James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  As loath as I am to talk about political footballs, given that our football team is in action tonight, it is nevertheless pretty obvious: whether it is football, rugby or a tug of war, we already have a massive argument between the heart of Government and the shadow Government over who is in charge. At a time when we face serious threats, that is an extraordinary position for Labour to have us in.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his service in Afghanistan, and that of other colleagues present in the Chamber. He is absolutely right. When we debated the President’s remarks about Greenland, I made the point on the media round that Denmark had the highest per capita losses in Afghanistan, and the other nations all suffered. We all fought together because it was a common cause.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Russian Ship Yantar · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I echo what you said: it is unacceptable that we are getting the Minister’s update on a major national security incident 24 hours after the Secretary of State gave his press conference. Have Ministers learned nothing from the total shambles of the strategic defence review, when defence companies got a copy many hours before parliamentarians? I turn to the incident, which appears to represent a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland. Given the priority of protecting our service personnel—I welcome the news that the P-8 pilots were unharmed—will the Minister outline what mitigations are being taken against the evolving laser threat involved? This incident surely underlines that Russia remains a serious threat. That being so, we could not help but notice that yesterday the Defence Secretary got the podium out for the media just as the Defence Committee was publishing a damning report about Labour’s total lack of progress on boosting our defence readiness. The report said that when it comes to readiness the Government are moving “at a glacial pace”. On the subject of pace, the SDR promised a defence readiness Bill that would include measures to deal with the grey zone threat, but Ministers recently told me that it has not even been timetabled. In what year will the defence readiness Bill become law? Capability questions will be key when it comes to undersea cables, but every one of Labour’s defence policy papers has been late. The Government promised to publish the defence investment plan “in the autumn”. With a week of that season remaining, will they keep that promise? As the Minister knows better than anyone, when it comes to the hybrid threat, our special forces are more important than ever. Is he not concerned that General Sir Michael Rose, who led the relief of the Iranian embassy siege that made the SAS world-famous, has condemned the Government for “hounding SAS veterans”, warning that that will harm recruitment and morale? The Yantar incident shows the seriousness of the threat that we face, but what are the Government actually doing in response? The answer: Labour is cutting £2.6 billion from defence spending this year, surrendering sovereignty of the Chagos islands and, following its shameful vote this week, putting the British Army back in the dock.

• 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

  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.