Paul Foster MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On this Committee, we have veterans and former council leaders, and I am both. One of the main reasons for all the changes being made in the Bill is a recognition that, historically, the covenant has not been delivered appropriately by local authorities. However, does the Minister agree that there is evidence that it has significantly improved recently, and that including Op Valour will take that improvement a step further?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with this amendment, we run the risk of creating a minimal requirement that organisations may seek to meet, without going any further, thus undermining the delivery and service of the covenant for our veterans?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that new information is coming out daily and that other current Members of this House may or may not be directly linked to the Epstein-Mandelson scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should be fully investigated as well?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps he has taken to engage with relevant stakeholders on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Under the previous Government’s unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was required to shut down more than 1,000 investigations, including 225 investigations into the deaths of soldiers and veterans. Will the Secretary of State please assure the families of murdered British armed forces personnel that, should they wish to approach the reformed commission, it will consider their case and may be able to provide them with the answers that many of them have long sought?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers. Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The peace process in Northern Ireland was hard-won, and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, it did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the troubles—either by terrorists or by the security forces—and nor did it provide an amnesty for crimes that had not yet been prosecuted. Let us also not forget that, according to data from the House of Commons Library, around 3,520 people lost their lives during the troubles. They included 1,441 British service personnel, 722 of whom died at the hands of paramilitaries. Three hundred RUC officers were killed, and 301 individual deaths were the responsibility of the British military. Of those, 121 were republican terrorists, 101 were loyalist terrorists, and the remainder were all civilians. We therefore have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the troubles are dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally. The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found several provisions of that Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and should therefore be disapplied. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found additional aspects of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the ECHR. There are many separate elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I will keep my contribution to two specific areas: immunity from prosecution for historical crimes, and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving forward under the new legislation. As a veteran, I have never sought or agreed that, as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service. We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols, whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in. There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said: “This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it”. Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, said that the British Army is “not above the law.” Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is now chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said only last week: “You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.” We must also understand that it is not just British service personnel who were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation; it was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. More than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers were shut down upon the enactment of the legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers’ families. Immunity from prosecution is dangerous, because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims’ rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law and undermines long-term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution. It sets an awful precedent. If it were to be implemented by foreign Governments currently in military conflicts, we would be rightly appalled.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am almost done. Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward the debate. I completely associate myself with his comments about the workforce up there; generations of my constituents have worked at the Samlesbury and Warton sites. I quite enjoyed his speech—most of it, anyway. I was lucky enough to visit the Warton site recently with the Prime Minister, when he announced the Turkey order. It is fair to say that the workforce was absolutely buzzing; this is such an important order for them. We have 20 brand-new Typhoons guaranteed and fully assembled at the site up there, with an option for a further 20, guaranteeing up to £8 billion in investment and securing production facilities and critical jobs for at least a decade. As was mentioned, BAE Systems is also spearheading sixth-generation fighter development, under the Tempest programme, which is expected to enter service around 2035. As the hon. Member for Fylde mentioned, BAE Systems at the Samlesbury and Warton sites is also heavily engaged with the delivery of the F-35, which is now in service with the RAF. I understand that—for reasons not known to me—the RAF prefers the F-35 to the Typhoon. That was shared with me by the unions and a number of individuals. The last UK sovereign order for Typhoons was back in 2009. I note that the hon. Member did not say that the previous Government ordered no sovereign Typhoons between 2010 and 2024. Given that the production of these aircraft takes almost five years from ordering to completion, we now have a gap at the production facilities because they did not order any. The previous Government’s combat air strategy was published in July 2018. It had the clear objective that the F-35 Lightning would replace the ageing Tornado GR4—which it has—and then partner the Typhoon until the latter leaves service around 2040, with the global combat air programme Tempest being the successor. Much work must be undertaken to ensure that critical upgrades to the current 111 operational UK sovereign Typhoons take place, particularly around the enhanced radar and the weapons the aircraft carries. The Government must continue their efforts to ensure that more Typhoons are sold on the export market. As the hon. Member said, that needs to be done as a matter of urgency. There is an argument to be had that the Government could consider a sovereign order now that could potentially be exported in years to come. That has happened historically, although I am completely cognisant of the fact that there are constraints on the MOD budget and the UK Budget at the moment. However, that is a consideration that Ministers may have.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, but Ministers have a difficult decision. The recent publication of the strategic defence review has committed us to the Tempest programme, but we must await the details of any updated combat air strategy, which is obviously clearly linked to the defence investment plan and acquisition pipeline. To conclude, the securing of the Turkish Typhoon export order has been a real game changer for my community in South Ribble and the wider community of Lancashire, and for procurement across the entire country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) mentioned. It is a great start. It has secured a number of jobs at the Warton site for a decade. We must support the Government and BAE Systems as much as we can, and get as many of these aircraft exported as we can.

