Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community.

I am delighted to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate. It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to his place. The United Kingdom’s capacity in explosive weapons disposal and victim assistance requires the utmost Government support, particularly at a time of extreme geopolitical unrest.

Two weeks ago in Parliament, I met specialists from our explosive ordnance disposal community, the military, the police, the commercial sector, academia and related non-governmental organisations. Among other things, we discussed the United Kingdom’s enviable global reputation for expertise in search and disposal and victim assistance. As well as a global reputation, we have global reach: impacted countries around the world turn to the UK to provide search-and-disposal assistance, policy advice and training. We also have a vibrant EOD equipment production and export sector.

Our humanitarian mine action delivery, through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s global mine action programme, sees our major charities working on almost every continent. With a budget of £14.8 million for 2023-24, the programme is the UK’s main vehicle for tackling the threat posed by landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. We have all seen the photographs of Princess Diana in a minefield in Angola, but there is so much more that the United Kingdom does to make the world safe from explosive weapons, including within our own borders.

At our meeting, we agreed that the UK certainly has the capability, but our capacity to cope with the major conflicts that are currently happening and those that are in danger of flaring up may well be stretched. These conflicts will result in an overwhelming need for explosive weapons disposal expertise once any form of peace is allowed to descend. Explosive weapons are being used in modern conflicts to an extent that we have not seen for generations. The number of people killed and injured by explosive weapons is mind-numbingly high. In the past three years, there has been a 70% increase in civilian casualties, with the conflicts in Ukraine and the middle east as the major cause. Ukraine now has more amputees than the UK has military personnel.

In 1999, the anti-personnel mine ban convention, also known as the Ottawa convention or the mine ban treaty, came into force. The UK was one of its first signatories. It was soon followed by the convention on cluster munitions in 2010. Neither Russia nor the United States signed either convention; Ukraine did. The USA is now offering Ukraine the use of anti-personnel landmines—weapons that Russia has been using since day one of the conflict. Aggressors throughout history have never let the rules of war or international probation interrupt a good night’s sleep, while those countries that hold the rule of law dear are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

We are not in any position to stop Ukraine using landmines or cluster munitions, but we can help it to clear up the mess once the hostilities are over. Landmines are not a new weapon, but technological advances have made them increasingly sophisticated and dangerous. The sheer variety of weapons being used in Ukraine—from cold war-era landmines to airdropped Russian munitions, which are now triggered seismically by recognising approaching footsteps—poses a huge challenge to those sent to clear them. Many new smart weapons are battery-powered, and the claim is that once the battery goes flat, the weapon is no longer a threat, but there is still a piece of explosive material stuck in the ground and it still needs to be cleared. It will take decades to make the land safe again. The task of search and clearance will be vast, but the UK is in a strong position to play a leading role in helping Ukraine to clear the explosive threats.

Since my meeting in Parliament with the professionals, I have had an online briefing with a British EOD specialist based in Ukraine. I asked him what his particular concerns were and where he felt the UK could make a difference. His first response was about the lack of trained personnel required to address the magnitude of contamination in Ukraine. Some 150,000 sq km of land is considered at risk and in need of survey before clearance can take place. Even with the likelihood of 75% to 80% of that area not being physically contaminated, it would take at least 10,000 de-miners working all year round for 10 years to make the land safe, at a conservative estimate. Currently, we think that there may be 2,000 de-miners in Ukraine. That led us on to discussing the availability of suitable equipment.

The EOD specialist’s major concern is the lack of co-ordination among equipment donor countries and companies. The operators know that equipment is available, even in-country, but they do not know exactly what or where. That leads to a lack of clarity on what is still required and what specific training needs to be on offer. There are land clearance machines from various countries, including Armtrac machines from the UK, but they can be used only in very particular terrains, and there are a multitude of different terrains to be cleared.

The lack of donor co-ordination is not unique to Ukraine. It is an issue on which the UK is in a good position to lead at a diplomatic level in donor co-ordination meetings at the UN. Also of concern to the operators, and not unique to Ukraine, is the issue of export, import and control licensing. De-mining equipment is being supplied to Ukraine, but the licences to use it are not being issued by the Ukrainian authorities. Our de-miner said:

“I can guarantee that there is equipment in a warehouse somewhere that should be in the field. Equipment like this will be collecting dust because of the lack of licensing and suitable training.”

There is a role for the UK to negotiate an easing of restrictions with Ukrainians.

I asked about the role of emerging technology in survey and clearance work. Our de-miner’s response was that technology was a useful additional role, but nothing could provide a perfect solution for every context. Total assured clearance can only really be achieved by suitably trained human operatives on the ground.

I might add at this point that a number of UK academic institutions are at the forefront of research into highly sophisticated de-mining technologies, such as drone-mounted ground-penetrating radar, chemical signature analysis and ground anomaly analysis. If we are to improve the pace and scale of de-mining operations, we must ensure that research into de-mining technology receives support.

On assistance to the appalling number of victims of exploding weapons, we discussed the possible role for de-mining operators to take on injured former combatants and retrain them as de-miners or equipment technicians. This would give the veterans a sense of purpose in the continuing defence of their country. The Revive campaign here in the UK is working to co-ordinate a PhD programme with Imperial College and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy to investigate the link between blast injury and self-identity in civilians and the military. The results of that research will inform our approach to victim assistance in many other conflicts and contexts around the world.

As a final point about UK specialists operating in complex environments, our de-miner said that the role of the UK insurance industry was vital to allowing them to operate in areas such as Ukraine or the middle east. Our UK regulatory framework on insurance companies ensures that specialist policies for de-mining activities are considered fit for purpose.

Returning to our theme of the UK’s capability and capacity, explosive weapon clearance is not just about saving lives and land release. Our EOD activity can be a tool for peace building, economic development and reconstruction in post-conflict countries. It can be a powerful diplomatic tool. At a time when there is a seismic shift in geopolitical power, the UK needs a suite of effective and impactful diplomatic tools. Our EOD specialism is one such tool.

