Support for Disabled Veterans

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister wants to champion disabled veterans, so does she agree that Mark deserves support now?

Sadly, Mark is one of the many veterans across this country facing systemic challenges. Veterans report feeling unprepared for civilian life after medical discharge, as the system is unclear and inconsistent.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I recently spoke with Gloucestershire resident and British Army veteran Chris, who has been confined to a wheelchair since a jungle warfare training accident in 1998. He spoke of the obstacle of pride, and of how too many personnel decline to seek help until a point of crisis, if ever. He would have benefited from a regimental or service advocate, who could intervene either early on or post discharge to motivate and support those affected before it was too late. Does my hon. Friend agree that such support could help bridge the feeling of abandonment that injured veterans often feel after discharge?

[Liz Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Too often, the system fails to provide a simple, supported handover to civilian healthcare, or advice on housing, employment and benefits. Charities and veterans’ groups are calling for an independent review of the medical discharge process across all services to make it consistent, compassionate and genuinely supportive, so that no disabled veteran falls through the cracks, or is left without the best possible support.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie]

That point was covered before. We have already seen scaremongering from the Opposition about the other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. I hope that the Conservative party will reflect on and apologise for that.

None the less, the previous Government knew that a deal would keep Britain safe. They knew that without a deal, international courts could effectively make the base inoperable, and they knew that that could plant China right on our doorstep. Now, they cannot even say why it was important. They cannot say why they even started the negotiations; several Government Members have raised that point, and not once have the Conservatives been able to say why, other than hiding behind the fact that they are being entirely politically opportunist. They knew all that, and they now pretend that none of it matters. They are playing politics with Britain’s safety.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is rare that I find myself aligned with the Conservative party, but I share its concerns for the structure and veracity of this deal. That being said, does the hon. Member share my bewilderment that the Conservative party has chosen this particular hill to die on, given that the Bill is as much a product of its work as it is of Labour’s?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. At the beginning of the intervention, I was going to point out that there were five years during which the Liberal Democrats were very close to the Conservative party, but I will remove that thought from my head and agree with him. This does seem a very strange hill for the Conservative party to die on, but I am not surprised by the level of hypocrisy we have seen from some Conservative Members.

That is the real hypocrisy. The Conservatives have attacked the cost of this deal, but they will not reveal what their own deal would have cost. Government convention means that their numbers are locked away—secret, hidden, unable to be scrutinised and compared. They will hide and hide. Would Conservative Front Benchers like to give any figure, in any currency of their choosing? What was their number? How much was it going to cost? What was the number on the bottom of the piece of paper after 11 rounds of negotiations? The truth is that this Government secured the deal that the Conservative party knew was critical for our national security, but could not deliver.

While we are talking about costs, let us put this into perspective. As the Minister said in his opening speech, France pays €85 million a year for a base in Djibouti, one that shares a fence with a Chinese naval facility and enjoys none of the security that comes with this Government’s deal on Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is 15 times bigger, more secure, and delivers unmatched operational freedom for the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what this treaty delivers. It secures Diego Garcia; it locks in control of the land, the sea and the electromagnetic spectrum; and it shuts out foreign militaries from the outer islands. That is a serious deal—a deal that represents value, one that the Tories could never close, but now choose to attack from behind a shield of secrecy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.

It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.

I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.

Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.

The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.

The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.

The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am not yet on the Chinese Communist party’s sanctions list, but perhaps I will be shortly. Does the right hon. Member share my concern about the 99-year lease of the islands, given that some of our adversaries across the world plan and strategise over the very long term, and 99 years is actually a short period of time?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Chinese Government have a long-term plan. In fact, they are very clear about what they wish to do. If anybody does not think that China poses a threat on all these issues, what were they doing last week when, on our television screens, we saw President Xi, with the North Korean dictator on one side and the Russian dictator on the other, talking about a new world order? That continues to be the Chinese Government’s purpose. They should have been taken into the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Why are they not there? My suspicion is that this was not done because it might well have ended the whole negotiation on the Chagos islands, as there would have been huge interventions, and we could not possibly have done aught else but stop the negotiation.

In conclusion, I honestly think that the Government need to pause this, go back to the drawing board, and say, “We got it wrong”, but I say this in answer to the endless briefing they have given Labour Members on what the Conservative party did about the Chagos islands in government. I have reached the conclusion that no matter who is in power, I am in opposition, so I can categorically tell the House that, whatever else happened, this was quite rightly ended by Lord Cameron when he became Foreign Secretary. Some of us made it very clear that this should not have gone ahead for many of the reasons that I have laid out. I end by saying to the Minister that it is no good coming back later and saying, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) did, that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.

The Battle of Britain

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank all those who will contribute to this debate and the Veterans Minister, whose presence is always greatly appreciated.

