Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
Cameron Thomas Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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?
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—
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.
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review
Cameron Thomas Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
As a retired RAF police officer, I was particularly moved by stories where my own branch seemed to have acted so zealously. Perhaps it is appropriate that I apologise on behalf of the RAF police. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) made the same request on behalf of the Royal Military Police.
I am glad that the debate is being held at length in the House after it was deprioritised by the previous Government. Perhaps it would have required Olympic-standard political gymnastics to show empathy with the victims of the LGBT ban, apologising to those victims as did Prime Minister Rishi Sunak while manufacturing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I made the point earlier that we do not in this House refer to serving Members of the House by name. He remains the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.
Cameron Thomas
Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did so while the mother of Brianna Ghey was on the estate. I appreciate that is a bit of a change in tone from the rest of the debate, but it is important that we recognise that the rhetoric we use in this House has a cultural impact across the rest of society.
The Government should be proud that they brought the debate before the House. They have my gratitude, and I know there are people present who were directly affected by the ban, including Lesley Davison, who travelled from South Devon to be in the Public Gallery. Our LGBT veterans should have been able to serve their honourable careers fully and retire simply as veterans, but they were unfairly discarded by the Ministry of Defence in line with the laws of the very country they served. The Ministry of Defence described this as a “moral stain” on the armed forces, but it is also a stain on the history of our country.
One haunting testimony comes from a constituent of north Shropshire. It is an account of how hundreds of gallant, proud and selfless service personnel were hunted by the military police, arrested, interrogated and often imprisoned for even an assumption of their sexuality. Take a moment, if you would not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine the line of questioning of an interrogation into one’s sexuality. To anyone who was affected by the ban in any way, I believe you and I am sorry.
By the time I joined the Royal Air Force in 2000, the ban had been lifted, but the legacy of the ban and of the political culture at the time was a toxic mentality that remained in plain sight for several years. I recall my initial trade training at RAF Cosford. One particularly notorious training team threatened to call ahead to my future unit and have my head “caved in” once I arrived for merely daring to voice support for the LGBT community. I was 17. I am sure that such intolerance continues to persist in small pockets of narrow-mindedness that exist beneath the surface today, but I am proud that the RAF I left in 2023 is, indeed, a greatly transformed and more inclusive organisation.
I am now simply a veteran. During the general election campaign in June, I joined some local veterans for a communal breakfast in Tewkesbury. They were decent, honest and selfless, and they met regularly and welcomed me as their own. But before I was introduced to the group at large, one person pulled me aside and whispered, “Don’t worry about the he/she. We just ignore it.” It turned out that “it” was transgender Royal Navy veteran Gina Shelton, who had served in the closet as a man despite internally identifying as a woman to avoid persecution by her own friends and colleagues. I spent a few minutes speaking with her. She was seated clearly separately from the rest of the main group, and I could not help but feel moved by her courage and dignity as she spoke matter-of-factly about her circumstances, but with an affection and understanding for those fellow veterans who even now disowned her. She took responsibility for the way she was now ostracised, which I admire but reject. I otherwise enjoyed the company of my fellow veterans. I should reiterate that these are decent, honest people, but meeting Gina reminded me that changing minds is the greatest challenge before us, and that challenge will endure long after legislation.
The Liberal Democrats have always stood with the LGBT+ community, and are proud to have brought the equal marriage Act into law while in government. I am proud that those treated unjustly by the LGBT ban have now been able to speak their truth. It is difficult to put a monetary figure on such an injustice, but having considered the Secretary of State’s announcement this afternoon, we still call on the Government to stand with the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride and uplift the fund to £150 million. Finally, let these veterans’ legacy not be one of tragedy. Let Members of this House learn the lesson that the previous Government never did: that the language we use in this place has real-world consequences.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community
Cameron Thomas Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing forward this important debate. I have the honour of representing the Liberal Democrats as defence spokesperson in her stead.
I never served on the ground in Afghanistan and I never met Staff Sergeant Olaf Schmid. He served in Afghanistan and disarmed 64 improvised explosive devices during a tour of duty in 2009. Undoubtedly, he saved many of our brave soldiers and civilians in doing so. He had been deployed to Afghanistan from his unit in Didcot, just a few miles from my own unit at RAF Benson. Staff Sergeant Schmid was killed while disarming his 65th device in November 2009. On the final day of his deployment, he was 30 years old. The day before, he had telephoned his five-year-old stepson, who had told him, “Daddy, it is time to come home.” It is one of so many personal stories of heroism and tragedy that our soldiers brought back from Afghanistan.
In truth, I do not know why Staff Sergeant Schmid’s story gripped me so tightly, but I used to drive past the Vauxhall barracks in Didcot every weekend from RAF Benson. I always recall that somewhere inside was Olaf’s family, whose hero never came home. One particular family of so many.
The words of my gallant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, stirred up some lost memories from my own career. She mentioned the enduring threat of the explosive remnants of war to the Ukrainian agricultural community. I recall a tour of the battlefields of France and Belgium in 2015, where I learned that even after 100 years, farmers and their cattle are regularly killed by leftover munitions.
In 2010 I served a deployment to the Falkland Islands. The drive between Mount Pleasant airfield and Stanley took me past miles and miles of land demarcated by warning signs alerting me to minefields. These mines do not always stay where they are planted; they can move over time, given the harshness of the weather systems in the Falkland Islands.