The UK Government are rightly focused on bringing the conflicts to an end. We are supplying much-needed equipment and materials to Ukraine, and our defence industries are heavily supported by our trade and export Departments. But are we overlooking our post-conflict services? How much consideration is there in Whitehall for the EOD task?

When conflicts are over, there is a need to return the land to its previous use—in the case of Ukraine, often agricultural use. This brings jobs, enables individuals to support their families, and supports the local economy and global food security.

I have mentioned that the rise in victim numbers was huge. Victims, both physically and psychologically, are scarred for life. At the meeting two weeks ago, I had the privilege of speaking to three victims of explosive weapons: one who was a refugee from Ukraine and two who had taken their children to a pop concert in Manchester. They had similar stories, although from very different contexts.

When an explosive weapon is cleared, a threat has been removed, a life has been saved and a job has been well done, but for a victim of an explosive weapon, their whole life has been changed. What we hear from victims is that there is plenty of support and medical attention at the time of impact, but over time they become forgotten. Hard-stretched local health services and charities are left to care for them—not just civilian but military victims. I have already referred to the psychological trauma associated with an injury in Ukraine and the research into the impact on self-identity.

One of the voices at my meeting was that of a leading surgeon at the Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College, a UK institution leading the field of research into understanding the impact of blast on the human body and developing the tools to protect the body from blast and the prosthetics for those who fall victim. It is only relatively recently that, through Centre for Blast Injury Studies research, we have started to learn about the differences in the impact on male and female bodies. For de-miners, the one traditional size of protective gear does not fit the female physique. Last year, the centre produced a field manual on paediatric blast injury, which was quickly translated into Ukrainian and Arabic. That document tragically highlights the fact that children are increasingly becoming the victims of explosive weapons.

We are privileged in this country to have some of the best facilities for dealing with the physical and psychological impacts of blast, but do we have the resources and political will to provide the lifelong support that many victims require? How much consideration is given in Whitehall to long-term victim assistance, both globally and domestically? Clearing the millions of explosive remnants of war will take a huge effort and will cost billions of pounds, and supporting the victims needs the same level of attention.

I began this debate by saying how positively we are seen in the world for our explosive ordnance disposal capability. I related a story from a de-miner in Ukraine, I explained the importance of long-term victim assistance, and I have asked two questions of the Minister. I am currently drawing together a new all-party parliamentary group on explosive weapons and their impact. I hope that this debate will be the first of many conversations with the Minister and his colleagues on the issues that I have raised today.

09:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. You are a friend of everyone in this House—but you already know that. We all appreciate your humour and social engagement. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting the scene so very well.

I want to talk about something that has happened in my constituency in the past four months to show why the issue is so important, and I will then refer to the international stage. The hon. Lady has clearly set out the reasons why this debate is important. It is unfortunate that more hon. Members are not here to support her, but there are many demands on Members, so they may have reasons for not being here.

It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. Given his personal experience, I know that we will get a positive response to the things we ask for. It is also nice to see the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas); we look forward to their contributions.

I will speak about my recent experience of the issue, not the experience that unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I have of the 30-plus years of the troubles in Northern Ireland—we can talk about many things that happened. Just slightly over four months ago, we had need of Army expertise in the main town in my constituency, Newtownards. I received a message saying that there was a bomb in the town. When we hear such things, as my hon. Friend and I have done over our lives—we have probably had longer lives than most people in this Chamber, so we can talk about many things that have happened—our hearts sink. I said, “Oh, goodness me. Not again!” We thought that somebody had decided to carry out a terrorist bomb attack somewhere in the town.

The last bomb that I knew of in Newtownards was in 1993. I remember it very well: it was an IRA bomb that devastated the centre of the town. That night, I was at my Orange lodge meeting in Kircubbin, some 10 miles down the road, but we heard the bomb explosion. As soon as we heard it, at that distance, we were mindful of what was taking place. The devastation to property and the mental health of those around it was substantial. It destroyed businesses; some did not come back. Some people were injured, and they still have those scars.

When I received that message four months ago, my heart definitely sank. I probably had a large dose of butterflies in my stomach as I tried to ascertain exactly what was going on. After a quick phone call to the local police, I was able to ascertain exactly what had happened. The munition was from a different war: it was identified as being an airdropped SC 500 German bomb from world war two. That did not lessen the impact, because of where it was. The German bomber dropped that bomb on desolate land and farmland, but now, some 83 years later, it has been built on.

As the builder was excavating, he suddenly realised what he had come upon. The bomb was understood to be about 83 years old, but it still posed a significant risk to public safety even after all that time. It was found as developers were digging foundations at the third phase of the housing development, and the action was quick and decisive. I want to put on record my thanks to the bomb disposal experts and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They were able to respond in a decisive, impactful, quick and urgent way, because they understood the risk.

The people there had only just bought their houses. I went to the area immediately to speak to residents after they had contacted me. They all had to move out and were worried about their quite substantial new houses. It was a highly complex operation, which prompted the evacuation of hundreds of homes within 400 metres of the bomb’s location.

Local police officers worked around the clock to engage with those impacted. There was a cordon in which all the houses going down to the new development were caught. That is another matter I want to speak about: when there is an unexploded bomb, what does it mean? Some people are not able to move out of their homes because they are disabled. That is unfortunate, but it tells us about life. There were people with terminal cancer on medication. Others had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, whose very breath of life was in an oxygen bottle in their house, where they were cared for 24/7. That is the impact that those incidents can have.

I spoke on the Sunday to a lady at the cordon whose house was nearest to the bomb. She said that she had just bought the house, with the windows only put in the previous week. She was due to go in the next week to sort out the décor. She wondered whether her house would still be there after the authorities had done what they had to do. That is the personal knowledge that I have to bring to this debate. I understand why it is important and the sort of things that go through people’s minds. I would have those same thoughts about the people who are ill and have health conditions that mean they cannot move out.

Others want to stay in their houses to look after their dogs and cats. Those are elementary but decisive concerns for people. Thanks to the goodness of many people in Newtownards and district, we were able to find Airbnbs and other places for people to stay with their family. We were even able to find someone to look after the dogs and cats. I never fail to be encouraged and moved by people’s generosity and goodness in putting their hands up and doing their best to make life easier for others.