• 29 Oct 2025 · UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal · Hansard source

  More

  I had the privilege of being at BAE Systems in Warton yesterday with the Prime Minister, and it is fair to say that the workforce are utterly buzzing about this announcement. It is the first new order of aircraft since 2017, as the Minister said, and the largest order since 2007. It was hard-won against the likes of the US, the Swedes, the French and other allies, but guess what? Lancashire won. It is for 20 aircraft signs now, with an option for a further 20, worth £8 billion. Generations of my constituents in South Ribble have worked or still do work in Samlesbury and Warton, and this deal has secured thousands of jobs for at least a decade, or even more. Can I please urge the Minister to still prioritise the Typhoon and to get us more orders as quickly as he can?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, I joined the staff and students of Worden academy in Leyland as the GCSE results were announced. Ten years ago, that school faced a challenging future. This year, it just delivered its best ever set of GCSE results, giving those young people the best possible start in life. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to the headmaster Mr Alan Hammersley, the chair of governors Mrs Maureen Woodall, and all its staff and students? They should be supremely proud of what they have all achieved.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is a vital step towards modernising local government and delivering fairer investment and greater accountability across England. I do so with 17 years’ experience as a local councillor, for five of which I was leader of South Ribble borough council in Lancashire, which forms part of my constituency. Although the scope of the Bill covers many distinct subject matters, I intend to focus my brief comments—listening to what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker—on part 3, chapter 1 on local government reorganisation. Let us be clear: Lancashire is now an outlier. While 74% of England’s population live under unitary authorities delivering all local services through a single accountable body, Lancashire remains part of the shrinking 26% operating under a two-tier system. Frankly, no one would design the two-tier system today—it is inefficient, confusing and expensive. Residents do not understand why one council is responsible for potholes and roads and another for pavements and parks, why education sits at county level while planning sits with district, or why one council collects their waste and another disposes of it. They do not understand why they are paying for two different sets of local councillors for the same geographical area, and for 15 chief executives and senior management teams when they only actually require three or four, or why our neighbours in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region are all unitaries, but Lancashire is left with two tiers of bureaucracy. The result? Duplicated services, inefficient staffing and confused accountability. We know that change works. In South Ribble, through shared services with our district council neighbour, Chorley, we have saved over £1 million for local taxpayers—real money back into local budgets. Imagine what could be achieved with a fully unitary structure across Lancashire. In my time as leader of South Ribble borough council, I froze council tax for three consecutive years while still delivering effective and efficient frontline services. Yet our residents’ council tax bills kept rising as Lancashire county council increased their taxes annually due to its inefficiencies. My community were confused by these council tax bills, not understanding that the local district council only accounted for around 11% of their overall bill and, in fact, that they were paying more to the police and crime commissioner than to their district council. Beyond efficiency, this is about fully unlocking devolution. Lancashire has been left behind. We will end up being one of the largest counties in the north of England without a metro mayor. We have missed out already on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment seen in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, West Yorkshire and the Liverpool city region. That is why I welcome the powers in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to mandate reorganisation where appropriate from a two-tier system to a unitary model. It is a necessary tool to drive reform, and I commend the Secretary of State and the Local Government Minister for their bold vision.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in Westminster Hall the debate on the Northern Ireland veterans petition took place. Given that this is an exceptionally sensitive and emotive issue, Westminster Hall was at full capacity, and many veterans were in attendance and many more were watching online, do you feel that it is appropriate conduct for the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to shout across the floor that I, a military veteran discussing emotive and exceptionally challenging veteran issues, should “show some courage”, in a way that was clearly audible for all to hear? Given the nature and importance of the issue we were attempting to debate, that the remark was shouted from a sedentary position, that the hon. Member is the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and that I and many colleagues found it to be wholly inappropriate and insulting to infer that I lack courage, do you feel that that is acceptable parliamentary language?