James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I always make the effort to recognise the contribution of the whole of our Union to our armed forces on all fronts in the second world war and throughout the history of our military. As I have said, many colleagues have spoken about their family connections. I was very moved by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who spoke about her grandfather’s service at Kohima. That was a key battle in the Burma campaign, and it is from where we get the Kohima epitaph, which we all know: “When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today.” Those are immortal words. I understand that we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing forward this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. He spoke so vividly of the horror of the enslavement of POWs and, in his words, the “scars that never healed”. Having said that, we also heard from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who reminded us that today we have a strong relationship with Japan through GCAP—I was proud to be part of the global combat air programme as a Minister in the MOD—and also with Italy, which was part of the Axis powers in Europe. We enjoy brighter relations now, even though, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) pointed out, perhaps some in Japanese society have not fully come to terms with what happened in the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke very movingly about the Burma Star Association. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) importantly stressed the role that our veterans groups will have in these festivities in the coming weeks as we remember VJ Day. I note that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke specifically about veterans and the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, which remains very important. We hope his speech indicates that, if legislation comes forward, he will vote in the appropriate way to stand by our veterans. The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), in an excellent speech, spoke very movingly of Donald Rose, who was 110 years old when he died and at one point the oldest person in the country. That was an extraordinarily brave tale, and I am grateful to him for sharing it with us. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). No debate on the far east would be possible without mention of the Chindits, which I understand were formally known as the long-range penetration groups. He reminded us of the ravages of disease, which is the scourge of our forces in many ways. In that case it was malaria, but there was also dysentery, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and many other horrors were out there in the jungle during fighting. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) spoke about the Birmingham association for the Far East Prisoners of War, reminding us of the role of civic society in helping POWs to come to terms with the horrors that they experienced in the far east. We heard a number of colleagues speak about specific elements of our armed forces and their service. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke movingly about the Border Regiment and described it fighting through monsoons. That was an extraordinary record. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) very proudly spoke about the Royal Navy. She is very proud to have a naval constituency, and she is absolutely right to stress the extremely important role of the British Pacific fleet. In fact, I believe it played a crucial role in those final months as US forces were heading towards the Japanese home island, using our own fleet to enable that military progress, which was incredibly important. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood spoke of the horror of the Burma railway, which many of us have heard of. I had a great uncle who was involved in it, but he would never speak of it, so shocking was the reality, despite being such a gentle man. The hon. Lady spoke particularly about how emaciated the survivors were and how many died of starvation.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It was less than a month ago that the United States undertook a bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities—one of the most significant military actions undertaken anywhere in the world for years. With such developments understandably dominating the headlines, and almost three and a half years having elapsed since Russia first launched its unprovoked and illegal all-out invasion, it is right that the Government regularly update the House—as we did—on developments in Ukraine. The reality is that there has been no let-up in Russian aggression. As the Secretary of State confirmed, 9 July saw the largest drone attack of the war by Russia, and there were reports yesterday of Russia using 400 drones to target energy infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. That indiscriminate barbarism has inevitably led to further civilian casualties, but on the military side, can the Secretary of State confirm that Russia has suffered by far the greatest losses? He confirmed that last month, Russian battlefield casualties surpassed 1 million. Does that not show the extent to which Putin has nothing but callous disregard for the human impact of his actions on either side? I am proud of the decisive assistance that we provided to Ukraine when we were in office. We continue to stand with the Government in seeking to provide all possible support, but it is vital that all our allies play their part. On France, and what was previously called the coalition of the willing, I agree that we need to be ready for when that peace comes, so can the Secretary of State confirm how many other nations will provide fighter jets to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Can he confirm that there is no longer any planning for a land combat element to the MNFU? We welcome the additional provision of military hardware by the US, but the Secretary of State said that “we plan to play our full part.” Will the UK therefore be