James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. You will recall that the Government’s plan, announced today, to procure nuclear-certified F-35As was previously covered in The Sunday Times the day before the SDR was published. You therefore granted an urgent question that day on this very subject, but we received no meaningful answers at all. I hope the Minister can be more forthcoming today. On 25 May, I wrote in the Express that our nuclear forces needed to be “even more resilient”, including in respect of the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also, “potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.” That is because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and its ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able to do the same. In principle, then, I welcome the announcement, but I have the following questions. What is the anticipated in-service date for the 12 F-35As? Will they already be nuclear certified, or will that occur after delivery? We note that the 12 F-35As will be ordered instead of 12 F-35Bs, but will the Government still order the remaining F-35Bs as planned? How will the F-35As be air-to-air refuelled, given that the current RAF refuelling capability is probe and drogue? On operational sovereignty, we are fully committed to our strong military partnership with the United States, but given that the announcement is about diversity of delivery, has the Department given any thought to additional tactical options for which we have greater industrial input, such as Storm Shadow and Typhoon? Ironically, it was Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary in 1998, who removed our last air-launched nuclear capabilities. It is noteworthy that, as one of the authors of the SDR, he said to the Select Committee recently that the authors were “not terribly enthusiastic about it.” That is before we get to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary voted against the renewal of Trident. On this side of the House, we wholeheartedly back our nuclear deterrent. Does this situation not show why we need a robust plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament, rather than Labour’s smoke-and-mirrors and lack of a fully funded plan to properly increase defence spending in this Parliament?

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to today’s estimates debate on defence expenditure. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for securing the debate with the Backbench Business Committee, and particularly for timing it perfectly for the NATO summit and Armed Forces Week. Given the threats we face from Russia and the instability in the middle east and elsewhere, it is welcome in principle that NATO states have agreed at this week’s summit to increase spending. Nevertheless, when we consider what the Government’s announcement means for UK defence expenditure, we must be clear that talk of 5% on national security and 3.5% on defence is nothing but a con. It is unadulterated smoke and mirrors when we need real investment at real pace to produce a real step change in our deterrence. Consider first the promise of 5% on national security by 2035, consisting of 3.5% on the core defence budget and 1.5% on resilience and security. The Prime Minister confirmed on GB News yesterday that the 1.5% is already being spent. Not a penny of new money is being spent on actual military capability. As for the core defence budget, Labour has promised 3.5% in 10 years’ time, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed on yesterday’s media round that there is no plan to fund that increase, and there will not be one until at least 2029. If there is no plan for 3.5% in the Parliament after next, what about a plan for 3% in the next Parliament? The authors of the strategic defence review wrote on the day of its publication, 2 June, that the decision to go to 3% “established the affordability of our recommendations across a 10-year programme.” The problem is this: the Government no more have a plan to fund 3.5% in a decade than to fund 3% in the years leading up to it. It means that the promises of the SDR were dead on arrival, and the headline pledge of “up to 12” nuclear submarines is a fantasy fleet based on fantasy funding. Most worryingly, the smoke and mirrors are not just being used for spending in future Parliaments. What I am about to say is subject to the caveat that in response to our written questions to the Treasury, it is simply not sharing with us the quantum of money that has been moved from the intelligence budget into defence. Nevertheless, as far as we can see, Labour is not going to spend the 2.5% that it promised for defence by 2027. To recap, in his defence spending statement in February, the Prime Minister confirmed that intelligence spending would be added to the core defence budget, taking it to 2.6%. By our reckoning, that intelligence spend is the equivalent of almost 0.2% of GDP. Subtracting that from 2.6% gives a figure of just over 2.4%. The smoke and mirrors do not end there. That 2.4% will have to cover the cost of Chagos, which is at least £250 million next year, rising to a total of £30 billion. That 2.4% will also have to include spending on election interference, and other non-official development assistance FCDO expenditure that the spending review confirmed would now be added to the defence budget. The significance of that is that if 2.6% is actually in the region of 2.4%, it will mean that the increase in defence spending to 2027 is not the biggest since the cold war, because it will be less than the increase when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister in 2019. Here is the upshot of the so-called 5% on national security that Labour has announced at NATO: no new money in the 1.5% for security and resilience, just reclassification of existing spending; no plan to get to 3.5% on the core defence budget by 2035; and no plan to get to 3% on the core defence budget in the next Parliament. The detail of the spending review confirmed that when spending hits the supposed figure of 2.6% in 2027, it does not increase towards 3% but stays flat. Worse than that, as I have explained, defence spending does not get to 2.6% on defence at all, but to something like 2.4% at best. It is smoke and mirrors at every turn. If there is one thing worse than the lack of substance in Labour’s defence spending spin, it is the lack of urgency. Its promises are all about 2035, a decade away, but the threats that we face are real and imminent. As the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said in his excellent speech, last July the head of the Army, General Walker, said that we must be ready for a war not in a decade or even five years, but within three years. The SDR promised a bigger Army in reserve, but only in the 2030s. Its big headline promise on attack submarines will be delivered into the 2040s. Warfare is changing fast, but Labour is moving far too slowly. The SDR was promised for the spring, but published in the summer. The defence industrial strategy was also promised for the spring, but the Minister recently confirmed to me in a written answer that it is months away. The Government must move much faster to boost the total lethality of our forces in the near term, not least by rapidly embracing the extraordinary opportunity to boost our overall mass and capability through autonomous systems and drones. In my defence drone strategy, the aim was to provide high-quality drone and anti-drone tech for Ukraine—which we have done, and I am very proud of that—and then to learn from that, in parallel, to build a UK sovereign drone industrial base, but that has been completely stymied by the procurement freeze effectively in place since the election. Labour is prioritising penny-pinching over rapid rearmament. While Ukraine is producing thousands and thousands of drones every month, Labour ordered just three new military drones for the British armed forces in its first financial year in government. What would we do differently? We would go to 3% on defence in this Parliament. We would scrap the Government’s crazy Chagos deal and use the money to rapidly rearm, starting with next year’s £250 million on Chagos. That cash could be spent not on tax cuts for the Mauritians, but on drones and anti-drone tech from British SMEs—on tech that is battle-proven in Ukraine and can be produced in months, and that can be ordered at a low cost but a sufficient scale to enable the Army to start training comprehensively in drone warfare by next year. That is the kind of urgency that we need to see against the threat we face. If the country hears that the Government are going to spend 5% of GDP on defence, it will assume that it will be like in 1985, when we actually spent 5% of GDP on our military, not on smoke and mirrors. That gave us 337,000 regular personnel, over 600 combat aircraft and a full array of tactical nuclear weapons for land, sea and air. Perhaps there is a reason why our 5% then was so different from Labour’s 5% today: in 1985, our Prime Minister actually led the country. Instead of surrendering sovereignty, Mrs Thatcher stood up to Galtieri and successfully defended the Falklands. She would never have been neutral when asked if she supported strikes by the US on the nuclear programme of a country like Iran. By standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington, she helped to bring down the Berlin wall and relight the torch of freedom in Europe. Far from returning to the days of 1985 and actually spending 5% of GDP on defence, we now have instead a massive con trick from Labour. Unfunded ambitions and smoke and mirrors will not deter our adversaries. In Armed Forces Week, those who bravely serve our nation deserve much better.