In 1940, the six-week battle of France saw British soldiers, including those of the Gloucestershire Regiment, fighting side by side with Belgian, Dutch, French and Polish soldiers against the advancing Nazis. Eventually pushed back to the edge of the western front to the beaches at Dunkirk, British troops were evacuated alongside their valiant but defeated allies to Britain over the 10 days to 4 June. With France lost to the Nazis, Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill declared on 18 June 1940 that

“the ‘Battle of France’ is over. I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.”

He continued:

“The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.”—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Within weeks, this very Hall had been struck by German bombs, as had the Elizabeth Tower and the House of Lords, while the House of Commons lay in ruins.

Over the almost four months of the battle of Britain, this island suffered sustained bombardment as the Nazis, through the Luftwaffe, desperately—and in vain—tried to destroy the Royal Air Force and break British morale. They failed, and the battle of Britain stands proudly alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo among our greatest military successes, but it is so much more. Every day across these isles, the legacy of the battle of Britain is lived. Modern culture and, to a significant degree, our national identity have been built on it.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on this debate and his magnificent introduction. I am sure he spent some time preparing it, and it is a tremendous introduction. Would he agree that what he is outlining, and I think we all have to commit ourselves to this, is not just that our generation remembers the tremendous sacrifice made all those years ago, but that the coming generation—those born in the past 25 years—remembers, so that we never repeat any of the mistakes of the past and that we achieve victories such as the one he is describing?

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Member speaks acutely to the point of this debate, which is that we must not forget what this country both suffered and achieved, and that we must support our current generation in the challenges it faces.

One toils to resolve any other historic snapshot that so well encapsulates the British mindset: the gradual withdrawal of liberty across western Europe before, on this small outpost, those forces—British, Belgian, Czechoslovakian, French, Irish, Polish, Commonwealth and even a handful of Americans—came together for Europe’s final stand to halt the fascist advance in its tracks and set the stage to push the Nazis back across Europe.

The iconic airframes of the battle of Britain memorial flight remain the most celebrated of fly-pasts at air shows and ceremonies throughout the year. I love a Eurofighter Typhoon as much as anybody, but, respectfully, I am really waiting to hear the Hurricane, Lancaster and Spitfire. I recall waiting for Iron Maiden to take the stage at Download festival in 2013, when the audience roared for the Spitfire fly-past, which Bruce Dickinson had squared away through his friends at the BBMF. Even at a festival where I had seen Motörhead and Queens of the Stone Age for the first time, the Spitfire remains the standout memory. Through those historic exploits of the Royal Air Force, air power is today one of Britain’s most recognised and celebrated brands. On the shoulders of the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Hawks of the Red Arrows spearhead British soft power across the globe, not just a display team but a diplomatic force all their own.

In commemorating the battle of Britain, the greatest tribute we can pay to its victors is to apply those lessons that can be learned from it. The stage is already set. As they did following the interwar years of the 1920s and 1930s, our armed forces, following years of diminishment, once more face the likelihood of a kinetic war against a battle-hardened and well-resourced aggressor. By July 1940, despite popular belief to the contrary, the RAF had ramped up production to such an extent that RAF Fighter Command was more than a match for the Luftwaffe, and held a minor numerical advantage.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the preparedness of the RAF being much more than what was perhaps seen by the public. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurricane pilots of 602 and 603 Squadrons, based in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who conducted the first interception of world war two over the firth of Forth, which borders my constituency, when Junkers 88 aircraft sought to attack HMS Hood in the Forth? The action resulted in the death of 16 civilians on the ground and three German aircrew, but it showed how prepared the RAF was even at that early stage of the conflict.

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is an excellent ambassador for his constituency and its heritage. We absolutely should celebrate the achievement of those brave pilots and the nation that supported them. I have a question for the Minister on preparedness. If the Russian war in Ukraine breaks out into Europe within five years, will the RAF be so well equipped?

If we strip away some of the folklore that has been built on the battle of Britain, the fact is that a British victory was almost inevitable. Crucial to the outcome was the Chain Home radar and the Dowding system within which it operated, delivering early detection of Luftwaffe aircraft to Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. Three factors ensured the resilience and continuing serviceability of the Dowding system: redundancy, misdirection and interconnectivity.

Thanks to that system, the Luftwaffe would routinely reach Britain with just enough fuel remaining for a few minutes’ flight time, only to be met every time by Fighter Command, which had seen them coming 100 miles from the coast: numbers, formations and direction. Furthermore, every Luftwaffe pilot or crew shot down over Britain became a casualty or a prisoner. Every RAF pilot downed simply knocked on the nearest front door and returned to circulation.

The picture from the Führer bunker in Berlin, now under a nondescript car park on which I have proudly scuffed my shoes, was hopeless. I have too often seen Hitler unduly recognised as a strong leader; he was anything but. He was superstitious, paranoid, vengeful and feared by his officers, who were afraid to report their losses upward. His war in Europe was ultimately doomed by his leadership and that of his cabinet, comprising obsequious pleasers and party loyalists. The Nazis could never have won on or over British soil. Churchill knew that, as would have any rational leader.