Having left the armed forces in 2023, I am proud now to stand with the Liberal Democrats, and together we stand for all victims of conflict—participants and innocents. Anti-personnel mines are a particularly sinister tool of war, often maiming and killing long after conflicts have ended. Often, those affected are civilians, including children.
Our Ukrainian sister party, Servant of the People, has continuously raised the issue of cluster munitions and their continuing impact on civilians since Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in 2022. The “Landmine Monitor” report published in November 2024 shows that there were at least 5,757 casualties from landmines and the explosive remnants of war in 2023, an increase of 22% since 2022. I thank hon. Members from Northern Ireland for reminding me that this is an issue not just overseas, but here in the United Kingdom—something that our predecessor Lord Ashdown spoke so passionately and eloquently about.
The Liberal Democrats recognise that there are lasting impacts to being struck by an explosive device such as a mine or unexploded ordnance. Often, those impacts are lifelong, both for the victim and for their loved ones. We therefore call for a full programme of support to provide medical and psychological assistance to victims and families of those impacted by such devices. We celebrate the work of the explosive ordnance disposal community and praise their courage in supporting communities impacted by mines and other warfare. We call on the Government to restore the international development budget to 0.7% of national income, as it was the last time the Liberal Democrats were in government.
Foreign Affairs and Defence
Cameron Thomas Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and his impassioned words. If I may address him directly—if you will oblige me, Mr Deputy Speaker—as well as other Members staking their claim to Britain’s best curry, it would be an honour on behalf of the people of Tewkesbury to join them in sampling great curry and determining a champion.
On a more sombre note, I am grateful that during the King’s Speech there was a commitment to a strategic defence review. I remind the House that in 2016 the Russian President deployed a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury. The lives of Sergei and Yulia Skripal were changed forever, as was the life of a courageous police officer, and a young mother lost her life. Today, in 2024, the Russian war machine again deploys chemicals on the battlefields of Europe. I hope that the strategic defence review will give due impetus to countering the renewed chemical threat.
I once held the honour of leading a parade at the Menin Gate ceremony in Ypres, commemorating those who gave their lives in some of the most vicious battles of world war one. I have had the honour to call the salute at the national Cenotaph here in Westminster. It is an honour in equal standing to deliver my maiden speech to the House on behalf of the people of Tewkesbury. I follow a proud lineage of armed forces service, which includes my two brothers and my great-grandfather, Petty Officer Supply Charles Trenchard, who gave his life aboard HMS Illustrious in world war two.
I first moved to Tewkesbury 16 years into my own military career with the Royal Air Force assignment at Imjin barracks, so named after the battle of the Imjin river fought by the Glorious Glosters in 1951 while outnumbered 18:1. Tewkesbury’s quaint Cotswold villages and towns, crowned by our beautiful abbey, now make for an idyllic environment to raise my darling daughter. Should any Member of the House wish to don armour and join me at Europe’s largest annual medieval festival, they would be very welcome.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, the honourable Laurence Robertson, a Lancastrian who made north Gloucestershire his home and represented Tewkesbury for 27 years, winning at seven consecutive general elections. My defeat of that particular Lancastrian, I must say, was not in keeping with the traditions set in 1471 by the Yorkists at the battle of Tewkesbury; it was an altogether more peaceful affair, and I found Laurence to be dignified and humble as the result became clear. Indeed, the closest thing to weaponry on show that morning were the daggers being stared at me by one member of his entourage, which I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed. In defeating my predecessor, I became the first non-Conservative Member of Parliament in Tewkesbury since 1885. The weight of history bears heavily, yet pales alongside the responsibility.
The only other time I have been elected in any capacity was by my fellow officer cadets on initial officer training course 60 at RAF College Cranwell, to represent them to the College Commandant, a one-star officer. Immediately following that vote, my squadron leader Craig Gaul brought me to his office, swore that I was his man, but practically force-fed me his Debrett’s guide to etiquette and begged me not to end his career. Six years on, he is no longer in the RAF, though I am unaware of any connection. For my own part, I also had to hand in my uniform once it became clear that the changes so desperately needed by our most courageous and selfless public servants must take place within this House.
Our country finds itself at a crossroads. The climate emergency presents an existential threat to humankind and to the ecosystems that support life on this planet. We must collectively and decisively turn to face the threat now and export bold leadership to our neighbours across the world. The future is in the hands of our young people. We must equip them today so that they can apply their energy to the challenges of tomorrow, but we cannot expect young people to engage in their political future when the curriculum does not enable them to do so and while an imbalanced education system denies so many the opportunities of the privileged few. Neurodiverse children are let down by a neurotypical education system built by neurotypical people for neurotypical people. If we are to unlock the challenges of tomorrow with diversity of thought, we must harness the opportunity of neurodiversity.
Finally, trust in politics has never been more fragile. It is the responsibility of us all to restore public faith in our political institutions. I invite fellow Members in the Chamber to renew UK politics through respectful discourse, regardless of our differences, and by dedicating this parliamentary term to public service. Voters will engage with politics only if they feel that their vote has value. We must transition to an electoral system of proportional representation. On behalf of the people of Tewkesbury, thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Kirsty McNeill to make her maiden speech.