Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Spending: Cross-party Talks · Hansard source

  More

  UK defence companies need certainty from the Government in order to invest and plan with confidence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent efforts at the G7 and NATO summits, and his commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, including 1.5% on defence and security-related investment. Can the Secretary of State clarify how exactly that 1.5% will be measured? Will it involve new projects and investments, or will it merely be a reclassification of existing projects? Crucially, how can industry, public bodies and other stakeholders contribute so that they can help to achieve that goal?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  A genocide case against Israel is before the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu and others. In its 2007 judgment, the ICJ made it clear that a nation’s duty to prevent genocide begins when it becomes aware that there is a serious risk. On Monday, in response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that almost all of Gaza “faces a critical risk of famine”, with half a million innocent people facing starvation. We know that is caused by Israel’s months-long blockade of aid, so has the Minister been satisfactorily notified that there is a serious risk of genocide occurring in Palestine, and will he ensure that the Government take all steps to meet our obligations to prevent genocide?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address. I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation. I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints. I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office. Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  Given the growing instability in Europe and beyond, and the fact that, among other things, the UK is the third most targeted nation on the planet by cyber-attacks, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s intention to turn the tanker around and increase the focus on defence. However, the strategic defence review is only as effective as the spending review that will follow this month. To ensure that this SDR does not suffer the fate that has befallen some of its predecessors, how confident is my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary that his and the Prime Minister’s ambitions will be fully matched with a correspondingly ambitious spending review?

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response, and your good self, Mr Speaker, for kindly granting the urgent question. Following the report in The Sunday Times that the Ministry of Defence is looking to purchase American fighter jets that are capable of deploying tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential that the House gets clarity on the Government’s nuclear deterrent policy—an issue of critical national importance. How have the media got hold of such sensitive information on future nuclear deterrent plans, and what steps are the Government taking to investigate the leak? If the Government are pursuing an air-launched tactical nuclear capability, that is a huge deal. It would represent a significant shift in the UK’s nuclear posture. Indeed, it would be the UK’s most significant defence expansion since the cold war. This raises serious concerns about our sovereignty when it comes to nuclear weapons, about strategic coherence with our current doctrine, and about the principle of continuous at-sea deterrence. Despite the defence nuclear enterprise accounting for around 20% of the defence budget, it remains largely outside meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, including by our Defence Committee. This must change, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how Parliament will be enabled to scrutinise changes to the UK’s nuclear programmes? Have discussions taken place with the US, and what role would it play in this capability? Will the Minister confirm that the UK will retain full operational control over any nuclear weapons? Given that tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, what assessment has been made of the risks of escalation? Will the Minister confirm that only the Prime Minister would have authority to use them, and only in extreme self-defence? Finally, has there been consultation with NATO allies on this potential shift? Decisions of this magnitude must be transparent. The future of our nuclear deterrent must be based on clarity, credibility and, above all, British control.

• 7 May 2025 · Defence Sector Financing · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on defence sector financing. Given the current precarious security situation in Europe, we cannot be complacent and be left behind while our adversaries and others ramp up their military capabilities. Does he agree that it would be highly misguided to hold back British industry in such volatile and unpredictable times?

• 6 May 2025 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  In addition to continuing its cruel aid blockade, a far-right Israeli Minister deplorably told a gathering in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that Gaza is to be “entirely destroyed” and Palestinians will be forced to flee in large numbers “to third countries”. Will the Minister wholeheartedly condemn that, as well as the Netanyahu regime’s proposals to expand their military operations in Gaza? Will he confirm to the House exactly what the Government are doing, with their international allies, to stop these cruel and callous proposals?