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail. This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR. The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him— “We had no advance copy of the defence review.” —[ Official Report , 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.] His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record. We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the publication of the hard copy of the strategic defence review, I informed you that I was aware that at least two major defence companies had been given a copy of that document at 8 am yesterday morning. Looking at what happened on the market, I noticed that the share price of one of those companies spiked very sharply at exactly that time. We do not know exactly what that can be attributed to, but you will be aware that the “Ministerial Code” says very clearly, on the publication of White Papers and consultation papers, that “where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.” Presumably, that is to avoid this sort of effect from the receipt of privileged information that is not made available to other companies. Mr Speaker, I seek your advice on how to pursue this matter further. Have you heard from the Government on whether they will make a statement, or take any steps to investigate these matters?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account? While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it. The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today. Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before. Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary— [ Interruption. ] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats. Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism. To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this important urgent question. Following comments in the press last month from Sir Simon Case, former head of the civil service, that the UK should consider air-launched nuclear capabilities, I wrote in the Express on 25 May that our nuclear deterrent needed to be made even more resilient, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also “potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.” I believe that it would be right to diversify our methods of delivering nuclear strike, because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and it has the ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able do the same. We support in principle moves to widen our nuclear capabilities, on the assumption that we do so working closely with our NATO allies. However, I gently suggest to the Government that they may need our support to carry that decision. I remind the Minister that eight of his Front-Bench colleagues voted against the renewal of our nuclear deterrent in 2016, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and others. If the Minister was hoping that he could rely on the Liberal Democrats, let me say that not only did all but one of their MPs vote against Trident renewal in 2016, but as a condition of supporting the coalition Government, they shamefully demanded that we delayed the renewal of our nuclear submarines, leaving us to rely on older boats for far longer. That led to longer maintenance periods, and above all, directly contributed to the punishingly long tours of duty for our CASD naval crews. Having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for nuclear, and having chaired the Defence Nuclear Board, I understand why the Minister needs to choose his words carefully, but can he at least recognise that 204 days for a patrol is far too long, and that in addition to any plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, we must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times? Finally, will he confirm what the estimated cost will be of delivering an air-launched option, and say by when he would expect that to be in service?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I go into the detail, however, I wish to place two important points on the record. First, it was beneath contempt for the Prime Minister in his press conference to state that those who oppose this deal are on the side of Russia and China. I am intensely proud of the role that my party has played in supporting Ukraine— I have worn this badge of the Ukrainian flag every day. I and many of my colleagues have been sanctioned by Russia and China and passionately believe that we must stand up to them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we oppose this deal. Let us not forget that only last week Mauritius agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia, and this week China said that it wanted to deepen its strategic partnership with Mauritius and that that country was well placed with strategic advantages. This is a democracy: if we as elected parliamentarians choose to take a different view on this issue and vote against the deal, that does not make us pro-Russian or pro-Chinese. Voting against this deal does not make us traitors to this country; it makes us patriots. Secondly, the Secretary of State and his Defence Ministers have said 26 times on the Floor of the House that the urgently needed strategic defence review would be delivered by the spring, but he has broken that promise. Here we are, at literally at the last sitting moment of this spring, and instead of the SDR he has come to the House to announce a total, abject surrender of our territory and a fundamental betrayal of the UK’s national interest. The Government are not surrendering British sovereign territory because of military defeat, or because of a binding legal verdict, but wilfully due to a total failure to take a stand and fight for Britain’s interests on the world stage—a complete and utter negotiating failure. Yes, it is true that we held talks with the Mauritians when in government, but we never signed a deal. Why? Because we fundamentally oppose the idea of spending billions of pounds on a surrender tax to lease back land that we currently own freehold. And it is billions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deal will cost £1 billion over the next five years? When the Prime Minister recently gave a statement to the House about defence spending, he used the cash figure to state by how much spending would rise. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the same basis, this deal will cost UK taxpayers over £10 billion? Will he confirm definitively how much of that cost will come from the Ministry of Defence budget? Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that, on military operations, the treaty confirms that we must “expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia.” Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means we would need to tell Mauritius if the base were to be used to launch strikes against Iran or its proxies? What guarantees has he received that Mauritius would not tell potential adversaries? As we all know, the key issue is that the Government fear a binding legal judgment. [ Interruption. ] They are following the legal advice to act definitively to our detriment, entirely on the basis of hypothetical risk that has not yet materialised and that we could challenge, and that is part of a pattern. On Monday, with the EU defence pact, the Secretary of State admitted that he has secured only “potential participation” in the rearmament fund, but despite no guarantee of hard cash for defence, the Government have already given up our sovereign fishing grounds for over a decade. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland refused to explain why this Government failed to appeal the legal decision that now threatens our veterans with a new era of lawfare for the crime of serving this nation and keeping us safe all those years ago. And today, with Chagos, once again the Government have prioritised heeding the most pessimistic legal advice, even though we have exposed the fact that fear of binding threats from the International Telecommunication Union or the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are overblown. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), a Labour Back Bencher, said earlier, we are all “Getting real tired of this ‘the courts have settled it’ line of argument”. It is not so much a case of “no surrender”, as “yes, surrender” every single time, always listening to the lawyers instead of our national interests, even if that means surrendering our veterans, our fishing grounds and the Chagos islands— [ Interruption. ] May I suggest they change the lyrics of their Labour party song, because we all know that they will keep the white flag flying here?