The highly complex operation prompted the evacuation of a large number of homes. The disposal team comprised members of the Army’s 321 EOD & Search squadron, which alongside the PSNI led the major operation. They were assisted by other emergency services and partners, who provided expert knowledge in managing a high-risk emergency.

We had hoped that such things would not happen again, but all of a sudden it was back and we were confronting it. People’s questions are really important. Local council services were also made available at the Ards Blair Mayne leisure centre, if people needed somewhere to stay and had not been able to find accommodation. Other authorities were there, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Department for Work and Pensions and the PSNI. Everyone was available; it became a gigantic effort of response from the whole area.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our thanks are due to all the EOD personnel who act, not just in the United Kingdom but internationally, as we heard from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)? In Northern Ireland today, even in the post-ceasefire era that we are in, we have 100 to 200 incidents every year in which EOD personnel are called out to deal with landmines and other devices that are planted; some are not genuine, but they are called out anyway. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to those personnel, who put their own lives at risk while trying to protect others.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to underline that issue and its importance. While recognising that everybody came together to do their best and to make it happen, I want to move on to speaking about Ukraine, if I may.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I would like to say that he has spoken powerfully about the work that was undertaken by British armed forces personnel during the troubles, and subsequently in addressing the unexploded ordnance threat in Northern Ireland. When I was the Armed Forces Minister, I had the privilege of visiting one of those units and seeing for myself the incredible work that it did. Would he join me—and, I am sure, all Members this morning—in paying tribute to those incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives day after day to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly will, and so will we all: the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has said it, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said it, I have said it, and the shadow Minister has said it. I think everyone in the House will reiterate it. We owe them a great debt and it cannot be underlined enough.

The last thing I want to say about the Ards incident is that the residents’ group came to me and asked, “Could we have a public meeting to try to address some of the concerns?” To be fair, McDonald’s, for instance, just up the road, had given 100 or so vouchers to people as well. People’s generosity was incredible. It was not just a trip to McDonald’s, which my grandchildren love; it was a meal for someone who had not got a house in which to make a meal. That was the importance of it.

I remember that when I went to the public meeting— I say this even though it had nothing to do with me, but I do try, as an MP, to be representative—one of the guys said to me as I arrived, “Are you going in there?” I said, “I am, because I am the MP. Of course I’m going in.” He said, “You know, there’s almost 100 people in there.” I said, “Well, I have to go and speak to people. They’ve asked me to come down, and I don’t run away.”

I went into the meeting, and everybody was saying, “Oh my goodness.” We need to remember that when people are under pressure, they deserve to have someone to help them. I was able to do that. It was not because I am better than anybody else; it is never to do with that. It was because I was able to hopefully give them some answers to the questions that they had.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has secured this debate. I think it is all part of what the ordnance do, but it is about the importance of the project.

It was with no thanks to me, but three quarters of the way through the meeting, guess what? A phone call came in and it was a girl who works for me. She said, “By the way, Jim, it is all over. The bomb has exploded.” I could not say that I delivered that, but it happened coincidentally. I immediately saw the relief on people’s faces and the weight lift off their shoulders, as about half the people in the meeting went out of the room to get back to their house.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

To finish their McDonald’s.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, they all got their McDonald’s chippies before they left. Honestly though, it was a relief. My goodness, I have never had a relief quite like it. It was wonderful.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell highlighted Ukraine. Information that I have received highlights that every day 15 people are killed or injured by landmines and other explosive ordnance. Civilians account for 84% of casualties, and more than a third of those are children. My goodness! I think most of those children are under the age of 10. Imagine starting off life with a prosthetic limb—if they can get one. The hon. Lady mentioned that in setting the scene.

By the way, I was not aware, until I heard the hon. Lady say it, that prosthetic limbs for men and women are different. It should have come to my knowledge long before she said it, but I did not quite understand it until she said it. I thank her for reminding us of the greater job that must be undertaken.

About 60 countries are contaminated with landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive ordnance. Those include countries where conflict has ended, such as Angola or Cambodia, and those with recent or ongoing conflicts, such as Lebanon, which is very much in the news, and Ukraine.

Sometimes we need to be reminded of the conflicts in the world, including the impact of conflict on Ukraine. I am not saying that the impact on Russia has not been equal. It is not about them and us; it is more about everyone who has been killed or injured. However, many people have been killed in Ukraine. I do not want to cite the figures, because they are rather worrying; one newspaper says one thing one day and another says something different another day. Nevertheless, of the perhaps 300,000 people injured in Ukraine, I understand that half have had to have limbs replaced, as the hon. Lady said, so there is a great need to help.

I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I would really appreciate it—I know that the hon. Lady would appreciate it as well—if he could give us some idea about how we can provide more help to those who have lost limbs. Children especially, if people do not mind my saying so, and men and women have to deal with life without an arm, without a leg or perhaps without two legs. We want to give them hope. When we have debates, we always have to give people hope. It is important that we look towards the future.

The UK has long played an active role in tackling this threat, with diplomatic efforts and by providing funding for mine action programmes. The UK currently supports that work in 11 countries, primarily through the FCDO’s global mine action programme. I always do this type of thing, because it is the right thing to do, but I thank the Government—both the previous Government and this Government, who will continue the work—for the global mine action programme. Its work is important and will hopefully continue for the foreseeable future, because there is a great need for it.

What help can the UK give to the victims of conflict who have lost limbs, such as by providing prosthetic limbs? We lead the world in that regard because of the war in Afghanistan. The hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who served in Afghanistan, is present. We thank him for his efforts and we thank many others for their efforts, too.

It is incredibly important that we give people hope. I look back at what has happened in the past couple of years, including Prince Harry’s efforts and the Invictus games. What an example that event gives the world of those who have prosthetic limbs and what they can achieve! I always watch such events, because it is incredibly encouraging to see people overcome disabilities in a positive way.

There is also the Paralympics. Again, there is a mix of life. All the athletes have disabilities. Some of them have lost their limbs for reasons other than conflict. Nevertheless, all the athletes achieve so much. When we see what can be achieved by someone with a prosthetic limb, when they have the opportunity to re-engage in life and have some sort of normality, that is so important.