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his in-person briefing beforehand. I am glad that our brave service personnel who were involved in yesterday’s strike have returned home safely, and that the precision sovereign strike has destroyed the drone factory with no civilian casualties. I agree with the Secretary of State that Houthi attacks since 2023 have tragically killed innocent merchant mariners, led to a shocking 55% drop in shipping through the Red sea costing billions, fuelled regional instability, and exacerbated the cost of living crisis here in the UK and across the globe. However, on the basis of current intelligence, how confident is he that following yesterday’s strike there will be freedom of navigation and that there will be no further loss of life because of the Houthis?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  Although it was saddening to hear about the continued colossal death and destruction in Ukraine, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Indeed, I welcome his leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, which by pledging a record €21 billion, has demonstrated that the 51 allies are firmly committed to helping our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need. He mentioned the many shorter ceasefires that were agreed and then broken, and the question we need to ask ourselves is: when President Putin says he wants a ceasefire, is that actually the case? However, if a much-needed ceasefire is agreed, how confident is the Secretary of State of convening and then keeping the coalition of the willing together?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  The unanimous Supreme Court judgment has provided clarity over the application of the Equality Act 2010. It is incredibly important that hard-earned women’s rights and single-sex spaces are protected, while also protecting our trans community, who continue to face considerable discrimination; there needs to be a solution whereby they, too, are treated with dignity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this entire issue needs to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity and sensibility, rather than being treated as a political football or a culture war issue?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Christians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  In Gaza, mass atrocities continue and civilians, including children, are being killed. In recent days, the Israeli Defence Minister has threatened to annex parts of Gaza, and we have already seen the illegal annexation of large parts of the west bank, with Palestinian families being forced from their homes to make way for Israeli settlers. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the Church Commissioners are doing to help promote respect for international law and bring an end to this horror?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  What we are witnessing in Gaza is the weaponisation of starvation. With the ongoing blockade of food, water, medicines and shelter now in its second month, there is also the heart-wrenching, despicable discovery of the killing of a further 15 aid workers found in a mass grave, and large-scale hostilities have now restarted. This must stop. Given that it is clear that the Netanyahu regime is not listening to the UK Government and will only listen to President Trump, what pressure are our Government putting on the US to ensure that the Israeli Government finally end their aid blockade?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  Members have rightly raised the invaluable work of their Royal British Legion local branches. I too would like to extol the virtues of RBL Cippenham in Slough and in particular the Berkshire poppy appeal, which does exceptional work in Slough. Most recently, I welcomed the RBL director general to give evidence to the Defence Committee so that we could learn more about the RBL’s national work. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amazing work the RBL does makes it a lifeline for many of our serving members, veterans and their families, and it deserves our recognition and support?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  A “national embarrassment”, a “laughing stock globally”, “shocking”; with memes doing the rounds, those are just some of the words that could be used to describe this weekend’s events at Heathrow. While right hon. Members on our Defence Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy were busy discussing hybrid and cyber-threats from our adversaries, our nation’s biggest port was taken down by a single substation fire. Does my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary agree that, while my Slough constituents and people across the country are not bothered with the blame game that is now under way, this event should be a wake-up call regarding the resilience of our national infrastructure, and there should be no repeat?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Defence of Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  With escalating threats to our critical infrastructure, I was concerned by reports over the weekend that our armed forces chiefs are apparently being gagged over the upcoming strategic defence review, which has been described by some as “limp”. I am fully aware that, recognising the dangers, the Government have announced the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the second world war, but at this critical time we certainly should not be sidelining our service chiefs or penny-pinching on our nation’s defence. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to reassure the nation that our strategic defence review, when published, will be bold, ambitious and anything but limp?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  As well as expressing my sadness and alarm about the Netanyahu Government’s again blocking aid from entering Gaza, may I point out that over the years I have repeatedly expressed my concern in Parliament about the forced evictions and illegal settlements in the west bank? Now, shockingly, for the first time in two decades, there are tanks in Jenin and further displacement of Palestinians. What representations are the Government making to the Israeli Government that aid must not be blocked from entering Gaza, and that this illegal occupation and these further evictions must be stopped immediately?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, the warmth of his welcome and hugs for President Zelensky, and his show of leadership on defence and security matters in our continent as he hosted his Sunday summit of leaders in London. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in our pursuit of a just, lasting peace, he will do his level best to convince President Trump to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, and to convince those NATO allies that are not spending 2% of GDP on defence to step up to the plate and do much more?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on defence and security, because times are a-changing and we must all recognise that these are pivotal moments not just for our nation’s security but for our Ukrainian friends, whom we must wholeheartedly support in their fight for survival. In my various interactions with key stakeholders in my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I have begun to realise that there is considerable consternation among our European allies about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances—rather than a short-term transactional approach—can still be relied on to secure lasting peace. Also, given the proposed reduction in the American presence on our continent, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time to step forward as a nation and take the lead on defence and security matters on our continent. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to President Trump and our American allies the anxieties of our European allies and the need to strengthen our transatlantic NATO alliance at this perilous time for Europe, and does he agree that he can be the person to take the lead on defence and security matters in Europe, coalescing with our NATO allies?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I get the opportunity to meet many ambassadors, Defence Ministers, attachés and other stakeholders, both here in London and at events and gatherings such as the Munich security conference. There is considerable consternation and anxiety among them about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances, rather than a short-term transactional approach, can still be relied on. Given the reduced American presence, and as we mark the third anniversary of Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time as a nation to take that lead on defence and security matters in our continent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be our Prime Minister who takes that lead in our continent while pulling together our transatlantic, NATO and other allies in the process?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on SME participation in defence procurement. Having run my own start-up construction business in bonnie Scotland many years ago, I can appreciate full well that small and medium-sized enterprises are not given their due and rightful importance by Government structures, and more generally. The Government’s own Green Paper notes there is a need “to address issues that inhibit or prevent growth in the defence sector”. Does my hon. Friend agree that defence contract opportunities must be made more accessible to SMEs in order for us to support their growth and continue innovation?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Lib Dem defence spokesperson for allowing me to intervene. The Procurement Act 2023 was intended to make it easier for small businesses to access public sector procurement. Does she agree that it is now for the Government to set out clearly what other support will be made available to already busy SMEs, to remove the complexities and barriers as they seek to gain contracts within the pipeline?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  We live in an increasingly volatile world, so I thank the Minister for his clarification on defence spending. Surely the cost of fighting a war, notwithstanding the human cost, is significantly higher than that of having a credible deterrent force. The Prime Minister recently told me at the Liaison Committee that the strategic defence review has to be completed before the path to 2.5% can be plotted, so why have there been discussions about the timeline for that path before the SDR has been published?

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

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure. I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue. In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond? My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that, under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point. The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments. I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate?