of quiet reverence. I join local campaigners in urging the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to formally recognise his grave, so that his contribution to our country is properly honoured. The project has also brought to light the story of Flight Sergeant Harold Kenneth Hall, who served in the Royal Air Force during  the second world war, and who is believed to have been lost in action in 1941. Work continues to restore his records, so that he receives any honours he is due.

Across our area, we have a proud military tradition, and our duty is not only to remember those who served, but to stand with them, and with those who serve today. I therefore welcome this Government’s continued investment in veterans’ wellbeing, housing and employment support through the new Valour initiative. I also support this Government’s investment in the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and I look forward to supporting the restoration of Tunstall memorial gardens, something that I campaigned for as a councillor, so that future generations may stand, reflect and remember. I will also continue to work with the Royal Doulton project to reinstate the lost memorial at Kiln Gate in Burslem, and to ensure that we recognise every fallen hero in our area. Their service deserves our ongoing commitment to remembrance, and we will remember them. \p Peter Fortune: I too want to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have huge personal respect. Anyone who wants to take themselves to Wikipedia and have a look through his glittering career will be amazed. I made the mistake of looking earlier and finding out that he was younger than me, which was thoroughly depressing.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Remembrance Day marks a significant moment of national unity, and an opportunity to share our deep-seated feelings of gratitude, sorrow and loss, which span generations. We give our thanks for the bravery and dedication of those who have served in our armed forces. I would especially like to remember those from my regiment, and those who served in the wider armoured corps. I vividly remember visiting the battlefield of Villers-Bocage with some of the veterans, and it was deeply moving. I would also like to make special mention of my uncle, Simon Clark, who as a very young man served on HMS Arrow. He marched at the Cenotaph yesterday, and we are all very proud.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the huge part that my constituency played in the second world war and the battle of Britain. RAF Biggin Hill, Britain’s most famous fighter station, played a critical role in defending London and the south-east. Despite being officially designated the most bombed station in Fighter Command, the station still saw the departure and return of over 1,000 sorties during the battle of Britain. At the close of the battle, Biggin Hill’s score of enemy aircraft destroyed was just under 600, and Winston Churchill described RAF Biggin Hill as “the strongest link”. I pay tribute to all those who served at RAF Biggin Hill, and to the community who supported them.

Bromley borough is home to more than 6,600 veterans—the highest number of any borough in London—and nearly 2,000 of those veterans are my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Locally, we are incredibly lucky to have the Hayes Royal British Legion branch. It was established over 90 years ago, and boasts 900 members, who collectively raise thousands of pounds to support serving and ex-serving members of the armed forces and their families. Since its inception in 1919, Remembrance Day has brought our communities together to remember  the sacrifice made by all those serving in the UK and Commonwealth armed forces, their families, and others who have given their life in service to our country. It is right that we honour them today, and I am immensely privileged to be able to thank them on behalf of all my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill. \p Alex Mayer: This morning, I was thrilled to unveil a plaque in Leighton Buzzard, next to the church, to honour the people who served at a place called Q Central. It is not very well known that during the second world war, 5,000 personnel served just outside Leighton Buzzard, and they were predominantly women. During the war, this became the biggest communications hub in the entire world, but for a long time, nobody knew very much about this story, because it was top secret. I want to thank local historian Paul Brown, who has been working to uncover what those phenomenal women did, and that work has culminated today in the unveiling of the plaque. I was also really pleased today to meet a young child called Bertie, one of the many children who lay a wreath every year at the war memorial in Leighton Buzzard. Bertie’s great-great-grandma, Joan Spencer, was one of the women who served her nation at Q Central.

The location was chosen because it already had really good communication links. The wireless signal was good—I wish today’s mobile phone signal was as good as that—and it was also near its famous neighbour, Bletchley Park. Crucially, it was a bit out of the way and therefore hidden from enemy bombers flying overhead. Work was also being done in underground tunnels that were highly camouflaged. I think it is an inspiring story, particularly as the first woman MP for Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and all the places around them. I talked to some of the young girls there today, and it proved to them that their ancestors had done important war work.

We are going to do more. We will ensure that there are boards next to the plaque to tell the story to future generations. We are also looking to get a sculpture that talks of the people and the experiences they had there, with the help of South Side Studios in Leighton Buzzard. I am proud of the community coming together because it feels that for the first time we are truly celebrating the stories of those who served in the shadows and bringing them into the light. \p Brian Mathew: Since being elected, it has been my honour to represent my constituency at remembrance events, parades, ceremonies and services. Last weekend, I laid a wreath in Devizes. For me, it was an opportunity not just to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, but to appreciate the community’s patriotic spirit. So many have given so much.

Everyone from the Brownies and the cadets to servicemen and women, town councillors and veterans on motorbikes came out on Sunday. It was not just good to see it, but humbling to be a part of it. As a member of the Royal British Legion, it has been a privilege to campaign  alongside veterans and fellow members and to meet service families. A few years ago, I had the chance with friends and fellow RBL members to take part in “Pedal to Ypres”, a fundraising cycle ride that takes participants along the frontline of the first world war as far as Vimy ridge. As we cycled back to Dunkirk with the sea wind in our faces and the situation in Ukraine very much on our minds, the curtain between the events of 1940 and the present day seemed poignantly thin.

Walking around these last few weeks, it has been good to see the poppies on people’s coats and jackets and to see poppy sellers outside shops and at railway stations. Indeed, the short ceremony in Westminster Hall this morning to mark the 11th hour of the 11th day was particularly striking. At a time when the country has felt divided, it is important to remember those family and community members who served and, in doing so, to unite people across the country. \p Calvin Bailey: Remembrance is truly a moment of national unity. From bereaved service families to the veterans of the second world war, our country comes together to honour the service and sacrifices of those who have ensured our collective safety and security. Like many veterans, I carry deeply personal memories shaped by conflict and comradeship. We remember those who came before us, but also those we served alongside—many of those I served with in Afghanistan and Iraq sadly did not come home.

Like many Members of this House, this weekend I was in my constituency attending services of remembrance. It was an immense privilege to stand alongside Royal Air Force cadets from 12F and 241 squadrons, Army cadets from 30 music detachment of Waltham Forest, Scouts, local families, people of all faiths, our councillors and fellow veterans, looking not only back but forward with hope.

It was that spirit of looking forward that made what happened next very special to me. At the memorial service in Leytonstone, I met four black servicemen spanning four generations of post-war service: Alan, Peter, Chris and Orlando. I brought them together to meet one another because each represented a chapter in our nation’s post-war story of service. Alan Sealy was in the Prince of Wales’s Own Regiment of Yorkshire, serving in the 1960s in Aden. Peter Barnett was in the 7th Parachute Regiment, the Royal Horse Artillery, and served in Germany and central America in the 1970s. Chris Nije was a royal marine in 42 Commando, and served in the middle east, Germany and Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Orlando Asumang is an RAF cadet starting on his journey to fulfil his dream of becoming a pilot, as I once did.

What united us was remembrance itself and the pride of service. For Peter, it was getting his red beret and his wings. For Chris, it was going from Bethnal Green to jumping out of aeroplanes. For Orlando, it was being able to lay a wreath on behalf of his Royal Air Force squadron 12F. Experiences of duty and service pass from one generation to the next. As we stood there, five black men remembering our ancestors and friends alongside our neighbours, and listening to faith leaders reading from the Bible, the Torah and the Quran, I was reminded that remembrance belongs to everyone.

Sadly, in 2025, there are those who seek to taint this sacred moment with their prejudice. That is why it is so vital that we stand loud and proud in honouring the service of people from every background, every faith and every circumstance, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the freedoms that we all share. Remembrance reminds us that unity itself is part of the legacy entrusted to us. I shared some of my thoughts with Peter, who wisely suggested that we should all head to the pub afterwards, because after all, what could be more British than that? \p Carla Lockhart: Today, our nation paused together in quiet reflection. In doing so, we remembered those who stood firm in the face of fear, served with courage, and made the ultimate sacrifice so that we might live in freedom.

As a daughter of Ulster, my thoughts turn to the fields of France—to the Somme—where so many young men from my homeland laid down their lives. On that terrible July morning in 1916, the 36th Ulster Division went over the top with unmatched courage. Within two days, thousands were killed or wounded. Captain Wilfrid Spender, who witnessed that charge, wrote that he

“would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”

I commend the Ancre Somme Association and the Royal British Legion for continuing to educate and remember in my area.

We in Northern Ireland know perhaps more than most what our armed forces mean for the safety of this United Kingdom. For decades, through some of the darkest times, they stood as a human shield between good and evil. They put on the uniform and went toe to toe with bloodthirsty terrorists in defence of innocent people. Alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and other branches of the security services, they defended life and liberty in Northern Ireland.

Too many paid with their lives. More than 1,400 members of our armed forces were lost during Operation Banner. Hundreds were murdered by terrorists simply because they wore the uniform of their country. Three hundred and two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were killed, along with 29 prison officers. We lost prison officer David Black as recently as 2012, and Constable Stephen Carroll in 2009—both were killed in my constituency. We remember them with gratitude that cannot be measured in words.

Northern Ireland’s record of service to the Crown runs deep. Our people have time and again stepped forward when called upon. Today, that legacy continues in men and women like Air Chief Marshal Harvey Smyth of Lurgan, who is now Chief of the Air Staff of our armed forces. We also think of those who served in more recent conflicts—the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. My thoughts today are with the families of Lance Corporal Stephen McKee of 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment, who was from Banbridge, and Lieutenant Neal Turkington, platoon commander of 1st Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who was from Portadown.

Remembrance must never be limited to the past; it must also be about the living and about ensuring that no veteran who served this nation is ever left without a home, a job or hope for the future, or subject to vexatious  prosecution. There is no glory in war, but there is immense honour in service. There are acts of heroism that go unseen and sacrifices that go unspoken, yet they are the foundation upon which our freedoms rest. We will remember them. \p Pam Cox: It is an honour to pay tribute in this debate to the men and women of our armed forces, past and present, whose courage and service secured our freedoms. In Colchester, we gathered for our traditional Remembrance Sunday service at the war memorial, against the backdrop of our castle and the remains of our Roman temple—a reminder that Colchester has been a garrison city for nearly two millennia. As ever, it was a deeply moving occasion. Soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade and their families were joined by civic representatives, veterans, cadets, youth organisations, the city orchestra and residents from across the community.

The bond between our city and the armed forces is historic and enduring. It is also a global history. Colchester cemetery is home to over 300 Commonwealth war graves, lovingly tended by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its local volunteers, and I thank the commission for giving me a poignant tour of the site in September.

I want to take a moment to recognise the Gurkha and Nepalese community in Colchester. Their contribution to our armed forces is legendary, and their presence in our city enriches us all. As we commemorate 80 years since the end of the second world war, we should remind ourselves of the bravery of over 250,000 Gurkha soldiers who fought for the British empire during that time. Their regiments continue to serve in the city today. We are proud to call them neighbours and friends. The Minister will be aware of the continued campaign by Gurkha veterans on pension rights, and I urge the Ministry of Defence to look again at that issue in good faith.

As we reflect on the historic sacrifices made, it is right that we also look forward. Our armed forces covenant renews our commitment to those who serve today. Just last week, the Government announced a £9 billion defence housing strategy—the largest upgrade to armed forces housing in over half a century. That plan will rebuild or modernise over 40,000 military homes, ensuring that service families have the safe, comfortable and dignified accommodation they deserve. Nearly 1,000 local Army homes in my area will be brought back into public ownership as a result of that scheme, and I would love to invite the Minister for the Armed Forces to come and see that for himself when his diary allows.

Remembrance is not just about looking back, as so many have said today. It is about reaffirming our present and future commitment to peace, security and community in extremely challenging times. It is also about underlining our unwavering support for our armed forces and our veterans. \p Helen Maguire: Today we remember the courage, sacrifice and unwavering duty of those who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces. As a veteran myself, it is an honour to  represent Epsom and Ewell, a constituency with a rich connection to the military, where over 8,000 soldiers trained during the first world war. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, have been in our community for over 75 years. Our local veterans hub sadly recently lost the last of its world war two veterans, but it continues to support more than 30 men and women. The hub brings veterans together, and I thank all the volunteers for their tireless work.

I was at the local reserve centre at the weekend, and veterans told me stories of their service. Frank Angus will be 100 next March. A lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, he was sent to Norfolk to clear mines from the beaches. He recounted the time he set alight a pile of mines, only to find out when trying to make a hasty getaway that his jeep would not start. At the event, Army chefs cooked up a wonderful curry, despite using a field kitchen. The kitchen in the reserve centre has been out of use for years, and the boiler broke 14 months ago and is still awaiting repair. There is also no overnight accommodation, and yet the squadron frequently stay overnight. Considering that the recent strategic defence review aims to grow the reservists by 20%, I was surprised by the lack of basic maintenance. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that?

Reflecting on the armed forces today, I would like to raise the case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who was found dead in her barracks after a warrant officer pinned her down and tried to kiss her. Female personnel have reported being ignored following incidents of sexual abuse. Can the Government provide assurances that steps have been taken to improve the treatment of females in the armed forces? We also remember the sacrifices of the LGBT+ veterans who served their country yet were treated appallingly, and I ask the Government to ensure that all LGBT+ veterans receive support in applying for the Government’s financial recognition scheme.

The “lab rats”, or nuclear test veterans, have suffered for too long, with health issues lasting for generations. Will the Government meet the nuclear test victim campaigners by Christmas?

Last month I was in Ukraine and saw at first hand the Shahed drones and cluster munitions that Russia is using indiscriminately against the Ukrainians. We met amputees at the Superhumans Centre, including 28-year-old British sailor Eddy Scott. \p Manuela Perteghella: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that personnel who are injured on active duty deserve support and recognition? \p Helen Maguire: Yes, I agree that injured personnel require support.

While casevacing casualties from the frontline, Eddy’s vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and he lost his left arm and leg. The UK and Ukraine are working to establish a strategic health alliance, but that initiative needs £1.2 million and Government support would be instrumental, so will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position?

Civilians never ask to be part of war, yet they bear its greatest costs. I urge all nations to uphold international humanitarian law and to remain steadfast signatories to  the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines and the convention on cluster munitions. Later this month, the international community will meet at the international conference on explosive weapons in populated areas to strengthen protection for civilians from explosive weapons. No UK Minister is currently due to attend. I urge the UK to play a leading role in implementing these treaties.

Finally, in this House we bear a profound responsibility, including determining whether our armed forces are sent into conflict, so let us today think about why we send our armed forces to war and remember those we have lost, those who are injured and those left behind. We will remember them. \p Leigh Ingham: Remembrance is more than a moment of silence. It is more than standing still, heads bowed, to honour those who served and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and it is more than just a day. It is about how we choose to treat those who remain with us and about the daily choices that we make, as a Government and as a society, about the kind of country that we want to be.

The Royal British Legion has carried that responsibility for over a century. It has been a lifeline for the armed forces community, past and present, and for their families. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, it does that with quiet dedication, year in, year out. We see that commitment in the poppy appeal that is not a small, symbolic effort, but a huge community undertaking. I pay particular tribute to those volunteers who lead and sustain that work across Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, including the poppy appeal organisers, the branch officers and the many collectors who give up their time. They are not paid—they do it out of loyalty and gratitude.

That sense of service runs deep in so many families, including my own, from my family members who have served in all conflicts since world war one to my incredible nephew—I am somewhat biased—who serves today. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been privileged to spend time with many more of our serving personnel—helpfully, some of those I am not related to—and what has struck me most is their absolute commitment to one another, to service and to this nation. That same commitment runs through the wider armed forces community.

Last week, I attended a fundraiser organised by the Minister for the Armed Forces for the charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which helps the bereaved children and young people of military personnel. It was founded by an extraordinary woman, Nikki Scott, after the death of her husband, Corporal Lee Scott, in 2009. She spoke at length last week about her and her family’s experience, and her words, along with her absolute strength and compassion, have stuck with me ever since. From her very worst moment, she has chosen to serve others, showing that patriotism is found not only on the battlefield, but in the courage to care for those left behind. As Nikki Scott shows us, true patriotism is not loud or boastful. It is not about waving a flag once a year. It is about service before self. It is about caring for one another, honouring our shared values and building a fair country worthy of those who fought, and those who continue to fight, for it.