That inevitability of British victory takes nothing away from the exploits of our courageous aircrew, the genius of our codebreakers and the resilience of the British people. What was achieved was a heroic, decisive national victory of liberty over fascism, and it needs no exaggeration. Britain’s victory is best commemorated with due recognition of the contribution of over 500 foreign pilots under Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command. In fact, that evidences my assertion that Britain is at its best not standing alone but when it leads in Europe, and that Europe is strongest with Britain at its centre. I will shortly conclude.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.

[Cameron Thomas]

What a wonderful intervention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it. We must never take for granted the sacrifice that so many made so that we may today live in peace.

I would like to contextualise the battle of Britain alongside Britain’s near future. Today, in 2025, we understand with absolute certainty that the Geneva convention will not be adhered to by the Russian military, nor by its unbadged operators of the hybrid war that it has been conducting against our country for over a decade. I remind the House that Putin deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. We must not blind ourselves to the significant likelihood that this hybrid war will go kinetic within the coming decade. To our adversary, civil infrastructure will be viewed as a viable target.

In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately and consistently targeted energy infrastructure in a bid to break Ukrainian morale and undermine its ability to replenish its armaments. The Russians have failed to recognise a lesson learned by Hitler in 1940 that trying to bomb a population into submission only strengthens its resolve.

Nevertheless, Britain must be ready to face such tactics in the near future. Just as redundancy ensured the resilience of the Dowding system, Britain can build redundancy into its energy infrastructure and industrial capacity by increasing our production of renewables and ramping up the installation of that technology to reduce reliance on the national grid. The introduction of peer-to-peer energy sharing within localities would be a game changer for UK energy resilience, public services and bill payers.

Once more, I thank you, Sir Desmond, and I look forward to welcoming the contributions of Members from across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We cannot talk about those heroes often enough in this place, as far as I am concerned, so I thank him for his contribution. In Hatfield Heath, which is in my constituency, we preserve living links to that history. Prisoner of war camp 116, which was established shortly after the battle of Britain, housed Italian, German and Austrian prisoners. Despite the ravages of time, it remains one of the most complete surviving internment camps in the UK, offering us a window into the human stories of the war.

We also remember the 1944 B-26 Marauder crash, slightly after the battle of Britain and not far from Hatfield Heath, which claimed the lives of three American airmen. The memorial, which was unveiled in 2021, ensures that their sacrifice, and the deep bond between our communities and the wider allied effort, will never be forgotten. I will mention their names: Howard H. Noland, Jacob E. Crider III and Warren E. Terrain. I thank local historian Mark Ratcliff for championing the need to recognise those brave airmen. They came from a foreign land to fight for us, and they lost their lives in my constituency.

I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for mentioning the foreign airmen who joined forces with the RAF, across our skies and across the channel, to fight fascism. It is not particularly relevant to Harlow, but I pay tribute to the 303 Squadron of Polish fighters, who were some of the bravest and most successful—if that is the right word—pilots who fought in that battle.

[Cameron Thomas]

In his 1941 report on the battle of Britain, then Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding wrote that the other commands, the Commonwealth countries and four allies contributed unstintingly to meet the emergency, but

“Had it not been for the magnificent material contributed by the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle would have been the same.”

[Chris Vince]

I know that a friend of mine who sadly passed away, Paul Walentowicz—whose father fought in the battle of Britain as a Polish fighter—would be very proud to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, so I thank him.

When commemorating these events, it is important to look back. It is about honouring the courage of the RAF, the allied forces, and the local men and women whose work, diligence and sacrifice made victory possible. However, let us recognise that RAF and Army personnel still serve and protect this country. We have an hon. Gentleman in the room today, the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who we should mention in that same breath. We should recognise them at every possible opportunity.

Ultimately, the events and the information that I have shared today connect our local identity, educate future generations, and preserve the heritage that connects national history to everyday lives. I put on record my thanks to Hatfield Heath parish council and Hatfield Regis Local History Society for their work. I recently joined them for their VJ commemorations, and saw the effort that they make to preserve that history.

Let us remember that the story of the battle of Britain is not just about the pilots in the sky; it is the story of Essex, of Hatfield Heath, of Matching and of every community that stood together to defend our country. We must ensure that the courage, determination and sacrifice of those who came before us continue to inspire and guide us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke bravely of the dangers that nationalism might replace patriotism today, as it did in Europe throughout the 1920s and ’30s.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke passionately about his father’s extraordinary service. I am so glad that the House was able to hear that. I also thank him for the astonishing rallying cry with which he concluded.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) ensured that in remembrance we do not forget those who served on the ground, nor our gallant allies who fought for freedom alongside us; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well represented Devonshire’s refusal to bow to Hitler; and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke well of his righteous pride in representing the home of Sir Hugh Dowding.