The debate that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has secured has a twofold purpose. One relates to the experience of Newtownards just four months ago; the other relates to where we are in this world today. I have hope about the years to come, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will be totally committed to achieving the goals that we hope to achieve. I am fully supportive of the global mine action programme and urge the Government to continue to support it. In Newtownards, we struggled in a small way for a week with fear about unexploded ordnance, but through the programme we can try to take away that fear from those around the world, particularly in Ukraine, who live their whole life with it.

I suppose I am the eternal optimist. President Trump is now the President-elect, and has said that he will do his best to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end. I observe that there seems to be movement, and President Zelensky seems to understand that an agreement will come. Whenever peace comes, and we hope it will, we will have to rebuild Ukraine to how it was and help people to re-engage and restart life—which is where prosthetic limbs come in. We also have to remove all the ordnance in Ukraine that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to. It will take many years for that to happen and for the agricultural land to be returned to the green fields that feed the world, and Africa in particular. That is why this debate is important and why, today, we ask for all those things.

10:00

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak following my late arrival, Mr Dowd. I understand that I have perhaps not followed normal procedure.

I start by acknowledging the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate to support the explosive ordnance disposal community. The work of that community saves lives, enables economic recovery and helps to rebuild societies that have been devastated by conflict. It is a critical aspect of our national and international security and it deserves our utmost attention.

As we have heard, the global threat of explosive ordnance—including landmines, cluster munitions and unexploded bombs left behind in the aftermath of conflicts—results in the deaths of 15 people every day. Civilians account for 84% of those casualties, and over a third of them are children. Those tragic figures remind us of the enduring danger that explosive ordnance possesses long after the fighting has ceased.

Contamination spans 60 countries, affecting regions with recent conflicts such as Ukraine and, in particular, Gaza, as well as those with decades-old legacies including, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Cambodia and Angola, which are particularly afflicted. Those weapons are not just remnants of violence but barriers to progress, safety and prosperity, and they disproportionately impact the lives of women, who have to traverse the terrain to sustain their families. We must not overlook that when we discuss the unexploded ordnance detritus that is left after war.

Mine action goes beyond clearing explosive ordnance; it restores hope and opportunity. Studies show that every £1 spent on mine clearance yields a fourfold return in economic benefits, as well as unlocking land, agriculture, infrastructure and the roots of normal daily life, particularly for women and children in education. For example, in Lebanon, the clearing of landmines has enabled safer farming and access to critical resources such as water, benefiting thousands of families. Explosive ordnance clearance also supports global humanitarian objectives. It aligns with sustainable development goals, fostering food security, economic growth and safer communities. That work exemplifies the transformative power of collaboration between Governments, NGOs and local communities.

The UK has made a proud contribution to that work, which is the subject of this debate. We have a long-standing and distinguished record of mine action. As one of the first signatories to the anti-personnel mine ban convention, and the convention on cluster munitions, our country has demonstrated unwavering commitment to upholding international humanitarian law. Through schemes such as the FCDO’s global mine action programme, the UK has directly supported explosive ordnance disposal in 11 countries, and that benefited more than 1 million people between 2018 and 2020 alone. Organisations such as the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which I have been very proud to speak for and associate myself with, are headquartered here in the UK. They are global leaders and they showcase the best of British expertise and values.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for making an important and powerful point about honouring and supporting our veterans and their contribution. As we discuss the impacts of explosive ordnance globally, we must also turn our attention to the incredible legacy of our Afghan veterans, many of whom have been injured by landmines while serving our country. This is not a historical issue: it is an ongoing responsibility. Every day, we see veterans going about their business with prosthetic limbs. They have made a valuable contribution and they are a valued part of our community. The armed forces covenant is essential in reminding us of our moral obligation to support those who have sacrificed so much for our security.

This evening, gallant Members and I will meet Afghanistan veterans to hear at first hand their experiences and the challenges they face. Their courage and resilience reminds us of the importance of addressing their needs, from healthcare to employment and community support. Events such as the Invictus games celebrate and strengthen the determination of our injured service personnel, and they are a testament to what can be achieved when we come together to honour and support those individuals.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Army Benevolent Fund does outstanding work to help veterans and that we all should support it? I tabled an early-day motion yesterday to draw attention to that work. The fund has achieved remarkable things in helping former personnel.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful and significant intervention. The service charities are critical in supporting our veterans. A powerful part of their work is in normalising veterans in the community and ensuring that people treat them as a normal part of our community. Veterans have left a visible and lasting legacy, and it is essential that the service charities continue to support our veterans long into the future. However, those efforts must be matched by real and sustained commitments from the Government. I welcome the presence of the Veterans Minister, who I know has been key to ensuring that these issues are addressed and that no veterans are left behind.

Our Government’s defence industrial strategy enhances our contribution by integrating explosive ordnance disposal into the broader framework of our national armaments. The strategy prioritises UK-based businesses, fosters long-term partnership and drives innovation at a wartime pace. It also ensures that regions beyond London benefit from job creation and economic growth. However, as a London MP I would like to see that opportunity opened up to all people, including the very bright and promising youth of London, as we produce thousands of personnel who are ready to engage with jobs and opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths.

In addition, our approach aligns with our national security goals and the work of organisations such as the MAG. Its work in Lebanon accounts for the removal of live munitions decades after their use. That is a demonstration of how targeted landmine clearance can transform lives. Similarly, in Ukraine an estimated 1,500 sq km of land remains contaminated. This will increase massively and impact a country for which agriculture is central to its very existence. Our support must not just be humanitarian; it is also vital for global stability and for food-bearing nations such as Ukraine.

The lessons from Ukraine do not end there. On Tuesday, the Defence Committee heard about some of the lessons we were learning from supporting Ukraine. Our defence industry can rapidly integrate and provide the support that is most relevant to the battlefield situation that Ukrainians face. This is ultimately similar to the battlefields we need to prepare to face as NATO allies, given Russia’s ongoing strategy of escalating aggression. Will the Minister set out any thoughts he has on how that point can be applied to the ordnance removal mission that we share with our partners both in Ukraine and around the world? Surely, the broader point is that, whether in supplying military support or explosives removal, UK expertise can only grow in ways that benefit our own interest and those of our partners if we are responsive, and able and willing to learn quickly.