When veterans struggle to access healthcare or housing, when their families face hardship, or when loneliness creeps into the lives of those who once served, our response as a nation is a test of that patriotism. True remembrance means not only laying wreaths, but laying the foundations of a country that keeps faith with its promises to fairness, to decency and to one another. \p Manuela Perteghella: This morning I joined residents, schoolchildren and veterans in Stratford-upon-Avon for our Armistice Day service. Standing together in silence, we reflected on the lives behind the names, and the sacrifices that shaped our community and our shared history, including those of the Royal Observer Corps, established during world war one to spot enemy aircraft and to warn of air raids. I must give thanks to all the branches of the Royal British Legion in my constituency for their tireless community work to ensure that remembrance is kept alive and for giving a voice to ex-service personnel and raising awareness of the challenges they face.

In Stratford-on-Avon, remembrance runs deep. Our towns and villages are full of memorials that tell the story of local men and women, many of them very young, who served with quiet bravery. Two of them were remarkable individuals—Charles Rochford Lousada, born in Stratford-upon-Avon, and Philip Miles, from Tanworth-in-Arden—both of whom served in the Royal Air Force’s photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war. The purpose of the unit was to provide intelligence so that military leaders could strategically plan the actions of the allies.

The PRU flew unarmed Spitfires and Mosquitoes deep into enemy territory, capturing vital intelligence that shaped operations such as D-day and the Dambusters raid. Their missions were so dangerous that only half made it home, yet for decades their story went largely untold. I am proud to support the campaign, spearheaded by the Spitfire AA810 project, for a national memorial to honour those who served in the PRU, including Lousada and Miles. I understand that plans are progressing and that eventually the memorial should stand close to the Churchill War Rooms, where their photographs once guided military strategists and allied leaders. I hope that the PRU memorial will serve as a lasting symbol—a reminder that courage takes many forms.

As Members of this House, we have a duty to protect and uphold the values of freedom, openness and democracy that generations before us fought to defend; we owe it to the men and women who sacrificed so much. That is the true meaning of remembrance: not only to honour those who served, but to carry forward their vision of a fairer, freer and more peaceful world. We will remember them. \p Peter Prinsley: Sergeant Archie Schlapobersky, of the 12th Field Squadron of the South African Corps attached to the British 8th Army, fought at Monte Cassino, the bloody battle for Italy. Nearly 12,000 of his fellow South African soldiers—all volunteers—did not survive world war two. Archie became a farmer in Swaziland after the war, and his daughter, who is my wife, remembers him jumping out of an old army truck and lying on the  ground, with his arms and hands over his head, when the first aeroplanes flew over the small British African colony. He had what we would now call post-traumatic stress disorder, but that was not widely recognised in soldiers returning from the terrible war.

Squadron Leader Derek Prinsley, my father, was a young doctor who served in East Anglia and the middle east. His war experiences are vividly described in the early chapters of his book, “New Ideas for Old Concerns”. Many airmen were killed and many injured when planes crashed on runways, and he wrote of extracting stricken pilots from the burning planes as if this was normal for young medics. Many of my father’s medical student friends did not return and did not join the NHS as he did when it was founded. He did not speak of it, but he had not forgotten them, I am sure.

The Times today carries the obituary of Monty Felton DFC, who has died at the age of 101. He flew 30 operations as a navigator in a Halifax bomber. Of the 125,000 airmen who flew with Bomber Command, 55,573 were lost. That is 44%—the highest in any branch of our services.

We speak today of remembrance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who spoke in Prime Minister’s questions last week of the AJEX parade. Thousands of Jewish citizens of this country and of the Commonwealth fought in the great conflicts of the last century. The Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women marches each year on the weekend following national remembrance, and I too will march this week with members of my family to honour the 80th anniversary of the end of the war. Monty Felton DFC never missed the parade.

In a small synagogue in Norwich, there is a war memorial. There are 10 names—three sets of brothers. In Vienna, the great cosmopolitan capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, there is another beautiful synagogue, which survived the war because it is concealed behind a façade of Viennese houses. In the lobby, I saw a memorial to the fallen Jewish soldiers who fought for Austria in the first war. It was unveiled in 1929. Adjacent is a memorial to the thousands of Jewish citizens of Vienna who perished in the Holocaust hardly half a generation later. The juxtaposition is quite chilling.

I am of the generation whose parents fought in the war. Many did not speak of it, and my own father spoke of it only in great old age. It is right that we who are here today speak of it, for this was an heroic generation who fought a war that began with Polish cavalry and ended with nuclear bombs. \p Llinos Medi: Today’s Remembrance Day debate is an important opportunity to pause and reflect—on the sacrifices of generations before us, and on those who have been impacted by war and conflict. The veterans’ community in Wales is widespread. We are a nation with a greater proportion of veterans and people who have experienced service: 4.5% of Wales’s civilian population have served in the armed forces, compared with 3.8% in England.

Supporting our veterans is an important issue in Wales, particularly those carrying trauma, both visible and hidden. One pressing issue facing our veterans is access to financial support for those with medical conditions. Veterans with life-changing service-related injuries should  be exempt from repeat disability assessments in future. It is unfair to force people to undergo reassessments for permanent conditions and disabilities in order to access financial support. I therefore urge the UK Government to exempt veterans from disability reassessments.

Research by Age Cymru has suggested that almost one in five veterans in Wales who could be entitled to the armed forces pension are not claiming it. Many veterans are therefore missing out on financial support later in life. As such, I also urge the UK Government to address the issue of unclaimed pensions among the armed forces community in Wales.

Plaid Cymru will continue to support the application of the armed forces covenant to treat veterans in Wales and their families fairly. I ask this Government to look at how the covenant is working in Wales, not only to raise awareness of the covenant and its principles, but to ensure that it is being applied in the interface between reserved and devolved services. We know there are risks that people will fall between the gaps of support services.

We owe it to the generations who have come before us to build a more peaceful and just world. While we live in a period of increasing uncertainty, it is imperative that we support global efforts to resolve conflicts and build peace. Let us strive for a more peaceful world and, in doing so, honour the lives and legacy of those who sacrificed so much for us today. We shall remember them. \p Amanda Martin: I associate myself with the eloquent words of the Minister for the Armed Forces, and thank all those in this House who have served for their service.

I am honoured to contribute to today’s debate on behalf of the people of Portsmouth North, including members of the armed forces, as we pause to remember those who gave, and those who will give, their lives in the service of our nation, and to reflect on the continuing cost of conflict and the lasting contribution of our armed forces to our national life.

For me, remembrance is deeply personal. On 23 December 1940, during the second world war, my great-grandad George Hector Coles was killed when German bombers struck his home, 22 Abercrombie Street in Portsmouth, in one of the horrific blitz raids on my city. While families across Britain prepared for Christmas, mine received news that changed them forever. He never saw peace return after that war, and never met his grandchildren, but his sacrifice—like those of so many—echoes through generations and shapes my understanding of what remembrance truly means.

Portsmouth’s role in our nation’s defence cannot be overstated. As the home of His Majesty’s naval base, our city has stood on the frontline time after time. During the second world war, our streets endured 67 bombing raids, with nearly 1,000 lives lost and thousands left homeless, yet Portsmouth never faltered. The courage of dockyard workers, civil defence volunteers and ordinary families across the city exemplifies the spirit we honour today. At the weekend and today, I was proud to lay wreaths at memorials across our city,  where the names of Pompey folk stand alongside those who never returned, including so many who were lost at sea with no grave. We owe it to all of them not only to remember, but to uphold the values for which they served—courage, duty, and a belief in a better future.

Remembrance is not only about the past; it is about those who serve today. There are around 4.5 million people in the UK armed forces community, and I am proud to say that my son is one of them. Alongside the Royal British Legion and with the amazing Terry and Denise, I am proud to have sold poppies for many years, and to wear my poppy. I pay tribute to the veterans, veterans’ groups, cadet forces, community organisations and charities across my city who support our armed forces families all the year round.