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure and privilege to wind up such an excellent debate. I pay tribute to all the contributions we have heard as we in Parliament follow the public yesterday in taking our turn to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day—one of the most momentous days in our country’s history. VE Day was the triumph of freedom over tyranny in Europe. We must be forever grateful to all those who served to deliver that victory, not least as the great poignancy of this year’s anniversary has come from the fading of our living link to those who were there at the time. But that link still remains; there was a particularly powerful moment yesterday at the start of VE Day proceedings in Parliament Square when world war two RAF veteran Alan Kennett, turning 101 later this month, formally gave the military procession its send-off, holding the torch of peace. That living link, often through family, really matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) cannot be here today, but I know how much his lifelong passion for the armed forces stems from his father’s service with the Royal Navy on D-day. Throughout most of my life, I had a reminder of the war every single day because my late mother was called Faith precisely because she was born in 1941 when our eventual victory was far from certain. Although my mother regarded herself as English, she was born in Haverfordwest in Wales because her dad, my late grandfather, was a civil engineer who in wartime switched from building railways to running a naval munitions factory at Trecwn in Wales; maybe defence procurement is in my blood—who knows? As many have stressed, it is important to remember that the war did not finish on VE Day and that 80 years ago some of the most bitter fighting would still come in the Pacific theatre. I therefore join my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) in looking forward to celebrating VJ Day in August. There were many fine speeches. A particular theme was the contribution of so many nations fighting alongside us under our command. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) stressed the role of every part of the Union, particularly strong from Northern Ireland. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) stressed the role of the Commonwealth, and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) specifically mentioned the role of the Indian armed forces, which is ironic given what is happening as we speak in terms of India and Pakistan. Of course, those forces fought so bravely in world war two, at Monte Cassino in particular. The hon. Members for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) stressed the presence of Polish forces in their constituencies, including those involved at Market Garden, in that epic battle. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) stressed the involvement of Canadian troops. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) mentioned the Free French hosted in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) reminded us of the historical contribution of the Nepalese community, which continues to this day with the incredible contribution of the Gurkha regiment. It was a particular privilege to hear from those colleagues who served in the armed forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke about the importance of his experience visiting a Ukrainian defence company. I also had that experience recently; it was a real lesson and incredibly inspiring. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke movingly of his grandfather, whose incredible contribution included D-day, Operation Varsity and of course the traumatic experience of liberating concentration camps. I hope that inspired him to his own distinguished career in the marines. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in an excellent speech, stressed the crucial role of RAF Molesworth and RAF Wyton. We had all the pomp and ceremony on the Mall, but the real story of VE Day celebrations is in communities up and down the country. A number of colleagues spoke about community celebrations, including the hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made a fascinating speech, reminding us of the important role of RAF Hawkinge in intercepting the flying bombs, as they were called then. It is ironic because of course we now talk about the menace of drones flying over Ukraine. A number of colleagues spoke about the important role of women, especially in wartime industry, including the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, who spoke of the role of her grandmother in the defence industry. A number of colleagues also spoke of the contribution of women working on our farms to ensure that we had food security during the war, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell); my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), in a fantastic speech; and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who reminded us in particular of the contribution of the Women’s Land Army. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) reminded us of what he called the long tail of war—its lasting psychological impact. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) stressed the important role of RAF Valley, which was one of the most enjoyable visits of my time as a Defence Minister. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent intervention when he said that surely the most important lesson of world war two is to always stand up to aggressors. That is why it has been so important to support Ukraine as it faces another European war inflicted without a shred of justification by another aggressive, bullying dictator. I am incredibly proud of what we did in government to support Ukraine, and like the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), I was moved to see the Ukrainian soldiers joining our VE Day procession yesterday. I hope that one day, we will get to attend their VE Day celebration. It is wonderful that our nation has once again had the chance to pay a glorious tribute to that incredible generation who secured victory over tyranny 80 years ago. We must never forget the lessons from that terrible war: to always stand up for democracy and freedom, and to do so by backing our armed forces and standing strong with our allies against the bullying dictators who threaten us once again.

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies. With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source. The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability. The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation. That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran? The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless? Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday: “it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.” The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s wishing a good and successful mission to the crew of HMS Prince of Wales as it sets sail on its latest trip? I am grateful to the Secretary of State, both for advance sight of his statement and for the support that was provided by his Department for my recent visit to Ukraine; we provided the same support when we were in government. It was a privilege to pay tribute to the victims of this terrible war at the Wall of Memory in Kyiv, but it was also a powerful reminder of the stark contrast between the reality on the ground of continued casualties and the lies and propaganda from the Kremlin in respect of any so-called ceasefire. It must be clear that to Putin a ceasefire is simply part of a game—one that he has no intention of pausing—and we must continue to stand with all our allies in being 100% clear about who the aggressor is in this war. Those who pay the price for Putin’s game are innocent civilians, such as those killed in the terrible strike on Sumy on Palm Sunday. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on reports that Russian forces used a cluster munition as part of the attack on civilians, and if so, does this not illustrate the extraordinary contrast between claims of a ceasefire and the reality of the Russians’ continued indiscriminate bombing? In the face of such aggression, we remain proud of the extraordinary role that the United Kingdom has played in backing Ukraine’s struggle under successive Governments, and I welcome the continued support announced by the Ukraine defence contact group. I turn to the Secretary of State’s latest update on the coalition of the willing. Although we will always stand with the Government in supporting Ukraine, he knows that it would be a major shift to go from the indirect provision of munitions to boots on the ground. Therefore, as the Opposition, we are duty bound to probe what remain several unanswered but very significant practical questions that any such deployment would raise. A month ago, on 22 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State with a series of questions on the coalition of the willing, but I have yet to receive a reply. Given the importance of those questions, I will ask them now. First, what progress has he made on securing a US military backstop? Secondly, what would be the expected rules of engagement? Thirdly, how many nations have definitively committed to sending troops? Fourthly, will he consider derogating from the European convention on human rights for any deployment, given our military’s previous experience of vexatious lawsuits arising from overseas operations? Of course, an extraordinary aspect of the coalition of the willing is that we are meant to be leading with France, while