The hon. and gallant Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke eloquently of the importance of continuing to reflect on past conflicts, and of supporting our veterans and saluting their personal sacrifices. I am grateful that the contribution of Northern Ireland to the battle of Britain was included in our debate.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), a fellow retired military police officer, ensured that today we honoured the many who so diligently enabled the few. She also spoke of the importance of telling the local stories as well as the national legend.

The right hon. and gallant shadow Minister is a self-described aviation devotee, and I hope he will take it sincerely when I say that there is nobody I would rather have had at the Opposition Dispatch Box today. I wish his constituents well in their refurbishment of a Hurricane. I hope that one day he will inform me that tail number Zulu-5134 has seen completion. He spoke glowingly of the genius of Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, who used his assets sparingly, often outnumbered three to one, which itself led the Luftwaffe to underestimate the strength of Fighter Command. I thank the gallant Minister for Veterans and People, who spoke sincerely of the threat recognised and faced by Britain—a threat that, through tireless resilience, innovation and courage, was defeated by the Royal Air Force, the world’s oldest independent air force and the most celebrated. As the Government look to the defence industry for growth, I hope they will look at Tewkesbury and at Gloucestershire to contribute. Once more, thank you so much for chairing this debate, Sir Desmond.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of commemorating the Battle of Britain.

Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

For the avoidance of doubt, this speech comes from a place of deep appreciation for post-war Japan and for the enrichment it has given so many of us through its automotive and technological innovations and through global cultural phenomena such as “Godzilla”. It is starkly different from the Japan fought by our greatest generation. Less than a decade after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “Godzilla” was created as a metaphor for nuclear weapons and their destructive power, but 2023’s “Godzilla Minus One”—greater and more destructive still—was also a metaphor for national guilt.

For everything we love about Japan today, it has never undertaken the societal reckoning with its past that Germany did following the fall of the Nazis. Across Germany stand the horrifying relics of the Holocaust. In Hiroshima, the A-bomb dome is a memorial to the victims of the atomic bomb. In the land of the rising sun, it is far more difficult to find such an open recognition of its wartime torture of prisoners of war or its atrocities against civilians, such as by Unit 731.

In 1936, under the direction of senior army surgeon Ishii Shiro, Japan focused on making disease a silent ally through human experiments and the study of biological and chemical weapons. Prisoners were kidnapped men, women—including pregnant women—children and even babies born of rape by staff within the compounds. They included political prisoners and anybody who had expressed to any degree anti-Japanese sentiment. Victims were predominantly Chinese, but included a significant minority of Russians. Experiments included withdrawal of half a litre of blood every two or three days until death. Some prisoners were frozen to death in experiments into frostbite or had limbs frozen and then shattered. Vivisection was regularly carried out to harvest organs from live victims, including pregnant women, who had been exposed to diseases and bacteria, sometimes under the guise of vaccination. Tens of thousands more were killed through engineered epidemics, with pathogens dropped over Chinese cities by Japanese aircraft. That is the context, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On this coming anniversary of Victory over Japan Day, let us consider the path that led to war and review the actions that led to its conclusion. Let us lament the terrible loss of life through the strategic bombing, firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan. But we owe it to our finest generation to do so in the full context. Perhaps someday our Japanese friends can finally lay Godzilla to rest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

When we mark VJ Day—victory over Japan—we remember the true end of the second world war. The far east campaign saw some of the harshest conditions of the entire war: jungle warfare, searing heat and a determined enemy. It also saw acts of extraordinary courage and enduring suffering, particularly among those taken prisoner and subjected to forced labour. I pay tribute to my great uncle, Frank Mole, who was one of those men. The men and women who served there often came home to little recognition, but they deserve our greatest respect.

As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, I was proud to pay tribute in the VE Day debate to the greatest generation of my constituency. Farnborough and Aldershot are towns that have served as home of the British Army and the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Today, I want to mention—proudly, as chair of the Nepal all-party parliamentary group—a group whose contribution in the far east deserves particular tribute: the Gurkhas. Over 112,000 Gurkhas served in the second world war, and more than a quarter of them fought in the far east campaign. In Burma, they became legendary—skilled in jungle warfare, trusted by British commanders and feared by the enemy.

One of the finest examples of the Gurkhas’ courage is Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung VC. In May 1945, during the battle for Taungdaw in Burma, three enemy grenades were thrown into his trench. He hurled back two. The third exploded in his hand, blowing off his fingers and blinding one eye. But for four hours—alone, one-handed—he held the line, firing his rifle and calling out, “Come and fight a Gurkha!” When relief came, 31 enemy soldiers lay dead around his post. His platoon had survived. That story is more than legend; it is living history for my constituency.

Today, Aldershot is home to the largest Nepali community in the UK, some of whom are descendants of those who served. Their presence is not just a legacy of war, but a living part of our society and our future. VJ Day matters to them; it matters to us all. Today, as we mark the anniversary of Victory over Japan Day, we say once more: to the soldiers who trained on Aldershot’s parade grounds and fought through jungle and monsoon—

[Cameron Thomas]

As a Member of Parliament who benefits from the contribution of 300 or 400 Gurkhas and Nepalese people, can I just say that I am very much enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech and I cannot wait to hear the rest?

