James Cartlidge MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on tabling this urgent question. It was a real pleasure to visit the Leonardo factory last September and witness how critical it is to employment in his constituency. Visiting the factory, one gets a powerful sense of Britain’s rotary history, but we want it to have a brilliant future too. That is why it is so worrying that the CEO of Leonardo recently warned that at least 3,300 jobs could be at risk if the NMH procurement does not go ahead. It was with those jobs in mind that when I announced the formal tender of the new medium helicopter as Defence Procurement Minister in February 2024, I took the decision to give a much stronger weighting to two key areas of the tender: first, the commitment of bidders to delivering high-skilled rotary work in the UK; and secondly, exportability, so that the supply chain could endure. All that will count for nothing if the procurement is cancelled. Can the Minister confirm whether there is still a military requirement for NMH? If so, is he still committed to procuring NMH? After all, when I asked the question last April, I was told I would get the answer in the strategic defence review, but the SDR document never mentioned NMH at all. Instead, when the Secretary of State announced the SDR to Parliament last June, he said that the detailed decisions would be covered in the defence investment plan, which he said then would be published in the autumn of 2025. Given that it is now 2026, and that promise has clearly been broken, can the Minister tell us in which month he will finally publish the DIP? Can he confirm reports from multiple sources that the reason the DIP is delayed is that there is now a £28 billion black hole in the MOD budget? Finally, the Budget Red Book shows exactly what Labour will spend on removing the two-child benefit cap right up to 2031, but does not say what the defence budget will be that year. Can the Minister tell us? Is the reality not that by prioritising welfare over going to 3% on defence this Parliament, Labour are paralysing decision making in the Ministry of Defence and putting thousands of jobs at risk in our defence industry at Yeovil and across the UK?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing he provided to me and other parliamentarians on today’s operation. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, there should always be a statement to Parliament when UK troops are committed abroad, and we hope that the Secretary of State can provide a little more clarity than the Prime Minister was willing to provide earlier. In recent days, we have seen extraordinary international developments, particularly in relation to Venezuela, but it remains the case that the single most important military action of recent years affecting our nation’s security is Putin’s illegal and wholly unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The ensuing war has led to terrible loss of life, and we all want peace, but it must be a lasting one on acceptable terms to Ukraine, and with credible security guarantees, so that any post-ceasefire settlement can endure. Having led the way in supporting Ukraine at the outset of the invasion, we will, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine. Specifically, it is entirely right to plan for a ceasefire. Just as we brought together an international coalition to provide weapons to Ukraine, we welcome the way the Government have worked with international partners to plan how a potential ceasefire will be supported militarily. As to the detail of the plans, can the Secretary of State provide further information on the number of personnel involved? Earlier today, the Prime Minister did not give any specific details on troop numbers, yet The Times is reporting that the figure will be fewer than 7,500. What more can he tell us on that? Can he say more about the composition of the force that is to be deployed? Specifically, we note that British soldiers will be involved in logistics and training, but what proportion, if any, will be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? What air and naval assets does he plan to provide as part of the multinational force for Ukraine? On rules of engagement, we note from the joint declaration of intent that our service personnel will be granted “the use of force to fulfil the mission” of the MFU, and will “co-operate in accordance with international law” and “respect for human rights…as reflected in other international agreements whose participants are the Signatories.” Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means that our soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment? Can he also state the exact mission of the MFU? The declaration of intent refers to “other contributing nations”, but does not name any countries from outside Ukraine other than Britain and France, so can he list those nations and tell the House what their primary contribution will be? On the crucial matter of security guarantees, there appears to be no mention of any such guarantees in the declaration of intent. Can the Secretary of State tell us what explicit security guarantees the United States has agreed to, and will they involve US boots on the ground? Of course, this force would only be deployed in the event of a ceasefire being agreed with Russia, so what is his contingency plan in the event that the ceasefire is broken after the MFU has been deployed? Does this not point to the most important consideration: that this whole plan is based on the assumption that there is a genuine ceasefire? Having personally passionately backed Ukraine’s fight for freedom throughout, I would dearly love to believe that this peace is possible soon, but I fear that the occupant of the Kremlin is not interested in peace. Does the Secretary of State agree that in parallel with any preparation for the MFU, there must be no let-up whatsoever in the application of maximum economic pressure on Russia, along with all possible continued support for Ukraine? Turning to other developments, we support today’s operation by the United States to seize the MV Bella 1 tanker in order to enforce sanctions on Iran. We also welcome the UK’s enabling role, undertaken by Royal Navy and RAF assets, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State on the objectives he set out, not least the objective of reinforcing our homeland security. I am pleased to hear that the operation has been successful, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to all personnel involved, and I join the Secretary of State in recognising the skill and bravery of the US forces who participated. On the wider matter of Iran, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with all those who in recent days have had the courage to defy that nation’s despotic and repressive regime. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not speculate on operational planning by us or our allies, can he reassure the House that his Department is conducting contingency planning in case of any further escalation of internal unrest in Iran? On Greenland, we totally support Denmark’s sovereignty over that territory. While the United States remains our closest ally, it is surely not in the interest of the US or any of our allies for NATO’s shared commitments to be undermined to any degree. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition earlier, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will be seeking an urgent meeting of all NATO members to provide mutual reassurance on the matter of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland? Finally, is not the common thread in all this that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and we must therefore rapidly ramp up our defence spending and rearmament? When will the Secretary of State finally publish the defence investment plan?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Q uestion): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill on armed forces recruitment and retention.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  Our legacy Act ensured that those who served bravely in Northern Ireland could sleep soundly in their beds at night, knowing that they would not be hauled before the courts for protecting all of us from terrorism decades ago. But when our Act was challenged in the courts, instead of appealing, Labour immediately caved and is now scrapping those protections. This will reopen cases, such as Loughgall, from 1987, when IRA members were shot while mounting a bomb attack on a police station, having fired first on the Army. Loughgall involved 24 SAS soldiers, so it is no wonder that on 30 December, seven senior former SAS officers wrote an extraordinary letter stating: “Commanders now hesitate, fearing years of litigation. Troops feel abandoned…This self-sabotage needs no foreign hand…In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.” The Minister knows the operational importance of special forces as much as anyone. Does he recognise the huge hit to morale if cases like Loughgall are restarted because of the troubles Bill? Of course, the Government will say that we need the troubles Bill to pursue unsolved IRA crimes, but as the Prime Minister’s own appointed Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner David Johnstone warned last week, soldiers may be dragged before the courts, but IRA terrorists walk free because the weapons they used were decommissioned without forensic testing. Was the commissioner not right to say that veterans are treated “worse than terrorists”? Furthermore, last October the Government said that the troubles Bill would contain protections specifically for veterans. Will the Minister confirm that all the protections in the Bill also apply to terrorists? In November, eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal described the troubles Bill as a “direct threat to national security”. The letter from seven former SAS officers said that they “are not asking for immunity; they simply want fair procedures and decisive political leadership”. With the threats that we face and the need to maximise recruitment and retention, can the Minister show decisive political leadership of his own and scrap the troubles Bill?