at the same time—behind our back—it is seeking to undermine our fishing rights in our sovereign waters over access to a European defence fund that will definitively include non-EU nations. When I pointed that out at oral questions last month, the Secretary of State asked me to “drop” the “Brexit rhetoric”, yet over the Easter recess it was he who blasted the EU’s foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas when she suggested that his plan for troops in Ukraine was unclear. What is clear? Almost alone, we stood by Ukraine from the very beginning of the war, helping it to avoid an early capitulation that would have been a disaster for the whole of Europe. We also offer our nuclear deterrent to European NATO 24/7—not to get better fishing rights, but to defend the freedom of European nations. A country that does all that should not be excluded from a defence fund that will include non-EU states, and should not face punitive measures against its fishing fleet, when we are meant to be doing everything possible to strengthen European defence solidarity. The Secretary of State needs to understand that this is not about Brexit, Britain or France; it is about the security of the whole of Europe. Does he understand that, and can he confirm categorically that the Government will not offer any concessions on fishing rights in order to secure an EU defence pact? Finally, I turn to procurement for our own armed forces. Both in Kyiv and with cross-party colleagues in Parliament this morning, I had the pleasure of meeting Ukrainian manufacturers of drones that have been highly effective on the frontline. Will the Secretary of State support such companies to partner with British companies and to set up operations in the UK, both to boost Ukraine and to give our military rapid access to proven capabilities? Given how much of this rests on the strategic defence review, will it be published this month?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to say it was when I was there. It shone through at 11 am, and it was quite wonderful to behold—a very spiritual moment indeed, just as we said those magic words, so I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for mentioning Poppy Day. I very much enjoyed that day alongside the legion and our team, both as a Minister and a shadow Minister. I did not have the privilege of serving in the military, but I did run my own business, and I would like to think that the sales approach when I was there was quite robust and direct in approaching members of the public and that we achieved some pretty healthy sales outcomes. On the matter of the competitive spirit, I, like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), took part in the RBL static cycling challenge. It was the day I was renewed as shadow Defence Secretary, from interim to what one might call enduring—who knows? I did the challenge alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I am pleased to say I just pipped him to the post. It highlights what a key part of our lives in Parliament the RBL is. As has been said, the RBL offers a wide range of services, both locally and nationally, from care homes to debt advice. In government, we did much to support veterans, and we are very proud of that. As has been said, we gave veterans a voice at the Cabinet table, which was particularly passionately embodied by Johnny Mercer. We also had Op Courage to support highly targeted mental health services for veterans. I remind colleagues that we also implemented an employer’s national insurance cut for veterans, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that will remain in place. As I understand it, it has only been confirmed until 2026, so that would be good to know. The most important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made—I hope he gets a couple of minutes at the end to respond—was about how we continue this great festival of remembrance as the generation that served in the second world war passes from us. We have just mourned the passing of the last person who served in the battle of Britain—the last of “the Few”, as we say. We must keep that flame alive. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who said it was all about education. I hope the Minister will confirm that the attempt to keep the flame of remembrance alive will be at the heart of his work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they bring forward the details of how we will mark VE Day and VJ Day. As has been said, this is about recruitment and how the public are inculcated with a sense belief in the armed forces, so that they support the taxpayers’ money that has to go to them. A lot more will have to because of the situation the world is in; there is huge consensus on that point. Finally, as I have not had a chance to do so to date, I thank the Minister for his letter on the Clonoe case. I hope we will continue to work together to stand up for our veterans.

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to have the opportunity to mark the grim milestone that is the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate, and I pay tribute to all the brilliant speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Above all, though, I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine. Without any provocation whatsoever, Ukraine has suffered vast casualties and a national trauma beyond our wildest imaginings, all forced on it by an aggressive dictator and bully. If we ask ourselves why this war has happened, surely Lord Acton had the explanation, when he famously said back in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There is a reason why Putin can murder on our streets, threaten nuclear war, harass our maritime and airspace, invade free nations, do away with his political opponents and care not a jot for a casualty rate in his own forces of more than 1,000 a day. It is because he is not constrained by the checks and balances of a democracy that holds him to account. He has absolute power, and he has used it destructively, regardless of the impact on his own people, let alone the people of Ukraine. Putin’s motive is the motive of so many despots and dictators down the centuries: power lust and hunger for conquest. He externalises his nation’s problems, which his corrupt oligarchy can never solve, and that ultimately leads to internal economic hardship and pain for all, bar him and his close elite. I am incredibly proud of the support that we gave in government to Ukraine; we provided the weapons to help it avoid an early capitulation, which would have been truly disastrous for Ukraine and the free world. In opposition, we have continued to stand resolutely with Ukraine, supporting the Labour Government to that end, as they supported us prior to the July election. We wish the Prime Minister every success in Washington and hope for a lasting peace, in which Ukraine can finally enjoy the security it deserves. For all the talk of peace, and for all our efforts to date, providing everything from tanks to Storm Shadow missiles, and despite the incredible bravery of Ukraine’s armed forces in defying the odds to push back Putin’s land and naval forces, the day-to-day reality in Ukraine is one of continued bombing, pain and suffering for its people. A key question for us in this debate is: what action can we undertake this day to support the ongoing fight? I turn to the subject of drones and rearmament, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in an excellent speech, but one aspect of rearmament speaks to our own need to rearm. Also, Ukraine will need rearmament on a far greater scale, whether a settlement is achieved or not. If there is no settlement, the ongoing war will require that rearmament. If there is, the need to give Ukraine security about its future will also require a continued ramping up of military industrial production, not least to deter Russia, so now that the Government have confirmed their plan for a sustained increase in defence spending, we must urgently unlock our domestic procurement to drive our defence industrial capacity and that of Ukraine. On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a brilliant UK defence SME, Modini, which is creating one-way attack drones and other capabilities for the British Army. When I launched the MOD’s first-ever defence drone strategy about a year ago, the plan was to procure drones at scale for Ukraine, as we have done, and to learn from that to build a domestic industry capable of arming our own military. It was frustrating to hear from Modini what I have heard from so many of our best defence SMEs, which is that procurement is largely on hold. En masse, our fantastic firms are like a coiled spring, waiting for the Government to press “go” on procurement at the scale and pace we have needed for months. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), I believe that a big step forward would be for our defence companies to urgently forge new joint lines of production with Ukrainian firms in the United Kingdom, honouring the pillar 1 promise in the 100-year partnership to “Establish stronger and closer defence cooperation and industrial bases.” That is so important because, for safety reasons, Ukrainian defence companies that I have spoken to want UK production, away from the bombing. They also know that partnering with UK SMEs will provide access to capital and ultimately a chance to feed into UK procurement. For the UK, that co-operation means access to the know-how and expertise of those companies with manufacturing capabilities that have succeeded in a war as it is being fought. For our armed forces and the MOD, it means realising the cultural change that we need—being less risk-averse in procurement, and rapidly developing capability to enhance the lethality and survivability of our armed forces in the near term. That will be particularly important should there be a peacekeeping force. Ultimately, conventional war that is sustained for a longer period is fought in terms of factory production capacity, which is linked to innovation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) about capital controls—I think there is enough capital—but he made an excellent speech about the need to boost capacity. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I looked at multilateral procurement with NATO partners. Whatever its current military capabilities, Europe has a vast industrial base that could scale up if there is the will power to do so, and if there is leadership from Governments. We led at the outset of the war, and with our greatest ally, the US, reasonably asking us and our NATO allies to do more of the heavy lifting in confronting the Russian threat, we will need to lead again. That requires leadership on industry and innovation in the UK and across Europe to massively boost our defence industrial capacity. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to accelerate partnerships with Ukrainian businesses that have delivered on the frontline, but which will be even stronger with British backing. That will create British jobs, and will deliver a far greater scale of production for both countries’ armed forces. We can and must continue to do everything possible to support Ukraine.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on. They know how much it will cost; they are just not being transparent with public money. I turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made an excellent point of order earlier, in which he made the point that the Minister had said—this is the crucial argument that they depend on—that the ITU could somehow threaten our spectrum at Diego Garcia. Yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Telecoms Minister was very clear in a written answer dated 12 February: “The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.” That is bang to rights. The most extraordinary point that we have heard today from a galaxy of Government Back-Bench speakers is that somehow the Opposition should not be calling for this debate. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones), the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) all said that somehow we should be debating important issues, such as buses and so on, yet the argument from Ministers is that this is critical to national security. If that is the case, surely we should be debating it in Parliament. We are going to keep on debating it until we finally get some answers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an excellent point. Along with the shadow Foreign Secretary, I recently had a wonderful and very moving meeting with many Chagossians up in one of the Committee Rooms, and they were clear that they have had no meaningful consultation with the Government and no face-to-face meetings. That is absolutely shameful.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is doing well on getting a role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. This is Parliament. Ever since it started, Parliament’s constitutional role has been to approve money for the Executive, but it cannot carry out that role unless the Government tell Parliament the truth about how much money they are going to spend.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question; we are in recess next week, and the day that we return will be the third anniversary of Putin’s unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine. In the past three years, Russia has inflicted unimaginable suffering on Ukraine. There has been military and civilian loss of life on a vast scale, at the hands of a dictator oblivious to consequences and only too willing to sacrifice his own soldiers to the meat grinder. In the face of so many casualties and so much pain, of course we all want peace. We all want the senseless slaughter to stop, and for Ukraine to once again thrive and enjoy the trappings of peace and prosperity, which we all take for granted. It is clear that an end to this suffering is a goal that President Trump wishes to achieve rapidly; he set that out to the American people before securing their support for his election to the White House, and for a second mandate. We remain 100% steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and in our backing for the Government in delivering that; they gave us the same backing when in opposition. We agree in principle with them and believe, as we stressed repeatedly in government, that it is for the Ukrainians to decide the timing and the terms of any negotiations on ending the war. Does the Minister agree that negotiations without the direct involvement of Ukraine would be unthinkable? What more can the Minister say about how the Government will work with allies to ensure that any negotiations are driven by the primacy of Ukraine’s needs, not least given its status as the democratic nation invaded, without provocation, by a dictator? We welcome the news from the Minister about the commitments given by other European NATO nations this week, but is not President Trump right to consistently highlight the point that some NATO nations spend far below what is expected and required on defence? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government, using every lever at their disposal, will remind all NATO members that a win for Putin in any settlement may bring a temporary end to the conflict, but will not make the world a safer place? Far from it. It would be an illusion of peace, and would be likely to send a very dangerous signal to other potential adversaries. Of course, the position expressed by both the US President and his Defence Secretary yesterday has huge implications for our defence policy. They have made it abundantly clear that the US will play no role in any future peacekeeping effort in Ukraine, should that be necessary. Although the Government will of course be cautious about contemplating publicly the implications of that, is not the key point straightforward: if higher defence spending was urgent before, it is now critical?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady not only for early sight of her statement, but for her kind words in recognising my contribution to delivering this deal—Unity by name and by nature. As with the Annington deal and the UK-Germany barrel-making deal, I can safely say that this deal is profoundly to the benefit of our country. While I would have dearly loved to conclude those deals while in office, it is better that such deals are delivered under any Government than not at all, and I am delighted to be responding to the statement today. While it is unusual to have statements on a sitting Friday, I thank the Government for announcing this deal to the House today, because it speaks to its huge importance to our national interest. Before explaining why the deal is so important, may I first thank all those involved in bringing it forward: those at the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy, and in particular the commercial teams, who have worked so hard to iron out all the complex details needed to get it over the line, and of course Rolls-Royce itself? On that note, I thank everyone in the defence nuclear enterprise, and, as the right hon. Lady said, we give particular thanks, as we always should, to those who crew our nuclear submarines, and in particular the 24/7 continuous at-sea deterrent. My personal experience—I am sure the right hon. Lady will have discovered this in the many international engagements in the export role that is so important to any Ministry of Defence procurement—was that Rolls-Royce was the single UK defence company, possibly only matched by BAE, that seemed to have greater success in penetrating major export markets. Visiting Raynesway last April to keep this project moving forward, I saw the sheer scale of Rolls-Royce’s commitment to apprenticeships and manufacturing excellence. That underlined how it is a domestic and international industrial success story for UK plc, and we should do everything possible to support it. The deal is economically crucial, helping sustain our sovereign defence nuclear industry, as the right hon. Lady said, and in turn sustaining thousands of skilled jobs. I was struck, while speaking to apprentices at both Barrow and Raynesway, that of particular appeal to them was the assurance of a long-term career pathway. Today’s announcement will underwrite not just a major corporate investment, but the life plans of thousands of young people, and I wish them all well. Skills remain a challenge, given the sheer scale of the nuclear undertaking, so will the right hon. Lady update us on how she is taking forward the work of the pan-civil and defence nuclear skills taskforce, which I launched together with the then civil nuclear Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in August 2023? This deal clearly builds on the good work done by the previous Conservative Government, who always backed our armed forces, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and our defence industrial base, and who brought the mighty AUKUS partnership to life with the US and Australia. Can the right hon. Lady provide further detail on her very welcome confirmation that this deal will underpin AUKUS? In talking about the economic importance of this announcement, we should also be clear about its military significance. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the Secretary of State’s statement on Wednesday regarding the Russian spy ship Yantar and its grey zone activities in our waters and economic zone. I said in response that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government not just on Ukraine but in standing up to the Russian threat, which I still regard as by far the most immediate and serious in terms of the UK homeland. I urged him to lean into being more open with the country about the Russian threat, while of course protecting operational security, so that the country can understand the nature of the treat and what it will inevitably mean for defence expenditure. The strategic defence review is expected in the spring, and I hope that it will be published as early as possible—ideally in March—but whenever it is, it appears likely that there will be a particular focus on homeland security and missile defence. That is entirely right, but we must all understand a fact of military reality: there is one UK capability that matters above all in the Kremlin, and that is our continuous at-sea deterrent. There is a strong argument for reinforcing our conventional missile defence capability for the UK homeland, but that is not what deters Putin from striking our cities; rather, it is our potential to retaliate. For that reason, we must continue to give absolute priority to the deterrent in our defence budget, and that budget must be urgently increased. Whatever else is announced in the SDR, I hope the right hon. Lady will confirm both that investment in our deterrent will remain central to all future plans and that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament. While the deterrent is inevitably a multibillion-pound undertaking, it remains a way to guarantee our security for a fraction of overall public expenditure. Today has shown that it also offers a huge economic return to the country, underpinning manufacturing excellence. As such, and given the threats that we face, it has never been more vital that we continue to strengthen our defence nuclear enterprise.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence. I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today. I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents. A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO? Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom? I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities? In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place. To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Developing AI Capacity and Expertise in UK Defence · Hansard source

  More

  This is an excellent report, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for recognising my role, and for her comments about the integrated procurement model and the work that we did in government. She is right that this area of technology is changing at extraordinary speed, and it is having a real impact on the live battle-front in Ukraine. I make two points. First, the hon. Member said that the House of Lords Committee looked at the ethical issues. I would urge the Commons Committee not to ignore those, because my view is that we need to retain maximum freedom of operation and not be bound by, for example, new definitions of autonomy that may limit our military capabilities. Secondly, the hon. Lady made a very good point about small and medium-sized enterprises in the civil area that are not involved in defence. We all agree that we want to get them more involved in defence, but may I ask her to look at how we share information, particularly if it is secret, with SMEs, as well as with primes? We were making progress on that when I was at the Department. Perhaps, with the Committee’s help, we can look at case studies of civil companies that have successfully got into the defence sector by having a strong link with the centre of the MOD.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Spending: 2.5% of GDP · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State says that publication has not been pushed back, but I remind the House that at the previous Defence questions on 18 November last year, the Secretary of State was asked specifically about SDR timing and said: “The reviewers will report in the spring.” —[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 4.] However, in a written answer to me on 17 December—just before the House rose—a Defence Minister said: “The Reviewers will make their final report to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Defence Secretary in the first half of 2025. The Secretary of State for Defence will subsequently report the Strategic Defence Review to Parliament.” If the first part is in the first six months of the year, even I can see that the second part, which is subsequent to that, will happen in the second half of the year. That is not the spring, is it?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Spending: 2.5% of GDP · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on receiving a distinguished service order—we are all proud of him. The Government have tied the announcement of their timetable for 2.5% to the publication of the strategic defence review, so we need it to be published as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify why he has pushed back the SDR’s publication in Parliament from the spring to the summer?

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. My strong congratulations to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an extremely timely debate. He spoke very well—in fact, all colleagues have contributed very thoughtful speeches on this important subject. Because of what is happening in Ukraine and what we have seen in the Red sea and Israel, many now say we should adopt some form of Iron Dome. This debate is very timely and I am grateful for it. I echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and the hon. Member for North Durham in asking the Minister to update us on the overnight story of drones flying over United States Visiting Forces bases in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the apparent deployment of the negation of improvised non-state joint aerial, or NINJA, and ORCUS systems—which is different from the AUKUS defence pact with our partners. It would be good to have an update on how that was used. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a key point. I launched the integrated procurement model in February, and he is right that one should not look at missile defence in silos—no pun—because there has to be a joined-up multi-domain approach, particularly for space. I strongly agree with him that that will be a decisive factor in the early stages of something we hope will never happen: existential war. We need to be interoperable with allies, and the systems we procure need to be integrated across all the domains of our defence posture. We do still need to consider these issues at domain level. My last visit to an army base, a week before the election was called, was to Thorney Island on the south coast to the 7th Air Defence Group. It used to be regarded as quite obscure but, because it is a ground-based air defence unit, it found itself at the heart of the debate on future defence. When I visited, I was clear that we would be ordering significant new levels of GBAD, including lightweight multi-role missiles for short-range, but also Land Ceptor units. I hope the Minister can confirm that those orders are continuing under the new Government and will be scaled up. As colleagues have said, we need more scale than we currently have because of the changing threat. In the air domain, we currently rely on the Typhoon as our backbone. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) made a good point that GCAP, which I support, is way off in the future, in the 2030s. What is going to happen to boost lethality in the near term? It would be good if the Minister could update us on E-Scan radar with Typhoon, which will significantly increase its capability. It has been intercepting drones and missiles in the middle east and remains the backbone of our air defence. We must ensure that it is operating at the most capable level it can achieve. I am particularly concerned about the maritime threat. We are supporting Ukraine, not in the theatre, but through the supply of ordnance. In the naval situation, our own ships were threatened, along with our own British sailors. It is in the public domain that the Houthis have obtained ballistic missiles from Iran and possibly other actors. That is a very serious threat. They may not yet have the fullest capability, but there was a worrying report this week that they are sending troops to support Russia in exchange for targeting information. That is a very serious development. Given the ballistic threat, and given that Sea Ceptor cannot currently intercept in the terminal phase, we need rapidly to accelerate the Evolution upgrade, as far as we are able. That would give us an anti-ballistic capability. We may have to consider an urgent operational requirement for the standard missile 3—a US missile on the USS Arleigh Burke—that can intercept ballistic threats. I believe that could go in our Mark 41 launchers when our Type 26 and Type 31 start entering the sea. We will have to think like that because the threat is evolving so fast. I strongly feel that technology is where we can enhance our forces. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, spoke about laser. When I was presented with DragonFire, I thought, “Wow!” If we can get this capability into service as fast as possible, crucially—although is obviously experimental up to a point—there may be a way to intercept drones without denuding our missile stockpile. That is incredibly significant. The other directed-energy weapon we looked at was the radio frequency one, which I saw at Thorney Island. That is not an electronic warfare system; it is a kinetic strike from sound waves that can take out multiple drones at once, for something like 10p a shot. At the moment, it has a relatively limited range. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will be pursuing those directed-energy weapons. If we go at them hard and fast, and deliver them into the arms of our forces quicker than other nations, we will boost not only our lethality and capability, but our defence industry. It is not just the link with industry, but the link with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and our brilliant scientists that matters, as well as creating the integrated procurement system that I wanted. I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham talked about that system, which enables us to develop really quickly and remain at the cutting edge. Obviously, as I think all colleagues have said, there is one key issue: procuring these weapons, systems and capabilities costs money. We need to commit to 2.5%, and the Conservative position was to achieve that by 2030. Now, we can go back to the 2010s, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did. He knows that I am a great fan of his; he showed me around the cockpit of an A400 and I was very grateful. He has huge expertise from his time in service, but I have to be clear that the Labour party would have cut defence spending by 25% in 2010 had they won the election. The financial position then was incredibly bleak. We now have to put the past behind us. It was a long-term decline— [ Interruption. ] The Minister is chuntering, but the fact is that defence spending fell under both the Conservatives and Labour, as it had around the world since the end of the cold war, because we all thought peace was upon us. In defence, we all have to adjust to the threat picture as we see it. This is the crucial point: when we announced our funding pathway to 2.5% in April, which the Prime Minister announced in Germany, it would have included reducing the civil service to its pre-pandemic size to pay for it. That is not a particularly ambitious target, but the No. 1 priority of that extra spending would have been replenishment and rearmament. By replenishment, we mean replacing the arms we have given to Ukraine, and by rearmament, we mean replacing our technological warfighting capabilities—for example, making the evolution system for Sea Viper an absolute priority. If we have a multi-year funding path in the MOD, we can procure at scale and at pace. If we have one-off, one-year adjustments—even if it is £2.9 billion—they will not enable procurement at the scale and pace that we require, and that is a fact. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) actually made the very good point that, if we go back to the Select Committee appearance by the Secretary of State, Lieutenant General Rob Magowan of military capability said that we need “always on” production. That is what a multi-year settlement gives us. Ultimately, wars are fought on industrial capability. I will make two more points. On our allies, an excellent point was made about DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences, an initiative that I launched—which is about having tests for missile defence, like those we have in the Outer Hebrides for cruise missiles with the Navy. We need to train to be interoperable as NATO in Europe in those capabilities. We also have to look at multilateral procurement so that we as a continent are buying together to leverage economies of scale. My final point, which I think is absolutely crucial, is about the deterrent. The hon. Member for North Durham said at the beginning that this is about conventional air defence. We have to be absolutely clear that, when Putin starts talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile being used, he is not going to not use it because we have missile defence; the thing that will stop him using it is fear of second strike from our ballistic missiles. We hope that would never happen—it is the extreme response to the extreme threat—but, while people talk about neglecting homeland security, we have had a submarine continuously at sea since 1969 with the most extraordinary lethality aboard. The scale of what it can do is quite unimaginable, and it is still absolutely at the technological cutting edge. My point is this: we must not take that for granted. It must still be the cornerstone of the SDR; it is our No. 1 defence and it is ultimately the reason why countries will not, I believe, be tempted to launch conventional missile attacks. After all, if they attacked London with conventional missiles, that is a declaration of war under article 5, and a country doing that would ultimately have to be prepared to risk a nuclear response—that is what would be at stake. That is not to say for one moment that we should not be considering how we upgrade our air defence— I totally agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of that—but in the SDR, the nuclear deterrent should still be the No. 1 priority because it is the fundamental way in which we defend ourselves. Again, that means a multi-year funding settlement so that we can invest in infrastructure and the expensive capabilities that come with it. We have heard some excellent speeches. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about the need to get to 2.5% as soon as possible. The Conservatives strongly agree with him, and we hope the Minister will still be pushing for that.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Defence Programmes Developments · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half ago, Prime Minister’s questions was taken by a Deputy Prime Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the renewal of Trident. The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5% as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that Labour’s union paymasters will not allow them to do. The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about Ben Wallace, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2. If he is talking about Grant Shapps, he gave me his 100% backing in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation, and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers. Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in 2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention bonus? If not, why not? The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received assurances from the Navy’s leadership that in the event of a full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the crews could have been found. That is what the Navy’s leadership confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure? Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus? As for the Conservatives’ record on rotary, the Secretary of State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service before those Pumas are retired? On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD’s first ever drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas, especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR before making today’s decisions? To conclude, whatever the Chancellor’s true grasp of economics, she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it has undertaken the Department’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil, undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off the family farm and threatening our food security, and today, they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security. The Government have made their choices, and they own the consequences.