James Cartlidge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment (o), at the end of the Question to add: “but respectfully regret the absence of a Defence Readiness Bill from the Gracious Speech, and the 10 month delay to the publication of the Defence Investment Plan; call on the Government to bring forward both as a matter of urgency; further call on the Government to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament; further regret that the Gracious Speech commits to re-starting inquests into Northern Ireland veterans; and also call on the Government not to progress with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 to protect veterans and improve the morale of all who serve in the armed forces.” It is an honour to open the final day of debate on the King’s Speech on behalf of the Opposition. Today’s debate is on defence readiness. May I begin by expressing how saddened I was to hear of the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan from the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery? My condolences, and those of the whole Opposition, to her family, both personal and regimental. Before turning to the defence-related matters that were or were not included in the Government’s programme for the next legislative Session, I pay tribute to the men and women serving in our armed forces right now across the globe, whether they are on board our nuclear submarines, which provide a continuous at-sea deterrent, or deployed in the middle east to defend our overseas bases. I thank them for their service and unwavering professionalism. I also pay tribute to our brave Ukrainian allies, who continue to defy those original expectations of an early Russian victory. When we take steps to publicly show our sympathy for Ukraine’s heroic struggle—for example, by wearing badges, as I have done every day since the invasion, or by flying the Ukraine flag from local and national Government buildings, we do so not just to show solidarity with a democratic nation under brutal attack by a dictatorship, but because it is firmly in our national interest to assist Ukraine in keeping Putin’s military in check. When newly elected councils make it their first priority, on entering office, to pull down the Ukrainian flag, we are entitled to ask if the party in question cares about the fate of its people, and understands the implications for our national security of Russia triumphing. Finally, I pay tribute to all those who served our country in the past: our brave veterans. That brings me to Labour’s plans, as set out in the King’s Speech. Of all Britain’s military capabilities, few are more important to our defence or more widely admired, particularly by the United States, than our special forces, yet at a time of war on two fronts, Labour is ploughing on with a Bill that will reopen vexatious legal actions. That not only threatens our veterans, but would undermine the morale of all who serve today, particularly in the special forces. Those special forces include the Special Air Service, and those in the regiment that was on duty in Loughgall in 1987, and who shot IRA terrorists who were driving a digger with a bomb in its bucket towards a police station, and firing machine guns into the building as they approached. I believe that those soldiers were acting to defend our society from terrorists intent on mass murder. Whatever one’s view, surely going back almost 40 years to events that took place in a split second makes no sense. Crucially, in October 2023, coroner Justice McAlinden declined to list a new inquest into Loughgall precisely because of the cut-off date set by our legacy Act, which therefore did its job of halting such cases and genuinely protecting our veterans from endless litigation. However, in his comments, Justice McAlinden added that preparatory work for the inquest should continue, because there would be a general election the following year, and that might affect how the legislation was implemented. He had a point, did he not? Fast-forward three years, and with war now facing us, not just in Ukraine but in the middle east, the Government of today remain intent on repealing the protections that we put in place for veterans. It goes without saying that Labour’s plans will harm our veterans, once again keeping them awake at night with the fear that they will be hauled before our courts.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is never boring in his interventions; on the contrary, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House. I will conclude with five steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness—positive suggestions from the Conservative Benches. First, we should rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to the Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the defence investment plan, he should use the reserve funding agreed for the middle east operations to place orders for urgent operational requirements, in particular advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for our fighter planes, and Aster air defence missiles for our Type 45s. Secondly, we should deliver drone tech at scale and pace across the armed forces, as we set out in our sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund that we would set a path to 3% this Parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank, ringfencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing £6 billion of research and development funding for drone tech, and restoring the two-child benefit cap to fund a bigger Army. Fourthly, to save more money for defence, and following Iran’s missile strike on Diego Garcia, we would stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos plan. Finally, to boost immediately the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour’s plans to put our former soldiers back in the dock, simply for the crime of serving their country. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working “flat out” to deliver the defence investment plan. In the national interest this country needs to rearm rapidly. That means the Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill, and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants “unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling “the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”. The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head, and I need add nothing further. We all agree and we pay tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan. Moving on to the Bill, given its necessity to ensure that we have functioning armed forces, we will not seek to divide the House. Indeed, on national security, we should always strive for consensus where possible, as has particularly been the case on Ukraine. We have presented a united Parliament to our adversaries, which should be a source of national pride. However, as with any major piece of legislation, there will be many issues of detail that we will want to tease out in detailed scrutiny in Committee. While we inevitably have concerns about the underlying issue of defence funding, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support in principle. In particular, I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the armed forces covenant. Having been the party that first introduced the covenant, it will be of no surprise that we support moves to strengthen both its purpose and delivery. That said, when it comes to our veterans, we remain resolute in our total opposition to the Government’s policy in respect of those who served in Operation Banner to protect all of us from terrorism. The House surely cannot ignore the fact that as we debate this Bill, which is designed to strengthen our armed forces, Labour continues in parallel with its plan to repeal our legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—and threaten a new era of vexatious claims against former soldiers. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will say more about that in his winding-up speech. On the Bill’s proposals relating to the service justice system, there is recognition on both sides of the House that we have massive lessons to learn. Work to improve the system began under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State recognised. After publication of the Atherton report, which identified cultural failings in the forces, the then Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, took steps to enforce changes so that we could better protect women in the armed forces. In 2022 we introduced a series of new policies—for example, clamping down on unacceptable sexual behaviour by introducing a zero-tolerance approach and banning instructor-trainee relationships of any sort. We also established the defence serious crimes unit. As a result of the changes we made, more people have been empowered to come forward, and service personnel who have breached those policies have been discharged or convicted as a direct result. I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to ensure that the service justice system protects victims of the most serious offences from further harm. The reality is that implementing cultural change in any large organisation does not happen overnight, but we will work with the Government in the forthcoming sittings on the detail of their proposals to ensure that we find a better way to deliver justice in the armed forces. Let me move on to the proposed changes to the reserve forces. I pay tribute to all those serving as reservists, including, as was pointed out, those on Operation Interflex—they are a critical part of our fighting strength. That said, given the heightened threat level that we face today, we can surely all recognise that nations geographically closer to the Russian threat, such as Finland, draw a major part of their overall military strength and, thereby, conventional deterrence from possessing a large and active reserve. As such, it is important that we understand more of the detail about the Government’s plans to increase the number of active reservists by 20%. That is stated in the strategic defence review, but with a vague timeline— “most likely in the 2030s”. We can all see that there is a big difference between 2031 and 2039, and that the threat we face is nearer. In his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us if that will be in the next Parliament or the one after that? We also welcome proposals to make reservist life more flexible, particularly incentivising regulars to stay in the reserves as they explore new careers. In fact, that is exactly what was suggested in the Haythornthwaite review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It made the important recommendation for so-called zig-zag careers, enabling far greater flexibility between reserve and regular service. We welcome that and will look at it further. Let me move on to the Bill’s proposals for armed forces accommodation. Buying back the defence estate was my top strategic priority as Minister for Defence Procurement.

