New Medium Helicopter Contract

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy for his constituents who work at Leonardo. I entirely understand what he says. We are already taking steps to reform defence procurement to speed up decisions, but I am clear that a big decision about the future of the NMH and the funding for it needs to be taken as part of the whole programme. The defence investment programme is so important and it is important that we get this decision right, so that everyone can have certainty and confidence in every single line item in the DIP, which is something they have not been able to have with the equipment programme that we inherited.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The delay in the DIP and the procurement of these helicopters has been unexplained and is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency, which is heavily dependent in the south on Yeovil and Yeovilton. Will the Minister do everything in his power to get a move on? A Government who want growth cannot afford this kind of delay. Will he confirm or refute the rumour going around that the one of the reasons for the delay is that he is descoping the number of AW149 airframes that he originally envisaged under this contract, and that there will now be significantly less than the figure of 24 that was originally booted about?

[Luke Pollard]

As the right hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister in the last Government, he will understand the challenge of having an unfunded equipment programme that we are seeking to address in the defence investment plan. In relation to those he represents who work in Yeovil and Yeovilton—and indeed perhaps also in Culdrose, on the wider servicing of helicopters that Leonardo does, not just the building of them—we will be making a clear decision on the NMH in the defence investment plan. He will be aware that this procurement was bounded by the process. We will make a decision, we will not be timed out and we will not be altering the contract.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know she is very proud of her constituents who are part of the workforce that will build those frigates. This is not just the biggest ever warship export deal; it will set a new standard of countries, Norway and the UK, who are prepared to be able to combine and integrate their forces. By doing so, we will be in a stronger position to help deter Russian aggression and reinforce the security of the high north in future years.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary said that one of the functions of the MFU would be to deter aggression, but we only have a deterrent if we have the willingness to engage kinetically backing it up. If this matter comes back to the House for a vote, will he be clear on the rules of engagement for the deployment of our troops? Will the status of forces agreement with Ukraine be explicit? Does he envisage the triggering of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to sustain the sorts of numbers that have been floated in the press today?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The rules of engagement will be a critical part of the security guarantees, and the sorts of points he raises today will, I am certain, be at the heart of any debate if we reach the point at which we have a peace deal and we are making a decision to deploy a multinational force.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues will struggle to get in unless they keep their questions short, and the Minister should make sure that his answers are just as short.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. The French Government have recognised the legal jeopardy that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has described, and they have legislated to protect their servicemen and women and veterans accordingly. That is contained within their recently published manual on military operational law—all 353 pages of it—which I recommend to the Minister. Why can the French do that for their people, while this Government are doing completely the reverse?

[Al Carns]

I fundamentally disagree. We hold our British forces, whether it be the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, to the highest legal standard. We always will, and it is what separates us from terrorists or dictatorships. I would be interested to read the French document so that we could have a discussion offline and see whether there is any applicability to how we run things.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the recent record—the 14 years of hollowing out and underfunding of Britain’s armed forces that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned. I am proud of this Government’s investment of an extra £5 billion in defence in the first year, and our commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and alongside 31 NATO allies, we have signed up to spending 5% by 2035 on core defence and security, including national security.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Most of our allies and our industrial competitors have a system of offsetting to support their domestic defence capability, economy and jobs, and traditionally this country has had global by default. When will we see the detail in the defence industrial strategy that states that the Government intend to bring forward a programme of offsetting to match our competitors?

[John Healey]

I am interested to hear that observation from the right hon. Gentleman, who of course was a Defence Minister for several of the 14 years during which his Government never moved to introduce any sort of offsetting policy. We are consulting on that now. We think offsetting has an important role to play in Britain’s future and the future of British industry. The consultation closes in the new year, and we aim to make announcements soon thereafter.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I say that there is no more appropriate Member of the House to be introducing this debate than the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his distinguished record? I think I represent more generals than any other right hon. or hon. Member of the House. The Minister will have seen that nine four-star officers wrote to The Times to raise their concerns about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the legal activism that it is likely to encourage, which

“risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends.”

While we all honour our brave servicemen and servicewomen today rhetorically, does the Minister agree that we need to follow that through with real action, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged today and into the future?

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member makes an interesting point. I want to be clear and concise: of all days, today is a day of remembrance and is not about political point scoring. There is a debate scheduled on Thursday when we can discuss the issue in detail. I would very much welcome a discussion with the individuals who sent the letter, as would the Defence Secretary and others, to talk through the issues, to provide balance to the argument, to ensure that we protect our country and our armed forces from lawfare, and to ensure that they are represented and their voices heard.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I suspect that I will need to meet my hon. Friend to get to the bottom of that question, but I am very happy to do so. As a nation, we certainly welcome the investment of overseas firms in the UK. The UK is a good place to invest in defence and to start a defence company. We need to make sure that all our contracts, big and small, return the value to the taxpayer. It is our intention that, where possible, intellectual property and profits should be held in the UK to support our growth mission. I am happy to meet him to discuss that further.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The news is welcome, but the future is unmanned, as the Minister knows. With that in mind, what UK equity have the Government secured in the drone joint venture that was signed in June between Leonardo and the Turkish company, Baykar?