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent point. I pay tribute to those sorts of schools and how they share in society’s commitment to our armed forces. It has been Labour policy since the 2017 general election—seven and a half years ago—to introduce VAT on school fees. Families who have personnel serving abroad this Christmas will have just December to deal with whatever those new fees mean for them. That is a shockingly short amount of notice. On pay, we agree that those who serve their country must be appropriately rewarded, which is why in 2023 we announced a core armed forces pay rise of 5%, plus a further consolidated increase of £1,000, equating to a rise of approximately 9.7% for the most junior ranks, and including a freeze in food charges. Alongside pay, accommodation is an important part of the offer from the MOD. We all accept that much more needs to be done, and presumably that will form a key focus for the commissioner. I stand by what I said in the Remembrance debate: the problem is the underlying structural nature of so much of the accommodation in the defence estate. For that reason, as a Minister I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate—the long-term solution that I think the Veterans Minister referred to earlier. I hope the Government will take that work forward, but I appreciate that it is highly legally and commercially sensitive, and there is a limit to what they can say on that. As for the short term, the lesson from our winter plan last year is that investment and a plan for the defence estate can still yield results. Early on as the Minister responsible for the estate, in 2023, I accepted that the previous winter we had let down service families, and with the backing of Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, we secured £400 million in the defence Command Paper refresh, and delivered a winter plan that saw thousands of homes treated for issues such as damp and mould. Complaints to contractors fell sharply between 2022 and winter 2023. That brings me to the final critical point—funding. The new commissioner will almost certainly be assailed with accommodation cases, but any reports that he produces will inevitably form one conclusion: there is a need for more investment in the estate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities. The £400 million that we announced required us to make choices about spending, and to prioritise accommodation and the welfare of personnel over other pulls on funding. It is incredibly important that the Government commit to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Secretary of State will inevitably say that the last time we reached 2.5% was in 2010. I could as easily say that the last time we reached 3% was in 1996. They were two points on a pathway of consistently falling spending since the cold war, because successive Governments believed, like many around the world, that we were in a more peaceful era. That is a statement of fact. The point is that welfare in the military is about us as a nation and a Government saying to those who serve, “We have your back.” That is impossible without more funding, and that means setting a definitive date for getting to 2.5%. The Conservative party will always support the welfare of service personnel. That is why we will try to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We will not be dividing the House this evening.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At all times, and on both sides of the House, we should want to ensure that our armed forces have our back and that their morale and the offer from the MOD is as strong as possible. The Opposition recognise that the Bill introduces a manifesto commitment for which the Government have a clear mandate and, moreover, that it creates a new mechanism by which the MOD intends to boost the day-to-day experience of our armed forces personnel. No one could disagree with that goal. While it remains to be seen exactly how the Bill will deliver in practice, we will not oppose it but will be a constructive, critical friend, because the least that those who bravely put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve is proper scrutiny from Parliament in matters of legislation and the armed forces. Of course, there are areas of welfare not directly affected by the Bill where we want to see further progress, but, in terms of the Bill’s provisions, we wish to probe a number of matters. At face value, there is clearly merit in seeking to ensure extra accountability for how welfare matters are conducted in the forces. I note in particular, as the Secretary of State just stressed, that the commissioner will explicitly not be drawn from the ranks of either the military or the civil service, precisely in order to deliver genuine independence. In many ways, that provision is not dissimilar to the principle that I wanted to see in the integrated procurement model back in February, with the idea of a second opinion in procurement, not least from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the science base—the point being to ensure that major procurement programmes and the requirement request from the single services could similarly be subject to genuine challenge and transparency. After all, the Sheldon inquiry focused on transparency and openness as key tools to guarding against the bad culture that can pertain without confidence for military personnel and officials to come forward and air their concerns—what we call being “psychologically confident”. Therefore, in principle, the proposal appears to be consistent with the push for a more transparent culture in defence that makes it harder to hide embedded problems. The most serious such examples could include the issues raised by the Lyons Review and the Defence Committee’s “Women in the Armed Forces” report, as referred to at oral questions earlier by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). As such, if the new office of the commissioner genuinely exposes cultural weaknesses and hidden systemic problems that would otherwise not have been disclosed or would take longer to emerge, it should be welcomed. That said, such extra transparency cannot be at the expense of operational effectiveness. That is why one of the most significant issues that we will want to probe further is the interaction between the commissioner and the chain of command, especially in sensitive operational settings. The Bill states that visits will not be permitted on national security grounds, but what if the commissioner and the chain of command disagree on whether those grounds apply? Will the Secretary of State adjudicate? If so, how will that work in practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) alluded to in his earlier oral question, how will such visits work in practice without disrupting live operations? We must have clarity. Off the back of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, the previous Government did much work to reduce bureaucracy, shorten the complaints process and strengthen oversight. It is important that that is not undermined through the organisational upheaval that the Bill will inevitably generate. What steps will the Government take to ensure a smooth handover, especially in relation to existing casework? A few of our colleagues have experienced that recently. On the territorial application of the Bill, as things stand there is a permissive extent clause that enables an Order in Council to provide for relevant sections of the legislation to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories except Gibraltar. First, what is the rationale for apparently excluding Gibraltar? Secondly, what of the US visiting forces? As Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the estate, I visited both Lakenheath and Mildenhall in my county of Suffolk, where there is a significant presence of US forces, F-35s and F-15s. I had the pleasure of meeting the then commanding officer, Major General Campo. There were a significant number of infrastructure, planning and other matters where, inevitably, the USVF needed clearance and input from the UK MOD. What will the Commissioner’s responsibilities be in relation to USVF, particularly where British personnel are stationed alongside them? Similarly, what about the personnel of the many nations assisting with training Ukrainians for Operation Interflex on the UK bases? My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a very good intervention. We agree that we want to question the point about veterans, and we will probe that in Committee. Finally, on costs, we note that the Department expects the annual cost of the commissioner to be higher than that of the current ombudsman, and overall in the region of £5 million. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that the cost will grow further and above that estimation in the years ahead, as the commissioner becomes more established? More broadly, we know that many issues affect morale, recruitment and retention in the armed forces. We want the Bill to succeed, but there remain a number of areas of concern where delivering a better offer to our service personnel is critical. On recruitment and retention, hopefully all hon. Members understand the critical importance of boarding school to service families, and that there are very few places not in the independent sector. Boarding school provides stability for their children in a career that does not automatically lend itself to such. Yet families affected by VAT on school fees will not find out until December exactly how they will be hit by a tax that commences the very next month. Let us remember that many such families do not receive continuity of education allowance, and will have to cover a 20% hike in fees from their taxed income. That is why the Opposition wanted the type of VAT exemption for all children of service families that is offered to children with special educational needs and disabilities with an education, health and care plan.