purchasing military equipment from the United States to pass on to Ukraine? The Secretary of State did not mention potential sanctions or tariffs. It has been widely reported that President Trump is considering tariffs of 100% on goods entering the US from any country that imports any product from Russia. Have the Government discussed this plan with the US, and will the UK follow suit? The Times reports today that Andriy Yermak, senior adviser to President Zelensky, has stated that the imposition of secondary sanctions on nations buying oil and gas from Russia could end the war “before the end of this year.” Does the Secretary of State agree with that analysis, and again, would the UK join in any secondary sanctions policy directed against countries importing Russian oil and gas? On Germany, we understand that the Prime Minister is meeting Chancellor Merz today. May I urge the Government to push their German counterparts on provision of Taurus missiles to Ukraine? Alternatively, given that the missiles are, we understand, compatible with Typhoon, will the Government backfill UK stocks to enable the provision of more Storm Shadow missiles? Turning to the impact of all this on the UK, we understand that Germany will today sign an agreement with the Prime Minister to come to each other’s aid in the event of an attack on the other. Will the Secretary of State outline how that is different from NATO article 5? I have had recent discussions with senior German parliamentarians on the impact on our nations of supporting Ukraine, and the Germans believe, as has been widely reported, that drone overflights of their military bases were linked to nefarious Russian activity. In the context of recent threats to RAF bases, and drone overflights at Suffolk RAF bases and elsewhere last November, can he update us at all—I appreciate the sensitivity of this—on whether there is yet any indication of Russian involvement? In particular, will he update us on progress on the review of security at UK bases, which he launched last month? When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I stripped out a whole load of processes and red tape to bring forward the in-service date of our groundbreaking DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to 2027. Given the extraordinary potential for directed energy weapons, will the Secretary of State accelerate adoption even further, and ensure rapid testing of anti-drone defences for our military bases? On drones more broadly, in a written answer in March, Ministers confirmed that they had ordered just three military drones for our armed forces since the election. I have tabled subsequent written questions on progress, and Ministers are now saying that they cannot answer the question. What is the latest figure? UK small and medium-sized enterprises have provided some of the best drones and counter-drone measures used on the live battlefield in Ukraine, so why are we not ordering the same kit in parallel for our own Army, at scale and at pace, so that it can train today—not years in the future—in how war is fought right now in Ukraine? After three and half years of war, we must keep reminding the British public of the most important point for our national interest—namely, that the best way to defend our homeland right now is to give all possible support to Ukraine, so that the democracy triumphs over the dictatorship, and to prevent Putin’s aggression from spreading westwards.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for receipt earlier this morning of a hard copy of the Rimmer review. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces for briefing me yesterday and other parliamentary colleagues today. Furthermore, given the nature of the super-injunction and the fact that the timing and nature of the statement relate entirely to the court’s lifting of that super-injunction, I recognise that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I welcome the opportunity that colleagues now have to scrutinise these matters. Let me begin by declaring an interest. I was a Defence Minister in August 2023, when the Department first became aware of the breach, my main role being to chair one meeting on the matter in August 2023 because I was the duty Minister. Thereafter, however, as Minister for Defence Procurement and with this sitting outside my portfolio, I had relatively minimal direct involvement. That said, the Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that, and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols. I also agree that it is right for an apology to be issued specifically to those whose data was compromised. It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that when this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then Government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario: namely, an error on the part of an official of the British state leading to the torture, or even murder, of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime. As the Rimmer review confirms, that scenario, thankfully, appears to have been avoided. Of course, we understand that the review was set up in January and reported to the Secretary of State in June. I want to be clear that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State has sought to update the Department’s understanding of the threat on the ground in Afghanistan that exists today, particularly for those persons in the dataset who had previously been considered to be at the greatest risk of reprisals. However, the House will appreciate that when Ministers became aware of the data breach in August 2023, we did not have the luxury of six months in which to assess the situation. As Rimmer says in paragraph 53: “The review notes that the passage of time is particularly relevant.” I know that my former ministerial colleague—the former Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, who led the response to the leak—will have been focused entirely on what he saw as his duty of care to those at risk of reprisals, based on the threat assessment that pertained at the time. However, any threat picture is