Andrew Snowden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from my constituency neighbour, I am obviously very disappointed to see that a Typhoon order for the RAF is not in this document. That would be worth around £8 billion, which is the single biggest way that the Government could invest in British jobs through this plan and through the aerospace industry. There is a line about £5.4 billion for Typhoons on page 44, but on page 45 it says that only £1.1 billion of that is new funding. What is the other £4.3 billion attached to the Typhoon platform in this document actually for?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much for coming to my assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker—or to my defence, rather ironically. The Minister has touched on critical industries as a key part of our defence plans for the future. Does she agree that our sovereign capability to manufacture our own fighter aircraft is critical, and does she share my dismay that our production lines sit empty, with no orders from the Government to maintain that sovereign capability?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Russian Oil Sales · Hansard source

  More

  We both agree that this is important. While Putin uses globally inflated oil prices to fund his war machine, our own defence investment plan is in tatters. The former Defence Secretary’s shocking resignation letter said that the Prime Minister was “unable”, and the Chancellor “unwilling”, to provide the funding for the defence investment plan. That is absolutely damning. Astonishingly, the very next day the Government announced £4.5 billion to paint 10,000 new zebra crossings. Given that the FCDO made a big cut to its own budget to fund defence last year, does the Minister share my anger that other Departments are refusing to contribute to keep our country safe?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Russian Oil Sales · Hansard source

  More

  We pay tribute to our armed forces for their courage and bravery in boarding and seizing the Russian shadow fleet vessel at the weekend. We also welcome the further sanctions announced today, including those targeting the shadow fleet. We urge the Government to put pressure on those who buy and refine Russian oil, as the freedom of Ukraine depends on cutting off the funds that finance Putin’s illegal war. Given the urgency on the battlefields of Ukraine and the inflated revenue Putin has recently had from Russian oil, does the Minister think that the situation can wait until 2027 for the introduction of the ban on Russian-originated diesel and jet fuel imports?

• 15 Jun 2026 · The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be grateful that I did not intervene earlier on the topic of oil and gas in the North sea—we have had that argument many times, so I will leave it be. On his current point, could the Minister copy me into his correspondence with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim on this topic? As the Minister touched on, there is particular concern around not just the regulations themselves but the ways in which Russia could use deviation to get around their enforcement. I am keen to see that the language in the regulations is just generic wording rather than there being any specific concern.

• 15 Jun 2026 · The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has highlighted, the barbaric attacks by Russia over the weekend have added more significance to what we are discussing today. We should also pay tribute to the extraordinary professionalism and courage of our Royal Marines, the Navy, the RAF and the National Crime Agency in successfully intercepting and boarding a vessel from Russia’s shadow fleet in the English channel. We commend all those involved in that landmark operation, but it reinforces the point that these powers must be used decisively and consistently. We hope that this is not a one-off success but the beginning of a sustained effort. Can the Minister confirm whether we should expect to see further such operations going forward? Russia relies on this shadow fleet to evade international sanctions and bankroll its illegal war in Ukraine. Operations such as this strike directly at Putin’s ability to fund his aggression. Protecting the UK means standing firmly with our allies in Ukraine. Putin believed that he could seize Ukraine in a matter of days, but the determination of the Ukrainian people proved him wrong. We have a responsibility to do everything possible to limit Russia’s ability to continue its aggression against a peaceful, democratic nation. Russia remains the most pressing threat to European security. We of course support measures that help constrain Russia’s ability to prosecute its illegal invasion and its attempts to destabilise the west. However, as Conservative Front Benchers have already put on the record in the House, we regret that the Government originally left open a loophole for Russian oil that had been refined into diesel and jet fuel in other countries. We understand that that position changed over the weekend, and that there will now be a ban on imports of diesel and jet fuel made from Russian oil by 1 January 2027. As we said, the decision last month to leave the loophole open should not have been necessary, because Britain should be issuing UK oil and gas licences. This is not the time to be running down our domestic fuel production. Rather than relying on imports from countries that wish us harm, we should get drilling in the North sea: that will boost our energy security