This year I have been contacted by constituents who would like me to speak specifically about their heroes. They are Leading Writer Kate Elizabeth Arnold; Kathy Cox—known as Katy Newman—who served as a corporal during the civil war in Cyprus; Barry Hynd, who served 30 years in the Army; Christopher John Purcell, who served 20 years in the Royal Navy, including in the Falklands and the Gulf; Graham Street, who served 35 years in the Navy; Corporal Fred Head, a recipient of the Military Medal and bar, who served from 1914 until 1919; and Walter Gabriel McKay, a first and second world war veteran. We must remember them. \p Cameron Thomas: This Sunday past, remembrance ceremonies and parades were held in Winchcombe and Bishops Cleeve, joined by Scout groups, cadet forces, armed forces personnel, veterans and members of our various branches of the Royal British Legion. It makes me particularly proud to see so many children of all ages marching with our annual parades, just as I once marched, as a cub scout, to a service at St George’s Church at RAF Halton. For the second time as Tewkesbury’s Member of Parliament, I observed a typically moving service at the abbey, led by the great Reverend Nick Davies, before our small but proud town encircled the cross at the top of Church Street and paid its respects, as it always does with such poignance.

I am certain that the act of remembrance is important for those of us who recognise that most noble of traits: selflessness for the benefit of others. In the case of remembrance, we recognise immense courage, facing down one’s own mortality, to defend against tyranny. However, not everyone feels the same way. Three years ago, after attending a remembrance event in Tewkesbury, I joined the family of a close friend for a drink in a restaurant beside the cross. Three of the younger members of his family felt opposed to the act of remembrance, as I recall, owing to its increasing politicisation and the misconception that it was a celebration of conflict. My friend George Porter invited me to explain to them what it meant to me. I recall stating that remembrance is not a celebration of war; the opposite is true. I told them that when I stand before the cross in the centre of Tewkesbury, or the Cenotaph in Westminster, I will be thinking of seven-year-old Shirley Trenchard.

Shirley was born to Royal Navy Petty Officer (Supply) Charles William Staddon Trenchard in 1935. When war with Germany was declared in 1939, he sailed aboard HMS Illustrious. On 10 January 1941, Illustrious suffered  sustained bombardment by German aircraft near Malta, and although she remained afloat, she suffered many casualties. My great-grandfather succumbed to his wounds two days later. I think of his service, and of his sacrifice. I try to imagine his war, and how he might have felt during the bombardment of Illustrious. Mostly, though, I imagine a child learning that her father was not coming home, and I reckon with the cost that that war continues to draw from my grandmother, 84 years later. I think of my own daughter, and I hope that we can spare her that torment.

Finally, let me say to this anyone who would heed the words of a washed-up veteran: try not to judge another person for the presence or absence of a poppy, much less for whether the leaf is turned to face 11 o’clock, or to judge a person for whether he or she wears a white poppy. It is the act of remembering itself that is so important. Lest we forget. \p Alison Hume: On Armistice Day, the country pauses to remember all those who died in the service of our country. For 88-year-old Gordon from Whitby, as for so many others who lost a family member, there is no need to pause, because he remembers every single day. Gordon’s older brother, Bob, who was 18, was killed towards the end of the second world war. Just before he died, Bob wrote a letter to Gordon. Gordon has carried that letter in his jacket pocket, close to his heart, ever since.

Last week, I was honoured to meet Gordon at the “Save a Place at the Table” exhibition at Pannett Art Gallery in Whitby, where Bob’s letter had been incorporated into a beautifully embroidered place mat celebrating his life. The long table was set with individual placemats, all commemorating ordinary local people who served our country. Sitting around the table, enjoying tea and cake, were those who had shared their stories and the schoolchildren who were hearing them for the first time. That wonderful community party was the result of a living art project funded by the Arts Council to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day.

As the generation who served in the second world war leave us, we must ensure not only that the yearly pause continues but that, every single day, we strive to better look after our veterans and serving personnel. I am proud that this Labour Government have put our veterans and armed forces at the heart of our policies. For each of the nearly 5,000 veterans living in Scarborough and Whitby, our renewal of the nation’s contract with them will be judged through the improved support we offer in healthcare, housing and employment.

My constituency has a strong and proud military history. Sites such as RAF Fylingdales and GCHQ Scarborough play a crucial role in national security. This weekend, I saw the future of the armed forces at remembrance services, in the cadets who proudly bore standards, stood in line and marched alongside serving personnel and veterans.

My constituent Gordon’s daily act of remembrance is keeping his brother’s letter close to his heart for nearly 80 years. In closing, I put on record my deepest gratitude to all those in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages who have served and continue to serve, and I finish by reflecting on how we might all turn an annual pause into a daily action. \p Gideon Amos: It is a privilege to be able to stand in today’s debate and pay tribute to those who fought for this country, but that is nothing compared with how humbling it was to stand with veterans this morning and on Sunday in my Taunton and Wellington constituency to consider the massive sacrifices made by veterans and those who died for our country.

At the time of VJ Day, I paid tribute to three photographic reconnaissance unit pilots who lost their lives—two of them from Wellington and one from Taunton. Today, I would like to place on record the memory of Corporal Tom Gaden of the Rifles, who tragically lost his life to an IED in 2009 in the Afghanistan campaign mentioned earlier.

As well as to the veterans, I pay tribute to those who have continued to serve their community, such as Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hall MBE, the president of the Taunton Royal British Legion, and Michael Rose, who recently retired as president of the Wellington Royal British Legion. I also pay thanks to the town of Wellington for maintaining the tradition of holding its remembrance service on the Sunday afternoon, so that the Member of Parliament can attend both of those two massively important events in our calendar.

On Friday, the parents of two serving officers came to my surgery to talk to me about their housing conditions. I was proud to be able to report—on behalf of the whole House, really—that moves have recently been made on improving military service family accommodation. I was privileged to play a small part in that, as our housing spokesperson in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, to secure the decent homes standard for service family accommodation. I warmly welcome the Government’s £9 billion for military housing, and I hope that the single living accommodation review will follow fast on the heels of the service family accommodation promises that have been made.

I also pay tribute to those veterans who continue to live in Taunton and Wellington, who are now perhaps some of the last veterans of the second world war in our communities. I will write to the Minister, because I know she will have a lot to remember for his summing-up speech, but I invite her to wish William Spiller, a former leading aircraftman, a happy 100th birthday for 8 December. When I telephoned him this morning, he asked me why I was bothering with phoning— “Doesn’t everybody text these days?”—and he followed that up by sending me a text. With a spirit like that, I can understand how he and the rest of the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe! \p Anna Gelderd: As we mark this season of remembrance, I am honoured, on behalf of the people of South East Cornwall, to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces—those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and those who continue to serve our country with courage and pride. The tradition of service runs deep in South East Cornwall. Our ties to HMS Raleigh in Torpoint and His Majesty’s naval base in Devonport, just across the Tamar, mean that the Navy’s presence is woven into our community life. From cadet units in  Liskeard, Saltash and Torpoint to the 12 Royal British Legion branches across our constituency, these groups ensure that the stories of sacrifice are never forgotten.

On Sunday, I was proud to stand alongside residents, veterans and representatives from community groups in Lostwithiel at their remembrance service—a powerful reminder of the values of loyalty, discipline and commitment that underpin service. It was also a pleasure to join Liskeard’s festival of remembrance concert. Organised by the Royal British Legion, and supported by the Liskeard community and the local council, it was a real night to remember, with lots of audience participation bringing everyone together to raise much-needed funds.

Remembrance must also mean responsibility, and I know that too many veterans still face delays in mental health support. They struggle to find housing, or encounter barriers when moving into civilian employment, so I warmly welcome the new veterans strategy and our pledge to renew the nation’s contract with our armed forces. For people in South East Cornwall, this means a fair deal on pay and conditions, guaranteed access to decent housing and healthcare, and a clear pathway from service to civilian life. I know what a difference programmes such as Valour and Fortitude will make to individuals and families across South East Cornwall.