Explosive ordnance disposal is also an economic opportunity. The UK defence sector already supports 434,000 jobs, with 67% located away from the south-east. By aligning mine action with defence investments, we can ensure that UK regions grow and that all parts of the UK, including my constituency, benefit from this vital work. The challenges posed by explosive ordnance require a sustained and collaborative effort. I urge the Government to restore and expand funding for mine action programmes, particularly in heavily affected regions like Lebanon and Ukraine. This is about not just saving lives but demonstrating Britain’s values on the world stage.

We must also strengthen our partnerships with NGOs, industry, and academia to leverage the unique expertise that the UK has to offer. By doing so, we can ensure that our nation continues to lead in explosive ordnance disposal, delivering both humanitarian and strategic benefits. Let us reaffirm our commitment to explosive ordnance disposal and to the global fight against these silent and unseen killers. Together we can save lives, foster development and, most importantly, uphold Britain’s proud tradition as a force for good in the world.

10:13

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing forward this important debate. I have the honour of representing the Liberal Democrats as defence spokesperson in her stead.

I never served on the ground in Afghanistan and I never met Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid. He served in Afghanistan and disarmed 64 improvised explosive devices during a tour of duty in 2009. Undoubtedly, he saved many of our brave soldiers and civilians in doing so. He had been deployed to Afghanistan from his unit in Didcot, just a few miles from my own unit at RAF Benson. Staff Sergeant Schmid was killed while disarming his 65th device in November 2009. On the final day of his deployment, he was 30 years old. The day before, he had telephoned his five-year-old stepson, who had told him, “Daddy, it is time to come home.” It is one of so many personal stories of heroism and tragedy that our soldiers brought back from Afghanistan.

In truth, I do not know why Staff Sergeant Schmid’s story gripped me so tightly, but I used to drive past the Vauxhall barracks in Didcot every weekend from RAF Benson. I always recall that somewhere inside was Olaf’s family, whose hero never came home. One particular family of so many.

The words of my gallant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, stirred up some lost memories from my own career. She mentioned the enduring threat of the explosive remnants of war to the Ukrainian agricultural community. I recall a tour of the battlefields of France and Belgium in 2015, where I learned that even after 100 years, farmers and their cattle are regularly killed by leftover munitions.

In 2010 I served a deployment to the Falkland Islands. The drive between Mount Pleasant airfield and Stanley took me past miles and miles of land demarcated by warning signs alerting me to minefields. These mines do not always stay where they are planted; they can move over time, given the harshness of the weather systems in the Falkland Islands.

Having left the armed forces in 2023, I am proud now to stand with the Liberal Democrats, and together we stand for all victims of conflict—participants and innocents. Anti-personnel mines are a particularly sinister tool of war, often maiming and killing long after conflicts have ended. Often, those affected are civilians, including children.

Our Ukrainian sister party, Servant of the People, has continuously raised the issue of cluster munitions and their continuing impact on civilians since Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in 2022. The “Landmine Monitor” report published in November 2024 shows that there were at least 5,757 casualties from landmines and the explosive remnants of war in 2023, an increase of 22% since 2022. I thank hon. Members from Northern Ireland for reminding me that this is an issue not just overseas, but here in the United Kingdom—something that our predecessor Lord Ashdown spoke so passionately and eloquently about.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that there are lasting impacts to being struck by an explosive device such as a mine or unexploded ordnance. Often, those impacts are lifelong, both for the victim and for their loved ones. We therefore call for a full programme of support to provide medical and psychological assistance to victims and families of those impacted by such devices. We celebrate the work of the explosive ordnance disposal community and praise their courage in supporting communities impacted by mines and other warfare. We call on the Government to restore the international development budget to 0.7% of national income, as it was the last time the Liberal Democrats were in government.

10:17

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. Having read my Order Paper over coffee, may I offer you my congratulations on your appointment to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee? It is an extremely responsible post in which we all have utter confidence that you will do very well. Good luck, Sir.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

[Mr Francois]

Perhaps I should begin by declaring a personal family interest in this subject. My late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay from 1943 until the second world war ended, so he was involved in bomb disposal of a sort. Perhaps more accurately it was mine disposal, but nevertheless he personally faced a threat from large explosive devices, albeit in a maritime context. As his son, I am proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on this very important subject this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so ably. She made a very knowledgeable contribution, no doubt drawing on her own military experience. In particular, she illustrated the challenge posed to the international community by the sheer scale of this problem around the world.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the threat from terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland, which is a subject to which I would like to return. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Calvin Bailey)—an RAF veteran, if I may call him that—also addressed the international scale of the challenge. Last but not least, I am supported by our shadow Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who as a former Royal Marine, like the Minister, understands quite a lot about the subject.

I would like to begin my own contribution with a historical perspective on bomb disposal operations in the British armed forces, before moving on to address both military and, increasingly, civilian operations in this crucial field of activity, right up to the present day. Bomb disposal, or, to give it its more formal title, explosive ordnance disposal—EOD for short—can be traced back for over a century. During the first world war, squads of men were assembled to help deal with unexploded bombs left after raids on London and the south east by German zeppelin bombers and their Gotha Giant aircraft counterparts—a bombing campaign that was very well summarised by Neil Hanson in his book “First Blitz”.

In addition, with the advent of truly industrialised warfare in the first world war, teams of engineers were needed to dispose of unexploded munitions, particularly high explosive shells that had fallen among the allied trenches on the western front but failed to detonate. Even at that time, this was highly skilled and extremely dangerous work—a characteristic that has remained true right through to the present day.