and bring down household bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has argued, approving licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw North sea fields would help the UK make greater use of its resources. Instead, the Government’s opposition to further domestic production risks leaving us dependent on energy supplies linked to hostile states. We do not believe that is the right approach. We welcome the ban on Russian uranium and the clarity that the regulations provide by prohibiting imports, whether they come directly from Russia or via third countries. However, can the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to expand domestic nuclear capability and strengthen long-term energy resilience in response to that? The ban on British companies shipping Russian liquefied natural gas is another welcome measure. Restricting the transportation of Russian LNG will reduce opportunities for third countries to trade in these products. We also welcome the extension of restrictions on construction services. What assurance can the Minister provide that the exemptions in the regulations will be applied narrowly and not become a loophole? The provisions targeting the shadow fleet are particularly important because they move beyond banning goods and focus on the methods used to evade sanctions. Although those powers appear robust, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on how they will operate in practice. How many vessels do the Government expect to have to designate? What evidential threshold will be required? Given the use of opaque ownership structures and frequent reflagging of ships, how confident are Ministers that these powers can keep pace with evolving tactics? Although we welcome the early signs of success, how will the Government assess whether those measures are delivering meaningful results in the long term? I look forward to the Minister’s response and to receiving reassurance that these measures will be effective in strengthening both our national security and the wider sanctions regime against Russia.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the APPG and others for their work on this matter. I have constituents—I am very proud to represent Weeton barracks—who have had to make that choice because of the postcode lottery to which my right hon. Friend refers. Whether an LEA accepts the transfer is down to its discretion. That is such an important point, and I thank him for making it.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  FalconWorks, which is part of the BAE Systems family and the enterprise zone at Warton, has been at the cutting edge of learning the lessons from rapid deployment and redesign of unmanned aircraft in Ukraine. A key part of that is including the pre-investment in research and development as part of the procurement of defence systems. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with companies such as FalconWorks that support huge numbers of jobs in Fylde and across Lancashire?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. Every week, the Prime Minister comes to the Chamber and reads out this pre-scripted nonsense that bears no resemblance to the questions that he is actually asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked him about Peter Mandelson, and he answered about the war in Iran; the Leader of the Opposition asked him about Mandelson again, and he answered with an attack on the shadow Justice Secretary; he was asked about Mandelson again, and he talked about protests in London. What is he scared of? What is he hiding? For a man who has spent years presenting himself as a forensic investigator, he has certainly had a blind spot to the details for this convicted paedophile with a friend in high Labour places. So I ask him again: when he found out that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, did he speak to Lord Mandelson personally before appointing him as ambassador to the United States?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Skills · Hansard source

  More

  On that Chorley and Lancashire theme, it will not be possible to increase the defence skills in this country if the defence jobs of the future are not secure in that pipeline. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State talk earlier about British jobs, British industry and British innovation—he can probably gather where this is going, judging from the whispering on the Government Front Bench—so I was confused when there was bragging about ordering from British companies for defence as to why American F-35s were ordered, not British Typhoons. Given that we will need around 100 aircraft to maintain the workforce at Warton for Tempest in the future, I assume, whenever the defence investment plan is finally published, we will see an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF within it.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Earlier I asked the Secretary of State if he would confirm an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF after claiming the Government were backing British jobs, but the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry deployed the power of waffle to avoid answering the question. Just to be absolutely clear, I did welcome Turkey’s order of Typhoons, but, as I know and as he knows, it will not come anywhere near close to closing the skills gap between now and Tempest. Would the Secretary of State like to clarify this: will there be an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF in the defence investment plan?