South East Cornwall knows that defence is not just about security; it can be an engine for growth, driving innovation and good jobs in communities like mine. Our economic prosperity, our communities and our pride are interwoven with this proud history and a bright future for our armed forces. In South East Cornwall, we wear our poppies with pride, and we thank our armed forces today and every day for their sacrifice—lest we forget. \p Jim Allister: There is little more important than for a nation to remember, with poignancy and much reflection, those who won the freedoms that we enjoy today and to look back on our heroes, many of whom laid down their lives so that we might live as we do. Many Members of this House have referred to family members, and it is a common feature that many of us had family members who served. In my case, it was a great-uncle, Sergeant William Mullen of the 9th Battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, who laid down his life on that most awful of days, 1 July 1916, in the battle of the Somme, where thousands of young men—many from the 36th (Ulster) Division and from Irish regiments—were slaughtered.

We have much to think about and be grateful for. In my constituency of North Antrim, one of our war heroes is Robert Quigg, who was awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation for his VC says:

“For most conspicuous bravery. He advanced to the assault with his platoon three times. Early next morning, hearing a rumour that his platoon officer was lying out wounded, he went out seven times to look for him under heavy shell and machine gun fire, each time bringing back a wounded man. The last man he dragged in on a waterproof sheet from within a few yards of the enemy’s wire. He was seven hours engaged in this most gallant work, and finally was so exhausted that he had to give up.”

That was the spirit of unquestioning sacrifice that previous generations brought to this nation.

Of course, in Northern Ireland on Remembrance Day, we also remember the many, many victims of wicked terrorism and are thankful for the service of so many. We think of the more than 700 young soldiers from this side of the Irish sea who gave their lives in Northern Ireland. We think of an equal number of local servicemen and policemen who were butchered by the wicked IRA. Of course, the whole poignancy of that is brought into focus by the fact that it was at a remembrance service that one of the most wicked acts of the IRA ever took place: the Poppy Day massacre in 1987, when 11 people were butchered as they stood to remember those who brought the freedom that we all enjoy. We can never forget. \p Danny Kruger: It has been a great pleasure to listen to the very powerful tributes paid by Members to their constituents and their constituencies. Nobody can boast as much about the British Army as the Member for East Wiltshire, which is me, because I represent the super-garrison of Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. I claim the largest number of serving men and women and their families of any constituency in the country, and I am enormously proud to represent them, as I was to stand with many of them at the Tidworth memorial on Sunday.

However, morale among our veterans is not high. The Minister for the Armed Forces made a very powerful statement earlier when he talked about the intensity of the memories held by service people who remember fatal conflict, and about the trauma they retain. I hope that he also recognises how many serving and former service personnel bear the terrible and ineradicable memory of another event, which is the knock on the door from the military police. So many will have to endure that memory forever because of decisions made by successive Governments. As the Minister will know, there are stories of former special forces servicemen being arrested in front of their family at dawn, handcuffed and put in the back of a police van. These very unfortunate events have happened because Governments have allowed the courts to apply a wide interpretation of the European convention on human rights that goes far beyond the measures that have traditionally bound our military in armed conflict, such as the Geneva convention, the Armed Forces Acts, and British military law.

The previous Government made, I think, a very noble effort, particularly in the case of Northern Ireland, to curtail the persecution and prosecution of our troops through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Essentially, it recognised that, because of the decisions that followed the Good Friday agreement, it was impossible to achieve justice for the victims of republican terrorism, so an attempt was made through that Act to achieve some balance. I think more could have been done, but it was better than the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is being brought before the House next week.

The merry-go-round of prosecutions is starting again. Members have powerfully made the case that this is not just about the injustice being perpetrated against our forces; it is about the defence of our country. This Bill will harm the defence of the United Kingdom, because it will directly disincentivise young people from joining up and serving in our armed forces. I implore the Minister,  as a brave veteran himself, to put his former comrades ahead of the European convention on human rights, and I hope that he will consider it his duty not to support the Bill next week. \p Jim Shannon: First, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years of part-time service. Like others, I know what it is like to lose colleagues and loved ones in the name of safety, security, democracy and freedom.

I represent Strangford constituency, where conscription was never needed. In a nation of volunteers, we were always a constituency of volunteers. I know I am not the only person who was so upset to hear on TV last week the 100-year-old veteran question the point of his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of his colleagues. What a chord it struck to know that this man is looking around at the modern-day UK and wondering what it was all for. These are the men and women to whom the flag means something, and for whom loyalty to the Crown was worth shedding blood. They believed that it was worth giving their life for those in their community. They are the generation who went to war because they knew what was needed. They worked hard, they played hard, and they are proud of their history and their heritage. I watched as my community was ravaged by terrorism, and I now see those who protected the community being ravaged by vexatious attempts to rewrite history.

These men and women wonder whether it was worth shedding the blood that was shed. I say: yes, it was worth it. I look at my six grandchildren and believe it was worth it, and that all is not lost. In them is the hope of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which works hard, plays hard, keeps calm and carries on. In them will the stories of war heroes such as Blair Mayne live on. We will teach them that they need not be ashamed of their pride in being British, and need not apologise for being Ulster Scots, or for being who they are. We talk of the greatest generation; we have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. That is why it was worth it. That is why it is worth this Chamber deciding that the lessons of the world wars and the Holocaust should be taught in every school in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why it is worth this House remembering and celebrating those men and women, and I do so today, along with others who have spoken.

I think of those men and women and I thank God for what they did. I ask God for his help in raising tomorrow’s young people—my grandchildren and yours—so that they are proud to be British, to stand against oppression, and to undertake to be inclusive. We in this House should listen to the veteran Alec Penstone. He served his nation with courage and watched his friends being killed on D-day. We need to restore British values, British justice and British pride. The battle is as essential to the future of this nation as any that we have ever fought. I will fight alongside others for Crown and country, freedom and democracy, justice and liberty, and the future of my children and my grandchildren, and everyone’s grandchildren. We remember the past—of course we do—but we also look to the future, with grateful thanks for the sacrifice that gave us freedom, liberty and democracy. That, we can never forget. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Reed: It is a real privilege to close this debate on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I think we can all agree that it is even more special for falling on Armistice Day.

I place on record my thanks, and the thanks of Conservative Members, to the Royal British Legion, our armed forces personnel and their families. Over this remembrance weekend, they stood in the cold and rain—something I think we all endured this weekend—organised parades, supported services in every community, and ensured that people across the country could remember with dignity and pride. We are grateful for their service—not only this weekend, but every day.

One hundred and seven years ago today, the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The first world war, which was said to be the war to end all wars, came to an end. The cost was unimaginable: millions of men and women never returned, and millions more came home forever changed. Families were torn apart, futures were rewritten, and a generation carried grief that shaped the century that followed. Remembrance is our solemn promise to that sacrifice that we will never forget it. But remembrance is not exclusive. It belongs to all of us. Today, we honour those who served in our armed forces in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth from every nation, every faith and every background. We honour the families who bore the silent burden of fear and separation.

In the past 18 months, we have marked significant milestones in our national history, including the 80th anniversary of D-day, and we once again heard from the extraordinary men and women who served in the second world war, but we all know that that living link to history is fading, and as it fades, our responsibility to carry their stories forward only grows stronger. We do not remember to glorify war; we remember to understand its cost. We remember so that future generations understand why peace matters, and why it must be protected with everything we have. We all know that the world is becoming more volatile, more unpredictable and more dangerous. History teaches us something simple and profound: when nations forget the true price of conflict, they become far more vulnerable to repeating it.

We have heard many strong and heartfelt contributions from Members from across the House, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked about how our armed forces personnel are deployed globally every day of the year, and how they truly represent the best of British. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an issue relating to the Falklands campaign and the Sir Galahad faced by her constituents from the Welsh Guards. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, can shed some light for the hon. Lady.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) talked about the bravery of one of his former units, the special forces, which saved lives in Iraq and other conflicts around the world, and the dangers of lawfare for morale. We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), whose constituency has been the foundry and beating heart of defence. I pay tribute to her constituents, who really  are at the forefront of keeping us safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke powerfully about his time in Afghanistan on Herrick 11. It was heart-wrenching to hear the young ages of his fellow soldiers who lost their lives on that battleground.

We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the 85-foot granite tower that provides a constant and visible reminder to his constituents of the cost of war. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) raised the important point that this time in November, around Remembrance Day, is one of the only times in the calendar that civil society gets the chance to look at the members of our armed forces, and it is imperative that we strengthen the link to the armed forces wherever we can. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about military personnel transitioning into civilian life; I hope that this Parliament can ease that transition as much as possible.

I think we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was decorated in multiple wars. He is an experienced soldier and officer, and I really hope that the Government will listen to his words. We heard brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who, as we all know, is an expert on security and defence matters, and who really enriches debates when he talks about those issues. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and from the hon. Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew).

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is an experienced aviator from the RAF, raised the salient point that remembrance belongs to all of us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the significant contribution of her countrymen and countrywomen from Northern Ireland. I align myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) about our formidable Gurkha force.

We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) —a fellow south-west MP—who said that defence can be a real engine for growth, and I look forward to working with her on that in this Parliament. Finally, we had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger).

I want to take the last few minutes to raise an important aspect of remembrance that I believe this House must confront more openly. Remembrance must not be limited to the conflicts that are easy to talk about—  the ones where history gives us a clean narrative and a clean moral outcome. When we talk about the second world war, the story is instinctively understood: it is democracy and freedom prevailing over fascism and tyranny. Although the human cost was unbearable, the outcome was unambiguous. It is a conflict we can speak about with pride and respect. The challenge for our country going forwards is how we remember with the same respect and dignity conflicts in which the outcome was less clear.

I rarely speak publicly about my service, but now that I am in this House, I feel a responsibility to speak up for my generation of soldiers—friends who were sent to war as a result of decisions made in this House. I believe that the British state needs to talk more openly about the recent conflicts we have asked our young men and women to serve in, including but not limited to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These are conflicts without victory parades, without neat endings, and without a universally agreed narrative, and because they are complex, we sometimes avoid speaking about them altogether.

That silence has consequences. There is a growing feeling in parts of the veteran community that I hear when I meet former Royal Marines who served in places such as Northern Ireland and when I speak with those I served alongside in Afghanistan. The feeling can be summed up in two painful questions: “What was it all for?” and “Does my country still have my back?”

As someone who served in Afghanistan during a period that is now under intense legal scrutiny, I cannot pretend that those questions do not sting. I served my country, and I have pride in the way in which we conducted ourselves, yet sometimes it feels as though the country I served now wants to paint me and others like me as something we are not. We risk creating a culture in which those who served feel judged rather than honoured and where stereotypes replace understanding and assumptions replace gratitude. There is a deep and genuine fear among veterans that the nation no longer stands behind them. I know that the Minister responding also served, and I hope that she will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered—from one veteran to another.

I will not turn this remembrance debate into a debate on current politics, but as has been mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members, a letter was written yesterday by nine four-star generals warning about lawfare and its impact on our armed forces. That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Legislation affecting those who served deserves full and open debate in this House.

Most people who join our armed forces do so out of service to our country. We must remember that. Let us be clear that the courage shown in recent conflicts is equal to the courage shown in any war in our national history. The sacrifice is the same. The cost to families is the same. These young men and women went there because this House sent them. They answered the call of Parliament. They put on the uniform knowing the risks. Some returned with life-changing injuries. Too many did not return at all. We must not allow the complexities of a conflict to diminish the honour of those who served. Their courage is defined not by the outcome of a war but by the character they showed when our country asked them to go. \p Louise Jones: Today we have honoured generations of servicemen and women who have put their lives on the line for their country. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have spoken with such passion and feeling about a subject that I know they value so highly.

On Remembrance Sunday, millions of people come together—ordinary men and women standing in the silent autumn air bound by common values and shared grief, just as they did in November 1921 when the first poppy appeal was launched. Back then, 9 million poppies were sold. Today, over 40 million poppies are distributed each year. That unity is our strength. It is a unity that is reflected in this House today.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces began the debate with a powerful reminder of the 80-year legacy of freedom and prosperity inherited from that greatest of generations who battled the tyranny of Nazism in world war two. We have heard many heartfelt contributions from Members across the House, who stressed how fiercely proud they are of the people who serve in our military and across defence.

I was hugely honoured to represent Defence, alongside Scotland’s First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the Stone of Remembrance on Sunday. As I stood there, I felt the same bond of allegiance shared with people across the whole of the UK who had gathered on the 11th hour that day. I thought of my constituency of North East Derbyshire, where every town and village—from Clay Cross to Dronfield and Killamarsh—has at its heart a war memorial with names carved in stone. I thought of my constituent, Corporal Liam Riley, who grew up in Killamarsh and lost his life fighting for our country in Afghanistan. I thought of the time I attended a memorial service when I was at school for Second Lieutenant Jo Dyer, a previous pupil, who was killed in Iraq alongside Corporal Kris O’Neill, Private Eleanor Dlugosz and Kingsman Adam James Smith.

I thought of my own time in uniform. I have attended many different remembrance services over the years. I can recall my first Remembrance Sunday in the Army on exercise in Wales—myself and my fellow young officer cadets pausing from a hectic schedule of platoon attacks to gather in an empty farmyard for a simple drumhead ceremony. Standing there shoulder to shoulder in the Welsh rain, belting out “Bread of Heaven”, I really felt a deeper connection not just to the men and women stood beside me but to all those who had gone before and all who would follow after. I also think of the remembrance event I attended while deployed to Afghanistan, gathered around the memorial in the British embassy in Kabul—that time in the bright sun—to pause and reflect with the sounds of the city all around us.

I will take a quick moment to reflect on the MOD teams who do such vital work to ensure that all those who have fallen in foreign fields and remain missing are traced and brought back home. I know that some colleagues have talked about that. That thread of service runs unbroken through a century of profound change. The young men and women who fought at the Somme could scarcely imagine the nature of conflict today with cyber-warfare, autonomous weapons and operations  conducted at the speed of light, yet the fundamental commitment remains constant: to defend our nation and protect our freedoms.

At a time when threats to security are rising, it is incumbent on us all to consider the weight of responsibility on our military and to do what we can to share the burden, no matter how big or small. For example, our reserve and cadet forces perform a vital role connecting defence with wider society. I was particularly proud to see so many cadets doing such a fantastic job at the remembrance events that I attended. They were joined by reservists across the country, who are twice the citizen for giving up their free time to serve the nation in uniform. Indeed, I am hugely humbled in my job to meet such an extraordinary number of people and organisations who do work all year round to support our armed forces and veterans, such as the Royal British Legion and the 40,000 volunteers who sell poppies; the charities that raise critical funds and provide so much support to veterans in the armed forces community; and those who work with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to maintain military graves to the highest of standards all around the world. We thank them all for their outstanding contribution.

I am also proud that yesterday—the day between Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day—we announced our new veterans strategy, which is a milestone in our plans to reset the nation’s contract with the remarkable men and women who have served and ensure that all their service is properly honoured. We will help veterans after their military service is over and support them in key areas like health, housing, employment and justice.

Let me turn to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke movingly about the marked increase in the number of people attending ceremonies, which I have noticed and recognise. I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for speaking so movingly of her best friend, lost in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke well about the cadet Joshua and the role he played, and the Lord Mayor, Councillor Martin Rowley.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke movingly about the broad spectrum of conflicts, many of the forgotten we have lost, and how we must ensure that we strengthen our armed forces to face the threats of today and tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke movingly of the importance of the support we must give to our veterans regarding housing. Indeed, he also spoke of the harassment of some women in the armed forces, which I take very personally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an important point about representing the Welsh Guards who served on Sir Galahad. We can arrange for her to meet the Minister responsible. The right hon. and gallant Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and indeed the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), referred to the letter by the nine four-star generals. My colleague had offered to meet those generals, and they declined. I reiterate that offer to meet the generals to offer a balanced point of view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke movingly of her late grandfather and the vital work that her constituency does. I thank in  particular the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for his moving speech. When he read out the names of those who had fallen in Afghanistan, it brought home the power of how they really do not grow old as we who are left grow old.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) spoke movingly of the stories from his constituency and the importance of remembering all those who have fallen. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke well of his constituent Major Joe Martin, who does such valuable work to support the cadets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) spoke powerfully about the importance of our war memorials and the Erskine charity in her constituency that offers employment support. Again, it was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) the powerful story of Margaret Fleming and her family, and of what she lost. I also thank the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for recognising the service of women and men in the wider war effort. That is something that we must always remember.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke powerfully about the importance of historians and of remembering our local, as well as our national, history. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) spoke about the war widows’ service. I have never felt more privileged in this job than when I was able to attend that service and stand alongside so many strong women. And who could forget Lennon and Ruby at the festival of remembrance, walking in memory of their father?

The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) spoke very movingly about the Grimsby Chums, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) also spoke movingly about the stories of his constituents, particularly that of the unmarked grave. It was fantastic to hear about the heroic efforts of RAF Biggin Hill from the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) spoke well about Q Central, which I am particularly interested in given my service history.

It was great to hear about the “Pedal to Ypres” fundraiser from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). That is no small distance. I was also particularly proud to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a man of remarkable service. It was fantastic to hear him talk so movingly about the importance of black servicemen and women.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is a proud voice, speaking about the proud history of service in her constituency. That proud history of service was emulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), with a mere 2,000 years to recognise. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke powerfully about a number of issues. I will, of course, meet her to discuss them; I am sure she appreciates that I cannot go into them now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke movingly about her family and Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which is a fantastic charity. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke well about the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit, whose courage is indeed immense. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for the powerful accounts of the history of his family and for recognising the service of Jewish service personnel.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) spoke well about the importance of Welsh veterans and was a powerful advocate for the importance of supporting those veterans. I take her points on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) spoke movingly about her family history. I know that she is proud of her serving son and a proud advocate for Portsmouth and the Royal Navy.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke movingly about what remembrance is about. As a veteran who has also washed up here, I appreciated his words. They were authentic and heartfelt. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) again spoke movingly and I wish William Spiller a happy 100th birthday for December—by text.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) spoke well of her constituency’s strong links to the armed forces and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) gave a powerful account of Robert Quigg, exemplifying the huge importance of selfless service. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) spoke of his constituency’s huge military presence and the importance of defending veterans, and I note that we are specifically stopping cold calling of veterans. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke well about making sure that the next generation is the best generation. I can wholeheartedly agree with that.

Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister for his heartfelt speech about the lasting impact of world war one. He is also right as a fellow veteran of Afghanistan. I find it quite difficult to speak about that conflict and its wider significance, and I know that it is important that we do.

Today, we have come together to say thank you to those who have served and to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I thank all Members who are here today. They have upheld this House’s proud tradition of honouring the service and sacrifice of our armed forces on the anniversary of Armistice Day. We will always remember them. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces. \p Kirsty Blackman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), made a statement. During the statement, he said:

“Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the  effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.”

He went on to say:

“I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.”

I pressed the Secretary of State on whether the information had been cited by the WASPI women, or whether the information had been cited by the Department for Work and Pensions, and was unable to get a clear answer. However, WASPI women have since contacted me and told me that they provided the report to the court proceedings. The report that was provided by the WASPI women, the Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 434, is called “Attitudes to Pensions: the 2006 Survey” and it was published in 2007.

During the speech in December 2024 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—now the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—announcing that the Government would not be compensating WASPI women, she said that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

“does not properly take into account…research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

The numbers about the 90% of women aged 45 to 54 come from the research report that was published. This is a document that the former Secretary of State did not have, according to the current Secretary of State, and therefore new decisions now need to be made and this needs to be looked at again. I am struggling to understand how we can get more information on whether this was indeed the report mentioned, whether the former Secretary of State did have that report, and if she did not have the report, how she was able to quote the report when she made her statement to this House in December 2024. \p Caroline Nokes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given notice of her point of order, and I take it that she has notified both the Secretary of State at the DWP and the former Secretary of State at the DWP of her intention to refer to them in the Chamber. \p Kirsty Blackman: indicated assent. \p Caroline Nokes: This, as the hon. Lady will know, is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point very much on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her comments. \p Mark Garnier: I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 600 of my constituents in Stourport-on-Severn in Wyre Forest whose lives and  services are being adversely affected by unwelcome development in the neighbouring Malvern Hills district council. Because Malvern Hills district council has no local plan, the Planning Inspectorate is allowing otherwise refused planning applications to go ahead within the wider reach of Stourport.

The petitioners

“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings…and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Stourport-on-Severn,

Declares that the community of Stourport-on-Severn has been severely impacted by excessive building applications on agricultural land; and further declares that the first site which crossed district boundaries was refused by both Wyre Forest and Malvern Hills District Councils but was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, resulting in speculative building applications causing stress to our community and placing severe pressures on our medical, educational and highway resources.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings, Stourport-on-Severn, and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003122] \p Jonathan Brash: This evening I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Hartlepool to register their total opposition to the current council tax system. Council tax is deeply regressive and a tax on deprivation, and it hammers towns like Hartlepool. It simply does not work, not for councils, not for Government and certainly not for the 1,276 people from Hartlepool who signed this public petition. I am proud to present their signatures and their voices here today. They are demanding change, I am demanding change and we must deliver change. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to look into all appropriate measures to fix the broken council tax system to establish a fairer system for residents and local authorities.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of Hartlepool,

Declares that the current system of Council Tax is no longer fit for purpose given the substantial variations in property band prices across different local authorities.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to look into all appropriate measures to fix the broken council tax system to establish a fairer system for residents and local authorities.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003123] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Imogen Walker.) \p Dan Carden: It is an honour to follow the debate we just had in this House on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces, and to have joined the public in marking Remembrance Sunday at St George’s Hall in Liverpool this weekend.

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on blood transfusions during the Falklands war. The reason I have secured the debate is primarily to tell a story—a rather remarkable story on behalf of one of my constituents, a veteran of the Falklands war. It is the story of blood transfusions that saved his life, but, as he later discovered, came at a profound cost.

My constituent, who prefers to remain anonymous, was a young man with 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment. In 1982, his life was on the cusp of a new chapter —he was engaged to be married—but the outbreak of war put his future on hold. In the early hours of 12 June, during the fierce overnight fighting for Mount Longdon, he was severely wounded. After a 10-hour wait, he was evacuated to the hospital ship SS Uganda. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Does he not agree that the story of these British servicemen saved through blood donations from the ARA hospital ship is one of those times when honour in war was demonstrated? Does he not further agree that we must ensure that every man and woman trained to serve under our flag knows the obligations of duty and honour when they wear that noble uniform? \p Dan Carden: Absolutely, and I will develop the hon. Gentleman’s points.

To return to the story of my constituent, after that 10-hour delay and his move to the SS Uganda, he recalls waking from surgery to a nurse at his bedside who told him—I am quoting from his own testimony—that he had been

“filled up with Argentine blood”.

At the time, he thought nothing of it. He was simply grateful to be alive, surrounded as he was by those who were more seriously injured and knowing that many of his colleagues were not so lucky. He accepted it and got on with his life. He eventually married in 1985, and he and his wife have just celebrated 40 years of marriage.

However, the consequences of that lifesaving transfusion emerged years later. In 1993, after donating blood, he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. His wife and children were required to undergo preventive vaccinations. Later, he endured a brutal battle with kidney cancer, losing both kidneys and surviving five years on dialysis until a lifesaving transplant in 2017. Throughout that, the question of the origin of his hepatitis B lingered.

Reports about the infected blood scandal back here at home resonated deeply with my constituent, yet he finds himself in a cruel paradox: the Ministry of Defence, the institution he served, has so far refused to even acknowledge the fact that he received Argentine blood,  saying only that it does not hold any recorded information related to blood transfusions during the Falklands war. Determined to get to the truth, my constituent began to conduct research into the events surrounding his blood transfusion. I must say, the evidence that he has gathered is astonishing. It includes records, telegrams, photographs and testimonies from all the people involved. That evidence pieces together a timeline of events, which I wish to share with the House tonight.