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The assurance we can give is that NATO is the most effective military alliance of all time, and Poland, the UK and our allies sit central to that. The centrality of the alliance is the best form of deterrence and, therefore, the best form of assurance to both my hon. Friend’s constituents and people across the whole NATO alliance, and it is central to our defence policy as we move forward.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky?

[Al Carns]

I have met President Zelensky several times, and I am a keen observer of the conflict as it has moved forward—a million Russian casualties and a 40 km dead zone on the frontline that would reflect any battlefront or frontline from the first world war to the second world war. What is happening there is absolutely atrocious. I am always really clear: deterrence, yes and peace, yes, but appeasement? No.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will give way to the former Defence Minister.

[Dr Murrison]

I congratulate the Minister on his promotion, but must say how sorry I am that his first outing has been to defend this load of nonsense. What does he say to the UK Statistics Authority and to the Government Actuary’s Department, which appear to have a very different view of the costing of this to the one that he has just outlined? Is it not the case that what he has said represents a load of accounting double-speak and is dubious, to put it politely and in parliamentary terms?

[Luke Pollard]

That is not quite correct. Indeed, unfortunately, this is not my first outing. My first outing was at Defence questions yesterday, supporting British jobs in the defence sector and celebrating the £10 billion frigate deal that this Government achieved. My second outing was yesterday afternoon with the statement on the defence industrial strategy, making the case for more investment in British businesses. My third outing, though, is here today, securing the most vital military base that the UK and the US operate together. It is absolutely right that, as part of it, we present the costings to Parliament. It is also precisely right that those are reviewed properly by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for Budget Responsibility. That has happened, and that is why we have been able to use the figures with certainty. The costings are also entirely consistent with the Green Book.

The Green Book point is a useful one to dwell on for one moment, because if the policy of the Conservative party is not to use Green Book calculations for long-term investments—the same Green Book used for costings of our nuclear deterrent or pensions—I want to understand how much spending the Opposition are now committing to. In how many other examples would the Green Book no longer apply? What are their new accounting principles and what would be the increased cost to the public purse? How many more people will pay increased taxes, because of their disapplication of the Green Book principles? Those are entirely fair questions. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), signed the reasoned amendment, so surely he would be able to say how many other areas the Green Book no longer applies to. Perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers will be able to specify any other areas that they no longer believe that the Green Book applies to. We calculated our figures based on the Green Book, and that is why we are confident in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister of State has met a full range of groups, including the group mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Murrison]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Luke Pollard]

For the last time, and then I need to conclude my remarks.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. He was pressed earlier, but I would like to press him again on the social time discounting method. He should be able to give examples of big projects to which his Government have applied this method. Could he now do that and say why, for example, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not use that method when she was calculating the cost of the 10-year affordable housing programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I understand the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I hope that he appreciates my argument that the calculation is based on the OBR’s inflation and deflation figures and on the social time preference rate. It is a figure that has been calculated and supported by the OBR, and it stands up to scrutiny. If Conservative Members are saying that they no longer wish to use the Green Book for calculating long-term investments like this, which is their inferred argument, then it is worth looking at what they are suggesting that we no longer use the Green Book to calculate—they are making an awfully large spending commitment when they suggest that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have not heard our Five Eyes allies speak about it being a good way of effectively securing any national interest whatsoever—the concept of leasehold is completely wrong.

[Dr Murrison]

The Government are clearly not going to take any lessons from us, but I wonder whether they would listen to one of their own. Lord West of Spithead was a Security Minister under the previous Labour Administration and then First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, so he knows a thing or two. He has said very clearly that in his expert opinion, this deal is “irresponsible” and that it will damage our strategic interests. Who are we to believe: the Labour party or my old boss, Lord West?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

There is something fundamental here about the negotiations—I think the Minister alluded to this earlier on. The Government were effectively just listening to leftie lawyers and advisory judgments and acting because they were frightened that their left-wing lawyer friends would pursue even more lawfare against us. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Our view is that, without this deal, it was inevitable that Mauritius would pursue and secure a legally binding judgment against the UK. Indeed, legally binding provisional measures could also have been secured within weeks”.

The Government have never—not once—detailed what the legal threat is beyond hiding behind spurious aspects of international law.

I have to say that it is a defeatist attitude that Labour has taken. Britain is Europe’s leading defence power, a pillar of NATO in Europe and a P5 member of the UN Security Council with a right of veto. We are not bound by advisory judgments pursued by Mauritius at the ICJ—which, by the way, included a judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist party. By being vocal in conceding defeat and unwilling to defend Britain from a barrage of lawfare, Labour has let Britain’s standing on the world stage plummet, and its decisions will have serious consequences for us.

