Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Tom Tugendhat

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the UK Government’s support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as it responds to increased Houthi aggression in Saudia Arabia and Yemen. The whole House will have seen images of the attacks on civilian airports in Riyadh and the hundreds of casualties that those Houthi attacks have caused. The Government fully support the right of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of the Republic of Yemen to defend themselves. However, we know that there is no long-term military solution to this conflict. The support we have announced is designed to help our partners at this critical moment while supporting efforts to create the conditions for political resolution to the conflict.

Although many of our constituents may feel that this is happening far away, we must be clear about the direct consequences for the United Kingdom. The Red sea and the Bab al-Mandab strait are among the world’s most important maritime trade routes, and continued instability increases costs for British families and businesses while also undermining security across the middle east. Helping that part of the world to be more secure and stable is firmly in the United Kingdom’s national security and economic interests.

As the House will know, we have already been providing Saudi Arabia with air defence support and air-to-air refuelling from defensive Saudi Arabia air operations, and the Prime Minister has now authorised additional military support. We are extending the provision of air-to-air refuelling to 90 days, and RAF Typhoon aircraft will conduct defensive counter-air operations from Saudi Arabia; these aircraft will operate in a defensive role, and will not conduct offensive strikes. We will also make an RAF A400M aircraft available to support the movement of matériel within Saudi Arabia in support of defence.

We remain deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the suffering experienced by civilians. Alongside military support, we continue our diplomatic efforts, humanitarian assistance and work to encourage political negotiations.

Finally, all partners receiving UK assistance must comply fully with their obligations under international law. We will continue to monitor and assess this compliance as part of our ongoing engagement.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits.

I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate.

The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility?

We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent.

Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member had two minutes—he is now on three. I think the Minister will have grasped what the right hon. Member needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I always love the opportunity to talk about my past service and commitment. As I said before, we do not discuss the assessments that are made, which could impact the safety and security of our military personnel. We know that our military commanders are comfortable with the deployment and their responsibility towards people. I thank those brave soldiers and service personnel who are deployed on our behalf in the region, delivering those missions and operations.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Tom Tugendhat

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.

Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.

Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.

We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.

I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.