• 25 Feb 2026 · UK-German Relations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), on securing this important debate. As we are going down the line of declaring interests or key products that we own, I too am a loyal customer of BMW and own one now. I realise that we will probably get some nasty emails from all the “buy British” campaigners, since we have declared our love for German cars. To pick up on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on town twinning, I reassure her that it is okay to have Tory friends occasionally; if Labour party T-shirts are to be believed, you are just not allowed to kiss us. In the debate generally, that clear love for Germany, the relationships that people built up and the places that they enjoyed visiting really came across. I note that, as a proud Brexiteer, I am heavily outnumbered in this Chamber, although I was grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he has now legged it—who is usually my Brexiteer bodyguard in Westminster Hall debates. Perhaps we will save that one for discussion over a litre or two of Weissbier. Few bilateral relationships matter more to Britain’s security, prosperity and global standing than our partnership with Germany. This is a year of particular significance, as has been noted, but also marks 80 years since Britain founded North Rhine-Westphalia after the second world war, today Germany’s most populous state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was pleased to meet the North Rhine-Westphalia International Affairs Minister in Munich earlier this month, along with the German Foreign Minister. We Conservatives recognise that a confident Britain needs a confident, outward-looking Germany as a partner, and that a strong Germany and a strong Britain can be an anchor of stability at a time of global volatility. From a party political perspective, we are naturally pleased to see our sister party, the CDU/CSU, return to Government. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary attended the Munich security conference, where she met German counterparts from our sister party to reaffirm the depth of the UK-German relationship and our shared determination to strengthen European and transatlantic security. Germany is now markedly stepping up its role in European and global security. The new federal Government have put significant resource behind defence and support for Ukraine. Germany’s 2026 budget includes a commitment to provide in excess of €11 billion in support to Ukraine, which is extremely welcome and will make a material difference on the ground. Politically, Berlin has taken steps to alter long-standing fiscal constraints so that it can fund the rearmament. The medium-term fiscal plan and recent constitutional adjustments reflect a willingness to unlock resources for defence in a way not seen for decades. The way in which Germany is funding its defence rise is, of course, specific to its fiscal situation and the way it manages its economy and spending, which is different from the UK. That, however, raises some simple but urgent questions for our own Government as part of that relationship. If one of our closest allies can set a date and a credible trajectory for higher defence spending, why has the UK not done the same? Germany has been explicit about its political timetable for increasing defence spending. By contrast, here at home we are still waiting for the defence investment plan, which the Government told us was due last autumn and has now been repeatedly delayed. In my constituency, I have a great defence manufacturing capability in BAE Systems, and I would like to see much more defence industrial collaboration across the board with Germany, made possible by the defence investment plan. With NATO allies, industry leaders and even senior military figures noting the strategic importance of clear spending pathways, can the Minister finally say when the defence investment plan will be published, and how it will ensure we meet our NATO ambitions? The Conservatives in Government laid the foundations for the deepening of UK-German co-operation, in particular on defence: the 2024 defence declaration, the Trinity House arrangements on defence and industrial co-operation, and the long-range precision missiles are of significance. Will the Government publish a clear timetable for delivering against those commitments and the commitments set out in the 2025 Kensington treaty? What progress has been made to date, and what should we expect to see in the coming weeks and months? Britain and Germany can together anchor European security in an unpredictable world. The Opposition want that partnership to flourish and will support steps that deepen it, but we will also insist that the British Government match their own rhetoric with credible resource plans. Only then will a strong Germany and a strong UK translate ambition into the hard capabilities required.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to the UN’s stats on the amount of aid that has been misappropriated shortly. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think it is a tad rich to talk about one-sidedness when the word “Hamas” was hardly mentioned in many of the contributions that we heard earlier. The Government say that they have been calling for broader aid access, but calling for something is not the same as achieving it. We need to know whether Ministers have put forward specific, concrete proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points into Gaza, whether those proposals have been presented directly to the Government of Israel, and their response. Will the Minister tell us what quantity and type of medical aid has been funded and prepared for this moment? Where is it currently stationed? How much of it has entered Gaza? Which organisations are distributing it? Critically, what new safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid reaches innocent civilians, not terrorist groups? Aid diversion is not a peripheral concern; it is central. Since the ceasefire announcement on 10 October 2025 and 11 February 2026, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that 1,532 aid pallets have been verified as being intercepted during transit within Gaza. Although the destination