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

  More

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

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It is getting noisy in here, so I say this again, just in case the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear me. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since— [ Interruption. ]

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is the Justice Secretary; he is responsible for the justice system, and he needs to take responsibility. I am asking him a straight question and I am going to repeat it once more, for the avoidance of doubt, because he did not answer it twice. He is here to answer questions, so can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a clear question. Can he give an answer?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  People in Epping and right across the country want to know the answer, so I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question again. He is the Justice Secretary. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? Can he answer the question?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by associating myself and the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible, horrific attack in Huntingdon? We wish a speedy recovery to those still in hospital and pay tribute to the brave actions of the public and the police. Overnight, the father of the girl assaulted in Epping by Hadush Kebatu, the illegal immigrant released by accident, said that the Government had failed them “relentlessly”. I confess, I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister has not already apologised. I am going to give him an opportunity now: will he apologise to the family concerned?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  To be clear, Mr Speaker, my point of order is about a serious issue. The Telegraph is reporting that a police manhunt has been launched for a second asylum seeker who was mistakenly freed from prison. Can you advise me on how I can ask the Justice Secretary whether he was aware of that when I asked him about it repeatedly in Prime Minister’s questions?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Watching the interview last night was absolutely heartbreaking. I have to say, I do think the Deputy Prime Minister owes it to the family to offer an apology here on the Floor of the House— [ Interruption. ] But he should have done it at the start of his remarks. These are very serious matters, which is why I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further, very important question: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The public are extremely concerned about what happened in the Kebatu case; they want to know that there will not be a repeat, so I am putting to the Deputy Prime Minister a very clear question about his responsibilities. I repeat: can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidently let out of prison? Can he answer the question?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about extremely serious crimes. I am going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the question again. Can he reassure the House that since Kebatu was released, no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison? It is a very specific question for him to answer.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, and in particular from the Justice Secretary, about our interaction earlier and the very serious case that it now relates to. I have strong reason to believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of the case when I asked him very clearly five times about whether he knew about these sorts of cases and he did not answer the question. This is about Ministers being transparent with the House, and I seek your guidance.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

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