[Alex Baker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We say also to the engineers in Farnborough whose innovations helped bring victory within reach, to the Gurkhas whose courage lit up the darkness of war, and to the prisoners who endured, the families who waited, and the loved ones who never came home: we remember, we honour, we give thanks, and we will never forget.

RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is correct, but I believe that a bit of a fightback is coming. There is a discussion going on, partly because fans of the space-based solution have to answer for the reality that it is some years away. That gap is difficult, and that is where Hawkeye comes in. Quite how this naval veteran—the prototype Hawkeye first flew in 1960, and Biggles would recognise its propellers, if not its frisbee-style radar disc—is more survivable behind the onion layers of modern air defences than Wedgetail is perhaps not for us in this debate.

How did we get here? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue about any engineering or integration problems experienced by Boeing at its Birmingham facility—that is Birmingham, west midlands, not Birmingham, Alabama. He will certainly refer to the decision, as we have already heard, by the previous Government in 2021 to cut the RAF Wedgetail fleet from five airframes to three. The then Defence Committee, as we have also heard, called that an “absolute folly”, which traded a 40% cut in capability for a 12% cut in acquisition costs. But that was then, and this is now. Smoke billows over the battlefields of Ukraine. The restive Russian bear may next turn its eyes west. The Chinese dragon flexes in the South China sea. North Korea has nuclear weapons; Iran wants nuclear weapons.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentions the battlefields of Ukraine, which are key because the RAF has a large fleet of aircraft that covers all the fundamental air power roles, but our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability is particularly important to NATO. Does he recognise as I do that this gap is therefore particularly acute?

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that, and for his service with the RAF. He is absolutely correct. In this country, our forces are highly prized for our superb technical abilities, as well as our warfighting capabilities. That gap is very serious: it has an impact on the RAF and on our allies. The lesson learned from Ukraine is that one of the great difficulties for the Russians—and hallelujah!—is that they have been unable to achieve air superiority. That shows how important air superiority is to this day, even in what is widely thought of as a ground war.

The Government appear committed to Wedgetail. Their strategic defence review recommended that further E-7s be purchased. Although heavily caveated by “when funding allows”—and that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting, let us be honest—that recommendation has been accepted. The SDR further dangles the prospect of potentially offsetting Wedgetail costs in conjunction with NATO allies. That is a good idea, but what discussions have we had with alliance partners on that? Will Boeing commit to Birmingham and the jobs there if we join with other NATO air forces to get meaningful orders for Wedgetail on its books?

UK Wedgetails directly support 190 high-skills jobs across the country, and Boeing is looking to expand to meet possible further demand, with perhaps another 150 jobs. There are 32 UK firms in the supply chain, stretching from Luton to Glasgow, providing everything from interior structures to threat warning and defensive aids. When Wedgetail does enter service, there will be ongoing jobs in sustainment and maintenance.

Separately, what discussions have we had with our closest ally, the United States? Would the Americans share information when and if satellites do finally fill the intelligence gap? Could we even buy their venerable Hawkeye at the eleventh hour? Perhaps the Minister might consider a meeting of interested hon. Members—and we can see the cross-party interest in this debate—to discuss the Wedgetail programme.

Our pilots remain at the cutting edge. The British-built Typhoon jet is a potent dogfighter, and the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter a peerless stealth weapon, yet both are nothing if our eyes in the sky—as vital to guiding and warning them as was Chain Home in the imminent peril of 1940—are myopic at best, or non-existent as now. The safety and security of these islands rest on the brave men—and increasingly, brave women—in our armed forces, but I am not alone in arguing that we need to throw our defence industrial infrastructure into high gear to equip those amazing people with the tools for the job.

“At pace” is the mantra of the machinery of government, but it cannot be a mere slogan; it must mean something. We need ordnance, complex war machines—such as submarines and frigates—drones, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles, and innovative technology, such as laser and energy weapons. We also need to know what lurks over the horizon—what is on the reverse slope of that hill or beyond that cloud bank? We need all that at night and in all weathers.

The procurement gap is yawning as threats mount. Our commissioning and purchasing system is changing, but we may be marching to war, so bimbling along as we did when the cold war thawed, or when we were fighting gendarmerie actions, will not cut it. The scramble bell has been rung. We need, as Churchill had it, “Action this day”. Wedgetail ought to be more than just on the radar of the new national armaments director; it ought to be at the centre of their gunsight reticle—is it, Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

I welcome the right hon. Member’s making that point. From my reading of the timelines of who was in office and when, I am very clear that this decision came after his time as a Minister and during the time in which he was scrutinising decisions by other Conservative Ministers.