By the time of the second world war, although the need for bomb disposal on the battlefield was undiminished, with the advent of the mass bombing of civilian targets, the need for bomb disposal on the home front expanded accordingly. This led to a high death toll among those brave enough to undertake the task of dealing with unexploded bombs—or UXBs, as they were characterised at that time. Juliet Gardiner, in her book entitled simply “The Blitz”, describes the losses in the following terms, which I think are quite evocative:

“Sometimes a UXB might embed itself a few feet in the ground, or fall into a static water tank or a gasometer but many penetrated deep below the surface and were difficult to get at. The defusers’ survival would have depended on staying one step ahead of German technology, since as soon as they learnt how one time delay mechanism worked, it would be replaced by another. By the end of 1940, 123 officers and men of the bomb disposal squads had been killed and 67 wounded. The deaths did not cease with the end of the war, as UXB’s continued to be uncovered. By 1947, 490 had been killed in the battle to extract these great torpid iron pigs from their holes and render them harmless.”

The need for EOD workers continued as a facet of British military operations since the end of the second world war, right up to the present day. For instance, dealing with both republican and so-called loyalist bombs was a key facet of Operation Banner, the British Army’s campaign to support the civil authorities during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A number of bomb disposal officers were killed and many were wounded during the course of the troubles, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly reminded us.

The scale of the task that they were up against was well summarised by Desmond Hamill in his book “Pig in the Middle” about the British Army’s role in Northern Ireland. He summarised the challenge as follows:

“Over the years the Provisionals have become expert at designing and manufacturing booby-traps. Only the week before, a bomb disposal sergeant had been killed by a bomb within a bomb in County Fermanagh. It had been packed into a milk churn, and when the sergeant had cleared the timing device and was lifting it out, a detonator underneath set off the second bomb which exploded.”

As the author went on to explain:

“The bombs were often very simple and very deadly. The components were readily available—a few pounds of explosives, a detonator, a battery and a couple of feet of wire. The triggering device could either be a plate buried in the ground or even a clothes peg.”

As the Minister will be well aware, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers served on Operation Banner during the troubles. Hundreds were killed, not just in bomb disposal, and many thousands were maimed or had life-changing injuries, from both republican and so-called loyalist terrorism. Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could say a few words about why the Government still intend to abolish the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which will leave many Northern Ireland veterans open, yet again, to an endless cycle of reinvestigation, much of it politically motivated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Our veterans, who faced the threat of terrorist bombs every day of their service in Northern Ireland, really do deserve better than this from their Government.

Let me turn to the Falklands. Diffusing unexploded bombs is not just a challenge on land, as pointed out by Lord Ashcroft in his book “Falklands War Heroes”. During the 1982 Falklands war, chief marine engineering mechanic Michael Townsend was awarded the distinguished service medal for his role in assisting with the disposal of two bombs that had hit his ship, HMS Argonaut. The principal bomb disposal task with which he assisted was undertaken by Staff Sergeant Jim Prescott and Warrant Officer Second Class John Phillips, both of the Royal Engineers.

Assisted by Townsend and several of the crew, the two bomb disposal experts succeeded in disarming and disposing both Argentinian bombs that had landed on the Argonaut. Unfortunately, however, Staff Sergeant Prescott, from 49 Squadron Royal Engineers, was killed two days later while attempting a similar task with two further unexploded bombs that had landed on HMS Argonaut’s sister ship, HMS Antelope. His colleague WO2 Phillips was badly injured, losing one of his arms in the latter attempt. I mention that particular example not just to pay tribute to the extreme bravery of all three men involved, one of whom sadly lost his life, but also to point out that dealing with ordnance of this type is not purely confined to the land domain.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I would like to link that point back to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, when he shared some powerful words about his grandfather—

[Mr Francois]

My father.

[Mr Bailey]

His father’s service—I did not want to age the right hon. Gentleman—in the maritime domain. That example was a powerful reminder that explosive ordnance disposal is not simply confined to landmines or the devices we see as bombs. Building on that, I want to highlight the contributions of the Royal Navy today—its divers in particular and its ongoing mine clearance operations in the Gulf, alongside our US partners and the French navy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must ensure that we continue to highlight such valid and brave contributions?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about my father. I absolutely agree with him about the very important role played by the Royal Navy in maritime bomb disposal, including by the brave divers he alluded to. For completeness, as the hon. Gentleman is a former RAF officer, we should place on record that a great deal of work was undertaken in the second world war defusing German bombs that had landed on RAF airfields, perhaps most famously during the battle of Britain—so the Royal Air Force played its part in the battle against bombs as well.

I turn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the involvement of Britain’s armed forces, particularly the Army, switched from Northern Ireland through the Balkans and then into the middle east, including the first and second Gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan, again the threat from bombs—often referred to at that time as improvised explosive devices or IEDs—remained ever present. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, recalled in his memoir “Leading From The Front”,

“Initially the Taliban had taken us on with small arms, machine guns and rocket grenades, but as they tired of being killed in large numbers they resorted to the classic insurgent tactic of avoiding direct combat and attacking us instead with IEDs, in exactly the same way as the Iraqi militias and the provisional IRA had done before them.”

The Minister himself served in Afghanistan, and we pay tribute to him for his service. The need to respond to the IED threat, which was eventually responsible for a large number of casualties—both fatal and non-fatal, but none the less in many cases life-changing—was an important aspect particularly of Operation Herrick, the allied campaign in Afghanistan. As Simon Akam explained in his challenging book “The Changing of the Guard: the British Army since 9/11”,

“The IED became the signature weapon of the Helmand Conflict. No longer could troops move freely; instead they adopted the ‘Afghan snake’, painstakingly walking in a line behind a young soldier holding a Vallon Mine Detector.”

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former Milton Keynes MP and a previous Minister for the Armed Forces, worked on EOD disposal during Operation Herrick. We pay tribute to him and all his EOD colleagues for their service.

Even today, the task of explosive ordnance disposal—now carried out principally by 11 EOD regiments of the Royal Logistics Corps—remains as vital as ever, both in protecting our civilian population from domestic acts of terrorism and in permitting the conduct of military operations. Some of the savage fighting in Ukraine has included the widespread use of booby traps and other IEDs, and therefore the threat remains as live as ever on the modern battlefield. Indeed, in its helpful briefing note for this important debate, the Mines Advisory Group highlights that the Ukrainian Government estimate that about a third of their territory, or 156,000 sq km —an area bigger than England—remains potentially contaminated with explosive ordnance.