First, we must understand the logistical reality aboard the SS Uganda prior to my constituent’s injury. On 28 April 1982, the ship took aboard 360 units of blood from the Army blood supply depot at Ascension Island. Records kept by the ship’s crew, and obtained by my constituent, show that by 10 June, after expiries and transfers to other units, the SS Uganda was left with just 46 units of blood.

On 4 June 1982, the senior medical officer of the SS Uganda, Surgeon Captain Andrew Rintoul, met the captain of the Argentine ship Bahía Paraíso. Captain Rintoul’s own written account confirms that the Argentines

“generously offered to supply Uganda if urgently needed”

in accordance with Geneva rules. That urgent need arrived just days later, when the SS Uganda received 160 new British casualties, mainly from the bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad on 8 June. The numbers speak for themselves: how could 46 units possibly treat so many severely wounded patents?

Secondly, we have testimony from the medical professionals involved. From the British side, a senior nursing officer who served aboard the SS Uganda, told my constituent that she was aware that

“some supplies came from the Argentine hospital ships.”

Another former SS Uganda nurse recalls the “unique encounter” with the Bahía Paraíso, stating that blood was obtained from it for British patients.

From the Argentine side, the evidence is even more direct. My constituent has contacted several doctors who were aboard the ARA Bahía Paraíso. The biochemical lieutenant stated that the Argentines provided a considerable number of sachets of blood to the SS Uganda. He said:

“I swore the traditional and ancient Hippocratic oath. For that reason, both you and we treat the wounded regardless of which side they belong to.”

Another Argentine doctor, who physically visited the SS Uganda via the Bahía Paraíso’s Puma AE-506 helicopter, was asked whether English patients received Argentine blood. His answer was simple and definitive:

“Yes, sir, they received Argentine blood. We brought it to them.”

My constituent also managed to contact the sergeant aboard the helicopter, who confirmed:

“On 10 June 1982, we transported 250 litres of blood from hospital ship ARA Bahía Paraíso to hospital ship SS Uganda. We met several times to exchange wounded and medicines—a great example of military medical care in combat.”

In fact, the exchange was commended in Argentine media as part of the 40th anniversary of the war.

My constituent has dozens of photographs showing the Puma AE-506 helicopter landing on the SS Uganda; British and Argentine doctors and crew members together aboard the SS Uganda; and the SS Uganda plaque gifted to ARA Bahía Paraíso in thanks. It is important to state clearly that my constituent holds no ill will  towards the medical staff—British or Argentine—who saved his life. He is grateful. They acted under the extreme duress of war, making a humanitarian choice in the best interests of their patients. Yet, that act of salvation also had lifelong consequences for him, and if it happened to him, it is likely that others among the hundreds of casualties treated after that date were similarly exposed. Should there not be an effort to identify and contact those veterans, to ensure that they too are aware?

The exchange between the ARA Bahía Paraíso and SS Uganda is no secret; it is a documented historical event. The evidence provided by my constituent is overwhelming, credible and drawn from multiple sources. All he is asking is that the Ministry of Defence acknowledges what the evidence so compellingly demonstrates. The refusal to do so is a heavy burden for him; it prevents him from achieving closure and, potentially, from seeking the specific recognition and support that may be available to him for a service-related illness.

My ask of the Minister this evening is simple: for the truth to be officially recognised. I urge her to meet my constituent and me to review the extensive dossier of evidence that he has so painstakingly assembled over the years. Then, we may finally recognise what the historical record already shows: that he and others received Argentine blood transfusions on the SS Uganda.

This is about according a veteran the simple dignity of truth. He served his country with great honour. He bore the physical and psychological wounds of that service. The very least he deserves is for his country to look at the facts and acknowledge what happened. I hope the Minister tonight can give him and this House a commitment to do just that. \p Louise Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for raising the case of his constituent. It is rather apt that we are holding this debate on Armistice Day and so soon after Remembrance Sunday, when people the length and breadth of the UK came together to commemorate the fallen. As a veteran myself, I would like to start my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend’s constituent for his years of service to our country, in particular his contribution to the Falklands war and to restoring sovereignty to the people of the Falklands, which came at a huge personal cost. His courage, and the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by all those who served in the Falklands war, shall never be forgotten.

I need to be clear at the outset that I am limited in the extent to which I can go into the particular case of my hon. Friend’s constituent. While the information I have can never undo the harms caused by infected blood, I hope it will provide some measure of reassurance to his constituent that there is a clear route to compensation for members of our armed forces who received infected blood. The infected blood inquiry’s report, which laid bare the details of the national infected blood scandal, explicitly set out that the infected blood compensation scheme includes provision for individuals who received infected blood during armed forces treatment overseas, which includes veterans of the Falklands war.

As I say, no amount of money can undo the damage caused to people’s lives. However, this Government are determined that the infected blood compensation scheme will be there to bring redress to those who have been impacted. It is important to note that the compensation scheme does not have hard cut-off dates for determining whether a person is eligible based on when their infection was acquired and that all evidence will be assessed independently, on the balance of probabilities. While the scheme does acknowledge that screening for hepatitis B was introduced in December 1972, before the start of the Falklands war, it does not preclude claims that demonstrate they fell outside of the screening programme.

In terms of process, the infected blood compensation scheme is delivered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is the body responsible for handling claims and making payments. The assessments that it makes are based on the scheme’s regulations, and it operates independently of the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments. The authority began making payments to infected people in 2024. Last month, it launched its registration service for those who wish to make a claim. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent and any other Falklands veterans who believe they may have been infected through blood transfusion to register with this service.

It is important that I address the issue of veterans’ medical records and acknowledge that historical records from the early 1980s are not up to modern standards and are often incomplete. That should not discourage affected veterans from applying for the infected blood compensation scheme because, I repeat, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will consider all available evidence. \p Julian Lewis: As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I would like to confirm, in support of what the Minister is saying and the advice she is giving, that the contact I have had with IBCA has been very positive. It seems to want to engage on a personal basis with people who have suffered in this way. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) really should advise his constituent to take up this offer to engage with the authority; I think he will be pleasantly surprised at the positive response he will get. \p Louise Jones: I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.

In relation specifically to blood transfusions aboard SS Uganda during the Falklands war, the MOD has made extensive inquiries and concluded that it does not hold information in relation to these. I reiterate that I am speaking about MOD files rather than other forms of evidence that exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton said. It has also concluded that any detailed information on the source of blood used is unlikely to have been recorded in medical records during this period. \p Dan Carden: I am grateful to the Minister and to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for their guidance. My constituent is frustrated; he has done extensive research, spoken to many people and been able to amass evidence, and I think what he would really appreciate is the Minister committing departmental time and energy to look at some of the evidence that he has acquired. \p Louise Jones: I will come to that point in a moment.

To reiterate, the MOD veterans welfare service supports veterans and their dependants with increasing needs around disability, housing and subsistence, and the war pension scheme is available for service-related injuries and conditions.

When I served, I wanted to know that I would receive the best possible medical treatment for service-related conditions, and I expect the same for those who serve today. I can reassure the House that the UK Defence Medical Services is now a global leader in operational blood management, providing world-class assurance and governance of blood products, including in deployed settings. The centre of defence pathology monitors and evaluates the blood management system to ensure the safety of blood products in deployed settings, including recording full details of the transit, storage and use of every unit of blood. This level of tracking and governance was not in place during the Falklands war, but it is now standard practice.

To conclude, I will summarise the key points. Veterans of the Falklands war are eligible to claim compensation from the infected blood compensation scheme, and   there are no hard cut-off dates that would automatically exclude claims based on when an infection was acquired. Evidence will be independently assessed on the balance of probabilities, and incomplete medical records do not automatically disqualify a claim. I would encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent, and any other veterans in a similar position, to register with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s registration service. Of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to talk about the work that he has undertaken and to hear his story.

The sacrifices and service of Falklands veterans like my hon. Friend’s constituent will never be forgotten. This Government are committed to supporting all our veterans. They have served our country with courage and dedication, and they deserve our support in return.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.