of the pallets cannot be confirmed, it does not require too much imagination to work out where they have ended up. That is why we cannot discuss Gaza’s healthcare collapse in isolation from the wider political and security situation—the two are inseparable. The ceasefire provides an opening, but a ceasefire is not peace, and the Government seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge what is needed to convert one into the other. If the ceasefire is to translate into something sustainable, Hamas must be removed from power once and for all, and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Events of recent days—the violence between Hamas and armed groups and clans within Gaza—underline precisely why Hamas cannot be permitted any future role in the governance of the territory. Hamas have no regard for human life or human dignity; they never have. That brings me to governance. Rebuilding Gaza’s health system without addressing who actually governs Gaza is an exercise in futility. Have the Government had any meaningful say in the composition of the transitional Administration? Has anything of substance on governance reform emerged from the so-called memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority—a document that did not even address corruption or antisemitism in school curricula? If the Palestinian Authority is to play an extended role, it must implement the most significant reforms in its history. That includes on healthcare, welfare, education, and frankly, basic democratic accountability.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate to allow us to consider this important matter, and Members who have contributed to it. To pick up on some of the things that have been said so far, it is pretty obvious that everybody in this Chamber who has taken part in the debate and in other debates, whether here or in the main Chamber, wants peace for Gaza and for Israel. As always, there will be differences about the route to that peace, what people feel is getting in the way, and what more needs to be done. On some of the things that were said about the volume of aid, I note that since the conflict began, about 2 million tonnes of aid have entered Gaza. As for the management of that aid, given the industrial scale of the misappropriation of aid and the dual-use items that have enabled Hamas, over two decades, to build their terror network and to sustain their war effort, something is required to ensure that security concerns are addressed.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Lady for the point of order and continued interventions. Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2 of the ceasefire process? We also want the UK to be engaged in expanding the Abraham accords. Saudi normalisation with Israel remains, in our view, the single most consequential diplomatic prize in the region, and potentially the most realistic path to a durable peace. We are enthusiastic supporters of that route, but we are considerably less convinced that the Labour Government share that enthusiasm or are working with the urgency the moment demands. The people of Gaza are suffering. That suffering is real and severe, and demands a response commensurate with its scale. The fighting war may have ceased temporarily, but the people of Gaza are still living with the jackboot of Hamas holding back any hope of prosperity or rebuilding the healthcare system. The Opposition have consistently called for more aid, including healthcare aid, to flow into Gaza, for it to be delivered safely and exclusively to innocent civilians, and for a sustainable end to the terrible conflict that guarantees security for both Israel and the Palestinian people.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for my temporary elevation; I enjoyed my 30 seconds as a Minister, but that is all I will get for now. I will come on to future aid, the volume of aid that needs to get in, dual-use items, to which I have referred, and other issues. I just wanted to pick up on and address some of the alternative facts. The situation in Gaza is serious and severe. Hamas and their Iranian sponsors bear responsibility for the continued suffering. Hamas launched their attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. They have refused to disarm and have infiltrated and used civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as shields and military defensive positions. The whole House should be united in calling Hamas out, and it is important that the Minister gives us an update on the steps that the Government are taking to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, including the removal of Hamas.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress first, given the time, but I will take interventions. The new NGO restrictions that are about to come into place affect some 15% of the aid agencies operating within Gaza, and those agencies have contributed about 1% of the aid delivery throughout the conflict. Some of those that have been notified of the new restrictions have applied and been approved to operate again in the area.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I am running out of time, and I have taken several interventions. Our support should be conditional on those reforms being delivered. Have the Government made that case clearly to the Palestinian Authority? I also ask the Minister whether the UK will be scaling up its involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. Is Britain contributing to the demilitarisation of Gaza and the disarming of Hamas? Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2—