constantly evolving, and as I say, I support the Secretary of State’s decision to review the MOD’s understanding of the threat. Given the latest situation, as reported by Rimmer, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan response route can now be closed. Turning to the super-injunction, I entirely understand why this would be a subject of considerable interest, particularly to the newspapers and media outlets concerned. We have an independent judiciary, and it is not for me to comment either on the decision to grant the injunction in the first place or to lift it today, but it is surely telling that paragraph 56 of the Rimmer review states that planning at the time that the Government became aware of the breach in the summer of 2023 was based on a “risk judgement that were the Taleban to secure access to the dataset, the consequences for affected individuals may be serious.” Had that not been the case, no doubt the Court would have been less likely to grant the injunction, and certainly not a super-injunction. On the leak, can the Secretary of State confirm that it was by a civil servant, and that Ministers at the time took steps to change the casework procedure by not using spreadsheets sent by email, but moving to a more secure system fully within the entirely secure network? Can he confirm that, although the dataset was of about 18,000, only a relatively small portion were identified as at high risk of reprisals, and only a small number had been settled here, which is why, as he stated, the cost is about £400 million, not the £7 billion reported elsewhere? Now that these matters are rightly in the public domain and given the reassessment of the threat in the Rimmer review, I agree that it would be wholly appropriate for the Defence Committee and others to look further into these matters. Can the Secretary of State comment on one specific item being reported, which is that someone—I refer not to the person who made the leak, but another apparent third party who obtained some of the data—was engaged in blackmail? Did the original Metropolitan police investigation look at that, and if not, will he consider reopening it so that the police can look at that specific point, which has serious implications? Although we must recognise the huge role played by Afghan nationals in support of our armed forces, any policy in this area must always be balanced against our own national interest. We support the Government in closing the ARR scheme, as we did with their decision to close the full ARAP programme.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK-France nuclear partnership.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I do think it is incredible that we have had to find out about such substantive matters overnight from the press and without a statement from the Government. We Conservatives back our nuclear deterrent 100% and have never wavered on that. We support steps that boost the resilience of our nuclear enterprise, diversify delivery and, above all, help our core continuous at-sea deterrence to remain the cornerstone of our homeland defence against the most extreme threats. We also welcome steps to genuinely strengthen UK-French co-operation on defence, building on Lancaster House. In particular, having been the Government who first authorised provision of long-range Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, we recognise the urgent need to replenish our own Storm Shadow stocks, which is in the press release. Can the Minister confirm whether we are placing orders for new Storm Shadow missiles from MBDA or simply reconditioning existing stocks? The nuclear aspect of this is by far the most significant. Can the Minister confirm where this will leave the operationally independent and sovereign nature of our existing Trident nuclear deterrent? The Telegraph quotes the declaration—which, of course, we have not seen—as saying that both nuclear arsenals “remain independent but can be co-ordinated and that there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by both nations”. Does this mean that our respective national deterrence will now be jointly operationally delivered, and how will that co-ordination take place in practice? Crucially, how does this new nuclear doctrine affect NATO and our very close co-operation on nuclear deterrence with the United States? Will France now be offering its nuclear deterrent to NATO, as we do? Perhaps most importantly, will France be joining the NATO Nuclear Planning Group? On the matter of tactical nuclear weapons, I have previously asked about options other than US-controlled gravity bombs, with no reply. Given the announcement on Storm Shadow and MBDA, will the UK and France now be looking at co-operation on tactical nuclear delivery options via our shared complex weapons industrial base? A particular concern of the Opposition is that there appears to be a deep paradox at play here: talk of closer co-operation with France, but in the background, the Government still getting nowhere on access to hard cash from the European rearmament fund, despite having given up our sovereign fishing grounds. To conclude, it is truly extraordinary that such significant defence developments do not warrant a Government statement, so the Minister must now be as transparent as possible in answering our questions—not least after weeks dominated by smoke and mirrors on defence spending and chaotic U-turns on welfare that raise the most profound question of all: where is the money going to come from?

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. May I seek your guidance on how to set the record straight? Following the question from the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), the Minister criticised the fact that I only partially referred to a quote from the declaration text. To be clear, I have not seen the declaration. It was leaked to the media overnight; that was all I could read from, and I am none the wiser from the answers we have just had.

• 10 Jul 2025 · UK-France Nuclear Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  But it has been briefed to the press.