Paul Foster MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  It is critical to point out that this debate is not just about funding, but the programmes being funded. We must get those programmes right and fit for future needs. In my constituency, many thousands are employed at BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury. They are working diligently to ensure the Typhoon jet remains fit for the future, and the collaborative combat aircraft—also known as the autonomous jets programme—will secure thousands of jobs in the future and keep our country safe. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure the DIP is right, not rushed?

• 21 Apr 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  After the destruction of Gaza and the deaths of in excess of 72,000 Palestinians, it is evident that the Israeli Government have turned their attention not only to Lebanon and Iran, but also to the west bank. In the west bank there are now daily reports of extreme violence and death, as well as the forceful eviction of Palestinians and the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. That is not only immoral, but yet further evidence of illegal Israeli Government-sponsored activity. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence in the west bank must stop immediately, as must the continued expansion of illegal settlements? Can she assure the House that despite the continuing conflicts in Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan, the Government are very much still focused on Gaza and the west bank?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the right hon. Gentleman update me on where he heard that the Government have any intention whatsoever of withdrawing the HM forces or HM veterans railcards? I have a veterans railcard, and I have not seen any evidence anywhere that there is an intention to withdraw them.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to our armed forces as a global laughing stock, is that perhaps because of—we had this debate in the Chamber yesterday—the inheritance his party’s Government left: no ships, no aircraft and the lowest number of British troops since the Napoleonic wars? Does he concede that one of the problems with delivering the DIP is that appalling inheritance?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I can provide a real-world example of how ludicrous the current system is. A friend of mine joined the Paras, completed P company, served with the Paras, smelt the coffee, and joined the REME and transferred to the Royal Engineers. He served for about 12 years in colour service and left. Within a year of leaving, he wanted to join his local reserve infantry unit, which said that it would accept him only if he did full reserve basic training. I take it that this legislation will prevent that nonsense in the future, because it seems ludicrous.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that we must understand that we inherited an MOD procurement system in disarray, unfunded defence programmes, an Air Force without enough aircraft or helicopters, a Navy without enough ships, and an Army with a low—Napoleonic—number of troops? We face wars in the middle east and Ukraine. We are working with an exceptionally challenging situation, and we must get this right. Please do not allow the Opposition to rewrite history.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I find this a fascinating debate because we can all see the meaning of the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned victims. If he recalls, we all visited the Defence Serious Crime Command and the victim support unit, and it was made clear that the victim support service has made some real improvements over the past few years. In any crime investigation that is transferred from the service justice system to the criminal justice system, the victim support unit cannot support the victim. That is a concern to me, and it was raised with us. Does the hon. Member agree that is a considerable concern that we should look at?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the majority of courts martial involve non-commissioned individuals? Although senior commissioned officers are subject to court martial at times, they are in the minority. The majority are non-commissioned officers.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that “transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.” Was the right hon. Member aware of that?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we may be jumping the gun slightly? The covenant’s statutory guidance will explain in detail what due regard means in practice.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

  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.