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a pleasure to serve under both your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and Sir Jeremy’s. This debate is as important now as it was on the very first day of the illegal invasion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is also chair of the APPG on Ukraine, on securing the debate and on his long-standing commitment to the cause. He set out a clear passion for not just ending the conflict, but exposing the horrific atrocities that Russia has committed in Ukraine. He also said that the peace we hopefully secure for Ukraine should be lasting and fair for its people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former chair of the APPG, brought a wealth of experience to the debate and highlighted that we have a trio of Members in the debate who have the Ukrainian Order of Merit, showing the commitment over many years of Members across this House to supporting our allies. For many Members, it is not a new-found interest or cause; it has been of grave concern for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) gave us a history lesson, and spoke about the lessons that we should learn from history, which I will touch on later. Often, we do not learn the obvious lessons from the pages of our history books. As pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, it is easy to think of the Ukrainian conflict as something that purely happens elsewhere and not in our own country or on our own Facebook and X feeds —that it is not about Russia actively being aggressive to us through cyber-warfare. But addressing the misinformation that exists in our society is equally as important in fighting the conflict. The Opposition remain steadfast in our commitment to the people of Ukraine and their right to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the freedom and democracy of its citizens. This was an illegal invasion and we are clear that territorial concessions would simply be a reward for Putin. It does not take a degree in military history to know that if we appease a dictator with concessions, they will never be content with small gains—and, by the way, I have a degree in military history, and I know from my studies that if we acquiesce now, Putin will not simply stop with Ukraine or bits of Ukraine. He will come for our other allies in eastern Europe, and he will not be happy until NATO has been torn apart by Russia’s territorial ambitions and actions. Russia’s demands have been deliberately excessive, with Russia no doubt intending to paint Ukraine as unreasonable for simply seeking peace in its own territory. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has rightly pointed out, with this statecraft, Mr Putin has his KGB playbook out. We cannot accept that. The recent trilateral talks once again highlight Ukraine’s sincere desire for peace. What is the British Government’s assessment of those talks and whether any progress has been made? Does the Minister agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove that he is sincere about wanting an end to this war, in contradiction to some of the things that we have heard today? We all saw the disgraceful attacks on Kyiv that Putin launched against the backdrop of the talks. Any sincere attempt for peace must surely be preceded by an end to the killing of innocent people. This war has been nothing other than barbaric. Russia has targeted civilians; women and children have been killed in indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities; children have been abducted from their parents; and strikes on energy infrastructure have led to power outages and no heating—while temperatures have hovered around minus 15°C for three weeks. The Ukrainian people are suffering, even in parts of the country where Russia’s military has not managed to penetrate. What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of Ukrainian citizens in areas under Russian control, and what future guarantees will they seek for citizens in the event of peace being agreed? If a peace is reached with military guarantees from Europe, and British troops are sent to help facilitate that peace, what does the Minister expect the rules of engagement to be? How many troops does he envisage we would send? How would rotations work? What are his thoughts on the composition of the force, and would any British soldiers be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? Finally, what air and naval assets might be provided as part of a multinational force for Ukraine? To keep the pressure on Putin to end the war, we must continue to increase sanctions. Throughout the conflict, we have rightly sanctioned assets in the UK and Europe that could have been used to aid the Russians in their illegal war. Thousands of oligarchs and Russian elites received sanctions, including in 2022 when the regime attempted to construct a phony referendum in four regions of Ukraine. Will the Minister assure us that any attempt by Russia to fabricate legitimacy through a false cloak of democracy will continue to be called out for what it is? Does he have any updates on dialogue with Belgium about efforts to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s war effort?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  As I said at the start of my remarks, it is very easy to think that this is only happening over in Ukraine and is not something that is happening right here. The sentencing of Nathan Gill should prompt some real reflection by Reform UK on why that activity happened for so long, unchallenged, and why Nathan felt comfortable in that party. That is something that Reform UK should seriously reflect on—and their views. When we were in government, we led the world in defending Ukraine. We committed to providing £3 billion of military support every year for as long as necessary, and we were one of the leading donors to Ukraine, providing over £12 billion in overall support since 2022. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. We benefited from cross-party support when we were in government, and it is in that spirit that I stand here today. The Conservatives stand ready to support the Government in doing whatever it takes to help our ally to defeat this monstrous invasion, and to determine and decide its own future.