The extraordinary, destructive and irrational decision, I believe by Ben Wallace, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, to cut the order from five aircraft to three, came in 2021. I do not understand how that is supposed to work. Five aircraft were required for a reason: one to be in deep maintenance and repair, one for training and then at least two to sustain a single operation 24/7. Obviously, an aircraft cannot stay airborne permanently; they have to land to refuel and presumably to give the crew some kind of rest. How does that work with only three aircraft?

It was not even a sensible cost saving, as has previously been referenced. The axing of 40% of the fleet delivered only a 12% saving on the cost of the programme. The Defence Committee’s 2023 report, in which I assume the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was involved, described that as “perverse” and an “absolute folly”. The United Kingdom had already procured not three but five sets of extremely expensive advanced radar from Northrop Grumman, so there are now two really expensive sets of radar sat around as spares for airframes that do not exist.

The decision to cut the order from five to three meant that the contract needed to be renegotiated and led to a further delay of six months, all the while leaving the huge capability gap that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about in our airborne early warning and control due to the retirement of the E-3D Sentry—a gap described by the Defence Committee, as its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned, as

“a serious threat to the UK’s warfighting ability.”

Really, this essential programme was vandalised by the previous Government. It is a stunning example of poor decision making. I therefore welcome the strategic defence review’s recommendation that further Wedgetails

“should be procured when funding allows”.

[Cameron Thomas]

The reduction in the number of Wedgetails, which seems to have been a mistake, feels very reminiscent of the coalition Government’s cutting of the Nimrod programme despite having already spent billions of pounds on it. That left us without a maritime patrol aircraft, and we had to go cap in hand to the French and the Americans for our—

[Mr Francois]

It didn’t work.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the right hon. Member. It left us with a gap in our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. I accept that that was a coalition issue, but I am glad to hear that there is consensus in this room on the importance of ISR capability.

[Luke Akehurst]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and agree with him about the importance of ISR capability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois): the Liberal Democrats also welcome Air Marshal Harv Smyth to his new appointment as Chief of the Air Staff—congratulations to him. He will be a fine leader.

The E-7A Wedgetail represents a major update to the UK’s airborne warning and control capability. Future-proofing our armed forces is something that the Liberal Democrats strongly support. Wedgetail’s predecessor, E-3D Sentry, first entered service in the Royal Air Force around the same time as I entered the Royal Air Force, but fortunately it stayed at the cutting edge for a good deal longer. Indeed, the aircraft was still flying operational sorties and keeping the UK safe right up until it was decommissioned in August 2021.

Although Sentry has since made some extra flights over home soil, the UK has officially been without an airborne warning and control capability for several years. That is just one example of how the last Government allowed our armed forces to be hollowed out over time.

[Cameron Thomas]

To their credit, the Conservatives have been quite open in lamenting the drawdown of the Wedgetail project, but will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government how committed they are to the Wedgetail programme and to the initial order of five?

[Ian Roome]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister will reply.

Unfortunately, Sentry’s intended replacement, the Wedgetail programme, has already been through some major turbulence during its early years, from questions over the fairness of the MOD’s procurement decision in 2018 to a two-year production delay and an order reduction from five airframes to three under the last Government’s integrated defence review—a move that Boeing says slowed down the project, and a decision described as an “absolute folly” even by the then Defence Committee.

We now read news reports that the Trump Administration are seeking to cancel Wedgetail orders for the US air force over claims that it would be too vulnerable in contested airspace, casting doubt over the programme’s future interoperability and cost. I am sure that many hon. Members will also have seen the recent letter signed by 19 retired US four-star generals criticising that decision. The United States aspires to a fully space-based replacement, but that is still many years away. With hindsight, knowing what we know about Russian aggression in eastern European airspace, the timing of all this could hardly be more perilous.

Just a few weeks ago, my colleagues on the Defence Committee and I visited Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Germany. The UK is committed to a 24/7 NATO air policing mission, and the strategic defence review states that the UK’s defensive posture should be firmly “NATO first”. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK should work as closely as possible with our European allies on our shared defence, and that our military should complement our allies’ capabilities.

In addition to raising the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% and beyond, it is essential that we co-ordinate our allied air forces in Europe, especially those of our Nordic and Baltic partners, to give more bang for buck. In the European airspace, this airborne capability is very specialised. Various NATO forces still operate old E-3 aircraft, including Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Norway. France and some Scandinavian air forces also operate similar aircraft from rival manufacturers such as Saab and Northrop Grumman.

However, as has been pointed out before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services, the cost of repairs to the old E-3 fleet keeps increasing, and their availability to fly keeps decreasing. Australia, South Korea and our European allies in NATO, faced with the same choice as the UK, are choosing to replace their E-3 fleets with Wedgetail.

Next month, Australian Wedgetails will be deployed to Poland as part of efforts to support Ukraine. European Wedgetails are not expected to enter service until 2031. That may be six years of expensive repairs to ageing aircraft—six years during which UK Wedgetails could play an outsized role in European air defence, but only if the current Government work to rebuild our armed forces capacity, and only if our aircraft are ready to fly.