For the record, the previous Government invested in the latest EOD technology for our own armed forces, including the Harris T7 bomb disposal robot, which is the successor of the iconic Wheelbarrow from Northern Ireland, and, more recently, the T7’s highly nimble little brother, the Harris T4—a programme that was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) when he was the Procurement Minister at the MOD.

Let me turn directly to the speech by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who summarised very well the challenge still posed by unexplained ordnance in the present day—not just, as she pointed out, in Ukraine, but in a number of other countries around the world, including Laos and Lebanon. We should pay tribute to the work of two UK-led organisations, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which have led the world in seeking to step up and to address the challenge.

Given all this, in addition to responding to my point about the legacy Act, will the Minister answer three specific questions? First, are the Government minded to continue spending at least the same amount on overseas mine disposal in 2025-26 as they are spending in 2024-25? Secondly, much of that spending is deployed via the FCDO’s GMAP and the UK’s integrated security fund; is any of that funding from the MOD budget, and if so, could it be vulnerable to the strategic defence review? The third question is related to the second: when do we expect the outcome of the SDR to be published? I ask that this morning because rumours are now circulating that it could be as late as June 2025. While we have the Minister’s company this morning, could he provide an update about the likely timing of the publication of the SDR? As he knows, it is keenly anticipated.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those personnel, be they from the armed forces or civilians, who have had the courage to take part in the extremely dangerous task of explosive ordnance disposal across the decades. It is harrowing work, and not for the faint hearted. In risking their lives, they have helped to save the lives of countless others. Sadly, a number of those employed in that highly dangerous line of work made the ultimate sacrifice, and we rightly pay tribute to them this morning as well. We will remember them.

10:35

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I would like to start with four thank yous. I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this exceptionally important debate. I thank all the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken today. Most importantly, I thank the individuals in the Chamber who have taken part in explosive ordnance disposal. Their bravery, courage and sacrifice at the very front of the line have been demonstrated to us all over the last several decades.

First, it is worth our while to talk about capability. There are about 700 EOD service personnel drawn from the British Army and the Royal Navy, as well as those transferred in from the Royal Air Force. There is also a highly trained unit at the Metropolitan police, staffed in particular by former members of the Army. These people operate in a state of exceptionally high readiness, 365 days a year. On average, they deal with a staggering 2,300 EOD incidents across the UK each year, not to mention their overseas operations. They deal with anything from legacy world war two munitions to the criminals’ and terrorists’ improvised explosive devices mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Our EOD operators are highly trained and world renowned. They are equipped to deal with a full range of explosive threats, including devices with chemical, biological, radiological or indeed nuclear payloads, all the way through to supporting allies across NATO and beyond. From my perspective, and that of all of us here today, they deserve absolute appreciation and thanks—from the Government, Parliament and the entire country.

Let me turn to the domestic impact. Over the years, our explosive ordnance disposal teams have dealt with countless potential lethal devices and incidents—from pipe bombs, car bombs and improvised mortars during the troubles in Northern Ireland, to devices produced by domestic extremists, all the way through to 500 kg to 1,000 kg bombs such as the one removed in February from the back garden of a residential property in the constituency of the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Other high-profile world war two bombs have also been discovered in recent months: in Newtownards in Northern Ireland in August, in Tilbury in November, and in Southsea just last week.

Explosive ordnance disposal capability is absolutely vital to warfare—to how we fight, to our troops and to protecting the civilian population. EOD experts were critical to, but not limited to, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—they also worked in Northern Ireland, the middle east and Africa. There are EOD operators from other countries across the globe and in every continent.

I remember my own personal experience of being sat in many a ditch in Afghanistan during extremely heavy firefights. The only individual who moved forward was the one in the bomb disposal suit, usually on his belly or with a dog, crawling forward towards the threat. That underlines a critical point: courage is not necessarily a reaction; courage is a decision. The EOD operators who I have worked with have to make that decision, and never once did they falter. That is deeply impressive.

At my Birmingham constituency surgery just this week, I had the privilege of talking to someone one of whose family members was killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. That really brought home the fact that the impact of the troubles was felt not just in Northern Ireland; it regularly spread all the way through the UK. That fact is often forgotten in today’s society.

I also thank the EOD operators I worked with in the maritime domain. Defusing an improvised explosive device or a mine on land is difficult; doing it sub-surface in the dark is exceptionally difficult. It is worth taking a moment to think about how difficult that would be, and about the courage required to do that while on a dive set underneath the surface of the ocean.

Let me move on to industry and economic growth. In addition to keeping us and our troops safe, our EOD capability also has an important economic legacy. It feeds our scientific and industrial base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, and helps sustain cutting-edge design, particularly in robotics and detection technologies. The MOD is working with the Department for Business and Trade to unlock export opportunities for British companies and grow our economy. I would like to discuss that in due course to see how we can move it forward faster.

As the threat to the UK and our NATO allies from grey zone Russian attacks and sabotage increases, so does the importance of our EOD capabilities. They need to evolve to contend with the evolution of warfare—the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the drones and battery technology used for delivering explosives. Globally, EOD operations are becoming increasingly complex. States and violent extremist organisations use a mixture of conventional and improvised explosive devices: fuses, switches, sensors and metal-less IEDs are becoming more intricate and advanced.

In Ukraine, whose EOD and search operations have received UK training, we have seen an increasing use of airdropped and improvised munitions from commercial drones. That illustrates how future conflicts will be characterised by a huge variety of explosive threats that will often blur the line between conventional munitions and improvised explosive devices. We should expect such weapons to be deployed in ever more diverse ways in the future of conflict, against troops, airfields, maritime assets and indeed civilians. The capabilities we need in order to respond will have to keep pace, which again talks to innovation and moving forward as fast as we can.

EOD capabilities will remain essential to freedom of movement on the battlefield and to combat effectiveness, and will reduce the loss of life. From a procurement perspective, it is important to ensure that EOD personnel have exactly what they need, when they need it, including the best technology. Members have my word that the MOD will continue to ensure that that happens.