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Cyber-attacks: Global Response · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  That is the nub of the argument about why this debate is about sovereign capability. While there will be balance—I will come on to the difference in capabilities between the aircraft, as raised by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone)—this is about maintaining a sovereign capability that, once gone, would take a generation to bring back. This goes beyond jobs. To maintain and develop our sovereign capability, the RAF needs to be investing in, using and supporting the development of Typhoon. The RAF needs to be fully bought into its development: working with BAE systems on future orders, defining new requirements and capabilities, and enabling the development of future generations of the aircraft—a role only the RAF can truly play. The 6,000 jobs at the Warton site make up a workforce who, if lost, take our sovereign capability with them. The only way to secure the site to allow the time to secure multiple export orders was to place the order for the RAF as part of the strategic defence review. This also made sense because it would have boosted the export campaign itself—it is a pretty hard sell to make when we are not even buying it ourselves. Someone I spoke to about the export campaign said that one of the first questions they always get asked is, “Are you buying it yourselves?” What kind of message does it send to say, “Please buy our fighters while we go to buy somebody else’s”? To go back to the need to bridge the period between now and Tempest coming live, it is important to note that Tempest will not replace Typhoon. The point is simply that the site is secured by the order book for the new aircraft going live. We will still need the more agile fighter jet category that Typhoon occupies, as the different aircraft will perform differing air combat roles. As one person from the military described it to me: “Tempest is the big, bad aircraft that has the tech and payload to blast into the battlefield and establish air superiority. The role of future generations of Typhoon is to then clear up, run smaller missions and maintain that air superiority.” That makes it even more critical that the RAF and the Government remain bought into the continued development of Typhoon. They must place regular new orders, in addition to carrying out refurbishment, as we will need that sovereign capability for generations to come alongside Tempest. If we continue to erode the skills base, with investment and innovation in favour of paying for America to develop and maintain its own sovereign capability instead, ours will wither as a result of the UK’s short sightedness. That is why I have been like a dog with a bone about this issue since getting elected. It has been obvious over the past few years that the decision about the order of the 25 Typhoon jets would fall on whoever was in power when the next big defence review was conducted. To address the hon. Member for Swindon North’s intervention, I had hoped that the review would take a holistic look at what placing an order would mean, not just for the RAF’s specifications and requirements but for maintaining our sovereign capability—a phrase I am deliberately using over and over again. We should count ourselves incredibly lucky as a country that we are more secure for being able to produce our own fighter jets. We should do everything at every opportunity to invest in and continue to develop and improve that capability. Instead, the order has been sent across the Atlantic, with a vote of confidence in and a significant investment cheque for another country’s sovereign capability over our own. Even if there were certain requirements, and the RAF had been led to believe that the F-35 had advantages, the investment could and should have been made in the Typhoon programme, through BAE Systems, as part of the continued development of that aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work when we make our own aircraft. But I suspect that there may have been more to it than just that. Members may be surprised to know that this is by far and away not the first time I have discussed Typhoon and Tempest in Parliament. The ebb and flow of questions and answers on this subject between me and Ministers runs through Hansard over the last 18 months. Let us take a little trip down memory lane and look at some of the timeline. We start on 7 November 2024, with a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence. I simply asked whether the Department had a budget for new Typhoons in 2025-26. The then Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), replied: “Budget allocations for 2025-26 will be set in the usual way and informed by the findings of the Strategic Defence Review.” In a follow-up written question on 15 November 2024, I asked what steps the Department was therefore taking, given that the production line was already falling empty, to ensure that skilled workers in the defence sector were maintained. I received what can be described only as a public sector word salad of an answer, talking about partnership working and future procurement strategies, while the assembly line emptied. On 28 November, starting to get frustrated, I asked a question in business questions. I gave the long timeline of written and oral questions I had asked, trying to get answers and certainty, only to be brushed off by Minister after Minister. I was promised a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Typhoon order—it never happened. On 6 January 2025, in defence questions, I asked: “Christmas came early for the UK defence industry when Spain placed an order for 25 Eurofighters on 20 December, and Italy followed suit on the 24th. But there is still nothing from the UK Government on the 25 Typhoon jets that are needed for the RAF. Will the Minister spread some festive cheer into the new year, and give us an update on where the Government are with placing that order for 25 Typhoon fighter jets—a delayed Christmas present for the UK defence industry and the RAF?” The Minister for Defence Procurement replied: “I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important”— critically— “in addition to production for our own use.” There was then a general comment about the strategic defence review, and the Minister finished by saying: “The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions”— slightly obvious. She went on: “It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.” —[ Official Report , 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.] “Yes,” I thought, “there it is: a hint on the Floor of the House that the order for Typhoon is coming.” It was said in the strongest possible terms without saying, “Yes, we are about to buy them. Please, just wait.”