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Mundell, for allowing me to contribute to today’s petition debate; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will not take any interventions, and I will be as short as I can to allow as many Members as possible to speak. I start by reminding everyone once again that I am a proud retired Royal Engineer. Although I did not serve in Op Banner, many colleagues and friends did. The Op Banner veterans did their duty in exceptionally challenging circumstances, and I commend them all—each and every one of them. I would also point out to colleagues that, despite not serving in Op Banner, I was in Quebec barracks in Osnabrück in Germany when it was attacked by the IRA in June 1996. I get it, I really do. What is of the utmost importance is that we deal in facts, and facts alone. Fact one: the previous Conservative Government pushed through the legacy Act in 2023. The Act created one route for dealing with the past, through the creation of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. It received almost unanimous condemnation from victims groups and the political parties in Northern Ireland, for differing reasons, as has been said. Fact two: the previous Conservative Government publicly stated at the time, despite numerous challenges, that the Act would be fully compliant with the European convention on human rights, the Windsor framework and the Good Friday agreement, and they knew that that most certainly was not the case. In February ’24, the Northern Ireland High Court found that the Act was in fact incompatible with the European convention on human rights, specifically articles 2, 3 and 6, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework, and that it should therefore be disapplied. If the previous Government knew that this was the case, they should never have proceeded in pushing the legacy Act through Parliament. It was a deliberate and wholly irresponsible course of action.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am making progress. Fact three: in January 2024, the Irish Government launched an inter-state application against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of the legacy Act violating articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the convention. This case against the United Kingdom Government is still live. These are indisputable facts. If an Act of Parliament is found to be unlawful, the Government must act. However, the repealing of the legacy Act is not a simple exercise—we all understand that—and any changes introduced must offer the protections that our veterans, victims and impacted families all deserve. My deep concern is that, with any new legislation, we must ensure a wholly comprehensive approach to dealing with the past in Northern Ireland that recognises the unique position our Op Banner veterans find themselves in. They deserve our continued and unwavering support. I am also profoundly concerned at the continued politicisation of our veterans, and at the misinformation being continually spouted by Conservative Members of Parliament, who should know better. This is an issue that Members of all political persuasions should be working on together, not using to seek political gain with inaccurate and misleading statements. The unlawful legacy Act made false and undeliverable promises to our veterans about immunity, and—I say again—it has been repeatedly ruled unlawful. It generated false expectations, legal uncertainty, and delays for victims, survivors and veterans alike. It was opposed by many, including armed forces families who lost relatives serving in Northern Ireland. It gives immunity to terrorists who murdered British soldiers. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans are working tirelessly to put in place protections for our veterans, and to ensure that legacy mechanisms are fair, lawful and proportionate. The Minister for Veterans has met hundreds of veterans and veteran organisations since taking office, including the Royal British Legion and representatives from all major military associations with Northern Ireland service experience, listening to their concerns and incorporating their feedback into the new approach. These are not new arguments, and we have had alternative solutions before, which have just not worked. This is a hugely complex and emotive issue. All Members of Parliament should be working as one to bring about a lawful solution, supporting Ministers and veterans alike, not spreading a fake narrative. Our veterans will continue to receive the full support of this Government, and any new legislation must be carefully considered. I give my word that it will be.