Let us talk about the money. We all know that this Labour Government are big spenders when it comes to splashing about taxpayers’ money, and the costs of Labour’s surrender treaty are astronomical at £34.7 billion—a figure which, by the way, we had to drag out of the Government Actuary’s Department because Labour Ministers repeatedly refused to disclose the cash payments when asked. In fact, because the payments are linked to inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) has pointed out, guess what? The cash cost could be even higher. That means higher taxes for our constituents, which is nothing for those on the Labour Benches to crow about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about UNCLOS and in highlighting the insecurities and serious challenges. It may be forthcoming, but at this stage we do not know what levels of protection will be provided or will continue. We do not know what level of resource Mauritius will put into the MPA or what the UK will contribute.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The answer is none, because Mauritius has no navy and practically no coastguard. With which means will Mauritius defend a territory that is hundreds of kilometres away? It cannot possibly do so.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has summed it up, and it is not just that Mauritius is unable to do so; it clearly will not be interested in this whole area.

It is important for the House to reflect on that point. After decades of investment in and support for the MPA, there is now a major issue of jeopardy. We do not know at this stage what the governance arrangements will be. In fact, in response to questions about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) at the Environmental Audit Committee in April, the Minister, Baroness Chapman, said:

“It will belong to the Government of Mauritius, and they will make decisions about how they protect the seas around the Chagos archipelago… You want more detail than we have… We and the Government of Mauritius want to see the marine protected area continue, but I do not know what the precise nature of it will be.”

What we do know is that the Fisheries Minister of Mauritius, Dr Boolell, is eyeing up the marine protected area to exploit it. He boasted to his National Assembly on 7 February that he wants to issue fishing and trawler licences. He declared that

“what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing licence for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos”.

This issue has been raised extensively in the Foreign Affairs Committee, with no Minister being able to give any assurances. If the Bill passes and the treaty is implemented, the unique marine environment will be put at risk.

I will briefly touch on two areas. Another part of the Chagos surrender Bill that should concern the House is its Henry VIII clause. Clause 5 grants the Government a free hand, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny, decisions or authority, to

“make any provision that appears to his Majesty to be appropriate as a result of the Treaty”.

That could mean the Government making further concessions to the Government of Mauritius. With the treaty making provision for a joint commission with the UK and Mauritius, that could take place without anyone in this House having any sight or knowledge of it. We need a clear commitment from the Minister in his winding-up speech what those measures will be or will he rule out on the Floor of the House that any further concessions will be made to the Government of Mauritius?

In conclusion, this Bill, its six shameful clauses and the treaty it partly implements are a damning indictment of the failures of this Labour Government. It surrenders sovereignty of a land we own to a foreign Government, increasingly allied and growing closer to countries that are not our allies and which pose the biggest threats to our national security and defence. It binds the hands of British taxpayers into paying £35 billion—a surrender tax. It puts the interests and demands of a foreign country and left-wing lawyers above our national interests. It leaves our country poorer, weaker and less able to defend our interests from foreign threats and it undermines our standing in the world.

Labour’s Chagos surrender deal is an epic failure of diplomacy and an expensive humiliation for Britain. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will continue to stand up for Britain’s national interests and our defence and security. We will fight for our sovereignty, we will defend British taxpayers by opposing Labour’s surrender tax and, we will make the case for the British Chagossians to have their rights safeguarded and the marine protected area preserved. We will oppose this Bill and fight this treaty every step of the way.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work that takes place at Scotstoun. In both Govan and Scotstoun, we have an incredible workforce building the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigate, and I am very glad that they have been getting such a lot of attention since the Norway deal, because they deserve it. The skills academy that BAE has built on the Clyde, as well as the skills academy it has built in Barrow for the submarine build work, are best in class. They really provide an opportunity to skill people up for a lifetime of opportunity, and they are precisely the types of investments that we want to see more defence companies make. I will take her question as an early bid for one of those colleges. I look forward to continuing work with her and other Glasgow MPs on how we make the most of the Type 26 project.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Swedish Archer self-propelled gun is in the process of replacing the AS-90, and it will itself be replaced by the German Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 system. Can the Minister say when the in-service date of the Howitzer will be? How much UK componentry will be in it? How many UK jobs does he anticipate will be generated by it?

[Luke Pollard]

It is entirely right that we donated the AS-90 platforms; nearly all of them are now in operation with our Ukrainian friends. That was the right decision, which was originally taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s own party, supported by the Labour party. It is right that we have transferred those. The Archer is a good platform that will provide interim capability; I can get him the stats, and I will write to him with further details. It is absolutely right that we equip our forces with the latest technologies and do so where possible by procuring with our allies to reduce the R&D costs and increase the real benefit from them.

Ukraine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a lesson from Ukraine that we have to take seriously: when a country is faced with conflict or is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. Part of the significance of the frigate deal with Norway is that this will reinforce our British shipbuilding, our British innovation and our British technology base across the UK and especially in Scotland for many years to come.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?

[John Healey]

The Government’s position is that we are discussing the nature of security guarantees and the contribution that we can help lead through the coalition of the willing, alongside any American support, and together that is part of the configuration of making Ukraine strong and creating the circumstances in which serious negotiations, and we hope a peace agreement, can be reached.