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is giving a good speech in defence of jobs in his constituency. On the point about previous years—I touched on this in my speech—it became obvious that the next big defence review would have to be the point where the crunch decision was made on this. I echo the point—it was probably remiss of me to miss this out in my opening remarks—that placing that order and then potentially releasing it is a very good way of not only potentially boosting the export campaign, but covering the two to three-year critical gap that we have now that the assembly line will be empty. I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Typhoon fighter sovereign capability. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I requested this debate as an opportunity to have the time and space for a more in-depth discussion about securing the future of our sovereign capability in air combat, with the most pressing element being the production of Typhoon fighters at the BAE Systems Warton site in my constituency. The skilled workforce and cutting-edge technology that make Warton the world-leading facility that it is have taken decades and billions of pounds of investment to develop and maintain. As I go around my constituency, I meet families who now have three generations working at the site and dedicating their careers to it. When we combine the number of jobs provided to local people with all those who have moved to Fylde to work in the critical defence sector, it is easy to understand why it is such an emotive subject. Their service, ingenuity, skill and determination over generations of workers has built a truly impressive sovereign capability.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me; the hon. Lady will gather from my accent that I will have a slight Lancashire bias in this debate. However, it is obvious from the stats that BAE Systems produces on economic impact and jobs that the supply chain—all those who contribute to the production of Typhoons—is spread across the country. It is a nationwide effort to maintain this sovereign capability. Very few countries in the world can boast the ability to fully assemble their own world-class fighter jets. In an ever-more unpredictable, hostile and dangerous world, we are reminded of why having such assets and abilities is so important. Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record again my thanks on behalf of Fylde, Lancashire and the whole country for all the work that has gone into securing the Turkey Typhoon order, which is one of a number of potential deals that has been in the making for several years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) recalled to me the standing weekly meetings that were held in the Ministry of Defence during his time as the Minister for Defence Procurement, to keep the pressure on and the momentum going to secure export orders. His and others’ work was critical in overcoming our German partners’ objections to exporting Typhoon to certain countries, and the recent deal would not have been possible without that significant amount of work. The new Government clearly picked up the mantle with vigour and determination to get the deal over the line. There is plenty of glory and praise to go around for everyone. It is a major boost that has been warmly welcomed in Fylde and Lancashire, but we all know from the history of the Eurofighter programme, and Tornado before it, that export orders alone cannot sustain it. While everyone involved in the deal should take time to pat themselves on the back, there is significantly more work to be done before anyone can rest easy that this sovereign capability is secured into the next generation. To put this into sharp context, we are now the only partner in the Eurofighter programme that is not purchasing Eurofighter. Not only that, but the Government have made an active decision to purchase 25 American F-35s instead of British Typhoons. Along with many people right across Lancashire, local businesses and the unions, I am utterly perplexed and concerned by that decision.