From a policy perspective, our strategic defence review will make recommendations on the roles, capabilities and reforms we require in Defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities we face. The Government will review EOD policy and operational capabilities to ensure they remain fit for the future.

Let me turn to the questions I was asked, particularly by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I agree that our EOD capability can be used as a diplomatic tool. De-mining expertise primarily saves lives, and that must be the ultimate principle, but it also supports economic growth and reconstruction. People can reuse the land. Huge swathes of terrain across the world are rendered ineffective—I will not say “useless”—by mines or contamination. It also opens up urban areas and, importantly, reduces the impact to international shipping, which is often overlooked. That impact can translate into billions of pounds of lost trade. This work is best done collaboratively, and it is exceptionally difficult to do it unless we have a cessation of violence, so we must move towards that first.

We have some of the best medical research in the world on blast injuries, both physical and psychological. We are working with our Ukrainian allies and others to ensure that those lessons are learned and translated to our allies and partners. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell if she has found licensing issues that we can progress faster.

To the hon. Member for Strangford, I say that this issue can often be branded as new, but the UK and Northern Ireland have dealt with it for the last 50 years and some. I recognise that the citizens of the UK and Northern Ireland, and the security services, have dealt with EOD issues over a huge amount of time. We owe a debt of gratitude to the individuals who have gone through that process and dealt with the very early stages of EOD and IED development and defusing.

The hon. Gentleman also put the problem in context by talking about Ukraine. It is worth noting that in the counter-offensive last year alone, Ukraine faced over 60,000 anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel mines, sometimes triple-stacked, and that 10% of all munitions fired in Ukraine, specifically Russian munitions, do not detonate. To put that in scale, when 10,000 to 16,000 artillery rounds are being fired each day, we are talking world war two statistics. This is not a problem that will go away today; it will last a generation. Investing in our EOD capabilities and championing the charities that do that work is absolutely front and centre.

How can we further help Ukraine? There is a relationship to share lessons learned as well as best practice in physical and psychological issues. Of course, we champion our veterans, specifically those that have been injured or are on a journey through recovery, through the Invictus games. The games are in Canada next year and are coming to Birmingham the year after, which is absolutely superb. I would encourage anyone in the House to support that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made a pertinent point and highlighted that not just British casualties are injured by EOD or improvised explosive devices. A very close friend who I was in training with lost three of his limbs. A hospital just outside my constituency of Birmingham Selly Oak treated an Afghan casualty who had lost three limbs. The amazing work of the surgeons there kept him alive and now he is thriving in the UK, which is truly remarkable. It is also important to champion the charities and encourage both financial and physical support to those organisations, where possible, whether that is the HALO Trust or others. Again, I support my hon. Friend’s views on cadets and reserves, both from a social mobility perspective and, of course, on mobilisation.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) told the heart-moving story of an EOD operator with an unprecedented record of defusing capabilities—think how many lives he saved by doing that. I thank the hon. Member for bringing that to light.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reinforced the impact of his father’s contribution in the second world war. It is often forgotten that mine clearing, as it was called then, was essential to the D-day landings, the Arctic convoys and our trade and war supplies from America and across the Empire. It was truly remarkable. I would say that, because in my last job as chief of staff to the carrier strike force, mine-hunting capabilities were integral to that strike force.

It is worth noting that mine laying at sea—there are huge maritime mine stocks across the world—can have a demonstrable impact on the world’s economy. Our economy is primarily based on overseas trade, so it is worth thinking about that. There are huge stocks with very sophisticated capabilities, so it is really important.

I have been clear throughout every debate in which I have spoken and every question I have answered that Members have my word that I will give Northern Ireland veterans legal and welfare support. I am a Northern Ireland veteran myself: I did six months there under Op Banner. I recognise the issues. Members have my word that, as the Veterans Minister, I will support veterans with everything I can.

We will continue to invest in mine disposal capabilities, from EOD all the way through to the more bigger capabilities such as a plough at the front of an armoured column in a division that digs the mines up with an armoured thrust or armoured movement. The details of that will come out in the SDR. I will not go into the exact details of the budget because we do not know, but as we move forward the SDR will produce that, and that will be delivered next year. Details will follow in due course.

In conclusion, from the early forms of bomb disposal—even following the gunpowder plot in 1605—to the 1,000 kg world war two bomb destroyed by the Royal Navy clearance divers in Portsmouth last week, our history has shown us that explosive ordnance disposal is vital to security at home and abroad. Although I cannot pre-empt the strategic defence review or the recommendations and capabilities that will flow from it, hon. Members should be in absolutely no doubt about the high esteem in which the Government hold our EOD professionals, our appreciation of the vital safety blanket that they provide over the whole country, and our appreciation of the need to bolster their capabilities in the face of morphing and multiplying threats.

10:49

[Helen Maguire]

I thank you, Mr Dowd, for your excellent chairmanship of this debate and I thank the Minister for his reassuring responses. I really look forward to working with him on these issues. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the debate. It was really helpful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined the different domestic challenges that we have had and continue to have. I also personally thank the EOD community for all their hard work in keeping us safe 365 days a year. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) about all the countries around the world where we are working to de-mine, including Angola, Cambodia and Lebanon, as well as Ukraine. That work continues.

Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of continuing to support our veterans, especially those with prosthetic limbs, and civilians with prosthetic limbs as well. Among those of us who have served, many will know people who were killed or injured by explosive ordnance; indeed, many Members explained that today. It is therefore vital that we continue to support our veterans.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead also talked about how mines impact women globally and their ability to continue to work post conflict, and how important it is that de-mining supports our global humanitarian goals and the UN SDGs. The work there is vital. Again, I express thanks for the contribution of all the charities that help all the de-mining work globally. That includes the HALO Trust and others.

Finally, I want to talk about the APPG. I do not know whether Vicky McClure is listening today, but she raised the profile of the EOD community in her “Trigger Point” series. I hope that if she is listening, she can perhaps come along in January and help to launch the APPG. I extend an invitation to colleagues to join the new APPG, to engage with our planned inquiries and to support the incredible efforts of those in our mine action, explosive ordnance disposal and victim assistance communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the explosive ordnance disposal community.

10:52

Sitting suspended.