As the Public Accounts Committee keeps highlighting, large overspends are unacceptable. Long delays that leave this country’s Air Force without an essential capability are a sign of a procurement system that is badly broken. The strategic defence review recommends more Wedgetails for round-the-clock airborne surveillance, and says there may even be cost-sharing opportunities with NATO allies.

I put these questions to the Minister. First, do the Government plan to meet our defence commitments this way, either by ordering additional Wedgetails, in lockstep with our allies, or even seeking an alternative? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to improve the Ministry of Defence track record on this kind of aircraft procurement, so that our defence of NATO airspace is never put in doubt again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I recognise the benefit that the construction of Type 31 frigates has brought to Rosyth, and I have personally engaged with international partners to try to secure future orders. In addition to any orders that we ourselves may have, exporting that type of capability to our allies and friends is a sensible way of ensuring that we can keep production going at Rosyth.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

10. If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of holding cross-party talks on increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

At last week’s NATO summit all 32 nations signed up to a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, spending on national security, national resilience and homeland security. That builds on this Government’s £5 billion boost to defence this year, the funded and costed plan to hit 2.5% of GDP in two years’ time, and our ambition to hit 3% in the next Parliament.

[Cameron Thomas]

There is a great deal of experience across these Benches, and most of us recognise the imminence of the need to hit 3%. My expertise is in force protection, and I know, among other things, that Brize Norton cannot draw support from the Military Provost Guard Service under the land top level budget, such as at nearby Dalton barracks and South Cerney. That is more acute still at RAF Lossiemouth. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the command structure of the MPGS and bring our experience to the table to find that 3% of GDP imminently?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman —he would be a much better person to meet than me on this matter.

UK Military Base Protection

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I am not sure that this question is appropriate any more, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ironically, on Saturday the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) demonstrated his ignorance of RAF force protection by tweeting that Group Captain Louise Henton’s background in human resources led to last week’s infiltration of RAF Brize Norton. It was a disgusting attack on a senior officer—my previous squadron commander—who has dedicated her career to armed forces service and to bettering the lives and lived experience of our personnel. Will the Minister therefore join me in thanking all members of the armed forces and in condemning the remarks of the deputy leader of Reform?

[Luke Pollard]

Alive to your words, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones).

It is so important that, when we make the case for respecting our armed forces, we recognise that those who serve are not able to respond to comments made in the political arena. They are prevented from doing so, and Members of this House must therefore have our armed forces’ back. We must be able to call out behaviour that is not acceptable, just as we back our forces. I hope that all serving members of our armed forces will be able to see today the full-throated and full-throttle support of this House for those who serve.

Strategic Defence Review

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

First, I hope my hon. Friend will pass on my appreciation to the workers at MBDA in his constituency. They are exemplars of the high-skilled, highly committed and highly productive workforce that contributes so much to the defence of this country. I hope he will be able to say to those workers that this strategic defence review is the first of its kind—one that challenges us to think afresh, recognises the threats that we face, learns the lessons from Ukraine, and makes sure that in the future we can strengthen our armed forces and keep the British people safer. I hope he will recognise that the publication of this strategic defence review is a significant contribution to what he urges on the Government.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

In the last decade, China has expanded its military to a degree only matched since 1945 by the USSR in the cold war era. In the past decade, the previous Government did not read the signs coming from Russia; this Government must read the signs coming from China. Ukraine does not have five years, and neither does Taiwan. I again invite the Government to bring us to the table, and let us find 3% now.

[John Healey]

We have increased defence spending this year by £5 billion. We will reach 2.5% in the year after next, and we aim for 3% in the next Parliament. That is a record increase in defence spending—one that has not been matched at any time since the end of the cold war. The hon. Gentleman could do more to recognise that basic fact.

Ukraine Update

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The Speaker will be aware of this matter from his recent visit to Ukraine, particularly to Bucha. The hon. Gentleman will know that from the outset, the UK Government, under the previous and current regimes, have continued to support with legal expertise and funding, where it is helpful, the evidence gathering and potential case building that I hope will lead to the prosecutions he wants to see.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The Secretary of State spoke of sending a clear signal to Vladimir Putin—I hope that his US counterpart will not take that too literally. Regardless, I would prefer to send drones the way of President Zelensky, and some £25 billion of frozen Russian assets would buy an awful lot of drones. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but I plead with him to take the lead on this and let the Ukrainians win in their finest hour.

[John Healey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope he heard what I said in response to his Front Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), on that issue.

UK Air Defence

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my fellow Devon MP for that question. He will be able to read the joint statement by the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Poland when it is published on the Ministry of Defence website on the conference’s conclusion. I made the point clearly in the press conference afterwards that the UK is calling on all NATO partners to increase their defence spending. We have a plan to increase our defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5%. Where any increased defence spending goes matters, because it needs not only to deter aggression, but to defeat it and—perhaps most importantly and relevant to this debate—to be interoperable with our allies. We need to ensure that any investment in defence has an increase in our deployability and our lethality as we fight together. It is the assumption of this Government, with a declared NATO-first policy, that we will be supporting our NATO allies in any defensive measures. That is the reason we have the British Army in Estonia with Operation Cabrit. It is the reason we have NATO air policing in a variety of states along NATO’s eastern flank.

Integrated air and missile defence is an area that all NATO members need to develop. There is not one answer that everyone has reached for yet. It is a difficult, wicked problem that requires investment and a change in strategy. That is part of the reason why that is being addressed by the SDR. That is a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope it provides him with the clarity he needs.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The Minister represents a city and a football club that are close to my heart. I also thank the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing forward this important debate. I am heartened to hear that the Minister views the interoperability of our workforce and our assets alongside our NATO allies. Do the Government view the defence of UK airspace not singularly but, as I do, as the western front of European air defence?

[Luke Pollard]

I would certainly be happy afterwards to take up any discussion about Plymouth Argyle and a post Wayne Rooney world.

It is certainly true that the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks. Part of the challenge we have with integrated air and missile defence and the threats that the UK and our allies face is that the definitions of what are the close and the deep have fundamentally changed, because of the experience of the Ukraine war. I recognise that there are Members in this House and this debate who served in our armed forces, and they will be familiar with the broad definitions of close and deep.

It is certainly true that what we previously regarded as close and deep have fundamentally changed. The distances have increased enormously. We are seeing that in Ukraine, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments. Having the ability to project power and fire at distance is one reason that we have supported Ukraine with so many weapons systems. It is also the reason why the SDR is looking in particular at this area and how any forces and capabilities can meet the threat we are facing. In that respect, I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) understands that the SDR will address many of the answers to his broad question. Our responsibilities are more than just securing the UK homeland; they are about supporting our allies, and indeed it is our allies’ role to support not only their own country, but their NATO partners, including the UK.

The threats posed to our security continue to proliferate and converge. With technologies rapidly developing, protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging. Let me be absolutely clear: adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities contributing to our integrated air and missile defence, along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies. We have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has seen the quick reaction aircraft, as I have, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth and seen the incredible speed, dedication and professionalism of our teams there responding to threats approaching the United Kingdom. Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 destroyer against different air threats in the recent operations in the Red sea in particular. That included shooting down drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine.

In relation to the specifics of our capabilities, I have had the privilege of visiting UK forces stationed forward in Poland using the Sky Sabre system, supporting the NATO logistics hub that supports so much of what we provide to Ukraine. Operation Stifftail has now concluded, and that mission has been a success. I thank all those members of the Royal Artillery in particular who supported that mission.

The Sky Sabre system that was in Poland has been returned to the UK and is being reconstituted. The Sky Sabre system that we have in the Falklands provides continuous air defence to the islands, protecting the sovereignty of the Falkland islands. Having seen that system up close and personal on my recent visit to the Falklands, I thank those members of our armed forces protecting the skies above the Falklands. We will need to ensure that integrated air missile defence is more than just a bubble over Poland and protection of the Falklands.

I think that is at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise in the debate. It is also one of the challenges that the strategic defence review seeks to answer. I will not steal Lord Robertson’s sandwiches in terms of what I expect to see in the strategic defence review, but certainly enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR, and I would expect him and his review team to be making recommendations about how that should be done in the SDR when it is published in the spring. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring. Hopefully, that will enable us to look at those two parts together to ensure that we are, in his words, meeting the challenge of stepping up. I agree that there are no free passes, and as a nation we have relied on our strategic depth for a great many years, but we cannot rely on that alone today. That is why our capabilities need to match that challenge.

Our NATO-first approach means ensuring that we deliver not only on the article 3 responsibilities in the NATO treaty to protect our own homeland, but on article 5 and be able to support our NATO allies. That is why we will continue to support our deployments around the NATO area of operations.

As a country, we are leading the way with initiatives such as DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—which will improve air defence integration across Europe and strengthen NATO’s air and missile protection. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on missile capabilities, which is a catalyst to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine and address the burgeoning security threat to NATO members as well.

We are also forging deeper relations with individual European partners. Hon. Members may have seen the landmark Trinity House agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Germany, which will see us turbocharge a series of major projects across air, land and sea, working in partnership to strengthen air defences and better protect European airspace. We are also working more closely with France, with our most recently signing a letter of intent for the European long-range strike approach—the ELSA initiative—at France’s request. Such initiatives demonstrate our determination to support Ukraine, counter the threat posed by Putin and reconnect Britain internationally.

I realise that I have not got to every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but if he will forgive me, I will write to him and place a letter in the House so that all Members can be certain of these matters. Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values and our allies in more uncertain times.

Question put and agreed to.